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.
There was a recent supreme court case involving a prisoner who wanted to start an atheist activity group, on the same grounds that the prison had religious activity groups (IIRC, the activity groups were for different denominations, and I believe there was one for muslims.)
The prison turned down the proposal.
The supremes said that, for the purposes of the first amendment, the atheist proposal should be considered on the same grounds as the religious proposals were.
This was quite recent, within the last six months, I believe.
I understand that under the First Amendment, the freedom to practice religion also means the freedom not to practice religion. I still don't understand how an atheist would assert his religious beliefs as a defense under Indiana's RFRA. By definition, atheists don't have religious beliefs.
Here in Philadelphia ... and in Pittsburgh, too - LGBT people are a recognized minority and protected by local civil rights laws.
I am a landlord in Philadelphia. I am bound by a city/county law that prevents me from discriminating against people because of race, gender, religion, ethnicity, marital status, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, veteran status, handicap, etc. I can NOT use my religious beliefs to circumvent that law.
Same deal in my state including age, ansestory and familial status.
Sellers and landlords cannot discriminate.
As a licensed broker, my license is on the line if I discriminate , steer or work with a client who discriminates, declines to rent or sell to......
So then why can't I go to Curves fitness center and sign up for a membership?
It's a private club, and not open to the public. Whether or not you feel private clubs should be free to be discriminatory in their membership requirements is irrelevant because retail establishments such as, say, florists, are open to the public and not private clubs.
Everyone didn't own a slave. You make a lot of claims not based in fact.
The 1st amendment doesn't address the believer. It addresses the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp The law doesn't address ministers and gay marriage. It stays out of it so there is no law to follow.
The 1st Amendment allows for taking the Lords name in vain. That doesn't mean for the believer its o.k.
It was not immoral for every one who could do so, to own a slave. And as I said, it was how, I understood in that it was 'man's law' so as the poor people paid their debts. If you would like to elaborate on this you may do so at any time.
You brought the believer into the first amendment and I answered that. Probably not to your satisfaction, but I answered it none-the-less.
Is that really what this bill does? Or is it almost exactly what president Clinton signed into law back in 1993, and what 0bama backed when it was passed in Illinois?
The Indiana bill is not wholly identical.
Indiana Governor says it was not their intent to protect corporations and other business interests and has issued an order that the language be amended and ready for his signature by Friday.
I understand that under the First Amendment, the freedom to practice religion also means the freedom not to practice religion. I still don't understand how an atheist would assert his religious beliefs as a defense under Indiana's RFRA. By definition, atheists don't have religious beliefs.
Maybe the atheist would assert his/her right to not serve people who practice religions that, say, condemn homosexuality?
I dunno, this is hypothetical upon hypothetical. I will say that as an atheist myself, if I lived in Indiana, I might be tempted to try it and see what legal traction I could make. If a religious business owner can discriminate in ways that I find morally repugnant, then why can't I discriminate?*
Which of course is exactly what is wrong with Indiana's bill as it was passed, and why Pence is furiously backpedaling, after signing a law that was passed specifically to allow this discrimination. We know this is why it was passed, its supporters said so.
Me, I think that civil life will be easier and less contentious if we just stick with the idea that if you are selling something, you should sell it to anyone who walks in with the money and is reasonably polite.
*Note - yes, I think discriminating against gay people is morally repugnant.
I honestly can't even imagine what it would be like to not be able to just walk into an establishment and purchase, order, or request whatever they provide without hesitation. And I can't imagine the embarrassment or shame that may come from being denied service at a business. I am young enough that I have never had to face any kind of discrimination, and my heart breaks for people who have or will.
I can't believe that in this day and age that anyone would be okay with allowing or even supporting the ability to do that. Why anyone would want to be a part of that confounds me. And if they do, they should have to proudly display a sign on the front of their businesses saying so.
It's a private club, and not open to the public. Whether or not you feel private clubs should be free to be discriminatory in their membership requirements is irrelevant because retail establishments such as, say, florists, are open to the public and not private clubs.
Gyms like Curves are not private clubs. They are businesses of public accommodation.
Many states specifically exempt gyms from the sex/gender portion of anti-discrimination laws. In some states single-sex gyms have been sued for violating anti-discrimination statues and lost. In other states, courts have held single-sex gyms are okay under anti-discrimination statues (basically exempt from them) on Constitutional grounds (the Constitutional right to privacy).
"Freedom" to engage in trade with anyone but gays?
"Freedom" to engage in trade with anyone but blacks?
"Freedom" to engage in trade with anyone but women?
"Freedom" to engage in trade with anyone but Jews?
Sorry, but "Freedom" to engage in trade comes with the RESPONSIBILITY to engage in trade with ANYONE - including people you may not approve of.
"Freedom" is not - and never was - the "Freedom" to do "whatever I want".
Ken
I will wait for the first lawsuit filed by the KKK when they are refused by a black baker who will not build a cake with the words "I hate blacks" on 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.
