Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[frigidweirdo]

You don't have to abandon religious beliefs to run a business. You have to accept that there are laws in place.

Imagine a religion where you have to sacrifice someone on the 24th July every year.

You have to abandon you religious beliefs to live in the country.

Well, you can leave and go somewhere else.

Ah, so if you just reframe it as accepting that there are laws, then the fact that we're forcing people to choose between contradicting their religious values and losing their livelihood just goes away? Ceases to be? Sorry, but rewording the description doesn't actually alter the nature of the situation you're describing.

This isn't the same as sacrificing someone because not offering birth control as labor compensation in a -VOLUNTARY- contract doesn't victimize anyone. I didn't make a post asking why we're not allowed to do whatever the fuck we want in the name of religion, I'm strictly referring to contexts wherein the religious person hasn't used any form of force or coercion against anyone. In fact, in every scenario I've defended in this thread, the only victim of any sort of force or coercion is the business owner.

You're asking for a choice anyway.

On the one hand "religious freedom" and on the hand equality in society.

Sometimes two rights will collide. Which on wins?

Basically the theory of rights says you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Who is going to hurt more, the people who can't get whatever they want religiously, or the people who they'd force to be second class citizens?

Clearly the stronger of the two is equality.

The US Constitution trumps any religion, any belief. I might have religious beliefs that murdering is okay. Doesn't matter, the law is above that, I can't murder without breaking the law.

The Constitution protects religious rights and "free exercise thereof". All laws must bow to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Bible says marriage is a male and female. Now the Supreme Court has ruled marriage can be same sex. However, that doesn't mean that Christians have to change their beliefs. If it did, then "free exercise thereof" would no longer mean anything and the Constitution would be meaningless. There's going to have to be a compromise. Christians are going to have to be exempt from bigotry laws for refusing to accept same-sex marriage.

No, it does not.

The Constitution PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from establishing a religion and it cannot prohibit free exercise of religion.

Now, all rights have limits.
A prisoner who has gone through due process can have their gun taken away from them. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall not be infringed after due process", it does not mean that you can always walk into someone's home, or business with a gun.

Again, there are times when TWO RIGHTS come up against each other. You're trying to make out that the religious right must come first, always. Why? That's not how this works.


Okay, all laws must bow to the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has equal protection of the law.

Therefore no state or federal govt can make a law which allows for discrimination of those laws.

So, if you make a law that allows people to sell goods, that law CANNOT allow for discrimination.

All laws must bow to this.

How does religious freedom come in to this?

Well, the US has limited religious freedom since day one.

https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi...ia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1399&context=mlr

"An American Tradition: The Religious Persecution of Native Americans"

Until you have an understanding of all the conflicting information, you're never going to come to the right answer.

You can't force a Christian to violate their belief that marriage is a male and female. Not gonna happen.

Are they forcing them to violate their belief?

No. They have CHOSEN to accept the rules that all businesses in a particular area must adhere to.

In terms of Pennsylvania there are accommodation laws going back to the 1950s (if I remember correctly) that prevent businesses from discriminating based on how you were born.

Also, they could run a business but keep the clientele exclusive, there's nothing against this.

What they can't do is open a shop to ALL THE PUBLIC and discriminate against part of the public based on how they were born.

That's their choice.

 

[BS Filter]

Ah, so if you just reframe it as accepting that there are laws, then the fact that we're forcing people to choose between contradicting their religious values and losing their livelihood just goes away? Ceases to be? Sorry, but rewording the description doesn't actually alter the nature of the situation you're describing.

This isn't the same as sacrificing someone because not offering birth control as labor compensation in a -VOLUNTARY- contract doesn't victimize anyone. I didn't make a post asking why we're not allowed to do whatever the fuck we want in the name of religion, I'm strictly referring to contexts wherein the religious person hasn't used any form of force or coercion against anyone. In fact, in every scenario I've defended in this thread, the only victim of any sort of force or coercion is the business owner.

You're asking for a choice anyway.

On the one hand "religious freedom" and on the hand equality in society.

