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.
Discrimination is still unconstitutional and not every homosexual is atheist.
No, it's not. You misunderstand the Constitution. The Constitution only applies to government action. Discrimination by non-governmental entities cannot be unconstitutional - period. Such discrimination can violate a statute, but it can't be unconstitutional.
And I never said that every homosexual is an atheist. I was simply stating an actual theory under which this Indiana law might be unconstitutional.
right! YOU cannot force the nose of another person to celebrate/participate in a religous right that is a pure violation of their noses religous belief.
The baker and florist do not participate in the wedding, nor do they have to celebrate it.
They are hired to bake cakes, and arrange flowers in their shops, and then sometimes deliver them BEFORE the ceremony. They are not required to attend the wedding, officiate the wedding, walk anyone down the aisle, sign the certificate, say vows, or anything else. They deliver goods. that is all.
Someone somewhere believes you have no rights because of THEIR religion. Whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Respect their beliefs?
this would be my point PegE. that person comes for me, I will expect the government to stand up for my rights.
in this case, in fact Progs are coming for people who believe gay marraige is a sin. They are demanding these religious people participate IN the marrage....therefore to violate their own, long held religious belief.
Now lets turn this around, if religous people storm some place where some gay couple is getting married, to prevent the wedding from taking place (your scenario above) then I will be there demanding the government lock up the stormers and that the gay couple be protected.
let me say this once more. This is far less about gay-ness than it is about Prog domanamce of thought. Prog demanding that we all do and say what we are told, when we are told, and how we are told.
Non-governmental entity discrimination is not unconstitutional.
The best Constitutional argument I can think of against this Indiana law is that it violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection rights of atheists. The law gives special rights to religious people to opt-out of governmental laws/regulations/actions but does not give the same opt-out right to atheists.
Even that would be hard to argue because the SC said they have the same protection from the 1st amendment as people with a religion. Other than that I agree with you.
Yes, but the RFRA does not apply to the states so the ruling that would have no bearing on any case dealing with statewide anti discrimination laws. They also stated that the ruling was not to be interpreted as undermining things such as anti discrimination laws, since having them is legitimate government interest.
Justice Alito made sure to say that the Federal RFRA could not be used to undermine anti-discrimination laws that protect on the basis of RACE. He specifically mentioned race and only race. The clear implication there is that the Federal RFRA could be used to undermine anti-discrimination laws that protect on bases other than race.
Even that would be hard to argue because the SC said they have the same protection from the 1st amendment as people with a religion. Other than that I agree with you.
Explain to me how an atheist would assert his religious beliefs as a defense under Indiana's RFRA. By definition, atheists don't have religious beliefs.
this would be my point PegE. that person comes for me, I will expect the government to stand up for my rights.
in this case, in fact Progs are coming for people who believe gay marraige is a sin. They are demanding these religious people participate IN the marrage....therefore to violate their own, long held religious belief.
Now lets turn this around, if religous people storm some place where some gay couple is getting married, to prevent the wedding from taking place (your scenario above) then I will be there demanding the government lock up the stormers and that the gay couple be protected.
let me say this once more. This is far less about gay-ness than it is about Prog domanamce of thought. Prog demanding that we all do and say what we are told, when we are told, and how we are told.
You are failing to understand that this type a law opens up a can of worms where innocent people who are THOUGHT TO BE GAY can be abused in public. That type of thing is just the beginning of the end of civility. If people who claim to be for kind-hearted religious beliefs would just BE kind-hearted there would be no issue.
How does selling a cake to somebody mean I'm participating in the event where they serve and eat the cake?
If I sell KY Jelly to an adulterous woman, does that mean I'm participating in her adulterous sex? If I sell a condom to a gay man, am I participating in his gay sex? By your logic, it seems that I would be.
The baker and florist do not participate in the wedding, nor do they have to celebrate it.
They are hired to bake cakes, and arrange flowers in their shops, and then sometimes deliver them BEFORE the ceremony. They are not required to attend the wedding, officiate the wedding, walk anyone down the aisle, sign the certificate, say vows, or anything else. They deliver goods. that is all.
complet bunk. it isnt just the baker (and I would still argue they are participating) its the photographer, it is the venue owner it is the minister who performs the wedding. it is anyone who is involved in providing services to people getting married.
and YES you are in fact a participant. THIS is the issue.
Justice Alito made sure to say that the Federal RFRA could not be used to undermine anti-discrimination laws that protect on the basis of RACE. He specifically mentioned race and only race. The clear implication there is that the Federal RFRA could be used to undermine anti-discrimination laws that protect on bases other than race.
He used race as one example on why the law would not apply to a situation. In another part of the ruling he mentions that the law cannot shield an employer trying to utilize religion as a reason for discriminating in hiring. So no, it does not apply only to race.
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.
