Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

[Jarlaxle]

If your religion prohibits you from adhering to public accommodation laws then you shouldn't have a business.

It's no different than a Muslim applying for a job in a bacon store and then saying he can't touch bacon because of his stupid religion

Not bacon. Everybody loves bacon!

I find it revolting.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

waaa, you're being bullied into non-discrimination. Good.

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

You're the one referring to democratic government as bullying. Call it what you want. Do you have a better system to replace democratic government?

Constitutionally limited government.

People have to limit government via a constitution. Where do the people come from?

 

[mdk]

Your right to claim your business has a religion is still being defined

Nobody says a business does not have rights. But their ability to claim religious protection is severely limited

PA laws do not apply to people. They cannot force you to invite blacks or gays for dinner
But they can force your business to serve them dinner

What do blacks and gays have to do with one another? Blacks are an inborn static race. Gays are adopted behaviors. That is a legal distinction that is coming to the fore. One has rights, the other does not.

It may be that Citizen's United, finding that "corporations are people" will be cited in the ultimate outcome of rights of Christians running a business to object to enabling blasphemy. It's one thing to put a dinner in front of someone. It's quite another for that someone to make the cook decorate the dinner with images of gay men getting married.

Exactly. Behaviors are not protected as right except for a host of the behaviors the Consitutions protects as rights. lol

 

[rightwinger]

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

Your right to claim your business has a religion is still being defined

Nobody says a business does not have rights. But their ability to claim religious protection is severely limited

PA laws do not apply to people. They cannot force you to invite blacks or gays for dinner
But they can force your business to serve them dinner

I'm not talking about religion.

Fundamentally, telling a business owner he must perform work for someone he doesn't want to perform work for is slavery.

Slavery? Such a drama queen

Nobody is forcing you to do anything. They are setting rules under which your business must operate. Don't like the rules? Find another occupation

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your right to claim your business has a religion is still being defined

Nobody says a business does not have rights. But their ability to claim religious protection is severely limited

PA laws do not apply to people. They cannot force you to invite blacks or gays for dinner
But they can force your business to serve them dinner

What do blacks and gays have to do with one another? Blacks are an inborn static race. Gays are adopted behaviors. That is a legal distinction that is coming to the fore. One has rights, the other does not.

.

Religion is an adopted behaviour. Gun ownership is a behaviour. Speech is a behaviour.

 

[Silhouette]

Homosexuality also an adopted behavior ^^

*****

You have to understand why the parishioners of the Church of LGBT fight so hard on that very point though. They want 100% legitimacy for their behaviors. And they don't want an examination of how it is that religious people can object to participating. They are petrified that the clarification pending will come forward to announce that yes, LGBT is different from race in that they are a collection of adopted behaviors and not static states of being like race or sex at birth. A collection of adopted behaviors that operates politically in an organized fashion is also often called a religion. Or in this case a cult.

Once the behavioral aspect of LGBT is emphasized, they know it will be weighed against the specific language of the 14th. And the language of the 14th says that there can be no discrimination. Yet we find that JUST homosexuals may marry, while other sexual behaviors like polygamy may not find those same rights. Which is a direct and perverse violation of the 14th Amendment ironically used to justify passing Obergefell last Summer. Equality for all or none. But in Obergefell, a government agency passed a law (also forbidden to the Judicial Branch) establishing one religion as special. (violating the 1st Amendment also) Now that passing is being used to force other religions to play along or be punished. All this is the most perverse affront to the intent and substance of the US Constitution that it's hard to put into words the damage done.

So, they have to fight. They have to fight you and keep plucking at the heartstrings: "you have to give us this! You have to let us force Christians to worship at our altar!!" Because if Christians are let off the hook and not forced to practice another state-affirmed religion, then it will be known that it is a state-affirmed religion and the unraveling of Obergefell begins.

