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.
Stop the ridiculous histrionics. It is well-known where various religions stand on ssm. They publish their positions. Some sanction it, some haven't taken a position either way, and some forbid it. And those who belong to those religions that forbid it have the First Amendment Right to decline to provide services for something which their religion forbids.
So, take your "deep-seeded prejudice, bigotry and intolerance of others" and stop using that to try to bully others into giving up their Constitutional Rights.
There have been many religious beliefs and practices that have been forced to stop or change or keep private as society has become less tolerant of such teachings and preachings. That slow progress against that sort of ignorance is still going on today and no doubt will continue well into the future. I hope I don't need to provide all the historical facts along those lines to also make this point any more clear.
Very generally speaking but also overwhelmingly the case, especially in the west, the white male was the primary beneficiary of these teachings and preachings, and still is. Took all too long before women were even recognized as anything close to equal, even birth control a matter of male control, and still to this day women are fighting for their right to choose, equality, in no small part because religion kept her "in her proper place" while the white males decided what was what...
SC took this case for reasons only they know. In a few months, we will understand their position better.
I am delighted, no matter what, they took this vital case.
Likewise, but sad we need the SCOTUS to guide us in these respects...
Equally sad is how the law has had to force people to become tolerant and accepting of people who are different, with so many cases throughout American history that no American can be proud about.
Religious freedom, yes. Bigotry and discrimination, born of religion or any other reason, no.
We don't need the law to keep teaching us this. Yet...
Is there any evidence this baker refused to serve gay people due to their beliefs or lifestyle ? Can you name one of these baker, florist, hotel, t-shirt cases where the business uniformly refused to serve gay people ? These cases become controversial because of the event, marriage. You want to find prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance where it doesn't exist.
I understand the purpose of comparing there types of cases to black people. Few in the year 2017 can validate separate but equal or denying service based on skin color. By equating that to these very specific ssm cases, you can make the false argument that these business owners are as villainous as segregationists and racists.
That the controversy is "because of the event, marriage," all the same to me...
However, just review the title of this thread and/or the case, and I think the issue goes beyond just the issue of gay marriage. Also has to do with simply providing a simple service (or not), as a result of prejudice born from a religious belief, about gays (their lifestyle, want of marriage, whatever). As such simple cases often do, the bigger picture is ultimately brought into consideration.
Me. I incorporated my business, and I am a citizen.
I had a business too when I wore a younger man's clothes, and I could have very easily decided not to serve people named PedroMartinez. I would have told you to leave my place of business, please, I don't serve your kind...
Now whether I can do this legally or not, how would you feel toward me if I insisted on this policy of mine?
Honestly. Not from a legal standpoint, not whether you appreciate my freedom to do so or not...
How would you feel about me deciding people like you were not worthy of my attention or service, because my religion tells me you are not worthy? Whether you could move on down the street to another business or not...
Unless an act of discrimination can cause actual harm, it shouldn't be illegal.
BTW, inconvenience isn't actual harm.
Is an insult any sort of "actual harm" according to you? Have you ever been inconvenienced because someone was being a butthead? That isn't a form of harm in your opinion?
What if after waiting in a long line at the DMV, finally getting to the counter, the DMV representative told you she couldn't serve you because she didn't like the way you looked, and to please get in another line...
It is a very false argument, but hey, if you think forcing black people to eat in separate restaurants, go to separate schools, etc., is the same as not baking a cake, arranging flowers, or playing music for a ssm, so be it.
Discrimination doesn't have to be "the same" for it to still be discrimination! Right?
Is an insult any sort of "actual harm" according to you? Have you ever been inconvenienced because someone was being a butthead? That isn't a form of harm in your opinion?
What if after waiting in a long line at the DMV, finally getting to the counter, the DMV representative told you she couldn't serve you because she didn't like the way you looked, and to please get in another line...
"No harm no foul" far as you are concerned?
If inconvenience can be legally defined as harm, there are a bunch of diners and restaurants I want to meet my lawyer.
Surely waiting in the 7th circle of hell (the DMV) is an inconvenience, therefore already possibly causing harm, even before you are refused service. However the DMV is a government organ and cannot discriminate, it is not a private company.
Suppose a customer wants an item promoting NAMBLA can a service provider object or refuse? Regardless of religious objection (given the Catholic Church this may be highly debatable as a religious objection at least for catholics). If so why is this an acceptable discrimination, if we maintain lists as currently those would be protected classes, of which orientation is not protected.
Further where does this leave the 13th Amendment? Ultimately every corporation resolves down to a person or persons who must perform a service. If the corp is by law required to service any request, then does this mean that employees by the same law must service any corporate request? After all in abstract an employee is just a subcontract business entity that provides some unit of work for compensation.
Where does the right of the business or business person to not be discriminated against enter the argument? For instance a printing business run by a same sex couple, who are subjected to printing anti-homosexual religious flyers for the local church, who have intentionally singled out that print business. Not only could the business not discriminate (religion is a protected class) but really loses the ability to claim harassment, since they can't legally refuse to provide service.
If inconvenience can be legally defined as harm, there are a bunch of diners and restaurants I want to meet my lawyer.
Likewise! Funny, and if that inconvenience is due to a sense that you are being discriminated against, because of being a minority, or your religion or because you are gay, we probably should get a lawyer involved.
Or..., accept that discrimination is okay, to be accepted, tolerated without some form of push back other than simply moving on to some other restaurant. Right?
Last edited by LearnMe; 07-11-2017 at 12:41 PM..
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.
It is well-known where various religions stand on ssm. They publish their positions. Some sanction it, some haven't taken a position either way, and some forbid it. And those who belong to those religions that forbid it have the First Amendment Right to decline to provide services for something which their religion forbids. 
