Discrimination and the New Inclusive America: Bake me a cake or go to Jail!

[G.T.]

Should a religion be free to break laws based on their religion?

If so, can muslims stone adulterers in the u.s.?

Part 2, is it not the constitutional authority to regulate commerce?

Dont avoid the flaring glaring staring issue: Religious freedom ends where Laws begin. Or 50% of all married (divorce rate) could be stoned as justified by the 1st amendment?

How much sense would that make?

Laws are not suppose to go against religious belief. That, whether or not you like it or will admit it, is what you are doing.

You view is the closed minded view. YOU see no problem with same sex marriage, thus YOU feel that everyone else should believe as YOU believe. If they don't then they should be forced in compliance with behavior YOU see fit.

My way, no one gets forced to do anything. Who am I to judge what is against someone else's religious belief? So what if a Muslim doesn't want to transport booze or a dog, I don't give a crap. Let them refuse the fair and go back to the end of the line and wait for another fair. Simple enough. If I have booze or my little dog with me I don't want to be in a cab where the person was forced to take me.

You said "laws are not supposed to go ahainst religious belief."

The old testament allows capital punishment against adulterers and gays.

So does Islam.

Laws cant go against that religious belief? Its not murder?

You fail. Laws go against religious beliefs. ALL THE TIME!!!

Try thinking before you post, jeebus.

So easy to argue from the absurd.

Hell by the time of the founding of the country and the first amendment to the COTUS hardly a witch had been burned in 100 years and the scarlet letters? A thing of the past. BTW, what religious belief today stones adulterers or gays or cuts off hands of thieves? Oh right, not Judaism or Christianity.

Using your thinking the law is supreme. We have many laws that say "thous shalt not kill." yet we send predator drones to kill every single day, how in the hell does that work? We do it without trial which by any measure is murder.

So if I read you right, as long as you allow a religious belief it is Ok to observe that religious belief. But if that belief gets in the way of your belief then there will be trouble?

In my state there never was a provision made, voted on by the people's representatives, to allow for gay marriage. But yet it is legal, how can that be? Especially considering that the representatives of the people had voted to define marriage between a man and a woman. Intersting how belief systems get forced onto the majority. Usually as pretext of a right.

Islam, you weirdo.

I asked you to think. You really failed. Wow

What you are really asking, or demanding, is that I think like you. No thanks, I like freedom and I usually don't resort to name calling.

No. Im asking if us law can negate religious doctrine.

It clearly can. Or it would be legal for muslims to stone gays.

If you cant be honest within a discussion, thats not on me bro.

 

[JoeMoma]

Laws are not suppose to go against religious belief. That, whether or not you like it or will admit it, is what you are doing.

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

In the cases at hand people are being forced to do something against their (religious) beliefs. So a better analogy would be to ask what if there were a law that required a business to provide human sacrifices, would the business owner have the right to deny that service based on the 1st ammendment. (I know this is absurd, but you brought up human sacrifices.). When the business owner gets his way, is is not forced to do something that he finds morraly objectionable.

With the question, you are asking if someone can do sonething that society has lawfully deemed unacceptable for religious reasons. In the business cases at hand, the business owner wants to choose the omission of an action rather than the commission of an objectionable action.

Two questions for ya bruv.

Can religions be denied some of their doctrine based on law?

Can government regulate commerce?

We can restart the whole convo.

Entertain those two, if you would, as yes or no's.

I will give you two yeses for the answers to those questions. However, there are limits, or at least there should be. Also, the first amendment is part of the highest law of the land. It's one thing to have a law against stoning an adulteress and another that forces a business to provide a product or service that the owner does not wish to provide. Regulating commerce should not equal goverment takeover or nationalization of businesses.

 

[JoeMoma]

Laws are not suppose to go against religious belief. That, whether or not you like it or will admit it, is what you are doing.

You view is the closed minded view. YOU see no problem with same sex marriage, thus YOU feel that everyone else should believe as YOU believe. If they don't then they should be forced in compliance with behavior YOU see fit.

My way, no one gets forced to do anything. Who am I to judge what is against someone else's religious belief? So what if a Muslim doesn't want to transport booze or a dog, I don't give a crap. Let them refuse the fair and go back to the end of the line and wait for another fair. Simple enough. If I have booze or my little dog with me I don't want to be in a cab where the person was forced to take me.

You said "laws are not supposed to go ahainst religious belief."

The old testament allows capital punishment against adulterers and gays.

