Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Like christians who don't want got serve certain other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens in their licensed businesses.So it really comes down to a matter of degree. And that is why I'm torn. For me the cake or the photographer are no-brainers. No one needs a cake or needs a photograph taken. So where is the line exactly? At what point is a service essential? How much hardship is needed before it is major? This is always the problem when two conflicting rights must be reconciled. Do you really want that decided on a national level?
A person has a right to free association in tandem with their right to religious freedom. Those should only be overridden when society has a tangible substantive need for it. Hospitals, hotels, supermarkets, utilities, and of course government all would need to be "whatever"-blind. After that? All that is needed is a little common sense.
One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.
No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.
The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.
and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.
the only force being applied by the government is on the party not wanting to provide the service. the offended are the ones requiring special protection.
A person has a right to free association in tandem with their right to religious freedom. Those should only be overridden when society has a tangible substantive need for it. Hospitals, hotels, supermarkets, utilities, and of course government all would need to be "whatever"-blind. After that? All that is needed is a little common sense.
One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.
No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.
The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.
and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.
Not everyone should be treated equally. That's why there are handicapped parking spots right up front. However, I find it hard to see the logic in the argument that preventing a specific group from being treating differently than other groups is giving them special protection. It's just making sure they are treated equally. In fact, I think it can be more soundly argued that giving a group the right to treat a specific group differently based upon religious beliefs is giving those people special protection. So you actually don't have a problem with giving special protection, you just want it given to the people you agree with. The other side want it given to the people they agree with.
As to whether the first amendment trumps commerce regulations, that is for the courts to decide.
We choose to afford extra concern to the handicapped, more so, the fine for parking in their spot is $100, not $150k. We don't take the emotional damage done to the disabled person into consideration, we just fine the guy parking in the spot.
I actually DON'T agree with people who refuse service to gays for religious reasons, and that's the whole point. You are only defending freedom when you defend things you don't agree with.
You said people should be treated equally, but you support the right of people to do exactly the opposite.
This really isn't a simple, black and white issue. It's complicated with serious consequences. I'll leave it to the state. If someone feels they are living in a state with laws their religious beliefs will not allow them to obey, they need to either move or accept the consequences of staying. That is part of freedom.
Like christians who don't want got serve certain other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens in their licensed businesses.A person has a right to free association in tandem with their right to religious freedom. Those should only be overridden when society has a tangible substantive need for it. Hospitals, hotels, supermarkets, utilities, and of course government all would need to be "whatever"-blind. After that? All that is needed is a little common sense.
One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.
No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.
The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.
and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.
the only force being applied by the government is on the party not wanting to provide the service. the offended are the ones requiring special protection.
Not requiring. Entitled under the law. I file business expenses in my income tax returns, my brother does not. That does not mean I am requiring special protection. It just means I am taking advantage of how the law applies to me.
One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.
No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.
The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.
and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.
Not everyone should be treated equally. That's why there are handicapped parking spots right up front. However, I find it hard to see the logic in the argument that preventing a specific group from being treating differently than other groups is giving them special protection. It's just making sure they are treated equally. In fact, I think it can be more soundly argued that giving a group the right to treat a specific group differently based upon religious beliefs is giving those people special protection. So you actually don't have a problem with giving special protection, you just want it given to the people you agree with. The other side want it given to the people they agree with.
As to whether the first amendment trumps commerce regulations, that is for the courts to decide.
We choose to afford extra concern to the handicapped, more so, the fine for parking in their spot is $100, not $150k. We don't take the emotional damage done to the disabled person into consideration, we just fine the guy parking in the spot.
I actually DON'T agree with people who refuse service to gays for religious reasons, and that's the whole point. You are only defending freedom when you defend things you don't agree with.
You said people should be treated equally, but you support the right of people to do exactly the opposite.
This really isn't a simple, black and white issue. It's complicated with serious consequences. I'll leave it to the state. If someone feels they are living in a state with laws their religious beliefs will not allow them to obey, they need to either move or accept the consequences of staying. That is part of freedom.
GOVERNMENT should have to treat people equally. People can do whatever they want unless its a) criminal and b) has a distinct and notable economic impact.
As for your 2nd part, if what the State is banning is guaranteed to me as a Citizen of the United States by the US Constitution, the State should go pound sand.
Like christians who don't want got serve certain other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens in their licensed businesses.One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.
No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.
The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.
and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.
the only force being applied by the government is on the party not wanting to provide the service. the offended are the ones requiring special protection.
Not requiring. Entitled under the law. I file business expenses in my income tax returns, my brother does not. That does not mean I am requiring special protection. It just means I am taking advantage of how the law applies to me.
