It was someone that applauded forcing a baker to supply a wedding in a debate a while ago but said here there was no reason to force a priest do a similar wedding. It seemed inconsistent.
No. There are lots of factories, bakeries and confectioners'. That is why forcing a baker that concientously objects to bake a cake for a gay wedding is so absurd.
I believe the link you're missing is that these businesses agree to not discriminate as a requirement of being a licensed business.
They enter those agreements voluntarily.
If you keep up with the news you'll see lots of inconsistent things happen in the USA.
That's one thing that's consistent in the USA- inconsistency. :roll:
I believe the link you're missing is that these businesses agree to not discriminate as a requirement of being a licensed business.
They enter those agreements voluntarily.
No one is forcing him to bake anything, he can close up shop anytime he wants. I hope those that conscientiously object to taking money from someone for his product would realize he is in the wrong line of work. You can't pick and choose your customers in a retail business. That would be absurd.
That it is not fair to force bakers to serve gay marriage against there conscientious objection but not a priest. One sells cake and as you say the other sells faith. So why treat the one other than the other?
Freedom of religion is not the same thing as freedom from all laws and regulations. The more you know...rof
No one is forcing him to bake anything, he can close up shop anytime he wants. I hope those that conscientiously object to taking money from someone for his product would realize he is in the wrong line of work. You can't pick and choose your customers in a retail business. That would be absurd.
Not to mention that refusing money for your product is a sign you are not very good at running a business.
The Constitution is the highest law in this land. All other lesser laws and regulations are required to comply with it.
The First Amendment, which is part of the Constitution, establishes rights to free speech, free press, freedom of religion, freedom of association, freedom of conscience, and freedom of expression. Lesser laws are not allowed to deny these rights.
You might want to go read that first amendment again and learn what it says. Hint: it does not say that religious people can claim to be exempt from laws they do not like. I know the constitution, better than you apparently.
You might want to go read that first amendment again and learn what it says. Hint: it does not say that religious people can claim to be exempt from laws they do not like. I know the constitution, better than you apparently.
We hear much about gay marriage these days, both in the media and in politics. However, many religions (not just Christians) are expressly against gay marriage. There are exceptions, but in general that is the current situation.
Should churches be forced to perform gay marriages?
My thoughts TK.
Or perhaps it is a sign that one has moral principles that one values above money.
No, it doesn't, nor do I claim that it does. It says that Congress (and by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all other levels of government) cannot enact laws which needlessly violate the right to free practice of religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's not correct to characterize this as one claiming a religious exemption from a law as it is that if the law conflicts with one's religious principles, then it was never a valid law in the first place.
No, it doesn't, nor do I claim that it does. It says that Congress (and by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all other levels of government) cannot enact laws which needlessly violate the right to free practice of religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's not correct to characterize this as one claiming a religious exemption from a law as it is that if the law conflicts with one's religious principles, then it was never a valid law in the first place.
Owning a business is not exercising your religion.
One sells cake and as you say the other sells faith. So why treat the one other than the other?
One is a not-for-profit religious entity...the other is a for profit business entity functioning in the public square.
They are treated differently because they absolutely are different.
Who said that it was better? It wasn't me. :roll:
Selling faith is a cynical concept...and equivocation ftl.
That is not quite voluntary, if you cannot otherwise work in your profession. It's just another type of coercion.
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?