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.
Yes, that seems to have been missed a lot in this discussion, and should end the discussion. If someone disagrees with a law and it's legality then they always have the option to fight that law through the courts and settle the matter, or just bake the darn cake and be done with it.
[quote=pennyone;50542122]So...a business can decline service because a customer is fat, black, white, Norwegian, or wears a toupee because it’s against some religious belief to serve such a person? This whole religious freedom crap is just crap. It has no place in civil society of the 21 century. Evolve people.[/QUOTE]
If it truly has no place in the 21st Century, we have a constitutional amendment process to get rid of/modify it.
No a church cannot be forced to marry a same sex couple, but that's apples and oranges in this case. Same sex marriage pertains to the government and a binding contract between two individuals. That's why there's separation of church and state.
Enough with the divisive Faux news hysteria. America has bigger fish to fry right now.
No, it is not an apples to oranges comparison.
As I wrote before (just copying and pasting here):
The church charges a fee to have some minister perform a wedding ceremony. The church is, thus, like the bakery, involved in a business. Yet, for religious reasons, the church can object to taking part in certain conduct, even though the church has willingly entered into the world of business/willingly decided to deal with the public in that sense. Why should an individual who has sincerely held religious beliefs and for whom faith is connected to everything they do be treated any differently?
And then we have the question of churches being forced to host weddings (i.e. a church refusing to allow same sex couples to rent out church property for a wedding when they let other couples do so without problem). I haven't heard any serious attorney argue that the state could pass law requiring a church to treat all couples the same under such situations; such a law would be a violation of the First Amendment. And while there are some differences between institutions organized as faith-based and those that are not, fundamentally we are dealing with the same thing in the aforementioned scenario vs. the scenario of the baker. That is government compelling individuals/orgs/parties to partake in/allow something that goes against sincerely held religious beliefs.
"The significant fine came after the lesbian couple said they had been physically harmed by the bakery’s decision not to bake the wedding cake.
According to a court filing, the couple alleged they had suffered depression, embarrassment, hysteria, impaired digestion, nervous appetite, weight gain, and mental anguish. They also said they felt “mentally raped.”"
If you have a nervous breakdown because someone will not bake you a cake, you are severely SEVERELY mentally ill. Like, you need to get Baker Acted ASAP.
Did the court look into whether these women were psychologically capable of filing a legitimate complaint? Because it sounds like they should be under psychiatric care 24/7.
I've mentioned a friend a had years ago. He was African American and had done quite well for himself. He was going to build a house with others that had done very well for themselves. There was a petition sent around to try and stop him. (this was the 1960's). Now you can ask why one would want to live where your neighbors didn't want you.
He became a very respected member of the community. He never forgot what people tried to do to him though.
As I wrote before (just copying and pasting here):
The church charges a fee to have some minister perform a wedding ceremony. The church is, thus, like the bakery, involved in a business. Yet, for religious reasons, the church can object to taking part in certain conduct, even though the church has willingly entered into the world of business/willingly decided to deal with the public in that sense. Why should an individual who has sincerely held religious beliefs and for whom faith is connected to everything they do be treated any differently?
And then we have the question of churches being forced to host weddings (i.e. a church refusing to allow same sex couples to rent out church property for a wedding when they let other couples do so without problem). I haven't heard any serious attorney argue that the state could pass law requiring a church to treat all couples the same under such situations; such a law would be a violation of the First Amendment. And while there are some differences between institutions organized as faith-based and those that are not, fundamentally we are dealing with the same thing in the aforementioned scenario vs. the scenario of the baker. That is government compelling individuals/orgs/parties to partake in/allow something that goes against sincerely held religious beliefs.
Public accommodation does not apply to Churches. They are private institutions by invitation only.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Christian are free to exercise their religion. They can pray on every street corner if they so desire.
But if the courts rule that they can use their religion to discriminate against people, we are entering the territory of the nation backing a certain religion and then we are on shaky grounds.
If pharmacists don't want to dispense birth control because of their deeply held religious believes, then they to find a different profession, one that they can practice without feeling as if they are committing a sin.
If you want to open a bakery, you can do so. No one will force you to open it, though.
If you want to only bake cakes for Christians, you can do that too, as long as you don't have your bakery doors open to the public. A baker can always limit his cakes to only the people he wants to serve.
But if you want to trade with the public, then you have to be prepared to serve whoever walks in your door to order a cake.
It's a matter of the same civil rights for all, not a matter of free speech.
Refusing to bake a cake is exactly the same thing as refusing to serve a black person a sandwich at a lunch counter. Or refusing them to sit in the only empty seat at the front of the bus.
Because now his son or daughter could build a house in that neighborhood and not have to go through what he did.
I'm a little disappointed I would have to point this out.
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.
