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.
Commerce. But one act does not supercede another. One does not give up rights to exercise others.
Here's what the 1st Amendment says:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The relevant clause for our discussion is "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."
If selling a cake is an exercise of commerce (and not an exercise of religion), how does "forcing" someone to sell a cake prohibit his free exercise of his religion?
Quite a few of us predicted there would be backlash when homosexuals started targeting businesses owned by people with religious objections to homosexuality with lawsuits to force them to do something against their beliefs. And here it is.
The relevant clause for our discussion is "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."
If selling a cake is an exercise of commerce (and not an exercise of religion), how does "forcing" someone to sell a cake prohibit their free exercise of their religion?
Because some people's beliefs tell them it's a serious sin to take part in a homosexual wedding in any way. Respect and tolerance is a two way street. If homosexuals expect to be shown tolerance they need to respect the fact that others have their own beliefs. Seriously, who'd want a wedding cake or anything made by someone who didn't want to make it?
Because some people's beliefs tell them it's a serious sin to take part in a homosexual wedding in any way. Respect and tolerance is a two way street. If homosexuals expect to be shown tolerance they need to respect the fact that others have their own beliefs. Seriously, who'd want a wedding cake or anything made by someone who didn't want to make it?
Huh? I asked about selling a cake, not about being a participant in somebody's wedding.
Quite a few of us predicted there would be backlash when homosexuals started targeting businesses owned by people with religious objections to homosexuality with lawsuits to force them to do something against their beliefs. And here it is.
How about blacks? In 1964, some black people "targeted" a chain of restaurants (Piggie Park BBQ) that was refusing to serve black people in violation of an anti-discrimination law. The owner of Piggie Park BBQ (Maurice Bessinger) was a devout Christian who believed - sincerely - that God commanded the races not mix and in what he referred to as "Biblical slavery." When sued, he argued in his defense that anti-discrimination laws requiring him to serve black people in the same restaurant where he served white people violated his 1st Amendment rights as a Christian.
He lost. Should he have won?
Last edited by roundtine; 04-01-2015 at 08:54 PM..
Hunh..... a softball coach.... who could have guessed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Right-wingers have a warped sense of logic.
No one is forcing these "loving Christians" to run a business. If they don't like the anti-discrimination laws in this country, they should close up shop. Simple as that.
It's like owning a car. It's not an obligation, but if you own one, you're subject to following the laws of the road, fees, maintenance, etc. If you don't want to put with the hassle, DON'T OWN A CAR.
Owning a car is not a constitutional right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roundtine
The Federal Government's anti-discrimination laws were passed pursuant to Congress's interstate commerce power. As to state anti-discrimination laws, states have much more expansive plenary powers to legislate than does the federal Congress - state legislatures don't have to justify their laws off of a power enumerated in the federal Constitution.
Well stated, but doesn't the plenary powers gate swing both ways? Isn't that the point of federalism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roundtine
Here's what the 1st Amendment says:
The relevant clause for our discussion is "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."
If selling a cake is an exercise of commerce (and not an exercise of religion), how does "forcing" someone to sell a cake prohibit his free exercise of his religion?
Selling a cake, maybe or maybe not, but what if they have to put the Guy Guy centerpiece on top and write "Congratulations Ralph and Steve".....
Your bigotry, religious based or otherwise, cannot receive government sanction. Of course, the party that fosters bigotry will continue to slip-slide some slimy laws through that will try to do exactly that. But when they do, they'll be caught and called to account. Where they'll deny that they've done what everyone knows that they've done.
Well stated, but doesn't the plenary powers gate swing both ways? Isn't that the point of federalism?
I don't understand what you're asking, or trying to state, here.
Quote:
Selling a cake, maybe or maybe not, but what if they have to put the Guy Guy centerpiece on top and write "Congratulations Ralph and Steve".....
That's still not an exercise of religion.
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.
The bottom line...
