Women...how's feminism working out for you? Man crowned Miss Nevada......LOL.....

[Ray From Cleveland]

You’d be hard-pressed Joe to get any judge to back your opinion about forcing a religious business owner to go against their religious viewpoints since they OWN the business. Now, employees who add their own rules (including selective service) within a public business is a different matter. If a religious person has a problem with providing service to a transgender but the business policy is no sexual discrimination, The legal determination would likely side with the rejected customer.

As I said, we will not agree about business rights. The day that our government oversteps its authority and attempts to force religious convictions to the wayside, will be in total disregard to the US Constitutional law separating church and state. Personally, even though most leftists are all in an uproar demanding an extreme push to the left, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. As a Constitutional libertarian, we and many other political persuasions will fight you tooth and nail over it, and we will win.

I guess it depends on who we are talking about. There was one story a few years ago where a Muslim pair of truck drivers refused to take a load of booze to a warehouse because their religion looks at alcohol as sin. They were fired and came back to sue the trucking company and won 100K or something in that range. In NYC, Muslim cab drivers refuse to pick up fares that have a pet with them, even if it's a seeing eye dog because their religion looks at animals as dirty things. I read another story where a store clerk refused to scan any pork products because it was against her religion. She kept her job because the store didn't want to deal with religious discrimination problems.

What it boils down to is Christian religions are the only ones that have to abandon their beliefs when it comes to serving the public.

 

[JoeB131]

I guess it depends on who we are talking about. There was one story a few years ago where a Muslim pair of truck drivers refused to take a load of booze to a warehouse because their religion looks at alcohol as sin. They were fired and came back to sue the trucking company and won 100K or something in that range. In NYC, Muslim cab drivers refuse to pick up fares that have a pet with them, even if it's a seeing eye dog because their religion looks at animals as dirty things. I read another story where a store clerk refused to scan any pork products because it was against her religion. She kept her job because the store didn't want to deal with religious discrimination problems.

What it boils down to is Christian religions are the only ones that have to abandon their beliefs when it comes to serving the public.

Welfare Ray's greatest fear. A person of color will get something he can't.

Okay, so let's look at these cases that has Ray so upset.

First is the Truck Drivers who refused to deliver alcohol. The award was $240,000, because the company involved admitted they could have done work assignments to accommodate the two men and refused to.

Of course, it's an award on paper only, because the company that did this went out of business before the case got to court.

Fact Check: Muslim truck drivers won case, but not because of Obama

Times-Union readers want to know: Did the Obama administration sue a company on behalf of two Muslim truck drivers who were fired for refusing to deliver

www.jacksonville.com

Companies make some accommedations for their employees all the time. For instance, we had a gal in our department who was a Seventh Day Adventist, which means we could never order food that contained pork or shellfish.

Now, let's move on to Welfare Ray's other claim about Muslim Cab drivers. The cab drivers LOST that case. A quick google search finds such drivers are fired or fined for such behavior, not protected.

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

abcnews.go.com

The third story about a woman who refused to carry pork products. This is actually kind of vague, but generally, the closest thing I could find is this.

Are You Shopping at One of Target's Sharia-Compliant Stores?

A photograph depicting a sign at Target informing customers purchasing pork or alcohol to choose another lane to accommodate Muslim employees is not real.

www.snopes.com

Yup, more Islamophobic bullshit. Why am I not surprised.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Welfare Ray's greatest fear. A person of color will get something he can't.

Okay, so let's look at these cases that has Ray so upset.

First is the Truck Drivers who refused to deliver alcohol. The award was $240,000, because the company involved admitted they could have done work assignments to accommodate the two men and refused to.

Of course, it's an award on paper only, because the company that did this went out of business before the case got to court.

Irrelevant because there is still a double standard between the Christian and Muslim religions. The various bakeries were sued for not decorating a cake for a queer wedding. They were willing to sell them the cake, but they'd have to decorate it themselves or take to some other place to have it decorated. The trucking company was successfully sued because they didn't accommodate their Muslim drivers when they refused to do the assignment given to them.

Companies make some accommedations for their employees all the time. For instance, we had a gal in our department who was a Seventh Day Adventist, which means we could never order food that contained pork or shellfish.

Now, let's move on to Welfare Ray's other claim about Muslim Cab drivers. The cab drivers LOST that case. A quick google search finds such drivers are fired or fined for such behavior, not protected.

But afterwards they still admitted doing it. How are you going to prove they aren't?

The third story about a woman who refused to carry pork products. This is actually kind of vague, but generally, the closest thing I could find is this.

Are You Shopping at One of Target's Sharia-Compliant Stores?

A photograph depicting a sign at Target informing customers purchasing pork or alcohol to choose another lane to accommodate Muslim employees is not real.

www.snopes.com

Yup, more Islamophobic bullshit. Why am I not surprised.

Yes, and what it says is that Target is asking their customers to cater to their Muslim employees which means they are not doing their job. If they don't want to handle pork products, gain employment at a Muslim ran store or industry.

 

[JoeB131]

Irrelevant because there is still a double standard between the Christian and Muslim religions. The various bakeries were sued for not decorating a cake for a queer wedding. They were willing to sell them the cake, but they'd have to decorate it themselves or take to some other place to have it decorated. The trucking company was successfully sued because they didn't accommodate their Muslim drivers when they refused to do the assignment given to them.

