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.
Exactly and you want to deny people the religious liberty with whom they choose to do business.
Two Constitutional rights are at stake, here: Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Association.
If a privately owned business chooses to not sell products to gays, so be it. The public has a right to boycott the business. No need to trample the Constitution over this.
Still waiting for that massive Apple boycott. What are the odds the disgusting opportunistic hypocrites never do it? No integrity. NONE.
It seemed to me that you were advocating that the government should (discriminate) pick and choose who to finance, based on who they are offering their services too. That is a broad stroke that encompasses an array of, 'beliefs' religious or otherwise.
There also seems to be a confusion between, sex (sexual orientation) and a person's ethnic (civil rights) background, which neither overlap the other.
I'm going to repeat it as many times as necessary, it's just sex.
Thank you for this post. you clearly outline the prog view.
The First Amendment must be shreded. religious freedom is only freedom if it complies with what progs want it to mean.
period.
i dont like your version... not at all.
How is saying that if you CHOOSE to open a business you have to follow the same laws as everyone else, regardless of your religious beliefs, shredding the first amendment?
You can have any belief you want, but you still have to follow the law. I can believe that god commands me to kill all who do not believe as I do, but I will be breaking the law if I actually kill someone.
It's not your call. That's the problem. The 1st says people have the free exercise of religion , not the free exercise as long as you agree with it.
I believe Civil Right laws are discriminatory. As others have pointed out, they protect certain aspects of religious rights but not the same rights for the Atheist.
You changed the subject.
You've moved away from the government financing the business to businesses in general but I agree that removing them only for religious reasons are wrong. They should be removed period. The Atheist should have the same rights as the Catholic.
Not intentionally changing the goalposts, I do believe I referred to advantages that are afforded business by becoming legal entities, financing being the most obvious and most ubiquitous.
But yes, to your point, if a business takes no advantage from the general public then much as a I don't like it, yes they should be free to pick and choose who they do business with. That's the only way my argument can be consistent, and it think it's a reasonable argument.
However given that there are advantages woven into the whole practice of becoming a legal entity, then I'm not sure it's reasonably possible to not take advantage, even if you don't want to.
The only way to do that is to practice as an individual, not a business. Which comes with its own set of problems, and also may not be possible, depending on what you do.
So it's either your way or my way. I think there is merit to both arguments.
So if a Japanese couple enter the store, you think it should be okay for the store owner to reject them because he doesn't like Asians?
I mean where does it stop?
Refusing to do business because someone is too short?
Or too tall?
Or is wearing a red shirt?
Yes, that business should be Free to discriminate or not as they choose. Then that Asian couple is free to tell everyone that will listen not to do business with that store for the obvious reason.
It seemed to me that you were advocating that the government should (discriminate) pick and choose who to finance, based on who they are offering their services too. That is a broad stroke that encompasses an array of, 'beliefs' religious or otherwise.
There also seems to be a confusion between, sex (sexual orientation) and a person's ethnic (civil rights) background, which neither overlap the other.
I'm going to repeat it as many times as necessary, it's just sex.
No confusion here. I believe both are immutable traits. Sorry.
And that's not what I was advocating.
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.
