- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
On the contrary - NAACP v Alabama. Freedom of Association is inherent in freedom of speech.
If you use the power of the State to seek to force people to participate in activities that violate their religious precepts (for example, forcing a Muslim grocer to make you a pork sandwich, or forcing a Catholic church to allow you to hold a gay wedding in its chapel, or forcing a Southern Baptist to attend and photograph a gay wedding), then you are asking them to violate the tenets of their faith.
:shrug: I find it interesting that someone who claims to be a libertarian is so quick to reach for the sword of the state to wield against those who disagree with him on sexuality. "Keep government out of our bedrooms and our bakeries", perhaps, might be more consistent.
A business is the property of individuals. Just sayin'..
Well you don't often get open celebration of the power of monied interests over that of the people and their representatives, but there you go.
Subject to laws agreed upon when applying for a business license. Our society has agreed that businesses cannot operate without rules.
1.)Here's the difference, I'm using freedom of association specifically because it was written into the constitution by the judicial branch.
2.)So if you buy the other write/right-ins by the judicial branch, as you do, you have to swallow that one too.
We have been there and done that cpwill. Catch up.
What do your examples have to do with my argument?
Did I say I inherently support anti discrimination laws? I don't think they work and they are counteractive, but that does not inherently mean they violate constitutional rights or that people have the right to ignore them if they choose to do business in a state that has one.
On the contrary - NAACP v Alabama.
If you use the power of the State to seek to force people to participate in activities that violate their religious precepts (for example, forcing a Muslim grocer to make you a pork sandwich, or forcing a Catholic church to allow you to hold a gay wedding in its chapel, or forcing a Southern Baptist to attend and photograph a gay wedding), then you are asking them to violate the tenets of their faith.
.
100% correctSubject to laws agreed upon when applying for a business license. Our society has agreed that businesses cannot operate without rules.
:shrug: i'm not going to read everything every poster on this forum says in case a similar or the same topic comes up again. Freedom of Association has indeed been found to be part and parcel of our Constitution.
All of them are the same thing - an UnConstitutional violation of individual religious liberty.
However, in this case, they do indeed violate individual freedom of conscience our our right to freedom in our faith. The State does not have the right to violate the 1st any more than the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
I'm not trying to be offensive here so please take this in the vain it is intended.
Just for the record the Christian perspective was often used to justify discrimination based on race and interracial relationships.
Loving v. Virginia, referring to the trial Judge's opinion uphold the discriminatory law which the SCOTUS overturned:
"He stated in an opinion that:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Bob Jones University v. United States (which included the merged case of Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States):
"The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage. To effectuate these views, Negroes were completely excluded until 1971. From 1971 to May, 1975, the University accepted no applications from unmarried Negroes, [n5] but did accept applications from Negroes married within their race.
<<SNIP>>
"Since its incorporation in 1963, Goldsboro Christian Schools has maintained a racially discriminatory admissions policy based upon its interpretation of the Bible. [n6] Goldsboro has for the most part accepted only Caucasians. On occasion, however, the school has accepted children from racially mixed marriages in which one of the parents is Caucasian."
We look back on it now 2-3 generations later and understand that their Biblical interpretations do not warrant discrimination, but the fact is many in the past did believe it was permissible to discriminate because they believed it was Biblical.
>>>>
And I wouldn't have any problem with a baker that refused to bake a cake for the ceremony in that case. In fact, I'm not sure the state would either. Divorcees are not a protected class in any state AFAIK.
That is a first! I don't believe anyone ever began a post with "I'm not trying to be offensive...." and then proceeded to not be offensive.... thank you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?