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

[danielpalos]

submit to what; their alleged love for the Art of Bakery?

You're very confused.

not enough true love of anything, to go around, right wingers?

God hates sin. Why don't you just admit you hate God. Go ahead, be honest for once.

lol. like i am really going to Believe Any Person claiming Faith, on a for-profit basis.

So in your world Christians shouldn't in business shouldn't make a profit. That's some really warped thinking.

dear, true followers of the teachings of Jesus the Christ, have social Faith and social Hope, for the greater glory of their immortal soul over profit, every time this issue should come up.

 

[Lysistrata]

Nope.

Then why am I a bigot?

Because you're judging people based on their sexual preference.

My Constitution doesn't label me a bigot. In fact, my Constitution protects my religious beliefs. Do you defend the Constitution?

Yep.

So? They judge me based on my religious beliefs. In fact, they target Christians and deliberately try to destroy their livelihood. I don't try to destroy them. Which is worse?

I don't care. I just don't want government taking sides in the 'culture-war'.

Then you should support the Christians. It's liberals and the queer mafia passing these laws. We never had any problem until recently.

The notion that this phony bigoted "Christian" sect somehow represents the Supreme Being is beyond hilarious. Nobody can make that claim, and their actions certainly do not comport with Christianity anyway.
Poor, poor "persecuted" little liars.

 

[dblack]

Why is anyone surprised that religious people hate other people so much as to not serve them? Religion is all about division into separate sects who all hate each other.

Whatever. I'm not interested in the pissing match between gay activists and fundies. I just don't want to see them screw up our legal framework in the process.

I can't equate the two sides. It seems more that these fundie religious sects want to stalk LGBTs or at least single them specifically for ill-treatment. The religious sects seem to be on some sort of aggressive offensive against LGBTs and the LGBTs seem to be in a defensive posture.

I'm not equating them. I'm just saying it shouldn't be a concern of government.

 

[dblack]

Nope.

Then why am I a bigot?

Because you're judging people based on their sexual preference.

My Constitution doesn't label me a bigot. In fact, my Constitution protects my religious beliefs. Do you defend the Constitution?

Yep.

So? They judge me based on my religious beliefs. In fact, they target Christians and deliberately try to destroy their livelihood. I don't try to destroy them. Which is worse?

I don't care. I just don't want government taking sides in the 'culture-war'.

Then you should support the Christians. It's liberals and the queer mafia passing these laws. We never had any problem until recently.

There are similar laws protecting Christians.

 

[forkup]

Actually slavery is the ultimate manifestation of discrimination.

No it's not. That's why we have different words for them.

Leaving that aside you didn't answer my Question. Refusing service to someone based on religious beliefs is obviously discrimination. So you find that acceptable?

No, I don't find it acceptable. But I don't think it should be illegal. That's a key point too - the law isn't for banning everything we find unacceptable.

discrimination
dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

-What about slavery doesn't fit this definition?
-You're right the law isn't for banning everything we find unacceptable, the law is there to protect it's citizen's against harm and unjust treatment. The law for instance grants people equal rights no matter what religion, sex or race you belong, and yes even sexual orientation. It grants the right to be homophobic, it doesn't grant the right to act on that belief. The first is a personal opinion, the second infringes on the rights of another. I personally would never buy a gun, I don't want to deny anyone else the right to buy a gun, within certain limits. The limits being that the gun has to have 1 of 2 purposes. Self defense and hunting. My reason being that guns beyond those 2 purposes pose a public safety problem.

 

[dblack]

Actually slavery is the ultimate manifestation of discrimination.

No it's not. That's why we have different words for them.

Leaving that aside you didn't answer my Question. Refusing service to someone based on religious beliefs is obviously discrimination. So you find that acceptable?

No, I don't find it acceptable. But I don't think it should be illegal. That's a key point too - the law isn't for banning everything we find unacceptable.

discrimination
dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

Discrimination is a matter of personal bias, not violent domination.

Regardless, I'm arguing against forced labor, not in favor of it.

 

[forkup]

If your religious beliefs state that slavery is acceptable should you be allowed to enslave people? I strongly believe you would answer no to that question. Society imposes limits what a person can do when exercising their religious beliefs, the reason being that being religious should not interfere with other people.

You don't see the difference between enslaving someone and refusing to bake them a cake? It's not just a question of degree. Enslaving someone is violating their rights. Refusing to bake them a cake isn't.

Of course there's a difference. I purposefully used an extreme to make my point. My question would be what do you feel would be an acceptable amount of discriminating against people because of your religious beliefs?

Well, discrimination has nothing to do with slavery, so I'm not sure I see your point. I don't believe discrimination should be regulated by the government at all. Our personal preferenActuces on who we associate with should never be dictated by law.

Actually slavery is the ultimate manifestation of discrimination. I feel you are not equal to me so I have a RIGHT to keep you in bondage. Leaving that aside you didn't answer my Question. Refusing service to someone based on religious beliefs is obviously discrimination. So you find that acceptable?

The US Supreme Court upheld slavery in 1856. How did that turn out?

