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.
Under this perspective you would have to allow someone to kill another person due to a religious command. There are many religions out there, some with very barbaric commands and beliefs (Christians included). If you accept that a religious commandment can allow for discrimination, it is only a slippery slope from there.
So either religious freedom trumps everything, or it doesn't. If someone could not KILL in the name of religion, then obviously the free exercise clause is by its very definition NOT an end all be all. It does not trump everything.
You don't carelessly leave yourself in such a vulnerable position. You call your roadside assistance service provider and tell them what happened. They'll make things right.
Not everyone has a roadside assistance service provider.
But you're missing the bigger point. You're sort of assuming everyone lives in a city where there are multiple "everythings". I'm from a small town where there was only 1 grocery store, 1 bakery, 1 dry cleaner, 1 bank, etc.
Yes, I've lived in large suburban areas where there are lots of choices.
But now I live in the west where there are major highways where you can easily drive 50-100 miles with only 1 gas station.
For many people in this country, there's not always multiple choices. And your feelings would be much different if your only local grocery store didn't serve Christians.
Muslim cashiers do not get to refuse to ring up pork products. Muslim women do not get to keep their hijab on when going through TSA security checkpoints.
Oops... Apparently Muslims have First Amendment Rights but Christians don't? Either First Amendment Rights for all or such Rights for none.
What Muslim cashier refused to ring up pork products
Under this perspective you would have to allow someone to kill another person due to a religious command. There are many religions out there, some with very barbaric commands and beliefs (Christians included). If you accept that a religious commandment can allow for discrimination, it is only a slippery slope from there.
Nope. Read about the Santeria priest in the article I linked. He won his case.
The test widely recognized is if there's a less burdensome (to one's religious belief) way to achieve the same result. In the case of wedding goods/service providers, there is. Same sex couples can patronize other businesses providing the same wedding goods/services. Incidentally, that test is why Hobby Lobby won their Obamacare SCOTUS case. Women can access abortifacients via other means.
Same sex couples can buy wedding goids/services from other providers.
Under this perspective you would have to allow someone to kill another person due to a religious command. There are many religions out there, some with very barbaric commands and beliefs (Christians included). If you accept that a religious commandment can allow for discrimination, it is only a slippery slope from there.
So either religious freedom trumps everything, or it doesn't. If someone could not KILL in the name of religion, then obviously the free exercise clause is by its very definition NOT an end all be all. It does not trump everything.
Those were examples of people praticing their religion seeking wavers of standards or laws, it was not an imposition on other people, none restricted the personal freedom of others.
Those were examples of people praticing their religion seeking wavers of standards or laws, it was not an imposition on other people, none restricted the personal freedom of others.
Nope. Read about the Santeria priest in the article I linked. He won his case.
The test widely recognized is if there's a less burdensome (to one's religious belief) way to achieve the same result. In the case of wedding goods/service providers, there is. Same sex couples can patronize other businesses providing the same wedding goods/services. Incidentally, that test is why Hobby Lobby won their Obamacare SCOTUS case. Women can access abortifacients via other means.
Same sex couples can buy wedding goids/services from other providers.
Again, it's a slippery slope. What if every provider in 200 miles refuses because of religion? What do you do then?
The answer is simple. If you provide a service to the public, then you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, age etc. it would be the same logic that prevented black people from receiving services because of race. It is unacceptable and should remain that way.
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.