I'm not aware of anyone being willing to sell an undecorated cake, but never mind. If you are thinking of "Sweet cakes by Melissa" in Oregon, the homophobic husband of the owner screamed bible verses at a gay woman and her mother. When they filed a complaint, instead of litigating the complaint, they proceeded to dox the gay couple, subjecting them to death threats by other "good Christians". (Seriously, we need to bring back Roman Lions.) That's why they go slapped with such a high fine.

The other prominent "homophobic baker case" was Masterpiece, where the board was overruled by the courts because they didn't take his bronze age superstitions into account when he was openly violating Colorado's non-discrimination laws.

Now, getting back to these two truck drivers. The trucking company had other options, since delivering to beer warehouses was not their only business. The fact was, they discriminated against their employees on the basis of religion, which is illegal.

It was a moot point, because clearly this company couldn't make good business decisions, and was out of business before the courts finally ruled on the driver's claims.

The bottom line is that our laws protect consumers and workers above businesses. And this is kind of how it should be.

But afterwards they still admitted doing it. How are you going to prove they aren't?

Take down their number and file a complaint. If they are doing it often enough, they'll get enough complaints to get their hack license pulled.

Of course, it's a moot point, as cabbies have been largely driven out of business by Lyft and Uber.

Yes, and what it says is that Target is asking their customers to cater to their Muslim employees which means they are not doing their job. If they don't want to handle pork products, gain employment at a Muslim ran store or industry.

Except Target did nothing of the sort, if you bothered to read the article. They merely assigned Muslim employees to non-pork related activities. In short, they made a reasonable accommodation.

 

[ClaireH]

You’d be hard-pressed Joe to get any judge to back your opinion about forcing a religious business owner to go against their religious viewpoints since they OWN the business. Now, employees who add their own rules (including selective service) within a public business is a different matter. If a religious person has a problem with providing service to a transgender but the business policy is no sexual discrimination, The legal determination would likely side with the rejected customer.

Actually, SCOTUS just turned away a case of a homophobic florist who tried to use the religion excuse to discriminate.

But you hit on an interesting point. Why does the right to be a religious bigot ONLY apply to owners?

View attachment 508608
An employee who doesn't want to provide a service only has the option of finding another job, but the right of a business owner to not provide a service allows him to discriminate? That doesn't seem fair.

As I said, we will not agree about business rights. The day that our government oversteps its authority and attempts to force religious convictions to the wayside, will be in total disregard to the US Constitutional law separating church and state. Personally, even though most leftists are all in an uproar demanding an extreme push to the left, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. As a Constitutional libertarian, we and many other political persuasions will fight you tooth and nail over it, and we will win.

Not at all. Businesses aren't people. Businesses have to comply with all the laws.

So let's say I'm not trying to hide my homophobia behind religion. Let's say I just don't like gays because I think the butt sex is icky. (Of course, if I were a homophobe, I'd demonstrate how icky the butt sex is by describing it in graphic detail, but never mind.) Would I still have a first amendment right to discriminate?

Why just stop at businesses. Why not allow us to ignore any law that violates our religious rights?

Here, let's try this one. I'm a follower of the Aztec Religion. Therefore, I have the right to murder my enemies and sacrifice them to Quetzalcoatl, the Winged Serpent God, who demands I cut out their hearts with an obsidian knife.

View attachment 508611

I mean, why not? If Religious Rites trump Civil Law, then I'm not seeing the problem here.

Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think that all businesses should be forced to cater to any request made by a customer, in order to not offend anyone. Is that accurate? You never answered my previous question about whether you would allow (you said you owned a business) a religious group to come in and hold their weekly meetings inside your business…even a yes or no would suffice. I already know the answer but interested to see what response you write. Your previous “reply” was something to the effect that my question was not important to the point. That was a bit obvious as a dodge Joe. It is important to the point, because all “points” should cover the entire shebang, not just your own interpretation of half of it.

I also want to clarify that I haven’t stated any solution that is against the law. As a matter of fact, I’ve noticed I am even more to the right now than I was prior to coming to this board regarding these types of issues. “Being more to the right” in my case means that I have increased my support for business owners and their rights, professional cops and procedural guidelines (unlike Chauvin’s conduct) and enforcing the rule of law. Keep in mind I’m not a Republican at least not self labeled and not yet. Agendas of the far left are pushing me (any many others like me) without question. So, for you to claim that I’m coming at this particular issue from some type of “anti-law premise”, I can only assume you are blinded by the size of your own rhetoric.

Your remarks are typically broken down in a straightforward rebuttal format, but then instead of an actual rebuttal, your own ideas become your only focus….not really a good way to debate an issue… but I do respect you as a person who has every right to express themselves, just like me. Obviously, I think you’re a little weak in the rebuttal department, but it would be very boring if we were all the same. You can of course throw it back at me. I’m sure I need improvements in the same area, and any criticism I throw out there it’s only fair for me to apply it to myself.

So back to your question why do I think business owners should not be forced to provide a service that goes against their religious conviction. I will repeat my answer again there is a valid reason (two actually) for the separation of church and state. Our government would be at risk if we were to allow church denominations to determine our laws. Likewise, religious freedom (initially a cornerstone to our young, developing country) would be at risk if our government attempts to take it on.

