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

[emilynghiem]

Sorry Emily

Like I have told you before, your posts are too damned long. Cut it down to three sentences and I will answer

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers and why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that much,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly:
"Can you prove life does not begin at conception? If not I have the right to my beliefs."
Never mind that bans would affect women more than men and violate due process.
The problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections, not just "yes or no can you prove life doesn't begin at conception"

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Resolve the conflicts first, then people who CAN accommodate others can write fair laws.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else" if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Dear rightwinger I'm sorry you don't take my solutions seriously
or even bother to read them.

I will bet you 10 million dollars that the points I make and the process
I offer for mediation can solve these issues by treating both sides equally
as beliefs and creeds that should be included in forming a consensus.

10 million. Do you want to make the bet.
I raise 5 for people who care to resolve these conflicts IN DEPTH
and you raise 5 online for people who agree to laugh and refuse to take any of this seriously.

And if the people who support mediation and consensus on managing diverse beliefs
solve the problem that team wins. Or if the people like you who won't listen and
think you know better can solve this problem, they you win.

The winner gets all 10 million to donate to whatever causes they want.

Do you want to make a bet that treating all people equally
as having creeds and beliefs protected from discrimination
allows for mediation to solve the conflicts I spelled out in A and B.
rightwinger

I have a better solution......follow the law

You can't "mediate" every possible conflict

10 millions says we need to offer assistance and access
to mediation in order to FOLLOW THE LAW rightwinger

The law states as follows:
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.

People are guaranteed DUE PROCESS, which depends on
freedom of speech, and of the press, the right to petition to redress grievances,
and free exercise of religion (all proclaimed in the First Amendment but based on natural laws).

And?

Those who are accused of violating public accommodations laws are afforded due process and equal protection of the law.

They have the right to a hearing and the right to appeal the decision to an administrative law judge.

And public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ freedom of religions expression:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.” ibid

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
It depends how these accommodation laws are enforced:
Example
1. if someone refuses to sell or serve someone ON SITE
that's different from being SUED for not attending a gay wedding at a private site
2. if someone believes homosexuality is a choice of behavior, which is neither proven nor unproven
but faith based, vs someone who believes it is natural and not a choice which is also faith based,
then if these two people are in a conflict
why would it be fair for the govt to endorse the beliefs of one side over the other
when both are faith based

The argument I keep hearing is that people believe homosexual and transgender identity
is either fully or partially a choice of behavior and thus not fully protected from discrimination
as race or birth gender which are proven to be genetically determined.

People do not agree but have conflicting BELIEFS that aren't proven or disproven by science.

3. if people who believe it is not a choice have the right to refuse to believe or to include cases
where people changed from homosexual orientation to heterosexual, why don't people who believe it is a behavior
have the right to refuse to believe or include people who believe they were born that way.

I agree we cannot discriminate against either side for their beliefs.
so why is govt being abused to endorse one side and penalize the other for not changing their beliefs?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Have you ever heard of Slippery Slope Disorder?

You seem to have a bad case of it

LGBT Strategy: Use slippery slope by incremental shoehorning. All the while deny slippery slope exists. Ridicule anyone who brings up "the slippery slope" until they stop talking about it. Continue riding slippery slope to legal victory after legal victory.

There is no LGBT ‘strategy’ – save that of defending their rights and protected liberties from the likes of you and other ignorant, hateful bigots.

Indeed, gay Americans have been reluctantly and unwillingly forced into protecting their rights through the judicial process solely as a result of your unwarranted and un-Constitutional attacks.

If you’re tired of ‘hearing about’ gay and transgender Americans, simply stop attempting to disadvantage them through force of law, you won’t ever have to ‘hear about’ them again.

 

[emilynghiem]

If it is Christianity: Of course, anything goes.

If it's Islam: Yes, but only if it relates to following the commandments of Allah. Government should fully sponsor the religion of peace.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong; an example of the hate and bigotry common to most on the right.

