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

[JakeStarkey]

Emily writes, "I mean that govt laws cannot discriminate by creed. And ACA mandates do that because of people's Constitutional beliefs that are violated by it." Govt laws don't discriminate by creed; everybody has to obey the law. ACA violates no Constitutional protection of individual political belief. You are obviously using religion as a shield in your argument. Won't hold because political beliefs stop at the counting of the ballot box.

 

[OKTexas]

Emily writes, "I mean that govt laws cannot discriminate by creed. And ACA mandates do that because of people's Constitutional beliefs that are violated by it." Govt laws don't discriminate by creed; everybody has to obey the law. ACA violates no Constitutional protection of individual political belief. You are obviously using religion as a shield in your argument. Won't hold because political beliefs stop at the counting of the ballot box.

Actually, the ACA doesn't violate constitutional beliefs, it violates the Constitution itself. Answer this with a simple yes or no, is the tax for not having insurance paid directly to the federal government by the taxpayer?

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily writes, "I mean that govt laws cannot discriminate by creed. And ACA mandates do that because of people's Constitutional beliefs that are violated by it." Govt laws don't discriminate by creed; everybody has to obey the law. ACA violates no Constitutional protection of individual political belief. You are obviously using religion as a shield in your argument. Won't hold because political beliefs stop at the counting of the ballot box.

What?
What is wrong with defending First Amendment Religious Freedom from infringement OR establishment by Government?

That is a fundamental concept!

the only difference is recognizing political beliefs and creeds are also on the same level as
religious or secular beliefs.

JakeStarkey if you have a problem with saying "political beliefs" can't be imposed as a creed or religion,
why are you okay with treating "leftwing SECULAR beliefs" as legal to impose and establish by law!!

Why are you discriminating and allowing leftwing SECULAR beliefs to be established,
but have something against rightwing beliefs or creeds.

Isn't that discriminatory?

Now Jake since you and I are INDIVIDUAL citizens, SURE we can choose to follow or not follow one creed or another.

But for GOVERNMENT, NO, the point of the First Amendment (and Fourteenth Amendment/Civil Rights "equal protections") is NOT to favor one belief over others in making laws.

Why suddenly when it comes to political beliefs on the right, those can't be established,
but it's okay for political beliefs on the left.

If you are saying an ATHEIST has the right to establish beliefs because that's "secular"
isn't that discriminating?

Or if you are saying only ORGANIZED religions are protected by the First Amendment (for practice in private
but can't be established by federal govt), isn't THAT discriminating when other people's beliefs
AREN'T associated with an Organized religion?

So JakeStarkey you are saying that people's beliefs are different depending on their affiliation as rightwing or leftwing, that one person isn't going to have equal treatment as another BASED ON AFFILIATION?

ISN'T THAT DISCRIMINATION BY CREED? HELLOOOO????

P.S. I know for some people this is breaking new ground. Recognizing political beliefs may not be something people believe in or have been practicing. So this is something new to many people.

But what happens when you discover Christianity is a religion, or Atheism is a set of beliefs.
Shouldn't those beliefs have always been treated equally by law?

Does "discovering that these are both beliefs" make it any less wrong to have
treated them UNEQUALLY in the past?

so until Courts or Congress APPROVE expanded interpretations,
is it okay to KEEP DISCRIMINATING?

If you know that slavery is treating Blacks as less than equal,
is it okay to keep abusing slaves until the law is changed.

Does that justify not owing reparations for the violations occurring in the meantime?
Aren't you still responsible for the social injustice?

Or Jake, are you saying if the law do not EXPRESSING ban govt from treating a rightwing belief as penalized
while mandating a leftwing belief by law, then it is not your responsibility if the law was wrong?

I read the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and I see it is already unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of creed. Not just for this issue, but also for the beliefs about marriage -- neither belief can be established, imposed, or denied or excluded without discriminating against SOMEONE's beliefs. That's why I recommend either consensus or removing marriage from state laws and keeping it private, and sticking with civil unions and contracts or other neutral language.