I’m guessing you’re not a constitutionalist, and that would account for our differing viewpoints. I won’t budge on this one Joe, and I don’t expect you to either. We are birds of a different feather.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

It is amazing that women can't see the scam the democrat party has been running on them for decades....

Democrat men......women, you need sexual freedom so kill the babies so we don't have to pay for support.

Democrat men.....women, men who say they are women get to compete against you in women's sports, taking your awards and scholarships....

Democrat men......women, men can now not only compete, but win beauty contests that used to be just for women....

You have been played for fools....but keep playing, the democrat men appreciate your participation in your humiliation...

Man Crowned Miss Nevada USA Because Men Are Apparently Better Women Than Real Women

pjmedia.com

Hahahahahaha! LOL, women who vote for DemoKKKrats deserve this.

That's exactly what I've been saying.

 

[ClaireH]

You’d be hard-pressed Joe to get any judge to back your opinion about forcing a religious business owner to go against their religious viewpoints since they OWN the business. Now, employees who add their own rules (including selective service) within a public business is a different matter. If a religious person has a problem with providing service to a transgender but the business policy is no sexual discrimination, The legal determination would likely side with the rejected customer.

As I said, we will not agree about business rights. The day that our government oversteps its authority and attempts to force religious convictions to the wayside, will be in total disregard to the US Constitutional law separating church and state. Personally, even though most leftists are all in an uproar demanding an extreme push to the left, I don’t see that happening anytime soon. As a Constitutional libertarian, we and many other political persuasions will fight you tooth and nail over it, and we will win.

I guess it depends on who we are talking about. There was one story a few years ago where a Muslim pair of truck drivers refused to take a load of booze to a warehouse because their religion looks at alcohol as sin. They were fired and came back to sue the trucking company and won 100K or something in that range. In NYC, Muslim cab drivers refuse to pick up fares that have a pet with them, even if it's a seeing eye dog because their religion looks at animals as dirty things. I read another story where a store clerk refused to scan any pork products because it was against her religion. She kept her job because the store didn't want to deal with religious discrimination problems.

What it boils down to is Christian religions are the only ones that have to abandon their beliefs when it comes to serving the public.

Interesting examples and quite valid. Anything that’s extreme is usually harmful and that includes religious ideology. Political and religious extremists usually give themselves away very quickly when you listen to them. That said, I understand why those two Muslim men won their case because that fell back onto the business owner not screening his employees properly and they should’ve been given another job for the day not fired. Did that business owner screen and inform
his employees fully about what types of cargo he shipped? If not, full disclosure “Btw- there may be a few times where you are asked to deliver alcohol, will that be a problem?” that weighs heavily against him. That instance sounds like the typical business day did not involve alcohol, so it was an unexpected request to ask those two men to do so, and due to their religious views did not want to do it. I would back their religious rights as a juror.

The Muslim cab driver refusing to pick up passengers with dogs, including seeing eye dogs, is an interesting case. This again seems to be a strong indication that during the hiring process, business owners are going to have to thoroughly layout all conditions… like “Do you know that some of your customers will have seeing eye dogs and you need to pick them up?” Because I back business owners in general (NOT mega-corporations that act like monopolies and it could be argued that a few US corps are now monopolies-major harm for the country but another topic……I place a lot of responsibility on business owners to have these protections. Not on their employees, unless a crime is committed. Smart business owners know to keep a paper trail when they have an employee who is way below par that they want to fire. I question that “one time thing” over the alcohol delivery request, it sounds like that business owner might’ve wanted to fire those two men prior to that day, but that’s without any information and just my opinion. Most employers don’t wanna lose good workers as they’re very hard to find nowadays.

That last part is like a firecracker on this board- about Christians needing to abandon their beliefs. As a soft agnostic ( I have no proof of God’s existence, but do not claim to have knowledge about other people’s religious or spiritual experiences and am always open to new knowledge) I still back religious freedom for all in our country, as long as the actions of the religious group are not illegal. Overall, I am more of your “live and let live” type as long as any demand for change does not interfere with the personal rights of all others.

 

[JoeB131]

Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think that all businesses should be forced to cater to any request made by a customer, in order to not offend anyone. Is that accurate? You never answered my previous question about whether you would allow (you said you owned a business) a religious group to come in and hold their weekly meetings inside your business…even a yes or no would suffice. I already know the answer but interested to see what response you write. Your previous “reply” was something to the effect that my question was not important to the point. That was a bit obvious as a dodge Joe. It is important to the point, because all “points” should cover the entire shebang, not just your own interpretation of half of it.

Actually, it's an irrelevant point. I wouldn't let people I AGREE with use my business for anything other than it's intended purpose. My business is not one that people meet at, I don't have meeting halls or even a public space. In fact, when it comes down to it, I avoid all political stuff in my business. I don't tell the customer who shows up to a meeting wearing a MAGA hat what I really think of Trump. I quietly provide him the service I offer and give him the best advice I can.

Now, for those playing along at home, my side business is resume writing. And one bit of resume advice I and almost every other resume writer will give is don't include information that emphasizes political, religious, or racial affiliation unless that is a specific job history and can't be avoided.

