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

[Fair&Balanced]

How fucked up is this

Now liberals are openly suggesting that certain religions should be barred from owning businesses.

 

[dblack]

How fucked up is this

Now liberals are openly suggesting that certain religions should be barred from owning businesses.

It's much broader than that, and I still think it's a mistake to see this as a relatively narrow religious rights issues. What they're saying is anyone who doesn't want to serve 'protected classes' is barred from owning a business.

 

[emilynghiem]

What religion says you can't serve gays? I'm tired of these fake claims of religion .

Dear Timmy the issue that has come up in these cases
is whether you can force people to ATTEND gay weddings in order to provide a service that depends on that; whether you can force people to FILM, PHOTOGRAPH or print/express statements against someone's beliefs.

One case involved a person baking the cake but giving the supplies for decoration to the customers
to spell out the message they wanted which the cake decorator did not consent to.

This can go both ways. It has been allowed for bakers who refused to make an anti-gay message cake.
so it was the expression, the message on the cake (or in cases of photographers and some caker servers
it was the issue of making that person attend a gay wedding when this activity VIOLATED their beliefs).

Would you allow an atheist business owner to turn down a photography gig
at a church that was going to carry on a preach fest bashing atheists as going to hell?
Certainly I would give ANY photographer a choice in that, and find someone who wanted it.
I know a black reporter who got assigned to a Klan rally and carried out the job, by choice.
Some people might go with it, but if they refrained I would honor that, wouldn't you?

Well the Christians are asking that if someone doesn't believe in same sex weddings
can they bake the cake but refuse to deliver any services that require them to attend.

Can photographers turn down jobs videotaping gay weddings the same way
they could turn down filming porn, or people cleaning up houses after animals were hoarded,
or whatever thing they don't want to be there to film.

The issue of freedom of speech and expression versus forcing it by law
is different.

NOTE: What I'd recommend is that businesses that are at risk of such conflicts offer to customers to sign Mediation waivers and agreements (similar to arbitration clauses) where both sides agree to either mediate conflicts by consensus, or refrain from doing further business if they cannot resolve their conflicts, regardless of the cause of the dispute, in order to avoid legal actions and expenses. Also allow a clause to refer or subcontract business to a vendor to resolve the dispute. So the business can opt for certain services to be referred to a subcontractor that the customer approves, or else that counts as an unresolved conflict where both sides agree to refrain from business relations if it cannot be resolved amicably by mediation. This would protect the interests and beliefs of both customers and business owners, instead of discriminating against one side's beliefs or the other since they are both equal citizens. By the Fourteenth Amendment:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So this applies equally to both the beliefs/creed of the customer as well as the business owner. Because neither side can be "forced by govt to change their beliefs" any conflict of beliefs should be resolved by consensus or else those parties should agree not to conduct business together based on their differences. Similar to partners agreeing to a divorce due to irreconcilable conflicts. If you don't agree on terms of relations, go marry other people instead.

 

[Syriusly]

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

No, it's more like a Muslim demanding a business that sells bacon STOP selling bacon. (of course there have been cases already where businesses have actually decided to stop selling pork products to appease Muslims.)

No, its more like a Muslim butcher refusing to sell halal products to a Christian, because the Muslims doesn't believe a Christian should touch Halal food.

Business's don't don't get to decide not to follow the law because they are Christians- or Muslims.

 

[Syriusly]

How fucked up is this

Now liberals are openly suggesting that certain religions should be barred from owning businesses.

It's much broader than that, and I still think it's a mistake to see this as a relatively narrow religious rights issues. What they're saying is anyone who doesn't want to serve 'protected classes' is barred from owning a business.

No what they are saying is that anyone who is unwilling to sell to a person because they are for instance- black or Christian or in a few states- gay- should not own a business that sells product to everyone else.

 

[Timmy]

What religion says you can't serve gays? I'm tired of these fake claims of religion .

Dear Timmy the issue that has come up in these cases
is whether you can force people to ATTEND gay weddings in order to provide a service that depends on that; whether you can force people to FILM, PHOTOGRAPH or print/express statements against someone's beliefs.

One case involved a person baking the cake but giving the supplies for decoration to the customers
to spell out the message they wanted which the cake decorator did not consent to.

This can go both ways. It has been allowed for bakers who refused to make an anti-gay message cake.
so it was the expression, the message on the cake (or in cases of photographers and some caker servers
it was the issue of making that person attend a gay wedding when this activity VIOLATED their beliefs).

Would you allow an atheist business owner to turn down a photography gig
at a church that was going to carry on a preach fest bashing atheists as going to hell?
Certainly I would give ANY photographer a choice in that, and find someone who wanted it.
I know a black reporter who got assigned to a Klan rally and carried out the job, by choice.
Some people might go with it, but if they refrained I would honor that, wouldn't you?

