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.
Freedom of religion means you may practice any religion you'd like as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Using religion as a justification to infringe on the rights of gays is not what is included in the First Amendment, nor is the First Amendment applicable in that defense.
You have the right to happiness, so yea, technically you do as long as you
1. Pay for it
2. come in during business hours.
Why would anyone feel happy forcing someone to bake a cake for them when the baker has moral qualms about doing so and is being forced to act against their conscience?
You need to prove it is about religious freedom to make that argument, you still havent.
That is why im asking for the verse that says it is biblical wrong to serve gay people.
Constitutionality comes after you have verify your claim or of religion.
Harrier already quoted the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
Instead of reverting to the Bible, which is irrelevant to this discussion (because we are talking about public policy in the United States of America - where the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate authority), you need to cite the part of the U.S. Constitution that requires a person to serve someone contrary to their conscience.
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?
I don't know of any religious organizations that commercially bake cakes, or distribute pharmaceuticals, to the public. You're actually referring to bakeries, health insurance companies, and drug stores, respectively, and as for-profit businesses, they should not be allowed this sort of discrimination. Now, if a priest refuses to marry any couple, or to baptize someone, or whatever, for whatever reason, then that's fine. But Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization, and frankly, the deal they've been offered on contraceptives is overly generous as is.
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 Harrier
Harrier already quoted the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
Instead of reverting to the Bible, which is irrelevant to this discussion (because we are talking about public policy in the United States of America - where the U.S. Constitution is the ultimate authority), you need to cite the part of the U.S. Constitution that requires a person to serve someone contrary to their conscience.
You have not done so.
You are continuing to put the cart before the horse, you have still not shown where this is religious and further more, by not doing that, you have also not shown where his religious freedom was violated.
Constitutionality when it comes to religious freedom does not matter until you show that this is about religious freedom.
THis isnt about conscience, you specifically said religion, so back it up
THis isnt about conscience, you specifically said religion, so back it up
Religious principle is a matter of conscience - and the First Amendment protects religious freedom.
Stop dodging the question.
What part of the constitution requires a person to serve another person contrary to their conscience and religious principles?
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.