Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-06-2015, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Calgary, AB
3,401 posts, read 2,279,735 times
Reputation: 1072

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes. The Hobby Lobby case. SCOTUS has already ruled on the issues of exercising one's religion, substantial burden, and less-restrictive means:
Hobby Lobby’s win for religious freedom - The Washington Post

Note the bolded parts. Wedding ceremony goods and services are readily available elsewhere via less-restrictive means.

Stop bullying people into violating their First Amendment rights. That alienates people from your cause.
Hobby Lobby's little fit had nothing to do with discrimination against their customers, it was something to do with the insurance they provide their employees. Why are you using that to prove pretending god is real makes it okay to discriminate against customers? When I asked for a court verdict, I expected a relevant one.

 
Old 04-06-2015, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,284,822 times
Reputation: 15285
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
If they do not offer cakes with Mohammed's license to anyone, they do not have to make them.

If they cater, they cannot discriminate based on religion.

If they do not make Porky Pig cakes for anyone, they do not have to make them.

It's really not hard to understand.
Aside from the fact that your post is self-contradictory on at least two levels, it makes a lot of sense.

Mohammed's license?
 
Old 04-06-2015, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Near Manito
20,170 posts, read 24,284,822 times
Reputation: 15285
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
If they're bigots, why do they sell off the shelf items to gays and serve gays in their restaurants? That doesn't sound like a bigot to me.
There is no bigotry. None of the businesses being subjected to the lynch mob mentality have refused service to anyone. Nor, under the provisions of the laws which are suddenly so controversial, would they be permitted to deny anyone service. What they WOULD be permitted to do is to use religious belief as an argument in their defense in a discrimination lawsuit. The determination of such a lawsuit would remain firmly within the province of the presiding judicial authority. That is the way our legal system works. Allowing people to present an argument is not synonymous to accepting that argument as legally binding.

As usual, the LGBT forces are not interested in the law, in justice, or equality. Instead, they want to burn down the shops, scalp the proprietors, massacre their families, and sow salt in the fields of the flyover red states.

So to speak.
 
Old 04-07-2015, 05:27 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,790 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Hobby Lobby's little fit had nothing to do with discrimination against their customers
Customers aren't a protected class. And it wasn't a "little fit." It was a valid First Amendment objection which was upheld by SCOTUS.
 
Old 04-07-2015, 05:32 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,790 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf View Post
There is no bigotry. None of the businesses being subjected to the lynch mob mentality have refused service to anyone. Nor, under the provisions of the laws which are suddenly so controversial, would they be permitted to deny anyone service. What they WOULD be permitted to do is to use religious belief as an argument in their defense in a discrimination lawsuit. The determination of such a lawsuit would remain firmly within the province of the presiding judicial authority. That is the way our legal system works. Allowing people to present an argument is not synonymous to accepting that argument as legally binding.

As usual, the LGBT forces are not interested in the law, in justice, or equality. Instead, they want to burn down the shops, scalp the proprietors, massacre their families, and sow salt in the fields of the flyover red states.

So to speak.
Exactly. There is no bigotry involved in any of these cases. All noted examples sell to and/or serve gays under nearly all circumstances. The only instances in which the businesses have declined service is when asked to serve a participatory role in an event that is prohibited by their religion. And if the business is closely held (not publicly traded) and less-restrictive means to acquire such goods/services are available, SCOTUS has ruled that such is their right.
 
Old 04-07-2015, 06:48 AM
 
17,290 posts, read 29,349,509 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Customers aren't a protected class. And it wasn't a "little fit." It was a valid First Amendment objection which was upheld by SCOTUS.
Just. Stop.

You keep using the term "protected class," and I don't think you actually know what that term means.

EVERYONE, by the way, is part of a protected class of some type. It simply means it's a characteristic for which you cannot be discriminated.

And, as a matter of fact, customers are pretty much whom original theories of "protected classes" sought to save from discrimination in interstate commerce. It's how the laws were sold as something Congress can and should address.

You will find a huge swath of case law on the equal protection clause and anti-discrimination laws deals with people refused service on account of their race, ethnicity, religion, sex, national origin. (Which, by the way, is what a "protected class" means).
 
Old 04-07-2015, 06:51 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,790 posts, read 44,594,609 times
Reputation: 13623
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
Just. Stop.

You keep using the term "protected class," and I don't think you actually know what that term means.

EVERYONE, by the way, is part of a protected class of some type. It simply means it's a characteristic for which you cannot be discriminated.

And, as a matter of fact, customers are pretty much whom original theories of "protected classes" sought to save from discrimination in interstate commerce. It's how the laws were sold as something Congress can and should address.
What discrimination? The businesses in the spotlight do indeed sell to and serve gays.
 
Old 04-07-2015, 06:52 AM
 
Location: S.E. US
13,163 posts, read 1,661,760 times
Reputation: 5131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
You mean the votes of less than 1% of the population? Good Grief do you people think before you post or is that no longer allowed on the right?
Muslim Population in America

The population appears to be twice what you claim, and growing. That's significant enough to make a difference in the vote.
 
Old 04-07-2015, 06:55 AM
 
17,290 posts, read 29,349,509 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
What discrimination? The businesses in the spotlight do indeed sell to and serve gays.

If you sell a good or service, it is discrimination to withhold that good or service from someone on account of innate characteristics.

Regardless if you're fine selling a dozen cookies to gays, or catering a birthday party for a gay person.



Flip it: I am fine selling a cake to an interracial couple, but I will not bake them a cake for their wedding or their child's birthday, because I'm against miscegenation and the Bible shows us with the Tower of Babel and Curse of Ham that the races are to be separate. I don't want to be participating in their sin.


But oh, I'm not discriminating because I'll sell them a cake for any other occasion.




Sounds absurd, right? If it doesn't, it should.
 
Old 04-07-2015, 07:03 AM
 
17,290 posts, read 29,349,509 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound View Post
Muslim Population in America

The population appears to be twice what you claim, and growing. That's significant enough to make a difference in the vote.


The "Muslim population" also includes that population of pretty much "non-religious" Muslims who are Muslim by heritage and culture (like my former co-worker, who liked strip clubs and alcohol and thought the concept of God was stupid, yet still observed Eid).


Much like how the Jewish population has a huge percentage of atheists and non-practicing.


And how the "number of Christians" in this country is similarly overstated.
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top