Well the Christians are asking that if someone doesn't believe in same sex weddings
can they bake the cake but refuse to deliver any services that require them to attend.

Can photographers turn down jobs videotaping gay weddings the same way
they could turn down filming porn, or people cleaning up houses after animals were hoarded,
or whatever thing they don't want to be there to film.

The issue of freedom of speech and expression versus forcing it by law
is different.

They are phoney Christians .

Are they not doing weddings not performed on a church? Are they not doing weddings for divorced people ? For cross faithed or no fath couples ?

The answer is no. Then they really aren't following Christianity in any way, just using it as an excuse for bigotry .

 

[dblack]

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

No, it's more like a Muslim demanding a business that sells bacon STOP selling bacon. (of course there have been cases already where businesses have actually decided to stop selling pork products to appease Muslims.)

No, its more like a Muslim butcher refusing to sell halal products to a Christian, because the Muslims doesn't believe a Christian should touch Halal food.

Business's don't don't get to decide not to follow the law because they are Christians- or Muslims.

The question isn't whether people should, or should not, follow the law. The question is what level of control the law should have over our personal decisions.

 

[couch protester]

Gays can refuse straight members from joining gay organizations and from being President of gay clubs, which is considered double standard.

 

[dblack]

How fucked up is this

Now liberals are openly suggesting that certain religions should be barred from owning businesses.

It's much broader than that, and I still think it's a mistake to see this as a relatively narrow religious rights issues. What they're saying is anyone who doesn't want to serve 'protected classes' is barred from owning a business.

No what they are saying is that anyone who is unwilling to sell to a person because they are for instance- black or Christian or in a few states- gay- should not own a business that sells product to everyone else.

That doesn't seem any different. Certainly doesn't make it "ok". The government isn't there to tell us who to serve.

 

[Syriusly]

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

You're right. It is no different. And just as the bacon store is under no obligation to accommodate the religious preferences of the Muslim applicant, bakers should be under no obligation to accommodate the sexual preferences of potential customers.

Actually you are wrong on both counts

The first instance is employment law- and employers are obligated to make reasonable accommodations to an employee for religious purposes- so if a butcher shop could make a reasonable accommodation- and still get the job done- it would have to accommodate a Jewish or Muslim who didn't want to handle pork.

The second instance is public accommodation laws- and bakers have an obligation to sell their cakes to customers regardless of their race, religion, gender and in some places- sexual orientation.

Public Accommodation laws have been in place for 50 years no- nothing is new about them.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays can refuse straight members from joining gay organizations and from being President of gay clubs, which is considered double standard.

No- private organizations can restrict membership as they wish.

For instance the Catholic Church will not allow women to be priests.

You could have your own 'Bitter Straight Dudes' organization and deny membership to anyone you wanted to- even if its because you thought their wrist was a little to limp.

 

[Syriusly]

How fucked up is this

Now liberals are openly suggesting that certain religions should be barred from owning businesses.

It's much broader than that, and I still think it's a mistake to see this as a relatively narrow religious rights issues. What they're saying is anyone who doesn't want to serve 'protected classes' is barred from owning a business.

No what they are saying is that anyone who is unwilling to sell to a person because they are for instance- black or Christian or in a few states- gay- should not own a business that sells product to everyone else.

That doesn't seem any different. Certainly doesn't make it "ok". The government isn't there to tell us who to serve.

The government has been doing so for over 50 years

The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. Generally, places of public accommodation are businesses or buildings that are open or offer services to the general public. These facilities can be publicly or privately owned and operated. Federal, state and local governments own and operate facilities such as courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places. They also provide services, programs, or activities including transportation systems and welfare programs. Privately-owned businesses and facilities offer certain goods or services to the public. Food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment also come under the definition of places of public accommodation.

Section 2000a of Title 42, Chapter 21 of the U.S. Code (42 USC 21) prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. Under this provision, all persons are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without any discrimination or segregation based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Many private establishments serving the public are considered places of public accommodation. Such private places include:

• inns, hotels, motels, or other organizations that provide accommodation to temporary visitors
• restaurants, cafeterias, lunchrooms, lunch counters, soda fountains, or other facilities providing food for consumption
• motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas, stadiums or other places of exhibition or entertainment

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

You're right. It is no different. And just as the bacon store is under no obligation to accommodate the religious preferences of the Muslim applicant, bakers should be under no obligation to accommodate the sexual preferences of potential customers.

Actually you are wrong on both counts

The first instance is employment law- and employers are obligated to make reasonable accommodations to an employee for religious purposes- so if a butcher shop could make a reasonable accommodation- and still get the job done- it would have to accommodate a Jewish or Muslim who didn't want to handle pork.

The second instance is public accommodation laws- and bakers have an obligation to sell their cakes to customers regardless of their race, religion, gender and in some places- sexual orientation.

