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 you'll find that Curves operates under a narrowly-defined exception to the law, one that is not necessarily constitutional. However, for a man to join Curves, he would have to be willing to sue for the privilege, and demonstrate both that them turning him down assaulted his dignity and represented some harm (having to travel further to find a suitable alternative; having to pay significantly more for a suitable alternative; etc.) The biggest hurdle a man would have to overcome is that what Curves offers is services designed for women, and therefore almost any other gym would be readily demonstrable to be a superior option for the man. You cannot sue for unjust discrimination when you benefit from it.
Apple chief Tim Cook slammed what he called a wave of “dangerous” laws in several US states that he said promote discrimination and erode equality, in an editorial published Sunday.
"These bills rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear. They go against the very principles our nation was founded on."
If they don;t stock certain cake toppers then they do not have to sell them. In the two cases regarding bakers both couples never even got to the decorations of the cakes. They were told they would not get ANY wedding cake from those bakers.
Pushing a button on a camera is not supporting anything. It is taking a picture. People took pictures of villages on fire in Viet Nam. Did that mean they were supporting the war? No it meant they were taking a picture.
Pushing a button and taking a picture of two people having sex is in fact acting in support of the creation of pornography. Why is doing wedding pictures for a gay marriage different? Your artistic skills are being used to promote something that you believe is immoral.
So no CHURCH has been forced to marry anyone they choose not to marry, and even a business has found a way around the law.
As I said, I'm unfamiliar with the case. But I think it's wrong to force anyone to perform a marriage that they believe is immoral. More and more, religions are being treated as businesses, so it is possible that we'll see lawsuits directed at religions in the not-too-distant future.
It's not private. Any woman can join. But to your point.....so the way around say a music store not giving lessons to say, blacks would be to charge up front for the lessons?
No, they could become a membership only music store. I am a member of a member only cigar club. I had to be sponsored to get in, pay a yearly fee, and show my card to enter the shop. No one can just walk in off of the street and buy a cigar there. This was done to get around the cities no smoking law. By becoming a private club we can smoke indoors there.
I went to a club that used the same method to get around liquor sales laws. Had to buy a membership in order to drink there, but they could stay open 24 hours no last call. But you couldn't just walk in and buy a drink.
NASCAR has joined the growing number of businesses to criticize a controversial Indiana law that critics say allows discrimination against gay people.
The nation's leading stock car racing organization, which is set to hold a major race Indianapolis in July, said Tuesday it's disappointed by the so-called religious freedom law signed last week by Gov. Mike Pence.
No, it is not the same law. If it was, why would Indiana need yet another law? The 1993 law addressed religious freedoms between governmentand citizens.
Uh.... uh..... because the SCOTUS ruled that the 1993 federal law only applied to the federal government and could not encumber state governments. That is why states like IL, PA, CT and 17 other states have state RFRA laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
No it is not. The difference is in this section:
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.
No other state's law addresses disputes between persons.
Neither does this one address disputes between persons per se. It is when one of the parties attempts to use government (courts) to substantially burden the religious freedom of another. All the law says is that the state or local entity does not need to be a named party in the judicial proceedings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloforLife
This is the hypocrisy in the Republican agenda. They constantly rail again Big Government. Yet, at ever turn, they use it to curtail "liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Businesses and individuals need to hit the state in the pocket book. A reality check for them is only when dollars start walking.
Big Gubmint forcing an individual to give up religious liberty is a burden on liberty. The gay couples liberty to buy flowers for their wedding is not substantially burdened by having to choose a different florist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier
Civil liberties are pretty straightforward. They can be applied equally. Religious liberties can be all over the place, because there are many forms of religion in this country.
How many religious laws do you want? I thought conservatives were against the nanny state, and wanted fewer laws? Yet, here you go, making laws when none are needed. The existing law is clear. If you are in business you must serve the general population, and cannot exclude certain segments of it. If you can't do that, don't start a business.
If you are forced to give up a religious liberty then there are not religious liberties "all over the place".
The nanny state is telling you that someone else's rights are more important than yours and you HAVE to perform this personal service for them. Fewer laws would be fewer laws that reduce your liberty.
You haven't heard about it because it was resolved a week later when the city said since the Knapp's were ordained ministers the law did not apply to them.
More and more, religions are being treated as businesses
Because more and more religions are operating as businesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
so it is possible that we'll see lawsuits directed at religions in the not-too-distant future.
Perhaps, but that'll only happen if religions cross over the line and become businesses, public accommodations, offering products and services for sale (material benefit beyond intangible religious benefit). And even then, it is only the business portion of the church that would be subject to the laws of business. The religion portion of the church would still be afforded the protection of religious freedom.
The stupidity in this is the power of GREEN (Money). Any business owner should not care what you do outside of his business as long as you have the green to pay him. If they are so stupid to ask questions and want to refuse service or sales, they will not be around long.
ding ding ding ding! This is America, so you should have the right to do whatever you'd like with your business as long as it isn't government affiliated. That being said, who the heck would turn away money??!?! Reminds me of this spoof video for KFC during the Chic Filet debacle.
Pushing a button and taking a picture of two people having sex is in fact acting in support of the creation of pornography. Why is doing wedding pictures for a gay marriage different? Your artistic skills are being used to promote something that you believe is immoral.
As I said, I'm unfamiliar with the case. But I think it's wrong to force anyone to perform a marriage that they believe is immoral. More and more, religions are being treated as businesses, so it is possible that we'll see lawsuits directed at religions in the not-too-distant future.
No one asked a WEDDING photographer to photograph porn. Two different things. If you photograph weddings as a service then one wedding is much like the next, and neither involve photographing sex acts.
I know photographers that only do child photography, they do not offer wedding photography, or porn photography, or big game photography. Just like a hamburger joint doesn't have to offer steak, or tacos, or ice cream even though they are all food, but they do have to sell hamburgers to anyone that comes in wanting one.
What part of churches already refuse wedding to many protected groups and there is no legal recourse do you not get?
A church in Mississippi refused to marry a black couple last year. No legal recourse.
A church refused an interracial couple. No legal recourse.
Churches refuse to hire women as ministers. No legal recourse.
Churches refuse people of other religions from having weddings in their church. No legal recourse.
All of those are federally protected classes, yet not one case against churches for refusing them.
NASCAR has joined the growing number of businesses to criticize a controversial Indiana law that critics say allows discrimination against gay people.
The nation's leading stock car racing organization, which is set to hold a major race Indianapolis in July, said Tuesday it's disappointed by the so-called religious freedom law signed last week by Gov. Mike Pence.
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.
NASCAR joins backlash over Indiana religious freedom law
