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

[IsaacNewton]

Two Christian Artists Who Refuse to Serve Gay Weddings Are Likely Heading to Court to Battle the Government — but There’s a Twist

Phoenix City Code 18.4(B):
"No person shall, directly or indirectly, refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person, or aid in or incite such refusal, denial or withholding of, accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability nor shall distinction be made with respect to any person based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability in connection with the price or quality of any item, goods or services offered by or at any place of public accommodation."

According to the local government in Phoenix City your personal religious freedom can be overridden by the government, and you can be forced - as a Christian - to engage in activities that violate your religious beliefs. IMO that is a clear violation of the Constitution. (And you know d@mn-well the government would not try to apply this to Muslims for fear of 'offending them...but Christians are 'fair game'.)

Unlike other cases that have been in the news, though, these people / this business has NOT been sued or fined for refusing service for same-sex events....but they are probably still heading to court. Instead, 'Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of art company Brush & Nib, have filed a lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, Arizona' over the 'non-discrimination law' (above) 'that they claim violates their religious rights'.

"“Although the two young women happily create art for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, Phoenix interprets its law to require them to create art for events, like same-sex wedding ceremonies, that are completely at odds with their religious beliefs,” the lawyer wrote. “Phoenix also interprets its law to prevent them from explaining their religious beliefs and why they must create art consistent with their beliefs.”

"“Joanna and Breanna are exposing the pre-existing tension between Phoenix’s law and their constitutionally protected freedoms, between the right to speak and create freely and the government’s attempt to crush dissent and command conformity,” Scruggs continued. “And that is precisely what’s at stake.”

The company's owners are standing up for Christians / Christianity and is taking the fight to the city of Phoenix before anyone can bring the fight to them.

Go get 'em, girls!

The government can do what the fuck ever it (I) want.

- Liberal

"WE DEMAND OUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO CARRY GUNS IN PUBLIC."
"Well, we're the government and you aren't bringing any of your guns to the Republican convention so shut it."
"Ok, sorry if we were out of line."

- Conservative

I heard the GOP is re-thinking this decision in light of all the violent fascist liberal terrorist attacks on Conservatives / Trump Supporters.

Yes well we all hear this and that. Why would they give up their guns in the first place? Isn't the whole point of demanding '2nd amendment rights' is so you can shove it in the government's face whenever they tell you to leave your guns home?

But the gun-nerds gave them up without a whimper and agreed to a 'gun free zone' at the Republican convention. They are the thing they whine about every day, and it is oh so funny.

 

[emilynghiem]

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

No one says you don’t have the right to discriminate – you can discriminate to your heart’s content.

But as a business owner in a jurisdiction whose public accommodations law has a provision for sexual orientation, you may not deny services to a gay patron, having nothing to do with ‘discrimination’ – just as you cannot pay your employees less than the minimum wage or endanger your employees’ safety in the workplace.

Public accommodations laws are regulatory policy, where jurisdictions have determined that to refuse services based on race, religion, or sexual orientation is disruptive to the local market, and local governments are at liberty to regulate local markets as they so desire consistent with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

When not running your business you may discriminate all you want, revel in your ignorance and hate.

But while running your business you’ll obey the law, including accommodating gay patrons, as such laws neither ‘violate’ your religious liberty, nor ‘force’ you to ‘give up’ any rights.

And that is the crux of it. These bigots are free to think like a bigot or a racist, many of them obviously do. But they can't act on it. They are free to gather in their church and pass judgement on their fellow human beings until the cows come home. They are free to sit in their living rooms with each other pining for the days when women wore dresses no higher than their ankles or when it was legal for men to beat their wives with a board as long as it was no wider than their thumb (where we get the phrase 'rule of thumb'). They are free to long for the days when children could be made to work 12 hours a day, women couldn't vote, and people owned other people. They are free to THINK and talk about such vile crap all day long. They just don't get to enact their thoughts on others at a public business.

Besides isn't there a restaurant somewhere that is right now ordering green cups that don't havce candy canes on them that will be used for Christmas time? OH THE OUTRAGE. Get activated oh crusaders of truth and justice, Superman needs your help.

With the cups.

IsaacNewton And the same holds for LGBT beliefs and creeds not proven by science but faith-based.
Why should Govt be used or abused to endorse one side's beliefs or creeds, while penalizing another?
When both are faith-based and neither proven nor disproven. Clearly LGBT beliefs about
homosexuality like beliefs about Christianity should remain private choice and not under penalty of govt!

