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.
No persons faith trumps the law. You are supporting allowing the discrimination of homosexuals on no basis other than religion, this is against the law.
Really: People of the Amish faith don't pay into SSI. Muslims are exempt from the Obamacare mandate. You can be dismissed from a mandatory draft into the military on the basis of Conscientious Objections.
The laws vary by state and even within a jurisdiction. There has to be a specific law because gays are not a protected class.
I tried to argue that in the beginning of this thread texdav, and Petunia handed me my a$$ on a platter when she posted the laws for the State of Washington, and lo and behold, they are indeed a protected class in that state. So yes, whether we agree with the law or not is another thing, but in the State of Washington, as I interpreted the law, she was in violation of state laws there.
A gay couple attempting to buy a wedding cake is not asking for special privileges. They are asking for the same treatment as a heterosexual couple who want a wedding cake or a black couple who want a wedding cake.
You are free to be a bigot. You may choose not to associate with anyone whose life style conflicts with your own. But when you get a business license you agree to follow the laws of the jurisdiction in which that business operates.
The laws concerning discrimination have been upheld by our highest court. Mark and others have given you citations. What you believe is not what the law says. Claiming "that's against my religion" does not absolve someone from following anti-discrimination laws.
No. I pointed out that people buying flowers for weddings are hopefully unmarried. You said, "Because unmarried people rarely need flower arrangements for a wedding ceremony???"
Maybe you meant something different from what you wrote? Clarity in communication is very useful.
Why?
You are equally free to be a bigot and narrow minded.
You mentioned bigamy. Sorry my humor went over your head.
You have shown nothing other than bringing exactly what I knew you would bring. Explanations for why "A" is okay and not "B" but you have provided no means of determining what laws should be ignored and what should be taken seriously. Course no one has, so I don't fault you.
The bible is full of laws that I'm sure you don't follow. I'll bet you follow those 10 commandments though! How about the other 603?
Using the bible as an excuse for anything is a laughable joke especially when speaking on state and government laws.
What you are asking for is special rights for people who have religious convictions. She's allowed to be her bigot self anywhere she wants, provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
She runs a public business and is bound by the laws of the state regardless of her faith period
Again, you are also not a Jew (obviously) and you are incapable of understanding the difference between
laws telling you what you SHOULD do and laws telling you what you CANNOT do. Laws that you follow to sanctify yourself and show honor to God and laws that you follow because they are sinful and result in punishment - (i.e., losing the blessings of God).
I am not asking for special rights for anyone. They already exist in the form of the Constitution. The 1st Amendment provides equal protection to the unreligious: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"...and the religious: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
She does not run a public business. She owns a PRIVATE business. She may sell flowers to the public, but she owns a private business. Public means, owned by the public. Like a State Liquor Store is a Public business, but a chain store that carries liquor is a PRIVATE business.
Really: People of the Amish faith don't pay into SSI. Muslims are exempt from the Obamacare mandate. You can be dismissed from a mandatory draft into the military on the basis of Conscientious Objections.
So what were you saying?
The Amish receive an exemption provided they SIGN away their rights to SSI. The Amish do pay their taxes and are not exempt from them.
The first thing you pointed out actually has a lot to do with the second.
Muslims (btw not the only religion) and AFA:
Quote:
Where do American Muslims stand regarding the individual mandate’s religious exemption? Under a strict interpretation of the Koran, which forbids acceptance of public or private insurance, they are exempt under this loophole. However, since the great majority of American Muslims pay Social Security taxes and receive Social Security benefits, they don’t qualify for the religious exemption. Nevertheless, PPACA rules offer a situation where American Muslims could qualify for the religious exemption. If an individual is a member of a “health-sharing ministry,”—a religious non-profit organization in which members contribute money to cover the medical expenses of those in need—they are exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance.
And what logically follows are discrimination practices that are explicitly prohibited by law. You feel that businesses should be able to reject anyone for any reason? Then it follows that you believe a business should be able to discriminate based on age, sex, race, orientation etc.
You either believe they should be able to discriminate or you don't!
