Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You are not being forced to do anything that you find morally offensive, so you should not seek to coerce the religious vendor into doing something that he finds morally offensive. Live and let live. Show some tolerance and respect for different values and beliefs.

Maybe you can answer this question.

Can I discriminate against a Christian that wants to rent one of my houses? Just curious. They really want to rent this house. Close to their kids school, their work, just the right size, close to church. They have the money they have the good rent history.

But I just don't like Christians. Should I be able to discriminate in the housing arena? It would be morally offensive to me being a different religion than they are.

Is discrimination in housing something we should try and bring back?

" I just don't like Christians" is not a valid position. If you don't like Christians, based upon an intellectually sound, logically valid basis, then of course; not only COULD you so discriminate, you SHOULD so discriminate.

That you must phrase your position as "I just don't like Christians", demonstrates that your position is NOT valid, thus your cause fails.

In essence, the Left's desire to discriminate against Christians is based upon your perception that you CAN DO SO... and get away with it.

And that is why the Left has no such desire to discriminate against Islam... You're scared shitless of Islam, thus you do not dare do so.

This despite Islam representing EVERYTHING you deceitfully project upon Christians... and despite Christians bearing NONE of the traits you project upon us.

Thus proving your cause... to be a LIE, ergo: proving your cause to be Evil.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Does the first amendment mean we can discriminate?"

It means government can't discriminate, government can't favor one religion over another, government can't seek to preempt religious expression, and government can't seek to codify religious dogma in secular law.

Private citizens are at liberty to discriminate, provided one understands there are consequences for doing so in the context of private society, and in a free and democratic society.

Private businesses open to the general public aren't allowed to discriminate in jurisdictions with public accommodations laws that provide protections to certain classes of persons.

Laws prohibiting discrimination are Constitutional because their intent is regulatory, not to disadvantage religious expression or free speech – one may not claim a 'religious exemption' as an 'excuse' to violate an otherwise just and proper law, such as public accommodations laws.

Private citizens can't 'violate' the First Amendment rights of other private citizens; for private citizens to call for a boycott, for example, of a private individual or corporation that engages in discrimination doesn't 'violate' the right to free speech of either the individual or corporation. Only government has the authority engage in prior restraint or preempt free speech, where First Amendment jurisprudence determines whether such government action complies with the Constitution, and measures repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated by the courts.

Given the posts by conservatives in this thread, ignorance of the law, what is or isn't discrimination, and whether government has engaged in discrimination or not is as much a problem as discrimination itself.

Except for the gratuitous slam on conservatives (liberals are just as confused on the topic), this is an excellent post.

Liberals aren't claiming that private citizens calling for a boycott of an individual or corporation 'violates' the free speech of either – most conservatives are; liberals aren't claiming that public accommodations laws 'violate' the 'religious liberty' of business owners, or their 'right' to free association – most conservatives are. Liberals aren't claiming that enhanced sentencing guidelines for convicted criminals whose crimes were motivated by race, religion, or sexual orientation constitutes government 'punishment' of hate speech – most conservatives are.

When one surveys conservative posts, blogs, and websites, he sees this consistent ignorance of the law exhibited mostly by conservatives, that free speech or religious rights are being 'violated,' when in fact they're not.

We have evidence of this ignorance common to most conservatives in this very thread:

ERNIE S. SAID:

“Is a privately owned bakery a "private organization"? By your logic, shouldn't that privately owned business be allowed to refuse to participate in something they consider abhorrent?”

No.

A bakery is a business open to the general public, and consequently subject to public accommodations law in its state or local jurisdiction, where such a law does not 'violate' the business' right to free association, as no such 'right' exists in this context.

This is an example of a conservative poster exhibiting his ignorance of the law with regard to the right to free association, an ignorance common to most conservatives, where liberals are not exhibiting such ignorance.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DBLACK SAID:

“Anti-discrimination laws prohibit freedom of choice on a much deeper level than one's choice of religion.
[...]
The core conceit these laws is the idea of "public accommodations", wherein society lays claim to the property rights of business owners.”

And unfortunately you're making the same mistake, a mistake seemingly common to both conservatives and libertarians.

Public accommodations laws that prohibit discrimination on the part of business owners in no way 'denies' freedom of choice or freedom of religion – on any level.