You can do what you want in private, but when your orientation/identity
affects other people's right to use the restroom without fear that men will abuse the policy you want to impose,
you are affecting other people in public and in private, if you consider the bathroom to be private.

You don't get to define what faith is re the law. Pretending to be a lawyer or legislator doesn't make it so.

EXACTLY! Sir IsaacNewton
Nobody can define dispute or regulate someone's beliefs by govt.
Only the BEHAVIOR that affects other people.

If we stick to respecting each other's BELIEFS equally then we won't run afoul of the law.
<insert light bulb going off>

We no longer have to fight to defend or attack each other's beliefs
because that's not what is in question. That is a given!

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

Dear rightwinger
If you read my message I already said there is no legal dispute over this, if there is it is resolved as you state.

The dispute is over
* going to PRIVATE venues OFF SITE and engaging in PRIVATE activities
* violating FREE SPEECH by govt regulations and penalty for not complying

Please answer if this is short enough.
I didn't agree to give up freedom of speech but apparently you believe in regulating it.
Free speech is necessary for DUE PROCESS. why are you so opposed to DUE PROCESS?

OK Emily, mediate for me

You own a beautiful banquet hall overlooking a lake. I am a gay and would like to rent your hall for my wedding. No other facility in town comes close to the beauty and quality you provide.
I go to rent for my wedding and you tell me you won't rent to gay weddings

Mediate

You can use the facilities but we mutually agree on choice of contractors who can provide
the services you want without forcing anyone to attend against their will.

If there are other customers competing for that space at the same time,
it will go to the highest bidder and/or who imposes the least cost.

We would also need to agree on the insurance rates or cost of hiring added security
to make sure there is no damage to the property since the regular people may not be there.

NOTE: if there is any publicity that the place is being used for same sex weddings,
we agree on how this is presented to the public to avoid making unwelcome political statements.

If we cannot agree on the wording and this causes issues,
this conflict is covered in the mediation/arbitration waiver required for all customers to sign
with management: ie if there are any conflicts that arise, these will be resolved by
mediators chosen by the customers, under the agreement to reach a consensus
and to avoid legal actions and costs; otherwise in case of unresolved dispute
the parties either agree to part company and refrain from conducting business,
or agree to arbitration by an arbiter chosen by the company where decisions are final.

My views on free speech and equal protections is that both sides agree in advance on the rules of communication and resolving conflict. If we can't agree to resolve things amicably by consensus,
then that is grounds for refraining from business relations, because my Constitutional beliefs
and standards are based on consent of the governed and resolving conflicts by mediation and consensus.

I will equally include your free speech, right to petition, and exercise of your beliefs within the
context of equal protections; and that means not compromising any of my rights either.

So out of respect for both parties, we either resolve all issues to the satisfaction of both parties,
or agree to conduct business with other people we are compatible with. This helps preserve civil relations.

 

[emilynghiem]

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

No the question wasn't answered.

I don't have a right to set my own labor rate, I don't have a right to build a building any way I want, I don't have a right to have a sloppy kitchen. NONE of those are rights.

So, that leaves us with the right of association. Explain to me how the government has the authority to take away that right?

And further, are you truly too stupid to understand that once you let a government take your rights, they can take any of them that they please?

You confuse the rights of an individual with the rights of a business

An individual can have a sloppy kitchen....a business can't
An individual can decide not to have negroes or gays over for dinner....a business can't

rightwinger what about
1. asking a baker to go attend a gay wedding service they don't believe in supporting.
This is at a private venue, not on site at their business.

2. forcing a photographer to go to a private party
and film pornography and people having sex outside of marriage
which is against their beliefs.

Can you even answer this question?

Nice and concise
Just the way I like it

1. If the baker is normally required to attend a wedding service (which they are not), then yes, he does it for gay weddings too

2. Makes no sense. If a photographer is not in the business of filming pornography, nobody is forcing him to
If he is a wedding photographer he has to photograph weddings

And this is where we run into conflicts rightwinger
because some Christians do not recognize the ceremony as a marriage by their definition.

This reminds me of how people use the term Sharia or Jihad
differently from Muslims who don't use these terms politically.

