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.
Can we run a business without being forced by the government to perform actions against our moral beliefs? Can a Christian group on a college campus elect to not have gay leaders because that goes against their beliefs? We don't need extreme examples like you propose to see that freedom of religion is increasingly being limited. Here is a gay senator who boldly believes that it should never extend outside the church!
I find that pretty disturbing that someone who is a law maker holds such beliefs.
Your points completely fail. Here's how.
Can we run a business without being forced by the government to perform actions against our moral beliefs? Certainly. Within the law, you can do business however you want. Photographers used to wash all their used up chemicals down the drain. Textile mills and sardine canneries used to employ children to work long hours in their businesses. Sweat shops in New York City used to lock the doors so none of the women could leave early or take a break (they had to quit after they burned up a bunch of women). Power plants used to belch black smoke from their vent stacks. All of these businesses had to change when the laws changed.
We don't need extreme examples like you propose to see that freedom of religion is increasingly being limited. I guess I'll just ask again and then quit asking when I get no answer. How is your RELIGION being limited? I have never in my life seen a religious tenet (you know, that list of things a person has to accept in order to be a member of a denomination) that has anything to do with cakes, hardware, or automobiles. As a matter of fact, basic church doctrines like belief in Jesus, resurrection, communion, baptism, etc., never mention sexuality at all.
Your religion isn't being limited at all. Your ability to discriminate is. That is all.
That Senator clearly does not understand the 1st Amendment. We also have aa number of regular members here that fail to understand it, along with several other parts of the Constitution.
I figured you would find some way to excuse your insulting.
I have excused nothing, because I see nothing to excuse. But I figured you would continue to push this narrative of offense as a method to ignore the actual content, substance and points of my post. And you proved my point perfectly. You have ignored EVERY single point in my post and replied solely to the bits related to your narrative of being offended and insulted.
Which is _exactly_ what I just said in that post you do as your main MO. You could not have proven my point better even if you had given me your password and let me write your post for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You claim that you do not insult, but saying that I am whining, moaning or bleating is quite insulting.
If those things insult you then that is your concern not mine. I am merely stating those facts. And if facts offend you I can not help you with that. This is MASSIVELY distinct from the kind of insults and offence to which I was actually referring however. Such as the comments of you having been mentally afflicted by an early life ingestion of toxic materials, or those users commenting that you are likely 14 years old and so forth. Those are genuine insults and one should always remember insults demean the insulter. NEVER the target.
THOSE are the kinds of insults and offences you commented on, and I replied to. And THOSE are the kinds that you simply do not find in my posts, anywhere, ever. And my point was that you have this narrative of being insulted and persecuted and offended. And you generally ignore the posts that do not fit that narrative of insult (like mine) and reply with disproportionate vigor to the minority that do.
And I strongly suspect you do so because it allows you play the persecution card, make your points, and simply dodge any and all rebuttals or attempts to have your substantiate your positions and claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You are combative against anything I post and it gets really tiring.
Friendly suggestion: The forum has a highly useful ignore feature. I do not actually require you to read or reply to my posts in order to fulfill my purpose in posting them. Since you ignore and dodge the vast majority of the content of my posts any way..... you can easily save yourself this "tiredness" by simply using that feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Freedom of religion should never be taken away because some new public law decides to tread onto that right. It's not a right that we "imagine".
Except it is one you imagine. You have your freedom of religion even if you clearly do not understand what that means or entails. And when you choose to open a business you know what the laws are and you are free to open, or not open, that business in the light of that knowledge.
IF you decide to open a business THEN you consent openly and willingly to adhere to those laws. If you break those laws then the only one who has impacted your freedom of religion is YOU.... because you made the choices that led to the breach of the law.
You HAVE your freedom of religion therefore. What you are ACTUALLY seeking is not "freedom of religion" but "Special Privileges of Religion". Such as the privilege to be made exempt from aspects of secular law for no other reason that the religion you have arbitrarily decided to subscribe to.