I don't even have to AGREE with one side, the other, or either one to DEFEND the beliefs equally for ALL people REGARDLESS of belief or creed.

Sorry Jake that you don't treat people or creeds as equal under law.

The Fourteenth Amendment already states that; I don't need Congress or Courts to make it legal for me to include and protect beliefs equally, these are already protected by law.

So if people like you need to SPELL IT OUT in written laws before you will respect equal creeds,
then I suggest that be done ASAP so nobody's beliefs are violated or discriminated against in the meantime.

Very sad that you don't see any need to include people's beliefs equally,
but you only seem to defend the beliefs YOU agree with, while allowing others to be discriminated against.

Very strange.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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."

If you are a business open to the PUBLIC, you are a PUBLIC business, not a private business.

And this attempt to blame Government for Jim Crow?

Why do you idiots always act as if 'government' is some force that has nothing to do with the People? The government portion of the South's segregationist policie were there because the Southern PEOPLE kept electing representatives that kept it there.

And don't forget, it was GOVERNMENT that ended segregation in the South. The big central federal government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily writes, "I mean that govt laws cannot discriminate by creed. And ACA mandates do that because of people's Constitutional beliefs that are violated by it." Govt laws don't discriminate by creed; everybody has to obey the law. ACA violates no Constitutional protection of individual political belief. You are obviously using religion as a shield in your argument. Won't hold because political beliefs stop at the counting of the ballot box.

Actually, the ACA doesn't violate constitutional beliefs, it violates the Constitution itself. Answer this with a simple yes or no, is the tax for not having insurance paid directly to the federal government by the taxpayer?

Immaterial. The ACA has been opined by SCOTUS that it is constitutional.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can write a 1000 pages, and your belief will not change how the Constitution is opined by SCOTUS. ACA is legal. Your political beliefs are not a protected category like religion, orientation, race, religion, etc. The courts simply will not support your argument.

But . . .

Go ahead and file.

 

[orogenicman]

Emily is going with her feelings, not the law.

????

Dear JakeStarkey can you explain why INCLUDING both sides of religious debates EQUALLY
when making a law that affects BOTH their beliefs is NOT OBJECTIVE?

Let me answer that, if I may.

Because the Constitution prohibits the government from making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.

 

[OKTexas]

Emily writes, "I mean that govt laws cannot discriminate by creed. And ACA mandates do that because of people's Constitutional beliefs that are violated by it." Govt laws don't discriminate by creed; everybody has to obey the law. ACA violates no Constitutional protection of individual political belief. You are obviously using religion as a shield in your argument. Won't hold because political beliefs stop at the counting of the ballot box.

Actually, the ACA doesn't violate constitutional beliefs, it violates the Constitution itself. Answer this with a simple yes or no, is the tax for not having insurance paid directly to the federal government by the taxpayer?

Immaterial. The ACA has been opined by SCOTUS that it is constitutional.

You're a liar, this question has not been considered by any court, you can't claim a tax is unconstitutional until the tax has actually been paid, which happened for the first time this year. Care to try again, answer the question.

 

[emilynghiem]

If you are a business open to the PUBLIC, you are a PUBLIC business, not a private business.

And this attempt to blame Government for Jim Crow?

Why do you idiots always act as if 'government' is some force that has nothing to do with the People? The government portion of the South's segregationist policie were there because the Southern PEOPLE kept electing representatives that kept it there.

And don't forget, it was GOVERNMENT that ended segregation in the South. The big central federal government.

1. Racial segregation is one thing. But spiritual beliefs are another.
Beliefs about homosexuality and same sex marriage are spiritual and FAITH-based
and not the same as race which is genetically determined to be by birth.

