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 that's the problem -- following EITHER one leads to discriminating against the other.
The shop owner is not being discriminated against. He/she is just not being allowed to discriminate against someone. It's not like there's a law that says ONLY Christain bakers must not discriminate against Gays. No one can, therefore, they are seeking a special exemption based on religion to discriminate.
The shop owner is not being discriminated against. He/she is just not being allowed to discriminate against someone. It's not like there's a law that says ONLY Christain bakers must not discriminate against Gays. No one can, therefore, they are seeking a special exemption based on religion to discriminate.
But the court is saying that if you force the shop owners to serve the order, the shop owners ARE being discriminated against and their religious expression is being limited. This isn't my opinion. This is from the article about the recent ruling. You can keep saying that you don't see it as discrimination, or anything else, but you should be dealing with the reality created by the legal system.
It seems the Jew has to decide whether or not his religious status is more important than his desire to engage in public commerce, period. Being in business is a privilege subject to secular laws. IF you cannot obey the secular laws, you cannot be in business. You are free to engage in religious "business" that is strictly restricted to your religious group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
I've used this argument on him several times. Apparently religious convictions are so important that it's OK to discriminate against other people using it as a basis but not so important that someone should be willing to forego the almighty dollar to protect them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
But why is the protection of religious expression any less a secular law that has to be obeyed? This isn't about religious vs. secular law, but about 2 secular laws at odds.
Running a public business has NOTHING to do with your religious expression. IF running a business imposes what you consider unacceptable constraints on your religious expression, your ONLY solution is NOT to engage in the business. This is a free country and your choice to participate in public commerce is entirely up to you. But you do NOT get to decide what your religion must impose on public commerce.
Running a public business has NOTHING to do with your religious expression. IF running a business imposes what you consider unacceptable constraints on your religious expression, your ONLY solution is NOT to engage in the business. This is a free country and your choice to participate in public commerce is entirely up to you. But you do NOT get to decide what your religion must impose on public commerce.
The law disagrees with you. According to that case, the law does not get to decide what it can impose on my religion in my business.
"The artists, who believe a marriage should be between only a man and woman, had argued that the ordinance would violate their religious beliefs by forcing them to custom-make products for same-sex marriage ceremonies.
The high court said the city can't force them to make same-sex wedding invitations."
That's not me. That's the article about the recently decided case in Arizona.
But the court is saying that if you force the shop owners to serve the order, the shop owners ARE being discriminated against and their religious expression is being limited. This isn't my opinion. This is from the article about the recent ruling. You can keep saying that you don't see it as discrimination, or anything else, but you should be dealing with the reality created by the legal system.
No one is being FORCED. Discriminating against someone isn't religious expression. These rulings seem really vague to me. I'm sure this is intentional as we await attrition of the knuckle draggers. This is why it's a good thing humans aren't immortal. There are a certain percentage of us that just simply cannot keep up or adapt. Today's liberal attitudes are tomorrow's conservatives ones. You guys are always behind.
No one is being FORCED. Discriminating against someone isn't religious expression. These rulings seem really vague to me. I'm sure this is intentional as we await attrition of the knuckle draggers. This is why it's a good thing humans aren't immortal. There are a certain percentage of us that just simply cannot keep up or adapt. Today's liberal attitudes are tomorrow's conservatives ones. You guys are always behind.
Who is "you guys"? Writers for the majority?
""Duka and Koski's beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some," the court majority wrote. "But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive. They are for everyone.""
It seems that the majority is addressing the existence of a law which protects even when that action seems unpopular. Can you argue the law instead of the players?
Who is "you guys"? Writers for the majority?
""Duka and Koski's beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some," the court majority wrote. "But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive. They are for everyone.""
It seems that the majority is addressing the existence of a law which protects even when that action seems unpopular. Can you argue the law instead of the players?
You guys are the people that don't get that you might as well be arguing to discriminate against black people based on your religious views.
You guys are the people that don't get that you might as well be arguing to discriminate against black people based on your religious views.
ah, so you do mean the judges who made the decision. Got it. Oh, wait. Maybe you mean the framers of the constitution...old fashioned, outdated document I guess.
ah, so you do mean the judges who made the decision. Got it. Oh, wait. Maybe you mean the framers of the constitution...old fashioned, outdated document I guess.
Oh, here we go. If you think this it must mean you hate the constitution or America....You must hate freedom blah blah blah.....
Oh, here we go. If you think this it must mean you hate the constitution or America....You must hate freedom blah blah blah.....
If you don't acknowledge what the constitution says, as referenced by judges for the Arizona supreme court, and if you don't acknowledge the position evidenced by the US supreme court,
"In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, finding that state's civil rights commission showed anti-religious bias when it ruled against the baker for refusing to make the cake."
then you are arguing your emotion and personal sense and not the question at hand. If you then say that "you people" might as well be arguing to discriminate against blacks, and the "you people" are the judges who study law and the constitution, then you are ignoring how our court system works. And blah blah blah, I guess. Paint it however you want. The problem is real and the courts are just pointing it out.
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.