Moreover, public accommodations laws do not 'authorize' society to 'lay claim' to the property rights of business owners:

“The prohibition in Title II of racial discrimination in public accommodations affecting commerce does not violate the Fifth Amendment as being a deprivation of property or liberty without due process of law.”

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States LII Legal Information Institute

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause; these laws in no way 'violate' freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or the property rights of business owners.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Liberals aren't claiming that private citizens calling for a boycott of an individual or corporation 'violates' the free speech of either – most conservatives are most conservatives, where liberals are not exhibiting such ignorance.

ROFLMNAO!

I wish you idiots would call for a boycott of my company. I could use the cash!

I mean every time you idiot beset some innocent, you smother them in a pile of money beyond comprehension!

Ya collectively 'boycotted' Chic Fil A and the result was the largest spike in fast food sales in the history of fast food sales.

Ya collectively boycotted a struggling pizza shop, which never earned more than 150,000 in annual revenues... and ya produced nearly a MILLION DOLLARS for that company, without so much as a single pepperoni being sliced...

IN ONE DAY!

Now, in ANY of those cases, have ANY of the would-be aggrieved homosexuals, so disparaged, their rights to a Christian Baker and Photographer BURNT TO A CINDER! Did any of those receive ANY outpouring of public support?

Or was the support merely a conspiracy, contrived by the complicit media?

Remember: Outpouring of support is indicated by tens of thousands of strangers paying a few bucks a piece resulting in hundreds of thousands of dollars...

And the 'Media Conspiracy' resulting only in the illicit use, thus the ABUSE of the law to tangibly injure the innocent.

See the difference?

LOL! You people are clueless! Majority? ROFL! My ASS!

 

[Ernie S.]

There is no Constitutional prohibition of discrimination. Right or wrong, according to the Constitution, I (personally) can discriminate against you because of your skin color, religion or sexual orientation.

I try to live my life according to Christian principles.

You've got one fucked up sense of what "Christianity" IS if you think YOU practice Christian principles. LMAO.
You? A Christian? Fucking to funny.

I am.... I did not say discrimination on religious grounds was right, only your right.

 

[timslash]

Of course first amendment doesn't mean that we can discriminate! But it's very sad that many bigots(Church activists, LGBT activists, human rights activists sometimes) today, think that the right answer is - "Yes"

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Last night I prayed that ALL the non Christian business's of the country will tell any and all "Christians" they will not be doing business with the likes of them.

That would be so appropriate. And funny. Can you imagine the whine that would come from the Christians.

Well, that's whay happens when you pray subjectively...

God answers all prayer...

But in your case, Instead of those people being shunned for doing the right thing, they had a million dollars poured upon them... by tens of thousands of people who support them for doing the right thing.

 

[SwimExpert]

I was giving this a lot of thought and I wonder if taking away the freedom to discriminate against people of different races actually takes away our ability to make moral choices for ourselves.

Yes. Of course it does. You are seriously wondering this? It's insanely obvious that it takes away your [legal] ability to make moral choices for yourself.

I believe that what you are really wondering, is whether such restriction is itself good or bad. You are experiencing a conflict of morality versus ethics. The problem before you is this: Is an ethical value (a view of right and wrong from an external system) superior to a moral value (a view of right and wrong from an internal/personal system)? Is there a universal rule as to whether ethics or morality is superior? And if not, by what methods are individual cases deemed superior in either the ethical or moral perspective?

I know it is wrong to discriminate on this basis but taking away that choice from others might take away the right to make moral choices for themselves.

There are all kinds of laws and social conventions that deprive an individual of the right to make moral choices for their own selves. If I make a moral choice for myself that murdering my former lover is the proper course of action, the law forbids me from making that choice. In this case, the ethical determination of good vs bad is [allegedly] superior to any moral valuations.

The freedom of religion implies that we have the right to pursue what we think is right since two different religions might have opposite moral codes example: satanism vs Christianity.

Actually, you perceive far too much in the freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is a general right to worship, or not worship, in accordance with your own choice and/or conviction. This freedom is not unlimited and certain constraints exist. Part of your religion might be human sacrifice, but that does not mean you have a 1st amendment right to actually practice human sacrifice.

Now, here's a dilemma for you: What if your religious belief was that religious freedom is not allowed? If you were a judge, would that give you the right to ignore the 1st amendment rights of parties bringing 1st amendment cases before you? If you and 500 like minded individuals were elected to Congress, would your religious belief make acceptable and constitutional a law that mandated universal adherence to your own religion?

