Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isn't there also the right to be able to freely practice your religion ?
Absolutely. Or not, as the spirit moves you. But your religion is not superior to common law. It comes more under the heading of hearsay evidence, and is entirely separate from the workings of the government.
You can believe whatever you will, and you can practice your religion all day long for your personal satisfaction, but you are not allowed to impose your beliefs on others.
That's the problem. Liberals cannot wait to brand these people as hateful, intolerant bigots. But these people were not bigots. They've served them in the past. They simply refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, which would be participating in an act that violates their religious freedom.
This nothing more than an attempt to establish that gay rights supersede religious rights. You can't discriminate against gays, but we can discriminate against religion.
Religious rights do not trump the laws governing operating a business and does not allow the business to discriminate. They are not a christian bakery, they are a bakery owned by people who are christians, big difference. But having a religion does not give them the right to not serve certain customers.
Religious rights do not trump the laws governing operating a business and does not allow the business to discriminate. They are not a christian bakery, they are a bakery owned by people who are christians, big difference. But having a religion does not give them the right to not serve certain customers.
Well that's the debate.
Seems there isn't a clear line and will end up in the courts.
TN and NH are contemplating passing laws that allow for discrimination based on religious beliefs with no fear of lawsuits.
We already went through religious beliefs and contraception and the religious groups (non Church) got their exemption.
This will come to a head because there's way too many lawsuits and complaints all over the US regarding gay marriage ceremonies.
Seems there isn't a clear line and will end up in the courts.
TN and NH are contemplating passing laws that allow for discrimination based on religious beliefs with no fear of lawsuits.
We already went through religious beliefs and contraception and the religious groups (non Church) got their exemption.
This will come to a head because there's way too many lawsuits and complaints all over the US regarding gay marriage ceremonies.
No, TN passed a law stating that college clubs can discriminate in their membership, and the NH bill went to vote in 2012, and got voted down.
Quote:
NOTE: THIS IS AN "INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE" VOTE AND IS A VOTE TO KILL THE PIECE OF LEGISLATION. IF THE VOTE SUCCEEDS, THE LEGISLATION DIES. IF THE VOTE FAILS, THE LEGISLATION IS STILL UP FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CHAMBER.
Date: March 14, 2012
Issues: Marriage, Religion
Bill: Authorizes Individuals to Refuse to Provide Services for Marriages Roll Number: 144
Yea: 246 Nay: 85
"Inexpedient to Legislate" Vote Passed (House
Don't look now, but we have a concept and a practice here in America that is called "separation of church and state". Your religion does not trump the laws of the land, which presume that all men are created equal.
I'm serious. Google it.
What the hell does a bakery have to do with the "separation of church and state"? I thought that meant congress could not pass a national religion nor can the infringe on religious liberties. So again, what does that have to do with a bakery?.
Maybe you should "Google it" before you run your mouth at others.
Trying to be snarky and cute when all you are doing to flapping your arms with silly indignation about stuff that doesn't even make sense.
That is so much like a liberal, when they can't win an argument, hide behind the courts and political correctness.
Not true; you need to learn the definition of "dictatorial." Hint: it has largely to do with the executive branch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
The STATE governments can pretty much pass whatever regulations they want that do not run afoul of the constitution, and there is no constitutional right to be free from the kind of class-protection regulations employed by the states.
Not so fast. I have been reading yesterday and today law resources, and I am not so sure if a Bakery taking a custom order is covered under the "public accommodation" statutes of Oregon. Remember, selling something off the shelf, and making a cake to a specific order -- these are two different economic activities.
I keep bringing up the "Forced Labor" argument. If the gay couple wanted to buy a cake off the shelf and the Business refused explicitly on the basis of sexual orientation -- that would clearly be discrimination.
But that's not the case here. It is the Labor component that complicates things here --Baker would need to expend labor in order to prepare, and produce one product, specifically for one order, for one customer. That is not in the service of the public.
Here is a Decision Note of Oregon's 659A.400:
"Custom builder who constructs homes for those with whom he contracts after bid process and negotia*tion cannot be said to have offered his services to the public within meaning of this sec*tion. Parsons v. Henry, 65 Or App 627, 672 P2d 717 (1983), Sup Ct review denied"
The Tennessee bill, which would allow students in counseling, psychology, or social work programs to refuse to treat clients based on the student's religious beliefs so long as they refer to a therapist willing to serve the clients,
From your link.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.