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 happens if one sign in one Shoppe, becomes many signs in many communities in Tenn. What if these signs start showing up in different areas of the US, Don't think it can't happen.
My parents lived in Europe before the outbreak of WWII. They told me how the No Jews signs started showing up. First just a few, then it spread to many more shoppes and businesses. Ignorance and hate spreads and is a cancer.
Same thing happens with stores/restaurants, etc., that ban those who conceal or open carry, and bearing arms is a Constitutional Right.
Which means that we still need antidiscrimination laws on the books and to enforce them. Period.
What's so hard about that?
The problem is when those laws violate one's Constitutional Rights. Exactly the problem SCOTUS had to wrangle in this latest ruling. The way the Colorado law was imposed discriminated against the baker on the grounds of religion.
Again... As I've previously explained... There is no federal LGBT anti-discrimination law. Congress has tried several times but it has never made it out of committee. The problem is that any such law would be unconstitutional at least some of the time, and thus stricken when challenged. The LGBT advocates' response has been to try to get local/state LGBT anti-discrimination laws passed, but as we can see with the US Supreme Court 7-2 ruling for the baker, any such local/state law is unconstitutional at least some of the time, as well.
Not when they're unconstitutional, as the SCOTUS ruling confirms.
Not so if you're talking about this ruling:
Quote:
...However, the opinion makes equally clear that this ruling doesn’t dictate the outcome of future cases that would ask the Supreme Court to weigh religious rights against anti-discrimination laws.
“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,” Kennedy wrote.
Court Rules for Baker in Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case, Avoids Key Issue Colorado failed to apply law with neutrality toward religion, 7-2 court decision finds
Maybe sometime time in the future bakers will find it in their hearts to avoid subjecting their potential customers to indignities when they're simply seeking to purchase goods & services.
Court Rules for Baker in Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case, Avoids Key Issue Colorado failed to apply law with neutrality toward religion, 7-2 court decision finds
Actually, yes, according to that ruling. Here's the KEY takeaway, from Kennedy's majority opinion:
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.
Actually, yes, according to that ruling. Here's the KEY takeaway, from Kennedy's majority opinion:
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.
We shall see, won't we?
The SCOTUS ruling here, if interpreted as you're asserting, would seem to suggest an eventual 'clawback' on the landmark Civil rights case of Obergefell v. Hodges.
Isn't this ^ the one that is at root cause of the various bakers' cases? The bakers here would apparently prefer to delegitimize these marriages in the first place.
The SCOTUS ruling legitimizing same sex marriage is at odds with those whose religious doctrine disagrees with the existence of same sex marriages in the first place.
Yes, we shall. As I've already stated, it's no secret why Congress can't even get a federal LGBT anti-discrimination bill out of committee despite several attempts. It's because any such law is unconstitutional at least some of the time, and will be stricken when challenged.
Quote:
The SCOTUS ruling here, if interpreted as you're asserting, would seem to suggest an eventual 'clawback' on the landmark Civil rights case of Obergefell v. Hodges.
Here's what you're missing... Same-sex marriage is legal. No one disputes that. But government cannot force anyone, including closely held business owners, to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate such. That's a First Amendment guarantee. And SCOTUS concurred in the 7-2 ruling for the Colorado baker.
Yes, we shall. As I've already stated, it's no secret why Congress can't even get a federal LGBT anti-discrimination bill out of committee despite several attempts. It's because any such law is unconstitutional at least some of the time, and will be stricken when challenged.
Here's what you're missing... Same-sex marriage is legal. No one disputes that. But government cannot force anyone, including closely held business owners, to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate such. That's a First Amendment guarantee. And SCOTUS concurred in the 7-2 ruling for the Colorado baker.
What you may or may not be missing (how would I know?) is the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in the US took place in the various States between 1948–1967. Besides the very apparent neo-Confederate slant, there was religious opposition (coincidentally in the former Confederate States).
What you may or may not be missing (how would I know?) is the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws in the US took place in the various States between 1948–1967. Besides the very apparent neo-Confederate slant, there was religious opposition (coincidentally in the former Confederate States).
We shall see.
Given the fact that religions actually have official positions on same-sex marriage, it's not even remotely close to what you're asserting.
As SCOTUS just recently ruled 7-2, the imposition of and enforcement of LGBT anti-discrimination laws cannot violate Constitutional Rights.
If your position is to eradicate everyone's Constitutional Rights, just say so.
Look, my position is simply this, 'people are people'.
& enough with the straw man assertions (eradicating everyone's rights sheeesh).
Why deny the history of the various religions' influence on legislation? Both here & elsewhere:
Religion and interracial marriage
Quote:
Historically, many American religions disapproved of interracial marriage.[38] Religious tradition and church attendance are consistent predictors for attitudes towards interracial marriages. Biblical literalists are less likely to support interracial marriage to Asians and Latinos. Whites who attend multiracial congregations or engage in devotional religious practices are more likely to support interracial marriages.[39] Region also moderates the relationship between religion and interracial dating. Children with a religious upbringing in non-Western states, particularly the South, were less likely to have interracially dated than those without religious upbringings.[40] Religious attitudes combined with Christian nationalism increased opposition to intermarriage more than either attribute measured independently.[41]
According to a Baylor University study "people with no religious affiliation were not statistically more likely to be in intermarriages than evangelical or mainline Protestants or people from other religions"[42] with one exception, Catholics. Catholics were twice as likely to be in an interracial marriage than the general population.[42] It is speculated that the reason for this is twofold: the increasing diversity of the Catholic population (which has seen a huge influx of immigrants, Catholicism has sizable to significant number of adherents from many nationalities worldwide) and the fact that Catholics typically base their choice of parish on geography rather than on its ethnic or racial makeup which creates more opportunities for interracial mixing.[42] Jews were also more likely to date interracially than Protestants.[40]
Some religions actively teach against interracial marriages. For example, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recommends against interracial marriages, but does not prohibit it.[43][44] On the other hand, the Baha’i faith promotes interracial marriage as a prerequisite to achieving world peace.[38]
And yet the bakers in the Oregon case has over a half million dollars from their fundraising. That's probably more than their little bakery would make in 10 years.
That just shows how many ppl out there don't agree with the government pushing these business around.
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.
in the former Confederate States).
