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

[RodISHI]

I'll say it again, Obama's America really seems to be working out well when people have the time to worry about such stupid and irrelevant issues concerning another person's sexuality.

Righties, get the fuck out of everybody's bedroom and pay attention: Trump is destroying your party while you dither over lesbians ordering a wedding cake.

Don't stuff your bedroom in anyone's face and you won't have a problem.

 

[emilynghiem]

How is it not discrimination to tell someone "your religion is not relevant, serve that person?"


That of course can't be answered.

Religion is not business. Business is business.

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.

Religion does effect business practices.

This is about control and power. 'Religious freedom' is a roadblock to what liberals want. They have to control ot and have the power to dictate demands on those whose religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. They must impose their will on them.

Funny how liberals are not doing the same with Muslims...who know would cut their heads off, etc if they tried.

Sadly easyt65 the religious argument is the best way to defend LGBT and transgender expression
as an equal choice, because it wouldn't have to be proven scientifically to be protected by law.

The problem is they'd have to take responsibility for their beliefs, the same way they ask of Christians.
To keep these in private, and if you want to express them in public, it can't be forced on people through govt.
But has to be FREELY CHOSEN and agreed to voluntarily, since it is faith-based.
the First Amendment clause on religious beliefs goes both ways, neither endorsing nor prohibiting by govt.

 

[HenryBHough]

A simple executive order now that there is no limit on what those can address.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

How is it not discrimination to tell someone "your religion is not relevant, serve that person?"


That of course can't be answered.

Religion is not business. Business is business.

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.

Religion does effect business practices.

This is about control and power. 'Religious freedom' is a roadblock to what liberals want. They have to control ot and have the power to dictate demands on those whose religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. They must impose their will on them.

Funny how liberals are not doing the same with Muslims...who know would cut their heads off, etc if they tried.

Sadly easyt65 the religious argument is the best way to defend LGBT and transgender expression
as an equal choice, because it wouldn't have to be proven scientifically to be protected by law.

The problem is they'd have to take responsibility for their beliefs, the same way they ask of Christians.
To keep these in private, and if you want to express them in public, it can't be forced on people through govt.
But has to be FREELY CHOSEN and agreed to voluntarily, since it is faith-based.
the First Amendment clause on religious beliefs goes both ways, neither endorsing nor prohibiting by govt.

Sadly , the retards on the left somehow believe the first amendment protected them FROM religion. This is an example of that. I'm gay and I don't have to put up with a Christian not accepting that"

 

[easyt65]

I'll say it again, Obama's America really seems to be working out well when people have the time to worry about such stupid and irrelevant issues concerning another person's sexuality.

Righties, get the fuck out of everybody's bedroom and pay attention: Trump is destroying your party while you dither over lesbians ordering a wedding cake.

We were and are out of everyone's beddroom. Liberals just can't stay out.

This whole transgender was not even an issue until libs decided they wanted to allow DUDES...and perverts...into the bathrooms and showers of our wives and daughters. Liberals forced a minority-supported agenda, creating a problem, then raced in to resolve THEIR made-up problem with THEIR minority-supported liberal agenda.

No one wanted liberals pushing their agenda, but they couldn't help themselves. So don't blame the vast majority who was minding their own business when Obama made this an issue.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Dear NYcarbineer the LGBT beliefs are also a creed.
That does not give advocates of those beliefs the right to penalize people of other creeds.

CREED is protected from discrimination.
Why can't you treat both equally as creeds, regardless which one you hold?

If you are Muslim, and a Muslim is pushing the anti-pork belief
on a Hindu business that is selling pork but not beef, suing them to substitute beef in an enchilada instead of pork, does this give you the right to violate the beliefs of the Hindu because
you and the other Muslims are pushing a case that favors YOUR beliefs?

Where is the equal protection in that?

I don't have to agree with LGBT, Christians or Muslims to defend rights to their beliefs from infringement discrimination disparagement or penalty by govt.
Do you have to agree with Christians before you will enforce laws defending their beliefs?

No, their beliefs are not creeds, they are sexual orientations, and therefore none of your or anybody else's business.

creed
krēd/
noun

1. 
   
   
   • a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith.

Sexual orientation is not genetically fixed like race.

How someone expresses their inner beliefs and identity is on the same level of
CREED, like how someone expresses their Muslim Christian or Buddhist cultural IDENTITY.

NoTeaPartyPleez NYcarbineer there are many stories out there, cases of people coming out straight gay transgender
poly, etc.