All religions are treated equally with regard to First Amendment jurisprudence: all religions are equally prohibited from un-Constitutional government involvement by the Establishment Clause, all religions are equally protected unwarranted government interference by the Free Exercise Clause.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones Then explain
why are the beliefs that transgender people should be identified by personal choice
protected and endorsed by govt
while the beliefs that transgender people should be identified by genetics at birth
are excluded and criticized as discrimination while the other is not
but when it comes to abortion
why are the beliefs that human will and rights should be defined starting at birth
endorsed and protected by govt
while the beliefs that life should be recognized beyond birth starting at conception
are excluded because these are faith based and not the business of govt to endorse
(but so are beliefs about transgender and homosexual orientation equally faith based and not proven)

why are these treated differently
if not by political bias in beliefs?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I agree we cannot discriminate against either side for their beliefs.
so why is govt being abused to endorse one side and penalize the other for not changing their beliefs?"

Government isn’t “being abused to endorse one side and penalize the other for not changing their beliefs,” the notion is meaningless, ridiculous nonsense which doesn’t warrant a response.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

The public sector is subject to Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the private sector is subject to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, where government has the authority to regulate private business.

And one such regulatory measure that is necessary, proper, and Constitutional is public accommodations law, some of which have provisions prohibiting businesses open to the general public from refusing to accommodate gay patrons.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

The government can indeed force them if that's the law.

But, it only gets that far if a person CHOOSES to file a public accommodations complaint. They could also choose to go somewhere else.

The Regressive Left wants to make this a legal issue, when it is really a cultural issue.
.

 

[mdk]

I am fine with religious freedoms so long as they are not used to deny citizens services that goverment provide. Don't get it twisted, Silhouette only cares about religious freedoms if they are used to harm gay people. Period. The moment they can't be used to do so she doesn't care. She is a lame one trick pony.

Wrong. I also think it would be wrong to force a gay billboard designer to violate his faith in the Church of LGBT by requiring he print a sign that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". I also think it would be wrong to force a black baker to bake a cake with hooded KKK figures saying "The Klan is the Best!".

But keep lying. It's what you do best.

I didn't realize you were fine with civil servants denying marriages to other people based on their religious beliefs. What happen to your whole behaviors are not protected schtick? Have you had a change of heart since yesterday? You may have Emily fooled, but your not fooling me one bit. Your whole agenda here is to roll back gay rights and punish gays as much as possible.

Spare me your haughty whines about the truth when all you do is lie about gay people and their families. Dylan Roof, Chris Mecer, The Prince's Trust...

You're a phony.

 

[emilynghiem]

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 nobody can prove or disprove
that sexual orientation isn't also a behavior as is polygamy.

To be fair, by treating these equally as beliefs, we include
all people equally instead of trying to impose one person's belief over anothers.

If you are saying people can discriminate in private, but not businesses and govt.
Then why allow govt to be abused to impose one belief about orientation and identity
above another belief? When NEITHER is proven or disproven by science, but BOTH are FAITH BASED.

Wrong.

Denying same-sex couples access to marriage law is un-Constitutional because same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts, three or more persons are not.

Consequently, prohibiting bigamy is Constitutional; one cannot have his right to due process ‘violated’ by prohibiting him access to a law that doesn’t exist.

Otherwise, the issue has nothing to do with ‘imposing beliefs,’ the notion is ridiculous nonsense completely devoid of merit or worth.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
This sounds similar to a circular argument
like saying the right to life person is not being infringed upon because abortion is already legal?
That is the whole argument, that that person's beliefs are in conflict with that law that they are contesting
on those grounds.

In all the cases you cite, All of them can be argued
as unconstitutional including the ORIGINAL marriage laws where
even traditional marriage had been endorsed by govt.
That is also unconstitutional for the same reasons
marriage laws about same sex, polygamy, etc. are:

All of these involve govt mixed with social and personal matters of marriage
and the beliefs related, which "technically" make them private matters for people to decide
and which "technically" cannot be endorsed by govt without consent of the people affected.