I also want to clarify that I haven’t stated any solution that is against the law. As a matter of fact, I’ve noticed I am even more to the right now than I was prior to coming to this board regarding these types of issues. “Being more to the right” in my case means that I have increased my support for business owners and their rights, professional cops and procedural guidelines (unlike Chauvin’s conduct) and enforcing the rule of law. Keep in mind I’m not a Republican at least not self labeled and not yet. Agendas of the far left are pushing me (any many others like me) without question. So, for you to claim that I’m coming at this particular issue from some type of “anti-law premise”, I can only assume you are blinded by the size of your own rhetoric.

There is no blind spot at all. It is illegal in some states to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual or gender orientation. That is the issue with the Christian Bakers, they think they should get an exemption from that law because the Bible says they should hate Gays, just like Jesus did. This argument would never fly if they wanted to discriminate against blacks. (Even though racism was justified using the bible for centuries.) As recently as 1967, the argument was made that God forbade mixed marriages.

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[21] - Judge Brazile, Loving v. Virginia.

In 50 years, gay marriage will be completely accepted and people who opposed it, including the Churches, will be saying, "Not us."

Your remarks are typically broken down in a straightforward rebuttal format, but then instead of an actual rebuttal, your own ideas become your only focus….not really a good way to debate an issue… but I do respect you as a person who has every right to express themselves, just like me. Obviously, I think you’re a little weak in the rebuttal department, but it would be very boring if we were all the same. You can of course throw it back at me. I’m sure I need improvements in the same area, and any criticism I throw out there it’s only fair for me to apply it to myself.

Hmmm... my rebuttal style is my style. .. You're lucky I haven't lost patience with you yet.

So back to your question why do I think business owners should not be forced to provide a service that goes against their religious conviction. I will repeat my answer again there is a valid reason (two actually) for the separation of church and state. Our government would be at risk if we were to allow church denominations to determine our laws. Likewise, religious freedom (initially a cornerstone to our young, developing country) would be at risk if our government attempts to take it on.

Yes, absolutely.

This isn't a "Separation of Church and State" issue. Your business is not a church and while you have religious rights, your business does not. Your business as a legal entity has to obey the law, just like the rest of us have to.

Now, it would be different if someone tried to force a Kosher butcher shop to serve pork. They don't serve pork to anyone. Therefore, it's not discrimination. If you sell Wedding Cakes, and you will sell them to straight couples but not gay couples, that's a violation of the law as written in those states.

I’m guessing you’re not a constitutionalist, and that would account for our differing viewpoints. I won’t budge on this one Joe, and I don’t expect you to either. We are birds of a different feather.

I'm fine with the constitution and once swore an oath to defend it with my life. That said, I don't think it's a suicide pact and it really doesn't apply here. You can make an equally strong argument that the states have every right to ban anti-gay discrimination under the 9th Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

Interesting examples and quite valid. Anything that’s extreme is usually harmful and that includes religious ideology. Political and religious extremists usually give themselves away very quickly when you listen to them. That said, I understand why those two Muslim men won their case because that fell back onto the business owner not screening his employees properly and they should’ve been given another job for the day not fired. Did that business owner screen and inform
his employees fully about what types of cargo he shipped? If not, full disclosure “Btw- there may be a few times where you are asked to deliver alcohol, will that be a problem?” that weighs heavily against him. That instance sounds like the typical business day did not involve alcohol, so it was an unexpected request to ask those two men to do so, and due to their religious views did not want to do it. I would back their religious rights as a juror.

Actually, I dug up more information on the case in Post 302. The company had the option of assigning these drivers to other loads while giving the alcohol loads to non-Muslim drivers. Instead, they illegally fired them. Now, it might be that this was a pretext for an Islamophobic business owner, or it might be that they didn't have the Beer customer when these guys were hired.

The issue was not necessarily back pay, as the trucking company was out of business by the time this got to court. It was the principle of "reasonable accommedation".

The Muslim cab driver refusing to pick up passengers with dogs, including seeing eye dogs, is an interesting case. This again seems to be a strong indication that during the hiring process, business owners are going to have to thoroughly layout all conditions… like “Do you know that some of your customers will have seeing eye dogs and you need to pick them up?” Because I back business owners in general (NOT mega-corporations that act like monopolies and it could be argued that a few US corps are now monopolies-major harm for the country but another topic……I place a lot of responsibility on business owners to have these protections. Not on their employees, unless a crime is committed. Smart business owners know to keep a paper trail when they have an employee who is way below par that they want to fire. I question that “one time thing” over the alcohol delivery request, it sounds like that business owner might’ve wanted to fire those two men prior to that day, but that’s without any information and just my opinion. Most employers don’t wanna lose good workers as they’re very hard to find nowadays.

Except that's not how cab companies work. For the most part, before Lyft and Uber gutted the industry, most cab drivers bought "medallions" giving them the right to operate a cab, which created a bit of legal separation between the cab companies and the drivers. Of course, drivers are given a lot of latitude on who they can pick up. Does that guy look like he might rob you, you might want to pass him by. Are you passing him by because he's black, then that's discrimination.

Now, on the subject of dogs and alcohol... I could see good reasons for not wanting them in your cab that have nothing to do with religion. Drunk passengers are often belligerent, and having an open bottle of alcohol by anyone in the vehicle is a legal violation. Dogs can bite people, or lose bowel or bladder control in you back seat. This is complicated by the fact that the whole notion of "Service Animals" has been abused to the nines in recent years. "Oh, this is my Emotional Support Animal". Its' not trained, you just put a service vest on your regular dog so he doesn't have to ride in a carrier.

