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.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6038
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldwine
The Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, dear. Including, but not limited to, about a century's worth of legal decisions relating to commercial ventures.
There was this whole shebang in the 60's-- you may not have heard about it-- that more or less reaffirmed (by legal review at the state and federal level) that commercial services cannot be denied based on these sorts of things. They (the Supreme Court) were really quite explicit.
It's the same legal protection that affords you the right to housing, even though I might prefer to let you starve to death in the cold because of your political opinions.
EDIT: I meant the 1960's, the second time those uppity black people demanded to be treated like full citizens. Not the 1860's.
Before we even get to constitutionality, Harrier needs to point out how this is even religious.
Just curious. As an avowed atheist, this to me is still one of the fundamental freedoms. Congressional candidate Erika Harold speaks powerfully about this freedom here.
Is this now obsolete? We see now religious organizations compelled to comply with the tenor of the times. Don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding--you're sued. Don't want to supply birth control to your students--you're sued again--and get a dressing-down from the POTUS.
Do libs support or reject the free exercise of religion?
The so-called "free exercise of religion" does give anyone the right to discriminate against others.
I think both sides are forgetting an even bigger issue. the freedom to deny someone something just because I feel like it. I'll use an extreme Example. If my neighbor is having a heart attack and I happen to see it. I decide to just not worry about it and go back inside. it later turns out he dies. While morally it's reprehensible to ignore him. I have no obligation to help him. Now if I can let someone die. How can I not just decide to deny anyone a cake.
You are the one who is confused...............where does it say that a PRIVATE business had to make anyone a cake??? Would you be upset if some cake maker said hell no I'm not making a cake for the KKK? Of course not. But your so caught up in liberal lunacy you can't see reality.
Say whatever you want about me if it makes you happy! As for your example of a member of a KKK ordering a cake at a bakery. First of all, how would we know they are a member of the KKK? For clarification let's assume they want you to draw a lynching or a "burning" cross on said cake. In this case, the baker can refuse. Hatred is not protected here. Don't mix the church and private business. They are two separate beasts.
Before we even get to constitutionality, Harrier needs to point out how this is even religious.
That, to me, is by far the most interesting case. Our legal system is really quite explicit about not using scripture as law; one can only imagine how they're going to slide this through the Supreme Court without being remanded.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6038
Quote:
Originally Posted by miamihurricane555
I think both sides are forgetting an even bigger issue. the freedom to deny someone something just because I feel like it. I'll use an extreme Example. If my neighbor is having a heart attack and I happen to see it. I decide to just not worry about it and go back inside. it later turns out he dies. While morally it's reprehensible to ignore him. I have no obligation to help him. Now if I can let someone die. How can I not just decide to deny anyone a cake.
Umm, it is actually illegal to just watch someone die.
Im not talking about constitutionality, nor is this thread for that matter. Im simply asking you to back up your claim that its religious freedom rather than personal philosophy.
Well, if you aren't talking about constitutionality then you are in the wrong thread, because the constitution is what this thread is about.
Religious freedom is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.
The Colorado law concerning the baker violated the baker's First Amendment rights.
Any argument that you make that supports that law must be constitutionally based.
Umm, it is actually illegal to just watch someone die.
If you have no connection to that person, there may not actually be a legal consequence to not helping them.
Now, if you are a paramedic or healthcare professional, then it is rather explicitly illegal to watch someone die and do nothing.
In both cases, cake and death, the nature of the issue is commercial.
And in this particular case, how pathetic is it that you and I have to even spell this out? God almighty. I am going to bed.
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.
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.
