Another straw man. No one says one must abandon their religion to operate a business. But, as the law very clearly states, they are not allowed to discriminate based on specific criteria. Do you understand that, at least, or are you actually unable to comprehend that the law does not support your opinion here?
Which comes first: Freedom of Religion or Civil Rights?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Another straw man. No one says one must abandon their religion to operate a business. But, as the law very clearly states, they are not allowed to discriminate based on specific criteria. Do you understand that, at least, or are you actually unable to comprehend that the law does not support your opinion here?
Here is another example where personal religious values are subjugated to another...
http://digitaljournal.com/article/336995
http://digitaljournal.com/article/336995
I think the law is subversive and oversteps the powers of the state. I honestly don't care what the law says, because I believe it is wrong. Again, I hope the true victims in this matter challenge it on the grounds supported by the First Amendment.
On what grounds do you consider it to be outside of the purview of the state? And why do you believe the law is wrong?
By that logic, any religious claim is valid, and you said earlier that you don't agree that religious convictions should allow all behaviors. So how do you decide what is justified and what isn't?
I believe a person has a right to practice their religion both in church and in business. I don't need to repost the First. Also, please read the link I posted above and consider the position of the Muslim Barber. I think it speaks from another angle--removing the Christian and Gay elements.
I certainly wouldn't prescribe Christianity for everyone, but I can't deny it to those who believe. What do you practice in everyday life, and how would you feel if you were told to act differently? Do you have a right to practice religion or not practice religion? Does secularism have a right to dictate religious liberties of individuals?
I know what you believe, I asked you why you believe it. Why should the right to practice one's religion supersede one's right to not be discriminated against for their immutable qualities (and religion, which isn't immutable)?
Certainly not. But I would suggest a re-reading of it, since you don't seem to understand it.
I did, and his case is even more clear-cut, since law that makes what he did illegal is federal
This has nothing to do with what I asked you, so I'll try again: How do you decide which religious behavior is justifiable, and which is not?
I'm an atheist, so I have no practices, as such, on the religious front. But if I were a bigot who didn't want to serve a black person based on that bigotry, I'd feel pretty bad about not being able to legally put my bigotry into action, at least in that context. So? Society has already ruled that such practice is not valid, and will not be tolerated. Even you said that there should be a limit to what religious people can practice legally, so you want them to be able to discriminate against homosexuals for a different reason than simply freedom of religious expression. What is it, then?
No idea what this question means.
Of course. Secularism is what gives you the right to be any religion you choose to be, and affords the same right to your neighbor. Secularism is why there are churches and mosques and temples in the same city, and why you can't discriminate against someone because of their religious beliefs. If you bothered to understand any of these concepts, you wouldn't need this explained to you. But, sadly, you're just another bigot who allows their bigotry to blind them to reality.
Like purchasing blood diamonds, any contribution to what one considers evil is your participation in that evil. To go against such beliefs is, at least, a tacit acceptance.
And? Just because any restaurant has the ingredients for your favorite dish does not mean it is "on the menu". If you go to a pizzeria and try to order a burger, are you being discriminated against, as a minority expecting them to sell off-menu? The complaints are equally frivolous.
First, it is common knowledge that Christianity rejects homosexuality. Second, you cannot claim ignorance where no compelling evidence to the contrary exists.
Comparison to "income tax" is apples and oranges.
So the choice is serve gay couples or quit running a business? There are no inalienable rights to cake.
And there is no right to discriminate, period, quite the opposite in fact it's against the law
Christians consider it a sin. It's a good reason not to convert to Christianity. But Leviticus is Old Testament. Teachings of Christ are new Testament. Jesus doesn't teach against homosexuality.
I guess that's a fair point, but I think it stretches the definition of "participate." But even so, it comes down to you not actually being forced to do anything. No one says those bakery owners must service that couple, it's merely a condition of operating a bakery.
