Compare and contrast these two 1st Amendment issues

[chirack]

Originally Posted by HuskyMama

There's a certain hypocrisy in saying one is not participating/condoning/violating one's religious beliefs by providing services to a same sex wedding, while at the same time, an atheist is offended by prayers they do not have to participate in.

Ah we have federal laws against the very religious discrimination that some fundamentalist want to have the freedom to do to others. You can not say decide not to sell to people because they are southern baptist, or Jewish or atheist under federal law.

[AnywhereElse]

Originally Posted by chirack

A wise man and occasionally revered man once said: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".

If baking an cake for profit somehow can show violate their religion they should not bake for ANYONE. Businesses exist to serve people and expecting to agree with or hold all people to your own views is wrong. I see no first amendment issue. It would be an first amendment issue if for instance someone were forced to perform an gay marriage.

In the 2nd case people have the choice of jail or an court approved program and not all programs have an religious component.

You just don't get it. It is not about baking a cake. All of the victims of the gay agenda (The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media) had been serving gays but they drew the line when it came to be a willing participant in a wedding that was against THEIR religious beliefs of a marriage being one man and woman.

Originally Posted by chirack

Ah we have federal laws against the very religious discrimination that some fundamentalist want to have the freedom to do to others. You can not say decide not to sell to people because they are southern baptist, or Jewish or atheist under federal law.

And, do you have a link for those federal laws? Everyone is always talking about the law this and the law that but I have yet, despite asking, had anyone provide links!

And, I found this article that I thought was really good discussing the 12-step program and the 1st Amendment: Is Mandated 12-Step Attendance A Violation Of Your Constitutional Rights? | SMART Recovery® Notice they mention that there is a better chance of recovery when the person is given a choice. I realize that in this case, they have a choice of jail or rehab but, really, what kind of choice is that?

So, IF you read the article, you will see that the OP is really correct and their is a direct correlation between the two scenarios presented.

[Lew_B]

A business owner should serve or not serve as he/ she chooses. It is their business, if it is good they will come, if not so good it will soon be out of business.

Any DUI should be jail time. There isn't a soul alive that does not understand the risks of drunk driving.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by AnywhereElse

You just don't get it. It is not about baking a cake. All of the victims of the gay agenda (The homosexual propaganda campaign in America's media) had been serving gays but they drew the line when it came to be a willing participant in a wedding that was against THEIR religious beliefs of a marriage being one man and woman.

And, do you have a link for those federal laws? Everyone is always talking about the law this and the law that but I have yet, despite asking, had anyone provide links!

So, IF you read the article, you will see that the OP is really correct and their is a direct correlation between the two scenarios presented.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of religion. So a baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a Baptist wedding.

You are simply wrong about the "direct correlation" between the two issues. The baker is offering goods and services to the public. In many states, there are laws on the books protecting against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In those states, the baker cannot lawfully refuse to bake the cake because the customer is gay.

That is a regulation of the business, not the religion. It is entirely permissible under the 1st Amendment. The business practice regulated is discrimination on the basis of orientation. It is a neutral law of general applicability. The business is obligated to follow that law.

For the faith-based substance abuse treatment program, the government is essentially compelling an individual to engage in religious activity. That raises both Free Exercise and Establishment Clause issues. There are questions of fact to resolve (Is the treatment program faith-based? Is there a viable secular alternative?), but if the program is faith-based and there is no secular alternative offered, then there is a 1st Amendment problem. Think about a logical extension--what if a court ordered that a convict could either serve 30 days in jail or attend church 8 times in the next 6 months? 1st Amendment problem? Believe it.

Originally Posted by Lew_B

A business owner should serve or not serve as he/ she chooses. It is their business, if it is good they will come, if not so good it will soon be out of business.

Any DUI should be jail time. There isn't a soul alive that does not understand the risks of drunk driving.

That is simply not how it works. In some states, including really important ones like California, New York, and Illinois (there is a total of 21 states + D.C.--22 for housing and employment discrimination protection), there are laws protecting against employment, housing, or public accommodation discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

So business owners--so long as they fall under the category of "Public accommodations--do not have the right to serve or not serve as they choose. In California, "Public Accommodations" means "all business establishments of every kind whatsoever which provide services, goods, or accommodations to the public." Businesses open to the public have to serve the public in California and others are in the same boat.