620000 Fatalities to be exact. All because people wanted to keep their right to discriminate against other people.

 

[forkup]

Actually slavery is the ultimate manifestation of discrimination.

No it's not. That's why we have different words for them.

Leaving that aside you didn't answer my Question. Refusing service to someone based on religious beliefs is obviously discrimination. So you find that acceptable?

No, I don't find it acceptable. But I don't think it should be illegal. That's a key point too - the law isn't for banning everything we find unacceptable.

discrimination
dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

Discrimination is a matter of personal bias, not violent domination.

Regardless, I'm arguing against forced labor, not in favor of it.

Personal bias grants justification for violent domination in the case of slavery. You can't disconnect the 2. They didn't justify by stating they needed the labor, they justified it by stating the prejudice that blacks were inferior. And you again didn't answer the question. I gave you the definition of discrimination and stated that slavery was discrimination. Why do you feel that slavery isn't discrimination?

 

[dblack]

Actually slavery is the ultimate manifestation of discrimination.

No it's not. That's why we have different words for them.

Leaving that aside you didn't answer my Question. Refusing service to someone based on religious beliefs is obviously discrimination. So you find that acceptable?

No, I don't find it acceptable. But I don't think it should be illegal. That's a key point too - the law isn't for banning everything we find unacceptable.

discrimination
dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

Discrimination is a matter of personal bias, not violent domination.

Regardless, I'm arguing against forced labor, not in favor of it.

Personal bias grants justification for violent domination in the case of slavery. You can't disconnect the 2. They didn't justify by stating they needed the labor, they justified it by stating the prejudice that blacks were inferior. And you again didn't answer the question. I gave you the definition of discrimination and stated that slavery was discrimination. Why do you feel that slavery isn't discrimination?

You're equivocating. I didn't say slavery wasn't discriminatory. I said discrimination isn't the same thing as slavery. Just like not liking someone isn't the same thing as murdering them. Got it?

 

[Lysistrata]

Why is anyone surprised that religious people hate other people so much as to not serve them? Religion is all about division into separate sects who all hate each other.

Whatever. I'm not interested in the pissing match between gay activists and fundies. I just don't want to see them screw up our legal framework in the process.

I can't equate the two sides. It seems more that these fundie religious sects want to stalk LGBTs or at least single them specifically for ill-treatment. The religious sects seem to be on some sort of aggressive offensive against LGBTs and the LGBTs seem to be in a defensive posture.

I'm not equating them. I'm just saying it shouldn't be a concern of government.

Unfortunately, enforcement of laws of general applicability necessarily involves government at some levelh. This is the way our system works.

 

[dblack]

Why is anyone surprised that religious people hate other people so much as to not serve them? Religion is all about division into separate sects who all hate each other.

Whatever. I'm not interested in the pissing match between gay activists and fundies. I just don't want to see them screw up our legal framework in the process.

I can't equate the two sides. It seems more that these fundie religious sects want to stalk LGBTs or at least single them specifically for ill-treatment. The religious sects seem to be on some sort of aggressive offensive against LGBTs and the LGBTs seem to be in a defensive posture.

I'm not equating them. I'm just saying it shouldn't be a concern of government.

Unfortunately, enforcement of laws of general applicability necessarily involves government at some levelh. This is the way our system works.

The question is what matters government should be allowed to legislate - like our personal decisions about whom to associate with.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The queer mafia fines the Christian business owner hundreds of thousands of dollars and bankrupts them. Haven't you heard of this?

The bakers that wen't of of business was Sweetcakes by Melissa in the Oregon case.

#1 The bakery closed BEFORE the fine was levied in the case because of lack of business.

#2 The owners Aaron and Melissa Klein made a PROFIT because the fine was $135,000 (which has been paid BTW) and they received $500,000 in donations. They profited by $365,000.

#3 Oh and the other bakery, Masterpiece Cakeship - the case before the Supreme Court - is still in business.



To say they went out of business because of the fine is a lie.



>>>>>

 

[danielpalos]

Now, they don't Have to be bakers.

 

[DOTR]

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?

And the answer is....because you allowed marxists into power. Christianity is something no communist could ever abide. Wonder why that is?

 

[forkup]

Actually slavery is the ultimate manifestation of discrimination.

No it's not. That's why we have different words for them.

Leaving that aside you didn't answer my Question. Refusing service to someone based on religious beliefs is obviously discrimination. So you find that acceptable?

No, I don't find it acceptable. But I don't think it should be illegal. That's a key point too - the law isn't for banning everything we find unacceptable.

discrimination
dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

Discrimination is a matter of personal bias, not violent domination.

Regardless, I'm arguing against forced labor, not in favor of it.

Personal bias grants justification for violent domination in the case of slavery. You can't disconnect the 2. They didn't justify by stating they needed the labor, they justified it by stating the prejudice that blacks were inferior. And you again didn't answer the question. I gave you the definition of discrimination and stated that slavery was discrimination. Why do you feel that slavery isn't discrimination?

