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

[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?

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.

You said "laws are not supposed to go ahainst religious belief."

The old testament allows capital punishment against adulterers and gays.

So does Islam.

Laws cant go against that religious belief? Its not murder?

You fail. Laws go against religious beliefs. ALL THE TIME!!!

Try thinking before you post, jeebus.

 

[dblack]

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.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

 

[Freewill]

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.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

So does it supercede laws themselves?

And who creates said laws?

Think long and hard: do religious practices supercede rule of law.

Think.

Think.

 

[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.

You said "laws are not supposed to go ahainst religious belief."

The old testament allows capital punishment against adulterers and gays.

So does Islam.

Laws cant go against that religious belief? Its not murder?

You fail. Laws go against religious beliefs. ALL THE TIME!!!

Try thinking before you post, jeebus.

So easy to argue from the absurd.

Hell by the time of the founding of the country and the first amendment to the COTUS hardly a witch had been burned in 100 years and the scarlet letters? A thing of the past. BTW, what religious belief today stones adulterers or gays or cuts off hands of thieves? Oh right, not Judaism or Christianity.

Using your thinking the law is supreme. We have many laws that say "thous shalt not kill." yet we send predator drones to kill every single day, how in the hell does that work? We do it without trial which by any measure is murder.

So if I read you right, as long as you allow a religious belief it is Ok to observe that religious belief. But if that belief gets in the way of your belief then there will be trouble?

In my state there never was a provision made, voted on by the people's representatives, to allow for gay marriage. But yet it is legal, how can that be? Especially considering that the representatives of the people had voted to define marriage between a man and a woman. Intersting how belief systems get forced onto the majority. Usually as pretext of a right.

 

[Freewill]

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.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

So does it supercede laws themselves?

And who creates said laws?

Think long and hard: do religious practices supercede rule of law.

Think.

Think.

In lies the whole of the argument. Are there laws now against religious beliefs? Name a few if you wouldn't mind and not the silly OT says to stone adulterers.

I'll name one, forcing people of religion to accept gay marriage. Now, mind you I didn't say laws stopping gay marriage cause that would NOT be against anyone's religious belief. But forcing someone to accept it just might be against a person's religious belief. Can you detect a difference?

 

[dblack]

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.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

 

[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?

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.

You said "laws are not supposed to go ahainst religious belief."

The old testament allows capital punishment against adulterers and gays.

So does Islam.

Laws cant go against that religious belief? Its not murder?

You fail. Laws go against religious beliefs. ALL THE TIME!!!

Try thinking before you post, jeebus.

So easy to argue from the absurd.

Hell by the time of the founding of the country and the first amendment to the COTUS hardly a witch had been burned in 100 years and the scarlet letters? A thing of the past. BTW, what religious belief today stones adulterers or gays or cuts off hands of thieves? Oh right, not Judaism or Christianity.

Using your thinking the law is supreme. We have many laws that say "thous shalt not kill." yet we send predator drones to kill every single day, how in the hell does that work? We do it without trial which by any measure is murder.

So if I read you right, as long as you allow a religious belief it is Ok to observe that religious belief. But if that belief gets in the way of your belief then there will be trouble?

In my state there never was a provision made, voted on by the people's representatives, to allow for gay marriage. But yet it is legal, how can that be? Especially considering that the representatives of the people had voted to define marriage between a man and a woman. Intersting how belief systems get forced onto the majority. Usually as pretext of a right.

Islam, you weirdo.

I asked you to think. You really failed. Wow

 

[G.T.]

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.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

So does it supercede laws themselves?

And who creates said laws?

Think long and hard: do religious practices supercede rule of law.

Think.

Think.

In lies the whole of the argument. Are there laws now against religious beliefs? Name a few if you wouldn't mind and not the silly OT says to stone adulterers.

I'll name one, forcing people of religion to accept gay marriage. Now, mind you I didn't say laws stopping gay marriage cause that would NOT be against anyone's religious belief. But forcing someone to accept it just might be against a person's religious belief. Can you detect a difference?

Islam stones adulterers and gays.

Are their religious rights being infringed on, by the murder laws?

