Where do we draw the line?

[emilynghiem]

I also noticed something else just now.

Gays and Liberals are too concerned over how Christians "use their faith to discriminate" but do nothing about Muslim nations who have laws which do more than discriminate, they imprison homosexuals, or in some cases allow for them to be executed. So fervent is their defense that they also forget that Christians are being killed and persecuted just the same. Homosexuals and Christians all have rights in America, they have none in the Middle East.

So why does one group deserve more reverence than the other?

To the liberals and gays:

Instead of getting angry at a Christian for stating his beliefs, get angry at people who would rather kill you than tolerate you.

it's selective blame and selective forgiveness, TemplarKormac

I've found many of the same people who "can't forgive Christianity" for slavery, for religious abuses, etc.,
magically can forgive secular law, govt and authority for past abuses including slavery.

If you can't forgive Group A while you forgive and trust Group B to fix their mistakes,
then you will project a bias.

People do this all the time with their party leaders and candidates.
It's sexist to bash Hillary but okay to bash Palin.

If Bush goes to war, that's the oppressive white christian regime.
If Obama goes to war, that's a necessary evil.

If Bush pushes the Patriot Act, that was necessary in times of war (or the rightwing in opposition are silenced)
If Obama pushes similar drones or overreaching invasion of citizen privacy,
then he's abusing executive power (and the leftwing in opposition are silenced).

 

[Gracie]

I have a gay friend that said he is worried this Indiana law will spiral to where services will be denied by doctors, grocery stores, retail stores, mechanics, etc.

I was like....wtf? Does one go up to a cashier and say "I'M GAY!"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you can't forgive Group A while you forgive and trust Group B to fix their mistakes, then you will project a bias.

Precisely. Hammer meet nail.

 

[Siete]

With a Muslim as President, there is no line.

gee, that's mighty Christian of you.

It is? What's Christianity have to do with with my statement? Or Obama for that matter?



What's Christianity have to do with with my statement?

absolutely nothing you Christian... that's the point....durrrrrrrr

 

[TemplarKormac]

We're free to disagree with their decisions, and condemn, mock, and refuse to do business with them, but not to force them to use their property in a way we see fit.

So, we simply run our business on each and every whim we have? With no regard for the law? You can't force a Christian business owner to violate his faith by catering or being in any way remotely part of something that he believes service would violate his faith. That doesn't stop him from otherwise selling merchandise to a gay couple.

There are limits however. If I began using a religion as a reason for not serving anyone and everyone, I would go out of business! There is a difference between being forced to do something against your beliefs and using your beliefs to ignore the law completely.

There is a balance that must be struck.

 

[emilynghiem]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“...there are Christians being forced to act against their conscience here in America...”

This is a lie and wrong, and fails as a false comparison fallacy.

It's utter demagoguery to compare what is happening to Christians in the Middle East and Africa to just, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws in the United States that in no way 'force' Christians to “to act against their conscience.”

This is the sort of ignorance of the Constitution, propensity to lie, and contempt for the truth common to most conservative Christians.

Christians in the United States need to end this 'victimhood' nonsense, as their religious liberty is in no way being 'violated' or 'threatened.'

Says C_Clayton_Jones

* who doesn't consider a 7,000 fine by govt to be a violation or threat:
Willock filed a complaint against Elane with the New MexicoHuman Rights Commission, citing a state law that does not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The commission ruled Elane’s decision illegal, and imposed a fine of $7,000 to cover legal fees.
New Mexico Court Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony - Breitbart

* and who doesn't consider being forced to pay added tax penalties
as a "loss of liberty and freedom whether or WHEN to buy insurance that fits someone's needs"
(as well as a loss of choice to pay for health care through EQUALLY VALID OPTIONS
such public charities, veteran programs or medical education
but restricting citizens to "choices" approved by federal officials as exemptions.)

C_Clayton_Jones if that photographer who lost that appeal
didn't lose any rights by being forced to pay the $7,000 fine, would you pay it?
Since it doesn't make that much difference, then why not you offer to pay it if it is so insignificant?

Would you agree to pay a 7,000 fine if you were sued for not
photographing or servicing something that was so far outside your beliefs you had to refuse it?

And just because you don't have the same beliefs, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

I don't share the belief in not eating pork, but I will still respect a Muslim's right not to have pork forced on them. Why don't you hold the same consideration for a Christian who doesn't believe in homosexuality as a Muslim who doesn't believe in eating pork, or a Vegan who doesn't believe in patronizing meat or fur industries?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You remove admittedly terrible dictators, but in the vacuum you get genocide and civil war.

