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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, in no manner violating the religious freedom of business owners.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, in no manner violating the religious freedom of business owners.

Says you. And we all know how valuable YOUR opinion isn't.

 

[bodecea]

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".

I fully agree. We should not be forced to renounce our faith for any reason. The first amendment is there for a reason.

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.

Well then go ahead and open up a business and openly discriminate against everyone who is not like you and I bet you will find more people boycotting you than doing business with you and you would go out of business before you went to jail.

I am well aware of the business world, and have a policy of serving everyone. I will however do nothing that is in anyway associated with gay wedding ceremonies or gay parades, as that will put me in direct conflict with my faith. There is nothing that will place me in conflict with my faith by say selling a car to a gay person, or by selling a piece of real estate to a gay person.

As for going bankrupt before going to jail, look at the case of the Colorado baker that declined to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding ceremony due to his religious beliefs. The judge ruled that he was required to renounce his faith and bake the cake. For obvious reasons, he declined. He is still in business ,and doing well, but there is a possibility that he might go to jail. He would go to jail for refusing to renounce his faith.

I've read up on this case and can find NOTHING that states he would go to jail. This is a civil case, not a criminal case. Could you please point out where it has been said by authorities that he would go to jail for refusing?

 

[bodecea]

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, in no manner violating the religious freedom of business owners.

Says you. And we all know how valuable YOUR opinion isn't.

If you believe PA laws are not necessary or proper....what are you actively doing to get them repealed in your state?

 

[Tilly]

I’m not sure if this document has any clout, It might not be worth the paper it’s written on as it’s guidance from the AG (no comments on him personally please) that can maybe simply be ignored, but I found some useful interesting sections:


2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one's religious beliefs.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just the right to believe or the right to worship; it protects the right to perform or abstain from performing certain physical acts in accordance with one's beliefs. Federal statutes, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), support that protection, broadly defining the exercise of religion to encompass all aspects of observance and practice, whether or not central to, or required by, a particular religious faith.

3. The freedom of religion extends to persons and organizations.

The Free Exercise Clause protects not just persons, but persons collectively exercising their religion through churches or other religious denominations, religious organizations, schools, private associations, and even businesses.

12. RFRA does not permit the federal government to second-guess the reasonableness of a religious belief.

RFRA applies to all sincerely held religious beliefs, whether or not central to, or mandated by, a particular religious organization or tradition. Religious adherents will often be required to draw lines in the application of their religious beliefs, and government is not competent to assess the reasonablenessofsuchlinesdrawn,
norwoulditbeappropriateforgovernmenttodoso. Thus, for example, a government agency may not second-guess the determination of a factory worker that, consistent with his religious precepts, he can work on a line producing steel that might someday make its way into armaments but cannot work on a line producing the armaments themselves. Nor may the Department of Health and Human Services second-guess the determination of a religious employer that providing contraceptive coverage to its employees would make the employer complicit in wrongdoing in violation of the organization's religious precepts.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-r...nload?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

 

[IsaacNewton]

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?

Ok let's choose Hinduism as the standard by which all businesses must run.

It's easy isn't it, when 75% of the people around you claim to be Christians, to demand you be able to force your religion as the standard for everyone. They do this in places like Iran and Isis did it for a while. Force all people to bow to one religion.

Not here derp, not now not ever. Keep your holy shrine and your 8 foot cross in your house or your church. The moment you try to beat me over the head with it is when you find out what not turning the other cheek looks and feels like.

 

[OldLady]

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?

"Exercising your religion" does not include violating the legal rights of others, at least not in this country. I guess if you run a business which includes servicing weddings, it's something you should think about. In this country, gay people do indeed get married. If you are too good to sell your services to gays, maybe you should either sell something different or get a new career.

 

[Lysistrata]

When are the members of this specific sect going to learn that what they are outrageously demanding would cause absolute chaos in our huge and diverse country. We have to preserve everyone's rights, not only Their Royal Highnesses'. I notice that they are the group that is constantly out there bleating.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

"Exercising your religion" does not include violating the legal rights of others, at least not in this country. I guess if you run a business which includes servicing weddings, it's something you should think about. In this country, gay people do indeed get married. If you are too good to sell your services to gays, maybe you should either sell something different or get a new career.

If laws have been passed giving rights which violate the Constitutional rights of others, which one do you suppose takes precedence? And isn't determining the answer to that question the point of this discussion?

In this country, gay people DO "get married". And religious people DO choose not to participate. One of those groups is mentioned in the Constitution, and one is not. Hmmm.

If people don't want to participate in your wedding, maybe you should go somewhere else. Maybe that's more reasonable than demanding that people service you or close their business. Y'think?