So the argument is that these can all be found to be unconstitutional by religious freedom
and only are valid if people "consent to the laws anyway"
then if people consent they are valid under free exercise of religion
where you can choose to give some of that authority to govt where you consent to this.
Like how most people don't contest God on money, because it's easier to consent than to protest and change that.

However, if people don't consent, then yes in all these cases
people do have the right to change laws such as on marriage.
And it's matter of agreeing what we change the laws to.

The problem with both DOMA and the ruling for same sex marriage
is that people who don't believe in govt endorsing the beliefs of the opposing side
are arguing it is unconstitutional to endorse such laws they don't consent to.
Both sides end up arguing this because by its nature, marriage crosses the
line between private and public and technically should not be up to federal govt to decide.
That is as outside govt as groups suing whether communions or baptisms
should be conducted as open to all people or only members of a group;
this is already protected under religious freedom and should neither be banned nor endorsed by govt
but kept out. same with marriage unless people can agree on a secular policy; otherwise if they
can't it should be kept private and separate.

in the case of abortion laws, people still don't agree what to change the
laws to once the laws against abortion were struck down. so this is still
contested to this day because of religious beliefs that are not equally represented.

Now added to that are marriage laws and health care mandates that
have been contested and people don't agree yet what to change them to.
And added to that, bathroom policies that people don't agree to.

The common factor in these unresolved disputes
is beliefs people have that they don't believe govt can force them to compromise or change.

Marriage laws are technically extra-constitutional
and only laws that people consent to would be equal representation,
otherwise if people don't consent this is argued as unconstitutional since beliefs are involved.

 

[emilynghiem]

There is no LGBT ‘strategy’ – save that of defending their rights and protected liberties from the likes of you and other ignorant, hateful bigots.

^ Hey whoa there C_Clayton_Jones you just proved your own bias and agenda right here ^

You already admit you are doing this to fight against people you call hateful bigots.
That's already an agenda.

If you used the same arguments for LGBT beliefs and defended "Right to Life beliefs" to be pushed in
public schools and govt by these same standards, that would show you are taking a consistent stance.

Are you defending the Christian beliefs in right to life that impose on others who don't share those beliefs?
Or is your "agenda" only to defend LGBT and liberal BELIEFS while attacking beliefs of others equally faith based?

 

[emilynghiem]

I am fine with religious freedoms so long as they are not used to deny citizens services that goverment provide. Don't get it twisted, Silhouette only cares about religious freedoms if they are used to harm gay people. Period. The moment they can't be used to do so she doesn't care. She is a lame one trick pony.

Wrong. I also think it would be wrong to force a gay billboard designer to violate his faith in the Church of LGBT by requiring he print a sign that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". I also think it would be wrong to force a black baker to bake a cake with hooded KKK figures saying "The Klan is the Best!".

But keep lying. It's what you do best.

I didn't realize you were fine with civil servants denying marriages to other people based on their religious beliefs. What happen to your whole behaviors are not protected schtick? Have you had a change of heart since yesterday? You may have Emily fooled, but your not fooling me one bit. Your whole agenda here is to roll back gay rights and punish gays as much as possible.

Spare me your haughty whines about the truth when all you do is lie about gay people and their families. Dylan Roof, Chris Mecer, The Prince's Trust...

You're a phony.

Dear mdk most people are biased and don't have time or energy to fight everyone's battles equally.
What I find is that I am better at helping people enforce the principles consistently for everyone
if I am more consistent.

If you or I am more onesided, we'd bring out the onesided bias in others when we argue.
Both sides polarize more in reaction to each other.

However, if we stick to common principles and defend
the equal rights of both sides to their beliefs, regardless how biased,
we can still work things out.

This is like someone who only plays piano
playing in harmony with someone who only plays trumpet.

