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

[Evesbodyman]

Because it doesn't include every possible and theoretical thing someone just might discriminate based upon.

PA laws are unfair he will say, they don't include men dressed as Little Bo Peep riding a unicycle while singing God Save the Queen with a duck on their head.

I didn't say they were unfair you fucking idiot. I said they are unconstitutional.

1. who gave the government the authority to tell me who I must work for
2. They don't give equal protection of law to all Americans. If you are discriminated against for ANY reason not listed under that law, you are shit out of luck. Are you TRULY too stupid to grasp that kindergarten level logic?

The regulation of commerce is in the Constitution.

As for you being some kind of slave for doing your job, that argument was tested in the Supreme Court long ago. It failed.

So, your options are 1. Live in the real world? 2. Don't?

Too true, b/c once a law is law, it can never be changed. See slavery, oh wait.


As for regulation of commerce. Your house is connected to a road, and to a power source, therefor your home (or in your case the basement in your parent's home) is involved in commerce. Therefor, you won't mind when I stop by to help myself to some of your SNAP provided food (after all the food purchase was also regulated by commerce)

You fucking idiot.

If that is what you believe to be a valid argument, no one can help you so I won't even bother trying.

So you're household doesn't participate in commerce?

By the way stupid. If the commerce clause is so powerful, why did anyone fight to free the blacks? Sorry negro, commerce clause means we can regulate you into slavery.

logic, try using it.

We did regulate slavery, and then fought a Civil War to abolish it. Abolished child labor as well.

And a private residence is not a public accommodation. If you have to stretch it that far, don't bother.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I didn't say they were unfair you fucking idiot. I said they are unconstitutional.

1. who gave the government the authority to tell me who I must work for
2. They don't give equal protection of law to all Americans. If you are discriminated against for ANY reason not listed under that law, you are shit out of luck. Are you TRULY too stupid to grasp that kindergarten level logic?

The regulation of commerce is in the Constitution.

As for you being some kind of slave for doing your job, that argument was tested in the Supreme Court long ago. It failed.

So, your options are 1. Live in the real world? 2. Don't?

Too true, b/c once a law is law, it can never be changed. See slavery, oh wait.


As for regulation of commerce. Your house is connected to a road, and to a power source, therefor your home (or in your case the basement in your parent's home) is involved in commerce. Therefor, you won't mind when I stop by to help myself to some of your SNAP provided food (after all the food purchase was also regulated by commerce)

You fucking idiot.

If that is what you believe to be a valid argument, no one can help you so I won't even bother trying.

So you're household doesn't participate in commerce?

By the way stupid. If the commerce clause is so powerful, why did anyone fight to free the blacks? Sorry negro, commerce clause means we can regulate you into slavery.

logic, try using it.

We did regulate slavery, and then fought a Civil War to abolish it. Abolished child labor as well.

And a private residence is not a public accommodation. If you have to stretch it that far, don't bother.

A business isn't a public accommodation either you fucking fool. If it were , business owners wouldn't be able to discriminate at all, but can and do EVERY FUCKING DAY.

 

[Evesbodyman]

The regulation of commerce is in the Constitution.

As for you being some kind of slave for doing your job, that argument was tested in the Supreme Court long ago. It failed.

So, your options are 1. Live in the real world? 2. Don't?

Too true, b/c once a law is law, it can never be changed. See slavery, oh wait.


As for regulation of commerce. Your house is connected to a road, and to a power source, therefor your home (or in your case the basement in your parent's home) is involved in commerce. Therefor, you won't mind when I stop by to help myself to some of your SNAP provided food (after all the food purchase was also regulated by commerce)

You fucking idiot.

If that is what you believe to be a valid argument, no one can help you so I won't even bother trying.

So you're household doesn't participate in commerce?

By the way stupid. If the commerce clause is so powerful, why did anyone fight to free the blacks? Sorry negro, commerce clause means we can regulate you into slavery.

logic, try using it.

We did regulate slavery, and then fought a Civil War to abolish it. Abolished child labor as well.

And a private residence is not a public accommodation. If you have to stretch it that far, don't bother.

A business isn't a public accommodation either you fucking fool. If it were , business owners wouldn't be able to discriminate at all, but can and do EVERY FUCKING DAY.

That depends on the business. Do you sell gas or do you make gas pumps? That makes all the difference in the world.

Are you a church, or a church hall rented out to the public?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Too true, b/c once a law is law, it can never be changed. See slavery, oh wait.


