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.
Issue 1: Should a business owner be required to provide goods/services for a same sex marriage, or should they be allowed to opt out if they believe the ceremony is against their religion?
Obviously this has been discussed at length on multiple topics, so please discuss in the context of your opinion on...
Issue 2: People convicted of DUI/DWI, illegal drug possession/use, or other substance abuse related law violations being given the option of AA/NA or jail? The 1st Amendment issue in question is the use of God or higher power or merely spirituality in the 12 steps, even though AA/NA has some meetings that cater to atheists/agnostics. A secondary issue could be religious people who have their own theological differences with the steps.
I know the AA issue has been heard in court, so it's not the win/loss I'm questioning, but if you have reasons you find them similar, what are they? If you see no parallels, why not?
For example, should an atheist be asked to find and attend meetings catering to atheists/agnostics if they don't want to attend traditional 12 step meetings, even though those meetings may be further away, or if they don't want to do that, go to jail, since they broke the law. How might this relate to the argument that a business owner should be fined if they do not want to provide goods/services to a same sex wedding vs the argument that same sex couples should just find another merchant who does not object to the ceremony?
I think that if you want to "opt in" as a business owner to not selling to people who go against some kind of "moral code" you have to refuse to sell to ANYONE else who doesn't have "perfect" morals and not just specifically singling out gays.
Also, this stuff assumes that the person doing the 'judging' has never done anything in their lives that would be considered immoral, so the person doing the selling would have to prove when they applied for a business license that they are allowed to judge others because they have had "perfect" behavior in their entire lives.
I think that if you want to "opt in" as a business owner to not selling to people who go against some kind of "moral code" you have to refuse to sell to ANYONE else who doesn't have "perfect" morals and not just specifically singling out gays.
Also, this stuff assumes that the person doing the 'judging' has never done anything in their lives that would be considered immoral, so the person doing the selling would have to prove when they applied for a business license that they are allowed to judge others because they have had "perfect" behavior in their entire lives.
Its a tangled web for sure.
Now address it in terms of being offered the choice of AA or jail....
What if going to jail is also against their religion? At some point, you can't use the 'religion' excuse and laws take over.
I can agree that "at some point" the interests of the public at large may outweigh an individual's religious beliefs. But at what point?
Sticking to the question raised, is it okay for someone convicted of a substance-abuse related crime to be offered the choice of AA/NA or jail, whether the 12 steps violate their religion or lack thereof?
Do you think your answer to that is consistent with that of your opinion regarding vendors and same sex weddings?
I think that if you want to "opt in" as a business owner to not selling to people who go against some kind of "moral code" you have to refuse to sell to ANYONE else who doesn't have "perfect" morals and not just specifically singling out gays.
Also, this stuff assumes that the person doing the 'judging' has never done anything in their lives that would be considered immoral, so the person doing the selling would have to prove when they applied for a business license that they are allowed to judge others because they have had "perfect" behavior in their entire lives.
Its a tangled web for sure.
your post makes no sense at all.
People should have the right to refuse to provide goods or services for a gay wedding because a gay wedding is a ceremony that condones/honors gay behavior.
A lot different than a business owner refusing to sell his product to a gay person.
By the way, how would a store owner know if his customer was gay or not ?
Do the courts actually require drunk driving offenders to a specific drug/alcohol program? I thought that judges simply required participation in a court approved program.
Do the courts actually require drunk driving offenders to a specific drug/alcohol program? I thought that judges simply required participation in a court approved program.
Courts may not specifically say AA/NA, but require rehab. However, the rehab industry is dominated by 12 step methodology. A rehab using 12 step theory likely requires AA/NA meeting attendance to sign off that rehab was completed satisfactorily. So 6 of one step, half dozen of another...
People should have the right to refuse to provide goods or services for a gay wedding because a gay wedding is a ceremony that condones/honors gay behavior.
A lot different than a business owner refusing to sell his product to a gay person.
By the way, how would a store owner know if his customer was gay or not ?
It doesn't condone or honor anything. It also honors a human being's right to live how they see fit.
As far as having the right to provide goods and services, they do have the right, all they have to do is not open up a business in the first place. But, once you apply for a business license, there are rules you actually agree to when you get that license, you accept the terms.
Issue 1: Should a business owner be required to provide goods/services for a same sex marriage, or should they be allowed to opt out if they believe the ceremony is against their religion?
Obviously this has been discussed at length on multiple topics, so please discuss in the context of your opinion on...
Issue 2: People convicted of DUI/DWI, illegal drug possession/use, or other substance abuse related law violations being given the option of AA/NA or jail? The 1st Amendment issue in question is the use of God or higher power or merely spirituality in the 12 steps, even though AA/NA has some meetings that cater to atheists/agnostics. A secondary issue could be religious people who have their own theological differences with the steps.
I know the AA issue has been heard in court, so it's not the win/loss I'm questioning, but if you have reasons you find them similar, what are they? If you see no parallels, why not?
For example, should an atheist be asked to find and attend meetings catering to atheists/agnostics if they don't want to attend traditional 12 step meetings, even though those meetings may be further away, or if they don't want to do that, go to jail, since they broke the law. How might this relate to the argument that a business owner should be fined if they do not want to provide goods/services to a same sex wedding vs the argument that same sex couples should just find another merchant who does not object to the ceremony?
1) Depends on the issue. Simply baking a cake should be a given; it's discrimination to not make a cake. Now, if the cake is to be decorated in a way that promotes same sex marriage, or if they're asked to cater a same sex wedding, then they should be reasonably allowed to refuse that particular service.
2) Well, drug possession shouldn't be a criminal offense at all. If they simply have them AND have an addiction (sending someone who has pot to NA meetings is a waste of a chair that could go to someone who actually has a drug problem), they shouldn't go to jail and get proper medical care. As for DUI, they committed a crime and would have to face the punishment. Driving while under the influence is dangerous; it can hurt yourself or others. If they need help with a drug/alcohol problem, then they should have the option to participate in these programs, but must also serve their time. Most prisons, as I understand it, offer these programs, or something similar, and do hold various religious services, so freedom of religion is one of the few rights maintained in prisons. So, since the freedom of religion is still active while in prison, then sending them their isn't stepping on that right.
But to be fair, technically the government can suspend rights (well, they can also permanently take them away, but I think that's 100% wrong; temporary suspension of rights is more than enough), so if they did commit a crime, freedom of religion no longer protects them in the same way it protects other people.
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.