If you try to ban Sharia or Jihad based on the political abusive practice,
that is not what it means to the Muslim who would be banned from prayers and alms by banning Sharia.

You have to agree on terms.

If someone says they videotape rock videos
you can't force them to film a bunch of "rocks" if they don't want to.
Then claim it's false advertising.

That's your definition you are imposing on them, but not what they mean.

Well, if these people do not mean "gay weddings" when they agree to film weddings,
that needs to be clarified; but is no reason to sue and punish people.
Thanks rightwinger: Here's yet ANOTHER area for "conflict resolution" that would be covered by
the mediation waiver I propose to cover all cases and issues like this.

 

[emilynghiem]

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

No the question wasn't answered.

I don't have a right to set my own labor rate, I don't have a right to build a building any way I want, I don't have a right to have a sloppy kitchen. NONE of those are rights.

So, that leaves us with the right of association. Explain to me how the government has the authority to take away that right?

And further, are you truly too stupid to understand that once you let a government take your rights, they can take any of them that they please?

You confuse the rights of an individual with the rights of a business

An individual can have a sloppy kitchen....a business can't
An individual can decide not to have negroes or gays over for dinner....a business can't

rightwinger what about
1. asking a baker to go attend a gay wedding service they don't believe in supporting.
This is at a private venue, not on site at their business.

2. forcing a photographer to go to a private party
and film pornography and people having sex outside of marriage
which is against their beliefs.

Can you even answer this question?

Nice and concise
Just the way I like it

1. If the baker is normally required to attend a wedding service (which they are not), then yes, he does it for gay weddings too

2. Makes no sense. If a photographer is not in the business of filming pornography, nobody is forcing him to
If he is a wedding photographer he has to photograph weddings

1. The work at the actual site can be subcontracted to someone who agrees to be there.
But the people cannot be forced personally to do it, any more than you could force
someone to learn Spanish in order to handle a Spanish speaking customer, if bilingual staff can do that.

2. I answered this above in a separate post. I believe mediation would resolve these matters fairly.

 

[Silhouette]

I repeat:
********

"Reasonable" will be found to be the right to passively refuse to participate in any activity that is considered heretical to one's faith. Christian bakers will not be required to make "gay wedding cakes". Gay billboard designers will not be required to commit heresy against their church by printing a sign that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God". Catholic hospitals who offer OB/GYN will not be required to perform abortions. Their passive refusal in those activities would be allowed.

That's what SCOTUS will find BTW. We might as well just fast-forward to it because that's how the Decision is going to come down.

******

 

[emilynghiem]

And I would probably argue that the government doesn't have a right to force me to make my restaurant smoke free anyway.

Dear Fair&Balanced: this smoke-free thing was finally clarified to me by a parent who explained if their child with asthma was exposed it meant a trip to the hospital. So they needed to be able to go to businesses and restaurants and know that the air would be safe to bring their child.

I understand that smoking is allowed a certain # of feet from the entrance of buildings designated smoke-free,
and there can be smoking areas outside or elsewhere.

I believe the business owners, customers and city govt should work out ordinances
where they serve the purpose without disrupting business or incurring excess costs.

 

[rightwinger]

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

Dear rightwinger
If you read my message I already said there is no legal dispute over this, if there is it is resolved as you state.

The dispute is over
* going to PRIVATE venues OFF SITE and engaging in PRIVATE activities
* violating FREE SPEECH by govt regulations and penalty for not complying

Please answer if this is short enough.
I didn't agree to give up freedom of speech but apparently you believe in regulating it.
Free speech is necessary for DUE PROCESS. why are you so opposed to DUE PROCESS?

OK Emily, mediate for me

You own a beautiful banquet hall overlooking a lake. I am a gay and would like to rent your hall for my wedding. No other facility in town comes close to the beauty and quality you provide.
I go to rent for my wedding and you tell me you won't rent to gay weddings

Mediate

You can use the facilities but we mutually agree on choice of contractors who can provide
the services you want without forcing anyone to attend against their will.

If there are other customers competing for that space at the same time,
it will go to the highest bidder and/or who imposes the least cost.

We would also need to agree on the insurance rates or cost of hiring added security
to make sure there is no damage to the property since the regular people may not be there.

NOTE: if there is any publicity that the place is being used for same sex weddings,
we agree on how this is presented to the public to avoid making unwelcome political statements.