In your world, one we thankfully do not live in, I could just set up any religion and tailor its beliefs to exempt me from the laws I do not personally like. Maybe MY god cherishes nothing more than art in all its forms for example and is highly offended by people profiting from art in any way. Therefore in your fantasy world I should be made exempt from having to adhere to copyright laws. Otherwise my freedom of religion is being trounced.
I know what freedom of religion actually means. You do not. And I can tell you that it does NOT mean you being made exempt from any laws.... much less ones you willingly signed up for when doing something like opening a business.
Yes--they fell for the argument hook, line, and sinker. It was a horrendous decision--not just because of what it did, but that they completely overstepped their authority and they did it based on incredibly poor logic.
Looks like your form of religion needs to find a new home, because in the United States all men are created equal under the law. Gay people hid in the shadows for too long, mostly due to confining religious beliefs. The truth is, your belief system doesn't pack the powerful punch it used to. Nobody "fell for the argument hook, line, and sinker" SCOTUS realized a certain group was being denied equal rights and thankfully they didn't rule in your favor. Sounds like sours grapes, because the decision has been made, without using theocratic rule.
Can you still pray? Can you still attend worship services whenever you want? Is your church still tax-exempt? Can you still say grace before lunch at the local diner? Does your church still have a service notice in the Sunday newspaper? Is there still a sign in front of the church?
Yes to all the above. And, since the SCOTUS decision, Bibles are still for sale in the mini-mart at my local gas station and the guy at the register still says, "Have a blessed day!"
Looks like your form of religion needs to find a new home, because in the United States all men are created equal under the law. Gay people hid in the shadows for too long, mostly due to confining religious beliefs. The truth is, your belief system doesn't pack the powerful punch it used to. Nobody "fell for the argument hook, line, and sinker" SCOTUS realized a certain group was being denied equal rights and thankfully they didn't rule in your favor. Sounds like sours grapes, because the decision has been made, without using theocratic rule.
The law STILL fails to create "equality". Matter of fact...it CAUSES discrimination. It is biased in favor of Buyers over Sellers.
FOR EXAMPLE: A Buyer from the general public can go into a business that sells goods and/or services to the general public...fill their cart with merchandise they intend to buy, or go in intending to buy a particular service...and upon seeing that the business is owned, operated, or staffed by some people they don't perfer...they can exclaim, "I didn't know this place was owned/managed/staffed by **insert nasty prejudicial term for group they don't like**, I would NEVER buy from the likes of scum like these!!", and turn around and walk out. All currently perfectly legal.
So now, as it is, Buyers are legally allowed to discriminate completely, and pick and chose what Sellers will or will not buy from. And they don't even have to declare why. Yet Sellers are told they must sell to all Buyers, or else they are committing a crime.
Since there is no way to determine why a Buyer won't buy from a Seller, and you cannot reasonably force them by law to buy from a particular Seller...THE ONLY FAIR AND "EQUAL" WAY, is to also allow Sellers the free choice to pick what Buyers they will sell to.
NOBODY in a privately owned business selling goods or services to the general public, and NOBODY from the general public, should ever have to do business with anybody they don't want to do business with. Let them all "freely choose", and let "free-market" sort it out.
No other way is "fair and equal to all".
The law STILL fails to create "equality". Matter of fact...it CAUSES discrimination. It is biased in favor of Buyers over Sellers.
FOR EXAMPLE: A Buyer from the general public can go into a business that sells goods and/or services to the general public...fill their cart with merchandise they intend to buy, or go in intending to buy a particular service...and upon seeing that the business is owned, operated, or staffed by some people they don't perfer...they can exclaim, "I didn't know this place was owned/managed/staffed by **insert nasty prejudicial term for group they don't like**, I would NEVER buy from the likes of scum like these!!", and turn around and walk out. All currently perfectly legal.
