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

[bodecea]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

What in the hell makes you think the rest of us are any more exempt from unpleasant experiences than gay people are? Hell, I rack up at least one encounter with an asshole every time I leave the fucking house. So what? Butch the fuck up and learn what most adults do: no one is entitled to universal approbation, or to always feel spiffy. Cecilie's Rule #1: Humans suck.

No one has to "create an environment" where people have to think about the possibility of unpleasantness entering their lives. We have that environment by default; it's called "a world where other people exist".

Do you think it's ok for businesses to discriminate against christians because of their deep-seated beliefs about christians?

 

[Cecilie1200]

in the commission of his
art

A business person with a business license must follow business law. If you are an artist and think of yourself as such....then you don't need a business license.....then you don't have to follow business laws.

And business laws are unassailable and never to be questioned right? Nice way to cut off debate...and enforce compliance.[/QUOTE]

I just thrill to the sheer American spirit contained in the words "Shut up and do as you're told".

 

[dblack]

Oh my God, WHY do you imbeciles insist on thinking "this should be the law, because this is what the law is now" is somehow a sensible, valid argument?

At the point where you said, "He does have to . . ." you became wrong, immoral, and a fascist. Congratulations.

It's just authoritarian gloating.

 

[bodecea]

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

But there is a fine line. Can you think of a situation where someone obscene is pushing a private business into refusing service?

Someone obscene?? Please rephrase the question

The example I like is does the Jewish tattoo artist have to give a guy a nazi tattoo?

I would say no because public accommodation laws and laws against discrimination do not cover political affiliation or ideology. Just as an aside , I would bet that the baker could refuse to inscribe a cake with "God Loves Gays" because now we are getting into the area of free speech and artistic expression....but he does have to bake and sell the damned cake

Oh my God, WHY do you imbeciles insist on thinking "this should be the law, because this is what the law is now" is somehow a sensible, valid argument?

At the point where you said, "He does have to . . ." you became wrong, immoral, and a fascist. Congratulations.

PA laws ARE the business laws. But there is good news for you....you can work to get such laws repealed. What have you actively done so far to "right this perceived wrong"?

 

[dblack]

And business laws are unassailable and never to be questioned right? Nice way to cut off debate...and enforce compliance.

Taste the jack boot!

 

[WorldWatcher]

I think what WW is saying is that he hopes our nation has progressed so much that people don't need the law to force them to serve all equally, that the court of public opinion would take care of the bigots of all sorts. I don't know if he's being naive tho.

I went and dug up something I wrote awhile ago. Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.

5. Even segregation in the military.​

In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatization" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.


2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability to community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.) should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.


3. The "corporatization" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

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


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I think of myself as a Goldwater Conservative quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

, I would bet that the baker could refuse to inscribe a cake with "God Loves Gays" because now we are getting into the area of free speech and artistic expression....but he does have to bake and sell the damned cake

Never give a (((liberal))) an inch.

View attachment 183680

I see how you can only make a point by grossly misrepresenting the issue AND showing violent threats.

What you see is that I see right through your masters. The goal was always control and elimination of christian and cultural norms.

I can see how you can make your point by talking about "masters" and trying to generate fear that christians are being persecuted by making them actually follow the laws. What's next? Crying persecution because christians have to follow safety laws? Crying persecution because christians have to follow health laws?

 

[bodecea]

Hmmmmm....is that a christian response

Hmmm...would you know a Christian response if you saw one?

Well, I can certainly get an idea of what christians here on this message board think christian responses are.

 

[bodecea]

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

But there is a fine line. Can you think of a situation where someone obscene is pushing a private business into refusing service?

Someone obscene?? Please rephrase the question

The example I like is does the Jewish tattoo artist have to give a guy a nazi tattoo?

I would say no because public accommodation laws and laws against discrimination do not cover political affiliation or ideology. Just as an aside , I would bet that the baker could refuse to inscribe a cake with "God Loves Gays" because now we are getting into the area of free speech and artistic expression....but he does have to bake and sell the damned cake

Oh my God, WHY do you imbeciles insist on thinking "this should be the law, because this is what the law is now" is somehow a sensible, valid argument?

At the point where you said, "He does have to . . ." you became wrong, immoral, and a fascist. Congratulations.

We get that you don't like PA laws..you know they've been challenged in the Supreme Court and have been judged to be Constitutional? That means, you, as a concerned citizen, can work to get them repealed in your state. Have you been actively working to get rid of what you consider to be "wrong, immoral, and fascist" laws?

 

[bodecea]

in the commission of his
art

A business person with a business license must follow business law. If you are an artist and think of yourself as such....then you don't need a business license.....then you don't have to follow business laws.

And business laws are unassailable and never to be questioned right? Nice way to cut off debate...and enforce compliance.