If we cannot agree on the wording and this causes issues,
this conflict is covered in the mediation/arbitration waiver required for all customers to sign
with management: ie if there are any conflicts that arise, these will be resolved by
mediators chosen by the customers, under the agreement to reach a consensus
and to avoid legal actions and costs; otherwise in case of unresolved dispute
the parties either agree to part company and refrain from conducting business,
or agree to arbitration by an arbiter chosen by the company where decisions are final.

My views on free speech and equal protections is that both sides agree in advance on the rules of communication and resolving conflict. If we can't agree to resolve things amicably by consensus,
then that is grounds for refraining from business relations, because my Constitutional beliefs
and standards are based on consent of the governed and resolving conflicts by mediation and consensus.

I will equally include your free speech, right to petition, and exercise of your beliefs within the
context of equal protections; and that means not compromising any of my rights either.

So out of respect for both parties, we either resolve all issues to the satisfaction of both parties,
or agree to conduct business with other people we are compatible with. This helps preserve civil relations.

Nothing is easy with you is it?

A simple transaction. Rent the place and gays get the same terms as everyone else

 

[NYcarbineer]

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

Dear rightwinger
If you read my message I already said there is no legal dispute over this, if there is it is resolved as you state.

The dispute is over
* going to PRIVATE venues OFF SITE and engaging in PRIVATE activities
* violating FREE SPEECH by govt regulations and penalty for not complying

Please answer if this is short enough.
I didn't agree to give up freedom of speech but apparently you believe in regulating it.
Free speech is necessary for DUE PROCESS. why are you so opposed to DUE PROCESS?

OK Emily, mediate for me

You own a beautiful banquet hall overlooking a lake. I am a gay and would like to rent your hall for my wedding. No other facility in town comes close to the beauty and quality you provide.
I go to rent for my wedding and you tell me you won't rent to gay weddings

Mediate

You can use the facilities but we mutually agree on choice of contractors who can provide
the services you want without forcing anyone to attend against their will.

If there are other customers competing for that space at the same time,
it will go to the highest bidder and/or who imposes the least cost.

We would also need to agree on the insurance rates or cost of hiring added security
to make sure there is no damage to the property since the regular people may not be there.

NOTE: if there is any publicity that the place is being used for same sex weddings,
we agree on how this is presented to the public to avoid making unwelcome political statements.

If we cannot agree on the wording and this causes issues,
this conflict is covered in the mediation/arbitration waiver required for all customers to sign
with management: ie if there are any conflicts that arise, these will be resolved by
mediators chosen by the customers, under the agreement to reach a consensus
and to avoid legal actions and costs; otherwise in case of unresolved dispute
the parties either agree to part company and refrain from conducting business,
or agree to arbitration by an arbiter chosen by the company where decisions are final.

My views on free speech and equal protections is that both sides agree in advance on the rules of communication and resolving conflict. If we can't agree to resolve things amicably by consensus,
then that is grounds for refraining from business relations, because my Constitutional beliefs
and standards are based on consent of the governed and resolving conflicts by mediation and consensus.

I will equally include your free speech, right to petition, and exercise of your beliefs within the
context of equal protections; and that means not compromising any of my rights either.

So out of respect for both parties, we either resolve all issues to the satisfaction of both parties,
or agree to conduct business with other people we are compatible with. This helps preserve civil relations.

You're deep in the psychobabble..

 

[rightwinger]

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

No the question wasn't answered.

I don't have a right to set my own labor rate, I don't have a right to build a building any way I want, I don't have a right to have a sloppy kitchen. NONE of those are rights.

So, that leaves us with the right of association. Explain to me how the government has the authority to take away that right?

And further, are you truly too stupid to understand that once you let a government take your rights, they can take any of them that they please?

You confuse the rights of an individual with the rights of a business

An individual can have a sloppy kitchen....a business can't
An individual can decide not to have negroes or gays over for dinner....a business can't

rightwinger what about
1. asking a baker to go attend a gay wedding service they don't believe in supporting.
This is at a private venue, not on site at their business.

2. forcing a photographer to go to a private party
and film pornography and people having sex outside of marriage
which is against their beliefs.

Can you even answer this question?

