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.
Or the standards aren't something we have in common. You would prefer to insult based on that. I'd prefer to point out that people are different.
Oh, I am quite aware that people are different. I am also quite aware, that I don't care if you are rosends or my mother, if you are discriminating against gay people based off of your religion, you don't have common sense or common decency. If this offends, then oh well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
That's the difference between discrimination and illegal discrimination. We allow the legal type. We don't allow the illegal type. Period. Comma. Semicolon for good luck. -30-
And it should not be legal to turn gay people away because you believe a God will get angry if you don't. Period. Comma. Semicolon. Ampersand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
Actually, it is. Check on the posts about wine during Prohibition.
A) I'm not playing holier than anyone. I don't know why you would say this.
B) You don't know where I live, do you?
Yes, because we still do the exact same things now as we did in prohibition, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
So you are saying I should follow the laws about free excercising of religion? Or not?
If you don't like that law, might I suggest you come to terms with your attitude towards the Constitution?
I am saying that if you can't do your job without discriminating against your clientele, then you should find something else to do for work. Same goes for Kim Davis and the Colorado bakers, and anyone else, religious or not.
no because you are trying to force me to violate my religion because it goes against your zeitgeist, middle ages Christians were trying to force me to violate my religion because it went against their zeitgeist.
America was founded partly to prevent that, Atheists LGBT and other of this group are destroying that.
1. non negotiable fact Judaism forbids selling them something for the "wedding"
2. if the caterer breaks Jewish law, we will not hire them.
3. the government will destroy Jewish businesses.
stop making laws to harm religious people.
Stop discriminating against gay people. I don't give a rat's behind about your religion. Follow the law, or risk the consequences. We will continue to move forward as a country, even if it is slowly, whether you come along with us or not.
If you religion doesn't allow you to run a business without running afoul of the law or your clientele, then you shouldn't be running one. Plain and simple.
you do realize that you are in effect making no Jewish Jews allowed
got No Jewish Jews allowed to sell items for weddings , and you wonder why I keep screaming antisemitism.
If this position is not antisemitic, than either was the inquisition (we had an out then also)
Okay, first off, please learn how to format your posts. They look ridiculous, and are a pain to quote without taking up a ton of space...
Second off, if you advocate for discrimination against gay people, then you open the door for discrimination against Jews, black people, atheists, and everyone else. That is really, really stupid.
Oh, I am quite aware that people are different. I am also quite aware, that I don't care if you are rosends or my mother, if you are discriminating against gay people based off of your religion, you don't have common sense or common decency. If this offends, then oh well.
I'm not offended. Amused, maybe. If you are discriminating against Jews and not letting them practice their religion, then you are guilty of the same discrimination. Sorry if that offends you. Oh wait. No, I'm not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
And it should not be legal to turn gay people away because you believe a God will get angry if you don't. Period. Comma. Semicolon. Ampersand.
Ampersand? Savage.
What should and shouldn't be legal is a wonderful theoretical exercise. In reality, it should not be legal to force people to curtail their religious practice, and yet...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
Yes, because we still do the exact same things now as we did in prohibition, right?
In terms of having laws and a Constitution, I'm pretty sure we do. Do we pass laws differently? Are there ore people on the Supreme Court these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImissThe90's
I am saying that if you can't do your job without discriminating against your clientele, then you should find something else to do for work. Same goes for Kim Davis and the Colorado bakers, and anyone else, religious or not.
And if the full expression of my religion requires that to DO my job, I discriminate, then you have a conflict between two aspects of law.
For some bizarre reason, I feel compelled to speak as your moderator and say that I have seen no posts in this thread that even hint at being antisemitic. We're not going to tolerate continued accusations that have no basis in fact. Those become personal attacks.
This is not the Politics and Other Controversies forum. We won't tolerate the same accusations that get thrown around over there.
Well I suggest that you print out all your posts in this forum that relate in any way to religion, and if you are in an interview situation with a school that you present your views as part of your resume. Problem solved...for the school system.
Exactly! This was one of the big problems I saw with this approach.
Again, true. The law ensures both the practice OF and FROM religious practice but part of the "OF" intrudes on the "FROM" we have inevitable conflict.
I totally make them worse! But under the current legal system, that worse is inevitable, so unless we shift the entire system, I don't see how this won't keep recurring.
I want to say that this discussion is a pleasure to have. We need not have identical points of view to have a mutually respectful exchange of ideas.
It seems that we are in agreement that unfettered religious freedom can lead to some undesirable results. We also seem to agree that secular legal authority and freedom of/from religion are in conflict to some extent. I am reiterating so that we are both in agreement, I do not want to misrepresent your thinking.
I also agree with you that as the constitution is written, this conflict is inherent, as are others. We need not deal with the other non-religious conflicts.
The question is, how do we resolve or minimize the conflicts with the least impact to one side or another? Obviously we have a court system to review this, and in practice this is how these things get resolved. Perhaps imperfectly, but resolution is achieved.
In the past, the courts have generally held that if an enterprise is exclusively religious, secular laws do not apply, except in the most necessary circumstances. As examples, religious institutions, including churches/temples/etc, schools, and directly affiliated support services such as daycares, are exempt from most if not all taxes, health and safety codes, employment regulations, etc.
On the other hand, primarily secular businesses, including bakeries, are subject to secular law. It is the choice of the business owner to operate a primarily secular business, so there is an expectation that they understand secular law applies.
Thoughts?
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.
