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.
I just want to make sure a Muslim taxi driver doesn't end up having the right to refuse to carry a blind person's dog because of his reigion. That's already happened a couple of times.
But when it comes to the cake, make the cake. If the person wants you to write something on it that you couldn't print in the newspaper, then you can refuse the the writing. But bake the cake. Some business people are confused as to whether they're running a business or a church.
That "law" is called the first amendment of the US Constitution, which protects the right to free exercise of religion. It has been on the books for over 200 years now.
There's nothing preventing these bigots you defend from exercising their religion. Nothing about exercising their religion requires them to open businesses and refuse to serve gays. Pretending that god is real and a right-wing jerk is not exercising a religion, it's just making weak excuses. This has been explained to you several times. You make an argument you already know has no merit. The way you continue to speak when you know what you say is wrong is very strange.
Quote:
What we actually see here is liberals and the homo-fascist bullies discriminating against Christians. Not Muslims mind you - they get a free pass - just Christians.
What the right sees and what's actually there are two different things, it seems. If a Muslim wants to come here and make the argument you make, I'll call her a bigot too. And for the same reasons.
A more germane question might be whether Muslim bakeries should be coerced into making cakes depicting Mohammed's likeness.
Or cater Bar Mitzvahs.
Or make a Porky Pig cake for some toddler's birthday party.
The possibilities for mischief-making masquerading as tolerance are endless. Too bad I'll be dead before the current fad of insulting Christians with impunity while showering other faiths with bulletproof props is over.
A more germane question might be whether Muslim bakeries should be coerced into making cakes depicting Mohammed's likeness.
Or cater Bar Mitzvahs.
Or make a Porky Pig cake for some toddler's birthday party.
The possibilities for mischief-making masquerading as tolerance are endless. Too bad I'll be dead before the current fad of insulting Christians with impunity while showering other faiths with bulletproof props is over.
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.
Playing a participatory role in a same sex wedding does indeed violate some people's religion. That's a First Amendment right violation.
No, you're wrong. That's why bigots keep having to pay these fines. Have any of these cases gone to court and come back with a verdict that supports your claim?
Last edited by Seabass Inna Bun; 04-06-2015 at 04:13 PM..
I remember the Liberal media condemned Russia for hosting the world cup due to its laws against homosexuality. I believe the Liberal media would be largely silent when Bahrain (muslim country) host the World Cup in 2020 even though there are laws against homosexuality there.
If a muslim bakery refuses to serve a gay couple they would get far less publicity from the Liberal media than a Christian couple that refuses to serve a gay couple.
Saying a person is muslim is a way to get away from being attacked for being homophobic
But I didn't ask what it sounds like to you. I asked if there were any court verdicts that support your claim.
Yes. The Hobby Lobby case. SCOTUS has already ruled on the issues of exercising one's religion, substantial burden, and less-restrictive means:
Quote:
"In a 5-4 decision with a splintered dissent, the Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) cannot mandate a closely held corporation to violate the religious beliefs of its owner by providing four abortion-inducing drugs. Specifically, the court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires the government to accommodate such corporations just as it does not-for-profit corporations because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the owners’ religious beliefs and there are less-restrictive means of providing contraception (the government can pay for it directly)."
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.
Note the Chick-fil-A and Memories Pizza backfires.
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.