Nice and concise
Just the way I like it

1. If the baker is normally required to attend a wedding service (which they are not), then yes, he does it for gay weddings too

2. Makes no sense. If a photographer is not in the business of filming pornography, nobody is forcing him to
If he is a wedding photographer he has to photograph weddings

1. The work at the actual site can be subcontracted to someone who agrees to be there.
But the people cannot be forced personally to do it, any more than you could force
someone to learn Spanish in order to handle a Spanish speaking customer, if bilingual staff can do that.

2. I answered this above in a separate post. I believe mediation would resolve these matters fairly.

1. Any baker is free to subcontract anything any time

2. You want to arbitrate a porn shoot?

 

[emilynghiem]

I repeat:
********

"Reasonable" will be found to be the right to passively refuse to participate in any activity that is considered heretical to one's faith. Christian bakers will not be required to make "gay wedding cakes". Gay billboard designers will not be required to commit heresy against their church by printing a sign that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God". Catholic hospitals who offer OB/GYN will not be required to perform abortions. Their passive refusal in those activities would be allowed.

That's what SCOTUS will find BTW. We might as well just fast-forward to it because that's how the Decision is going to come down.

******

Dear Silhouette: Given the track record of this administration, I believe it will take suing case by case to set a precedent. I don't think judges think that far ahead, but only decide on what's in front of them. The detail and depth you are talking about requires LEGISLATION to be written, not a simple ruling by Courts; it is not their job to legislate, especially to the extent you are saying this is going to require. Clearly a job for either legislation or people resolving this among ourselves first.

If the Catholics don't want something, they will have to sue and win like Hobby Lobby.
If the Muslims or Constitutionalists want to defend something, they will have to sue and win.

Otherwise, for sure, people would argue the Courts are establishing religion if they create
a policy that interprets regulations on all religions generally.

This issue does not belong in courts for this reason.

It should be resolved case by case with each person and their beliefs individually.
Govt and especially Courts should not be abused this way
to try to make decisions on matters of beliefs.

I believe what the Court should do is reject any and all rulings and laws
touching on LGBT issues, and require BOTH sides in ALL cases of dispute
to resolve their OWN issues individually to protect the interests, consent and beliefs of the
individuals affected per case. The precedent that should be set is mediation and consensus
or the parties should not conduct business together. All other details should remain private chioce of the people directly affected, and not force a precedent that anyone else would have to follow except by choice.

 

[emilynghiem]

No the question wasn't answered.

I don't have a right to set my own labor rate, I don't have a right to build a building any way I want, I don't have a right to have a sloppy kitchen. NONE of those are rights.

So, that leaves us with the right of association. Explain to me how the government has the authority to take away that right?

And further, are you truly too stupid to understand that once you let a government take your rights, they can take any of them that they please?

You confuse the rights of an individual with the rights of a business

An individual can have a sloppy kitchen....a business can't
An individual can decide not to have negroes or gays over for dinner....a business can't

rightwinger what about
1. asking a baker to go attend a gay wedding service they don't believe in supporting.
This is at a private venue, not on site at their business.

2. forcing a photographer to go to a private party
and film pornography and people having sex outside of marriage
which is against their beliefs.

Can you even answer this question?

Nice and concise
Just the way I like it

1. If the baker is normally required to attend a wedding service (which they are not), then yes, he does it for gay weddings too

2. Makes no sense. If a photographer is not in the business of filming pornography, nobody is forcing him to
If he is a wedding photographer he has to photograph weddings

1. The work at the actual site can be subcontracted to someone who agrees to be there.
But the people cannot be forced personally to do it, any more than you could force
someone to learn Spanish in order to handle a Spanish speaking customer, if bilingual staff can do that.

2. I answered this above in a separate post. I believe mediation would resolve these matters fairly.

1. Any baker is free to subcontract anything any time

2. You want to arbitrate a porn shoot?

1. OK we agree to subcontracting to resolve the issue

2a. we didn't discuss porn, which you said would already be ruled out if that's not what they did

I was talking about 2b on the photography of weddings and resolving that by mediation.

2a. For porn, the photographer can either say no or can accept.
If they accept, yes, I would still recommend the customers and contractors
sign mediation waivers before they work on a creative project, especially involving numerous people.
I would recommend this for any media project, because of the subjective decisions involved
and the chances of people disagreeing on them.