As for regulation of commerce. Your house is connected to a road, and to a power source, therefor your home (or in your case the basement in your parent's home) is involved in commerce. Therefor, you won't mind when I stop by to help myself to some of your SNAP provided food (after all the food purchase was also regulated by commerce)

You fucking idiot.

If that is what you believe to be a valid argument, no one can help you so I won't even bother trying.

So you're household doesn't participate in commerce?

By the way stupid. If the commerce clause is so powerful, why did anyone fight to free the blacks? Sorry negro, commerce clause means we can regulate you into slavery.

logic, try using it.

We did regulate slavery, and then fought a Civil War to abolish it. Abolished child labor as well.

And a private residence is not a public accommodation. If you have to stretch it that far, don't bother.

A business isn't a public accommodation either you fucking fool. If it were , business owners wouldn't be able to discriminate at all, but can and do EVERY FUCKING DAY.

That depends on the business. Do you sell gas or do you make gas pumps? That makes all the difference in the world.

Are you a church, or a church hall rented out to the public?

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Let's go with Church halls.

Let's assume a state where discriminating against gays is illegal.

If I own a Church hall in such a state and two people come in and they stink to high heaven and are drunk and they want to rent a hall from me, do I have to rent from them? Yes, or no?

 

[rightwinger]

Because it doesn't include every possible and theoretical thing someone just might discriminate based upon.

PA laws are unfair he will say, they don't include men dressed as Little Bo Peep riding a unicycle while singing God Save the Queen with a duck on their head.

I didn't say they were unfair you fucking idiot. I said they are unconstitutional.

1. who gave the government the authority to tell me who I must work for
2. They don't give equal protection of law to all Americans. If you are discriminated against for ANY reason not listed under that law, you are shit out of luck. Are you TRULY too stupid to grasp that kindergarten level logic?

The regulation of commerce is in the Constitution.

As for you being some kind of slave for doing your job, that argument was tested in the Supreme Court long ago. It failed.

So, your options are 1. Live in the real world? 2. Don't?

Too true, b/c once a law is law, it can never be changed. See slavery, oh wait.


As for regulation of commerce. Your house is connected to a road, and to a power source, therefor your home (or in your case the basement in your parent's home) is involved in commerce. Therefor, you won't mind when I stop by to help myself to some of your SNAP provided food (after all the food purchase was also regulated by commerce)

You fucking idiot.

If that is what you believe to be a valid argument, no one can help you so I won't even bother trying.

So you're household doesn't participate in commerce?

By the way stupid. If the commerce clause is so powerful, why did anyone fight to free the blacks? Sorry negro, commerce clause means we can regulate you into slavery.

logic, try using it.

Actually, you are not far off
Slaves were considered property and a part of commerce

Needed an amendment to end it

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I didn't say they were unfair you fucking idiot. I said they are unconstitutional.

1. who gave the government the authority to tell me who I must work for
2. They don't give equal protection of law to all Americans. If you are discriminated against for ANY reason not listed under that law, you are shit out of luck. Are you TRULY too stupid to grasp that kindergarten level logic?

The regulation of commerce is in the Constitution.

As for you being some kind of slave for doing your job, that argument was tested in the Supreme Court long ago. It failed.

So, your options are 1. Live in the real world? 2. Don't?

Too true, b/c once a law is law, it can never be changed. See slavery, oh wait.


As for regulation of commerce. Your house is connected to a road, and to a power source, therefor your home (or in your case the basement in your parent's home) is involved in commerce. Therefor, you won't mind when I stop by to help myself to some of your SNAP provided food (after all the food purchase was also regulated by commerce)

You fucking idiot.

If that is what you believe to be a valid argument, no one can help you so I won't even bother trying.

So you're household doesn't participate in commerce?

By the way stupid. If the commerce clause is so powerful, why did anyone fight to free the blacks? Sorry negro, commerce clause means we can regulate you into slavery.

logic, try using it.