Ok, let's say I am a small print shop owned by a black American, and the KKK comes in and wants 10,000 leaflets printed up for their annual get together. Should I be forced to take on their business, even though it is against my beliefs ? Or, even if I was a white American that owned the same print shop and disagreed with their philosophies, would I be discriminating against them unfairly?
Ok, let's say I am a small print shop owned by a black American, and the KKK comes in and wants 10,000 leaflets printed up for their annual get together. Should I be forced to take on their business, even though it is against my beliefs ? Or, even if I was a white American that owned the same print shop and disagreed with their philosophies, would I be discriminating against them unfairly?
It doesn't matter that they sign away their rights. No other person has the right to opt out of SSI even if they also agree to waive any rights to collection. So that is a RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION. Stop trying to find clarifiers. Either they get a religious exemption or they don't. They do! And regardless of your disclaimer, they still get an exemption from a Federal law that no others get, solely based on their religious beliefs.
I never said the Amish didn't pay taxes, I said they were exempt from paying SSI based on religious beliefs. The fact that they have to sign waivers does not change the fact that they are exempt.
Again, you try and dismiss the validity of my point, but pointing at disclaimers that don't change the basic fact that Muslims are granted a religiously based exemption from a Federal law that all other citizens are subjected to.
From your link:
Nevertheless, PPACA rules offer a situation where American Muslims could qualify for the religious exemption. If an individual is a member of a “health-sharing ministry,”—a religious non-profit organization in which members contribute money to cover the medical expenses of those in need—they are exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance.
And what about Conscientious Objectors? Are you still searching for some kind of disclaimer you think will (unsuccessfully) negate the fact that people can avoid a mandatory draft on a religious freedom claim?
It doesn't matter that they sign away their rights. No other person has the right to opt out of SSI even if they also agree to waive any rights to collection. So that is a RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION. Stop trying to find clarifiers. Either they get a religious exemption or they don't. They do! And regardless of your disclaimer, they still get an exemption from a Federal law that no others get, solely based on their religious beliefs.
I never said the Amish didn't pay taxes, I said they were exempt from paying SSI based on religious beliefs. The fact that they have to sign waivers does not change the fact that they are exempt.
Again, you try and dismiss the validity of my point, but pointing at disclaimers that don't change the basic fact that Muslims are granted a religiously based exemption from a Federal law that all other citizens are subjected to.
From your link:
Nevertheless, PPACA rules offer a situation where American Muslims could qualify for the religious exemption. If an individual is a member of a “health-sharing ministry,”—a religious non-profit organization in which members contribute money to cover the medical expenses of those in need—they are exempt from the requirement to purchase insurance.
And what about Conscientious Objectors? Are you still searching for some kind of disclaimer you think will (unsuccessfully) negate the fact that people can avoid a mandatory draft on a religious freedom claim?
Actually I was leaving work and didn't have time to respond.
I am eating now if you must know.
The fact of the matter is, there is no religious exemption in this case. Like it or not, she broke the law, and the court will have a field day.
"Spiritual" beliefs DOES influence personal or any associations. And, what you call public service IS a private enterprise.
Public Service = Government service, where you have not right to personal associations choices because THE SERVICE IS TAX PAID FOR BY EVERYONE. which you obviously don't understand,
You seem to think that YOU are entitled to a persons PRIVATE BUSINESS AND HER LABOR. You are not. They have a right IF they want to give their service to whomever, amongst the public
YOU are not entitled to anything someone has and does not want to give to you or associate with you.
In Christianity YOU ARE NOT TO ASSOCIATE WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSIDERED SINNERS.
And that is what this person is basing their decision on WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND, because you are a selfish BULLY trying to bully your way with people.
Bullies usually end up one way when they pick on the wrong persons. THAT IS WHY SODOMITES use courts. They are coward bullies who normally would be told to take a hike or get their teeth rearranged.
Keep using the courts to bully people via unjust laws. It never ends well for bullies. I got a funny feeling you as a bully had your face rearranged a couple of times.
Yep, Jesus never hung out with any sinners
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.
