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 contradictions in my post. If you offer a service to some, you must offer it to all. If you offer it to no one, you do not have to offer it to anyone.
You speak as if you were the judge in the hypothetical court cases foreseen by this topic, and an ill-informed one at that. But even an ill-informed justice can grasp the concept of making provision for religious objections both in the commercial sphere and in the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Since only the latter has been broached, I fail to see how anything is being denied to anyone -- save the little pizza shop lady, who is guilty of nothing other than being mousetrapped by a McCarthyite media. Or are private citizens now to be subject to prosecution for expressing personal beliefs which conflict with those of the LGBT demi-government?
Muslim taxi drivers who refused service to people with guide dogs or who were carrying alcohol have been told that their behavior is illegal.
Agreed. However, the Religious Freedom laws aren't dictated on behavior. They dictate action, or the lack thereof, based on religion. If the law hadn't been amended in Indiana, yes, the Muslim taxi driver was within his perfect legal right to refuse a ride to anyone with a guide dog or liquor because of his religion. Refusing service or discrimination isn't the point in these Religious Freedom laws, but religion is. And it's not so much what the Religious Freedom law means to gays in Indiana, it's how it can be interpreted all across the board. A Religious Freedom law covers everything relating to what a religious person does in his own business, be it renting out apartments or snow removal. That's why people are in such an uproar - these laws set us back to about 1949 when it comes to discrimination because of how someone interprets their religion. How would you like to be a single woman trying to rent out an apartment from someone whose religion says all women should be married mothers and housewives?
The downside to these laws is eventually someone is going to be discriminated against for being something he isn't and then there'll be a huge lawsuit OR the people doing the discriminating because of their religion are going to find out the hard way that this particular Religious Freedom law can be used to discriminate right back at them because of someone else's religion. Either one of those things will be used to bring these stupid laws down. It's only a matter of time.
No contradictions in my post. If you offer a service to some, you must offer it to all. If you offer it to no one, you do not have to offer it to anyone.
You speak as if you were the judge in the hypothetical court cases foreseen by this topic, and an ill-informed one at that. But even an ill-informed justice can grasp the concept of making provision for religious objections both in the commercial sphere and in the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Since only the latter has been broached, I fail to see how anything is being denied to anyone -- save the little pizza shop lady, who is guilty of nothing other than being mousetrapped by a McCarthyite media. Or are private citizens now to be subject to prosecution for expressing personal beliefs which conflict with those of the LGBT demi-government?
The little lady's religious freedom was not abridged. She can still believe homosexuality is a sin. Her freedom of speech is not abridged. She can shout her beliefs from the rooftops. What she cannot do is refuse to sell to a gay man what she would sell to a straight man. By running a business she agrees to follow the laws of her state. It is her responsibility to know what those laws are. She can either follow them or not run a business in the course of which she will run afoul of them.
The little lady's religious freedom was not abridged. She can still believe homosexuality is a sin. Her freedom of speech is not abridged. She can shout her beliefs from the rooftops. What she cannot do is refuse to sell to a gay man what she would sell to a straight man. By running a business she agrees to follow the laws of her state. It is her responsibility to know what those laws are. She can either follow them or not run a business in the course of which she will run afoul of them.
Since she has not as yet refused to sell anything to anyone, she would appear to be safe for the time being -- aside from the vulgar insults, vandalism and death threats with which the angels of tolerance on the left always seem ready to unleash on those who dare to oppose their hegemony in the public sphere.
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.