You're equivocating. I didn't say slavery wasn't discriminatory. I said discrimination isn't the same thing as slavery. Just like not liking someone isn't the same thing as murdering them. Got it?

I didn't say slavery wasn't discriminatory

I said discrimination isn't the same thing as slavery.

You do realize the irony of accusing someone of equivocating if these are the next 2 sentences???
Btw you said discrimination had nothing to do with slavery.

 

[dblack]

No it's not. That's why we have different words for them.

No, I don't find it acceptable. But I don't think it should be illegal. That's a key point too - the law isn't for banning everything we find unacceptable.

discrimination
dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

Discrimination is a matter of personal bias, not violent domination.

Regardless, I'm arguing against forced labor, not in favor of it.

Personal bias grants justification for violent domination in the case of slavery. You can't disconnect the 2. They didn't justify by stating they needed the labor, they justified it by stating the prejudice that blacks were inferior. And you again didn't answer the question. I gave you the definition of discrimination and stated that slavery was discrimination. Why do you feel that slavery isn't discrimination?

You're equivocating. I didn't say slavery wasn't discriminatory. I said discrimination isn't the same thing as slavery. Just like not liking someone isn't the same thing as murdering them. Got it?

I didn't say slavery wasn't discriminatory

I said discrimination isn't the same thing as slavery.

You do realize the irony of accusing someone of equivocating if these are the next 2 sentences???
Btw you said discrimination had nothing to do with slavery.

It doesn't. Just like not liking someone has nothing to do with murder. You're dancing a sideshow here. You're trying to equivocate discrimination with slavery. They're not the same thing. A person can discriminate all day long without owning slaves. True story!

 

[forkup]

discrimination
dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/

Discrimination is a matter of personal bias, not violent domination.

Regardless, I'm arguing against forced labor, not in favor of it.

Personal bias grants justification for violent domination in the case of slavery. You can't disconnect the 2. They didn't justify by stating they needed the labor, they justified it by stating the prejudice that blacks were inferior. And you again didn't answer the question. I gave you the definition of discrimination and stated that slavery was discrimination. Why do you feel that slavery isn't discrimination?

You're equivocating. I didn't say slavery wasn't discriminatory. I said discrimination isn't the same thing as slavery. Just like not liking someone isn't the same thing as murdering them. Got it?

I didn't say slavery wasn't discriminatory

I said discrimination isn't the same thing as slavery.

You do realize the irony of accusing someone of equivocating if these are the next 2 sentences???
Btw you said discrimination had nothing to do with slavery.

It doesn't. Just like not liking someone has nothing to do with murder. You're dancing a sideshow here. You're trying to equivocate discrimination with slavery. They're not the same thing. A person can discriminate all day long without owning slaves. True story!

Yes, and if you own slaves because of religious beliefs you are in fact discriminating against them, also true story. The only person dancing a sideshow here is you. The reason I've brought up slavery is to establish that there are precedents for society not allowing acts of discrimination to stand. You tried to then claim that that act wasn't discrimination by wait for it.......... equivocating. If you in fact acknowledge that precedent then it is you who has to establish that another act of discrimination should not be treated in the same manner, and more importantly be able to give a reason why. This brings me to my original question. How much discrimination should be allowed?

 

[dblack]

The reason I've brought up slavery is to establish that there are precedents for society not allowing acts of discrimination stand.

Slavery isn't illegal because it's discriminatory. It's illegal because it's a fundamental violation of human liberty.

This brings me to my original question. How much discrimination should be allowed?

All. Discriminating with regard to who we associate with is a fundamental human right. Government should never dictate it.

 

[forkup]

The reason I've brought up slavery is to establish that there are precedents for society not allowing acts of discrimination stand.

Slavery isn't illegal because it's discriminatory. It's illegal because it's a fundamental violation of human liberty.

This brings me to my original question. How much discrimination should be allowed?

All. Discriminating with regard to who we associate with is a fundamental human right. Government should never dictate it.

Really? Even when this is the result?

This isn't a fundamental violation of human liberty?

 

[dblack]

The reason I've brought up slavery is to establish that there are precedents for society not allowing acts of discrimination stand.

Slavery isn't illegal because it's discriminatory. It's illegal because it's a fundamental violation of human liberty.

This brings me to my original question. How much discrimination should be allowed?

All. Discriminating with regard to who we associate with is a fundamental human right. Government should never dictate it.

Really? Even when this is the result?

Yep. Even then. We can deal with these issues without resorting to law enforcement. In fact, it's counter productive to make it a legal issue.

In my view. government isn't there to make sure sure we're all nice to one another. It's there to protect our freedom - and part of that is the freedom to be a bigot, an idiot, a jackass, etc...

Let me ask you this. If you think it should be illegal for a business owner to discriminate, by refusing to serve people they don't like, should it it also be illegal for customers to boycott a business for similar reasons? Should it be illegal for gays (and their friends) to boycott Chik-fil-a?

I'm a web developer. Should it be illegal for me to turn down a job because I think the goals of the company are morally repugnant?