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.
Like I said- hemming and hawing. What you've quoted there is a really wordy and convoluted version of the "freedom of association" argument against the Civil Rights Act.
In other words... clearer words: Rand Paul is lamenting the fact that the Civil Rights Act doesn't allow businesses to discriminate. Period.
The Civil Rights Act, gave the Federal Government ownership of all businesses.
I don't agree with that aspect. I agree with Rand, and public pressure does more good then the resentment and hate, created by government forcing free people. Making them no longer free. They have no choice.
[quote=HuskyMama;39323505]It's choosing not to have any part of a particular event, not refusing to business at all with a particular minority.
But if they can chose to not do gay weddings, divorce cakes or un-wed mother baby showers, why must it stop there? An Arizona bill nearly got passed allowing religious freedoms to discriminate against gays and non-believers if they LOOKED like they would cause issues to the business owner.
Quote:
I'd say that refusing to take part in an event vs wholesale discrimination is a way some people believe they are indeed hating the sin but loving the sinner. You presume that a religious owner only cites their religion for use of hate. Believing a particular event is so sinful you want no part of it is different than hating the people involved.
I'd disagree. The person is still being hated and punished for a sin that maybe they had no choice in taking a part of. An un-wed mother may decide to keep a child from rape or a gay person just doesn't chose to be gay just as a murderer maybe was right (revenge killing.) Not allowing a gay person who wants to CIVILY marry their partner is being discriminated against because of who they are. Jesus would likely want the business owner to accept them for they are they brother or sister and look beyond the sin. Look how many times Jesus forgave sinners and those that wronged him, even Judas.
Quote:
Again, the people who are choosing not to provide services for gay weddings are more than happy to serve the person any other time.
Some will, some wont. Don't make blanket statements.
Quote:
Let me make it clear, I would have no objection myself to playing any role in assisting a gay wedding and believe same sex marriage should be legal. I am however willing to let people choose not to have any part of an event they consider deeply wrong, even if I do not agree with them. As a matter of fact, I probably would choose not to patronize a vendor if I knew that was their policy even while acknowledging they should have to right to choose what events they choose to be part of.
Your ability to chose is out the window if you started a non-Christian bakery because we live in a secular country. Laws of God don't really apply because the founding fathers knew America was settled by many different forms of Christianity including strict puritans and even Catholics and Protestants.
Quote:
Let's turn it around. Suppose a gay couple own a restaurant. If a vocal anti-SSM person calls for a reservation and the restaurant says they don't have any tables available for Christian bigots, should the anti-SSM person be allowed to sue for discrimination based on religion? (Spare me the "no anti-gay-rights person would eat at a gay restaurant" evasion.)
If they caused a disturbance or did before, sure. Most gays don't make a scene as much as the Christians do with "God hates *******" signs.
Like I said, we're not going to agree. I'm willing to allow people to act per their own conscience, even if I don't agree with them.
I do until their rights infringe on another's rights. It's the old saying "You're rights end where mine begin." One can act fine until it infringes on another's right. So for blacks, why would they have to give up their front of the bus seat to an able-bodied white make or non pregnant white female?
Quote:
WBC is not representative of Christians in general.
They may not, but I don't see other Christians truly living thy neighbor. Even I have a problem with that sometimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12
Because you believe in liberty unlike left is.
I am too so long as their liberty doesn't discriminate or harm another human. Should one man be able to freely discriminate against another just because it is their right? If you say yes, you disproved yourself and if you say no, then you see the problem with the religious freedom laws.
I do until their rights infringe on another's rights. It's the old saying "You're rights end where mine begin." One can act fine until it infringes on another's right. So for blacks, why would they have to give up their front of the bus seat to an able-bodied white make or non pregnant white female?
They may not, but I don't see other Christians truly living thy neighbor. Even I have a problem with that sometimes.
I am too so long as their liberty doesn't discriminate or harm another human. Should one man be able to freely discriminate against another just because it is their right? If you say yes, you disproved yourself and if you say no, then you see the problem with the religious freedom laws.
Yes you should, if you can't discriminate on your own property you don't have true freedom. If I own the property why do I not have the right to choose who can be on it? Between civil rights legislation and property taxes it is clear that we do not have true property ownership in the United States. The state owns your property and you just rent from them.
I am not the inconsistent one, you are. You cannot believe in freedom if you believe that I have a right to your property.
Last edited by SoCalbound12; 04-24-2015 at 08:40 AM..
I do until their rights infringe on another's rights. It's the old saying "You're rights end where mine begin." One can act fine until it infringes on another's right. So for blacks, why would they have to give up their front of the bus seat to an able-bodied white make or non pregnant white female?
Back of the bus argument is apples to oranges. Public accommodation vs. private business, blanket discrimination against all members of a race vs. religious issues with an event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I am too so long as their liberty doesn't discriminate or harm another human. Should one man be able to freely discriminate against another just because it is their right? If you say yes, you disproved yourself and if you say no, then you see the problem with the religious freedom laws.
You are elevating the right not to be discriminated against over the right to free exercise of religion. I'm not supporting blanket discrimination against race or sexual orientation in all situations. Where two rights collide, I'm generally going to lean in favor of the Constitutionally supported right. If there's a problem with the Constitution and its amendments, then those who have a problem with it need to work within the law to amend it again.