Actually, you are not far off
Slaves were considered property and a part of commerce

Needed an amendment to end it

And of course that same amendment should prevent you from making me YOUR slave, however temporarily.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually, you are not far off
Slaves were considered property and a part of commerce

Needed an amendment to end it

Know what else needs an Amendment? Just some sexual behaviors/orientations (but not others) having "special rights" to marry. Otherwise, Obergefell isn't worth the paper it's written on..and neither are all the PA laws surrounding gay marriage. At least in states that didn't ratify it for sure; but likely all 50 when it is found business owners don't have to bow at the altar of behavior-based Church of LGBT.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, you are not far off
Slaves were considered property and a part of commerce

Needed an amendment to end it

Know what else needs an Amendment? Just some sexual behaviors/orientations (but not others) having "special rights" to marry. Otherwise, Obergefell isn't worth the paper it's written on..and neither are all the PA laws surrounding gay marriage. At least in states that didn't ratify it for sure; but likely all 50 when it is found business owners don't have to bow at the altar of behavior-based Church of LGBT.

How is having the same rights as you now "special"????

 

[Silhouette]

How is having the same rights as you now "special"????

I'm not a polygamist. Ask someone whose sexual orientation is polyamory. They are still not able to legally marry. Yet they are a sexual orientation. Tell me how that is legal when states may not deny people marriage based on sexual orientation? And remember, if man/woman father/mother isn't sacred, neither is "two". You can't be the subjective judge of sexual orientations the majority find repugnant. If one repugnant orientation escapes regulation, all of them do. You understand the concept of "equality" right?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Rightwinger is getting slapped around by Sil , now that tells you just how deranged RW's "thoughts" on this topic are.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not a polygamist. Ask someone whose sexual orientation is polyamory. They are still not able to legally marry. Yet they are a sexual orientation. Tell me how that is legal when states may not deny people marriage based on sexual orientation? And remember, if man/woman father/mother isn't sacred, neither is "two". You can't be the subjective judge of sexual orientations the majority find repugnant. If one repugnant orientation escapes regulation, all of them do. You understand the concept of "equality" right?

Rightwinger is getting slapped around by Sil , now that tells you just how deranged RW's "thoughts" on this topic are.

Hey, I'm pretty good at nailing down the LGBT parishioners here as a general rule. He isn't deranged really. Only a cultee on a mission for his Church.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I've been trying to convince my wife that polygamy is okay for years.

No luck so far

 

[rightwinger]

How is having the same rights as you now "special"????

I'm not a polygamist. Ask someone whose sexual orientation is polyamory. They are still not able to legally marry. Yet they are a sexual orientation. Tell me how that is legal when states may not deny people marriage based on sexual orientation? And remember, if man/woman father/mother isn't sacred, neither is "two". You can't be the subjective judge of sexual orientations the majority find repugnant. If one repugnant orientation escapes regulation, all of them do. You understand the concept of "equality" right?

I doubt if polygamy is a sexual orientation. They are still heterosexual

 

[rightwinger]

I've been trying to convince my wife that polygamy is okay for years.

No luck so far

Offer up two guys and see what she says

 

[Fair&Balanced]

How is having the same rights as you now "special"????

I'm not a polygamist. Ask someone whose sexual orientation is polyamory. They are still not able to legally marry. Yet they are a sexual orientation. Tell me how that is legal when states may not deny people marriage based on sexual orientation? And remember, if man/woman father/mother isn't sacred, neither is "two". You can't be the subjective judge of sexual orientations the majority find repugnant. If one repugnant orientation escapes regulation, all of them do. You understand the concept of "equality" right?

I doubt if polygamy is a sexual orientation. They are still heterosexual

Meanwhile you defend mentally ill cross dressers using the wrong bathroom, despite the scientific fact that no matter what sorts of surgeries a person gets, or what drugs they take, they will NEVER EVER change their gender?

LOL hypocrite.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can the government force you to choose US federal, state, and local law over Sharia Law,

or does the 1st Amendment protect Muslims from having to support laws they might in some cases prefer to replace with their own?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Can the government force you to choose US federal, state, and local law over Sharia Law,

or does the 1st Amendment protect Muslims from having to support laws they might in some cases prefer to replace with their own?

If you can't debate honestly, go to a little kiddie thread.

Your response has ZERO to do with the topic at hand.

 

[emilynghiem]

As usual, you are going way overboard with your logic

Think more along the lines of
[A.] "we don't serve negroes" than
[B.] forcing people to provide services they normally don't provide

Dear rightwinger
1. People AGREE that A is unlawful:
I thought people on BOTH sides generally AGREED and ACCEPTED the correction
where nobody can refuse the PERSON based on being gay or transgender.

If your issue is A, that has been answered and such corrections are justified.