That last part is like a firecracker on this board- about Christians needing to abandon their beliefs. As a soft agnostic ( I have no proof of God’s existence, but do not claim to have knowledge about other people’s religious or spiritual experiences and am always open to new knowledge) I still back religious freedom for all in our country, as long as the actions of the religious group are not illegal. Overall, I am more of your “live and let live” type as long as any demand for change does not interfere with the personal rights of all others.

Okay, so we are kind of in agreement on that. The question is, where does my right to service end and your right to believe in your imaginary friend in the sky begin.

Getting back to bakers... we would not have an argument if it was an agnostic baker who just hates gay people. We would not have an argument if it was a Christian Identity Movement person who was against mixed marriages. This is about using religion to justify bigotry.

On the subject of Trans women competing in beauty contests, the problem is, the law doesn't allow discrimination against transwomen in these events. Now, my guess, if it was a pre-op guy in a dress who still has hair on his chest, yeah, he's not going to win.

This person won because she was attractive, and talented, and if no one told you she was trans, you probably wouldn't have known.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Musta been Jake from State Farm.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, I dug up more information on the case in Post 302. The company had the option of assigning these drivers to other loads while giving the alcohol loads to non-Muslim drivers. Instead, they illegally fired them. Now, it might be that this was a pretext for an Islamophobic business owner, or it might be that they didn't have the Beer customer when these guys were hired.

The issue was not necessarily back pay, as the trucking company was out of business by the time this got to court. It was the principle of "reasonable accommedation".

If they shut down, it means they were having financial difficulties in the first place. You don't understand how this business works. If I need a load hauled from New York to Florida, I don't give the run to a driver in Oregon. I give it to the driver in Pennsylvania. Why should I pay a driver to go across the country to pick up the load when I could have my driver in the next state pick it up. Yeah, you can accommodate any driver you want, but who stays in business to lose money?

We had a company here in Cleveland that was union. The union rules were that any additional same day deliveries or pickups had to be offered to the drivers with the most seniority first. If they had a pickup called in at a factory next door to where one of their drivers were delivering to, they couldn't ask that driver to also pickup that load next door. They had to call a driver with more seniority from across the city to pick it up. If they violated that rule, then they had to pay both the driver with the seniority for not offering the pickup to him, and the driver that made the pickup. Needless to say, the unions put that place out of business like the thousands of other businesses unions shutdown.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Interesting examples and quite valid. Anything that’s extreme is usually harmful and that includes religious ideology. Political and religious extremists usually give themselves away very quickly when you listen to them. That said, I understand why those two Muslim men won their case because that fell back onto the business owner not screening his employees properly and they should’ve been given another job for the day not fired. Did that business owner screen and inform
his employees fully about what types of cargo he shipped? If not, full disclosure “Btw- there may be a few times where you are asked to deliver alcohol, will that be a problem?” that weighs heavily against him. That instance sounds like the typical business day did not involve alcohol, so it was an unexpected request to ask those two men to do so, and due to their religious views did not want to do it. I would back their religious rights as a juror.

The Muslim cab driver refusing to pick up passengers with dogs, including seeing eye dogs, is an interesting case. This again seems to be a strong indication that during the hiring process, business owners are going to have to thoroughly layout all conditions… like “Do you know that some of your customers will have seeing eye dogs and you need to pick them up?” Because I back business owners in general (NOT mega-corporations that act like monopolies and it could be argued that a few US corps are now monopolies-major harm for the country but another topic……I place a lot of responsibility on business owners to have these protections. Not on their employees, unless a crime is committed. Smart business owners know to keep a paper trail when they have an employee who is way below par that they want to fire. I question that “one time thing” over the alcohol delivery request, it sounds like that business owner might’ve wanted to fire those two men prior to that day, but that’s without any information and just my opinion. Most employers don’t wanna lose good workers as they’re very hard to find nowadays.

That last part is like a firecracker on this board- about Christians needing to abandon their beliefs. As a soft agnostic ( I have no proof of God’s existence, but do not claim to have knowledge about other people’s religious or spiritual experiences and am always open to new knowledge) I still back religious freedom for all in our country, as long as the actions of the religious group are not illegal. Overall, I am more of your “live and let live” type as long as any demand for change does not interfere with the personal rights of all others.

The point I'm making is that you can demonize any Christian religion you want, but don't you dare try that with religions outside of Christianity. So typical of the left, they have two standards for just about everything. Could you imagine a Jewish butcher getting a job at a grocery store who after hire, refused to cut any meat that was not kosher? Nobody would accommodate him either. They'd fire him and that would be the end of it.

The commies have removed the Ten Commandments out of our courthouses. They don't make people swear on the Holy Bible to give testimony like they did years ago. Kids have been suspended for saying the word "Jesus" when addressing their fellow students in public. But they have no problems with this.

Parents upset kids taught about Islam in school

Several Walton County parents say their children are being forced to learn about Islam, and want the option to exclude their children from these lessons.

www.wsbtv.com

Homosexuality has been a sin in Christian religions long before the first gay marriage ever took place in this country. I know, I was a Catholic school student back in the 60s and even an altar boy at our church. I also know that these gay people targeted various bakeries because they wanted to start trouble, not because they were the only bakery in a 20 mile radius. They didn't refuse to sell them anything. They refused to decorate the cake for their gay wedding. They were perfectly willing to bake them any cake they wanted, just as long as it didn't celebrate the gay marriage.