And what punitive actions does the government take against your brother when he doesn't file business expenses?
The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.
and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.
Not everyone should be treated equally. That's why there are handicapped parking spots right up front. However, I find it hard to see the logic in the argument that preventing a specific group from being treating differently than other groups is giving them special protection. It's just making sure they are treated equally. In fact, I think it can be more soundly argued that giving a group the right to treat a specific group differently based upon religious beliefs is giving those people special protection. So you actually don't have a problem with giving special protection, you just want it given to the people you agree with. The other side want it given to the people they agree with.
As to whether the first amendment trumps commerce regulations, that is for the courts to decide.
We choose to afford extra concern to the handicapped, more so, the fine for parking in their spot is $100, not $150k. We don't take the emotional damage done to the disabled person into consideration, we just fine the guy parking in the spot.
I actually DON'T agree with people who refuse service to gays for religious reasons, and that's the whole point. You are only defending freedom when you defend things you don't agree with.
You said people should be treated equally, but you support the right of people to do exactly the opposite.
This really isn't a simple, black and white issue. It's complicated with serious consequences. I'll leave it to the state. If someone feels they are living in a state with laws their religious beliefs will not allow them to obey, they need to either move or accept the consequences of staying. That is part of freedom.
GOVERNMENT should have to treat people equally. People can do whatever they want unless its a) criminal and b) has a distinct and notable economic impact.
As for your 2nd part, if what the State is banning is guaranteed to me as a Citizen of the United States by the US Constitution, the State should go pound sand.
The government should only apply the law equally, not treat people equally.
As to the state pounding sand, you certainly have the freedom to take that stand. However, unless the SCOTUS agrees with your position then that stand may well carry consequences.
Like christians who don't want got serve certain other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens in their licensed businesses.The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.
and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.
the only force being applied by the government is on the party not wanting to provide the service. the offended are the ones requiring special protection.
Not requiring. Entitled under the law. I file business expenses in my income tax returns, my brother does not. That does not mean I am requiring special protection. It just means I am taking advantage of how the law applies to me.
And what punitive actions does the government take against your brother when he doesn't file business expenses?
None. However, they would take action if he did so since he has no business expenses. Yet I get to file for them on the flimsy ground that I have them. This gives me special protection?
and last i checked freedom of religion means your right to worship at the institution you choose in the manner you choose. it is NOT the right to use your religion as an excuse for discrimination against others. i also don't recall any religion requiring you not associate with someone else in the context of a business situation. but in the same way you shouldn't go work in a port store if you're an observant muslim or jew, you probably shouldn't open a business that serves the public if you're a bigot
That is a narrow view of 'free exercise" that suits your current viewpoint, i.e. "keep it in church you Jesus freaks."
So basically the only way to own any business whatsoever is to basically be a model progressive lemming. The problem is, as we have seen, progressives are far better at complaining about businesses than starting them.
no it isn't. a "narrow view" is when people try to say that freedom OF religion doesn't equal freedom FROM religion.
sorry, marty.
It doesn't equal that.
Yes it does. I'll just refer you to the caselaw in the subject
By all means. Go ahead.
A person has a right to free association in tandem with their right to religious freedom. Those should only be overridden when society has a tangible substantive need for it. Hospitals, hotels, supermarkets, utilities, and of course government all would need to be "whatever"-blind. After that? All that is needed is a little common sense.
One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.
No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.
The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.
and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.
Not everyone should be treated equally. That's why there are handicapped parking spots right up front. However, I find it hard to see the logic in the argument that preventing a specific group from being treating differently than other groups is giving them special protection. It's just making sure they are treated equally. In fact, I think it can be more soundly argued that giving a group the right to treat a specific group differently based upon religious beliefs is giving those people special protection. So you actually don't have a problem with giving special protection, you just want it given to the people you agree with. The other side want it given to the people they agree with.
As to whether the first amendment trumps commerce regulations, that is for the courts to decide.
We choose to afford extra concern to the handicapped, more so, the fine for parking in their spot is $100, not $150k. We don't take the emotional damage done to the disabled person into consideration, we just fine the guy parking in the spot.
I actually DON'T agree with people who refuse service to gays for religious reasons, and that's the whole point. You are only defending freedom when you defend things you don't agree with.
You said people should be treated equally, but you support the right of people to do exactly the opposite.
This really isn't a simple, black and white issue. It's complicated with serious consequences. I'll leave it to the state. If someone feels they are living in a state with laws their religious beliefs will not allow them to obey, they need to either move or accept the consequences of staying. That is part of freedom.