If we don't waste time and energy competing to drown each other out,
we can both play our parts and figure out how to harmonize and play in tune
where it works out anyway, differences and all.

But we have to play in tune. If I am in tune others can synchronize
and do the same. if I am off and you are off, then we aren't going to help
each other get in tune that way, but need to synchronize with a common source.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If it is Christianity: Of course, anything goes.

If it's Islam: Yes, but only if it relates to following the commandments of Allah. Government should fully sponsor the religion of peace.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong; an example of the hate and bigotry common to most on the right.

All religions are treated equally with regard to First Amendment jurisprudence: all religions are equally prohibited from un-Constitutional government involvement by the Establishment Clause, all religions are equally protected unwarranted government interference by the Free Exercise Clause.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones Then explain
why are the beliefs that transgender people should be identified by personal choice
protected and endorsed by govt
while the beliefs that transgender people should be identified by genetics at birth
are excluded and criticized as discrimination while the other is not
but when it comes to abortion
why are the beliefs that human will and rights should be defined starting at birth
endorsed and protected by govt
while the beliefs that life should be recognized beyond birth starting at conception
are excluded because these are faith based and not the business of govt to endorse
(but so are beliefs about transgender and homosexual orientation equally faith based and not proven)

why are these treated differently
if not by political bias in beliefs?

There’s something you clearly don’t understand – among many, many other things.

My posts do not reflect my ‘personal opinions,’ nor how I ‘feel’ or what I might ‘believe’ – all of which are subjective and irrelevant.

My posts are merely restatements of settled, accepted, and acknowledged Constitutional case law, fundamental legal jurisprudence that is beyond dispute, as determined by the Supreme Court.

So if you disagree with my posts, or don’t understand the posts or otherwise have issues with what I post, take it up with the Supreme Court justices who decided the cases and created the jurisprudence, not me.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

I have decades of legal precedent behind me. It is you who lacks legal footing

You better get a prescription for sedatives if a GOP candidate wins this year. Because there's a new Court comin' to town brown. And Obergefell is getting a second look. On that you can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on it. Along with all the other judicial activist tripe that got through the lower courts while your boy Obama was cracking the whip.

You made the same moronic claim when the GOP got control of Congress. They were going to impeach Kagan and Ginsberg and pass your child consideration amendment that would ban gay marriage. Will you ever tire of pissing in the wind?

Dear mdk frankly I think all the hot air/wind will stop
when conservatives do what they CLAIM they believe in
and write their own legislative corrections, manage their own reforms they fund with tax
breaks by investing in business models that provide these programs without govt,
and quit relying on govt to make the changes. They say they are for limited govt,
and business/free market is the better model, so where are the businesses creating these jobs?

I just got into it with a conservative Republican friend today.
Told him he sounded like a liberal if he was depending on Trump to get into govt
to change things, instead of people setting up the business plans ourselves and lobbying for support and funding.

Only when I mentioned tax breaks for getting this work done, then he agreed this could work.
But he still believes it still depends on "Trump getting elected"
which I told him is still liberal to depend on govt, and not working out community business plans that don't rely on one person getting elected or another, but all people would support anyway regardless who's in office.

It's sad when a prochoice progressive Democrat like me is telling a conservative
Christian Republican he sounds more like a whiny liberal depending on govt to save the country.

And when I talk with Libertarians and Greens, looks like there are only a few really dedicated,
even willing to cross over party lines to find each other to write implement and pitch solutions.
And hope we can convince the rest to follow plans that can include everyone equally
instead of fighting each other. I propose to pitch a plan to organize districts and parties
around building campuses for providing jobs, training and service programs on a sustainable basis.

I think that will stop a lot of infighting and backbiting by setting up win win situations
where everyone can invest in programs and approaches they believe in, and quit fighting over govt controls.
DIY.

