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.
Your posts are quite reasonable and I do not think anybody could accuse you of being snide or insulting to the faithful among us. With other posters it is almost as if they give the religious myths people believe the same respect as they would beliefs in flying unicorns, gumdrop rainbows or leprechauns.
Thank you, I appreciate that. I do try to keep my emotions out of discussions. It isn't always easy and I am not always successful. So, I do understand that others may not always be successful, despite their best intentions.
It appears that it was rolled into the original case.
The judge was very thorough, He covered the constitution, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, state law, state constitution, and still ruled against her.
I LIKE what's going on in Indiana, Gov Mike Pence defends religious freedom law, trying to bring some sanity and balance to this issue.
He is already asking the legislature to amend the bill he just signed. He now wants the law to be worded in such a way that it cannot be used to discriminate against LGBT.
As long as the good Christians of Indiana are still allowed to discriminate against Jews, Muslims and Mexicans I'm sure they will be fine with not being legally allowed to discriminate against the LGBT community.
sin and immoral are subjective. do not go into business serving the public if you don't want to serve all the public. as to "religious freedom" it seems to also be a bit subjective depending on who you ask. however the law is clear you can not discriminate.
Good post, i agree.
It really comes down to this. If you want to run a business in America, you can't be requiring customers to conform to your "way of life" or your "beliefs" in order to serve them. if they want to pick and choose which customers they serve based on their own set of immorals, its probably better to not go into a retail business in the first place.
And if you keep quoting a book of stories YOU happen to believe that doesn't make you at all credible, in fact it makes one think you have zero common sense.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say that. It says that congress shall make no law establishing a religion or make no law that would impede the free exercise of religion.
The difference is subtile, but that does not mean that you can do anything you want. The Bible for example, allows gives scripture where owning slaves is perfectly fine. It even says how they must be cared for. Obviously that religious practice was eliminated by law long ago.
Unfortunately only here in the US and most of the free world is it illegal. Would you believe slavery still exists in other parts of the world?
Last edited by vanguardisle; 04-01-2015 at 04:57 PM..
Why are you tossing out assumptions and asking irrelevant questions. The facts are, the florist and the customer had a long term friendly relationship. He told another employee that he wanted THE florist/owner to create the wedding flowers; otherwise, why would he wait to talk directly to the florist instead of placing his order with the employee he originally spoke to?
Your doubt in my ability to discern the intent of the customer does not invalidate the actual facts that prove out his intentions.
Coulda Woulda Shoulda does not magically create the basis for a valid argument. If you have a point you want to convey, at least rely on the KNOWN FACTS of this case and stop rewriting them to support your desired conclusion.
It still goes to show the florist had the opportunity to provide flowers to a person in a protected class in the state of Washington without breaking state law and without actively participating in the service.
The irony is that her personal beliefs are not universally held by all Christians, so she really does not have a religious leg to stand on.
Um, I don't deem it irrelevant. If it has nothing to do with the fact pattern of this case, it is irrelevant.
I am not okay with discrimination on any basis, but I do support religious freedom and an individual's right to decline services to anyone that would be in direct conflict with their religious conscience.
I do not support institutionalized discrimination and agree that no governmental agency has the right to discriminate against any citizen for any reason.
I do not support the allowing the government to foreclose certain professions from citizens because those citizens follow religions with certain tenets that the individual refuses to betray.
Goodness; responding to each and every post on this thread AND having the final word on what is deemed to be relevant must be simply exhausting.
You would appear to be part of a vast minority in this situation. Most business in Indiana are screaming loudly that they want NO part of it. People have changed; they are not ok with discrimination with religion as a convenient excuse. Because the cherry-picking currently going on by so-called Christians is laughable. Gosh, those pizza place owners sure were inspiring today, no? They must be mind-readers in that they have never served a sinner. Is there a scanner one must walk though in order for their judgement to be rendered?
Oh, and homosexuality and belonging to the KKK are . . . not the same.
I do understand that this is a slippery slope. I also understand that IF the federal government hadn't gotten involved - blacks would still be riding at the back of the bus in Mississippi. People are no longer willing to tolerate discrimination; I think the events in Indiana have made that quite clear.
They also faced pressure from fellow Muslim cabbies and at least one Iman to serve all customers including those carrying booze or with dogs. Public comments on the news articles mostly stated they should obey the laws of the country or go back to Somalia.
You see I would support them too if they did not want dogs, pork, or alcohol in their cab so be it, but I would certainly understand it if the cab company would not hire them .
I do not know what is involved with owning their own cab but if they did I think they could decide who they wanted to take into it. I have also heard that some cab drivers will refuse to pick up anyone they think looks dangerous. I guess that is discrimination too but I can understand it.
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.