Like christians who don't want got serve certain other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens in their licensed businesses.
the only force being applied by the government is on the party not wanting to provide the service. the offended are the ones requiring special protection.
Not requiring. Entitled under the law. I file business expenses in my income tax returns, my brother does not. That does not mean I am requiring special protection. It just means I am taking advantage of how the law applies to me.
And what punitive actions does the government take against your brother when he doesn't file business expenses?
None. However, they would take action if he did so since he has no business expenses. Yet I get to file for them on the flimsy ground that I have them. This gives me special protection?
no, it means you have actual business expenses. it's called reality.
One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.
No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.
The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.
and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.
Not everyone should be treated equally. That's why there are handicapped parking spots right up front. However, I find it hard to see the logic in the argument that preventing a specific group from being treating differently than other groups is giving them special protection. It's just making sure they are treated equally. In fact, I think it can be more soundly argued that giving a group the right to treat a specific group differently based upon religious beliefs is giving those people special protection. So you actually don't have a problem with giving special protection, you just want it given to the people you agree with. The other side want it given to the people they agree with.
As to whether the first amendment trumps commerce regulations, that is for the courts to decide.
We choose to afford extra concern to the handicapped, more so, the fine for parking in their spot is $100, not $150k. We don't take the emotional damage done to the disabled person into consideration, we just fine the guy parking in the spot.
I actually DON'T agree with people who refuse service to gays for religious reasons, and that's the whole point. You are only defending freedom when you defend things you don't agree with.
You said people should be treated equally, but you support the right of people to do exactly the opposite.
This really isn't a simple, black and white issue. It's complicated with serious consequences. I'll leave it to the state. If someone feels they are living in a state with laws their religious beliefs will not allow them to obey, they need to either move or accept the consequences of staying. That is part of freedom.
the states can't be trusted with constitutional rights. that's why federal troops had to march black kids into southern schools.
That is a narrow view of 'free exercise" that suits your current viewpoint, i.e. "keep it in church you Jesus freaks."
So basically the only way to own any business whatsoever is to basically be a model progressive lemming. The problem is, as we have seen, progressives are far better at complaining about businesses than starting them.
no it isn't. a "narrow view" is when people try to say that freedom OF religion doesn't equal freedom FROM religion.
sorry, marty.
It doesn't equal that.
Yes it does. I'll just refer you to the caselaw in the subject
By all means. Go ahead.
you can really google it for yourself. but you can start here:
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Engel v. Vitale The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Lemon v. Kurtzman The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
the only force being applied by the government is on the party not wanting to provide the service. the offended are the ones requiring special protection.
Not requiring. Entitled under the law. I file business expenses in my income tax returns, my brother does not. That does not mean I am requiring special protection. It just means I am taking advantage of how the law applies to me.
And what punitive actions does the government take against your brother when he doesn't file business expenses?
None. However, they would take action if he did so since he has no business expenses. Yet I get to file for them on the flimsy ground that I have them. This gives me special protection?
no, it means you have actual business expenses. it's called reality.
Yes. And they are being prevented from buying a cake others can buy. It's also called reality. Not special protection, just being treated like everyone else and taking advantage of a law that says they must be treated like everyone else.
One of the least common things on the planet is common sense. I wouldn't trust a pair of used socks to the common sense of the average person.
No. This belongs in the hands of the states. If they wish those laws, then they have the right to implement them. So long as those laws are applied equally to everyone, I see no Constitutional prohibition.
The problem is that when you start offering special protection to certain groups, you are not treating everyone equally. What you are doing is making one form of butt hurt, more powerful than another form of butt hurt.
and the States still cannot violate the constitution, and to me the 1st amendment trumps any commerce regulation at both the State and Federal level.
Not everyone should be treated equally. That's why there are handicapped parking spots right up front. However, I find it hard to see the logic in the argument that preventing a specific group from being treating differently than other groups is giving them special protection. It's just making sure they are treated equally. In fact, I think it can be more soundly argued that giving a group the right to treat a specific group differently based upon religious beliefs is giving those people special protection. So you actually don't have a problem with giving special protection, you just want it given to the people you agree with. The other side want it given to the people they agree with.
As to whether the first amendment trumps commerce regulations, that is for the courts to decide.
We choose to afford extra concern to the handicapped, more so, the fine for parking in their spot is $100, not $150k. We don't take the emotional damage done to the disabled person into consideration, we just fine the guy parking in the spot.
I actually DON'T agree with people who refuse service to gays for religious reasons, and that's the whole point. You are only defending freedom when you defend things you don't agree with.
You said people should be treated equally, but you support the right of people to do exactly the opposite.