So does Islam.

Laws cant go against that religious belief? Its not murder?

You fail. Laws go against religious beliefs. ALL THE TIME!!!

Try thinking before you post, jeebus.

So easy to argue from the absurd.

Hell by the time of the founding of the country and the first amendment to the COTUS hardly a witch had been burned in 100 years and the scarlet letters? A thing of the past. BTW, what religious belief today stones adulterers or gays or cuts off hands of thieves? Oh right, not Judaism or Christianity.

Using your thinking the law is supreme. We have many laws that say "thous shalt not kill." yet we send predator drones to kill every single day, how in the hell does that work? We do it without trial which by any measure is murder.

So if I read you right, as long as you allow a religious belief it is Ok to observe that religious belief. But if that belief gets in the way of your belief then there will be trouble?

In my state there never was a provision made, voted on by the people's representatives, to allow for gay marriage. But yet it is legal, how can that be? Especially considering that the representatives of the people had voted to define marriage between a man and a woman. Intersting how belief systems get forced onto the majority. Usually as pretext of a right.

Islam, you weirdo.

I asked you to think. You really failed. Wow

What you are really asking, or demanding, is that I think like you. No thanks, I like freedom and I usually don't resort to name calling.

No. Im asking if us law can negate religious doctrine.

It clearly can. Or it would be legal for muslims to stone gays.

If you cant be honest within a discussion, thats not on me bro.

People sould not be able to commit murder using religion as an excuse. However, people should be able to do "nothing" using religious freedom as an excuse.

 

[G.T.]

I think that's a gross inversion of the First amendment, which requires that government make no laws regarding religion. If legislators did as you suggest, and avoid going against any religious belief when making laws, they'd be doing exactly the opposite of what the First amendment demands.

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

In the cases at hand people are being forced to do something against their (religious) beliefs. So a better analogy would be to ask what if there were a law that required a business to provide human sacrifices, would the business owner have the right to deny that service based on the 1st ammendment. (I know this is absurd, but you brought up human sacrifices.). When the business owner gets his way, is is not forced to do something that he finds morraly objectionable.

With the question, you are asking if someone can do sonething that society has lawfully deemed unacceptable for religious reasons. In the business cases at hand, the business owner wants to choose the omission of an action rather than the commission of an objectionable action.

Two questions for ya bruv.

Can religions be denied some of their doctrine based on law?

Can government regulate commerce?

We can restart the whole convo.

Entertain those two, if you would, as yes or no's.

I will give you two yeses for the answers to those questions. However, there are limits, or at least there should be. Also, the first amendment is part of the highest law of the land. It's one thing to have a law against stoning an adulteress and another that forces a business to provide a product or service that the owner does not wish to provide. Regulating commerce should not equal goverment takeover or nationalization of businesses.

Ok, but once govt can deny religious doctrine....


Ehhhhhhh...we kind of start the conflict of interest from jump, right away.

It becomes, after that, a matter of opinion which doctrine can be gone against.

Once it becomes a matter of opinion, which it does when you can deny some parts of religions.......then all constitutional arguments are null and void and we turn to court cases.

 

[JoeMoma]

You are incorrect, in my opinion.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on thefreedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

The VERY FIRST amendment to the COTUS addresses what? Freedom of religion from the government.

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

In the cases at hand people are being forced to do something against their (religious) beliefs. So a better analogy would be to ask what if there were a law that required a business to provide human sacrifices, would the business owner have the right to deny that service based on the 1st ammendment. (I know this is absurd, but you brought up human sacrifices.). When the business owner gets his way, is is not forced to do something that he finds morraly objectionable.

With the question, you are asking if someone can do sonething that society has lawfully deemed unacceptable for religious reasons. In the business cases at hand, the business owner wants to choose the omission of an action rather than the commission of an objectionable action.

Two questions for ya bruv.

Can religions be denied some of their doctrine based on law?

Can government regulate commerce?

We can restart the whole convo.

Entertain those two, if you would, as yes or no's.

I will give you two yeses for the answers to those questions. However, there are limits, or at least there should be. Also, the first amendment is part of the highest law of the land. It's one thing to have a law against stoning an adulteress and another that forces a business to provide a product or service that the owner does not wish to provide. Regulating commerce should not equal goverment takeover or nationalization of businesses.

Ok, but once govt can deny religious doctrine....


Ehhhhhhh...we kind of start the conflict of interest from jump, right away.

It becomes, after that, a matter of opinion which doctrine can be gone against.

