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 Harrier
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?
You just said conscience is based on religious principle, there for you are proving my point.
you need to first establish how those principles are being violated. You have yet to do that even though I asked my question long before you asked yours.(a question that was answered by someone else by the way)
Im not dodging your question at all. I just want mine answered first since you continue to, what was that word you used...oh yea , dodge it.
Lets be honest, i knew you were never going to answer my question because there is nothing to back up your claim and you dont admit you are wrong, i just like to see you squirm. And you are doing a great job at that.
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
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?
Is it now obsolete?
I don't see how it would be obsolete.
A business does not have individual religious liberty, it must operate within the confines of all federal, state and local laws. A bakery could no more discriminate against gay people (if state/local law prohibits it) than it could discriminate against black people (which is illegal in every state).
A business can't discriminate against black people while shielding themselves by claiming religious freedom.
A business can't ignore pollution laws while shielding themselves by claiming religious freedom.
A business that serves food can't ignore food safety laws while shielding themselves by claiming religious freedom.
A business can't pay its workers half the minimum wage while shielding themselves by claiming religious freedom.
Owning a business is not a right, it's a privilege granted by your local government when they allow you to have that business license, a license that when you take it, you're agreeing to obey all federal, state, and local laws concerning the governing of your business (or your business can be taken away from you).
The question is whether the state in question has a statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In such a state one operates a business subject to the laws. Requiring a business to comply with that statute is exactly the same as requiring it to pay men and women equally even if they have a sincere religious belief that men should be paid more than women, or that god's plan requires women to stay home and take care of the children.
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.
It only works when Freedom of religion, gets redefined as Freedom from religion.
I don't care about any of that. People can celebrate whatever religion (or no religion) that they want. Except those Satanists who torture people and animals and brainwash people into drinking poison I guess.
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.
Why do you hate the KKK. That is what the democrat party was founded on. Learn your history. That isn't the point though. You want to demand a private business do what YOU say no matter. You are lost.
I don't care about any of that. People can celebrate whatever religion (or no religion) that they want. Except those Satanists who torture people and animals and brainwash people into drinking poison I guess.
Let em drink the poison.............gets rid of the fools. That is a problem........the fools are taken care of by big bro now.......I say let em die off.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.
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
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?
There is a difference between a religious organization and a business. A religious org (church, synagogue, mosque) are not bound by anti discrimination laws. A business (bakery, school, hospital) are bound by anti discrimination laws. If you can not follow the laws that we are all supposed to follow, do not open a business. A persons religious beliefs do not trump state and federal laws.
I don't see that in the big paper.........show me.
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.