This really isn't a simple, black and white issue. It's complicated with serious consequences. I'll leave it to the state. If someone feels they are living in a state with laws their religious beliefs will not allow them to obey, they need to either move or accept the consequences of staying. That is part of freedom.
the states can't be trusted with constitutional rights. that's why federal troops had to march black kids into southern schools.
Not requiring. Entitled under the law. I file business expenses in my income tax returns, my brother does not. That does not mean I am requiring special protection. It just means I am taking advantage of how the law applies to me.
And what punitive actions does the government take against your brother when he doesn't file business expenses?
None. However, they would take action if he did so since he has no business expenses. Yet I get to file for them on the flimsy ground that I have them. This gives me special protection?
no, it means you have actual business expenses. it's called reality.
Yes. And they are being prevented from buying a cake others can buy. It's also called reality. Not special protection, just being treated like everyone else and taking advantage of a law that says they must be treated like everyone else.
They are not being prevented by government from doing so, which would be wrong.
And what punitive actions does the government take against your brother when he doesn't file business expenses?
None. However, they would take action if he did so since he has no business expenses. Yet I get to file for them on the flimsy ground that I have them. This gives me special protection?
no, it means you have actual business expenses. it's called reality.
Yes. And they are being prevented from buying a cake others can buy. It's also called reality. Not special protection, just being treated like everyone else and taking advantage of a law that says they must be treated like everyone else.
They are not being prevented by government from doing so, which would be wrong.
No, they are not being prevented at all - thanks to the government. I keep saying this. This is not a black and white issue. There are valid arguments on both sides, as in any case where there are conflicting rights.
Then what have YOU been actively doing to get rid of PA laws?None. However, they would take action if he did so since he has no business expenses. Yet I get to file for them on the flimsy ground that I have them. This gives me special protection?
no, it means you have actual business expenses. it's called reality.
Yes. And they are being prevented from buying a cake others can buy. It's also called reality. Not special protection, just being treated like everyone else and taking advantage of a law that says they must be treated like everyone else.
They are not being prevented by government from doing so, which would be wrong.
No, they are not being prevented at all - thanks to the government. I keep saying this. This is not a black and white issue. There are valid arguments on both sides, as in any case where there are conflicting rights.
I think you mis-understand. They are not being prevented from buying cake, they are being prevented from buying THAT cake, because the seller does not want to participate in the transaction, and government is not forcing the issue on either side. Plus, there are plenty of other cakes out there, sold by people more than willing to take the business. That wasn't the case in the Jim Crow Era.
Then what have YOU been actively doing to get rid of PA laws?no, it means you have actual business expenses. it's called reality.
Yes. And they are being prevented from buying a cake others can buy. It's also called reality. Not special protection, just being treated like everyone else and taking advantage of a law that says they must be treated like everyone else.
They are not being prevented by government from doing so, which would be wrong.
No, they are not being prevented at all - thanks to the government. I keep saying this. This is not a black and white issue. There are valid arguments on both sides, as in any case where there are conflicting rights.
I think you mis-understand. They are not being prevented from buying cake, they are being prevented from buying THAT cake, because the seller does not want to participate in the transaction, and government is not forcing the issue on either side. Plus, there are plenty of other cakes out there, sold by people more than willing to take the business. That wasn't the case in the Jim Crow Era.
I cannot speak for individual members of the group, but it does seem to me that the LGBT community seeks acceptance and respect from the mainstream population -- 'we're just like you except for the gender of who we love, please treat us the same way you treat each other' or something similar.
Right? Seems reasonable to me.
Do members of the LGBT community who seek goods and services from this who, with every right to do so, oppose certain aspects of their lifestyle and then use the state to hammer those who oppose them into submission serve to further of hinder the acceptance of LGBT in mainstream society?
None. However, they would take action if he did so since he has no business expenses. Yet I get to file for them on the flimsy ground that I have them. This gives me special protection?
no, it means you have actual business expenses. it's called reality.
Yes. And they are being prevented from buying a cake others can buy. It's also called reality. Not special protection, just being treated like everyone else and taking advantage of a law that says they must be treated like everyone else.
They are not being prevented by government from doing so, which would be wrong.
No, they are not being prevented at all - thanks to the government. I keep saying this. This is not a black and white issue. There are valid arguments on both sides, as in any case where there are conflicting rights.
I think you mis-understand. They are not being prevented from buying cake, they are being prevented from buying THAT cake, because the seller does not want to participate in the transaction, and government is not forcing the issue on either side. Plus, there are plenty of other cakes out there, sold by people more than willing to take the business. That wasn't the case in the Jim Crow Era.