Can you show me one person who started out as one ethnicity or race,
and through spiritual healing or change of lifestyle, became a different race?

Their genetics remains scientifically based on birth parents and what they inherited.
This is so specific, even the bone marrow donation programs target 4 minority groups
to save lives by finding matches that depend on ethnicity race even nationality matching:
African, Latino, Asian and Native American. This is SCIENCE based, down to 10 areas
that have to match in order for the HLA compatibility to prevent rejection between donor and recipient.

The best argument for orientation not being a choice is that
it is SPIRITUALLY determined, not genetic which can be argued as disproven when you look at twin studies.

Nobody can argue if someone BELIEVES SPIRITUALLY
they are male/female homosexual etc. and has a right to that BELIEF.

So that is the best argument I have found to defend someone legally
since BELIEFS are an inherent right and don't require scientific proof.

If you try to use genetics, the studies are opposed showing a slightly higher than 50% correlation
rate of identical twins being the same orientation. If it was genetic, the findings should be 100%.
Since they are higher than 50, this shows that social environment or other factors influence
orientation; SO IT IS MORE LIKE A CHOICE OF RELIGION and not a genetic trait like race!

Religion is not genetically fixed

You are free to choose another one

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

Dear NYcarbineer the LGBT beliefs are also a creed.
That does not give advocates of those beliefs the right to penalize people of other creeds.

CREED is protected from discrimination.
Why can't you treat both equally as creeds, regardless which one you hold?

If you are Muslim, and a Muslim is pushing the anti-pork belief
on a Hindu business that is selling pork but not beef, suing them to substitute beef in an enchilada instead of pork, does this give you the right to violate the beliefs of the Hindu because
you and the other Muslims are pushing a case that favors YOUR beliefs?

Where is the equal protection in that?

I don't have to agree with LGBT, Christians or Muslims to defend rights to their beliefs from infringement discrimination disparagement or penalty by govt.
Do you have to agree with Christians before you will enforce laws defending their beliefs?

No, their beliefs are not creeds, they are sexual orientations, and therefore none of your or anybody else's business.

creed
krēd/
noun

1. 
   
   
   • a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith.

Sexual orientation is not genetically fixed like race.

How someone expresses their inner beliefs and identity is on the same level of
CREED, like how someone expresses their Muslim Christian or Buddhist cultural IDENTITY.

NoTeaPartyPleez NYcarbineer there are many stories out there, cases of people coming out straight gay transgender
poly, etc.

Can you show me one person who started out as one ethnicity or race,
and through spiritual healing or change of lifestyle, became a different race?

Their genetics remains scientifically based on birth parents and what they inherited.
This is so specific, even the bone marrow donation programs target 4 minority groups
to save lives by finding matches that depend on ethnicity race even nationality matching:
African, Latino, Asian and Native American. This is SCIENCE based, down to 10 areas
that have to match in order for the HLA compatibility to prevent rejection between donor and recipient.

The best argument for orientation not being a choice is that
it is SPIRITUALLY determined, not genetic which can be argued as disproven when you look at twin studies.

Nobody can argue if someone BELIEVES SPIRITUALLY
they are male/female homosexual etc. and has a right to that BELIEF.

So that is the best argument I have found to defend someone legally
since BELIEFS are an inherent right and don't require scientific proof.

If you try to use genetics, the studies are opposed showing a slightly higher than 50% correlation
rate of identical twins being the same orientation. If it was genetic, the findings should be 100%.
Since they are higher than 50, this shows that social environment or other factors influence
orientation; SO IT IS MORE LIKE A CHOICE OF RELIGION and not a genetic trait like race!

Religion is not genetically fixed

You are free to choose another one

True, but the government is PROHIBITED from forcing me to do so.

You fucking dolt.

 

[RodISHI]

"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!

I'm a Christian paramedic and when I came on scene the person identified themself as Wiccan. Well it's against my religion so I provided no aid and they died.

And by the way, I'm pro-life.


DERRRRRPPPPPS.

Being a paramedic you obligate yourself to serve the public at large. An artist provides personal services and no I will not provide services for just any ole' one who comes along.

 

[Lilah]

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.

Dear NYcarbineer the LGBT beliefs are also a creed.
That does not give advocates of those beliefs the right to penalize people of other creeds.

CREED is protected from discrimination.
Why can't you treat both equally as creeds, regardless which one you hold?