 

[JoeB131]

If they shut down, it means they were having financial difficulties in the first place.

Nor do I have to. There was no good reason to fire these guys. They made a bad decision. It sounds like they made LOTS of bad decisions. And now they are out of business.

Well, at least they did some good in that they established that discrimination on the basis of religion is a bad thing. So it wasn't a total loss.

The point I'm making is that you can demonize any Christian religion you want, but don't you dare try that with religions outside of Christianity. So typical of the left, they have two standards for just about everything. Could you imagine a Jewish butcher getting a job at a grocery store who after hire, refused to cut any meat that was not kosher? Nobody would accommodate him either. They'd fire him and that would be the end of it.

Well, no, we couldn't imagine that because a Jewish Butcher wouldn't have any problem finding a job at a kosher shop to start with. But he'd have a harder case to make, as if he had any experience, it would have been in Kosher shops.

Point is, unlike the drivers who could have been assigned other loads, a Kosher Butcher at a grocery store wouldn't be able to find work.

The commies have removed the Ten Commandments out of our courthouses. They don't make people swear on the Holy Bible to give testimony like they did years ago. Kids have been suspended for saying the word "Jesus" when addressing their fellow students in public. But they have no problems with this.

Naw, you shouldn't be imposing your silly bronze age superstitions on the rest of us, that's the point.

Homosexuality has been a sin in Christian religions long before the first gay marriage ever took place in this country. I know, I was a Catholic school student back in the 60s and even an altar boy at our church.

A lot of kids were Altar boys... and a lot of them got bent over a pew by a priest who was queer as a square donut.

I also know that these gay people targeted various bakeries because they wanted to start trouble, not because they were the only bakery in a 20 mile radius. They didn't refuse to sell them anything. They refused to decorate the cake for their gay wedding. They were perfectly willing to bake them any cake they wanted, just as long as it didn't celebrate the gay marriage.

That's not their call.

If they are providing wedding cakes for straight people, they are required to provide them for gay people. Period. Full stop.

Just like you can't provide cakes for white people and not black people.

Or you can't provide cakes for Christians and not for Jews.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not their call.

If they are providing wedding cakes for straight people, they are required to provide them for gay people. Period. Full stop.

Just like you can't provide cakes for white people and not black people.

Or you can't provide cakes for Christians and not for Jews.

Black and Jewish people are not considered abominations to God in their religion--homosexual activities are. Once again with the apples to oranges comparisons. Participating in a gay wedding in any way goes against their religion no different than two truck drivers who refused to take alcohol freight. But like I said, two different rules for two different groups of people by the left.

 

[JoeB131]

Black and Jewish people are not considered abominations to God in their religion--homosexual activities are.

Hey, do you know what else is called an "Abomination" in the bible? Eating of shellfish!

So why aren't you out protesting in front of the Red Lobster?

There's a whole lot of laws in the bible you guys don't follow... like not stoning your daughters if she isn't a virgin on her wedding day. Or stoning your neighbors if they work on Sunday.

Now, for blacks and Jews not being discriminated against in the BIble. When the lower court decided against an interracial couple in Loving v. Virginia, the judge in the case SPECIFICALLY cited the bible as a reason for mixed marriages being against the law. When the Nazis were about to kill the Jews, they said, "This is for killing Jesus." (Which frankly, is a pretty clear reading of the Gospels, especially the Gospel of John.)

Once again with the apples to oranges comparisons. Participating in a gay wedding in any way goes against their religion no different than two truck drivers who refused to take alcohol freight.

Well, no, not really.

here, let's start with the obvious. That alcohol STILL got delivered to that warehouse. It just wasn't delivered by THOSE drivers. It wasn't discrimination against alcoholics, and frankly, as long as I get my beer, I don't care where it came from or who delivered it.

However, the baker doesn't really have the legal right to discriminate. The law clearly states that. Just like I can't refuse business to a Mormon as much as I hate Mormons. They are protected as a class. So are blacks, so are Jews, and so are gays.

If the Christian Baker doesn't want to serve gays, they can go find something else to do for a living.

Now, if the Muslim drivers were working for a company that EXCLUSIVELY did alcohol delivery, they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, legally.

But like I said, two different rules for two different groups of people by the left.

No, just application of EXISTING laws that protect all of us.

When you get right down to it, that's all the law is, balancing the interests of competing groups of people or individuals.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hey, do you know what else is called an "Abomination" in the bible? Eating of shellfish!

So why aren't you out protesting in front of the Red Lobster?

There's a whole lot of laws in the bible you guys don't follow... like not stoning your daughters if she isn't a virgin on her wedding day. Or stoning your neighbors if they work on Sunday.

Now, for blacks and Jews not being discriminated against in the BIble. When the lower court decided against an interracial couple in Loving v. Virginia, the judge in the case SPECIFICALLY cited the bible as a reason for mixed marriages being against the law. When the Nazis were about to kill the Jews, they said, "This is for killing Jesus." (Which frankly, is a pretty clear reading of the Gospels, especially the Gospel of John.)

Oh please, you find some whackos on the internet and post this as if there is any religion that supports them? No Christian religion supports a ban on seafood. In fact, they promote it during lent when followers are not supposed to eat meat.

