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 both sides are forgetting an even bigger issue. the freedom to deny someone something just because I feel like it. I'll use an extreme Example. If my neighbor is having a heart attack and I happen to see it. I decide to just not worry about it and go back inside. it later turns out he dies. While morally it's reprehensible to ignore him. I have no obligation to help him. Now if I can let someone die. How can I not just decide to deny anyone a cake.
That's not a right. It's limited by antidiscrimination laws.
If you want to charge a higher price for someone who is left-handed you can, because there is no law that says you can't. In most states if you want to charge women a higher price than men, or vice versa, you can because sex discrimination is not prohibited on public accommodations. In a state that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation you can't choose to serve heterosexuals and not homosexuals.
Just curious. As an avowed atheist, this to me is still one of the fundamental freedoms. Congressional candidate Erika Harold speaks powerfully about this freedom here.
Is this now obsolete? We see now religious organizations compelled to comply with the tenor of the times. Don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding--you're sued. Don't want to supply birth control to your students--you're sued again--and get a dressing-down from the POTUS.
Do libs support or reject the free exercise of religion?
As a liberal who is also a Christian, I don't feel the first amendment is obsolete and I value the freedom or religion. I therefore understand that the secular laws allow me to discriminate within religious institutions However, once I engage in functions outside the religious institution I'm am subject to the secular laws that prevent me from discriminating. I would point out that "birth control" pills have health uses other than contraception.
Well, if you aren't talking about constitutionality then you are in the wrong thread, because the constitution is what this thread is about.
Religious freedom is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.
The Colorado law concerning the baker violated the baker's First Amendment rights.
Any argument that you make that supports that law must be constitutionally based.
Has the case been brought to a Federal Court? What about the Colorado laws violate the US Constitution?
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.
