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.
What Kennedy did Not say is that the law covering sexual orientation is hostile to religion. What the ruling said is that the government [CCRC] Did act in a hostile manner toward the baker and his beliefs in this particular case.
I'm figuring you're capable of understanding the difference, but have staked out a position and will rather be forever wrong than admit you are wrong.
ABSOLUTELY. The poster will never admit this - just go round and round and round and tiptoe all around it.
ABSOLUTELY. The poster will never admit this - just go round and round and round and tiptoe all around it.
It's really tiresome.
What's extremely tiresome is you all ignoring the fact that Kennedy specifically ruled laws and the imposition of them CANNOT violate anyone's religious beliefs, and specifically cited the Constitution. If same-sex marriage contradicts one's religious beliefs, which is true for many religions, no law can be imposed that forces anyone to violate that belief. Why do you think Congress has never been able to get an LGBT anti-discrimination law out of committee despite numerous attempts? It's because such a law would be unconstitutional at least some of the time and would thus be stricken when challenged. It's like many of you are being willfully obtuse. /SMH
SCOTUS ruling:
"The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizensandcannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices"
Two prohibitions there. Cannot impose in the first place, and then cannot act to enforce that imposition.
What the hell is wrong with the left? You all want to abolish the First, 2nd, and 13th (prohibits involuntary servitude) Amendments, at the very least. WHY? WHY strip anyone of their Constitutional Rights?
I fully agree with both of your points. Had the baker not allowed the man to buy generic products, I would want that to be a punishable offense, but I also realize the gay couple and Co improperly targeted him with an anti-religious bias, and each met their proper fate via a wonderful SC.
I do think though your 2nd statement I copied is also a fair trade off, in so far as generic product offerings are concerned.
The couple did not "improperly target" the baker they went to the baker recommended by their wedding planner.
Kennedy directly cited the Constitution in the recent ruling FOR the baker. Sorry you hate the fact that every US citizen has Constitutional Rights. I know you'd much prefer the US to be a fascist, dictatorial country.
He cited how the ruling didn't take for account that, BUT more so how heavy handed the ruling was more so than the rule of law or intent of the law.
Correct. 13th Amendment. Involuntary servitude is unconstitutional.
No one forced the business owner to open a business, nor did they force him to agree to follow the law. He chose to do those things when he got a business license and opened his doors.
No man has a right to force any private citizen into a business contract that they do not wish to enter.
What about the contract with the state they voluntarily entered that said that they would follow the laws of the state? By getting a business license you are agreeing to follow the law.
He cited how the ruling didn't take for account that, BUT more so how heavy handed the ruling was more so than the rule of law or intent of the law.
It wouldn't have been deliberately stated if the ruling didn't take account for that. The heavy-handedness just confirmed the correct 7-2 ruling. There's absolutely NO way to get out of those 2 bars that now have to be cleared.
BTW, 3 recent rulings that went the exact same way. All ruled FOR First Amendment Free Exercise Rights over local, state, and federal laws:
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993)
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014)
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC (2018)
What's stopping them from going to another store? They aren't losing any freedoms.
They'll be happier among their own anyway, right?
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.
I know you'd much prefer the US to be a fascist, dictatorial country.