 

[Mac1958]

My posts do not reflect my ‘personal opinions,’ nor how I ‘feel’ or what I might ‘believe’ – all of which are subjective and irrelevant. My posts are merely restatements of settled, accepted, and acknowledged Constitutional case law, fundamental legal jurisprudence that is beyond dispute, as determined by the Supreme Court.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong; an example of the hate and bigotry common to most on the right.

In the same thread. THE SAME THREAD.

This place is a hoot, you can't make this shit up.
.

 

[Centinel]

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 state can force you to do anything they want. If they want, they can force you into an oven. The state is institutionalized violence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

More ignorance, stupidity, and lies from the right.

Liberals are not ‘fascists’ – fascism manifests on the right side of the political spectrum.

This also fails as a hasty generalization fallacy: those protesting at Trump rallies are not ‘representative’ of any class or group of persons, including liberals.

Otherwise, rest assured that you have the full and undying support of democrats everywhere that republicans be allowed to carry – and brandish – firearms during the GOP convention, on television, for all of America to see; nothing pleases democrats more than Americans exercising their comprehensive civil rights.

 

[emilynghiem]

SHORT SUMMARY
A. we agree the discrimination against persons is unlawful
B. we don't agree on forcing people into speech or private activities regulated by govt under penalty of law
C. I offer mediation and gave examples of "unintented consequences" that affect private customers
an why we need conflict resolution where some cases blur A and B.

rightwinger I apologize but i MUST take exception to this limitation.
The problem is MORE complex than just A. Issues in B cross the line into PRIVATE beliefs
and activities and customers that Govt cannot be abused to impose regulations and consequences on!

The problems and solutions are MUCH MORE comprehensive
than what I covered as A B and C. If you can't even read that,
then how dare you impose a policy that requires much more than that!

You are like saying it is okay to ban abortion if you can't answer briefly.
the problems and solutions are MORE COMPLEX and deserve a full
answer to ALL objections.

If you can't even allow the freedom of speech necessary to resolve
these conflicts, then no law should be imposed at all.

Sorry rightwinger you don't deserve the freedom of choice to
have the beliefs you want "imposed on everyone else"
if you can't take responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES and GRIEVANCES this causes others!!!

Sorry Emily

Still takes you way too long to make a point
Get it down to three sentences and I will reply

Here's a point.

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

Fair&Balanced
A. No if you demand that nobody else have that right against you
B. Yes if you accept that other people can discriminate against you

Emily, I don't know exactly what your boggle is, but I've been MORE than clear about this. I believe EVERYONE has the right to discriminate and choose whom they want to do business with.

PERIOD

And as is the case with all other rights, the right to discriminate is not ‘absolute,’ it’s subject to reasonable regulation by government – it is not the right to discriminate whenever you want, wherever you want, or against whomever you want.

And one of the reasonable regulations placed on the right to discriminate is in public accommodations, where such regulations are necessary, proper, and Constitutional – as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
1. the problem is when people/govt aren't being consistent
in the case of LGBT argument the issue of orientation/identity remains faith based.

Yet it is being favored by govt which is discriminating against other beliefs.

2. Yes, I am arguing with both your discriminatory views and the decisions coming out of govt
that are making the same mistakes. and Yes I do agree these should be resolved by change on BOTH levels,
and this starts by changing public perception and standards of CONSENT that govt policy is supposed to reflect

C_Clayton_Jones since your beliefs count equally as mine under law
it is just as important to build consensus with you as with anyone in
federal govt or on the Supreme Court. We are all citizens, and matters
of beliefs affect all of us, so you too have equal right to dissent and consent, and that counts equally.

3. Unlike you I don't believe in imposing faith-based beliefs and biases from govt forced onto people.
I find that unconstitutional regardless if I agree or disagree with the creeds or beliefs on either side.
If people Consent to majority rule or court ruling on beliefs, that's fine, but with beliefs, we have
the inalienable right to defend our beliefs from unconstitutional overreaching where we do not consent to compromise.