Sometimes two rights will collide. Which on wins?

Basically the theory of rights says you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Who is going to hurt more, the people who can't get whatever they want religiously, or the people who they'd force to be second class citizens?

Clearly the stronger of the two is equality.

The US Constitution trumps any religion, any belief. I might have religious beliefs that murdering is okay. Doesn't matter, the law is above that, I can't murder without breaking the law.

The Constitution protects religious rights and "free exercise thereof". All laws must bow to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Bible says marriage is a male and female. Now the Supreme Court has ruled marriage can be same sex. However, that doesn't mean that Christians have to change their beliefs. If it did, then "free exercise thereof" would no longer mean anything and the Constitution would be meaningless. There's going to have to be a compromise. Christians are going to have to be exempt from bigotry laws for refusing to accept same-sex marriage.

No, it does not.

The Constitution PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from establishing a religion and it cannot prohibit free exercise of religion.

Now, all rights have limits.
A prisoner who has gone through due process can have their gun taken away from them. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall not be infringed after due process", it does not mean that you can always walk into someone's home, or business with a gun.

Again, there are times when TWO RIGHTS come up against each other. You're trying to make out that the religious right must come first, always. Why? That's not how this works.


Okay, all laws must bow to the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has equal protection of the law.

Therefore no state or federal govt can make a law which allows for discrimination of those laws.

So, if you make a law that allows people to sell goods, that law CANNOT allow for discrimination.

All laws must bow to this.

How does religious freedom come in to this?

Well, the US has limited religious freedom since day one.

https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi...ia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1399&context=mlr

"An American Tradition: The Religious Persecution of Native Americans"

Until you have an understanding of all the conflicting information, you're never going to come to the right answer.

You can't force a Christian to violate their belief that marriage is a male and female. Not gonna happen.

Are they forcing them to violate their belief?

No. They have CHOSEN to accept the rules that all businesses in a particular area must adhere to.

In terms of Pennsylvania there are accommodation laws going back to the 1950s (if I remember correctly) that prevent businesses from discriminating based on how you were born.

Also, they could run a business but keep the clientele exclusive, there's nothing against this.

What they can't do is open a shop to ALL THE PUBLIC and discriminate against part of the public based on how they were born.

That's their choice.

Homosexuality is chosen behavior. It hasn't been proven to be a condition of birth.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're asking for a choice anyway.

On the one hand "religious freedom" and on the hand equality in society.

Sometimes two rights will collide. Which on wins?

Basically the theory of rights says you can do whatever you like as long as you don't hurt others.

Who is going to hurt more, the people who can't get whatever they want religiously, or the people who they'd force to be second class citizens?

Clearly the stronger of the two is equality.

The US Constitution trumps any religion, any belief. I might have religious beliefs that murdering is okay. Doesn't matter, the law is above that, I can't murder without breaking the law.

The Constitution protects religious rights and "free exercise thereof". All laws must bow to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Bible says marriage is a male and female. Now the Supreme Court has ruled marriage can be same sex. However, that doesn't mean that Christians have to change their beliefs. If it did, then "free exercise thereof" would no longer mean anything and the Constitution would be meaningless. There's going to have to be a compromise. Christians are going to have to be exempt from bigotry laws for refusing to accept same-sex marriage.

No, it does not.

The Constitution PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from establishing a religion and it cannot prohibit free exercise of religion.

Now, all rights have limits.
A prisoner who has gone through due process can have their gun taken away from them. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall not be infringed after due process", it does not mean that you can always walk into someone's home, or business with a gun.

Again, there are times when TWO RIGHTS come up against each other. You're trying to make out that the religious right must come first, always. Why? That's not how this works.


Okay, all laws must bow to the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has equal protection of the law.

Therefore no state or federal govt can make a law which allows for discrimination of those laws.

So, if you make a law that allows people to sell goods, that law CANNOT allow for discrimination.

All laws must bow to this.

How does religious freedom come in to this?