For one, you really need to stop saying the complaints are frivolous. They are no more frivolous than a black person being refused access to certain bathrooms or water fountains. Sure, there are other accommodations, but it's the principal of being told you aren't allowed to use this facility that is problematic.
To your larger point, however, I didn't say anything about having particular ingredients on-hand, so this is another straw man. I said that there is nothing inherently different about a "gay" wedding cake. A cake for a gay wedding is still a cake, and it isn't a different type of cake from a wedding cake for a straight couple. It's not comparable to a pornographic cake, which requires different elements than the cakes on offer.
And a burger is not a pizza.
Non-sequtiur. Does that mean all Christians reject homosexuality? Certainly not. And in any event, whether or not the couple "should have known" is irrelevant.
What compelling evidence? Did they know this bakery had refused service to other requests by homosexual couples? Oh, you're still on this kick that a Christian-operated bakery necessarily refuses service to homosexual couples.
No it isn't. It's an example of a person being compelled to act against their beliefs. Michael believes income taxes are, among other things, immoral, and an expression of violence. So when he pays them, he is acting directly in contrast with him beliefs.
Or pay the fines, I suppose.
Straw man. This has nothing to do with an inalienable right to cake, it has to do with the right to the same services as the general public, which they indeed have.
Last edited:
I'm not going to argue religious dogma, simply because I don't live the life of a christian. But I think most agree that Christians are opposed to homosexuality and consider it immoral. Nonetheless, I'm certain that we're all going to hell, not just the gays and lesbians. Homosexuality isn't the only sin.
The business owner didn't threaten anybody, they simply chose not to participate. I support that choice, more so when it involves their rights as individuals, regardless their business and religious leanings.
You're still not answering me directly. Why is that? Answer the question I posed to you.
Your inability to comprehend what you read is positively stunning. The law does not state that everyone is in a protected class. It states that you cannot discriminate based on certain criteria. You can discriminate based on legitimate reasons, like cleanliness, behavior, etc., but you can't discriminate based on things like religion or sexual orientation.
When it contradicts your religion then yes, you should act accordingly. There's no harm in refusing to make a cake.
Everyone has a gender? Don't know about you, but I consider myself to be a member of a race. Yes, it covers everybody. Please read the above carefully and you will find that you're also a protected class. Hell, even age is consider protected. Maybe you misunderstood my meaning. I forgive you.
I have heard this new covenant argument before, and it is hogwash.
“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” — Matthew 5:18-19
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)
So check your closet for shirts made of blended fabrics. You might just be committing a sin. And avoid eating shellfish and pork, unless you want to burn in hellfire for eternity.
Thanks for that contribution. I think people don't realize how important this stuff is for others. I've been reading up on the free exercise of religion: apparently the Supreme Court reserves all power where this matter is concerned--and it's been quite a roller coaster ride for more than a hundred years. It doesn't sound as though the conflict between civil liberties amd freedom of religion has crossed the courts...yet.
So then if my religion says I can have sex with children, any law that prevents me from doing that is unjust and immoral. Or if I was a Mormon before they decided that blacks weren't sub-human, I should have been free to refuse them service because my religion viewed them negatively, and any law preventing me from doing is so immoral. According to you.
Of course there is. The same kind of harm there is in refusing a black person the right to sit at the front of the bus, or a woman from taking a job. It's demeaning and makes the person feel like a second-class citizen. We have decided as a country that these sort of slights are not allowed.
My point is it doesn't cover every reason you may be discriminated against. For example, someone could refuse you a seat at restaurant because they don't like your mustache. There is no law stating that mustachioed men (or women, for that matter) must be permitted the same access to services as everyone else. Syne earlier brought up overweight people, who currently are the objects of much discrimination, and have almost no legal recourse. Even homosexuals are, until very recently, reliant on state law for protection, because it didn't exist federally. And it still doesn't cover this particular kind of discrimination, at least explicitly. That's why it's a good thing it happened in Oregon, a state that has more progressive anti-discrimination legislature.