Refusal over personal beliefs

[WorldWatcher]

Whatever guy, I guess you see what you want to see. I think he argued his first amendment right to you not force your views on others based on their first amendment religious rights.

How am I forcing MY views on anyone, I support the repeal of public accommodation laws. I also don't support special rights for religion to be exempt from generally applicable laws just because they can hide behind the cloak of "religion". If a religious person can discriminate against gays, or blacks, or muslims - then non-religious folk should have the same option.


I do like pointing out the quagmire that some support when they say "well that's their religious belief so the law shouldn't apply" (to paraphrase).

>>>>

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LEGAL:
Yes, the black baker can refuse the Grand Poobah of the KKK beause public accommodation law protect based on race (KKK is not a race), sex (KKK is not a sex), religion (KKK is not a religion), ethnicity (KKK is not an ethnicity), and in some states sexual orientation (KKK is not sexual orientation.

Hmm, that's not what I found....at least not on the federal level. Here is what I found:

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] but not religious organizations.[

Public accommodations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any case, it's okay by you if a bakery owner is sued because he refuses to bake a cake for a wedding he finds offensive, but you can't sue a black baker for not baking a cake for an event he is offended by.

 

[kaz]

Whatever guy, I guess you see what you want to see. I think he argued his first amendment right to you not force your views on others based on their first amendment religious rights.

How am I forcing MY views on anyone, I support the repeal of public accommodation laws. I also don't support special rights for religion to be exempt from generally applicable laws just because they can hide behind the cloak of "religion". If a religious person can discriminate against gays, or blacks, or muslims - then non-religious folk should have the same option.


I do like pointing out the quagmire that some support when they say "well that's their religious belief so the law shouldn't apply" (to paraphrase).

>>>>

I don't like the argument that religion supersedes PA laws because there should be no PA laws period, no citizen should be forced by governent to do business with another citizen. Religion should have nothing to do with it. Sounds like we agree on that point

 

[kaz]

LEGAL:
Yes, the black baker can refuse the Grand Poobah of the KKK beause public accommodation law protect based on race (KKK is not a race), sex (KKK is not a sex), religion (KKK is not a religion), ethnicity (KKK is not an ethnicity), and in some states sexual orientation (KKK is not sexual orientation.

Hmm, that's not what I found....at least not on the federal level. Here is what I found:

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] but not religious organizations.[

Public accommodations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any case, it's okay by you if a bakery owner is sued because he refuses to bake a cake for a wedding he finds offensive, but you can't sue a black baker for not baking a cake for an event he is offended by.

So actually, correct me either of you if I'm wrong. I think what he's saying is he wants all PA laws removed. He objects to religion being the basis for removing a PA law because it confuses the issue by making religion sound like the reason when it's not, no citizen should be force to do business with another. We may all three actually agree on this ...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

LEGAL:
Yes, the black baker can refuse the Grand Poobah of the KKK beause public accommodation law protect based on race (KKK is not a race), sex (KKK is not a sex), religion (KKK is not a religion), ethnicity (KKK is not an ethnicity), and in some states sexual orientation (KKK is not sexual orientation.

Hmm, that's not what I found....at least not on the federal level. Here is what I found:

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] but not religious organizations.[

Public accommodations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any case, it's okay by you if a bakery owner is sued because he refuses to bake a cake for a wedding he finds offensive, but you can't sue a black baker for not baking a cake for an event he is offended by.

So actually, correct me either of you if I'm wrong. I think what he's saying is he wants all PA laws removed. He objects to religion being the basis for removing a PA law because it confuses the issue by making religion sound like the reason when it's not, no citizen should be force to do business with another. We may all three actually agree on this ...

I can, that's for sure. But in defense of the florist or baker, religion is mentioned in the Constitution whereas sexual preference is not. Just because somebody or some people decided to create law that supersedes the Constitution does not make it right.

More to the point: some of these so-called problems have the simplest solutions: If you don't want to get shot by a cop, just listen to his orders. If somebody doesn't want to bake a cake for your gay wedding, just move on to another vendor and you still get your cake. If you don't want to own a gun, then don't buy one..........

It's amazing how many problems citizens in this country create for themselves.