I just thrill to the sheer American spirit contained in the words "Shut up and do as you're told".[/QUOTE]
No....if you'd been paying attention to how our government works, then you would know that if you feel a law is unjust you can work to have it judicially reviewed and perhaps struck down as unConstititional. And even if a law, such as PA laws are deemed Constitutional, you can still get your state to repeal them. So.....what have you actively been doing to make that happen in your state?

 

[Lysistrata]

This is Masterpiece Cakeshop's advertising:

Are Black People Cursed? The Curse of Ham - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries

"Select from one of our galleries or order a custom design. Call or come in. We look forward to serving you!"

Discrimination, from a legal standpoint, means discriminating against a person based on that person's identity. If you're willing to do business with the person in question and offer them exactly the same product that you're offering everyone else, you're not discriminating between customers, you're discriminating between different types of products that you're willing or not willing to produce.

When you conflate these two concepts in order to "win" the argument, you're the one being obtuse.

#1 There was never any discussion of design (so saying things about requiring two grooms is false). This is agreed to in court documents in the Statement of Facts. To say different means you think Mr. Phillips (the baker) is a liar.

#2 The bakers (both Masterpiece Cakeshop and Sweetcakes by Melissa) both admit in court documents that the provided the product in question "i.e. wedding cakes".

#3 When you refuse to sell the exact same product based on who the people are, than yea you are discriminating between customers.


Below is one of the wedding cakes in the Masterpiece Cakeshop catalog (Wedding | MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP). Mr. Phillips would sell the cake to a different-sex couple, but would refuse to sell it to a same-sex couple. Same cake different people, basis then is the customers.

Don't. Give. A. Fuck.

They don't want to bake you a cake. Doesn't matter why. Go find another baker. Give them a shitty review on Yelp and Facebook. But hauling them into court and closing down their livelihood because your feewings are hurt? Get the fuck over yourself.

You are blaming the wrong people. Don't try to shove the responsibility on the would-be customers, who were legitimately there and who properly reported their experience to the state human-rights commission. Why do you think that people should shoulder the burden for people like phillips, drive all over the place, and possibly be subjected to more mistreatment, and keep silent to protect his conduct?They are not responsible for phillip's thoughts. He is. The onus is on him. If he wants to stay in business, he needs to get his personal shit together. It's not the responsibility of the general public to mollycoddle him.

And, actually, the case ended up in court when this guy challenged the decision of the state commission. The couple did not haul him into court. He hauled the state commission into court. He is entirely responsible for being in court and for his livelihood.

Whoa up there, Dobbins. "Drive all over the place"? What is this, 1980? Do we not have Internet and telephones and all manner of devices to find this shit out without "driving all over the place"? If you can't find a listing of gay-friendly, or even GAY-OWNED, bakeries and other wedding service providers, on the Internet within five minutes, you're more tech-clueless than my 80-year-old mother, or you're just not trying.

And can we please dispense with the quaint, and utterly dishonest, fiction that this couple didn't know prior to asking what this baker's beliefs were, and that they didn't ask SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of getting their feewings hurt so they could pitch a hissy fit about it? Puh-frigging-leeze.

Oh, and can I just point out that THEY HAD TO GO SOMEPLACE ELSE ANYWAY, and just doing so is a hell of a lot less trouble than doing so AND filing a fucking court case? So I'm gonna have to guess that speed and convenience PROBABLY was not a motivating factor in the decision process here.

I keep telling you, first, that they did not file a court case. phillips did. They merely filed a discrimination complaint with the state, which was entirely within their rights to do. Secondly, phillips himself is solely responsible for creating the situation. The couple only had to go someplace else because of his conduct. If he got into trouble, it was his own fault. The couple had no responsibility whatsoever to hide his misconduct and shield him, or got elsewhere. Why can't you understand that phillips himself is responsible for the entire thing? PEOPLE CANNOT TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR MISCONDUCT ON THE PUBLIC.

 

[Taz]

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?

Your religion beliefs are bullshit if they make you be unkind towards others.

Which is the problem with religion.

No, that's the problem with ANY belief: there's always someone who thinks your beliefs are bullshit. Aaaaand that's why we have the First Amendment. Like I've said before, no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of; it's only needed for beliefs that go against the majority.

Where does it say that religious beliefs of the majority are the only ones protected?

It doesn't, shitforbrains. Would you please get someone to read this to you and explain it so I don't have to waste my effing time explaining that the entire point of what I said is the exact effing opposite of what you thought it was with that tapioca pudding between your ears that you call a brain?

LOL, you said "no legal protection is needed for beliefs that the majority approves of", and of course that is wrong, all beliefs need protection.

 

[Lastamender]

I agree, that's the way the law should be.

Although that doesn't preclude the discussion what the law actually is or correcting people when they make up alternative facts to fit a narrative instead of the real facts of the case(s).



>>>>

the law should not and doesn't allow bigoted lowlife twits to decide they can jim crow others when they're working in or running a public business.

