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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.
Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?
Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?
The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?
Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?
Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?
no religion requires you to be a disgusting bigoted lowlife.
luckily we're a secular country
No abstaining from participation in sacred ceremonies that one doesn't agree with, and no abstaining from creating a product bearing a message that one considers unholy, can necessarily be defined as bigotry.
Luckily most people in our secular country still realize that.
You religious nutballs clearly dont understand what this actually mean. I think maybe you meed to read a bit of history.Free exercise thereof"
Gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These things are not religion, they are culture. They are the way so-called Christians interpret religion: they impose moral values on it that aren't there. They believe it is religion but it isn't. It is a set of morals that each individual sect and religion imposes on a belief in god.Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.
Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?
Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?
The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?
Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?
Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?
You know she's muslim, right?Simple solution. Members only..like Sams Club. Charge normal people 1 penny and fags, ragheads, slit-slurpers and mezkins $1000....if it's a good lookin Mezking gurl. adjust accordingly
Matter of fact GIVE this one a grand.....and a key
Hating and disapproving of gays is not part of Christianity.I fully agree. We should not be forced to renounce our faith for any reason. The first amendment is there for a reason.The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".
Like the case in New Mexico where a judge ruled that a photographer must attend a gay wedding ceremony as part of his job. The judge did indeed say that the photographer was required to abandon his faith and attend the ceremony.
In my case, my faith is first and foremost. I would rather go to jail than renounce my faith.
Gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These things are not religion, they are culture. They are the way so-called Christians interpret religion: they impose moral values on it that aren't there. They believe it is religion but it isn't. It is a set of morals that each individual sect and religion imposes on a belief in god.Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.
Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?
Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?
The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?
Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?
Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?
It's like Muslim women coverning. There is nothing in the Koran that dictates they cover, only that they dress modestly. Milliions upon millions of modern Muslim women don't cover because it is an old fashioned cultural idea, not anything dictated in the Koran.
It's the same for Christians. Altough Catholics don't believe in abortion, there is nothing in the Bible to prohibit it. There is no explicit prohibition of abortion in either the Old Testament or New Testament books of the Christian Bible.
The attitude in the Old Testament, not the New Testament and therefore not literally Christianity, toward homosexuality is based ancient social ideas and an ancient understanding of science; they do not apply in the modern world. Hatred and non-acceptance of homosexuality is based in moral values that are ancient and are based themselves in a now defunct inderstanding of biology and science. http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf.
No one is going against to their religion to serve gays or to bake gay wedding cakes: the idea is absurd. It's a moral issue and you don't have a right to turn away people from a business that serves the public because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
You religious nutballs clearly dont understand what this actually mean. I think maybe you meed to read a bit of history.Free exercise thereof"
Hint: it does not mean you get to use your idiotic voodoo cult beliefs to justify breaking the law.
Sorry, nutballss!
Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.
Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?
Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?
The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?
Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?
Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?
no religion requires you to be a disgusting bigoted lowlife.
luckily we're a secular country
No abstaining from participation in sacred ceremonies that one doesn't agree with, and no abstaining from creating a product bearing a message that one considers unholy, can necessarily be defined as bigotry.
Luckily most people in our secular country still realize that.
the LAW is that equal protection entitles everyone to public accommodation when you run a business. you don't get to Jim Crow anyone because you pretend it has to do with your bigot flag religion.
and the law is that unless a law is directed at a particular religion, it isn't a violation of your religion freedom.
oopses.
And we have a system in place -- as described by the constitution -- to determine if this opinion is, indeed, a fact. In other words, calling something constitutional or unconstitutional does not make it so.That's true, but when you pass a new law that violates a constitutionally guaranteed right, I believe the constitution is actually supposed to take precedent.
All I'm saying is that these people are actually ignorant of Christianity and are misinterpreting it to satisfy a need to feel morally superior. That isn't 'faith.' That isn't 'religion.' It isn't 'scripture.' It is ignorance and bigotry. Bigotry is not protected.Gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These things are not religion, they are culture. They are the way so-called Christians interpret religion: they impose moral values on it that aren't there. They believe it is religion but it isn't. It is a set of morals that each individual sect and religion imposes on a belief in god.Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.
Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?
Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?
The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?
Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?
Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?
It's like Muslim women coverning. There is nothing in the Koran that dictates they cover, only that they dress modestly. Milliions upon millions of modern Muslim women don't cover because it is an old fashioned cultural idea, not anything dictated in the Koran.
It's the same for Christians. Altough Catholics don't believe in abortion, there is nothing in the Bible to prohibit it. There is no explicit prohibition of abortion in either the Old Testament or New Testament books of the Christian Bible.
The attitude in the Old Testament, not the New Testament and therefore not literally Christianity, toward homosexuality is based ancient social ideas and an ancient understanding of science; they do not apply in the modern world. Hatred and non-acceptance of homosexuality is based in moral values that are ancient and are based themselves in a now defunct inderstanding of biology and science. http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf.
