- Joined
- Mar 2, 2013
- Messages
- 24,940
- Reaction score
- 8,391
- Location
- Northern New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Shocking. Let's just save time here and acknowledge that there is zero scenario where you'd actually side with a Christian business owner over a gay person regardless of the presented facts.
Anyway, I knew this thread would attract you like a moth to a flame so you can make speeches about how awesome and enlightened you are and that it would also be my cur to bow out of it. Have fun "likes" whoring.
Why do we need government involved for that? Let businesses open and serve or not serve who they please, and let the local community decide to support them or not. No need for Big Brother to step in.
You have the freedom to discriminate, you just can't run a discriminatory business. Besides which, there is no religious justification for denying service to gays. Stop blowing the religious freedom horn and just own the fact that you hate people that look / act differently than you.
Well pure freedom absolutely would mean the freedom to discriminate.
It tells me you have liberals wrong. Liberals are not saying that.
Yes they are. The bill protects freedom of religion which liberals are saying will lead to discrimination.
You have the freedom to discriminate, you just can't run a discriminatory business. Besides which, there is no religious justification for denying service to gays.
He said it better than I can:
Indeed, that is why one can put up signs that they do not wish to be affiliated with X, or form clubs or unions where they can only associate with like minded bigots.No. It is not discrimination to choose not to participate in something you consider against your religion
That is why I replied with: "No. It is not discrimination to choose not to participate in something you consider against your religion, regardless if someone is offering money to you or not. We do not give up our rights just because we choose to participate in commerce."
If you can find anything in the Constitution that allows you to passively give up your rights by pursuing a means than I'd love to see it.
Indeed, that is why one can put up signs that they do not wish to be affiliated with X, or form clubs or unions where they can only associate with like minded bigots.
Religious rights are tied to the practice of that religion. The government may not interfere in that. Operating a business is not akin to practicing a religion.
I've got a question about all this.
Let's say that there are 10 bakeries in the local area. Nine of the bakeries are pretty generic but one specializes in Christian themed goods. They primarily make cakes, cookies and cupcakes decorated with angels, crosses and other Christian themed adornment. They don't have a sign on their door or anything that says "Christians Only" but it's pretty obvious what their business model is. Now a gay couple decides to get married. They have been very active in the "gay rights" movement and want to make a statement so they intentionally choose this particular baker to provide a cake for their wedding because they are sure that there will be resistance. Sure enough, the Christian baker turns the job down based on their religious convictions.
Now here's the question, in this scenario who is discriminating against whom?
Easy. The baker who decided to open their shop for business. The don't get to write their own rules just because they own a business. Sorry. They still have to comply with the law.
What if the law said that you must put a Rush Limbaugh for President poster on your wall?
There is no such law. Silly attempt at an analogy. Try something better.
Religious rights are tied to the practice of that religion. The government may not interfere in that. Operating a business is not akin to practicing a religion.
There is no such law. Silly attempt at an analogy. Try something better.
How many cases should there have to be before action takes place? Because it seems just a few people encounter discrimination, we should just ignore it? It must be widespread first? So those folks should just keep quiet and suck it up?
There is no such law. Silly attempt at an analogy. Try something better.
You are right. It is not operating the business that is a problem. It is the state forcing the conciencious objector to act against her concience that is.
That is probably why he started with "what if".
Easy. The baker who decided to open their shop for business. They don't get to write their own rules just because they own a business. Sorry. They still have to comply with the law.
There's no force. If you dont like the laws pertaining to that state's business licenses, no one forces you to get one. You can find another state, jurisdiction, area in which to open your business.
I'm jaded. I think that was the intention of the bill and those who have voiced support of "religious freedom" to discriminate saw it that way too.
There is some skepticism in the media whether "the fix" will actually include LGBT persons. I hope it will be fixed like it should. I've read why the 1993 federal law was passed and it seemed a good reason related to religious practices of employees. The Indiana law is not the same as the federal one.
Easy. The baker who decided to open their shop for business. They don't get to write their own rules just because they own a business. Sorry. They still have to comply with the law.
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?