 

[Cecilie1200]

When are the members of this specific sect going to learn that what they are outrageously demanding would cause absolute chaos in our huge and diverse country. We have to preserve everyone's rights, not only Their Royal Highnesses'. I notice that they are the group that is constantly out there bleating.

"Outrageously demanding"? Is that REALLY how you view someone saying, "Thanks for asking, but I don't wish to take your job offer"? SOMEONE'S being outrageous, but I don't think it's the business owner.

The only chaos being caused here is by the people who insist that everyone MUST be forced to pay lip service to their delusional lives. There's nothing particularly "chaotic" about hiring a different baker or florist or whatever.

"We have to preserve everyone's rights, not only Their Royal Highnesses'." Funny, that's just what WE were saying about the gay people storming off to court.

What I notice is that Christians don't start "bleating" until after the gay activists start "bleating" to the courts.

 

[Witchit]

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?

Laws which they agreed to by opening a business.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Laws which they agreed to by opening a business.

Really, dude? Your position is REALLY that simply by living our lives and pursuing our skills and talents, we are contractually obligating ourselves to every stupid damned law that's ever been passed, whether we're aware of it or not? You get a bunch of legislators to ram something through, and the rest of us are signing on to it simply by existing?

There's not enough "fuck you" in the world for that kind of bullshit.

 

[Tilly]

Exercising your religion" does not include violating the legal rights of others,

Being gay should not give you the right to force religious people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs, nor to force them to participate in ceremonies they consider sinful.
At least that’s what the constitution says!

And, since it’s simple enough to go to a non Christian baker or photographer, for example, why CHOOSE to trample all over a persons constitutional right to practise their religion?
And Why go out of your way to destroy their livelihood?
It’s vicious and spiteful and totally unnecessary.

 

[yiostheoy]

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?

Funny old thread.

 

[irosie91]

Exercising your religion" does not include violating the legal rights of others,

Being gay should not give you the right to force religious people to violate their deeply held religious beliefs, nor to force them to participate in ceremonies they consider sinful.
At least that’s what the constitution says!

And, since it’s simple enough to go to a non Christian baker or photographer, for example, why CHOOSE to trample all over a persons constitutional right to practise their religion?
And Why go out of your way to destroy their livelihood?
It’s vicious and spiteful and totally unnecessary.

so true-----at most---people SHOULD be able to get a wedding cake------and a TUBE of writing stuff----so they
can take their cake and write anything they wish to write --
ELSEWHERE. I do not see why they have a right to
DEMAND Paul and Freddie ------husband and husband
with two plastic guys on top------THE BAKER NEED NOT
KNOW

 

[yiostheoy]

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?

What if my religion says no serving blacks?

How do you spell "bump" ??

Didn't they already beat this to death ??

 

[yiostheoy]

I'll add my 2 cents --

People who claim to be religious only to become intolerant of others are hypocrites.

 

[irosie91]

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?

What if my religion says no serving blacks?

How do you spell "bump" ??

Didn't they already beat this to death ??

the BS seems to be coming up STILL -----out there---
in the insane asylum called "earth"

 

[Tilly]

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?

"Exercising your religion" does not include violating the legal rights of others, at least not in this country. I guess if you run a business which includes servicing weddings, it's something you should think about. In this country, gay people do indeed get married. If you are too good to sell your services to gays, maybe you should either sell something different or get a new career.

This judge disagrees with you, Old Lady. Hopefully their will be many more now this one has seen sense and has had the courage to rule sensibly despite the feral, violent gaystapo:



Judge rules in favor of Bakersfield baker who refused to design wedding cake for same-sex couple

8:26 PM, Feb 5, 2018
6:38 PM, Feb 6, 2018


According to court documents from the ruling in favor of Tastries Bakery:

"A wedding cake is not just cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage.

There could not be greater form of expressive conduct. Here... They plan celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another.

The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.

Identifying the interests here as implicating First Amendment protections does not end the inquiry...

Furthermore, here the state minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent" -- Miller recommended her competitor to the same-sex couple after refusing to design them a cake.

The ruling goes on to say that "the fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection."

Judge rules in favor of California baker who refused to design wedding cake for same-sex coup

Yay!

 

[Dragonlady]

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?

If you are an employer, you shouldn’t be able to determine whether your employees’ health care plan includes contraceptives. That should be up to your employee - it’s her plan and it’s part of her wages.

In Canada, health care, including contraception and abortions, are paid for by employer health taxes. All employers contribute to these taxes, including the Catholic Church, and evangelical churches. There have been no court cases in this regard from any of them.