Discrimination and the New Inclusive America: Bake me a cake or go to Jail!

[thanatos144]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

The thing is we have a constitutional right to not be forced in to service against religious beliefs.

 

[G.T.]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

The thing is we have a constitutional right to not be forced in to service against religious beliefs.

Youre not forced.

Entering business is voluntary.

And the government has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce.

 

[G.T.]

Are muslim businesses allowed to force their female customers to look down and cover their faces? Of course not.

Religion dictating commerce is retarded. Draconian.

 

[JoeMoma]

G.T. Do you have any problem with this?

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

That would seem simple, but that isn't really what this is about about so simple won't work.

No.

If you sell, for instance, "cakes with personalized messages," but you discriminate which messages youll pen based on sex, gender, or race - then you dont belong engaging in public commerce for a profit.

The distance in driving analogy also fails.

If they base turning down delivery on distance, thats their right.

If they based deliver on race, sex.....RELIGION even, they are not within their right because they used discriminatory practices according to commerce law.

Well, I disagree because I believed that a business has the right to control the messaging of their products. And since both a gay person and straight person can try to place an order for a cake that says "God loves Same sex marriage" for example, the person is not being discriminated against because of his sexual orientation but the message of the product.

 

[thanatos144]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

The thing is we have a constitutional right to not be forced in to service against religious beliefs.

Youre not forced.

Entering business is voluntary.

And the government has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce.

Sucking dick is voluntary difference is religion is constitutionally protected

 

[G.T.]

G.T. Do you have any problem with this?

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

That would seem simple, but that isn't really what this is about about so simple won't work.

No.

If you sell, for instance, "cakes with personalized messages," but you discriminate which messages youll pen based on sex, gender, or race - then you dont belong engaging in public commerce for a profit.

The distance in driving analogy also fails.

If they base turning down delivery on distance, thats their right.

If they based deliver on race, sex.....RELIGION even, they are not within their right because they used discriminatory practices according to commerce law.

Well, I disagree because I believed that a business has the right to control the messaging of their products. And since both a gay person and straight person can try to place an order for a cake that says "God loves Same sex marriage" for example, the person is not being discriminated against because of his sexual orientation but the message of the product.

We have a disagreement.

We can still be friends, no?

Its saturday homey. : )

 

[G.T.]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

The thing is we have a constitutional right to not be forced in to service against religious beliefs.

Youre not forced.

Entering business is voluntary.

And the government has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce.

Sucking dick is voluntary difference is religion is constitutionally protected

No silly. There are severe limitations to its protections.

For instance, can a muslim stone an adulterer to death in the us, based on religious freedom? Of course not.

Religions are limited by laws.

Government has the constitutional authority to regulate, i.e. create laws, regarding commerce.

The fact its so simple should bitchsmack your brain.

Make your response reasonable and not full of hatred if ya can. No biggy if not.

 

[JoeMoma]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

The thing is we have a constitutional right to not be forced in to service against religious beliefs.

Youre not forced.

Entering business is voluntary.

And the government has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce.

And many business owners have owned and operated their businesses for years without being requested to make a product or provide a service that would endorse same sex marriage. So they are simply to provide the product or service of else close the business? And let me reiterate, the product or service that endorses same sex marriage would be denied regardless whether a straight person or a gay person tried to place an order for it.

 

[JoeMoma]

G.T. Do you have any problem with this?

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

That would seem simple, but that isn't really what this is about about so simple won't work.

No.

If you sell, for instance, "cakes with personalized messages," but you discriminate which messages youll pen based on sex, gender, or race - then you dont belong engaging in public commerce for a profit.

The distance in driving analogy also fails.

If they base turning down delivery on distance, thats their right.

If they based deliver on race, sex.....RELIGION even, they are not within their right because they used discriminatory practices according to commerce law.

Well, I disagree because I believed that a business has the right to control the messaging of their products. And since both a gay person and straight person can try to place an order for a cake that says "God loves Same sex marriage" for example, the person is not being discriminated against because of his sexual orientation but the message of the product.

We have a disagreement.

We can still be friends, no?

Its saturday homey. : )

Friends we are even though we disagree. If I ran my own bakery, I would not have a problem with making or decorating a cake for a same sex wedding.

 

[G.T.]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

The thing is we have a constitutional right to not be forced in to service against religious beliefs.

Youre not forced.

Entering business is voluntary.

And the government has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce.

And many business owners have owned and operated their businesses for years without being requested to make a product or provide a service that would endorse same sex marriage. So they are simply to provide the product or service of else close the business? And let me reiterate, the product or service that endorses same sex marriage would be denied regardless whether a straight person or a gay person tried to place an order for it.

If they offer personalized messages on cakes and wont make one based on protected discriminatory classes, they are not within the law.

 

[JoeMoma]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

The thing is we have a constitutional right to not be forced in to service against religious beliefs.

Youre not forced.

Entering business is voluntary.

And the government has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce.

And many business owners have owned and operated their businesses for years without being requested to make a product or provide a service that would endorse same sex marriage. So they are simply to provide the product or service of else close the business? And let me reiterate, the product or service that endorses same sex marriage would be denied regardless whether a straight person or a gay person tried to place an order for it.

If they offer personalized messages on cakes and wont make one based on protected discriminatory classes, they are not within the law.