NOTE: even if they shoot porn, I totally believe in the right to refuse business.
I would not force anyone to either have sex or film sex unless it's consensual.
Or that becomes abusive quick. I would totally recommend mediation for that.
I am especially concerned that with sex, people often consent to things but then
change their minds and want out. That should be respected to prevent abuse
and harassment. So I would recommend all participants in any media project,
especially if sex or other sensitive issues are involved, to agree to mediation
to resolve any disputes that arise, or agree to change the contract or cancel it.
Way too sensitive. Too many people agree to things that aren't fully consensual.
I'd be super super careful about that. People agree to have other people own
their images and then regret it later; I believe there should be a way to cover and correct that, but it's difficult with the internet, so most of these conflicts should be troubleshot in advance.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear rightwinger
YES, the govt is imposing on these people's religious beliefs.
And yes, they do contest it.

I agree with Rand Paul and other Libertarians who are the most vocal on this point:
to keep marriage out of govt and govt out of marriage.

Keep it private period, and we won't have these problems.

Why[/QUOTE]

Dear pwjohn the same way Christian denominations have their own rules on
Baptisms and Communions, if people separate their policies by party the way
other people organize by denomination, then they can keep their fights within their own groups or split
off if they don't agree.

We need the same freedom with differences in beliefs over marriage.

Just keep the neutral domestic contracts and civil unions through govt.
But any social programs or issues of benefits can be separated
according to people's beliefs. So prochoice invest in their own programs
separately from prolife and quit trying to impose one policy for all people.

Whatever is passed as law on the public level ought to be GENERIC and NEUTRAL.
Without any biased wording that raises objection by people and groups who don't believe in that
and don't want govt endorsing that.

If you look at the Second Amendment, that's a historic example.
The way it is worded, one side interprets it their way and gets what they want out of it.
The other side interprets it their way and lives by that.

But if they try to change the wording to favor their side, the other side objects!
So leave it alone, keep it as is, and give people the freedom to exercise their own beliefs.
You can teach it as you believe, but can't impose that on other people who interpret it otherwise.

So with marriage laws, keep it neutral. And people can apply it as they want.
Don't attach financial or social benefits to it, or if this is impossible to detach,
then allow a separation of tax and benefits policies organized by separate branches or parties
so both sides can fund the policies they believe in without being in conflict with any other beliefs.

If that cannot be done, then remove it all together, and let states or parties work out
their own ways of dealing with benefits and marriage if people cannot agree on a collective national level.

Either way, the Govt neither endorses nor denies the free exercise of people's beliefs
in either traditional marriage only or in same sex marriage, but leaves it to the individuals.
Or the states if they can work out an agreed policy, which I recommend separating by party
so there can be collective management for taxes and benefits, but it's organized by compatible beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

And yet, ONLY public accommodation laws violate the rights of a business owner.

You've yet to explain that.

Hardly

You open for business, you follow the law
If the owner is a smoker he can't do it at the place of business....even if it is his business
If the owner hates fags, he still has to open his business to them

Bullshit, if person owns a business, he can smoke all the cigarettes he wants in his business. Just not in the food prep or dining area (assuming the food industry)

So now we have another example of where your rights as an individual are not the same as your rights as a business owner
You are free to smoke in your home....not free to smoke in a public business
See how it works?

Business is not treated the same as an individual

Okay rightwinger so this goes both ways

Individuals have the right to put their LGBT beliefs about orientation and transgender identity
above someone else's beliefs that these are behavioral choices and not genetic like race.

Why are you saying Govt has the right to endorse the LGBT beliefs that are faith based and to penalize people for not changing or complying with these beliefs? When neither side is proven by science.

I disagree

I don't think they are putting their LGBT orientation above someone else's religious beliefs

They are merely testing who they are and expecting equal treatment under our laws

rightwinger OK and I agree that if they get their way this opens the door for
* right to life believers to sue to impose their beliefs and infringe on anyone else affected
In order not to discriminate against women by only banning abortion, instead sex will be
banned and considered rape if there is unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children
or unwanted abortion: those will all be grounds for rape charges against the man,
because of the beliefs of a few people
* right to spiritual healing to cut prison and health care costs to be imposed on everyone
(because otherwise it is costing taxpayers more money when people aren't cured of cancer,
drug addiction, mental illness, and especially schizophrenia and criminal illness.)
In order not to discriminate or target any one group. ALL people would be required to
undergo spiritual healing because this is the belief of "some people" who are inconvenienced by being forced to pay taxes into prisons and mental hospitals in a revolving door system that isn't curing the problems.
* right to impose beliefs on no sex outside of marriage or without signed consent forms
because this is also costing taxpayer money on rape cases that can't be proven if they were consensual or not
and other problems that taxpayers don't want to keep paying for

 

[AsherN]

You do realize Chik-fil-et is closed on Sunday due to their religious belief, right? And no matter how loudly an aethist screams they are being discriminated against by the owners by refusing to open up and feed him on a Sunday, NO ONE is going to force them to go against their faith by forcing them to open on Sunday.