Obviously the answer is "no." The freedom of religion, as a limited right, continues to maintain a fundamental element of ethical value being superior to moral value.

On a tangent: Satanism is not really an opposite morality from Christianity. The idea of Satanism being opposite to Christianity is most prevalent in Laveyan Satanism, and not really applicable to other forms. But, to be blunt, La Vey was a joke and an idiot. His work was an ill advised juvenile attempt to expand on the work of Nietzsche, and was overall a spectacular failure. He stole Nietzsche's duality as personified in the concept of Dionysus vs. the Crucified, and failing to truly understand it, he warped it into precisely what it was not. Nietzsche's work was a transformational evolution beyond good and evil, with the goal (at the very least) to move humanity forward and into a more profound morality, but more substantially to eventually take us to the complete dissolution of dualistic morality in favor of a singular affirmation of life. This put's La Vey's "Satanism" somewhere between ironic and pathetic. Instead of expanding Nietzsche's work to move further beyond good and evil, La Vey doubles down on the concept of good vs evil, and simply provides his own list. La Vey's adoption of the moniker "Satanism" as a polar opposition to Christianity was merely an attempt to breath new life into Nietzsche's duality, based on a substantial failure to comprehend the original work. Nietzsche revered Christ as one of the greatest figures in history, as he also revered the conceptual Dionysus. Nietzsche's objections to the philosophy of Christ was that it has lost its usefulness to humanity and now served to hold us back and to hold us to valuing death over life. Thus, Dionysus vs the Crucified is an inherent conflict within the soul of humanity between two aspects of humanity that are both majestic and divine; a conflict where each side represents our best qualities. The waging of that conflict would take place through the willful destruction of man to make way for the ubermensch. In other words, the conflict will bring humanity to a more profound wisdom and enlightenment. This is drastically different from La Vey's duality of Satan vs God, where Satan is posited as "all things good" and God is posited as "all things evil," immediately followed by La Vey's unsophisticated dictations about what is good (essentially being the giving into every lower urge and transient desire as it may come to pass) and what is evil (essentially being any aspiration to be more than your own base animal instincts). La Vey would have been dismissed by Nietzsche as an example of rabble, as described in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Clearly we can choose either religion (or none at all) which means we can decide what we think is right based on our freedom to associate with our church. What if someone really doesn't think there is nothing wrong with discriminating based on race? Does the first amendment mean that anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional.?

No more than it means that anti-murder laws are unconstitutional where a person has a religious belief in human sacrifice.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Of course first amendment doesn't mean that we can discriminate! But it's very sad that many bigots...

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

Oh my... It appears that the first order of bigotry, is the use of the word: Bigot.

AMAZING... ain't it?

 

[OKTexas]

I was giving this a lot of thought and I wonder if taking away the freedom to discriminate against people of different races actually takes away our ability to make moral choices for ourselves. I know it is wrong to discriminate on this basis but taking away that choice from others might take away the right to make moral choices for themselves. The freedom of religion implies that we have the right to pursue what we think is right since two different religions might have opposite moral codes example: satanism vs Christianity. Clearly we can choose either religion (or none at all) which means we can decide what we think is right based on our freedom to associate with our church. What if someone really doesn't think there is nothing wrong with discriminating based on race? Does the first amendment mean that anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional.?

There is no Constitutional prohibition of discrimination. Right or wrong, according to the Constitution, I (personally) can discriminate against you because of your skin color, religion or sexual orientation. You are free to criticize me for thator be offended by my prejudice, but that's pretty much tough shit.
The fact that the Founders decided we needed a "Bill of Rights" and put Freedom of religion first on the list makes it very clear they intended that that right was paramount to all others.
If I don't want to sell you a wedding cake based on my moral convictions, your moral convictions matter not one bit.
I try to live my life according to Christian principles. One of those principles is that marriage is the spiritual union of one man and one woman.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof period; end of discussion.

Secularism is becoming the government established religion and it's bullshit.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Amazing how it's the 21st century, and now we have people actually arguing in SUPPORT of discrimination? Wtf is going on?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes. Of course it does. You are seriously wondering this? It's insanely obvious that it takes away your [legal] ability to make moral choices for yourself.

EIGHT! The number of our in-house contributors who come to celebrate the unbridled fascism, common to 'progressivism'; which is to say those who seek to raise as a RIGHT, the means to force others to accept perversion, over their God-given Rights and the Constitutional protections against government usurpation of those rights, of the Christian.

