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

[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....

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?

Was there a law on the books prohibiting the sale of gay cakes?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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?

Was there a law on the books prohibiting the sale of gay cakes?

What do gay cakes have to do with what I fucking wrote?


The claim was that PA laws have been law for 50 years so they must be right. I merely pointed out that slavery was legal for 100 years in this country, that damn sure doesn't make it right.

 

[couch protester]

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.

Gay dating sites refuse service to accommodate straight couples.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

Gay dating sites refuse service to accommodate straight couples.

They get around that by calling themselves private groups LOL so stupid. Literally ANY business could call themselves a private group and do so.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

Was there a law on the books prohibiting the sale of gay cakes?

What do gay cakes have to do with what I fucking wrote?


The claim was that PA laws have been law for 50 years so they must be right. I merely pointed out that slavery was legal for 100 years in this country, that damn sure doesn't make it right.

I responded to the wrong person.. my bad.... Mozilla cutoff part of my page, I thought you were syriously.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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?

Was there a law on the books prohibiting the sale of gay cakes?

What do gay cakes have to do with what I fucking wrote?


The claim was that PA laws have been law for 50 years so they must be right. I merely pointed out that slavery was legal for 100 years in this country, that damn sure doesn't make it right.

I responded to the wrong person.. my bad.... Mozilla cutoff part of my page, I thought you were syriously.

Oh, man I was confused LOL I was like wtf is he talking about?

 

[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.

Dear Syriusly
buying and selling is one thing

These cases coming up involve actual forced participation and speech.
That's going a bit further.

In one case, the baker had no problem baking the cake. But delivering it as part of their service involved attending the gay wedding, and that's what they asked to refrain from. That's private and outside the public storefront.

It goes both ways: I read of a case of a business office supply outlet that declined to
print political materials, I think it was for a prolife prayer regarding abortion.

Some printers may want to print anything they are paid to do.

But if people can refuse to print porn, or what if they don't want to print
political literature calling for Black or Zionist power to bring down opposing regimes,
Can't they have the freedom to decide what counts as "not family friendly" language or
material, or whatever is their criteria?

Are you going to make a print shop run by Jehovah's Witnesses
publish materials that say things about the Bible they don't believe in?

If someone doesn't believe in Global Warming, can they go to
a business owners who sells literature promoting climate change and global warming
and make them print literature that debunks those beliefs and preaching they
are all false for political points, because that's the belief of the Customer?

If an atheist refuses a contract to print T shirts or signs saying
all Atheists are going to hell, don't they have that right anymore?

Someone brought up the issue of a business selling bacon.
Can a Muslim sue them for not hiring them because they would have
to change their business to accommodate them?

 

[IsaacNewton]

"I'm a doctor who's Christian, and I don't believe I should have to render healing services to anyone who calls themself a witch. It is against my religion."

Derps, render unto Caesar. I'm pretty sure Jesus himself said that. And I know, kristians in America don't actually read, listen to or follow Jesus, but you at least have to make some fake gesture that you do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I completely disagree. The Constitution protects my religious freedom. If you are a LGBT and want some artwork done, your desire for that artwork does not supersede my religious freedom. I do not impose my religious beliefs on you, and you do not try to force me to do something that violates my religious beliefs.

"I reserve the right to NOT provide a service." This actually was once an acceptable sign / practice for businesses, but Liberals seek to impose their will on others, IMO. It isn't just about getting LGBT 'accepted' as a norm, but they are also trying to FORCE others to 'participate in/support it', even if it is against their religious beliefs that are protected UN-CONDITIONALLY under the Constitution.

There are other artists who would gladly take your business. There are other bakeries that would gladly take your business. But that's not good enough. 'THAT' one refuses to do so, so we MUST FORCE them to do so against their will. While 'I' may not want to support your lifestyle / choices due to 'my' religious beliefs 'I' respect your right to be a LGBT and to have rights, 'you' demonstrate 'you' have no respect for 'my' religious beliefs and Constitutional Rights.