No one is going against to their religion to serve gays or to bake gay wedding cakes: the idea is absurd. It's a moral issue and you don't have a right to turn away people from a business that serves the public because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
Another response about how these Christians are Christian'ing incorrectly.
Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what you think about the accuracy of their interpretation. It's -their- faith. Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it specify that the free practice of religion hinges upon the practitioner's interpretation of their faith being something that you or anyone else finds reasonable or acceptable.
All I'm saying is that these people are actually ignorant of Christianity and are misinterpreting it to satisfy a need to feel morally superior. That isn't 'faith.' That isn't 'religion.' It isn't 'scripture.' It is ignorance and bigotry. Bigotry is not protected.Gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These things are not religion, they are culture. They are the way so-called Christians interpret religion: they impose moral values on it that aren't there. They believe it is religion but it isn't. It is a set of morals that each individual sect and religion imposes on a belief in god.Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.
Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?
Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?
The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?
Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?
Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?
It's like Muslim women coverning. There is nothing in the Koran that dictates they cover, only that they dress modestly. Milliions upon millions of modern Muslim women don't cover because it is an old fashioned cultural idea, not anything dictated in the Koran.
It's the same for Christians. Altough Catholics don't believe in abortion, there is nothing in the Bible to prohibit it. There is no explicit prohibition of abortion in either the Old Testament or New Testament books of the Christian Bible.
The attitude in the Old Testament, not the New Testament and therefore not literally Christianity, toward homosexuality is based ancient social ideas and an ancient understanding of science; they do not apply in the modern world. Hatred and non-acceptance of homosexuality is based in moral values that are ancient and are based themselves in a now defunct inderstanding of biology and science. http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf.
No one is going against to their religion to serve gays or to bake gay wedding cakes: the idea is absurd. It's a moral issue and you don't have a right to turn away people from a business that serves the public because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
Another response about how these Christians are Christian'ing incorrectly.
Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what you think about the accuracy of their interpretation. It's -their- faith. Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it specify that the free practice of religion hinges upon the practitioner's interpretation of their faith being something that you or anyone else finds reasonable or acceptable.
And we have a system in place -- as described by the constitution -- to determine if this opinion is, indeed, a fact. In other words, calling something constitutional or unconstitutional does not make it so.That's true, but when you pass a new law that violates a constitutionally guaranteed right, I believe the constitution is actually supposed to take precedent.
What makes it so is the Supreme Court. So, we can throw these generalities regarding: "anything that affects freedom of expression of religion" out the window immediately, as the SCOTUs has already made it clear that this does not include any and all laws. So about half the comments in this thread are useless garbage.
Okay, but the arguments presented are horrible. "You can't force people to abandon their beliefs!!"....And we have a system in place -- as described by the constitution -- to determine if this opinion is, indeed, a fact. In other words, calling something constitutional or unconstitutional does not make it so.That's true, but when you pass a new law that violates a constitutionally guaranteed right, I believe the constitution is actually supposed to take precedent.
What makes it so is the Supreme Court. So, we can throw these generalities regarding: "anything that affects freedom of expression of religion" out the window immediately, as the SCOTUs has already made it clear that this does not include any and all laws. So about half the comments in this thread are useless garbage.
Yeah, I'm aware that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me, on this.
However, just as Democrats tend to question the Hobby Lobby decision and the Citizens United decision, I question the court decisions made in favor of the people demanding the gay wedding cakes. That's kinda the purpose of this thread. If you feel that discussing this disagreement is "useless garbage", well, nobody's forcing you to stay and participate
It's not my approval that is the issue. It is the facts. Neither the new or old testaments prohibit abortion. What is said about homosexuality in the old testament is based on medical ideas that are 3000 years old. It's absurd to cling to that; the only reason to cling to it is because you choose bigotry. Christ was not a bigot. There is nothing Christlike about being a bigot. And stuff in the old testament is not about Christianity anyway. So if these people say they are Christians, they aren't. There isn't anything in the New Testament that condemns homosexuality. Christ never mentions it. The Constitution does not protect bigotry. You can't have a religion based on bigotry and have it recognized by the Constitution.All I'm saying is that these people are actually ignorant of Christianity and are misinterpreting it to satisfy a need to feel morally superior. That isn't 'faith.' That isn't 'religion.' It isn't 'scripture.' It is ignorance and bigotry. Bigotry is not protected.Gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These things are not religion, they are culture. They are the way so-called Christians interpret religion: they impose moral values on it that aren't there. They believe it is religion but it isn't. It is a set of morals that each individual sect and religion imposes on a belief in god.Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.
Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?
Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?
The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?
Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?
Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?