Of course the Church of LGBT online bloggers, who sit round the clock posting their propaganda and spinning away to control the public conversation, have lawyers advising their team coordinators on their talking points. Their lawyers know that if the Christians gain the right not to participate in a state-affirmed "special" religion like LGBT, then the unraveling of Obergefell begins. So, just know this is why they keep hammering home "gay marriage is a done deal. You're just trying to make gay marriage illegal". Because their lawyers know that gay marriage is already illegal. Obergefell is not the law of the land because its establishment of a political body of behaviors as "protected" while other behaviors very similar are not (polygamy) is a direct, blatant and obtuse violation of the 14th Amendment Obergefell has the audacity to cite in its very creation.

Exactly. Behaviors are not protected as right except for a host of the behaviors the Consitutions protects as rights. lol

Please link to page, chapter and verse of the Constitution where it outlines that just homosexuals but not other sexuals have "rights" to marry. I'll wait..

 

[rightwinger]

Your right to claim your business has a religion is still being defined

Nobody says a business does not have rights. But their ability to claim religious protection is severely limited

PA laws do not apply to people. They cannot force you to invite blacks or gays for dinner
But they can force your business to serve them dinner

What do blacks and gays have to do with one another? Blacks are an inborn static race. Gays are adopted behaviors. That is a legal distinction that is coming to the fore. One has rights, the other does not.

It may be that Citizen's United, finding that "corporations are people" will be cited in the ultimate outcome of rights of Christians running a business to object to enabling blasphemy. It's one thing to put a dinner in front of someone. It's quite another for that someone to make the cook decorate the dinner with images of gay men getting married. Since we're talking about behaviors, that is government establishing a preferenced religion that others have to bow to or be punished.

Religions are protected too
Religion is a chosen behavior

 

[NYcarbineer]

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

Your right to claim your business has a religion is still being defined

Nobody says a business does not have rights. But their ability to claim religious protection is severely limited

PA laws do not apply to people. They cannot force you to invite blacks or gays for dinner
But they can force your business to serve them dinner

I'm not talking about religion.

Fundamentally, telling a business owner he must perform work for someone he doesn't want to perform work for is slavery.

The businessman can choose to the leave the business if he can't do it without breaking the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have to understand why the parishioners of the Church of LGBT fight so hard on that very point though. They want 100% legitimacy for their behaviors. And they don't want an examination of how it is that religious people can object to participating. They are petrified that the clarification pending will come forward to announce that yes, LGBT is different from race in that they are a collection of adopted behaviors and not static states of being like race or sex at birth. A collection of adopted behaviors that operates politically in an organized fashion is also often called a religion. Or in this case a cult.

Once the behavioral aspect of LGBT is emphasized, they know it will be weighed against the specific language of the 14th. And the language of the 14th says that there can be no discrimination. Yet we find that JUST homosexuals may marry, while other sexual behaviors like polygamy may not find those same rights. Which is a direct and perverse violation of the 14th Amendment ironically used to justify passing Obergefell last Summer. Equality for all or none. But in Obergefell, a government agency passed a law (also forbidden to the Judicial Branch) establishing one religion as special. (violating the 1st Amendment also) Now that passing is being used to force other religions to play along or be punished. All this is the most perverse affront to the intent and substance of the US Constitution that it's hard to put into words the damage done.

So, they have to fight. They have to fight you and keep plucking at the heartstrings: "you have to give us this! You have to let us force Christians to worship at our altar!!" Because if Christians are let off the hook and not forced to practice another state-affirmed religion, then it will be known that it is a state-affirmed religion and the unraveling of Obergefell begins.

Of course the Church of LGBT online bloggers, who sit round the clock posting their propaganda and spinning away to control the public conversation, have lawyers advising their team coordinators on their talking points. Their lawyers know that if the Christians gain the right not to participate in a state-affirmed "special" religion like LGBT, then the unraveling of Obergefell begins. So, just know this is why they keep hammering home "gay marriage is a done deal. You're just trying to make gay marriage illegal". Because their lawyers know that gay marriage is already illegal. Obergefell is not the law of the land because its establishment of a political body of behaviors as "protected" while other behaviors very similar are not (polygamy) is a direct, blatant and obtuse violation of the 14th Amendment Obergefell has the audacity to cite in its very creation.

