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.
Short on time & this is a large conversation. Do you agree it was a landmark decision?
No. It simply upheld individual Rights that had already been established in the First Amendment. But it did go a bit further by requiring the necessity of the availability of a less-restrictive means of achieving the same result in order for the First Amendment Right to remain intact. IMO, that's fair to all. Neither side gets an unrestricted position on the issue.
Can't get abortifacients with your Hobby Lobby health insurance? They can be acquired via other means. So the Court has ruled.
Can't order a wedding cake in one bakery? Order from another which has no such objection.
Etc.
Quote:
Maybe we could start there. See you next time.
Last edited by InformedConsent; 04-08-2016 at 05:23 AM..
(From the article you posted), that "Gays and lesbians deserve protection from “unjust discrimination.” And while he clearly upholds his church’s teachings of marriage as only between a man and woman, he notes that unconventional unions do indeed form. And they are not, he writes, without their “constructive elements.”
Quote:
"By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God"
The pope wants the church to be inclusive, not exclusive. Total opposite of what supporters of Christian Sharia want.
.
No. It simply upheld individual Rights that had already been established in the First Amendment. But it did go a bit further by requiring the necessity of the availability of a less-restrictive means of achieving the same result in order for the First Amendment Right to remain intact. IMO, that's fair to all. Neither side gets an unrestricted position on the issue.
Can't get abortifacients with your Hobby Lobby health insurance? They can be acquired via other means. So the Court has ruled.
Can't order a wedding cake in one bakery? Order from another which has no such objection.
Etc.
But even then Hobby Lobby is not allowed to offer coverage for those drugs to some of it's employees but not others. They have to have the same policy for everyone.
A baker can choose to not offer wedding cakes just like HL decided not to provide those particular medications. But they must do so across the board, they can not offer them to some people but not others.
I'm glad Mississippi passed this law. North Carolina has followed. Now, South Carolina will, and other states. It is common sense. I don't want my daughter alone in a restroom with a transvestite that is really a man by birth. Furthermore; businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they wish.
The funny thing is that most people have probably been in a public bathroom with a transgendered person at some point and not even realized it.
All these stupid laws are a distraction and won't hold up once they reach the Supreme Court. Just distractions for the low information voters who aren't noticing their economies being destroyed by regressive policies.
(From the article you posted), that "Gays and lesbians deserve protection from “unjust discrimination.†And while he clearly upholds his church’s teachings of marriage as only between a man and woman, he notes that unconventional unions do indeed form. And they are not, he writes, without their “constructive elements.â€
Exactly. "Unjust discrimination" is NOT declining to participate in a same sex marriage ceremony (by providing custom goods/services ordered specifically for such an event) based on one's religious belief. Unjust discrimination IS refusing to sell gays and lesbians off-the-shelf products. And that has never happened.
But even then Hobby Lobby is not allowed to offer coverage for those drugs to some of it's employees but not others. They have to have the same policy for everyone.
A baker that doesn't make custom-ordered cakes for same sex weddings regardless of who wants to place the order. No difference.
I'm glad Mississippi passed this law. North Carolina has followed. Now, South Carolina will, and other states. It is common sense. I don't want my daughter alone in a restroom with a transvestite that is really a man by birth. Furthermore; businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they wish.
And this is far more than a bathroom law. This law allows businesses, government employees, and state funded orgs to deny service to gays.
Per the civil rights act businesses do not have the right to refuse service to anyone they wish.
The NC law already has hit someone outside of its target. A woman filing an age discrimination case against her employer just found out that she can no longer file in state, she has to file federally. This will not only cost more but it can take several years to reach a resolution. Sh thought it was all about bathrooms too.
If they offer a three tier white cake with sugar flowers and raspberry filling, then they must sell it to anyone.
Off the shelf, yes. Custom-ordered for a same sex wedding ceremony? No. SCOTUS has already ruled in the Hobby Lobby decision that when less-restrictive means are available to achieve the same result, a privately held business's First Amendment Right is preserved.
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.
