Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (demons, American)
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 think a fundamental problem is people don't understand that the 14th amendment was enacted to rectify the ills of slavery. It was never meant for all these other groups that now benefit from civil rights laws. ....
Yes, the original application of the ammendment was to be applied to blacks, but the intent was to make sure that NO one was discriminated against in law or did you miss the part about "All persons born or naturalized?"
The fundamental problem here seems to be that people don't wish to acknowledge that. Specific laws were enacted concerning specific groups that have had a history of discrimination both in law and in practice and the phrase "equal protection of the laws" covers such cases.
That this should become an issue of religion is to the shame of religion.
I'm not totally clear on all aspects US history, but didn't people come here in part to escape religious persecution? In my limited reading of the scriptures, it's clear to me that the foundation of the US was modeled after the concepts laid out in the Bible. It's amazing to me that people completely forget this country's very religious origins. That just shows you how secular we've become. I'm not religious, nor is it my place to judge the way people live. Since this is the religious forum, I will frame things in terms of the scriptures. The way America functions today mirrors many Biblical societies that were eventually destroyed. This extends beyond LGBT issues. What I see happening with this religious argument is what happens to black people all the time. People somehow frame it in their head that one group being granted equal protections somehow takes away from another group. In my opinion, this baker exercising his religious beliefs did not deprive this couple of their rights as citizens. They could have just gone somewhere else. A private business is free to kick someone out of it. See: Starbucks. But again...the problem in that situation was that the business did not afford equal rights to a group that is CLEARLY protected by the Constitution. The Constitution CLEARLY protects freedom of religius expression. When you start getting into "grey area" with the law...things get sketchy and arbitrary. If the LGBT community really wants to call the Supreme Court's bluff, they'd find an African-American (descendant of slaves) couple to be the face of their issue. Until that happens...I think these issues will continue to get punted.
I think a fundamental problem is people don't understand that the 14th amendment was enacted to rectify the ills of slavery. It was never meant for all these other groups that now benefit from civil rights laws. Those amendments created after the Civil War was to rectify the injustice against black people. And honestly, I blame black people for not making that clear throughout history. But it's a bigger problem of people just not understanding how their government works. That's why the Supreme Court keeps punting these issues. They know the origins of the law, they know the cases that set the precedents and they don't want to set new ones that completely pervert the original intent of the law. But they play on the ignorance of Americans and make other groups feel included even though those laws were not enacted for their benefit. That's why the Supreme Court was right to frame this as a "religious freedom" issue. First, because it IS a religious freedom issue. And second, because religious freedom is CLEARLY guaranteed by the Constitution. LGBT rights are not.
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness is granted to all people. Until such time a people start taking rights from others due to race, religion, or ancestry. so, the constitution is based on freedom of religion, not banning religion, and selling that cake.
In this cake, the GBTL get to buy their cake and eat it too.
I know this may come as a surprise to many...but some people have morals and convictions. And it's less about discriminating as it is choosing to act according to those morals and convictions.
No, no not surprising at all. In certain countries, you can kill based on your morals and convictions. The facts are removed, it's all about those feelings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a5d1d6dfbce3
I'm just hoping America doesn't become one of them. It all starts here when we start questioning law based on religious morals.
Yes, the original application of the amendment was to be applied to blacks, but the intent was to make sure that NO one was discriminated against in law or did you miss the part about "All persons born or naturalized?"
The fundamental problem here seems to be that people don't wish to acknowledge that. Specific laws were enacted concerning specific groups that have had a history of discrimination both in law and in practice and the phrase "equal protection of the laws" covers such cases.
That this should become an issue of religion is to the shame of religion.
Amen. Religion is an entirely personal matter concerning private personal behavior. Secular laws are entirely public matters concerning public behavior in a community. When you open a business to the public, you are operating under the secular laws. You cannot use private personal religious reasons to discriminate against the public.
Amen. Religion is an entirely personal matter concerning private personal behavior. Secular laws are entirely public matters concerning public behavior in a community. When you open a business to the public, you are operating under the secular laws. You cannot use private personal religious reasons to discriminate against the public.