 

[WorldWatcher]

LEGAL:
Yes, the black baker can refuse the Grand Poobah of the KKK beause public accommodation law protect based on race (KKK is not a race), sex (KKK is not a sex), religion (KKK is not a religion), ethnicity (KKK is not an ethnicity), and in some states sexual orientation (KKK is not sexual orientation.

Hmm, that's not what I found....at least not on the federal level. Here is what I found:

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] but not religious organizations.[

Public accommodations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Nothing in what you quoted disagrees with what I said:

• Is the KKK a Race? No.
• Is the KKK a Color? No.
• Is the KKK a Religion? No.
• Is the KKK a National Origin? No

In any case, it's okay by you if a bakery owner is sued because he refuses to bake a cake for a wedding he finds offensive, but you can't sue a black baker for not baking a cake for an event he is offended by.

2. In the case of Elane Photography, the New Mexico Photographer case, the photographers lost in court and it was appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court, they lost again. Then appealed to the SCOTUS who denied cert, meaning the NMSC was the last legal word in the case. The appellants specifically made the claim that under the NM law a black photographer would have to provide photographic services to a KKK Rally. Here is what they said:

"{55} Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications​

Emphasis mine, which is what I said.

The KKK as a political organization does not fall under the Public Accommodation laws. I'll take a State Supreme Court ruling on the matter over misapplication of a Wiki entry. (No offense intended.)

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/sc33,687.pdf

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't like the argument that religion supersedes PA laws because there should be no PA laws period, no citizen should be forced by governent to do business with another citizen. Religion should have nothing to do with it. Sounds like we agree on that point

Yes we do.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

So actually, correct me either of you if I'm wrong. I think what he's saying is he wants all PA laws removed. He objects to religion being the basis for removing a PA law because it confuses the issue by making religion sound like the reason when it's not, no citizen should be force to do business with another. We may all three actually agree on this ...

Close but not quite.

Religion isn't being used as a basis for removal of PA laws. These bills do not remove PA laws, they provide "special rights" for someone to claim a religious objections, but only if it applies to gays. Have a religious objection to interracial or interfaith marriages? Sorry, you are out of luck. Have a non-religious objection to interracial or interfaith marriages? Sorry, you are out of luck.

Many of these "Religious Freedom" bills in the State legislatures do not remove PA laws, they are written in such a manner that they only apply to homosexuals because they talk about marriage and it being between a man and a woman.

Take the Mississippi bill (I just picked it because it's been in the news recently), it provides protections for not having to provide services to any marriages described in section 2 of the act. That section then defines sincerely held religious beliefs to include only: marriage as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations should be reserved for marriage, and "man" and "woman" refer to biological sex at birth.

The bill is titled "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT", but it ONLY protects "freedom of conscience" as it pertains to gays.


HB1523 (As Sent to Governor) - 2016 Regular Session

>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I can, that's for sure. But in defense of the florist or baker, religion is mentioned in the Constitution whereas sexual preference is not. Just because somebody or some people decided to create law that supersedes the Constitution does not make it right.

More to the point: some of these so-called problems have the simplest solutions: If you don't want to get shot by a cop, just listen to his orders. If somebody doesn't want to bake a cake for your gay wedding, just move on to another vendor and you still get your cake. If you don't want to own a gun, then don't buy one..........

It's amazing how many problems citizens in this country create for themselves.

I don't have a problem with that.

If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, the couple can fine another baker. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for an interracial wedding, the couple can fine another baker. If a baker doesn't want to bake a cake for an interfaith wedding, the couple can fine another baker. Hell if a restaurant doesn't want to serve black people (and yes that is offense), they can find another restaurant.

But Ray, you realize - maybe you don't and that's OK. Sexual Orientation is only included in the laws for a little over 20 States (the exact number escapes me), however, religion is protected in all 50 States (because of Federal PA laws).

That means a Christian baker can refuse service based on sexual orientation in over half the states, but in none, zero, nadda States can a gay baker refuse to sell goods and services to a Christian because of that indivdiual customers religious views. (Now a gay bakers isn't going to refuse all Christians, but they can't refuse individual Christians who may have espoused strong anti-same-sex marriage teachings for religious reasons.)

