- Joined
- Nov 20, 2013
- Messages
- 16,173
- Reaction score
- 17,704
- Location
- Chi-town
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Is your house a public accommodation? Can I come over and just take a shower? Maybe microwave some hot pockets?People that own houses get those same kinds of benefits. Does that mean I can walk into your house and demand you accommodate me?
You're free to practice your religion in your church, your house even on a street corner. If you have a public business that caters to the public, reaping government benefits then you cater to the public, you cannot pick and choose which demographic you want to serve based on your personal religious beliefs.
Are businesses a public accomodation? What is your definition of public accomodations?Is your house a public accommodation? Can I come over and just take a shower? Maybe microwave some hot pockets?
Tax write offs that kind of ****. Writing off business expenses, everything under the sun. Come on now.
You can believe whatever you want, however if your business caters to the public then you have to cater to the public. You cannot pick and choose which demographic you wanna sell too. We are a modern society and we are moving forward. We are not regressing back to the 1940s.That's BS ....the Constitution gives me the right to believe what I want and exercise such expression in the public square and affords me the right not to force me to make a decision that would violate my moral conscience. Maybe it is time for you to find a little tolerance for those among you that don't agree or are offended by your claims.
You can believe whatever you want, however if your business caters to the public then you have to cater to the public. You cannot pick and choose which demographic you wanna sell too. We are a modern society and we are moving forward. We are not regressing back to the 1940s.
U.S. Law states that public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public.Are businesses a public accomodation? What is your definition of public accomodations?
The outrage is faux because the issue is faux. No rights are being denied to anyone, LGBT or otherwise. Indiana's law is consistent with the federal statute and relevant SCOTUS decisions.
Well there are 30 some states that have tightened their laws to protect religious freedom after they seen the blatant attack on it over the last couple of years. You see I do have the right to believe what I want and practice it in the public square. Imagine that, true liberty! sun of a gun.You can believe whatever you want, however if your business caters to the public then you have to cater to the public. You cannot pick and choose which demographic you wanna sell too. We are a modern society and we are moving forward. We are not regressing back to the 1940s.
****ing libertarian bull****. No it's not. Moving away from lynching blacks as being acceptable, isn't meaningless rhetoric, nor were child labor laws or women suffrage, or fire codes in buildings. A just society changes, balances and moves forward for all of society.You do realize the whole "moving forward" rhetoric is meaningless, right?
We are talking about individual moral codes. All people have certain inalienable rights. How you have sex isn't one of them but freedom of religion and the right to moral conscience is.
Nowhere have I claimed the law is a good idea because of its Dem origin. That's merely a barrier against partisan hackery. I think the law is a good idea because I think it's a good idea.
Let's just see how it plays out. The law protects individuals from being compelled to perform acts contrary to their consciences. Seems laudable to me -- and constitutionally mandated, btw.
****ing libertarian bull****. No it's not. Moving away from lynching blacks as being acceptable, isn't meaningless rhetoric, nor were child labor laws or women suffrage, or fire codes in buildings. A just society changes, balances and moves forward for all of society.
:lamo You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to forcing others to give up their constitutional rights afforded them to force what you think is just.
Because in doing so you make a mockery of the basis of our whole government. We all have inalienable rights and among those rights are religious freedoms. Gays, straights, blacks, whites, orange because of eating too many carrots, green because of too much broccoli, all share these rights. We would be wise to stand up for all people and not just a select few.
Well here a primer for you.....most folks think the 10% or less involved in same sex to be abnormal but the majority feel they deserve the same constitutional rights as others and should not be discriminated against. I agree. But at the same time they have no right to take away the constitutional rights of others that oppose their lifestyle on religious convictions especially when it involves any service pertaining to marriage.Just so I'm clear, it's not that gays didn't or don't face significant discrimination that makes the comparison "shameful" but that they have no rights, so it's OK they faced oppressive discrimination, and have had through most of history including our own and in some countries face the death penalty, just for being gay?
This post will come in handy the next time a Democrat calls a Republican a hypocrite for not supporting the individual mandate because some now-retired Republican lawmakers supported it 20 years ago. Thanks. :thumbs: It will save me a lot of typing - just have to change a few names and a political party and the law name.
The RFRA was intended to preserve the religious freedom of the Native Americans. Are you saying that it's a crime that it's being applied to non-Native American religions now?
Well here a primer for you.....most folks think the 10% or less involved in same sex to be abnormal but the majority feel they deserve the same constitutional rights as others and should not be discriminated against. I agree. But at the same time they have no right to take away the constitutional rights of others that oppose their lifestyle on religious convictions especially when it involves any service pertaining to marriage.
the state sanctioning kicking gay people out of a restaurant solely because they are gay is a mockery of humanity.
And here's a primer for you...the constitution gives the govt the power to regulate commerce.
Waah, Open a private club and then you can deal with whatever group you want. If you have a business that caters to the public and you're reaping government benefits, you don't get to pick and choose who you want to do business with based on who that potential customer inherently is. You can refuse to do business if it's not conducive or doesn't apply to your business maybe. If somebody wants to hire Me to rehab their house and they want contemporary modern and My business only does vintage restoration. I can refuse to do business with them on those grounds. I can't refuse them service because they're Black.
Individuals are free to donate as they wish, regardless of their religion.
Yes the Commerce Clause that has become the catch all for all corrupt politicians. I for one am for a new admendment to the Constitution that defines the Commerce Clause true intent and not what asswipes have used it for to push through all sorts of things.
And here's a primer for you...the constitution gives the govt the power to regulate commerce.
Another primer for you...until you pass that amendment, the govt has the power to make discrimination illegal
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?