Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:23 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,673 posts, read 45,299,489 times
Reputation: 13903

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Yet another reason I believe this SCOTUS decision to be wrong, and that it will one day be overturned.

Nonetheless, the cases are not parallel. One dealt with a business PAYING for something, the other deals with a business DISCRIMINATING.
It's not discrimination according to SCOTUS's HL ruling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,282,841 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
SCOTUS ruled that HL doesn't have to follow anti-discrimination laws. SCOTUS ruled that HL can decline to povide contraceptive/abortifacient insurance coverge to women. Gender-based discrimination is illegal. SCOTUS ruled HL's First Amendment rights trump that.
"SQUAWK Hobby Lobby SQUAWK!!!"

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:26 AM
 
42,732 posts, read 30,001,386 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
SCOTUS ruled that HL doesn't have to follow anti-discrimination laws. SCOTUS ruled that HL can decline to povide contraceptive/abortifacient insurance coverge to women. Gender-based discrimination is illegal. SCOTUS ruled HL's First Amendment rights trump that.
Perhaps you could cite that part of the SCOTUS ruling where SCOTUS said explicitly that Hobby Lobby can discriminate based on gender???

Because I can't find that anywhere. And the case was not about gender-based discrimination. In fact, I don't believe it was an issue at all, since the insurance policies were the same regardless of gender. Men and women both had birth control coverage, and the particular forms of birth control that Hobby Lobby objected to were removed from all policies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:26 AM
 
13,677 posts, read 10,073,027 times
Reputation: 14453
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You can think whatever you want. That's your right. But SCOTUS has ruled. The government cannot mandate a closely held corporation to violate the religious beliefs of its owner. Doing so substantially burdens the owners’ religious beliefs when there are less-restrictive means of providing similar goods/services.

Buy a wedding cake somewhere else, like any of these sources. They're beautiful:

Trend We Love: Supermarket Wedding Cakes | BridalGuide

Why bully someone into violating their First Amendment rights when perfectly beautiful wedding cakes are easily available elsewhere?
It's not a first ammendment right if you're disingenuously and untruthfully using your right to free exercise of your religion as a front because you lost. Unless you belong to the Church Of Sour Grapes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:28 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,673 posts, read 45,299,489 times
Reputation: 13903
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus View Post
I'm not talking about the ruling. Is that all you got? Can't think for yourself?
I, like many Americans, think that First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Do you somehow believe otherwise?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Stillwater, Oklahoma
30,976 posts, read 21,761,548 times
Reputation: 9677
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Yes, specifically because of what the First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

If you're unhappy about that, perhaps you should focus your energy on having the First Amendment repealed.
So the First Amendment clearly allows the baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for any black and white couple, if his religion says that God did not intend for the races to mix?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:29 AM
 
9,000 posts, read 10,225,018 times
Reputation: 14526
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1960 View Post
Washington (CNN)Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is set to sign into law a measure that allows businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers in the name of "religious freedom."

The move comes as Pence considers a bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination -- and just a year after Pence and socially conservative lawmakers lost their first policy battle against gay Hoosiers. In 2014 they had sought to amend Indiana's constitution to ban same-sex marriages -- but were beaten back by a highly-organized coalition of Democrats, traditionally right-leaning business organizations and fiscally focused supporters of Pence's predecessor, former GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Pence to sign bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers - CNN.com
I love Indiana.....
What a beautiful state.....
And the guy running the place has balls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:32 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,673 posts, read 45,299,489 times
Reputation: 13903
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie View Post
But not before marriage.
Not at all. Any manner of contracts/loans, etc., can be entered into between unmarried parties: friends, siblings, parent/child, etc., all can incur joint liability on a jointly entered-into contract.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:34 AM
 
13,677 posts, read 10,073,027 times
Reputation: 14453
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
I, like many Americans, think that First Amendment rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Do you somehow believe otherwise?
No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2015, 10:35 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,673 posts, read 45,299,489 times
Reputation: 13903
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Because the HL ruling is irrelevant to this thread.
No, it isn't. The very basis of the HL ruling is what specifically applies to closely held businesses. SCOTUS ruled that such business owners retain their First Amendment rights above any other law, as long as the goods/services in dispute can be obtained in a less-restrictive manner. And that certainly is the case for wedding goods/services.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:05 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top