Exactly. Behaviors are not protected as right except for a host of the behaviors the Consitutions protects as rights. lol

Please link to page, chapter and verse of the Constitution where it outlines that just homosexuals but not other sexuals have "rights" to marry. I'll wait..

No one is claiming that.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

waaa, you're being bullied into non-discrimination. Good.

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

You're the one referring to democratic government as bullying. Call it what you want. Do you have a better system to replace democratic government?

Constitutionally limited government.

People have to limit government via a constitution. Where do the people come from?

Oh, from the government of course. We exist thanks be to government.

 

[Silhouette]

You have to understand why the parishioners of the Church of LGBT fight so hard on that very point though. They want 100% legitimacy for their behaviors. And they don't want an examination of how it is that religious people can object to participating. They are petrified that the clarification pending will come forward to announce that yes, LGBT is different from race in that they are a collection of adopted behaviors and not static states of being like race or sex at birth. A collection of adopted behaviors that operates politically in an organized fashion is also often called a religion. Or in this case a cult.

Once the behavioral aspect of LGBT is emphasized, they know it will be weighed against the specific language of the 14th. And the language of the 14th says that there can be no discrimination. Yet we find that JUST homosexuals may marry, while other sexual behaviors like polygamy may not find those same rights. Which is a direct and perverse violation of the 14th Amendment ironically used to justify passing Obergefell last Summer. Equality for all or none. But in Obergefell, a government agency passed a law (also forbidden to the Judicial Branch) establishing one religion as special. (violating the 1st Amendment also) Now that passing is being used to force other religions to play along or be punished. All this is the most perverse affront to the intent and substance of the US Constitution that it's hard to put into words the damage done.

So, they have to fight. They have to fight you and keep plucking at the heartstrings: "you have to give us this! You have to let us force Christians to worship at our altar!!" Because if Christians are let off the hook and not forced to practice another state-affirmed religion, then it will be known that it is a state-affirmed religion and the unraveling of Obergefell begins.

Of course the Church of LGBT online bloggers, who sit round the clock posting their propaganda and spinning away to control the public conversation, have lawyers advising their team coordinators on their talking points. Their lawyers know that if the Christians gain the right not to participate in a state-affirmed "special" religion like LGBT, then the unraveling of Obergefell begins. So, just know this is why they keep hammering home "gay marriage is a done deal. You're just trying to make gay marriage illegal". Because their lawyers know that gay marriage is already illegal. Obergefell is not the law of the land because its establishment of a political body of behaviors as "protected" while other behaviors very similar are not (polygamy) is a direct, blatant and obtuse violation of the 14th Amendment Obergefell has the audacity to cite in its very creation.

Religions are protected too
Religion is a chosen behavior

Then homosexuals and the Church of LGBT must get federal recognition for rights to apply. Let me know when that happens. And BTW, if it does, you realize then they can't force others to play along legally? (1st Amendment) This really is a sticky situation for a group of behaviors trying to get equal status to real, actual static classes. (while still trying to deny rights to other behaviors nearly identical, like polyamory..ie: polygamy)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The government has the power to make discrimination illegal. That should be obvious.

It should be obviously insane.

Nevertheless, you're right. The government has the power to do whatever we let them get away with.

That's the core principle behind democratic government. The power resides with the People.

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Incorrect.

Public accommodations laws have been consistently upheld as Constitutional by the courts, as authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

A business owner whose business is open to the general public knows and understands that his business will be subject to necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures as enacted by government, reflecting the will of the people.

He must pay a minimum wage, ensure his employees are afforded safe working conditions, and accommodate gay patrons if his jurisdiction’s public accommodations law has a provision for sexual orientation.

A business owner is at liberty to work through the political process to have such provisions removed, or have a public accommodations law repealed, but as long as that law and its provision are in place, he must obey the law and accommodate the gay patron – along with paying his employees a minimum wage, and ensuring his employees’ safety in the workplace.

