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.
Does the state of Michigan actually have enough money to waste on defending a bill that will be throw-out as unconstitutional as soon as a federal appeal is made?
Why do they have to defend it in court?
At least here in Virginia, our Governor and Attorney General are not required to defend our state laws in court if someone files a lawsuit claiming a law in unconstitutional. I bet Michigan is the same way.
But some people don't believe in "basic human rights". They want to pass laws that force you to behave like they want you to.
Human rights are not the same thing as business rights.
In fact, this seeming lack of understanding the difference is what gets our backward little country into these quandaries.
Oh my gosh, did I just call our country "backward"?
Why, yes I did. Any nation that still must have legal battles to determine how best to accommodate naked bigotry born of ancient superstitions is backward as far as I'm concerned.
America is, perhaps, the most technological nation on the planet yet our culture has yet to emerge from the Dark Ages. We're like a feudal squire playing with thermonuclear weapons.
If not for these obsolete "sincerely held religious beliefs," would any business owner have a legal leg to stand on when these stupid controversies arise?
And why is it so hard to figure out that we would never teach this kind of crappy behavior to our kids, so why are adults acting even worse? When I was growing up, I had these naive dreams that things would get better after high school graduation ... only to find out things got WORSE. The pettiness, the inability to get along with people who are different, the backbiting, the power trips, the endless immaturity ...
I've realized that the only difference between high school and adulthood is that in adulthood, the stakes are a lot higher and we don't get summer vacations anymore. But these immature and selfish whine-fests over having to photograph a gay wedding or provide flowers for a gay wedding ... or even be in the same damn universe as a gay wedding, all I can say is that these self-righteous a-holes need to get over themselves. The world isn't all about them and their religious beliefs. If they can't provide equal service to everyone who is willing to pay for it, then they need to close down and board up their shops. It's obvious they can't handle the job.
There have been LOTS of times I had to do something at work that I didn't particularly enjoy. I grumbled a bit and did the job. Period. That's what responsible people do.
Unfortunately, I can't turn on the news without seeing another example of how someone's "sincerely held religious beliefs" isn't effing the world up ... whether it's ISIS beheading a hostage or a florist beheading a couple's happiness, it's always the same nonsense.
I think the world would be far and away a better place ... not if we didn't have religion. No. But if we had religions that didn't come ready equipped with a list of people to hate.
Basic human rights? No ... what I see is simply an excuse to encourage plain old ordinary bad behavior. I don't give a damn which fairy tale it is.
Assuming the bill is enacted, my primary question is: Does the state of Michigan actually have enough money to waste on defending a bill that will be throw-out as unconstitutional as soon as a federal appeal is made?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiker45
Why do they have to defend it in court?
At least here in Virginia, our Governor and Attorney General are not required to defend our state laws in court if someone files a lawsuit claiming a law in unconstitutional. I bet Michigan is the same way.
That's obviously true. As an example: When the Federal District Court in Richmond declared Virginia's anti-gay marriage provision unconstitutional, West Virginia's Governor and Attorney General, citing the fact that the WV law was similar, decided not to fight the appeals in federal court and simply allowed the federal judge to strike down the law without protest.
And you do not understand that that is a misrepresentation. If someone enters the public sphere by opening a business for example, then there are laws they are expected to follow. No one is forcing them to participate in gay weddings. They are forcing them to follow the laws that apply to ALL such businesses EQUALLY.
So it is not so much people forcing Christians to participate in gay ceremonies. It IS about not allowing theists to use their religion as a cop out excuse for following the law. Being a christian does not give you license to flout the law.
If you fear having to offer products and services to people, then simply do not open a business. It really is that simple. Seems no matter how simple you make it however, some people still can not get it.
These issues have been popular subjects...lots of threads on it for quite a while now.
My position on it hasn't changed.
I believe that anyone in private business should have the legal right to refuse to serve anyone, for any reason. No need to even state what the reason is.
Since Buyers are not legally forced to buy from Sellers equally, and give reasons why they don't...Sellers should not be legally forced to sell to Buyers equally, or give reasons why they don't. THAT is the only truly "equal" way...any other way is less so...unless Buyers are legally required to buy from all Sellers equally.
Otherwise...you have Buyers picking and choosing what Sellers they will do business with (and not required to give any reason why)...while Sellers are not equally permitted to pick and choose what Buyers they will do business with.
Just another example of the government butting into peoples' lives...and making unfair laws and regulations.
Next thing you know they will tell Curves Fitness Centers (I know you are in Ireland Nozz...Curves is a huge chain of "women only" fitness centers here in the U.S.) they can't keep their "women only" business model...or the Black Miss America contest being forced to have white, male contestants.
These lawsuits are lead by miserable chumps that get off on busting on people different then them.
The government should stay totally out of it. Private businesses should never be classified as "public accommodations"...they got that all wrong.
A public business, like a utility company, is a different story...they must serve everybody, no matter what. But a sole proprietorship?..that should be left sovereign.
The U.S. Constitution says that the government, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So then, what are they doing making laws respecting those things?
If there is supposed to be a, "wall of separation between church and state"...then keep it completely separate. The government shouldn't even be dealing with these issues in any way what-so-ever. "Separate" is separate...so stay out of it.
You don't "establish" something by just putting up a sign or symbol. You wouldn't view a business as "established" if they just printed up some business cards or put up a sign, but never actually conducted any business or transacted any deals.
Symbols "establish" nothing, only a fool would think so...and only a miserable jerk would complain that they constituted "a law establishing religion".
If a straight photographer gets his panties in a twist over shooting a wedding he doesn't want to shoot, he can get out of it easily without breaking any laws. Simply quote an exorbitant fee for the job and most folks will go elsewhere.