Once it becomes a matter of opinion, which it does when you can deny some parts of religions.......then all constitutional arguments are null and void and we turn to court cases.

If constitutional arguments are null and void, then the courts have become the kangaroo variety. The thing is that all individuals have rights. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

 

[G.T.]

How would you apply this interpretation of the first amendment to a religion that practiced ritual human sacrifice?

In the cases at hand people are being forced to do something against their (religious) beliefs. So a better analogy would be to ask what if there were a law that required a business to provide human sacrifices, would the business owner have the right to deny that service based on the 1st ammendment. (I know this is absurd, but you brought up human sacrifices.). When the business owner gets his way, is is not forced to do something that he finds morraly objectionable.

With the question, you are asking if someone can do sonething that society has lawfully deemed unacceptable for religious reasons. In the business cases at hand, the business owner wants to choose the omission of an action rather than the commission of an objectionable action.

Two questions for ya bruv.

Can religions be denied some of their doctrine based on law?

Can government regulate commerce?

We can restart the whole convo.

Entertain those two, if you would, as yes or no's.

I will give you two yeses for the answers to those questions. However, there are limits, or at least there should be. Also, the first amendment is part of the highest law of the land. It's one thing to have a law against stoning an adulteress and another that forces a business to provide a product or service that the owner does not wish to provide. Regulating commerce should not equal goverment takeover or nationalization of businesses.

Ok, but once govt can deny religious doctrine....


Ehhhhhhh...we kind of start the conflict of interest from jump, right away.

It becomes, after that, a matter of opinion which doctrine can be gone against.

Once it becomes a matter of opinion, which it does when you can deny some parts of religions.......then all constitutional arguments are null and void and we turn to court cases.

If constitutional arguments are null and void, then the courts have become the kangaroo variety. The thing is that all individuals have rights. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

 

[JoeMoma]

In the cases at hand people are being forced to do something against their (religious) beliefs. So a better analogy would be to ask what if there were a law that required a business to provide human sacrifices, would the business owner have the right to deny that service based on the 1st ammendment. (I know this is absurd, but you brought up human sacrifices.). When the business owner gets his way, is is not forced to do something that he finds morraly objectionable.

With the question, you are asking if someone can do sonething that society has lawfully deemed unacceptable for religious reasons. In the business cases at hand, the business owner wants to choose the omission of an action rather than the commission of an objectionable action.

Two questions for ya bruv.

Can religions be denied some of their doctrine based on law?

Can government regulate commerce?

We can restart the whole convo.

Entertain those two, if you would, as yes or no's.

I will give you two yeses for the answers to those questions. However, there are limits, or at least there should be. Also, the first amendment is part of the highest law of the land. It's one thing to have a law against stoning an adulteress and another that forces a business to provide a product or service that the owner does not wish to provide. Regulating commerce should not equal goverment takeover or nationalization of businesses.

Ok, but once govt can deny religious doctrine....


Ehhhhhhh...we kind of start the conflict of interest from jump, right away.

It becomes, after that, a matter of opinion which doctrine can be gone against.

Once it becomes a matter of opinion, which it does when you can deny some parts of religions.......then all constitutional arguments are null and void and we turn to court cases.

If constitutional arguments are null and void, then the courts have become the kangaroo variety. The thing is that all individuals have rights. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

And as I stated before, the gays may buy the EXACT same product form the businesses as the Straight people can buy. It is the product that is being limited.

 

[G.T.]

Understand : if they dont do weddings AT ALL, then they arent discriminating.

If they dont do GAY WEDDINGS, but do all others, they are discriminating.

They are infringing on anothers right to patron their VOLUNTARILY MADE PUBLIC business, and therefore, their religious rights are infringing on someone elses rights; whereas; they could not engage in commerce for a profit, at all, and freely go about their religious anything.

 

[G.T.]

Two questions for ya bruv.

Can religions be denied some of their doctrine based on law?

Can government regulate commerce?

We can restart the whole convo.

Entertain those two, if you would, as yes or no's.

I will give you two yeses for the answers to those questions. However, there are limits, or at least there should be. Also, the first amendment is part of the highest law of the land. It's one thing to have a law against stoning an adulteress and another that forces a business to provide a product or service that the owner does not wish to provide. Regulating commerce should not equal goverment takeover or nationalization of businesses.

Ok, but once govt can deny religious doctrine....


Ehhhhhhh...we kind of start the conflict of interest from jump, right away.