Your brain doesnt work.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

In the cases at hand people are being forced to do something against their (religious) beliefs. So a better analogy would be to ask what if there were a law that required a business to provide human sacrifices, would the business owner have the right to deny that service based on the 1st ammendment. (I know this is absurd, but you brought up human sacrifices.). When the business owner gets his way, is is not forced to do something that he finds morraly objectionable.

With the question, you are asking if someone can do sonething that society has lawfully deemed unacceptable for religious reasons. In the business cases at hand, the business owner wants to choose the omission of an action rather than the commission of an objectionable action.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

So does it supercede laws themselves?

And who creates said laws?

Think long and hard: do religious practices supercede rule of law.

Think.

Think.

In lies the whole of the argument. Are there laws now against religious beliefs? Name a few if you wouldn't mind and not the silly OT says to stone adulterers.

I'll name one, forcing people of religion to accept gay marriage. Now, mind you I didn't say laws stopping gay marriage cause that would NOT be against anyone's religious belief. But forcing someone to accept it just might be against a person's religious belief. Can you detect a difference?

Islam stones adulterers and gays.

Are their religious rights being infringed on, by the murder laws?

Your brain doesnt work.

No it doesn't. Laws made by Islamic sick heads stone people like you. Understand dummies you can not force me to participate in something that is against my religious beliefs. I know that irritates you fascist black heart but to fucking bad

 

[G.T.]

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.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

In the cases at hand people are being forced to do something against their (religious) beliefs. So a better analogy would be to ask what if there were a law that required a business to provide human sacrifices, would the business owner have the right to deny that service based on the 1st ammendment. (I know this is absurd, but you brought up human sacrifices.). When the business owner gets his way, is is not forced to do something that he finds morraly objectionable.

With the question, you are asking if someone can do sonething that society has lawfully deemed unacceptable for religious reasons. In the business cases at hand, the business owner wants to choose the omission of an action rather than the commission of an objectionable action.

Two questions for ya bruv.

Can religions be denied some of their doctrine based on law?

Can government regulate commerce?

We can restart the whole convo.

Entertain those two, if you would, as yes or no's.

 

[G.T.]

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

So does it supercede laws themselves?

And who creates said laws?

Think long and hard: do religious practices supercede rule of law.

Think.

Think.

In lies the whole of the argument. Are there laws now against religious beliefs? Name a few if you wouldn't mind and not the silly OT says to stone adulterers.

I'll name one, forcing people of religion to accept gay marriage. Now, mind you I didn't say laws stopping gay marriage cause that would NOT be against anyone's religious belief. But forcing someone to accept it just might be against a person's religious belief. Can you detect a difference?

Islam stones adulterers and gays.

Are their religious rights being infringed on, by the murder laws?

Your brain doesnt work.

No it doesn't. Laws made by Islamic sick heads stone people like you. Understand dummies you can not force me to participate in something that is against my religious beliefs. I know that irritates you fascist black heart but to fucking bad

You completely missed the point.

The point is, the US has a law that makes murder illegal.

This infringes on some religious beliefs.

Laws obviously can infringe on religious beliefs. Pretty clearly.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Emily,

Why is the word "new" in the title?

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

Gays are simply now protected also

There you go again with that erroneous, ridiculous comparison. NO ONE is talking about refusing to serve gays a meal in a restaurant, to sell them regular products, to provide them with health care, to rent them a hotel room, etc. We're talking about a gay couple's professed desire to have a religious vendor host or service their wedding ceremony.

Why do you guys refuse to deal with this crucial, telling point? Why do you keep making the phony, false comparison of blacks being denied service at restaurants and hotels when NO ONE is talking about such a thing?

 

[dblack]

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

In the cases at hand people are being forced to do something against their (religious) beliefs. So a better analogy would be to ask what if there were a law that required a business to provide human sacrifices, would the business owner have the right to deny that service based on the 1st ammendment. (I know this is absurd, but you brought up human sacrifices.). When the business owner gets his way, is is not forced to do something that he finds morraly objectionable.

With the question, you are asking if someone can do sonething that society has lawfully deemed unacceptable for religious reasons. In the business cases at hand, the business owner wants to choose the omission of an action rather than the commission of an objectionable action.