If you are Muslim, and a Muslim is pushing the anti-pork belief
on a Hindu business that is selling pork but not beef, suing them to substitute beef in an enchilada instead of pork, does this give you the right to violate the beliefs of the Hindu because
you and the other Muslims are pushing a case that favors YOUR beliefs?

Where is the equal protection in that?

I don't have to agree with LGBT, Christians or Muslims to defend rights to their beliefs from infringement discrimination disparagement or penalty by govt.
Do you have to agree with Christians before you will enforce laws defending their beliefs?

No, their beliefs are not creeds, they are sexual orientations, and therefore none of your or anybody else's business.

creed
krēd/
noun

1. 
   
   
   • a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith.

Sexual orientation is not genetically fixed like race.

How someone expresses their inner beliefs and identity is on the same level of
CREED, like how someone expresses their Muslim Christian or Buddhist cultural IDENTITY.

NoTeaPartyPleez NYcarbineer there are many stories out there, cases of people coming out straight gay transgender
poly, etc.

Can you show me one person who started out as one ethnicity or race,
and through spiritual healing or change of lifestyle, became a different race?

Their genetics remains scientifically based on birth parents and what they inherited.
This is so specific, even the bone marrow donation programs target 4 minority groups
to save lives by finding matches that depend on ethnicity race even nationality matching:
African, Latino, Asian and Native American. This is SCIENCE based, down to 10 areas
that have to match in order for the HLA compatibility to prevent rejection between donor and recipient.

The best argument for orientation not being a choice is that
it is SPIRITUALLY determined, not genetic which can be argued as disproven when you look at twin studies.

Nobody can argue if someone BELIEVES SPIRITUALLY
they are male/female homosexual etc. and has a right to that BELIEF.

So that is the best argument I have found to defend someone legally
since BELIEFS are an inherent right and don't require scientific proof.

If you try to use genetics, the studies are opposed showing a slightly higher than 50% correlation
rate of identical twins being the same orientation. If it was genetic, the findings should be 100%.
Since they are higher than 50, this shows that social environment or other factors influence
orientation; SO IT IS MORE LIKE A CHOICE OF RELIGION and not a genetic trait like race!

Rachel Dolezal

 

[easyt65]

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.

Dear NYcarbineer the LGBT beliefs are also a creed.
That does not give advocates of those beliefs the right to penalize people of other creeds.

CREED is protected from discrimination.
Why can't you treat both equally as creeds, regardless which one you hold?

If you are Muslim, and a Muslim is pushing the anti-pork belief
on a Hindu business that is selling pork but not beef, suing them to substitute beef in an enchilada instead of pork, does this give you the right to violate the beliefs of the Hindu because
you and the other Muslims are pushing a case that favors YOUR beliefs?

Where is the equal protection in that?

I don't have to agree with LGBT, Christians or Muslims to defend rights to their beliefs from infringement discrimination disparagement or penalty by govt.
Do you have to agree with Christians before you will enforce laws defending their beliefs?

No, their beliefs are not creeds, they are sexual orientations, and therefore none of your or anybody else's business.

creed
krēd/
noun

1. 
   
   
   • a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith.

Sexual orientation is not genetically fixed like race.

How someone expresses their inner beliefs and identity is on the same level of
CREED, like how someone expresses their Muslim Christian or Buddhist cultural IDENTITY.

NoTeaPartyPleez NYcarbineer there are many stories out there, cases of people coming out straight gay transgender
poly, etc.

Can you show me one person who started out as one ethnicity or race,
and through spiritual healing or change of lifestyle, became a different race?

Their genetics remains scientifically based on birth parents and what they inherited.
This is so specific, even the bone marrow donation programs target 4 minority groups
to save lives by finding matches that depend on ethnicity race even nationality matching:
African, Latino, Asian and Native American. This is SCIENCE based, down to 10 areas
that have to match in order for the HLA compatibility to prevent rejection between donor and recipient.

The best argument for orientation not being a choice is that
it is SPIRITUALLY determined, not genetic which can be argued as disproven when you look at twin studies.

Nobody can argue if someone BELIEVES SPIRITUALLY
they are male/female homosexual etc. and has a right to that BELIEF.

So that is the best argument I have found to defend someone legally
since BELIEFS are an inherent right and don't require scientific proof.