The rare person who will decline participation in any way in a gay wedding is not impeding the right of those people to marry whatsoever. If they are willing to provide any services to gays other than wedding services, then it's not discriminating against the people and their orientation, it's a matter of conscience to them to not appear to condone a ceremony they consider sacrilegious. If they happily serve people regardless of sexual orientation the rest of the time, it is clearly not a matter of hate as the left would so often have us believe.
I would add that for as much as the left complains about the right forcing morals on people through laws, the left is doing exactly the same thing in demanding complete obedience to the rules regarding discrimination re: sexual orientation with no exceptions. Pro-life people generally allow exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, but the left will allow no exceptions in how they believe gays should be treated.
I would add that for as much as the left complains about the right forcing morals on people through laws, the left is doing exactly the same thing in demanding complete obedience to the rules regarding discrimination re: sexual orientation with no exceptions. Pro-life people generally allow exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, but the left will allow no exceptions in how they believe gays should be treated.
This, exactly this.
I also want to add that I don't believe the government should discriminate. If an accommodation is public, in that it is paid for by taxes and run by the government, it should not discriminate. I do not believe; however, that pizza shops or wedding cake shops are public accommodations, they are private businesses on privately owned land run by a private individual.
Yes you should, if you can't discriminate on your own property you don't have true freedom. If I own the property why do I not have the right to choose who can be on it? Between civil rights legislation and property taxes it is clear that we do not have true property ownership in the United States. The state owns your property and you just rent from them.
I am not the inconsistent one, you are. You cannot believe in freedom if you believe that I have a right to your property.
OK, how would you like it if someone goes around town plastering billboards about you disallowing their business because of your beliefs going against the way they live their lives and picketing your property with signs calling you a bigot where the property line ends? Hey it's their right to protest and free speech right. You can't have it both ways, but you already know that (even if you don't show it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuskyMama
Back of the bus argument is apples to oranges. Public accommodation vs. private business, blanket discrimination against all members of a race vs. religious issues with an event.
The Jim Crow laws applied to public and private. It didn't matter if the bus company was public or private, they could do it and now cannot even when private.
Quote:
You are elevating the right not to be discriminated against over the right to free exercise of religion. I'm not supporting blanket discrimination against race or sexual orientation in all situations. Where two rights collide, I'm generally going to lean in favor of the Constitutionally supported right. If there's a problem with the Constitution and its amendments, then those who have a problem with it need to work within the law to amend it again.
They are equal rights. I can't infringe on your rights to practice religion but you can't discriminate against me by race or sex (again that is in the Constitution under the 14th Amendment where everyone is equally protected under the law.)
Quote:
The rare person who will decline participation in any way in a gay wedding is not impeding the right of those people to marry whatsoever. If they are willing to provide any services to gays other than wedding services, then it's not discriminating against the people and their orientation, it's a matter of conscience to them to not appear to condone a ceremony they consider sacrilegious. If they happily serve people regardless of sexual orientation the rest of the time, it is clearly not a matter of hate as the left would so often have us believe.
How does that differ from in general other than the specific case? Quite frankly if I were discriminated by a business, I would NEVER frequent them again because they are bigots. It don't matter if it is because of only the gay marriage or pregnant rape victim baby shower or because of the fact of one being gay or being an unwed mother.
Quote:
I would add that for as much as the left complains about the right forcing morals on people through laws, the left is doing exactly the same thing in demanding complete obedience to the rules regarding discrimination re: sexual orientation with no exceptions. Pro-life people generally allow exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother, but the left will allow no exceptions in how they believe gays should be treated.
What about the Christian right who claim that pregnancy by rape is still the miracle of life and there for murder which is immoral by God or that gays are immoral because God said "Man shall not lay with another man," and there for they should not marry? That can't be the religious right forcing morals on people through law.
As Confuious said, "Man who live in glass house don't throw stones." In this case, the right are throwing boulders from their's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalbound12
I also want to add that I don't believe the government should discriminate. If an accommodation is public, in that it is paid for by taxes and run by the government, it should not discriminate. I do not believe; however, that pizza shops or wedding cake shops are public accommodations, they are private businesses on privately owned land run by a private individual.
Yeah but can companies have religious views if their vision or mission statements do not reflect religion? As I've said in other posts, it's one thing if Tony's Pizza has religious iconography on the walls and ask you to pray before eating but another if Tony's Pizza only claims religious freedom when asked to do a gay wedding rehearsal dinner.
Yeah but can companies have religious views if their vision or mission statements do not reflect religion? As I've said in other posts, it's one thing if Tony's Pizza has religious iconography on the walls and ask you to pray before eating but another if Tony's Pizza only claims religious freedom when asked to do a gay wedding rehearsal dinner.
Because I am good at something, should I have the government force me(supposedly a free man, of flesh & blood) to service everyone, just because some will pay me for my service, so I can feed my family?
If that were the case, I would no longer own my business. The government owns the business. I just manage it so they can get their cut off the top, or the shakedown begins. Again....If that were the case. .............Holy SHT
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.
As I've said in other posts, it's one thing if Tony's Pizza has religious iconography on the walls and ask you to pray before eating but another if Tony's Pizza only claims religious freedom when asked to do a gay wedding rehearsal dinner.
T