If they accept the price, sub-let the job to another person within, or outside the firm. It happens all the time. A brother-in-law is a professional photographer who does many dozens of weddings a year. If illness strikes or some emergency, it's not uncommon to have another photographer on call who can "pinch-hit."
Actually they could do it honestly. Just tell the client that they are uncomfortable doing a gay wedding and that as much as they would try to be at their A game, the level of uncomfort MAY result in work that is not as great as it should be. Then it is up to the client to decide if they wish to go ahead with this photographer or not. But if the couple still wanted them then they should do the best they can. The only reason the photographers got into the mess they did was their blanket refusal to photograph the wedding because it was a gay wedding. There are many reasons that a wedding photographer can legally and ethically turn down a job, discrimination is not one of them. And yes the gay couple could always go to another photographer however without the complaint the photographe would continue to discriminate.
These issues have been popular subjects...lots of threads on it for quite a while now.
My position on it hasn't changed.
I believe that anyone in private business should have the legal right to refuse to serve anyone, for any reason. No need to even state what the reason is.
Since Buyers are not legally forced to buy from Sellers equally, and give reasons why they don't...Sellers should not be legally forced to sell to Buyers equally, or give reasons why they don't. THAT is the only truly "equal" way...any other way is less so...unless Buyers are legally required to buy from all Sellers equally.
Otherwise...you have Buyers picking and choosing what Sellers they will do business with (and not required to give any reason why)...while Sellers are not equally permitted to pick and choose what Buyers they will do business with.
Just another example of the government butting into peoples' lives...and making unfair laws and regulations.
Next thing you know they will tell Curves Fitness Centers (I know you are in Ireland Nozz...Curves is a huge chain of "women only" fitness centers here in the U.S.) they can't keep their "women only" business model...or the Black Miss America contest being forced to have white, male contestants.
These lawsuits are lead by miserable chumps that get off on busting on people different then them.
The government should stay totally out of it. Private businesses should never be classified as "public accommodations"...they got that all wrong.
A public business, like a utility company, is a different story...they must serve everybody, no matter what. But a sole proprietorship?..that should be left sovereign.
The U.S. Constitution says that the government, "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". So then, what are they doing making laws respecting those things?
If there is supposed to be a, "wall of separation between church and state"...then keep it completely separate. The government shouldn't even be dealing with these issues in any way what-so-ever. "Separate" is separate...so stay out of it.
You don't "establish" something by just putting up a sign or symbol. You wouldn't view a business as "established" if they just printed up some business cards or put up a sign, but never actually conducted any business or transacted any deals.
Symbols "establish" nothing, only a fool would think so...and only a miserable jerk would complain that they constituted "a law establishing religion".
Unfortunately, the only response you'll get from the other side of the debate is "hey it's the law. They broke it. Case closed". Of course that is an easy position to maintain when you don't see anything wrong with gay marriage, but I'm willing to bet if it involved the government forcing them to interact with something else they believed as immoral, they would change their tune pretty quick.
Unfortunately, the only response you'll get from the other side of the debate is "hey it's the law. They broke it. Case closed". Of course that is an easy position to maintain when you don't see anything wrong with gay marriage, but I'm willing to bet if it involved the government forcing them to interact with something else they believed as immoral, they would change their tune pretty quick.
I can't choose to deny service based on religion, even though I am convinced that most of them are immoral. But I recognize that my doing business with a Christian is not the same thing as buying into their view point. I can look past their religion, and deal with the person. Honestly, we non-believers have been having to be accommodating to people with positions we find repugnant on a far greater scale than what you are dealing with. We manage just fine, thank you...
I can't choose to deny service based on religion, even though I am convinced that most of them are immoral. But I recognize that my doing business with a Christian is not the same thing as buying into their view point. I can look past their religion, and deal with the person. Honestly, we non-believers have been having to be accommodating to people with positions we find repugnant on a far greater scale than what you are dealing with. We manage just fine, thank you...
-NoCapo
This is not about a person to person interaction. These bakers have said they have no problem selling to gay people. It's the act of gay marriage that is the issue.
This is not about a person to person interaction. These bakers have said they have no problem selling to gay people. It's the act of gay marriage that is the issue.
Sure, but if I said," I have no problem selling to Christian people. It's the act of teaching and perpetuating Christianity that is the issue.That is why I will not perform building and grounds maintenance for churches." that would be illegal. As someone to whom the fundamental principles of traditional Christianity are abhorrant, I am not allowed to discriminate against Christians, even when offering them my service would help them spread their religion. And that doesn't bother me. I recognize that doing things like refusing to perform services or sell products to religious organizations, or in a more appropriate parallel, sell things to individual Christians that might be used to further their evangelism, would not only be illegal and discriminatory, it is just rude, classless and tacky.
And lets face it, the whole issue is hypocritical. The baker in question was willing to make a divorce cake, a cake for an out of wedlock child, and a pagan solstice celebration. The fact that they won't make a wedding cake for gay couples is not even religiously consistent, its just mean-spirited.
And lets face it, the whole issue is hypocritical. The baker in question was willing to make a divorce cake, a cake for an out of wedlock child, and a pagan solstice celebration. The fact that they won't make a wedding cake for gay couples is not even religiously consistent, its just mean-spirited.
-NoCapo
Nicely nut-shelled.
And If I'm not mistaken, being mean-spirited is a requirement for entry into certain fundamentalist factions.
ETA: Too soon etc.
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.
But I recognize that my doing business with a Christian is not the same thing as buying into their view point. I can look past their religion, and deal with the person. Honestly, we non-believers have been having to be accommodating to people with positions we find repugnant on a far greater scale than what you are dealing with. We manage just fine, thank you...