If you try to use genetics, the studies are opposed showing a slightly higher than 50% correlation
rate of identical twins being the same orientation. If it was genetic, the findings should be 100%.
Since they are higher than 50, this shows that social environment or other factors influence
orientation; SO IT IS MORE LIKE A CHOICE OF RELIGION and not a genetic trait like race!

Religion is not genetically fixed

You are free to choose another one

Doesn't change your prtected freedom of religion and the practice thereof...

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

Dear NYcarbineer the LGBT beliefs are also a creed.
That does not give advocates of those beliefs the right to penalize people of other creeds.

CREED is protected from discrimination.
Why can't you treat both equally as creeds, regardless which one you hold?

If you are Muslim, and a Muslim is pushing the anti-pork belief
on a Hindu business that is selling pork but not beef, suing them to substitute beef in an enchilada instead of pork, does this give you the right to violate the beliefs of the Hindu because
you and the other Muslims are pushing a case that favors YOUR beliefs?

Where is the equal protection in that?

I don't have to agree with LGBT, Christians or Muslims to defend rights to their beliefs from infringement discrimination disparagement or penalty by govt.
Do you have to agree with Christians before you will enforce laws defending their beliefs?

No, their beliefs are not creeds, they are sexual orientations, and therefore none of your or anybody else's business.

creed
krēd/
noun

1. 
   
   
   • a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith.

Sexual orientation is not genetically fixed like race.

How someone expresses their inner beliefs and identity is on the same level of
CREED, like how someone expresses their Muslim Christian or Buddhist cultural IDENTITY.

NoTeaPartyPleez NYcarbineer there are many stories out there, cases of people coming out straight gay transgender
poly, etc.

Can you show me one person who started out as one ethnicity or race,
and through spiritual healing or change of lifestyle, became a different race?

Their genetics remains scientifically based on birth parents and what they inherited.
This is so specific, even the bone marrow donation programs target 4 minority groups
to save lives by finding matches that depend on ethnicity race even nationality matching:
African, Latino, Asian and Native American. This is SCIENCE based, down to 10 areas
that have to match in order for the HLA compatibility to prevent rejection between donor and recipient.

The best argument for orientation not being a choice is that
it is SPIRITUALLY determined, not genetic which can be argued as disproven when you look at twin studies.

Nobody can argue if someone BELIEVES SPIRITUALLY
they are male/female homosexual etc. and has a right to that BELIEF.

So that is the best argument I have found to defend someone legally
since BELIEFS are an inherent right and don't require scientific proof.

If you try to use genetics, the studies are opposed showing a slightly higher than 50% correlation
rate of identical twins being the same orientation. If it was genetic, the findings should be 100%.
Since they are higher than 50, this shows that social environment or other factors influence
orientation; SO IT IS MORE LIKE A CHOICE OF RELIGION and not a genetic trait like race!

Religion is not genetically fixed

You are free to choose another one

Prove that is true anyway.

Prove that some people aren't born Christians and can't help not wanting to deal with gays.

Oh, here's a hint to where you might look. I believe the Christian gene is located right adjacent to the gay gene.



moron

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Dear NYcarbineer the LGBT beliefs are also a creed.
That does not give advocates of those beliefs the right to penalize people of other creeds.

CREED is protected from discrimination.
Why can't you treat both equally as creeds, regardless which one you hold?

If you are Muslim, and a Muslim is pushing the anti-pork belief
on a Hindu business that is selling pork but not beef, suing them to substitute beef in an enchilada instead of pork, does this give you the right to violate the beliefs of the Hindu because
you and the other Muslims are pushing a case that favors YOUR beliefs?

Where is the equal protection in that?

I don't have to agree with LGBT, Christians or Muslims to defend rights to their beliefs from infringement discrimination disparagement or penalty by govt.
Do you have to agree with Christians before you will enforce laws defending their beliefs?

No, their beliefs are not creeds, they are sexual orientations, and therefore none of your or anybody else's business.

creed
krēd/
noun

1. 
   
   
   • a system of Christian or other religious belief; a faith.

Sexual orientation is not genetically fixed like race.

How someone expresses their inner beliefs and identity is on the same level of
CREED, like how someone expresses their Muslim Christian or Buddhist cultural IDENTITY.

NoTeaPartyPleez NYcarbineer there are many stories out there, cases of people coming out straight gay transgender
poly, etc.

Can you show me one person who started out as one ethnicity or race,
and through spiritual healing or change of lifestyle, became a different race?

