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.
Please provide an example of the free exercise of one person's religion conflicting with that of another person and the resolution that was offered by the Supreme Court.
I'll wait.
Sure.
Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law.
In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”
Lyng v Northwest Protective Cemetery Association (1988) adopted a per se rule that the government need not concern itself with the impact that its land use decisions might have on religious practices. Yhe Court permitted the United States to proceed with construction of a road through a national forest that would concededly have severe consequences for the practitioners of a Native American religion who considered the area sacred.
Employment Division v. Smith (1990). Oregon’s Employment Division fired Alfred Smith, a public employee, after he used peyote in a Native American Church ceremony. Justice Antonin Scalia, in the majority opinion, explained that the ban applied to everyone equally and that it would be unfair to give a private excuse. He held that religious exceptions would have undermined the law.
In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Mormon Church sued over the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act in an attempt to continue their polygamist practices. The majority opinion declared that the law was constitutional since it neither interfered with religious belief nor selectively outlawed religious practice. “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite, “and, in effect, permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”
Lyng v Northwest Protective Cemetery Association (1988) adopted a per se rule that the government need not concern itself with the impact that its land use decisions might have on religious practices. Yhe Court permitted the United States to proceed with construction of a road through a national forest that would concededly have severe consequences for the practitioners of a Native American religion who considered the area sacred.
No part. But when you open up a business in a state, you agree to follow certain rules as laid out by the state otherwise you cannot operate a business there legally.
Basically speaking, police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, nurses, and doctors that were involved denied their service to the transgendered person, leaving her to bleed to death.
Ask yourself this question. Do you really want to go down this route?
Added by edit.
Go ahead and invoke religion to defend bigotry.
I have nothing against gays but saying that selling baked goods is a public service like police, fire, etcetera is ridiculous.
The public funds public services like the police and fire departments through taxation.
The public at large does not fund a private enterprise such as a bakery.
I have nothing against gays but saying that selling baked goods is a public service like police, fire, etcetera is ridiculous.
The public funds public services like the police and fire departments through taxation.
The public at large does not fund a private enterprise such as a bakery.
Big difference
The Supreme Court disagrees with you, and in this arena, it's their opinion that counts.
I am willing to bet that as we maneuver
electrons here, there is at least one conservative foundation looking for the right test case. I suggest you look around and find them, and actually do something constructive. But be warned - it will be an uphill battle, because modifying equal protection under the law strikes at the bedrock of what it means to be an American citizen.
So, screw the First Amendment ... right? Screw religious liberty.
I think you need to learn how these freedoms work, because nothing I said has anything to do with freedom of religion or speech. You are still free to practice your religion, right? You are also free to say as you please, without government intervention - right? So which of these amendments is being violated by anti-discrimination laws? Practicing one's religion is not impeded by serving or selling goods to someone outside of your faith/beliefs; at the same time, religion doesn't make you exempt from state or federal laws when you're running a public-serving business, and speaking freely doesn't mean everyone else has to be silent in response. Go to church and pray for the gays, if that is your desire, but when you open a business to the public you MUST obey local laws.
And for the record, I never even said if I agree with these laws - I was only explaining them to the confused conservatives in here. But whether I agree with them or not, that doesn't change the fact that laws need to be followed (if you don't want consequences).
Quote:
I wonder how that will work when it's a Muslim business that comes under attack? It seems the only religion that is regularly under attack by leftists, and our government, is Christianity. Nobody dares challenge Islam.
Why do you guys always spew this nonsense, when I see Muslims being attacked right & left? And must I remind you that I'm JEWISH?? So why on earth would I favor Muslims over Christians??
But nobody is actually "under attack" in this situation, unless you consider having to follow laws an attack. Waaaaah, they're making me follow a law!! Waaaah!!! Get over yourselves, and stay in church if you can't handle following the rules of secular society.
the bills of rights are not right for individual but right to keep government out of it, you can worship a pig if you want to but the right is to keep government out of religion. it the same with speech, guns and all the rest, its to keep government from attacking you. individual can attack you all they want, that not what the rights was written for, to keep the big federal attack dogs at bay
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.
Um yes, People are indeed saying that they do not have to serve gay people, thats the reason why we are even having this discussion.
If they wanted to not serve all Sinner, i would say that is fine, but call them out on the fact that there is not a single person on this planet who has not sinned including them. However that isnt the case, they are trying to go after a specific segment of the population.
No. You are interpreting it that way (incorrectly). They are being asked to supply there craft, their talent, for an event they find repugnant, and which violates the teachings of their faith. That is not refusing to "server"; it is a refusal to be used, to become an active participant in, and complicit in the sin and debauchery of unbelievers, which the bible specifically tells us to have nothing to do with. Ephesians 5:7 "... do not be partners with them." (referring to those engaged in sinful behavior).
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.