Nothing changes. Civil war and genocide already would exist, and in Saddam's case, nothing really changed until we stabilized their government. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the ME, and it showed. So what should we have done? Left him there?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

KEVIN_KENNEDY SAID:

“Nobody should be forced to associate with anybody when it comes to their own property for any reason if they choose not to.”

Public accommodations laws have nothing to do with freedom of association, and in no way 'violate' the right to freely associate. Public accommodations laws are necessary and proper regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, no different than requiring a business owner to pay a minimum wage or follow workplace safety requirements.

Moreover, public accommodations laws have nothing to do with the property rights of business owners, and in no way 'violate' the the rights of business owners enshrined in the Fifth Amendment:

“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. Pp. 258-261.”

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We're free to disagree with their decisions, and condemn, mock, and refuse to do business with them, but not to force them to use their property in a way we see fit.

So, we simply run our business on each and every whim we have? With no regard for the law? You can't force a Christian business owner to violate his faith by catering or being in any way remotely part of something that he believes service would violate his faith. That doesn't stop him from otherwise selling merchandise to a gay couple.

There are limits however. If I began using a religion as a reason for not serving anyone and everyone, I would go out of business! There is a difference between being forced to do something against your beliefs and using your beliefs to ignore the law completely.

There is a balance that must be struck.

I wasn't aware that going out of business was against the law. My pitiful attempt at humor aside, any law that forces people to use their property in a way that goes against their wishes is a violation of liberty. Is it bad business? Of course. So is saying that catering a homosexual wedding goes against your religion. That's bad business. You're losing out on money. You invoke the law against my property rights argument, while you simultaneously expect an exception to the same law for your religious argument. Except, of course, your religious argument has no legs to stand on outside of property rights. You have the right to refuse service to people based on your religious beliefs only because it's your property in the first place.

I have to admit I find this sentence funny, however: "There is a difference between being forced to do something against your beliefs and using your beliefs to ignore the law completely." So you're saying that you draw an arbitrary line on where you believe the law should be permitted to force people to do things against their beliefs, and where it should not. In other words, you want special treatment for the things you believe, and everybody else can have their rights violated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“...there are Christians being forced to act against their conscience here in America...”

This is a lie and wrong, and fails as a false comparison fallacy.

It's utter demagoguery to compare what is happening to Christians in the Middle East and Africa to just, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws in the United States that in no way 'force' Christians to “to act against their conscience.”

This is the sort of ignorance of the Constitution, propensity to lie, and contempt for the truth common to most conservative Christians.

Christians in the United States need to end this 'victimhood' nonsense, as their religious liberty is in no way being 'violated' or 'threatened.'

Says C_Clayton_Jones

* who doesn't consider a 7,000 fine by govt to be a violation or threat:
Willock filed a complaint against Elane with the New MexicoHuman Rights Commission, citing a state law that does not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The commission ruled Elane’s decision illegal, and imposed a fine of $7,000 to cover legal fees.
New Mexico Court Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony - Breitbart

* and who doesn't consider being forced to pay added tax penalties
as a "loss of liberty and freedom whether or WHEN to buy insurance that fits someone's needs"
(as well as a loss of choice to pay for health care through EQUALLY VALID OPTIONS
such public charities, veteran programs or medical education
but restricting citizens to "choices" approved by federal officials as exemptions.)

C_Clayton_Jones if that photographer who lost that appeal
didn't lose any rights by being forced to pay the $7,000 fine, would you pay it?
Since it doesn't make that much difference, then why not you offer to pay it if it is so insignificant?

Would you agree to pay a 7,000 fine if you were sued for not
photographing or servicing something that was so far outside your beliefs you had to refuse it?

And just because you don't have the same beliefs, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

I don't share the belief in not eating pork, but I will still respect a Muslim's right not to have pork forced on them. Why don't you hold the same consideration for a Christian who doesn't believe in homosexuality as a Muslim who doesn't believe in eating pork, or a Vegan who doesn't believe in patronizing meat or fur industries?

Just, proper, and Constitutional measures such as state and local public accommodations laws whose intent is regulatory do not 'violate' citizens' religious liberty. See Employment Division v. Smith (1990), City of Boerne v. Flores (1997).

“[The Free Exercise] Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons.”

Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute

 

[TemplarKormac]

My pitiful attempt at humor aside, any law that forces people to use their property in a way that goes against their wishes is a violation of liberty.

Complete and unfettered liberty is not reasonable or attainable. If that were true, I could use my liberty to go out and kill someone for no reason, and if anyone stopped me, they would be violating my liberty. We can't just disregard the law altogether.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You remove admittedly terrible dictators, but in the vacuum you get genocide and civil war.