Public Accommodation laws have been in place for 50 years no- nothing is new about them.

Slavery laws were in place for well over 100 years. That didn't make them right.

They are an anachronism from a time past.

In the 1960s when a black person couldn't find a single place in town to eat because EVERYONE discriminated, okay I can live with the government affording some protection.

it TODAY's market where if a gay walks into a bakery and wants a cake and the baker doesn't want to sell it to them resulting in the hardship of the gay having to drive 1/2 mile down the road to a bakery that will? Yeah , it's time for an end to so called PA laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

What religion says you can't serve gays? I'm tired of these fake claims of religion .

Dear Timmy the issue that has come up in these cases
is whether you can force people to ATTEND gay weddings in order to provide a service that depends on that; whether you can force people to FILM, PHOTOGRAPH or print/express statements against someone's beliefs.

One case involved a person baking the cake but giving the supplies for decoration to the customers
to spell out the message they wanted which the cake decorator did not consent to.

This can go both ways. It has been allowed for bakers who refused to make an anti-gay message cake.
so it was the expression, the message on the cake (or in cases of photographers and some caker servers
it was the issue of making that person attend a gay wedding when this activity VIOLATED their beliefs).

Would you allow an atheist business owner to turn down a photography gig
at a church that was going to carry on a preach fest bashing atheists as going to hell?
Certainly I would give ANY photographer a choice in that, and find someone who wanted it.
I know a black reporter who got assigned to a Klan rally and carried out the job, by choice.
Some people might go with it, but if they refrained I would honor that, wouldn't you?

Well the Christians are asking that if someone doesn't believe in same sex weddings
can they bake the cake but refuse to deliver any services that require them to attend.

Can photographers turn down jobs videotaping gay weddings the same way
they could turn down filming porn, or people cleaning up houses after animals were hoarded,
or whatever thing they don't want to be there to film.

The issue of freedom of speech and expression versus forcing it by law
is different.

They are phoney Christians .

Are they not doing weddings not performed on a church? Are they not doing weddings for divorced people ? For cross faithed or no fath couples ?

The answer is no. Then they really aren't following Christianity in any way, just using it as an excuse for bigotry .

Regardless Timmy
Govt has NO PLACE to punish people for their religions, because "hypocrisy" is NOT against the law.
Otherwise, everyone can get punished by govt.

Do you understand what you are saying?
By your logic above, you have just JUSTIFIED people rejecting homosexuality!
They can use the SAME Argument you just did.

I don't think you would agree to someone abusing govt to
OVERRIDE the rights and beliefs of people who believe in homosexuality
because Opponents believe it is false.

But that's the equivalent of what you just said.
That's the problem!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

You're right. It is no different. And just as the bacon store is under no obligation to accommodate the religious preferences of the Muslim applicant, bakers should be under no obligation to accommodate the sexual preferences of potential customers.

Actually you are wrong on both counts

The first instance is employment law- and employers are obligated to make reasonable accommodations to an employee for religious purposes- so if a butcher shop could make a reasonable accommodation- and still get the job done- it would have to accommodate a Jewish or Muslim who didn't want to handle pork.

The second instance is public accommodation laws- and bakers have an obligation to sell their cakes to customers regardless of their race, religion, gender and in some places- sexual orientation.

Public Accommodation laws have been in place for 50 years no- nothing is new about them.

Slavery laws were in place for well over 100 years. That didn't make them right.

They are an anachronism from a time past.

In the 1960s when a black person couldn't find a single place in town to eat because EVERYONE discriminated, okay I can live with the government affording some protection.

it TODAY's market where if a gay walks into a bakery and wants a cake and the baker doesn't want to sell it to them resulting in the hardship of the gay having to drive 1/2 mile down the road to a bakery that will? Yeah , it's time for an end to so called PA laws.

Are you really trying to equate slavery with gay cakes?

My Gawd....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

You're right. It is no different. And just as the bacon store is under no obligation to accommodate the religious preferences of the Muslim applicant, bakers should be under no obligation to accommodate the sexual preferences of potential customers.

Actually you are wrong on both counts

The first instance is employment law- and employers are obligated to make reasonable accommodations to an employee for religious purposes- so if a butcher shop could make a reasonable accommodation- and still get the job done- it would have to accommodate a Jewish or Muslim who didn't want to handle pork.

The second instance is public accommodation laws- and bakers have an obligation to sell their cakes to customers regardless of their race, religion, gender and in some places- sexual orientation.

Public Accommodation laws have been in place for 50 years no- nothing is new about them.

Slavery laws were in place for well over 100 years. That didn't make them right.

They are an anachronism from a time past.