So in order to resolve these conflicts constitutionally, that is why this involves you me and other citizens.
our opinions are what goes into representation that public policy is supposed to reflect - consent of all people.

4. as for limits on discrimination or not discriminating,
where beliefs and creeds are concerned we'd have to agree on the limits
or else people will keep objecting and petitioning to continue due process until consent/consensus is established.
that is human nature to defend our beliefs until a solution is offered we can agree to.

I'd say 90-98% of conflicts can be resolved by mediating until all objections are resolved.

Once you resolve the root conflicts, the others related tend to follow in succession so it gets easier as you go.

 

[emilynghiem]

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 state can force you to do anything they want. If they want, they can force you into an oven. The state is institutionalized violence.

Dear Centinel where are you coming from, what state?
from a liberal or conservative position or what?
I'm in Houston, Texas where people are pretty independent and diverse, both culturally religiously and politically.

Liberals run amok with city govt while Republicans run the State.
Whichever gang people run with, they use those connections to get stuff done.

If you want to do your own thing, go set up a church nonprofit or business.
As long as you don't mess with the IRS.
Anything with govt not checked by the Constitution, watch out.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not me. I support religious freedoms so long as they can't use their power as a civil servant to deny services to their fellow citizens. You seem to think that every side is willing to agree and are willing to be equal and inclusive. I do. Many don't. That is the rub.

1. These conflicts would come up less if
a. programs and policies that belong to people and states weren't pushed up to the federal level
where all people in all states are affected instead of respecting diversity of beliefs
b. more people mediated conflicts instead of pushing disputes into courts or legislatures to try to bully their way out

2. even if people don't originally intend to defend any other beliefs but their own
the process of conflict resolution naturally involves that.

the Golden Rule of reciprocity is a natural law that applies to everyone.
If we want equal rights representation and consent to be respected for ourselves,
this means respecting the same for others.

Anyone who discriminates and excludes gets treated the same way and loses rights.
If you take the Fifth Amendment you also lose some of your free speech.
If you want due process of law, the best way to enforce that is to uphold it for all people.

 

[emilynghiem]

If it is Christianity: Of course, anything goes.

If it's Islam: Yes, but only if it relates to following the commandments of Allah. Government should fully sponsor the religion of peace.

Dear Norman the problem with religions is when people abuse it to subvert due process of laws
and start issuing decrees, judgments and punishments based on their beliefs
and thus depriving others of liberty who have committed no crimes to deserve punishment, involuntary servitude, or loss of other rights and protections of law.

So how is this so different if a political party takes their political beliefs and integrates them with govt, such as
* the belief that health care is a right, govt should supervise it, and anyone who doesn't comply with regs should be fined
* the belief that same sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage, and/or that homosexual orientation is
"not a choice of behavior" and anyone who believes "homosexuality is a behavior not protected from discrimination"
can face penalties for refusing to comply with biased laws or engage in activities involving homosexual behavior
* beliefs about transgender identity treated unequally, where the beliefs in favor of LGBT policies are endorsed by govt while beliefs against it are penalized and people are harassed and bullied in the very ways even LGBT advocates oppose.

 

[emilynghiem]

Government isn’t “being abused to endorse one side and penalize the other for not changing their beliefs,” the notion is meaningless, ridiculous nonsense which doesn’t warrant a response.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones and IsaacNewton
Again, examples of where govt is abused to endorse one side's beliefs and penalize another
(besides ACA mandates that exempt people who believe in complying with govt mandated insurance and penalize people who don't believe in govt mandates but free market choices)
A. with same sex marriage Kim Davis and other would have to change her beliefs to comply with laws
B. people are getting fined or ordered by courts to deny their own beliefs
in cases where photographers are forced to attend/participate in a gay wedding in order to provide services
C. states are suing over executive orders seeking to withhold federal funds
if the people of that state don't agree to change their bathroom policies to what the LGBT advocates believe in

Are you saying because this doesn't affect you, then nobody is being penalized or forced by govt?