Shouldn't the gay baker have the same right of refusal?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Well with that I'm off to bed. Work tomorrow.

Thanks for the respectful conversation.


>>>>

 

[Clementine]

How far are we going with this whole transgender bathroom issue?

Should strange men be allowed to undress in front of young girls?

Should grown men who are dressed like men be allowed to take advantage of the transgender law?

If a person is really a transgender, would they still dress and act like their physical gender?

The law allows any man or woman to walk into any bathrooms, dressing rooms and locker rooms. No one can question anyone. People can do whatever they want. This means that young students might have to see a naked person of the opposite sex.

Is that okay with the left that children should shower next to someone who is physically the opposite sex?

Would anyone feel comfortable sending their daughter into a public restroom at a secluded rest stop if a guy was walking in behind her?

If that would alarm you, then it should worry you when it happens at Target.

I think transgenders should look like transgenders, meaning they are wearing clothing matching their claimed identity. Not that this would stop the diehard perverts. I think the new rule is to beware of public restrooms. They weren't exactly desirable places before and now they just got a little creepier.

Better yet, have a third bathroom instead of allowing a free for all, without question. Have the men's, women's and maybe one door that says 'anyone.' Enter the last one at your own risk.

If we continue on the path we are currently on, it's only a matter of time before there is just one large bathroom for everyone. That means walking in and seeing men at the urinals. And it will be people wanting decency who will be accused of being hateful or intolerant. Well, some things shouldn't be tolerated.

Transgenders have been dealing with this on their own for years. We've all seen people who resembled the SNL character, Pat. We've seen "women" who clearly were men but acted like women. It's fairly rare to see them and there never seemed to be a problem. Now that no one even needs to appear as the sex they supposedly identify with, we will see regular looking men entering the women's bathrooms. No one has to even claim they are transgender. It's a matter of letting people do what they want. Sadly, the perverts far outnumber the actual transgenders, so when you start seeing more and more men in the ladies' room, you'll know you are encountering creeps. And you don't dare say anything or you will be the one labelled.

This is really getting ridiculous.

Liberals seem to prefer laws that lower standards for everyone. They've done it in schools. Not all children can speak well or do math, so they lower standards so some don't feel bad. Outcome based education never went away and Common Core is just expanding it. No more cursive writing because it's too hard. Of course, printing in English is too hard for some. It's also being called racist to correct someone's grammar or pronounciation. Might as well remove English as a subject. And ebonics is not a fucking language. It's a pitiful attempt at English taught to children by idiot parents who probably dropped out of school. And now some teachers want to do away with algebra.

Not everyone can speak English well or write in cursive so make all the students suffer. Lower all standards so the people at the bottom of the curve are comfortable and make the majority suffer. Might as well just start teaching liberalism 101 and forget all the hard stuff. As long as they can fill out a welfare form in any language and figure out a voting ballot, the left probably doesn't see the need to educate beyond those basics. Great way to eventually ensure that the population is demoralized and ignorant.

This bathroom law will make the majority uncomfortable, but the left would rather have that than a tiny percent of the population having to deal with their own problem in a way that doesn't pose a danger to society.

The schools teach that there are many different sexes now. We have men who prefer looking manly and claim they are lesbian women. It's nothing more than legitimizing some who actually have mental illness or perversion rather than a genuine identity crisis.

 

[JoeB131]

The issue isn't about gays, the issue is about forcing somebody to participate in a ritual against their religious beliefs.

Then you shouldn't be in a business that services those rituals.

The thing is, these "Christians" don't refuse service to

People who have tattoos (Leviticus 19:38)
Women who braid their hair, wear gold, pearls, or expensive clothing. 1 Timothy 2:9
Women with short hair or men with long hair 1 Corinthians 11:14-15
Women who wear pants - -- Deuteronomy 22:5
Women who talk in Church 1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Women who have lost their virginity before marriage - Leviticus 20:10

You guys need to stop hiding behind Jesus to rationalize your homophobia.

 

[JoeB131]

Sure. I understand that the state currently has unjust laws on the books. That doesn't mean it's not worthwhile pointing out their injustice.