Here's a clue scamp:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ... . "

Expressed as FIRST in order of necessity to maintain the state of freedom in the protections enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

See how that works?

(Reader, did ya see how that individual sought to validate SATANISM? There's a monster clue in there... and you can rest assured of THAT!)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Amazing how it's the 21st century, and now we have people actually arguing in SUPPORT of discrimination? Wtf is going on?

People have always argued in favor of traits of nature which promote viability. Only the idiots have ever claimed otherwise. You've just likely been distracted by the idiocy.

But... In fairness to you, that's only because you're mired in it.

 

[deltex1]

I was giving this a lot of thought and I wonder if taking away the freedom to discriminate against people of different races actually takes away our ability to make moral choices for ourselves. I know it is wrong to discriminate on this basis but taking away that choice from others might take away the right to make moral choices for themselves. The freedom of religion implies that we have the right to pursue what we think is right since two different religions might have opposite moral codes example: satanism vs Christianity. Clearly we can choose either religion (or none at all) which means we can decide what we think is right based on our freedom to associate with our church. What if someone really doesn't think there is nothing wrong with discriminating based on race? Does the first amendment mean that anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional.?

Discriminate means "to recognize a distinction"

 

[TheOldSchool]

Amazing how it's the 21st century, and now we have people actually arguing in SUPPORT of discrimination? Wtf is going on?

People have always argued in favor of traits of nature which promote viability. Only the idiots have ever claimed otherwise. You've just likely been distracted by the idiocy.

But... In fairness to you, that's only because you're mired in it.

Take away the long-winded spin from you're post and we're left with "yes I want discrimination."

 

[SwimExpert]

EIGHT! The number of our in-house contributors who come to celebrate the unbridled fascism, common to 'progressivism'; which is to say those who seek to raise as a RIGHT, the means to force others to accept perversion, over their God-given Rights and the Constitutional protections against government usurpation of those rights, of the Christian.

When you read something, do you read each word? Or do you just skip around and read 1 in 10?

(Reader, did ya see how that individual sought to validate SATANISM? There's a monster clue in there... and you can rest assured of THAT!)

Actually, I tore La Vey apart and called him pathetic. So there's a monster clue for how well you pay attention.

 

[PredFan]

I was giving this a lot of thought and I wonder if taking away the freedom to discriminate against people of different races actually takes away our ability to make moral choices for ourselves. I know it is wrong to discriminate on this basis but taking away that choice from others might take away the right to make moral choices for themselves. The freedom of religion implies that we have the right to pursue what we think is right since two different religions might have opposite moral codes example: satanism vs Christianity. Clearly we can choose either religion (or none at all) which means we can decide what we think is right based on our freedom to associate with our church. What if someone really doesn't think there is nothing wrong with discriminating based on race? Does the first amendment mean that anti discrimination laws are unconstitutional.?

Yes, in a way. Everyone discriminates all the time. There are just certain types of descrimination that are allowed and types that there aren't. The 1st amendment guards against descrimination against religion.

Rights trump everything. No one has the right to another person's life and effort. Period. All else is enslavement and tyranny.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Take away the long-winded spin from you're post and we're left with "yes I want discrimination."

Discriminate: recognize a distinction; differentiate; discretion.

Discretion: the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation.

Discrimination is a critical function of survival. Remove the means to do so and survival is rendered down from unlikely to IMPOSSIBLE.

That you deny this, only FURTHER demonstrates the absolutely certainty, that what you represent is: THE PROBLEM!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When you read something, do you read each word? Or do you just skip around and read 1 in 10?


Actually, I tore La Vey apart and called him pathetic. So there's a monster clue for how well you pay attention.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[SwimExpert]

EIGHT! The number of our in-house contributors who come to celebrate the unbridled fascism, common to 'progressivism'; which is to say those who seek to raise as a RIGHT, the means to force others to accept perversion, over their God-given Rights and the Constitutional protections against government usurpation of those rights, of the Christian.

When you read something, do you read each word? Or do you just skip around and read 1 in 10?

(Reader, did ya see how that individual sought to validate SATANISM? There's a monster clue in there... and you can rest assured of THAT!)

Actually, I tore La Vey apart and called him pathetic. So there's a monster clue for how well you pay attention.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Yes folks, Where's my keys really is that stupid. Which seems to explain why he can't find his keys.