Nothing changes. Civil war and genocide already would exist, and in Saddam's case, nothing really changed until we stabilized their government. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the ME, and it showed. So what should we have done? Left him there?

Saddam was a stabilizing force in Iraq, and a contained force in the Middle East. Yes, leave him alone. Let he and the Iranian government tear each other down. Utopian notions of remaking a society on ideals only a percentage of a percentage of the population believed in was obvious nonsense.

 

[emilynghiem]

KEVIN_KENNEDY SAID:

“Nobody should be forced to associate with anybody when it comes to their own property for any reason if they choose not to.”

Public accommodations laws have nothing to do with freedom of association, and in no way 'violate' the right to freely associate. Public accommodations laws are necessary and proper regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, no different than requiring a business owner to pay a minimum wage or follow workplace safety requirements.

Moreover, public accommodations laws have nothing to do with the property rights of business owners, and in no way 'violate' the the rights of business owners enshrined in the Fifth Amendment:

“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. Pp. 258-261.”

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

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
with the case of forcing wedding service providers to
GO TO a gay wedding and PARTICIPATE in serving or photographing it,
that's not about accommodating the customers in the public store.

That's like involuntary servitude by making you go to someone's house and do things you don't agree to.

Don't housecleaners have the right NOT to clean up a bedroom after someone's had an orgy
there, or been raped or murdered?

If that's not what someone wants to do, don't we have the right to turn down business?

I can't remember who the genius was who posted this but the idea of prostitutes (in states where sex work is legal) getting sued for not having sex with certain races or genders -- how far are you going to push this "accommodation" business?

I agree with TemplarKormac that you must apply reason, and not go too far either way.

Since all cases are different, I recommend mediation. That would cover any conflict
and protect the interests, opinions and consent of both sides equally by facilitating consensus that
accommodates ALL sides OR ELSE THEY DON'T DO BUSINESS TOGETHER.

Who said you had to FORCE people to do business together?
So the minute you become a registered business, you become enslaved to accommodate any request by any customer who contacts your business?

C_Clayton_Jones
excuse me, but for someone like you who won't even hold Congress and Court officials to "accommodate" citizens of different beliefs on the ACA mandates, if you allow GOVT to "discriminate against people of adverse creeds," why are you suddenly objecting to businesses for that? Why this denial in once case, and overcompensation in another? Why don't you hold GOVT to the very standards of "equal accommodation" you ask of businesses? ???

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My pitiful attempt at humor aside, any law that forces people to use their property in a way that goes against their wishes is a violation of liberty.

Complete and unfettered liberty is not reasonable or attainable. If that were true, I could use my liberty to go out and kill someone, because anyone stopping me would be violating my liberty. We can't just disregard the law altogether.

Except that you have no liberty to go out and kill someone. Liberty is derived from property, and violating someone's property in themselves, killing them, or otherwise causing them physical harm, is a violation of their liberty. It would not be a violation of your liberty to stop you from violating someone else's liberty.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you're saying that you draw an arbitrary line on where you believe the law should be permitted to force people to do things against their beliefs, and where it should not. In other words, you want special treatment for the things you believe, and everybody else can have their rights violated.

No. You are failing to understand, nor do I believe you wish to. It isn't a violation to sell something to someone money is money. You want my goods, I want your money. It isn't a violation for to sell a gay person a chocolate bar, I will gladly sell it to them. But if they wanted to buy 50 chocolate bars and ask me to run the chocolate fountain at their wedding, that is where I draw the line.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Except that you have no liberty to go out and kill someone

Precisely my point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“Saddam was a destabilizing force in the ME, and it showed. So what should we have done? Left him there?”

Telling.

The illegal invasion of Iraq was the consequence of political expediency, not justified 'National security,' where it wasn't the United State's place to 'do something' about Saddam; the comprehensive lack of international support for the illegal invasion is evidence of that.

You aren't a very good 'libertarian.'

 

[emilynghiem]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“...there are Christians being forced to act against their conscience here in America...”

This is a lie and wrong, and fails as a false comparison fallacy.

It's utter demagoguery to compare what is happening to Christians in the Middle East and Africa to just, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws in the United States that in no way 'force' Christians to “to act against their conscience.”

This is the sort of ignorance of the Constitution, propensity to lie, and contempt for the truth common to most conservative Christians.

Christians in the United States need to end this 'victimhood' nonsense, as their religious liberty is in no way being 'violated' or 'threatened.'