So now, as it is, Buyers are legally allowed to discriminate completely, and pick and chose what Sellers will or will not buy from. And they don't even have to declare why. Yet Sellers are told they must sell to all Buyers, or else they are committing a crime.
Since there is no way to determine why a Buyer won't buy from a Seller, and you cannot reasonably force them by law to buy from a particular Seller...THE ONLY FAIR AND "EQUAL" WAY, is to also allow Sellers the free choice to pick what Buyers they will sell to.
NOBODY in a privately owned business selling goods or services to the general public, and NOBODY from the general public, should ever have to do business with anybody they don't want to do business with. Let them all "freely choose", and let "free-market" sort it out.
No other way is "fair and equal to all".
I guess I discriminate then when I choose to buy my shoes from Kohls rather than Payless... Why? I think they are better quality. Should I have to buy my shoes from Payless just because? I don't understand your logic.
Looks like your form of religion needs to find a new home, because in the United States all men are created equal under the law.
We also believe that. I wouldn't dream of discriminating against anyone.
Quote:
Gay people hid in the shadows for too long, mostly due to confining religious beliefs. The truth is, your belief system doesn't pack the powerful punch it used to. Nobody "fell for the argument hook, line, and sinker" SCOTUS realized a certain group was being denied equal rights and thankfully they didn't rule in your favor. Sounds like sours grapes, because the decision has been made, without using theocratic rule.
Actually, they weren't being discriminated against in any way based on homosexuality. That's a farce, and it sounds like you have also bought into it.
Certainly. Within the law, you can do business however you want. Photographers used to wash all their used up chemicals down the drain. Textile mills and sardine canneries used to employ children to work long hours in their businesses. Sweat shops in New York City used to lock the doors so none of the women could leave early or take a break (they had to quit after they burned up a bunch of women). Power plants used to belch black smoke from their vent stacks. All of these businesses had to change when the laws changed.[b]
I don't see how your point is relevant when discussing the situation from a moral, not legal perspective. If you think the government's laws are the go all perfect measuring stick to moral justice then you need to study history more. We have laws that punish someone from consuming a drug product just as severely as murderers. Is that just? The law is most definitely fallible especially when it tries to be a one size fit all situations.
If your only argument is a legal one then you have to support the baker's right if they had lived in another state that didn't have such discrimination laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
I guess I'll just ask again and then quit asking when I get no answer. How is your RELIGION being limited? I have never in my life seen a religious tenet (you know, that list of things a person has to accept in order to be a member of a denomination) that has anything to do with cakes, hardware, or automobiles. As a matter of fact, basic church doctrines like belief in Jesus, resurrection, communion, baptism, etc., never mention sexuality at all.
There are countless examples. The Christian group on college is one of them. Countless examples of students having their religious freedom restricted in public schools. Atheists have used the concept of separation of church and state to twist it into an ugly freedom FROM religion state. Here is just one of many:
Quote:
A New York City principal trampled on the First Amendment free-speech rights of kindergartners by refusing to allow them to perform "God Bless the USA" at an upcoming graduation ceremony.
The American Center for Law Justice (ACLJ) sent a protest letter to city and school officials in response to the decision by Principal Greta Hawkins of New York City P.S. 90 to pull Lee Greenwood's patriotic ballad from her school's kindergarten graduation program—saying the song is not "age appropriate" and could end up "offending other cultures."
Wednesday, in a matter of hours, more than 1,000 concerned Americans signed an ACLJ petition urging that the song ban be reversed.
And focusing on the physical object in the case like the cake itself only shows refusal to understand why Christians would have a moral objection in this case. The cake is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they were felt forced to go against their moral convictions for something that isn't even a common need or service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Your religion isn't being limited at all. Your ability to discriminate is. That is all.
But a broad definition of discrimination is the problem here. What does it anti-discrimination mean? Everyone should have equal access to EVERYTHING? That's called socialism.
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.