Well, the US has limited religious freedom since day one.

https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi...ia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1399&context=mlr

"An American Tradition: The Religious Persecution of Native Americans"

Until you have an understanding of all the conflicting information, you're never going to come to the right answer.

You can't force a Christian to violate their belief that marriage is a male and female. Not gonna happen.

Are they forcing them to violate their belief?

No. They have CHOSEN to accept the rules that all businesses in a particular area must adhere to.

In terms of Pennsylvania there are accommodation laws going back to the 1950s (if I remember correctly) that prevent businesses from discriminating based on how you were born.

Also, they could run a business but keep the clientele exclusive, there's nothing against this.

What they can't do is open a shop to ALL THE PUBLIC and discriminate against part of the public based on how they were born.

That's their choice.

Homosexuality is chosen behavior. It hasn't been proven to be a condition of birth.

Oh, so something has to be proven in order to exist, does it?

I've worked with enough kids, I've seen enough people struggling with their sexuality to know you're talking a load of bull.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what if one of your employees uses birth control? It's none of your business and if you don't want to provide in insurance that provides birth control and I'm pretty sure every insurance company does then you can choose not have any full time employees so you don't have to provide any health insurance at all.

and FYI birth control pills prevent ovulation they do not interfere with a fertilized embryo.

And is it a sin to provide insurance? You'll have to quote the scripture on that one. As long as you aren't using birth control isn't your soul safe? If your married employee uses the money you pay him to pay a hooker or keep a mistress on the side are you guilty of the sin of adultery? If your male employees use the money you pay them to buy condoms are you committing a sin?

"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

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

What?

Now writing is a sin?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what if one of your employees uses birth control? It's none of your business and if you don't want to provide in insurance that provides birth control and I'm pretty sure every insurance company does then you can choose not have any full time employees so you don't have to provide any health insurance at all.

and FYI birth control pills prevent ovulation they do not interfere with a fertilized embryo.

And is it a sin to provide insurance? You'll have to quote the scripture on that one. As long as you aren't using birth control isn't your soul safe? If your married employee uses the money you pay him to pay a hooker or keep a mistress on the side are you guilty of the sin of adultery? If your male employees use the money you pay them to buy condoms are you committing a sin?

"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

Hypocrisy is actually a sin, just FYI.

"Judge not lest ye be judged" refers to the state of someone's soul, not the quality of their actions. If you've read the Bible, you've seen the multiple admonitions to use discernment regarding actions. There is no judgement of someone's soul inherent in refusing to participate in their actions if you believe that to do so would be sinful.

There is a difference between doing business with people who are committing sins - because everyone is a sinner, so you'd go broke if you only worked with perfect people - and doing business when doing so would involve participating in sinful actions. And, as always, that determination is between the person and God. YOU do not get a vote, nor does anyone have any obligation to explain it to you or get your approval.

but in no way are you participating in any sinful actions as you call them.

If a watchmaker makes a watch for a murderer so he can accurately time the comings and goings of his intended victims he is not committing the sin of murder

If a baker bakes a cake for a party that ends up being an orgy the baker is not committing a sin


You want to pick and choose what sins are acceptable so you can justify your bigotry

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Psst...

Sam's Club isn't considered a private club under Public Accommodation laws since it's a for profit business.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

 

[Skull Pilot]

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

 

[BS Filter]

The Constitution protects religious rights and "free exercise thereof". All laws must bow to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. The Bible says marriage is a male and female. Now the Supreme Court has ruled marriage can be same sex. However, that doesn't mean that Christians have to change their beliefs. If it did, then "free exercise thereof" would no longer mean anything and the Constitution would be meaningless. There's going to have to be a compromise. Christians are going to have to be exempt from bigotry laws for refusing to accept same-sex marriage.

No, it does not.

The Constitution PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from establishing a religion and it cannot prohibit free exercise of religion.

Now, all rights have limits.
A prisoner who has gone through due process can have their gun taken away from them. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall not be infringed after due process", it does not mean that you can always walk into someone's home, or business with a gun.

Again, there are times when TWO RIGHTS come up against each other. You're trying to make out that the religious right must come first, always. Why? That's not how this works.