'Evil' (as I define in this saying as someone who wants to impose their will on others) teaches 'tolerance' until they are in a position to oppress, silence, and eliminate any opposition to their beliefs."
- We are seeing that today more and more. This oppression of Constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom, to me, is an example of that.

I also believe you and I may disagree on this issue, and that is ok....

You have freedom of religion, not freedom of business.

 

[dblack]

"I'm a doctor who's Christian, and I don't believe I should have to render healing services to anyone who calls themself a witch. It is against my religion."

And you should have that right.

 

[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

I completely disagree. The Constitution protects my religious freedom. If you are a LGBT and want some artwork done, your desire for that artwork does not supersede my religious freedom. I do not impose my religious beliefs on you, and you do not try to force me to do something that violates my religious beliefs.

"I reserve the right to NOT provide a service." This actually was once an acceptable sign / practice for businesses, but Liberals seek to impose their will on others, IMO. It isn't just about getting LGBT 'accepted' as a norm, but they are also trying to FORCE others to 'participate in/support it', even if it is against their religious beliefs that are protected UN-CONDITIONALLY under the Constitution.

There are other artists who would gladly take your business. There are other bakeries that would gladly take your business. But that's not good enough. 'THAT' one refuses to do so, so we MUST FORCE them to do so against their will. While 'I' may not want to support your lifestyle / choices due to 'my' religious beliefs 'I' respect your right to be a LGBT and to have rights, 'you' demonstrate 'you' have no respect for 'my' religious beliefs and Constitutional Rights.

'Evil' (as I define in this saying as someone who wants to impose their will on others) teaches 'tolerance' until they are in a position to oppress, silence, and eliminate any opposition to their beliefs."
- We are seeing that today more and more. This oppression of Constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom, to me, is an example of that.

I also believe you and I may disagree on this issue, and that is ok....

You have freedom of religion, not freedom of business.

That's the crux of the problem, the notion that the freedom to conduct business isn't every bit as important as the freedom to practice religion.

 

[emilynghiem]

"I'm a doctor who's Christian, and I don't believe I should have to render healing services to anyone who calls themself a witch. It is against my religion."

Derps, render unto Caesar. I'm pretty sure Jesus himself said that. And I know, kristians in America don't actually read, listen to or follow Jesus, but you at least have to make some fake gesture that you do.

Hi IsaacNewton now HERE's a case that CAN likely be proven scientifically with the right technology.
It is argued that witchcraft/occult and DARK energy CLASHES with the positive spiritual healing energy.
And that this causes hazards to the people involved, similar to mixing AC with DC power that short circuits.

YES if people who are atheist and wicca can refuse to mix with Christians,
to avoid personal conflicts, they have that right due to irreconcileable beliefs that otherwise disrupt the peace.

Just like you have the right to divorce if you and your Scientology spouse can't agree how to raise the kids.

Beliefs are protected for individuals and cannot be mandated or penalized by govt.
If you are somehow abusing your beliefs to violate the rights of others, it is the violation not the belief that is illegal.

And likewise, neither can a correction or law be enforced that goes too far the other way,
and violates the beliefs of the other side either.

You can't impose punishment or correction that is so biased it violates rights and the same law being enforced.

In this case, the laws against discrimination also include CREED.
So by treating both sides equally as CREEDS, the laws and enforcement
must accommodate both sides in proposing a correction or solution.

A solution isn't one if it creates the equal and opposite problem, as with these cases going too far!

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
buying and selling is one thing

These cases coming up involve actual forced participation and speech.
That's going a bit further.

In one case, the baker had no problem baking the cake. But delivering it as part of their service involved attending the gay wedding, and that's what they asked to refrain from. That's private and outside the public storefront.

If you deliver to weddings you deliver to weddings. That's a part of your business. If you refuse to deliver to same sex weddings, that's discrimination.