In the 1960s when a black person couldn't find a single place in town to eat because EVERYONE discriminated, okay I can live with the government affording some protection.

it TODAY's market where if a gay walks into a bakery and wants a cake and the baker doesn't want to sell it to them resulting in the hardship of the gay having to drive 1/2 mile down the road to a bakery that will? Yeah , it's time for an end to so called PA laws.

Are you really trying to equate slavery with gay cakes?

My Gawd....

What?

No, I'm comparing laws that were wrong, to laws that are wrong.

God damn what has happened to reading comprehension in this country?

 

[emilynghiem]

How fucked up is this

Now liberals are openly suggesting that certain religions should be barred from owning businesses.

It's much broader than that, and I still think it's a mistake to see this as a relatively narrow religious rights issues. What they're saying is anyone who doesn't want to serve 'protected classes' is barred from owning a business.

No what they are saying is that anyone who is unwilling to sell to a person because they are for instance- black or Christian or in a few states- gay- should not own a business that sells product to everyone else.

That doesn't seem any different. Certainly doesn't make it "ok". The government isn't there to tell us who to serve.

The government has been doing so for over 50 years

The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. Generally, places of public accommodation are businesses or buildings that are open or offer services to the general public. These facilities can be publicly or privately owned and operated. Federal, state and local governments own and operate facilities such as courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places. They also provide services, programs, or activities including transportation systems and welfare programs. Privately-owned businesses and facilities offer certain goods or services to the public. Food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment also come under the definition of places of public accommodation.

Section 2000a of Title 42, Chapter 21 of the U.S. Code (42 USC 21) prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. Under this provision, all persons are entitled to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without any discrimination or segregation based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Many private establishments serving the public are considered places of public accommodation. Such private places include:

• inns, hotels, motels, or other organizations that provide accommodation to temporary visitors
• restaurants, cafeterias, lunchrooms, lunch counters, soda fountains, or other facilities providing food for consumption
• motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas, stadiums or other places of exhibition or entertainment

Dear Syriusly what you and others are missing
is that beliefs about homosexual orientation are UNPROVEN and FAITH BASED.

They are the equivalent of a CREED, and are NOT on the level of RACE as is often compared to but fails.

Given two CREEDS, govt cannot be abused to endorse one and penalize the other.

Do we agree that IF homosexual beliefs, for or against, are both treated as CREEDs
then govt must treat people of either creed equally when making or enforcing laws.

I know we DISAGREE that beliefs about homosexuality are equal as creeds.
Both sides think their beliefs are right and the other is wrong.

Since we don't agree which beliefs are right or wrong, but both remain neither proven nor disproven,
can we agree that currently these are both contested beliefs or CREEDS.

Can we agree on that much, until either side is either proven or disproven by science?

 

[BlindBoo]

A case of wanting to discriminate against the LGBT community based on religion in a state that has passed PA that include the LGBT community.

I think they should and will lose.

 

[couch protester]

What religion says you can't serve gays? I'm tired of these fake claims of religion .

Dear Timmy the issue that has come up in these cases
is whether you can force people to ATTEND gay weddings in order to provide a service that depends on that; whether you can force people to FILM, PHOTOGRAPH or print/express statements against someone's beliefs.

One case involved a person baking the cake but giving the supplies for decoration to the customers
to spell out the message they wanted which the cake decorator did not consent to.

This can go both ways. It has been allowed for bakers who refused to make an anti-gay message cake.
so it was the expression, the message on the cake (or in cases of photographers and some caker servers
it was the issue of making that person attend a gay wedding when this activity VIOLATED their beliefs).

Would you allow an atheist business owner to turn down a photography gig
at a church that was going to carry on a preach fest bashing atheists as going to hell?
Certainly I would give ANY photographer a choice in that, and find someone who wanted it.
I know a black reporter who got assigned to a Klan rally and carried out the job, by choice.
Some people might go with it, but if they refrained I would honor that, wouldn't you?

Well the Christians are asking that if someone doesn't believe in same sex weddings
can they bake the cake but refuse to deliver any services that require them to attend.

Can photographers turn down jobs videotaping gay weddings the same way
they could turn down filming porn, or people cleaning up houses after animals were hoarded,
or whatever thing they don't want to be there to film.

The issue of freedom of speech and expression versus forcing it by law
is different.

They are phoney Christians .

Are they not doing weddings not performed on a church? Are they not doing weddings for divorced people ? For cross faithed or no fath couples ?

The answer is no. Then they really aren't following Christianity in any way, just using it as an excuse for bigotry .

You're reaching!

The whole purpose of coming out of the closet was because the Christian church condemned homosexuality and kept the children from expressing their true nature, so now you prefer to return back to the very accusers which you were banished? It's like Satan asking Jesus "can I come back to heaven since you condemned me to hell?"

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Liberal stupidity

"I can't prove gays are born that way, and you can't prove God exists, so shove your first amendment rights up your ass and serve gays"