2. My understanding is the CONTESTED issues are with B

People who normally do not ATTEND PARTICIPATE or otherwise endorse or interact/express,
directly or indirectly, ACTIVITIES EVENTS OR BEHAVIOR such as same sex weddings or gay relationships,
because of their beliefs,
are asking to defend the rights and freedoms to decline business at will.

And thirdly
3. This brings up the issue of declining business for any reason
that has to do with
a. PARTICIPATION or GOING TO PRIVATE SITES outside of serving the customer at the business
b. EXPRESSION by the First Amendment,
rather than COMPELLING OR REGULATING FREE SPEECH

So rightwinger
Can we offer this solution:
A. that everyone agrees the issue of Unlawful Discrimination IS with refusal to serve or sell to
CUSTOMERS ON SITE, just because of race, creed etc.* (*where people consider gender/orientation either as its own protected category or as "behavior" that is not protected, adding homosexual/transgender beliefs as an additional condition remains disputed and faith-based if it is more like race, creed, beliefs or behavior.
Since people don't agree, I suggest to treat beliefs on orientation/transgender like creeds regardless if seen more like race or behavior, so this still protects everyone's beliefs equally whether more like race or creed)

B. and the disputes that "go too far" concern
1. Forced expression regulated by govt under penalty of law
2. Forcing people to attend, participate, associate or engage in OFF SITE
activities at PRIVATE venues OUTSIDE their normal place of business
that they normally DO NOT consent to do and/or which violate their religious beliefs and right to consent/dissent to faith-based activities and associations in PRIVATE
3. Whether this extends to affects businesses who wish to
dissent/consent on issues of PRIVATE venues for ANY REASON and not just religious or faith-based
4. Whether or not this applies to activities businesses normally oppose
BUT ON THE PREMISES (such as renting to gay couples for B&B or wedding ceremonies ON SITE)

Now rightwinger, I assume we can reach agreement on A.
I think we'd have problems with B4 that crosses the line between A and B.

Most people can understanding why B1 and B2 seem to push too far.
And thus are afraid it threatens B3 and the freedom of ALL businesses to decline business
that affects B1 and B2 for OTHER REASONS than just religious/faith-based objections.

If we can agree on most of B as the reason people are objecting
this is going too far and infringing on freedom of expression and religious freedom to participate in private venues,
Can we agree to focus on A and where we AGREE there that discrimination is unlawful,
the DIFFERENCE between going TOO FAR as in B1-3,
And then look at B4 and how this blurs the line between A and B.

And AGAIN the SOLUTION I propose for B, and especially B4 where it crosses the line,
is
C. offering mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus:
Either the parties agree to resolve disputes amicably where all are satisfied
their concerns and objections are addressed and settled, and they all consent to the solution;
or they agree to refrain from conducting business together if disputes (over conflicting beliefs
or for any reason if those are the terms on the waiver/disclaimer they sign up front)
cannot be resolved within an agreed timeline.

Since B4 crosses the line, where some businesses who normally do not endorse or engage in homosexual relations, events or activities may be forced to accommodate these ON THEIR PREMISES
and this may effect their BUSINESS because OTHER PRIVATE GUESTS do not share those beliefs
either and would be forced to accommodate things they BELIEVE ARE BEHAVIORAL CHOICES,
this causes problems from "unintended consequences" that affect PRIVATE individuals
(such as other GUESTS not employees of the business, in BATHROOMS and in rental room situations,
and in the case of Eharmony, extending services to gay couples causedCcustomers to boycott and leave
so this indirectly harmed the founder's business in trying to comply with the govt orders and requirements)

I think we should have minimum problems mediating and resolving cases in A,
even if it means HIRING additional staff or subcontractors, similar to
hiring bilingual support to accommodate a language difference.

But the B category is where the most conflict resolution would focus.
And B4 especially may require additional accommodations. I think eharmony
set up a totally separate website and name to accommodate same sex relations.
My question is if you are going to push that far, why not make it LGBT owned and operated
and teach people to run their OWN business so the profits and business experience benefit
LGBT employees and managers. Especially since transgender are often denied job opporunities,
this would CREATE jobs if businesses had to expand to include LGBT as eharmony was compelled by law.

 

[Pop23]

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

Or a Muslim refusing to be drafted and fight in the Vietnam war.

Ali's being buried today

What a coincidence

 

[HenryBHough]

Once we get it across that liberalism is a religion the sooner we can halt government promotion of it. Or....we could....except that this is post-Constitutional Obamerica.