It's like Muslim women coverning. There is nothing in the Koran that dictates they cover, only that they dress modestly. Milliions upon millions of modern Muslim women don't cover because it is an old fashioned cultural idea, not anything dictated in the Koran.
It's the same for Christians. Altough Catholics don't believe in abortion, there is nothing in the Bible to prohibit it. There is no explicit prohibition of abortion in either the Old Testament or New Testament books of the Christian Bible.
The attitude in the Old Testament, not the New Testament and therefore not literally Christianity, toward homosexuality is based ancient social ideas and an ancient understanding of science; they do not apply in the modern world. Hatred and non-acceptance of homosexuality is based in moral values that are ancient and are based themselves in a now defunct inderstanding of biology and science. http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf.
No one is going against to their religion to serve gays or to bake gay wedding cakes: the idea is absurd. It's a moral issue and you don't have a right to turn away people from a business that serves the public because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
Another response about how these Christians are Christian'ing incorrectly.
Quite frankly, it doesn't matter what you think about the accuracy of their interpretation. It's -their- faith. Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it specify that the free practice of religion hinges upon the practitioner's interpretation of their faith being something that you or anyone else finds reasonable or acceptable.
The fact that you personally don't approve of their interpretation of Christianity and consider it bigoted doesn't mean that their practice isn't faith or religion.
...
....uh, yes we can, if this equates to not being able to use them as justification to discriminate in the marketplace and violate State law.
Dang, you just made a heck of case for denying abhorrent and deviant "cultures" as you claim come into play to make demands on privately owned businesses. Good job!Gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These things are not religion, they are culture. They are the way so-called Christians interpret religion: they impose moral values on it that aren't there. They believe it is religion but it isn't. It is a set of morals that each individual sect and religion imposes on a belief in god.Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.
Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?
Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?
The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?
Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?
Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?
It's like Muslim women coverning. There is nothing in the Koran that dictates they cover, only that they dress modestly. Milliions upon millions of modern Muslim women don't cover because it is an old fashioned cultural idea, not anything dictated in the Koran.
It's the same for Christians. Although Catholics don't believe in abortion, there is nothing in the Bible to prohibit it. There is no explicit prohibition of abortion in either the Old Testament or New Testament books of the Christian Bible.
The attitude in the Old Testament, not the New Testament and therefore not literally Christianity, toward homosexuality is based on ancient social ideas and an ancient understanding of science; they do not apply in the modern world. Hatred and non-acceptance of homosexuality is based in moral values that are ancient and are based themselves in a now defunct understanding of biology and science. http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf.
No one is going against to their religion to serve gays or to bake gay wedding cakes: the idea is absurd. It's a moral issue and you don't have a right to turn away people from a business that serves the public because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
Your opinion on who is or isn't a Christian has nothing to do with it. We're talking about a Constitutional right for any Citizen that wants to use it.alleged Christian.Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake."Sin" is defined as "disobedience to God". Whether or not someone thinks something is disobedient to God's will for him is between him and God. No one needs to cite anything about it. It's for THEM to say, not you or anyone else, and certainly doesn't require that they prove anything to you.
Actually isn't it for god to say what the sin is? Isn't it for god to judge sinners?
Personally I think it is completely hypocritical to say you won't provide a service to a person you think commits a specific sin that you think is unacceptable but you have no problem providing that same service to people who commit other sins that you deem to be acceptable
I'm not judging anything. I'm stating what He told us, so that we would be able to avoid sin.
You can personally think anything you like. That's the beauty of the First Amendment. Has no bearing whatsoever on anyone else's relationship with God and what they feel THEY should do.
I personally think it's very hypocritical of you to start out telling me that only God can judge sinners, and then to start judging people for "hypocrisy". But again, we're all entitled to have opinions.
hypocrisy isn't a sin. And I'm not religious at all but I have read the bible and the whole judge not lest ye be judged thing tells me that god is telling you not to judge anyone
But why is one sin so so bad that you refuse to deal with the person you think is committing it but another sin isn't so bad that you will do business with the person you know is committing it?
If it's a sin to sell a cake to a gay couple isn't it a sin to sell a cake to an adulterer or a killer or a liar or to someone who takes the lord's name in vain?
It seems to me that if doing business with a sinner is a sin then all you religious people should close up shop lest ye burn in the pits of hell
Should we ask a Pope for a contingent of subject matter specialists, to Inquire into the sincerity of any Person, alleging Religious morals?
Okay, but the arguments presented are horrible. "You can't force people to abandon their beliefs!!"....And we have a system in place -- as described by the constitution -- to determine if this opinion is, indeed, a fact. In other words, calling something constitutional or unconstitutional does not make it so.That's true, but when you pass a new law that violates a constitutionally guaranteed right, I believe the constitution is actually supposed to take precedent.
