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.
"Should a business be able to deny service to a customer if the request conflicts with the owner’s religious beliefs?"
The question comes from the quiz at isidewith.com
I'm having trouble deciding where I stand on the issue. On one hand, I'm not religious, so my gut reaction is to say that no one should be able to use religion to refuse service to anyone. On the other hand, I'm a strong believer in the Constitution and Bill Of Rights, and believe that the government should not interfere in an individual's right to exercise his or her religious beliefs.
I'd be interested in hearing some of your opinions.
What religious belief dictates one can not do business with another. Even if the bible feels certain behaviors are sinful, it says to hate the sin love the sinner. Perhaps I have missed or am not aware of the parts where it forbids doing business on the bases of ones "sin". The only religious belief regarding business I know of is not doing business on Sunday.
But then again I also have a problem with the government dictating to private business owners who they may or may not do business with but I also do not think people should be denied service due to their race, gender, sexuality or religion.
As far as the contention that there was no violence involved in holding the bakers accountable , tell us what would have happened had they refused to pay the 135,000 fine?
The Defendant's assets would be levied. If there was real property in the Defendants' name, it could be liened and eventually subject to foreclosure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Alright if that's the case, businesses can just ignore the law and it's completely pointless to have it...so what are we even discussing it for? It'll have no effect either way.
Who said they could ignore the law? I said that the government does not incarcerate people for violations of the Civil Rights Act.
Yeah it's funny that anyone should think that by threatening business owners with violence if they dont serve everyone, that discrimination has been eliminated and prejudices abolished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Who thinks that?
(Besides the drama queens for the first)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest
Did you say drama queen? Christian Bakers Refusing Gay Wedding Cake Appeal Guilty Verdict
"mental rape" lol oh poor queens. They could and should have just taken their business elsewhere.
As far as the contention that there was no violence involved in holding the bakers accountable , tell us what would have happened had they refused to pay the 135,000 fine?
Not sure where you're going with all this?
Where are the folks who allegedly think "discrimination has been eliminated and prejudices abolished" ?
Where are the folks who allegedly think "business owners are being threatened with violence"?
Where are the folks alleging that "baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violates the tenets of their Christian faith"?
This is from the 60 page ruling filed on behalf of those you referred to as " lol oh poor queens ". Imho, they are the only ones who are not about the drama:
Quote:
...This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.
Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry. ...
and the reason is because its too broad a question.
Gay person walks into a bake shop and wants a cupcake. bake shop owner is of a religious flavor that believes homosexuality is a sin. denies the gay person a cupcake.
You cant do that. that's discrimination.
black guy walks into a soda shop, asks for a coke, owner is a racist and claims geebus told him to hate black folk. denies the black guy a coke.
you cant do that. that's discrimination.
in these kinds of cases you have people requesting a service that is NOT harmful to the business owner.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Now, lets say a guy walks into a bake shop. requests a cake. The cake is to have a picture of a necked lady on it because this is going to be a blow out party for this fellow and his buddies and there are going to be strippers and booze and fun had by all.
Bake shop owner is a devout Christian/Muslim/Bahai/Hindu or some such and holds such things as sinful in nature and providing such a cake would be to participate in the act of sin.
This I believe a person should be allowed to reject. This is not discrimination. It is the determination that the act of creating the cake, is participation in an act that is by its nature contrary to the religious persons religious expression.
The Defendant's assets would be levied. If there was real property in the Defendants' name, it could be liened and eventually subject to foreclosure.
Who said they could ignore the law? I said that the government does not incarcerate people for violations of the Civil Rights Act.
Alright, I'll stop playing dumb. What I mean is that every law is backed by force, and if you disobey they will, at some point, resort to force/violence. The longer I ignore them, the less nice they'll be...and at some point they'll send men with guns after me or my property, in which case I'd defend myself or my property if I didn't care about self-preservation.
Some might say "it's not violent if you just pay the fines or do what they say", but that's like saying a mugging isn't violent if you just give them your wallet. Not saying you'd argue that, but just in case...
Alright, I'll stop playing dumb. What I mean is that every law is backed by force, and if you disobey they will, at some point, resort to force/violence. The longer I ignore them, the less nice they'll be...and at some point they'll send men with guns after me or my property, in which case I'd defend myself or my property if I didn't care about self-preservation.
Some might say "it's not violent if you just pay the fines or do what they say", but that's like saying a mugging isn't violent if you just give them your wallet. Not saying you'd argue that, but just in case...
Its not a fine. Its a civil debt. Its not owed to the State, its owed to the aggrieved party(s). Your mugging analogy suggests a complete lack of understanding of how the legal system works. If the defendant doesn't pay, the plaintiffs can chase them for their assets, levy bank accounts, garnish wages, foreclose on real property, but they have no right to resort to violence or imprisonment.
If the plaintiffs sent "men with guns" as you suggest in your scenario, the plaintiffs would be committing a crime (for which they could be imprisoned) and would be subject to civil damages payable to the defendant.
and the reason is because its too broad a question.
Gay person walks into a bake shop and wants a cupcake. bake shop owner is of a religious flavor that believes homosexuality is a sin. denies the gay person a cupcake.
You cant do that. that's discrimination.
black guy walks into a soda shop, asks for a coke, owner is a racist and claims geebus told him to hate black folk. denies the black guy a coke.
you cant do that. that's discrimination.
in these kinds of cases you have people requesting a service that is NOT harmful to the business owner.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________
Now, lets say a guy walks into a bake shop. requests a cake. The cake is to have a picture of a necked lady on it because this is going to be a blow out party for this fellow and his buddies and there are going to be strippers and booze and fun had by all.
Bake shop owner is a devout Christian/Muslim/Bahai/Hindu or some such and holds such things as sinful in nature and providing such a cake would be to participate in the act of sin.
This I believe a person should be allowed to reject. This is not discrimination. It is the determination that the act of creating the cake, is participation in an act that is by its nature contrary to the religious persons religious expression.
If the baker refused to bake a cake with a naked lady on it to anyone asking for it, that's not discrimination.
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.
