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.
For some humor, the whole #BoycottIndiana hashtag going around is pretty ironic. People want to use force against business who are bigoted instead of just boycotting them, but they have a movement to boycott the state of Indiana instead of advocating force against them. Just found that a bit funny...
Hmmmm, I'd love to think that he is actually bothered by anti-gay discrimination. But my guess is that he is more bothered by what is happening to Pence and by Walmart's opposition.
Whatever, I'm glad he is asking for the clarification. It's a win for everyone who thinks that government should not be governed by specific religious beliefs.
It's hard to tell what anyone (dems or gop) is truly thinking but this is progress and affecting change.
Nope, freedom of speech. We don't get to pick and choose whose free speech is protected. But equal treatment under the law requires that you have to do business with folks even if you've got a problem with who they are or what they do.
When you are not talking about essential services, what exact public service does forcing businesses to serve everyone accomplish?
The only two that I can think of would be convenience and stopping feelings from being hurt.
Once again, if it's against your religious principles as a storekeeper to support the homosexual lifestyle, how do you know for sure the person you need to show the door to is a homosexual? Many of them can pass as straight.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,755 posts, read 7,562,458 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
The 1st restricts the government, not the people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
The law doesn't address ministers and gay marriage. It stays out of it so there is no law to follow.
The 1st Amendment allows for taking the Lords name in vain. That doesn't mean for the believer its o.k.
Quote:
originally Posted by Ellis Bell
If it is man's law that allows for gay marriage and say man's law addresses the ministers as well, "To" obeying man's law is addressed in the Bible and that's the law to follow.
The first amendment means the believer isn't going to sue those who take the Lord's name in vain.
It was man's law in the Bible society, that every home should own a slave. That is how the poor person was able to pay their debts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Everyone didn't own a slave. You make a lot of claims not based in fact.
The 1st amendment doesn't address the believer. It addresses the government.
Quote:
originally Posted by Ellis Bell
It was not immoral for every one who could do so, to own a slave. And as I said, it was how, I understood in that it was 'man's law' so as the poor people paid their debts. If you would like
to elaborate on this you may do so at any time.
You brought the believer into the first amendment and I answered that. Probably not to your satisfaction, but I answered it none-the-less.
_______________________________
I make claims based on what I have read and remembered. This I found in my bookmarks:
"God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence."
This The Bible and Slavery after I read that, I dropped the research subject and went on. (—Exodus 21:2-6.)
I will retract the statement (only because I can not find where I read it) that is was 'required', however to say that it was man's (not immoral) law, legal to do so, that is true.
The Bible law, ministers and gay marriage and how the Bible addresses that. You're right it doesn't discuss a law for that situation. However, it can be addressed through (man's law) the law of the land:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from
God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities
resists what God has appointed ...
_____________________________________
The first amendment allows for the 'freedom of speech' and you're right that doesn't mean for the believer that it's ok, what it means is like what I said, they can not sue someone (The idea that a corporation is a legal person with constitutional rights is, of course, a controversial one.) for taking the Lord's name in vain.
The first amendment allows for the 'freedom of religion' and now we are on point.
Until the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was seen correctly as applying to the Federal government alone, not state or local governments, and certainly not private businesses or individuals. In other words, if a state wanted to tell an individual to shut up, it was constitutionally allowed to do so.
The First Amendment originally applied to Congress… the Bill of Rights was meant to delimit the power of the Federal government, nothing else. This changed with the incorporation doctrine. (my emphasis)
<snip>
A business owner or individual property owner has every right to tell someone on his property to be quiet or to leave.
The Freedom of Religion Bill and Indiana, what are your thoughts?
IF so, then refusal of that service to a sub set of the population is discrimination.
This is why the line is hard. I don't think all businesses should be forced to do anything a customer asks. If a Muslim bakery doesn't want to write a Bible verse on a cake, they shouldn't have to. If an atheist photographer doesn't want to take pictures in a Baptist church, they shouldn't be forced to do that. Or a Mormon florist be forced to do wedding flowers for a FLDS polygamist wedding. etc. etc
If a black-owned print shop doesn't want to make up banners for the KKK, they should not have to do that. Or a white owned business forced to do something for the Black Panthers.
But any person who walks into a restaurant, bakery, etc, should be able to buy things on the shelf, order food off a menu, etc.
And that's why this is hard to legislate. Because where do you draw the line?
Once again, if it's against your religious principles as a storekeeper to support the homosexual lifestyle, how do you know for sure the person you need to show the door to is a homosexual? Many of them can pass as straight.
Nobody is being shown the door. If two men come and and said Joe and I are getting married to each other and we want you to cater our wedding party, then the owner has the right to say no.
But if Joe and his husband walk in and buy a cake off the shelf, then they should not be denied.
This is why the line is hard. I don't think all businesses should be forced to do anything a customer asks. If a Muslim bakery doesn't want to write a Bible verse on a cake, they shouldn't have to. If an atheist photographer doesn't want to take pictures in a Baptist church, they shouldn't be forced to do that. Or a Mormon florist be forced to do wedding flowers for a FLDS polygamist wedding. etc. etc
If a black-owned print shop doesn't want to make up banners for the KKK, they should not have to do that. Or a white owned business forced to do something for the Black Panthers.
But any person who walks into a restaurant, bakery, etc, should be able to buy things on the shelf, order food off a menu, etc.
And that's why this is hard to legislate. Because where do you draw the line?
You make great points. The issue is will those that you mentioned turnaround and SUE the store owner for not giving them what they are asking for even though it's against their business owners religious or moral right?
If they do sue, then this is where the law comes in to protect the business.
This is why the line is hard. I don't think all businesses should be forced to do anything a customer asks. If a Muslim bakery doesn't want to write a Bible verse on a cake, they shouldn't have to. If an atheist photographer doesn't want to take pictures in a Baptist church, they shouldn't be forced to do that. Or a Mormon florist be forced to do wedding flowers for a FLDS polygamist wedding. etc. etc
If a black-owned print shop doesn't want to make up banners for the KKK, they should not have to do that. Or a white owned business forced to do something for the Black Panthers.
But any person who walks into a restaurant, bakery, etc, should be able to buy things on the shelf, order food off a menu, etc.
And that's why this is hard to legislate. Because where do you draw the line?
How about don't discriminate in the sales of products or services you choose to offer to the public?
If you offer bible cakes, then you offer bible cakes to all.
If you offer wedding cakes then you offer wedding cakes to all.
If you offer flowers then you offer flowers to all.
If you offer catering then you offer catering to all.
If you offer printing, then you offer printing to all.
I would have no problem with any business owner telling a customer " I don't really agree with doing this service for you, but I will follow the law. I can recommend some someone else if you would like."
I'm willing to bet that most would not want them doing the service if they put it like that, and no laws would be broken so no legal recourse.
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.