Have I thanked you yet for showing up and dropping the IQ of the entire discussion by 10 points just by your presence?

Hmmmmm....is that a christian response

Hmmmmm....is that a christian response

Better than an Islamic one , your head would be on one side of the room and your keyboard on the other. Count your blessings, you dumb fuck.

Another christian response, right?

What makes you think it was a Christian response, desperation or stupidity, or both?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think what WW is saying is that he hopes our nation has progressed so much that people don't need the law to force them to serve all equally, that the court of public opinion would take care of the bigots of all sorts. I don't know if he's being naive tho.

I went and dug up something I wrote awhile ago. Here are my thoughts...

Three generations ago there were...

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.

5. Even segregation in the military.​

In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 60 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatization" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3-generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.


2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. In addition I fully support the ability to community having access to information about businesses and their discriminatory practices. News media (TV, Radio, Newspapers) and social media (email, texting, Facebook, etc.) should all be free to report and have customers report on discriminatory business practices so that the public can make an informed choice.


3. The "corporatization" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​

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


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I think of myself as a Goldwater Conservative quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Federal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, that's the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.



>>>>

Now see if you can sell this to that black guy who had to walk across the street after being publicly humiliated. Isolated instances of discrimination are as much of a slap in the face for a whole minority group as institutionalized discrimination was. Maybe more so, because that black guy was blind sided, not expecting that sort of treatment

 

[Lastamender]

I agree, that's the way the law should be.

Although that doesn't preclude the discussion what the law actually is or correcting people when they make up alternative facts to fit a narrative instead of the real facts of the case(s).



>>>>

the law should not and doesn't allow bigoted lowlife twits to decide they can jim crow others when they're working in or running a public business.

Have I thanked you yet for showing up and dropping the IQ of the entire discussion by 10 points just by your presence?

Hmmmmm....is that a christian response

Hmmmmm....is that a christian response

Better than an Islamic one , your head would be on one side of the room and your keyboard on the other. Count your blessings, you dumb fuck.

psssst..... muslims wouldn;t get to refuse serving you in this country. so no one really cares about that "Islamic" response.

nutcase

Do you realize how wrong you are? Muslims are a protected class for idiots like you. They get away with far more than any Christian or any people from other religions. Fact.

 

[DOTR]

I just thrill to the sheer American spirit contained in the words "Shut up and do as you're told".

That is exactly what you are being told. And usually by unelected judges so that you cant start any of that high falutin self government nonsense.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

But there is a fine line. Can you think of a situation where someone obscene is pushing a private business into refusing service?

Someone obscene?? Please rephrase the question

The example I like is does the Jewish tattoo artist have to give a guy a nazi tattoo?

I would say no because public accommodation laws and laws against discrimination do not cover political affiliation or ideology. Just as an aside , I would bet that the baker could refuse to inscribe a cake with "God Loves Gays" because now we are getting into the area of free speech and artistic expression....but he does have to bake and sell the damned cake

Oh my God, WHY do you imbeciles insist on thinking "this should be the law, because this is what the law is now" is somehow a sensible, valid argument?

At the point where you said, "He does have to . . ." you became wrong, immoral, and a fascist. Congratulations.

The fact is that it is the law. Deal with it. A fascist ? Really?

 

[DOTR]

And business laws are unassailable and never to be questioned right? Nice way to cut off debate...and enforce compliance.

Taste the jack boot!

What they forget is that they are a minority ruling body. Sooner or later, when dissent and electoral remedies are cut off, there is an explosion. First the wingnuts go but eventually the entire citizenry decides enough is enough. They have pushed things too far and they refuse to accept electoral defeat. I think the time is close to give them a taste of another kind of defeat.
Things are starting to look Wiemar Republic-like.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

But there is a fine line. Can you think of a situation where someone obscene is pushing a private business into refusing service?

Someone obscene?? Please rephrase the question

The example I like is does the Jewish tattoo artist have to give a guy a nazi tattoo?

I would say no because public accommodation laws and laws against discrimination do not cover political affiliation or ideology. Just as an aside , I would bet that the baker could refuse to inscribe a cake with "God Loves Gays" because now we are getting into the area of free speech and artistic expression....but he does have to bake and sell the damned cake

What about the Miami bars that wouldn’t let us in? Apparently not cool enough

 

[bodecea]

the law should not and doesn't allow bigoted lowlife twits to decide they can jim crow others when they're working in or running a public business.

Have I thanked you yet for showing up and dropping the IQ of the entire discussion by 10 points just by your presence?

Hmmmmm....is that a christian response

Hmmmmm....is that a christian response

Better than an Islamic one , your head would be on one side of the room and your keyboard on the other. Count your blessings, you dumb fuck.

Another christian response, right?

What makes you think it was a Christian response, desperation or stupidity, or both?

So....are you saying that christians can turn their "christianity" on and off like a switch? How convenient is THAT?