Yes, different religions use different verses of the Bible to follow. That's why there are so many religions. If everybody followed every paragraph of the Bible, there wouldn't be no different religions now would there?

Well, no, not really.

here, let's start with the obvious. That alcohol STILL got delivered to that warehouse. It just wasn't delivered by THOSE drivers. It wasn't discrimination against alcoholics, and frankly, as long as I get my beer, I don't care where it came from or who delivered it.

However, the baker doesn't really have the legal right to discriminate. The law clearly states that. Just like I can't refuse business to a Mormon as much as I hate Mormons. They are protected as a class. So are blacks, so are Jews, and so are gays.

If the Christian Baker doesn't want to serve gays, they can go find something else to do for a living.

Now, if the Muslim drivers were working for a company that EXCLUSIVELY did alcohol delivery, they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, legally.

Again with the apples and oranges comparison. The truck drivers stood the chance of hauling pork, livestock or alcohol as part of their job no different than the baker who may have run in with queers getting married, although I'm sure most of them started their business before the commies ruined our country with this crap. In any case it's really a constitutional issue where the Congress (meaning all governments) will not take a stand for or against a religion. The hypocrisy is that you support the Muslim truck drivers for standing by their beliefs and against the Christian baker for standing by his. If the Muslim drivers didn't want to deliver products against their religion, why don't they find another line of work? Better yet, move to one of those great Muslim countries they escaped from and live their life there.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh please, you find some whackos on the internet and post this as if there is any religion that supports them? No Christian religion supports a ban on seafood. In fact, they promote it during lent when followers are not supposed to eat meat.

Actually, the Seventh Day Adventists do ban their members from eating shellfish. Only the Catholics have this weird no-meat thing during Lent.

You do understand there's a difference between fish and shellfish, right? Or is Grade School Biology one of those things you flunked.

Yes, different religions use different verses of the Bible to follow. That's why there are so many religions. If everybody followed every paragraph of the Bible, there wouldn't be no different religions now would there?

How could there be different religions if the Bible is the unerring word of God? The problem isn't what's in the bible. The bible endorsed slavery, but you won't see one church endorse it today. God didn't change his mind, we changed ours.

Again with the apples and oranges comparison. The truck drivers stood the chance of hauling pork, livestock or alcohol as part of their job no different than the baker who may have run in with queers getting married, although I'm sure most of them started their business before the commies ruined our country with this crap.

Well, there is a huge difference, in that they were discriminating against a product vs. discriminating against a customer.

the laws says you must make reasonable accommodations for and employee's religion, which means you can't make people work on the Sabbath, you can't make them handle products that are against their religion.

But you can't discriminate against customers on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.

You aren't discriminating against a person by refusing to haul alcohol. You are discriminating against a person if you refuse to bake their gay cake.

In any case it's really a constitutional issue where the Congress (meaning all governments) will not take a stand for or against a religion.

No, it's really not a constitutional issue at all. You have a right to refuse to do business, but your business doesn't. Businesses aren't people.

The hypocrisy is that you support the Muslim truck drivers for standing by their beliefs and against the Christian baker for standing by his. If the Muslim drivers didn't want to deliver products against their religion, why don't they find another line of work? Better yet, move to one of those great Muslim countries they escaped from and live their life there.

No hypocrisy at all. The Christian baker gave up a right to stand by his beliefs the minute he opened a shop and said, "Wedding cakes for sale".

We wouldn't be having this discussion if a baker said he wasn't going to sell a cake to an interracial couple because that was against God's will, even though within our lifetimes, that was a religious view held by some churches.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually, the Seventh Day Adventists do ban their members from eating shellfish. Only the Catholics have this weird no-meat thing during Lent.

You do understand there's a difference between fish and shellfish, right? Or is Grade School Biology one of those things you flunked.

Don't change the subject. Christian religions have no problem consuming fish or shellfish.

How could there be different religions if the Bible is the unerring word of God? The problem isn't what's in the bible. The bible endorsed slavery, but you won't see one church endorse it today. God didn't change his mind, we changed ours.

Our society changed. Back in the day when a man brought shame or harm to another or his family, they couldn't hire a Jewish lawyer and sue them in court. So they were enslaved, many times both parties agreeing, so that their debt to the harmed family could be repaid. It's less that God found slavery favorable, but God does find repaying losses or harm favorable, and slavery at the time was the only possible way to do that.

Every religion is different based on what beliefs of the Holy Bible they hold. That's why there are different religions. Christians don't have to eat kosher meats, and we can eat any meat we wish with milk which is against the Jewish religion. The Jewish religion favors the old testament while Christian religions follow the new testament.

Well, there is a huge difference, in that they were discriminating against a product vs. discriminating against a customer.

the laws says you must make reasonable accommodations for and employee's religion, which means you can't make people work on the Sabbath, you can't make them handle products that are against their religion.

But you can't discriminate against customers on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.

You aren't discriminating against a person by refusing to haul alcohol. You are discriminating against a person if you refuse to bake their gay cake.

You are discriminating against their religious beliefs and practices in both cases. You are not discriminating against a person for baking a cake, you are discriminating against their practice of homosexuality which in Christian religions is a sin. Those gay couples could march into the bakery store and buy any item they want. But the baker refused to be part of their festivities that celebrated their gay relationship.

No, it's really not a constitutional issue at all. You have a right to refuse to do business, but your business doesn't. Businesses aren't people.