Goddam that is so simple and easy to understand it's depressing to think that some people can't get it.

 

[rightwinger]

If Jesus tells you not to provide a service to a wedding, then you should put your religion above your business and choose another line of work

 

[dblack]

If you deliver to weddings you deliver to weddings. That's a part of your business. If you refuse to deliver to same sex weddings, that's discrimination.

And if you deliver to non-gay weddings?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I completely disagree. The Constitution protects my religious freedom. If you are a LGBT and want some artwork done, your desire for that artwork does not supersede my religious freedom. I do not impose my religious beliefs on you, and you do not try to force me to do something that violates my religious beliefs.

"I reserve the right to NOT provide a service." This actually was once an acceptable sign / practice for businesses, but Liberals seek to impose their will on others, IMO. It isn't just about getting LGBT 'accepted' as a norm, but they are also trying to FORCE others to 'participate in/support it', even if it is against their religious beliefs that are protected UN-CONDITIONALLY under the Constitution.

There are other artists who would gladly take your business. There are other bakeries that would gladly take your business. But that's not good enough. 'THAT' one refuses to do so, so we MUST FORCE them to do so against their will. While 'I' may not want to support your lifestyle / choices due to 'my' religious beliefs 'I' respect your right to be a LGBT and to have rights, 'you' demonstrate 'you' have no respect for 'my' religious beliefs and Constitutional Rights.

'Evil' (as I define in this saying as someone who wants to impose their will on others) teaches 'tolerance' until they are in a position to oppress, silence, and eliminate any opposition to their beliefs."
- We are seeing that today more and more. This oppression of Constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom, to me, is an example of that.

I also believe you and I may disagree on this issue, and that is ok....

You have freedom of religion, not freedom of business.

That's the crux of the problem, the notion that the freedom to conduct business isn't every bit as important as the freedom to practice religion.

If religion were a free ticket to discrimination, every bigot in the country would declare his particular desires to discriminate as religious beliefs.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

I completely disagree. The Constitution protects my religious freedom. If you are a LGBT and want some artwork done, your desire for that artwork does not supersede my religious freedom. I do not impose my religious beliefs on you, and you do not try to force me to do something that violates my religious beliefs.

"I reserve the right to NOT provide a service." This actually was once an acceptable sign / practice for businesses, but Liberals seek to impose their will on others, IMO. It isn't just about getting LGBT 'accepted' as a norm, but they are also trying to FORCE others to 'participate in/support it', even if it is against their religious beliefs that are protected UN-CONDITIONALLY under the Constitution.

There are other artists who would gladly take your business. There are other bakeries that would gladly take your business. But that's not good enough. 'THAT' one refuses to do so, so we MUST FORCE them to do so against their will. While 'I' may not want to support your lifestyle / choices due to 'my' religious beliefs 'I' respect your right to be a LGBT and to have rights, 'you' demonstrate 'you' have no respect for 'my' religious beliefs and Constitutional Rights.

'Evil' (as I define in this saying as someone who wants to impose their will on others) teaches 'tolerance' until they are in a position to oppress, silence, and eliminate any opposition to their beliefs."
- We are seeing that today more and more. This oppression of Constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom, to me, is an example of that.

I also believe you and I may disagree on this issue, and that is ok....

You have freedom of religion, not freedom of business.

That's the crux of the problem, the notion that the freedom to conduct business isn't every bit as important as the freedom to practice religion.

I thought the issue was favoring one creed over the other.

When it is a Muslim business, then such people are respected and not messed with.

It's just the Christian businesses that irk people because they are associated with
Christians who have been visibly and vocally opposed to homosexuality in public.
So this is social justice and retribution by punishing them for their beliefs.
Somehow they deserve it because of their bigotry. And LGBT liberals don't have large churches
to preach this on the same scale of the rightwing who use pulpits and talk radio,
so they use Party, liberal media, and Govt to express their collective beliefs.