What makes it so is the Supreme Court. So, we can throw these generalities regarding: "anything that affects freedom of expression of religion" out the window immediately, as the SCOTUs has already made it clear that this does not include any and all laws. So about half the comments in this thread are useless garbage.
Yeah, I'm aware that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me, on this.
However, just as Democrats tend to question the Hobby Lobby decision and the Citizens United decision, I question the court decisions made in favor of the people demanding the gay wedding cakes. That's kinda the purpose of this thread. If you feel that discussing this disagreement is "useless garbage", well, nobody's forcing you to stay and participate
....uh, yes we can, if this equates to not being able to use them as justification to discriminate in the marketplace and violate State law. That was established long ago.
In fact, look at the overly general title YOU created. Not very honest of you, sir.
The only real use I can see for this thread is to highlight the fact that everyone thinks their own, preferred superstitions and cult beliefs are "special". This thread is a fine illustration of that.
Dang, you just made a heck of case for denying abhorrent and deviant "cultures" as you claim come into play to make demands on privately owned businesses. Good job!Gay rights, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These things are not religion, they are culture. They are the way so-called Christians interpret religion: they impose moral values on it that aren't there. They believe it is religion but it isn't. It is a set of morals that each individual sect and religion imposes on a belief in god.Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.
Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?
Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?
The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.
So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?
Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?
Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?
It's like Muslim women coverning. There is nothing in the Koran that dictates they cover, only that they dress modestly. Milliions upon millions of modern Muslim women don't cover because it is an old fashioned cultural idea, not anything dictated in the Koran.
It's the same for Christians. Although Catholics don't believe in abortion, there is nothing in the Bible to prohibit it. There is no explicit prohibition of abortion in either the Old Testament or New Testament books of the Christian Bible.
The attitude in the Old Testament, not the New Testament and therefore not literally Christianity, toward homosexuality is based on ancient social ideas and an ancient understanding of science; they do not apply in the modern world. Hatred and non-acceptance of homosexuality is based in moral values that are ancient and are based themselves in a now defunct understanding of biology and science. http://www.stpetersloganville.org/images/Homosexuality_and_the_Bible.pdf.
No one is going against to their religion to serve gays or to bake gay wedding cakes: the idea is absurd. It's a moral issue and you don't have a right to turn away people from a business that serves the public because you don't agree with their lifestyle.
If you can't deal with the public then don't go into business: it's that simple.Okay, but the arguments presented are horrible. "You can't force people to abandon their beliefs!!"....And we have a system in place -- as described by the constitution -- to determine if this opinion is, indeed, a fact. In other words, calling something constitutional or unconstitutional does not make it so.That's true, but when you pass a new law that violates a constitutionally guaranteed right, I believe the constitution is actually supposed to take precedent.
What makes it so is the Supreme Court. So, we can throw these generalities regarding: "anything that affects freedom of expression of religion" out the window immediately, as the SCOTUs has already made it clear that this does not include any and all laws. So about half the comments in this thread are useless garbage.
Yeah, I'm aware that the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me, on this.
However, just as Democrats tend to question the Hobby Lobby decision and the Citizens United decision, I question the court decisions made in favor of the people demanding the gay wedding cakes. That's kinda the purpose of this thread. If you feel that discussing this disagreement is "useless garbage", well, nobody's forcing you to stay and participate
....uh, yes we can, if this equates to not being able to use them as justification to discriminate in the marketplace and violate State law. That was established long ago.
In fact, look at the overly general title YOU created. Not very honest of you, sir.
The only real use I can see for this thread is to highlight the fact that everyone thinks their own, preferred superstitions and cult beliefs are "special". This thread is a fine illustration of that.
Don't tell me the arguments presented are horrible and then put into quotations something I didn't say, dick. I get that we can, I get that the law doesn't allow people to discriminate in the market place. I'm questioning the validity of that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. Acknowledgement of that was implied in the very premise of the OP.
Lemme repeat that. You can stop reiterating that it's the law. I'm aware of the court decisions about the cake, and I'm aware of public accommodation laws.
There, I've said it twice in this post and once in the post prior. Hopefully you've got it. I don't need to be told again that it's the law. We're on the same page regarding that.
Now then.
My initial question, also, was not overly general or dishonest. I was asking why people have to contradict their conscience in a number of ways, not just where it applies to serving specific people. You might consider it overly dramatic to refer to this as abandoning one's faith, but I view direct contradictions of one's own morals as some degree of abandonment. The fact that you don't agree with this view doesn't mean that I'm dishonest in expressing it. You may find this next bit hard to believe as well: There are people out there who ACTUALLY hold views that you don't hold. They don't believe, deep down that you're correct, and express their views due to some character flaw. No, they ACTUALLY believe things that you don't.
Mind blown yet?