It's people who run their businesses, and those people have a right to run such business guided by their faith. It is a constitutional issue.

No hypocrisy at all. The Christian baker gave up a right to stand by his beliefs the minute he opened a shop and said, "Wedding cakes for sale".

We wouldn't be having this discussion if a baker said he wasn't going to sell a cake to an interracial couple because that was against God's will, even though within our lifetimes, that was a religious view held by some churches.

The baker didn't give up anything. You don't give up constitutional rights based on what kind of business you have. Turning it around, the truckers gave up their constitutional right of not hauling certain products when they took a job at a general freight company. If they didn't want to haul general freight, they could have taken a tanker job, a moving company job, a machine shop job hauling only items the company manufactured, an auto hauling job. a scrap company job.

 

[JoeB131]

Don't change the subject. Christian religions have no problem consuming fish or shellfish.

I just pointed out to you that the Seventh Day Adventists do. They are a Christian religion.

Our society changed. Back in the day when a man brought shame or harm to another or his family, they couldn't hire a Jewish lawyer and sue them in court. So they were enslaved, many times both parties agreeing, so that their debt to the harmed family could be repaid. It's less that God found slavery favorable, but God does find repaying losses or harm favorable, and slavery at the time was the only possible way to do that.

Um, you are confused as to what the Bible actually says about slavery. Yes, the bible is full of protections for JEWS who ended up getting sold into slavery, limiting what could be done to them. But the bible offered no such protection to non-Jewish slaves.

Every religion is different based on what beliefs of the Holy Bible they hold. That's why there are different religions. Christians don't have to eat kosher meats, and we can eat any meat we wish with milk which is against the Jewish religion. The Jewish religion favors the old testament while Christian religions follow the new testament.

As I said, the 7DA still follow the Kosher laws. The thing is, the bible isn't clear on it one way or the other. Matthew indicates that the Kosher law is good for all time, while Acts and Luke indicate there are work arounds.

And you know what, I'm fine with that. Follow your own interpretations, just don't inflict them on my when I go into your shop looking to do some business.

You are discriminating against their religious beliefs and practices in both cases. You are not discriminating against a person for baking a cake, you are discriminating against their practice of homosexuality which in Christian religions is a sin. Those gay couples could march into the bakery store and buy any item they want. But the baker refused to be part of their festivities that celebrated their gay relationship.

No, you really aren't, because the business doesn't have a religion, and religion can't be an excuse to violate other laws.

There is a law on the books that says you can't discriminate against gays. Full Stop. That's it. Fini. It doesn't matter if it's because of your religion or if you just don't like dudes having the Butt-sex. (Oddly, most homophobes only get really hung up about gay dudes and never the Lesbians.)

I'll give you another example. There are laws against murder. Those laws do not become null and void because I declare myself a worshipper of Aztec Religion and want to cut the hearts out of my enemies as an offering to Quetzalcoatl.

It's people who run their businesses, and those people have a right to run such business guided by their faith. It is a constitutional issue.

Nope, it really isn't. When I see a Store lift itself off it's foundation to go down to church, then you can argue a business is a religion. A business isn't a person. It's a legal entity and it has to follow the laws like the rest of us.

The baker didn't give up anything. You don't give up constitutional rights based on what kind of business you have. Turning it around, the truckers gave up their constitutional right of not hauling certain products when they took a job at a general freight company. If they didn't want to haul general freight, they could have taken a tanker job, a moving company job, a machine shop job hauling only items the company manufactured, an auto hauling job. a scrap company job.

Sure they did. When they got a business license, they were required to follow all legal requirements and codes for that state. That state has a clear law that says that you can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

On the other hand, the truckers had other options. It was on the company to come up with a workaround to protect their religious rights.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I just pointed out to you that the Seventh Day Adventists do. They are a Christian religion.

They are one fucken church you moron. They are not accepted by the general Christian religions.

Um, you are confused as to what the Bible actually says about slavery. Yes, the bible is full of protections for JEWS who ended up getting sold into slavery, limiting what could be done to them. But the bible offered no such protection to non-Jewish slaves.

It has nothing to do with Jews or not Jews. God sanctioned slavery because nobody had money at the time, and it was the only way to repay debt to another person or family.

As I said, the 7DA still follow the Kosher laws. The thing is, the bible isn't clear on it one way or the other. Matthew indicates that the Kosher law is good for all time, while Acts and Luke indicate there are work arounds.

And you know what, I'm fine with that. Follow your own interpretations, just don't inflict them on my when I go into your shop looking to do some business.

So who ever forced you to buy kosher products?

No, you really aren't, because the business doesn't have a religion, and religion can't be an excuse to violate other laws.

There is a law on the books that says you can't discriminate against gays. Full Stop. That's it. Fini. It doesn't matter if it's because of your religion or if you just don't like dudes having the Butt-sex. (Oddly, most homophobes only get really hung up about gay dudes and never the Lesbians.)

I'll give you another example. There are laws against murder. Those laws do not become null and void because I declare myself a worshipper of Aztec Religion and want to cut the hearts out of my enemies as an offering to Quetzalcoatl.

No law supersedes the US Constitution because the US Constitution is the law of the land. Laws have been overturned because they were unconstitutional. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. When you tell a business owner he must violate his religious beliefs to accommodate a customer, you violated his free exercise of religion.