They are USING Govt as their church, while at the same time preaching
for separation of church and state (that only applies to organized religious beliefs but not their political beliefs preached through parties that collect millions in tithes, I mean donations, to wage media campaigns do this).

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Jesus tells you not to provide a service to a wedding, then you should put your religion above your business and choose another line of work

Caving in to religion on these sorts of matters would turn every individual into his own personal government. Every law he objected to he could circumvent by claiming that to obey the law was against his religion.

 

[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

I completely disagree. The Constitution protects my religious freedom. If you are a LGBT and want some artwork done, your desire for that artwork does not supersede my religious freedom. I do not impose my religious beliefs on you, and you do not try to force me to do something that violates my religious beliefs.

"I reserve the right to NOT provide a service." This actually was once an acceptable sign / practice for businesses, but Liberals seek to impose their will on others, IMO. It isn't just about getting LGBT 'accepted' as a norm, but they are also trying to FORCE others to 'participate in/support it', even if it is against their religious beliefs that are protected UN-CONDITIONALLY under the Constitution.

There are other artists who would gladly take your business. There are other bakeries that would gladly take your business. But that's not good enough. 'THAT' one refuses to do so, so we MUST FORCE them to do so against their will. While 'I' may not want to support your lifestyle / choices due to 'my' religious beliefs 'I' respect your right to be a LGBT and to have rights, 'you' demonstrate 'you' have no respect for 'my' religious beliefs and Constitutional Rights.

'Evil' (as I define in this saying as someone who wants to impose their will on others) teaches 'tolerance' until they are in a position to oppress, silence, and eliminate any opposition to their beliefs."
- We are seeing that today more and more. This oppression of Constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom, to me, is an example of that.

I also believe you and I may disagree on this issue, and that is ok....

You have freedom of religion, not freedom of business.

That's the crux of the problem, the notion that the freedom to conduct business isn't every bit as important as the freedom to practice religion.

If religion were a free ticket to discrimination, every bigot in the country would declare his particular desires to discriminate as religious beliefs.

Religion isn't a free ticket to anything. It has nothing to do with the issue. Freedom of conscience is far more fundamental.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I completely disagree. The Constitution protects my religious freedom. If you are a LGBT and want some artwork done, your desire for that artwork does not supersede my religious freedom. I do not impose my religious beliefs on you, and you do not try to force me to do something that violates my religious beliefs.

"I reserve the right to NOT provide a service." This actually was once an acceptable sign / practice for businesses, but Liberals seek to impose their will on others, IMO. It isn't just about getting LGBT 'accepted' as a norm, but they are also trying to FORCE others to 'participate in/support it', even if it is against their religious beliefs that are protected UN-CONDITIONALLY under the Constitution.

There are other artists who would gladly take your business. There are other bakeries that would gladly take your business. But that's not good enough. 'THAT' one refuses to do so, so we MUST FORCE them to do so against their will. While 'I' may not want to support your lifestyle / choices due to 'my' religious beliefs 'I' respect your right to be a LGBT and to have rights, 'you' demonstrate 'you' have no respect for 'my' religious beliefs and Constitutional Rights.

'Evil' (as I define in this saying as someone who wants to impose their will on others) teaches 'tolerance' until they are in a position to oppress, silence, and eliminate any opposition to their beliefs."
- We are seeing that today more and more. This oppression of Constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom, to me, is an example of that.

I also believe you and I may disagree on this issue, and that is ok....

You have freedom of religion, not freedom of business.

That's the crux of the problem, the notion that the freedom to conduct business isn't every bit as important as the freedom to practice religion.

If religion were a free ticket to discrimination, every bigot in the country would declare his particular desires to discriminate as religious beliefs.

Religion isn't a free ticket to anything. It has nothing to do with the issue. Freedom of conscience is far more fundamental.

If you claim that your religion entitles you to disobey a law without penalty, that's claiming a free ticket.