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.
Too late. SCOTUS set the gold standard with the Hobby Lobby ruling. If there's a less burdensome (to one's religion) way to achieve a result, the First Amendment Right to exercise one's religion trumps law.
Same sex couples can patronize other wedding goods/services providers, just like women can access abortifacients via another method instead of forcing Hobby Lobby's owners to provide insurance that covers them against their religious beliefs even though doing so is in fact required by the ACA law.
Nope. Read about the Santeria priest in the article I linked. He won his case.
The test widely recognized is if there's a less burdensome (to one's religious belief) way to achieve the same result. In the case of wedding goods/service providers, there is. Same sex couples can patronize other businesses providing the same wedding goods/services. Incidentally, that test is why Hobby Lobby won their Obamacare SCOTUS case. Women can access abortifacients via other means.
Same sex couples can buy wedding goids/services from other providers.
I just read that whole article, as was stated before, none of these examples were an imposition to other people. On top of that, none of these examples include refusal of service due to discrimination.
Also, these examples were not won through the first amendment, they were won through religious freedom acts that happened to be in those particular states.
Too late. SCOTUS set the gold standard with the Hobby Lobby ruling. If there's a less burdensome (to one's religion) way to achieve a result, the First Amendment Right to exercise one's religion trumps law.
Same sex couples can patronize other wedding goods/services providers, just like women can access abortifacients via another method instead of forcing Hobby Lobby's owners to provide insurance that covers them against their religious beliefs even though doing so is in fact required by the ACA law.
Uh huh. This is why they lost their case and ended up paying...
I just read that whole article, as was stated before, none of these examples were an imposition to other people. On top of that, none of these examples include refusal of service due to discrimination.
Also, these examples were not won through the first amendment, they were won through religious freedom acts that happened to be in those particular states.
State RFAs mirror the intent of the First Amendment by giving those wishing to exercise their Constitutional First Amendment Religious Freedom Rights support at the state level.
And like the point made in the article I linked, RFAs protect many more than just Christians.
State RFAs mirror the intent of the First Amendment by giving those wishing to exercise their Constitutional First Amendment Religious Freedom Rights support at the state level.
And like the point made in the article I linked, RFAs protect many more than just Christians.
I understand that. Still doesn't apply to this specific situation unless you broaden the definition to include discrimination against others.
Hobby Lobby's female employees can access abortifacients via a means other than Hobby Lobby's ACA-mandated insurance. Likewise, same sex couples can access wedding services/goods from providers other than those whose religion prohibits SSM.
I understand that. Still doesn't apply to this specific situation unless you broaden the definition to include discrimination against others.
You're wrong. Hobby Lobby could have been cast as discriminating against women by refusing on religious grounds to provide insurance that covers abortifacients. They were not, because Hobby Lobby denied abortifacient insurance coverage for all. Likewise, some bakers refused to supply wedding goods/services for all same sex weddings.
Personally I won't be happy until every christian has to marry a gay man.
Why impose your beliefs on others? The point is FREEDOM.
Sure, some wedding goods/service providers' religions prohibit same sex marriage. Why is that a problem? Simply don't do business with them. Why would anyone who supports SSM want to support their businesses anyway? We have freedom of choice in this country. USE it. Buycott!!!
The answer is simple. If you provide a service to the public, then you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, age etc. it would be the same logic that prevented black people from receiving services because of race. It is unacceptable and should remain that way.
Amen, Southern Jim Crow fans tried this same stunt. And failed.
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.
