Now with the Colorado ruling saying that religion can override public accommodation laws

[22lcidw]

I don't care what party affiliation such people have or had.

If the nation disintegrates, what would you do? You think this is people not standing up to you and it is one way for many decades. This is about the riches of a nation with much of it wastes that will end at some point. All we had to do is promote what keeps civilizations going without getting too stupid. Advancing rights using sense. We got stupid.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Should I be able to check voter registrations, because my religion bans me from dealing with dumbass Republicans?

.




No, there's probably a built-in intellectual radar keeping Repubs away from you, so no need.




.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

As I said I agree they have the right to say no, I just do not think it is a "free speech" issue.

The 1st Amendment is about both free speech and freedom of religion.
"The government shall make no laws impeding the freedom of practicing religion" - paraphrase.

 

[22lcidw]

Personally I would like to see the government get out of the marriage business all together.

Interestingly enough, the wife and I got married and 5 months later had our religious wedding ceremony, so we essentially did what you are suggesting.



As I said I agree they have the right to say no, I just do not think it is a "free speech" issue.

When it gets to the point when you put a dress on your son at three years old, we know that civilization is ending.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Should be fine as long as they are following the rules God gave in the bible when He condoned slavery.

That would be limiting it only to some religious based beliefs.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

If the nation disintegrates, what would you do? You think this is people not standing up to you and it is one way for many decades. This is about the riches of a nation with much of it wastes that will end at some point. All we had to do is promote what keeps civilizations going without getting too stupid. Advancing rights using sense. We got stupid.

o_0

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

 

[occupied]

So you admit you're in a religious cult?

You could try registering as an official religion, that's probably the first step.

In most states you need 10 thousand true believers to get standing. You've got that, right? You should go for it.

If it comes to the point where religious bigotry becomes speech it may be necessary to form a secular religion in response.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The 1st Amendment is about both free speech and freedom of religion.
"The government shall make no laws impeding the freedom of practicing religion" - paraphrase.

According to the person in post 6 this ruling was based on Free Speech. That was my understanding as well

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

You realize this was a First Amendment case, and that's about speech.

Owning a restaurant and then "refusing to serve black people" (!) is not "speech".

gee logic....

 

[konradv]

.No, there's probably a built-in intellectual radar keeping Repubs away from you, so no need.

Where have they been hiding it? It seems to have been missing since 2016.

 

[scruffy]

So the court should reverse the Hobby Lobby decision?

The Court should reverse about 80% of it's decisions since 1864.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Public accommodation may soon go the way of Affirmative Action. That is, let the free market decide. If there's a cretin out there who actually wants to hang a sign that says "whites only" in their store, fine. Let the free market, in the age of Yelp reviews, take care of the situation.

boy that logic sure gets in the way of thangs

 

[Blaster]

How long will it be before some business refuses service to black people because they say it's against the owner's religion?

How long before an employer gets to refuse to hire a woman because the business owner's religious belief is that a woman should be at home serving her husband and raising children?

And how many other laws will get to be ignored on the basis of a religious claim?

Nonsense.

 

[22lcidw]

o_0

I think you posted in the wrong thread.

I do not purposely do so. However, a lot of things are connected. To separate an agenda from another has tentacles in this modern world. And argue who gets hurt when the tentacles are ever surgically removed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Public accommodation may soon go the way of Affirmative Action. That is, let the free market decide. If there's a cretin out there who actually wants to hang a sign that says "whites only" in their store, fine. Let the free market, in the age of Yelp reviews, take care of the situation.

That is the way it should be.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Where have they been hiding it? It seems to have been missing since 2016.

.




Hiding?

LOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




.

 

[konradv]

Yes.
But only if the MAGA hat wearer demanded you to put a MAGA sign in the store window.

No buts, according to SCOTUS, I decide that.

 

[fncceo]

How long will it be before some business refuses service to black people because they say it's against the owner's religion?

Forever. Because, if you had actually bothered to read the ruling, and not some Daily Kos propaganda, you would know that the ruling doesn't affect public accommodation.

It merely reinforces the established concept that no person can be coerced to provide a custom service against their will.

Any person has the right to use a shop or service, no one has the right to demand of the owner or service provider that which is against the dictates of their conscience.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

the reason you guys have such horrible personal lives and relationships is because you are busy making other people miserable.....keep your fat faces to yourselves

.

When they loathe themselves, I guess making others miserable is about their only form of gratification.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Any person has the right to use a shop or service, no one has the right to demand of the owner or service provider that which they is against the dictates of their conscience.

So, if serving a meal to a black person goes against the dictates of a person's conscience, they should be allowed to not do so, correct?