With homosexuality, this is not proven: there are cases both ways, neither being proven, where SOME people experience this as not a choice but inherent, others have changed orientation or gender, and not everyone agrees spiritually, so BELIEFS or values on this cannot be forced either way, especially NOT by GOVT! [Ex: if you look at how Obama changed his mind on gay marriage, he was convinced and chose by his own free will to change his mind -- GOVT DID NOT FORCE HIM TO BY LAW. So why can't Obama and other pro-gay marriage advocates respect the same FREEDOM OF CHOICE they had to decide WITHOUT govt mandating it FOR THEM. I explain this all the time to PROLIFE people who CHOOSE to be so WITHOUT the law forcing it. And I ask them to respect the same free will for others to make that choice, not by force, but by changing their understanding freely. Prolife is a faith based belief, not proven scientifically, and so is pro-gay beliefs that is natural that isn't proven either, especially when there are as many cases of people who changed and said it WASN'T natural for them. Neither is proven, so this remains faith-based and a free choice of people to decide on their own, not by force of law or penalty by govt coercing or dictating to people what they should believe!]

After spiritual healing, people HAVE reported changing their gender or orientation;
but never their RACE. So their RACE and their "spiritual orientation or gender" are not the same thing.
If you are going to compare RACE you would go with the INBORN GENDER, not the spiritual gender,
you would go with the PHYSICAL GENDER someone was at birth and that would be the same as RACE.

And this is NOT what the transgender and gay advocates are asking for.
They want their BELIEFS to be implemented into public policy, not just protecting them as other beliefs are by law,
but going TOO FAR and imposing to the point of EXCLUDING and penalizing the equal beliefs of others.

So since there is a conflict between BELIEFS, both should be kept out of public laws and left to the people to work out,
or else separate, similar to religions having separate institutions and practices and not forcing themselves on each other!

Religious groups still have their differences, but they aren't allowed to take their beliefs and make all the public recognize them as protected. They are already included under religious freedom and don't need "special rights" to declare
Buddhism or Hinduism "not to be discriminated against". Buddhists who discriminate and reject Christians get rejected all the time; conflicts are mutual. Do you see Buddhists going over to Christians, forcing themselves on them, and then suing?
No, they stay away because they know they have different beliefs and RESPECT EACH OTHER'S FREE EXERCISE.

2. A 100% PUBLIC business is one owned by government.
These are not owned by government such as public housing that is government owned and run.

By your conditions, are private insurance companies PUBLIC?
So we didn't need to pass any additional legislation, then, if they were already required to accept all people
and not discriminate on the basis of preexisting conditions.
Why weren't insurance companies sued for civil rights violations?
Why did these require added legislation if they were already public?

3. The problem, NYcarbineer, is that the customers are not required by law not to discriminate against businesses.
So it is onesided -- customers who are bigoted against Christians can go harass their businesses,
but if the businesses refuse to do business suddenly they aren't allowed to do that.
Until this is addressed, it can be abused. The laws were seeking to emphasize the equal rights of business owners
NOT TO BE HARASSED OR ABUSED EITHER.

What I suggest is either voluntary or mandatory policy that people with conflicting beliefs
agree NOT TO DO BUSINESS TOGETHER. I would set this up as a mediation waiver,
that businesses can ask customers to sign agreeing to resolve all disputes by consensus, or else not do business with each other. if they don't agree to sign, the business can decline business to anyone who wouldn't mediate by consensus instead of seeking legal action and cost the business and the public those legal expenses.

I have issued a mediation agreement to a friend who kept threatening to sue me, my landlords, and anyone else he could find fault with, even a volunteer with a nonprofit who ran for office claiming a donation was improper, just to harass us to threaten me. So I sent this person a written agreement to resolve all conflicts by mediation and consensus in order to prevent legal action or expenses that I didn't believe in. And either sign this in advance, or not communicate.

So if I can do that, anyone can do that.

Nobody is FORCING you to do business with a vendor of different beliefs.
The only group that FORCES interaction is the government, and the govt is not supposed to discriminate either.

The ACA mandates and these excessive fines on businesses dealing with clients who refused to mediate and resolve conflicts by consensus are discriminatory. Why should the business be penalized when the client failed to resolve conflicts either?

The law is onesided and people should not take advantage of that.
Businesses should more clearly adopt a policy of mediation and consensus to resolve disputes,
and only conduct business with clients who aren't out to instigate a lawsuit, like coming in to create
a "slip and fall" incident in order to sue them. That's been abused in the past, and now this is being abused to entrap people.