Their genetics remains scientifically based on birth parents and what they inherited.
This is so specific, even the bone marrow donation programs target 4 minority groups
to save lives by finding matches that depend on ethnicity race even nationality matching:
African, Latino, Asian and Native American. This is SCIENCE based, down to 10 areas
that have to match in order for the HLA compatibility to prevent rejection between donor and recipient.

The best argument for orientation not being a choice is that
it is SPIRITUALLY determined, not genetic which can be argued as disproven when you look at twin studies.

Nobody can argue if someone BELIEVES SPIRITUALLY
they are male/female homosexual etc. and has a right to that BELIEF.

So that is the best argument I have found to defend someone legally
since BELIEFS are an inherent right and don't require scientific proof.

If you try to use genetics, the studies are opposed showing a slightly higher than 50% correlation
rate of identical twins being the same orientation. If it was genetic, the findings should be 100%.
Since they are higher than 50, this shows that social environment or other factors influence
orientation; SO IT IS MORE LIKE A CHOICE OF RELIGION and not a genetic trait like race!

Religion is not genetically fixed

You are free to choose another one

So, you admit that sex is, therefore you are not free to chose another. Awesome. Settled!

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

there is a difference between a person who agrees to be an EMPLOYEE but refuses to
do what he has been employed to do---and
a person selling his own services. The artists are not the PAID EMPLOYEES of the people who hire their services until they agree to
DO THE SERVICE. Your analogy is silly

No there is not.

If you want to open a business you MUST abide by public accommodation laws. If your religion does not allow you to abide by those laws then you should not run a business because the mere legal operation of that business violates whatever superstition you happen to live by so the very act of opening that business is a sin

 

[dblack]

How is it not discrimination to tell someone "your religion is not relevant, serve that person?"


That of course can't be answered.

Religion is not business. Business is business.

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.

Religion does effect business practices.

This is about control and power. 'Religious freedom' is a roadblock to what liberals want. They have to control ot and have the power to dictate demands on those whose religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. They must impose their will on them.

Funny how liberals are not doing the same with Muslims...who know would cut their heads off, etc if they tried.

Sadly easyt65 the religious argument is the best way to defend LGBT and transgender expression
as an equal choice, because it wouldn't have to be proven scientifically to be protected by law.

The problem is they'd have to take responsibility for their beliefs, the same way they ask of Christians.
To keep these in private, and if you want to express them in public, it can't be forced on people through govt.
But has to be FREELY CHOSEN and agreed to voluntarily, since it is faith-based.
the First Amendment clause on religious beliefs goes both ways, neither endorsing nor prohibiting by govt.

Sadly , the retards on the left somehow believe the first amendment protected them FROM religion. This is an example of that. I'm gay and I don't have to put up with a Christian not accepting that"

In your view, should someone be allowed to operate a business that refuses to cater to Christians?

 

[emilynghiem]

How is it not discrimination to tell someone "your religion is not relevant, serve that person?"


That of course can't be answered.

Religion is not business. Business is business.

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.

Religion does effect business practices.

This is about control and power. 'Religious freedom' is a roadblock to what liberals want. They have to control ot and have the power to dictate demands on those whose religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. They must impose their will on them.

Funny how liberals are not doing the same with Muslims...who know would cut their heads off, etc if they tried.

Sadly easyt65 the religious argument is the best way to defend LGBT and transgender expression
as an equal choice, because it wouldn't have to be proven scientifically to be protected by law.

The problem is they'd have to take responsibility for their beliefs, the same way they ask of Christians.
To keep these in private, and if you want to express them in public, it can't be forced on people through govt.
But has to be FREELY CHOSEN and agreed to voluntarily, since it is faith-based.
the First Amendment clause on religious beliefs goes both ways, neither endorsing nor prohibiting by govt.

Sadly , the retards on the left somehow believe the first amendment protected them FROM religion. This is an example of that. I'm gay and I don't have to put up with a Christian not accepting that"

Fair&Balanced
To be fair, what they are arguing (which DOMA didn't help nor the bans passed by states against same sex marraige) is that BECAUSE there is widespread discrimination, bullying and harassment of gay and transgender people, they are arguing for protections from abusive behavior.

1. Yes, they have the right to seek protection for a minority group, such as protecting women from domestic abuse that are widespread occurrences
2. This does not require them to go to bat for other minority groups also seeking or deserving protection
(ie my friends who defend civil rights of Muslims are not required to focus equal lobbying on Buddhists or Klan or other groups also seeking defense. Defending rights of Muslims does not in itself negate or disparage other people.)
3. BUT THE protective or corrective remedies sought CANNOT VIOLATE the equal rights of others.
And that is where they are excluding objections of others and getting a FAIL in this area.