Says C_Clayton_Jones

* who doesn't consider a 7,000 fine by govt to be a violation or threat:
Willock filed a complaint against Elane with the New MexicoHuman Rights Commission, citing a state law that does not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The commission ruled Elane’s decision illegal, and imposed a fine of $7,000 to cover legal fees.
New Mexico Court Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony - Breitbart

* and who doesn't consider being forced to pay added tax penalties
as a "loss of liberty and freedom whether or WHEN to buy insurance that fits someone's needs"
(as well as a loss of choice to pay for health care through EQUALLY VALID OPTIONS
such public charities, veteran programs or medical education
but restricting citizens to "choices" approved by federal officials as exemptions.)

C_Clayton_Jones if that photographer who lost that appeal
didn't lose any rights by being forced to pay the $7,000 fine, would you pay it?
Since it doesn't make that much difference, then why not you offer to pay it if it is so insignificant?

Would you agree to pay a 7,000 fine if you were sued for not
photographing or servicing something that was so far outside your beliefs you had to refuse it?

And just because you don't have the same beliefs, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

I don't share the belief in not eating pork, but I will still respect a Muslim's right not to have pork forced on them. Why don't you hold the same consideration for a Christian who doesn't believe in homosexuality as a Muslim who doesn't believe in eating pork, or a Vegan who doesn't believe in patronizing meat or fur industries?

Just, proper, and Constitutional measures such as state and local public accommodations laws whose intent is regulatory do not 'violate' citizens' religious liberty. See Employment Division v. Smith (1990), City of Boerne v. Flores (1997).

“[The Free Exercise] Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons.”

Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute

Yes, C_Clayton_Jones if people agree to how this is applied and interpreted, and if you are being fair;
But if you look at ACA mandates for example, it is directly violating people's inherent beliefs that federal govt does not have that authority to force people to buy insurance as the only choice of health care.

So you are still being selective in enforcement, ie politically discriminating by creed.

You have made yourself and the SC justices the equivalent of GOD to decide what is someone's
inherent belief or not. And with Constitutionalism which is a political religion, based on the belief in limited govt,
it goes DIRECTLY against the exercise and belief in DUE PROCESS to deny law abiding citizens of liberty.

So YES that is AGAINST fundamental Constitutional beliefs.
And so is forcing or fining a business because the owners do not believe in homosexuality'
similar to Vegans or Buddhists not believing in eating meat, or Muslims not believing in
consuming pork or in desecrating the image of Mohammad.

Just because YOU don't agree with someone's beliefs and YOU don't see them as inherent,
doesn't mean they aren't. The courts can be wrong, just as the property laws that kept slaves
treated as less than human. And this wrong resulted in the govt owing more restitution than it could pay.

Abusing the govt to discriminate on the basis of creed is "just as wrongful" --
whether YOUR beliefs are about orientation and the OTHER beliefs are about Christianity
and not doing business with certain people that are spiritually in conflict.

both beliefs should be treated and protected equally by law.

there is NOTHING FORCING such gay couples to HAVE TO GO TO THOSE BUSINESSES with conflicting beliefs. If you are saying there is nothing compulsory, then treat both sides equally and respect equal free choice.

This is really sick if people with different beliefs are treated as "less than equal citizens" as gay and transgender.
I see no compelling reason why both beliefs aren't treated equally as free choice, and not coercing either one!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you're saying that you draw an arbitrary line on where you believe the law should be permitted to force people to do things against their beliefs, and where it should not. In other words, you want special treatment for the things you believe, and everybody else can have their rights violated.

No. You are failing to understand, nor do I believe you wish to. It isn't a violation to sell something to someone money is money. You want my goods, I want your money. It isn't a violation for to sell a gay person a chocolate bar, I will gladly sell it to them. But if they wanted to buy 50 chocolate bars and ask me to run the chocolate fountain at their wedding, that is where I draw the line.

No, I understand completely. You don't understand. What you're calling a violation is purely subjective, and you have no rational basis to defend it. You're saying it's not a violation for X, but it is for Y. That's fine for you, and I reject that notion completely. But I recognize that I have no basis to try and stop you from using your property in the furtherance of those subjective ideas. If my subjective ideas, however, said both x and y are a violation, you believe you have a basis for stopping me from using my property in accordance with that philosophy. In short, you're being a hypocrite. You have no basis for your position other than wanting special treatment for your ideas. Another way of putting it, you're doing exactly what the liberals who want to force Christian bakers to cater gay weddings are doing. You want to force people to use their property in accordance with your ideas of morality, while maintaining for Christians a special exemption for no reason that you're able to articulate.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except that you have no liberty to go out and kill someone

Precisely my point.

Except that your post displayed a complete lack of understanding of what I'm saying about property rights. So no, it wasn't your point at all.