I'm not making an analogy. I'm asking how the principle would apply. Namely because I think the idea that the first amendment means laws can't contradict religion isn't practical, and actually goes against the spirit of the first amendment.

I'm also not defending these anti-discrimination laws. I'm probably more opposed to them than you are. But I'm opposed to them because they contradict equal protection by singling out special interest groups for special protection. Ironically, so do most of these laws that claim to protect religious freedom. That's why I find them equally egregious. They're playing the same game. They just want a different winner.

 

[Freewill]

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.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

Do you understand forcing someone to believe something, or should I say, participate in a practice they don't believe in, and laws against people killing each other? When in this country have we had laws that allowed ritual killing? I would think just about never so why do you feel you need to argue from the absurd?

 

[G.T.]

Emily,

Why is the word "new" in the title?

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

Gays are simply now protected also

There you go again with that erroneous, ridiculous comparison. NO ONE is talking about refusing to serve gays a meal in a restaurant, to sell them regular products, to provide them with health care, to rent them a hotel room, etc. We're talking about a gay couple's professed desire to have a religious vendor host or service their wedding ceremony.

Why do you guys refuse to deal with this crucial, telling point? Why do you keep making the phony, false comparison of blacks being denied service at restaurants and hotels when NO ONE is talking about such a thing?

If they refuse all weddings.

You have a point.


You lose.

 

[Freewill]

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.

You said "laws are not supposed to go ahainst religious belief."

The old testament allows capital punishment against adulterers and gays.

So does Islam.

Laws cant go against that religious belief? Its not murder?

You fail. Laws go against religious beliefs. ALL THE TIME!!!

Try thinking before you post, jeebus.

So easy to argue from the absurd.

Hell by the time of the founding of the country and the first amendment to the COTUS hardly a witch had been burned in 100 years and the scarlet letters? A thing of the past. BTW, what religious belief today stones adulterers or gays or cuts off hands of thieves? Oh right, not Judaism or Christianity.

Using your thinking the law is supreme. We have many laws that say "thous shalt not kill." yet we send predator drones to kill every single day, how in the hell does that work? We do it without trial which by any measure is murder.

So if I read you right, as long as you allow a religious belief it is Ok to observe that religious belief. But if that belief gets in the way of your belief then there will be trouble?

In my state there never was a provision made, voted on by the people's representatives, to allow for gay marriage. But yet it is legal, how can that be? Especially considering that the representatives of the people had voted to define marriage between a man and a woman. Intersting how belief systems get forced onto the majority. Usually as pretext of a right.

Islam, you weirdo.

I asked you to think. You really failed. Wow

What you are really asking, or demanding, is that I think like you. No thanks, I like freedom and I usually don't resort to name calling.

 

[dblack]

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.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

Do you understand forcing someone to believe something, or should I say, participate in a practice they don't believe in, and laws against people killing each other? When in this country have we had laws that allowed ritual killing? I would think just about never so why do you feel you need to argue from the absurd?

I'm not arguing from the absurd. Nor am I making a slippery slope argument. I'm simply pointing out the impracticality of the idea that the First amendment means religious people don't have to follow the same laws as the rest of us. Special rights for special people is the essence of anti-discrimination laws. You're indulging the same mindset as the people you oppose.

 

[Freewill]

Emily,

Why is the word "new" in the title?

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

Gays are simply now protected also

There you go again with that erroneous, ridiculous comparison. NO ONE is talking about refusing to serve gays a meal in a restaurant, to sell them regular products, to provide them with health care, to rent them a hotel room, etc. We're talking about a gay couple's professed desire to have a religious vendor host or service their wedding ceremony.

Why do you guys refuse to deal with this crucial, telling point? Why do you keep making the phony, false comparison of blacks being denied service at restaurants and hotels when NO ONE is talking about such a thing?

If they refuse all weddings.

You have a point.


You lose.

I think I am going to start calling what you just posted the BS rule. Made up completely out of sail cloth and it has become law to folks like yourself. It is incredible how you state it so sure that you know you are right.