Okay, all laws must bow to the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has equal protection of the law.

Therefore no state or federal govt can make a law which allows for discrimination of those laws.

So, if you make a law that allows people to sell goods, that law CANNOT allow for discrimination.

All laws must bow to this.

How does religious freedom come in to this?

Well, the US has limited religious freedom since day one.

https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi...ia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1399&context=mlr

"An American Tradition: The Religious Persecution of Native Americans"

Until you have an understanding of all the conflicting information, you're never going to come to the right answer.

You can't force a Christian to violate their belief that marriage is a male and female. Not gonna happen.

Are they forcing them to violate their belief?

No. They have CHOSEN to accept the rules that all businesses in a particular area must adhere to.

In terms of Pennsylvania there are accommodation laws going back to the 1950s (if I remember correctly) that prevent businesses from discriminating based on how you were born.

Also, they could run a business but keep the clientele exclusive, there's nothing against this.

What they can't do is open a shop to ALL THE PUBLIC and discriminate against part of the public based on how they were born.

That's their choice.

Homosexuality is chosen behavior. It hasn't been proven to be a condition of birth.

Oh, so something has to be proven in order to exist, does it?

I've worked with enough kids, I've seen enough people struggling with their sexuality to know you're talking a load of bull.

Well, that's nice, but it won't work when talking about Constitutional rights. Next time you see someone struggling with their sexual identity, tell them to pull the pants down and look in a mirror or make an appointment with a shrink.

 

[BS Filter]

"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

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

What?

Now writing is a sin?

Yeah, that's it, writing is now a sin. This is the part where you play dumb, huh.

 

[BS Filter]

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

That's a lie. They had sold products to the couple previously. The issue is what the couple wanted written or put the cake.

 

[BS Filter]

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

You don't get out much, do ya.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Selling a cake isn't the issue. The issue is what the customer wants the Christian to write on the cake.

Court documents that the bakers in both the national cases (Sweetcakes by Melissa in Oregon and Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado) both agreed that the tasting never reached a design stage, that as soon as the bakers found out the order would be for a same-sex couple service was refused.

So the issue wasn't the customer wanted written on the cake (since their were no design discussions), the issue was who the customer was.


>>>>

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

You don't get out much, do ya.

I get why you people want to hide behind your religion so as to justify your bigotry

I was raised Catholic but had the good sense to get the hell away from those people

There is no way you can equate baking a cake with committing a sin
There is no way you an equate paying for part of an insurance policy that offers birth control with committing a sin

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've never seen a wedding cake with writing on it.

I wonder if writing Happy Birthday on a cake for a kid who was born out of wedlock is a sin

Here is the wedding cake catalog from Masterpiece Cakeshop -->> Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP


Most don't have figurines or writing.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's a lie. They had sold products to the couple previously. The issue is what the couple wanted written or put the cake.

Ah...

No it's not a lie, it is part of the statement of facts that both the claimant and respondent agreed to in court documents.

Here let me prove it -->> Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece CakeShop - Decision

Starting on page 2 you will find "undisputed facts" (i.e. those agreed to by claimant and respondent). Item #4 says they arrived for the meeting. #5 says they sat down introduced themselves. #6 Says Mr. Phillips informed them he wouldn't produce one of his products for a same-sex couple. #7 says "Complaintants immediatley got up and left the store without further discussion with Mr. Phillips."

And finally #8, "The whole conversation between Phillips and Complaintants was very brief, with no disucssion between parties about what the cake would look like."


*****************************************************

Next time before you calling someone a liar, you should know of what you speak.

Finally, the fact that Masterpiece Cakeshop may have sold some goods in the past is irrelevant to the case as Colorado law specifies Full and Equal access to goods and services.

Here it is if you think that is a lie also:

"(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation ..."​

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition

>>>>

 

[bodecea]

You don't have to abandon religious bekiefs, or any beliefs at all, for that matter. You can continue to believe any ridiculous thing you like. Our laws are reason-based, and you must follow them. If your voodoo nonsense clashes with our reason-based laws...tough shit, that's your problem. Until the law is changed, that is, which you are as empowered to affect as is anyone else.