The product or service itself is not a person and therefore is not a protected discrimatory class. As I said before, both gays and straights are able to buy the EXACT same products and services from the business.

Anyway, I guess we have agreed to disagree. Have a happy Saturday. I need to put my iPad down and go do some yard work.

 

[G.T.]

Me and JoeMoma have been at this issue this week, and i respect him b.c. hes one of the people who can disagree without labeling my entire political class or.being nasty with me.

And for the record, yes, im berry berry nasty to some people. Thats b.c. it started with them.

Joe has my respect

 

[G.T.]

Yupp....gotta rake today. But its windy as fuck : /

 

[Freewill]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

The thing is we have a constitutional right to not be forced in to service against religious beliefs.

Youre not forced.

Entering business is voluntary.

And the government has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce.

And many business owners have owned and operated their businesses for years without being requested to make a product or provide a service that would endorse same sex marriage. So they are simply to provide the product or service of else close the business? And let me reiterate, the product or service that endorses same sex marriage would be denied regardless whether a straight person or a gay person tried to place an order for it.

If they offer personalized messages on cakes and wont make one based on protected discriminatory classes, they are not within the law.

So it comes down to the left defining classes, thus dividing people.

 

[Freewill]

Are muslim businesses allowed to force their female customers to look down and cover their faces? Of course not.

Religion dictating commerce is retarded. Draconian.

And government doing it is what? Fascism?

 

[dblack]

Business have been unable to discriminate against black customers for quite some fucking time now.

Gays are simply now protected also.

Who should we not protect short of criminals?

Well, that's the thing. Equal rights requires that we protect everyone's rights equally. But do you really think everyone has a right to be treated equally by businesses?

 

[G.T.]

Are muslim businesses allowed to force their female customers to look down and cover their faces? Of course not.

Religion dictating commerce is retarded. Draconian.

And government doing it is what? Fascism?

Should a religion be free to break laws based on their religion?

If so, can muslims stone adulterers in the u.s.?

Part 2, is it not the constitutional authority to regulate commerce?

Dont avoid the flaring glaring staring issue: Religious freedom ends where Laws begin. Or 50% of all married (divorce rate) could be stoned as justified by the 1st amendment?

How much sense would that make?

 

[Freewill]

G.T. Do you have any problem with this?

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

That would seem simple, but that isn't really what this is about about so simple won't work.

No.

If you sell, for instance, "cakes with personalized messages," but you discriminate which messages youll pen based on sex, gender, or race - then you dont belong engaging in public commerce for a profit.

The distance in driving analogy also fails.

If they base turning down delivery on distance, thats their right.

If they based deliver on race, sex.....RELIGION even, they are not within their right because they used discriminatory practices according to commerce law.

So, if a member of NAMBLA came into YOUR bakery and asked you for a cake that celebrated man/boy love you would be OK with that? Of course that is on the absurd side but so are you in making the direct comparison between being black and being gay. But as I said, the left would never agree to anything that did force a person to their will.

 

[Freewill]

Are muslim businesses allowed to force their female customers to look down and cover their faces? Of course not.

Religion dictating commerce is retarded. Draconian.

And government doing it is what? Fascism?

Should a religion be free to break laws based on their religion?

If so, can muslims stone adulterers in the u.s.?

Part 2, is it not the constitutional authority to regulate commerce?

Dont avoid the flaring glaring staring issue: Religious freedom ends where Laws begin. Or 50% of all married (divorce rate) could be stoned as justified by the 1st amendment?

How much sense would that make?

Laws are not suppose to go against religious belief. That, whether or not you like it or will admit it, is what you are doing.

You view is the closed minded view. YOU see no problem with same sex marriage, thus YOU feel that everyone else should believe as YOU believe. If they don't then they should be forced in compliance with behavior YOU see fit.

My way, no one gets forced to do anything. Who am I to judge what is against someone else's religious belief? So what if a Muslim doesn't want to transport booze or a dog, I don't give a crap. Let them refuse the fair and go back to the end of the line and wait for another fair. Simple enough. If I have booze or my little dog with me I don't want to be in a cab where the person was forced to take me.

 

[G.T.]

G.T. Do you have any problem with this?

Here is what is fair, in my opinion. If you are a baker you bake cakes to sell and you sell them to everyone without discrimination. The baker isn't being forced to bake a cake. Not bake cakes, go out of business.

You are buying a cake and know you can buy your cake from any baker. BUT if you want a statement made on that cake, no matter what that statement may be, you do not have the right to force someone to do so.

If you want the cake delivered, then the baker decides, not you, if they are willing to drive the cake to that location. You can not force them to do so.

That would seem simple, but that isn't really what this is about about so simple won't work.

No.

If you sell, for instance, "cakes with personalized messages," but you discriminate which messages youll pen based on sex, gender, or race - then you dont belong engaging in public commerce for a profit.

The distance in driving analogy also fails.

If they base turning down delivery on distance, thats their right.

If they based deliver on race, sex.....RELIGION even, they are not within their right because they used discriminatory practices according to commerce law.

So, if a member of NAMBLA came into YOUR bakery and asked you for a cake that celebrated man/boy love you would be OK with that? Of course that is on the absurd side but so are you in making the direct comparison between being black and being gay. But as I said, the left would never agree to anything that did force a person to their will.

I dont know what Nambla is, but pedophiles arent a protected class and there......your analogy failed.