It becomes, after that, a matter of opinion which doctrine can be gone against.

Once it becomes a matter of opinion, which it does when you can deny some parts of religions.......then all constitutional arguments are null and void and we turn to court cases.

If constitutional arguments are null and void, then the courts have become the kangaroo variety. The thing is that all individuals have rights. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

And as I stated before, the gays may buy the EXACT same product form the businesses as the Straight people can buy. It is the product that is being limited.

Theres no such thing as gay pizza.

The product is the exact same.

Its them denying the product to a certain venue they dont like, not making a product they dont like.

 

[JoeMoma]

I will give you two yeses for the answers to those questions. However, there are limits, or at least there should be. Also, the first amendment is part of the highest law of the land. It's one thing to have a law against stoning an adulteress and another that forces a business to provide a product or service that the owner does not wish to provide. Regulating commerce should not equal goverment takeover or nationalization of businesses.

Ok, but once govt can deny religious doctrine....


Ehhhhhhh...we kind of start the conflict of interest from jump, right away.

It becomes, after that, a matter of opinion which doctrine can be gone against.

Once it becomes a matter of opinion, which it does when you can deny some parts of religions.......then all constitutional arguments are null and void and we turn to court cases.

If constitutional arguments are null and void, then the courts have become the kangaroo variety. The thing is that all individuals have rights. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

And as I stated before, the gays may buy the EXACT same product form the businesses as the Straight people can buy. It is the product that is being limited.

Theres no such thing as gay pizza.

The product is the exact same.

Its them denying the product to a certain venue they dont like, not making a product they dont like.

And gays were welcome to the pizza place to buy and consume pizza. The product that was said to not be available was "catering" for a same sex wedding. As same sex wedding is different event than a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

 

[G.T.]

Ok, but once govt can deny religious doctrine....


Ehhhhhhh...we kind of start the conflict of interest from jump, right away.

It becomes, after that, a matter of opinion which doctrine can be gone against.

Once it becomes a matter of opinion, which it does when you can deny some parts of religions.......then all constitutional arguments are null and void and we turn to court cases.

If constitutional arguments are null and void, then the courts have become the kangaroo variety. The thing is that all individuals have rights. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

And as I stated before, the gays may buy the EXACT same product form the businesses as the Straight people can buy. It is the product that is being limited.

Theres no such thing as gay pizza.

The product is the exact same.

Its them denying the product to a certain venue they dont like, not making a product they dont like.

And gays were welcome to the pizza place to buy and consume pizza. The product that was said to not be available was "catering" for a same sex wedding. As same sex wedding is different event than a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

And herein lies a canard.

In my opinion anyhow.

"They cater weddings. Just not gay weddings. But arent descriminating against gays cuz the gays are free to buy pizza for a straight wedding all they want."

Thats kinda where some dissonance is necessary to justify oneself.

 

[JoeMoma]

I will give you two yeses for the answers to those questions. However, there are limits, or at least there should be. Also, the first amendment is part of the highest law of the land. It's one thing to have a law against stoning an adulteress and another that forces a business to provide a product or service that the owner does not wish to provide. Regulating commerce should not equal goverment takeover or nationalization of businesses.

Ok, but once govt can deny religious doctrine....


Ehhhhhhh...we kind of start the conflict of interest from jump, right away.

It becomes, after that, a matter of opinion which doctrine can be gone against.

Once it becomes a matter of opinion, which it does when you can deny some parts of religions.......then all constitutional arguments are null and void and we turn to court cases.

If constitutional arguments are null and void, then the courts have become the kangaroo variety. The thing is that all individuals have rights. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

And as I stated before, the gays may buy the EXACT same product form the businesses as the Straight people can buy. It is the product that is being limited.

Theres no such thing as gay pizza.

The product is the exact same.

Its them denying the product to a certain venue they dont like, not making a product they dont like.

When it comes to catering, the venue is a very important aspect of the service.

 

[JoeMoma]

If constitutional arguments are null and void, then the courts have become the kangaroo variety. The thing is that all individuals have rights. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

And as I stated before, the gays may buy the EXACT same product form the businesses as the Straight people can buy. It is the product that is being limited.

Theres no such thing as gay pizza.

The product is the exact same.

Its them denying the product to a certain venue they dont like, not making a product they dont like.

And gays were welcome to the pizza place to buy and consume pizza. The product that was said to not be available was "catering" for a same sex wedding. As same sex wedding is different event than a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

And herein lies a canard.