Correct. And a lot of Jewish businesses close on Saturday. They are absolutely free to do so. But when they are open, they can't discriminate against people they don't feel like serving.

 

[initforme]

What if your religion does not allow you to work? Now what?

 

[jasonnfree]

So if you call her a "hillbilly" it's OK to violate her 1st Amendment civil rights?

Sorry I can't process your building permit. You living in sin with your girlfriend violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your divorce papers. That violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your marriage license b/c marrying outside your faith violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your food service license. Being open on Sunday violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your driver's license. Women driving is a violation of my religious beliefs.

What other goverment services should denied as result of one's faith?

Sorry. Goverment agents don't get to decide what services apply to other citizens based on their religious beliefs.

You're talking about civil service workers being paid by the taxpayers. A private entity is a different situation.

 

[mdk]

So if you call her a "hillbilly" it's OK to violate her 1st Amendment civil rights?

Sorry I can't process your building permit. You living in sin with your girlfriend violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your divorce papers. That violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your marriage license b/c marrying outside your faith violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your food service license. Being open on Sunday violates my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your driver's license. Women driving is a violation of my religious beliefs.

What other goverment services should denied as result of one's faith?

Sorry. Goverment agents don't get to decide what services apply to other citizens based on their religious beliefs.

You're talking about civil service workers being paid by the taxpayers. A private entity is a different situation.

Exactly. Sil is referencing Kim Davis. A don't care at all if a business tells someone to piss off for whatever reason; however, civil servants have to do their job regardless of their personal or religious feelings.

 

[rightwinger]

Hardly

You open for business, you follow the law
If the owner is a smoker he can't do it at the place of business....even if it is his business
If the owner hates fags, he still has to open his business to them

Bullshit, if person owns a business, he can smoke all the cigarettes he wants in his business. Just not in the food prep or dining area (assuming the food industry)

So now we have another example of where your rights as an individual are not the same as your rights as a business owner
You are free to smoke in your home....not free to smoke in a public business
See how it works?

Business is not treated the same as an individual

Okay rightwinger so this goes both ways

Individuals have the right to put their LGBT beliefs about orientation and transgender identity
above someone else's beliefs that these are behavioral choices and not genetic like race.

Why are you saying Govt has the right to endorse the LGBT beliefs that are faith based and to penalize people for not changing or complying with these beliefs? When neither side is proven by science.

I disagree

I don't think they are putting their LGBT orientation above someone else's religious beliefs

They are merely testing who they are and expecting equal treatment under our laws

rightwinger OK and I agree that if they get their way this opens the door for
* right to life believers to sue to impose their beliefs and infringe on anyone else affected
In order not to discriminate against women by only banning abortion, instead sex will be
banned and considered rape if there is unwanted sex, unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children
or unwanted abortion: those will all be grounds for rape charges against the man,
because of the beliefs of a few people
* right to spiritual healing to cut prison and health care costs to be imposed on everyone
(because otherwise it is costing taxpayers more money when people aren't cured of cancer,
drug addiction, mental illness, and especially schizophrenia and criminal illness.)
In order not to discriminate or target any one group. ALL people would be required to
undergo spiritual healing because this is the belief of "some people" who are inconvenienced by being forced to pay taxes into prisons and mental hospitals in a revolving door system that isn't curing the problems.
* right to impose beliefs on no sex outside of marriage or without signed consent forms
because this is also costing taxpayer money on rape cases that can't be proven if they were consensual or not
and other problems that taxpayers don't want to keep paying for

Have you ever heard of Slippery Slope Disorder?

You seem to have a bad case of it

 

[Silhouette]

You seem to have a bad case of denying the reality of legal precedent.