Sorry, but it's the Golden Rule that if you want people to respect you and your beliefs, then it's NATURAL LAW to respect other people and their beliefs.

if you have a conflict, then mediate and resolve BOTH SIDES equally by MUTUAL CONSENT.

People who don't respect CONSENT of others tend to get into conflicts, especially with others who don't either!

Why should I have to pay for court costs as a taxpayer because other people couldn't mediate?
I believe in free mediation, free speech/press, the right to petition and due process without obstructions.

If more people practiced conflict resolution by consent of the parties to reach consensus,
we wouldn't have so many lawsuits and billion dollar govt shutdowns over legislative deadlocks.

Until we figure this out, these political problems will continue to deadlock because there are equal beliefs at stake on both sides.

The govt is NOT supposed to impose favor or establish one set of beliefs over others.
The people involved will need to reclaim responsibility for resolving matters of their own beliefs,
OR LEAVE EACH OTHER ALONE.

This is completely immature to keep running to Government like Big Daddy and whine when someone disagrees with you
and doesn't want to play with you. Learn to work it out yourself!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily is going with her feelings, not the law.

????

Dear JakeStarkey can you explain why INCLUDING both sides of religious debates EQUALLY
when making a law that affects BOTH their beliefs is NOT OBJECTIVE?

Let me answer that, if I may.

Because the Constitution prohibits the government from making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.

Dear orogenicman
I agree! That's what I am SAYING!
by taking one side's beliefs over the other, the govt is establishing a bias based on beliefs that not all the public shares.
EXACTLY!

 

[hazlnut]

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."

I remember when John Stossle used to do useful stories about things that mattered.

Now he's just another Libertardian Tool.

 

[BULLDOG]

If you're a Christian..commit sacrilege and renounce your faith..or go to jail.

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

 

[Siete]

back to businesses serving the public ...

fine.

Hang a sign in the window that says

" We do NOT serve QUEERS our product "

or

"Come In. This business serves the public. Welcome"


take your chances and go from there.

The End.

 

[timslash]

All these situation with cakes and people who don't wanna do something because of his beliefs is stupid!
This situation is stupid because our law is little bit stupid too. Because our officials didn't think about such situations. Simple logic!

 

[Conservative65]

If you're a Christian..commit sacrilege and renounce your faith..or go to jail.

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm looking forward to the Muslim tattoo artist who is forced to paint the image of Mohammed wearing a diaper on the arm of a white supremist.

 

[Jarhead]

If you're a Christian..commit sacrilege and renounce your faith..or go to jail.

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

Actually, in a way it is the way it is. Hear me out.

A devout Christian, as I understand it, believes the union between two people of the same sex is not a marriage; therefore, the wedding itself does not exist from the faith standpoint. To engage in generating an income as you recognize something you truly believe does not exist is making light of your faith for greed reasons, thus leading to another sin, greed. It truly is a strong conviction and one they wish not to compromise.

Now, I don't agree with the belief. I have no issue with a gay marriage. But I am not a devout Christian. And I respect those that have that conviction for the right reason, faith.

You do not need to agree with a religious based ideology to understand it and respect it.

 

[BlindBoo]

If you're a Christian..commit sacrilege and renounce your faith..or go to jail.

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

 

[Conservative65]

If you're a Christian..commit sacrilege and renounce your faith..or go to jail.

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

If you're a Christian..commit sacrilege and renounce your faith..or go to jail.

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

Supporter of same sex marriage involve a religious defense claiming that God doesn't really mean what he says about homosexuality and that Jesus never opposed same sex marraige (although he did).

 

[BlindBoo]

If you're a Christian..commit sacrilege and renounce your faith..or go to jail.

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

If you're a Christian..commit sacrilege and renounce your faith..or go to jail.

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

Supporter of same sex marriage involve a religious defense claiming that God doesn't really mean what he says about homosexuality and that Jesus never opposed same sex marraige (although he did).

There is no God and the states should make no laws based upon what someone says it said. I would support my daughter if she decides to have a "Heathen Wedding".