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.
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.
Any manner of contracts can be entered into between unmarried parties, even unmarried parties sleeping together, regardless of their sexual orientation.
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.
The basis is whether the business can be compelled to PAY for something. So, irrelevant.
That's not the extreme. Either follow the states anti-discrimination laws, or don't offer that item.
No one forced the people to open a business, they chose to do so.
By choosing to open a business, you are agreeing to follow the laws of operating a business. Just like getting a drivers license you are agreeing to follow the laws of driving.
If you break the law you can, and probably will, be fined by the state and sued by the party that you harmed.
Works the same for anyone who violates the law.
I have no trouble agreeing with that. And if the baker doesn't, because the law requires him or her to serve gays, then he can move his business to another state where it would be legal to hang out a sign that says, "Gays Not Served".
No, it's still a past sinful act versus present ongoing sinful lifestyle. If you are having a ceremony that celebrates premarital sex, I'm sure the baker wouldn't like that either.
How is the baker suppose to know that unless he asks a very personal question of the customer's sex life?
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.
Lost what? I sure as hell hope we haven't lost our First Amendment rights.
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?
That would have to be documented as the owner's religion's stated position.
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.