In my opinion anyhow.

Isn't that a type of bird?

 

[G.T.]

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

And as I stated before, the gays may buy the EXACT same product form the businesses as the Straight people can buy. It is the product that is being limited.

Theres no such thing as gay pizza.

The product is the exact same.

Its them denying the product to a certain venue they dont like, not making a product they dont like.

And gays were welcome to the pizza place to buy and consume pizza. The product that was said to not be available was "catering" for a same sex wedding. As same sex wedding is different event than a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

And herein lies a canard.

In my opinion anyhow.

Isn't that a type of bird?

I edited that post for clarity.

Canard does sound like canary though.

It also.sounds like custard.

 

[emilynghiem]

Supporter of same sex marriage involve a religious defense claiming that God doesn't really mean what he says about homosexuality and that Jesus never opposed same sex marraige (although he did).

There is no God and the states should make no laws based upon what someone says it said. I would support my daughter if she decides to have a "Heathen Wedding".

Good. You and your daughter can burn in Hell.

There is no Hell either. No lesser Gods or any other mythical creatures that inhabit your alternative Universe. But do continue with your

BlindBoo just like God is whatever you define God to mean
(Life, Nature, Love, Wisdom, Truth, Good Will, Benevolence)

Hell is whatever you define it to be:
Human suffering, War,
addiction to drugs that leads to suicide,

if you take all the unforgiven conflicts that repeat, project or escalate,
Collectively that's the same as Hell.

BlindBoo if you asked around, you'd find as many people who have
experienced Heaven on earth, as Hell on earth.

Just because you and others don't call it the same terms, doesn't meant this isn't real to people on many levels.

Any suffering caused by unforgiven confict or fear leads down the path of hell.

Yes, it can be overcome and eliminated, but that doesn't mean it isn't real!

Okay let say I can accept that. In fact, I might experience my own personal hell from some unresolved conflicts in my life if I don't resolve them, but loving my beautiful daughter for who she is, is not one of them. To proclaim that she and I should burn in Hell is just funny, and not in a haha way.

Thanks BlindBoo I believe that forgiveness and unconditional love is what saves us from the path of hell.
Whether some people focus on saving relations in the here and now,
or others focus on collective salvation on earth or beyond, the common
factor in all these paths is forgiveness, letting go of emotions attached to conflicts,
and acceptance of each other even while we acknowledge where we disagree. it is not denying
or enabling these, but emotionally letting go of negativity so we can better work on peaceful solutions.

Whatever karma or causes have led us to this place and time in addressing issues of
homosexuality and church-state relations, I believe this is to grow toward greater acceptance,
inclusion and reconciliation on points where we agree, despite our political or religious differences
that may not need to change. We can find solutions that don't require forcing each other to change,
similar to how you love your daughter and don't need to force her to change.

This is a lesson in love, which like forgiveness, can never be forced by law. We are all learning to let go. Embracing each other just as we are, just like you do with your daughter. Thanks for sharing that, and may your love for each other continue to inspire others with the power of love and grace to overcome hell and create heaven on earth.

 

[JoeMoma]

If constitutional arguments are null and void, then the courts have become the kangaroo variety. The thing is that all individuals have rights. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

And as I stated before, the gays may buy the EXACT same product form the businesses as the Straight people can buy. It is the product that is being limited.

Theres no such thing as gay pizza.

The product is the exact same.

Its them denying the product to a certain venue they dont like, not making a product they dont like.

And gays were welcome to the pizza place to buy and consume pizza. The product that was said to not be available was "catering" for a same sex wedding. As same sex wedding is different event than a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

And herein lies a canard.

In my opinion anyhow.

"They cater weddings. Just not gay weddings. But arent descriminating against gays cuz the gays are free to buy pizza for a straight wedding all they want."

Thats kinda where some dissonance is necessary to justify oneself.

Catering would imply that employees from the pizza place would have to be present at the wedding ( reception) to serve the pizza. This is similar to having a conscientious objector for the draft in the military. The military draft was the law of the land, but there was a carve out to people that could not handle killing people even as part of the military, often on religious grounds. If the pizza were simply delivered, it would not be any of the business of the pizza establishment about the nature of the event.

Do you really want to force people that don't want to attend a same sex wedding function to have to be there to provide a service? That doesn't seem very smart to me?