What if the laws abolishing slavery went so far as to punish former slave owners with the death penalty
instead of respecting laws against retroactive punishment.

You don't have free reign to answer abuses with more abuses that violate the law.

The proposed legal reform or correction cannot be discriminatory or violate other laws and rights either!

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

there is a difference between a person who agrees to be an EMPLOYEE but refuses to
do what he has been employed to do---and
a person selling his own services. The artists are not the PAID EMPLOYEES of the people who hire their services until they agree to
DO THE SERVICE. Your analogy is silly

I should add-----the EMPLOYEE can quit if he does not like the job.

If legally operating a business and obeying public accommodation laws will violate your religion then you shouldn't open it

 

[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

there is a difference between a person who agrees to be an EMPLOYEE but refuses to
do what he has been employed to do---and
a person selling his own services. The artists are not the PAID EMPLOYEES of the people who hire their services until they agree to
DO THE SERVICE. Your analogy is silly

No there is not.

If you want to open a business you MUST abide by public accommodation laws.

The question isn't really whether people should be required to follow that law but, rather, if the law is just in the first place.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If your religion prohibits you from adhering to public accommodation laws then you shouldn't have a business.

It's no different than a Muslim applying for a job in a bacon store and then saying he can't touch bacon because of his stupid religion

there is a difference between a person who agrees to be an EMPLOYEE but refuses to
do what he has been employed to do---and
a person selling his own services. The artists are not the PAID EMPLOYEES of the people who hire their services until they agree to
DO THE SERVICE. Your analogy is silly

No there is not.

If you want to open a business you MUST abide by public accommodation laws. If your religion does not allow you to abide by those laws then you should not run a business because the mere legal operation of that business violates whatever superstition you happen to live by so the very act of opening that business is a sin

How stupid are you? The ENTIRE purpose of the first amendment is that the government can NOT pass laws that restrict your rights based on your religion. THAT INCLUDES FUCKING PA LAWS YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

what if conservatives wanted to pass a law that said "you can't work for the government if you're a Muslim, if you want to work in government , find another religion?" You'd be up in fucking arms, and rightfully so.

You people are stupid. And I mean STUPID. You should be ashamed of your ignorance.

 

[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

there is a difference between a person who agrees to be an EMPLOYEE but refuses to
do what he has been employed to do---and
a person selling his own services. The artists are not the PAID EMPLOYEES of the people who hire their services until they agree to
DO THE SERVICE. Your analogy is silly

No there is not.

If you want to open a business you MUST abide by public accommodation laws. If your religion does not allow you to abide by those laws then you should not run a business because the mere legal operation of that business violates whatever superstition you happen to live by so the very act of opening that business is a sin

Dear Skull Pilot
So if a bacon business cannot hire or serve a Muslim customer, because
they will not change to selling beef or turkey bacon instead of pork only,
then the Muslim customer can sue this business for not accommodating them?
Or the bacon seller should shut down their business
because they can't accommodate Muslims?

 

[Lilah]

How is it not discrimination to tell someone "your religion is not relevant, serve that person?"


That of course can't be answered.

Religion is not business. Business is business.

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.

Religion does effect business practices.

This is about control and power. 'Religious freedom' is a roadblock to what liberals want. They have to control ot and have the power to dictate demands on those whose religious freedom is protected by the Constitution. They must impose their will on them.

Funny how liberals are not doing the same with Muslims...who know would cut their heads off, etc if they tried.

Sadly easyt65 the religious argument is the best way to defend LGBT and transgender expression
as an equal choice, because it wouldn't have to be proven scientifically to be protected by law.

The problem is they'd have to take responsibility for their beliefs, the same way they ask of Christians.
To keep these in private, and if you want to express them in public, it can't be forced on people through govt.
But has to be FREELY CHOSEN and agreed to voluntarily, since it is faith-based.
the First Amendment clause on religious beliefs goes both ways, neither endorsing nor prohibiting by govt.

Sadly , the retards on the left somehow believe the first amendment protected them FROM religion. This is an example of that. I'm gay and I don't have to put up with a Christian not accepting that"

In your view, should someone be allowed to operate a business that refuses to cater to Christians?

The MoonLight Bunny Ranch.