Government requiring citizens to obey just and proper laws is not ‘bullying’ on the part of government, as those laws are valid reflecting the will of the people, and valid because they comply with Constitutional case law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

waaa, you're being bullied into non-discrimination. Good.

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

You're the one referring to democratic government as bullying. Call it what you want. Do you have a better system to replace democratic government?

Constitutionally limited government.

People have to limit government via a constitution. Where do the people come from?

Oh, from the government of course. We exist thanks be to government.

Who would have enforce your rights other than the government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

waaa, you're being bullied into non-discrimination. Good.

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

You're the one referring to democratic government as bullying. Call it what you want. Do you have a better system to replace democratic government?

Constitutionally limited government.

No, you want a government that cannot force you to do or not do anything.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

You're the one referring to democratic government as bullying. Call it what you want. Do you have a better system to replace democratic government?

Constitutionally limited government.

People have to limit government via a constitution. Where do the people come from?

Oh, from the government of course. We exist thanks be to government.

Who would have enforce your rights other than the government?

Rights aren't enforced. Rights are protected.

 

[Silhouette]

Government requiring citizens to obey just and proper laws is not ‘bullying’ on the part of government, as those laws are valid reflecting the will of the people, and valid because they comply with Constitutional case law.

Laws forcing others to pay homage or enable other people's behaviors are not "just and proper". That is an establishment by the state of a dominant religion. Also, one group of adopted sexual behaviors (homosexuals) cannot have special rights while their nearly identical twin (polyamory/polygamy) have no rights. You folks had better start stumping and stumping hard for polygamists or your entire legal premise is going to unravel right before your eyes. Check the 14th Amendment for details..

 

[dblack]

you are stupid.

I OWN my business, it is me. In fact, do you know what dba is?

AND it's already been determined that businesses have rights. For example, can the government search my business without a warrant? Why not? Oh that's right.

PA laws are liberal attempts to bully people into getting along with people they don't want to get along with.

waaa, you're being bullied into non-discrimination. Good.

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

You're the one referring to democratic government as bullying. Call it what you want. Do you have a better system to replace democratic government?

Constitutionally limited government.

People have to limit government via a constitution. Where do the people come from?

I'm not sure what you mean. Constitutional government is an agreement on what the scope of government will be. It's specifically a rejection of the idea that government is a general-purpose conduit for expressing the will of the people.

Setting reliable limits on government power is the only way democracy can work. Without such limits, democracy breaks down; it devolves to mob rule. We are seeing the results of removing constitutional limits on government in our current political meltdown. When the majority can uses government to do anything it pleases to the rest of us, controlling the government becomes literally a matter of life and death.

 

[mdk]

Please link to page, chapter and verse of the Constitution where it outlines that just homosexuals but not other sexuals have "rights" to marry. I'll wait

It is right there next to children having a right to a mother and father. lol

Marriage is a right. The courts have held that to be the case time and time again. You don't think so. Who gives a shit what you think? What you think doesn't the slightest bearing on the law. Worry about your marriage...oh wait your too busy worrying mine to have one.

 

[there4eyeM]

Many 'religious' practices are not allowed in the U.S. (and other civilized countries). Like all 'rights', there are limits. Like all 'rights', the 'right' to religious adherence comes from people. People create language and concepts, like 'rights', and can do what they want with them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

waaa, you're being bullied into non-discrimination. Good.

At least you admit that you enjoy the government bullying people you disagree with.

You're the one referring to democratic government as bullying. Call it what you want. Do you have a better system to replace democratic government?

Constitutionally limited government.

People have to limit government via a constitution. Where do the people come from?

Oh, from the government of course. We exist thanks be to government.

This makes no sense whatsoever.

Among the more ridiculous and wrongheaded aspects of errant conservative dogma is this idiotic notion that ‘the government’ exists as some sort of ‘evil entity’ separate and apart from the people, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

The people and their government are one in the same, government acts at the behest of the people, it derives its authority from the consent of the people, it is the creation of the people who are the ultimate authority.

The right’s attempt to ‘demonize’ government is sophomoric, naïve, childish, and inane – a moronic contrivance of partisan rightwing politics.