 

[JoeB131]

The debate didn't get so inflamed until your side started to get religious vendors punished and even shut down for not wanting to service gay ceremonies. Not one single case has involved a religious vendor refusing to provide a regular, basic service to gays--all have involved the gay rights bullies punishing religious vendors for the "crime" of not wanting to facilitate a ceremony that they found offensive.

NO, guy, here's the thing. Religious people weren't offended by gay marriages until they were legalized.

They had no problem with ceremonies where the couple lived together before marriage, where the woman was not a virgin, where there were second marriages, where the woman wore braids or jewelry, where they served pork or shrimp at the reception, or a bunch of other things that were against rules in the bible.

 

[JoeMoma]

If constitutional arguments are null and void, then the courts have become the kangaroo variety. The thing is that all individuals have rights. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

And as I stated before, the gays may buy the EXACT same product form the businesses as the Straight people can buy. It is the product that is being limited.

Theres no such thing as gay pizza.

The product is the exact same.

Its them denying the product to a certain venue they dont like, not making a product they dont like.

And gays were welcome to the pizza place to buy and consume pizza. The product that was said to not be available was "catering" for a same sex wedding. As same sex wedding is different event than a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

And herein lies a canard.

In my opinion anyhow.

"They cater weddings. Just not gay weddings. But arent descriminating against gays cuz the gays are free to buy pizza for a straight wedding all they want."

Thats kinda where some dissonance is necessary to justify oneself.

And because a straight person would not be able to contract the business to cater a gay wedding either.

 

[G.T.]

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

And as I stated before, the gays may buy the EXACT same product form the businesses as the Straight people can buy. It is the product that is being limited.

Theres no such thing as gay pizza.

The product is the exact same.

Its them denying the product to a certain venue they dont like, not making a product they dont like.

And gays were welcome to the pizza place to buy and consume pizza. The product that was said to not be available was "catering" for a same sex wedding. As same sex wedding is different event than a traditional wedding between a man and a woman.

And herein lies a canard.

In my opinion anyhow.

"They cater weddings. Just not gay weddings. But arent descriminating against gays cuz the gays are free to buy pizza for a straight wedding all they want."

Thats kinda where some dissonance is necessary to justify oneself.

Catering would imply that employees from the pizza place would have to be present at the wedding ( reception) to serve the pizza. This is similar to having a conscientious objector for the draft in the military. The military draft was the law of the land, but there was a carve out to people that could not handle killing people even as part of the military, often on religious grounds. If the pizza were simply delivered, it would not be any of the business of the pizza establishment about the nature of the event.

Do you really want to force people that don't want to attend a same sex wedding function to have to be there to provide a service? That doesn't seem very smart to me?

Yes, if they offer catering at all they should not be able to discriminate based on religious doctrine, sexual orientation, sex, race.....

If theres events you simply wont cater b/c you discriminate.......you dont get to cater at all, per anti discriminatory commerce law.

 

[Freewill]

In the cases at hand people are being forced to do something against their (religious) beliefs. So a better analogy would be to ask what if there were a law that required a business to provide human sacrifices, would the business owner have the right to deny that service based on the 1st ammendment. (I know this is absurd, but you brought up human sacrifices.). When the business owner gets his way, is is not forced to do something that he finds morraly objectionable.

With the question, you are asking if someone can do sonething that society has lawfully deemed unacceptable for religious reasons. In the business cases at hand, the business owner wants to choose the omission of an action rather than the commission of an objectionable action.

Two questions for ya bruv.

Can religions be denied some of their doctrine based on law?

Can government regulate commerce?

We can restart the whole convo.

Entertain those two, if you would, as yes or no's.

I will give you two yeses for the answers to those questions. However, there are limits, or at least there should be. Also, the first amendment is part of the highest law of the land. It's one thing to have a law against stoning an adulteress and another that forces a business to provide a product or service that the owner does not wish to provide. Regulating commerce should not equal goverment takeover or nationalization of businesses.

Ok, but once govt can deny religious doctrine....


Ehhhhhhh...we kind of start the conflict of interest from jump, right away.

It becomes, after that, a matter of opinion which doctrine can be gone against.

Once it becomes a matter of opinion, which it does when you can deny some parts of religions.......then all constitutional arguments are null and void and we turn to court cases.

If constitutional arguments are null and void, then the courts have become the kangaroo variety. The thing is that all individuals have rights. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Ok, now relate that thought to commerce, and thats where my view came from.

The religious rights stop when they infringe upon the rights of someone elses access to public product. (Commerce)

that did not happen in the case of the baker or the pizza shop set up.