So...see? Nothing to whine about, because any problem here is YOUR fault.

Your religion (Progressive government), my religion (none to speak of in particular) ... Our laws ... I don't give a fuck what you want.
You can try to think up any law you want ... And I can think of a way to use it against you.

Man's law isn't infallible ...

.

Government is not religion...there is where your argument collapses.

 

[BlackSand]

Your religion (Progressive government), my religion (none to speak of in particular) ... Our laws ... I don't give a fuck what you want.
You can try to think up any law you want ... And I can think of a way to use it against you.

Man's law isn't infallible ...

.

Government is not religion...there is where your argument collapses.

Because government is of Man ...Is precisley why laws established through government will always be fallible.
Government/Man is in no way divine or infallible ...

.

 

[bodecea]

Think its equal in all regards, not baking a cake, or throwing a fit because some one wont bake a cake, how did we get so small minded. we put laws in place so as to not discriminate against a persons just because of there race. that seemed fair. I remember the 60s for sure hippies got discriminated against, any one remember one of them going to court over it? how did we get so locked into my way or the highway thinking? has supporting the baker or the cake wanting person lead to more areas of hate of those not like your self.???

So...you think discrimination only counts if it is against race? You realize race is a social construct, right?

 

[bodecea]

Your religion (Progressive government), my religion (none to speak of in particular) ... Our laws ... I don't give a fuck what you want.
You can try to think up any law you want ... And I can think of a way to use it against you.

Man's law isn't infallible ...

.

Government is not religion...there is where your argument collapses.

Because government is of Man ...Is precisley why laws established through government will always be fallible ...

.

So what? Government is not religion.....we have a government here....and not a religion. Your religion doesn't dictate secular law. I know you want it to...but it does not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it does not.

The Constitution PREVENTS the US FEDERAL GOVT from establishing a religion and it cannot prohibit free exercise of religion.

Now, all rights have limits.
A prisoner who has gone through due process can have their gun taken away from them. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean "shall not be infringed after due process", it does not mean that you can always walk into someone's home, or business with a gun.

Again, there are times when TWO RIGHTS come up against each other. You're trying to make out that the religious right must come first, always. Why? That's not how this works.


Okay, all laws must bow to the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment has equal protection of the law.

Therefore no state or federal govt can make a law which allows for discrimination of those laws.

So, if you make a law that allows people to sell goods, that law CANNOT allow for discrimination.

All laws must bow to this.

How does religious freedom come in to this?

Well, the US has limited religious freedom since day one.

https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/cgi...ia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1399&context=mlr

"An American Tradition: The Religious Persecution of Native Americans"

Until you have an understanding of all the conflicting information, you're never going to come to the right answer.

You can't force a Christian to violate their belief that marriage is a male and female. Not gonna happen.

Are they forcing them to violate their belief?

No. They have CHOSEN to accept the rules that all businesses in a particular area must adhere to.

In terms of Pennsylvania there are accommodation laws going back to the 1950s (if I remember correctly) that prevent businesses from discriminating based on how you were born.

Also, they could run a business but keep the clientele exclusive, there's nothing against this.

What they can't do is open a shop to ALL THE PUBLIC and discriminate against part of the public based on how they were born.

That's their choice.

Homosexuality is chosen behavior. It hasn't been proven to be a condition of birth.

Oh, so something has to be proven in order to exist, does it?

I've worked with enough kids, I've seen enough people struggling with their sexuality to know you're talking a load of bull.

Well, that's nice, but it won't work when talking about Constitutional rights. Next time you see someone struggling with their sexual identity, tell them to pull the pants down and look in a mirror or make an appointment with a shrink.

You seem to have that typical attitude of "you must be normal or else you don't get rights".

The problem is that you're still talking crap.

You make stuff up, and then pretend it's real so that you can then go after it. It's boring, and it doesn't solve any problems.

Gay people don't stop being gay simply because you don't like it.