If you feel at liberty to initiate violence, you basically are nothing more than a technical problem to be dealt with. There's not point arguing with a person who find nothing wrong with initiating violence against innocent people, just as there is no point arguing ethics with a rapist or murderer.

These laws are perfectly just. My right to get good service should not be dictated by your bigotries. If your bigotries are a problem, find something else to do for a living.

 

[JoeB131]

Let's say a black owned bakery has a customer come in saying he's the Grand Poobah of the KKK. He wants the black baker to make him a cake for their annual Hang The N party. Does that black baker have the moral and legal right to refuse service to the Grand Poobah or not?

Nope. And frankly, if a gay couple wanted a baker to make them a big old Penis cake, they'd probably have grounds to refuse, too.

But the same wedding cake they offer to straight couples they can't refuse.

 

[Seawytch]

So actually, correct me either of you if I'm wrong. I think what he's saying is he wants all PA laws removed. He objects to religion being the basis for removing a PA law because it confuses the issue by making religion sound like the reason when it's not, no citizen should be force to do business with another. We may all three actually agree on this ...

Close but not quite.

Religion isn't being used as a basis for removal of PA laws. These bills do not remove PA laws, they provide "special rights" for someone to claim a religious objections, but only if it applies to gays. Have a religious objection to interracial or interfaith marriages? Sorry, you are out of luck. Have a non-religious objection to interracial or interfaith marriages? Sorry, you are out of luck.

Many of these "Religious Freedom" bills in the State legislatures do not remove PA laws, they are written in such a manner that they only apply to homosexuals because they talk about marriage and it being between a man and a woman.

Take the Mississippi bill (I just picked it because it's been in the news recently), it provides protections for not having to provide services to any marriages described in section 2 of the act. That section then defines sincerely held religious beliefs to include only: marriage as the union of one man and one woman, sexual relations should be reserved for marriage, and "man" and "woman" refer to biological sex at birth.

The bill is titled "PROTECTING FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE FROM GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION ACT", but it ONLY protects "freedom of conscience" as it pertains to gays.


HB1523 (As Sent to Governor) - 2016 Regular Session

>>>

Which seems to me violates the ruling from Romer.

 

[Seawytch]

Name the "group" that is prevented from attending his concert

So if the baker refused to bake for gays or blacks, that would have worked? Interesting

No Kaz, the baker would have to close shop for it to work. Not refuse to serve some people, they have to not serve all people...by closing. Nobody is prevented from attending a Bruce Springsteen concert. He's denying no one attendence at his event, he's just not having it where you want him to. Nothing says he has to.

NC residents? Nope, they can go to his concert in another state. Who is discriminated against?

Queers can go to another baker. Who is discriminated against?

The people denied entry into the public accommodation. No one has been denied entry into a Bruce Springsteen concert. Argument fail.

If you close your bakery rather than bake me a cake, you've violated no PA law anywhere.

And can I reopen when you leave?

Nope, that would be in violation of the law....which you're free to do if you're willing to be caught and pay a fine.

 

[Centinel]

These laws are perfectly just. My right to get good service should not be dictated by your bigotries. If your bigotries are a problem, find something else to do for a living.

My bigotries? What bigotries?

You have no "right" to get good service from anyone. You are not the owner of anyone, nor do you have the right to initiate violence against them simply because they chose to give you or not give you the service that you think you have the right to.

A law that results in the initiation of violence against someone who hasn't violated the person or property of anyone is simply an unjust law.

 

[Seawytch]

These laws are perfectly just. My right to get good service should not be dictated by your bigotries. If your bigotries are a problem, find something else to do for a living.

My bigotries? What bigotries?

You have no "right" to get good service from anyone. You are not the owner of anyone, nor do you have the right to initiate violence against them simply because they chose to give you or not give you the service that you think you have the right to.

A law that results in the initiation of violence against someone who hasn't violated the person or property of anyone is simply an unjust law.

Violence? Where'd you get violence?

 

[Centinel]

Violence? Where'd you get violence?

The violence that the government uses to enforce its laws.

 

[hadit]

I foresee more "members only" establishments in the future.