I would extend that to private personal opinions don't decide what is "right". "god said so" just happens to be the weakest argument of them all, well, in my opinion that is.
For those of you who believe this is a matter of "personal" opinion or behavior...how do you propose people practice their religion? If you own a business and your religion tells you pork is unclean and you're not supposed to eat or handle it...do you think that business owner should be forced to accommodate everyone simply because he lives in a society that thinks consuming pork is okay? I'm using pork as an example because there are quite a few religions--Christianity, Judaism and Islam, to name the bigger ones--that deem pork unlawful. I'm curious to see you guys' take on that.
For those of you who believe this is a matter of "personal" opinion or behavior...how do you propose people practice their religion? If you own a business and your religion tells you pork is unclean and you're not supposed to eat or handle it...do you think that business owner should be forced to accommodate everyone simply because he lives in a society that thinks consuming pork is okay? I'm using pork as an example because there are quite a few religions--Christianity, Judaism and Islam, to name the bigger ones--that deem pork unlawful. I'm curious to see you guys' take on that.
That's a lousy example. No one is saying that man who sells chicken and beef has to add a totally different product to their meat case.
But, even as a gay person, I will say that this case is not as simple as most people try to make it out to be. Personally, I think he should have to sell wedding cakes to anyone who wants to buy one. And the reason I believe that is that I assume he had to have a business license to set up shop in that community. I assume he benefits from the public sidewalk in front of his store and the public highway in front of his store...which all citizens paid taxes to pay for. On the other hand, I don't think he should have to decorate cakes in any way demanded, UNLESS he advertises that he decorates cake "to suit any occasion"...and I have seen such advertisements in bakery shops. Of course, I also think the patrons have every right to go online and publish reviews of the business...to tell their story, as long as it's truthful.
For those of you who believe this is a matter of "personal" opinion or behavior...how do you propose people practice their religion? If you own a business and your religion tells you pork is unclean and you're not supposed to eat or handle it...do you think that business owner should be forced to accommodate everyone simply because he lives in a society that thinks consuming pork is okay? I'm using pork as an example because there are quite a few religions--Christianity, Judaism and Islam, to name the bigger ones--that deem pork unlawful. I'm curious to see you guys' take on that.
If your religion has proscriptions that impact any area, you should avoid occupations or businesses that operate in those areas. What you do personally should only impact you personally, NOT the general public, period.
For those of you who believe this is a matter of "personal" opinion or behavior...how do you propose people practice their religion? If you own a business and your religion tells you pork is unclean and you're not supposed to eat or handle it...do you think that business owner should be forced to accommodate everyone simply because he lives in a society that thinks consuming pork is okay? I'm using pork as an example because there are quite a few religions--Christianity, Judaism and Islam, to name the bigger ones--that deem pork unlawful. I'm curious to see you guys' take on that.
Is he doesn't sell pork to anyone he cannot be forced to sell pork to you. You cannot go into the local bank and demand a tuna sandwich and a beer however that same bank cannot refuse to serve a customer if she is black for being black.
IIRC my grandparents raised pigs on their farm but kept a kosher home. There are No laws that require a business owner to carry certain items in his store. But anything he sells in that store must be available to anyone who has the legal right to do so, if they have the funds and have not, as a person, violated policies. Obviously if the store demands customers to wear shirts and shoes being gay does not mean you don't have to wear shoes.
I find it both interesting and frustrating at how hard it appears for some religious people to understand what discrimination is and how anti discrimination laws work. Obviously if you went to a a Jewish butcher and ordered a cake for a gay wedding he could refuse as he doesn't sell wedding cakes. Or these Christian bakers could refuse to supply Ham's for the gay weddings.
If pork was unlawful wouldn't you be buying it from a criminal?
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.
Religion is an entirely personal matter concerning private personal behavior. Secular laws are entirely public matters concerning public behavior in a community. When you open a business to the public, you are operating under the secular laws. You cannot use private personal religious reasons to discriminate against the public.