For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[martybegan]

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

Also, a bakery is just a regular business. It is not recognized as a "religious institution." Therefore, you are required to follow the laws and you are not exempt.

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have "religious freedom" to discriminate against customers when you open a business unless you are a "religious institution." Get it? In the eyes of the law, none of your rights are violated. You are being treated exactly as any other business operating under their jurisdiction.

Again, you just argue the law, and not the rightness or wrongness of the law.

 

[martybegan]

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

Also, a bakery is just a regular business. It is not recognized as a "religious institution." Therefore, you are required to follow the laws and you are not exempt.

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

 

[martybegan]

I think it is quite obvious that these people seem to think these laws were designed to "get them." In the mental health field, they have a tem for this. It is called a "persecution complex."

Most of our laws are designed to 'get' people who do certain things.

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

Look, you are not special because of your religious beliefs. You are allowed to practice your religious beliefs. However, when your religious beliefs clash with the laws of the state regarding business matters, you are breaking the law. The government doesn't recognize this as "practicing your religion."

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

 

[ChrisL]

And they are wrong.

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

Also, a bakery is just a regular business. It is not recognized as a "religious institution." Therefore, you are required to follow the laws and you are not exempt.

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

 

[Freewill]

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

Well, I would agree that the portion of the court currently represented by Scalia is not what I would like (or perhaps you meant something else?), but they seem to be doing a pretty good job of protecting people's rights. Ultimately, the very fact of their existence, whether you agree with a given decision or not, protects everyone's rights.

Yet, what did the Scalia of 1990 say in the religion/peyote case in 1990?

"They [those claiming the right to use peyote] assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires).

As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning.

It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business.

It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended."

Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Got anything newer then 15 years? Or more then an opinion? Did you read the section in bold?

Here for anyone wishing to read about a ruling drugs: Constitutional Law Principles and Policy Cases and Materials - Jerome A. Barron C. Thomas Dienes Wayne McCormack Martin H. Redish - Google Books

 

[bodecea]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

Krystalnacht said otherwise too.

Are you saying that fining a business for breaking a state's PA laws is just like Krystalnacht?

 

[ChrisL]

And they are wrong.

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

Also, a bakery is just a regular business. It is not recognized as a "religious institution." Therefore, you are required to follow the laws and you are not exempt.

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have "religious freedom" to discriminate against customers when you open a business unless you are a "religious institution." Get it? In the eyes of the law, none of your rights are violated. You are being treated exactly as any other business operating under their jurisdiction.

Again, you just argue the law, and not the rightness or wrongness of the law.

I don't see anything wrong with the laws. They prevent people like you from practicing discrimination. That's a good thing.

 

[martybegan]

In one case the losing side has hurt feelings and has to spend an hour or so finding another baker. In the other the losing side either has to go against their morals, or pay a fine or go out of business.

For a person with any sort of spine, only one side loses here, and it's not the side with the hurt feelings.

Exactly. If your morals prevent you from following the law, then don't go into business. You are FREE to open a business and operate it in accordance with the law. Don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you when you blatantly break the law.

That isn't freedom, and it's not a choice.

But of course, we are supposed to feel sorry for illegal immigrants who break the law, because of "the children".

It is a choice. If you cannot comply with the law, then don't open a business. The state has every right to set rules and regulations with regard to how businesses operate in their district.

Illegal immigrants have nothing to do with this topic. Lol. And here you expect people to feel sorry for you because you can't be an open bigot when doing business? Laughable.

It's about "following the law" as your line of logic has dictated. The law is the law.

if you can't come here legally, don't come. So I guess you support massive deportations regardless of how long people were here, or how many kids born here they have, the law is the law.

Again, if you want to talk about immigration, open a thread about it. This thread is not about immigration. It is about discrimination.

This is about the logical disconnect you are showing. all you say is "It's the law, fuh fuh fuh" and when shown another example of the law being ignored, you can't comment on it, because you know you are A-OK with that law being broken, and thus your whole logic chain comes crashing down.

 

[ChrisL]

Exactly. If your morals prevent you from following the law, then don't go into business. You are FREE to open a business and operate it in accordance with the law. Don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you when you blatantly break the law.

That isn't freedom, and it's not a choice.

But of course, we are supposed to feel sorry for illegal immigrants who break the law, because of "the children".

It is a choice. If you cannot comply with the law, then don't open a business. The state has every right to set rules and regulations with regard to how businesses operate in their district.

Illegal immigrants have nothing to do with this topic. Lol. And here you expect people to feel sorry for you because you can't be an open bigot when doing business? Laughable.

It's about "following the law" as your line of logic has dictated. The law is the law.

if you can't come here legally, don't come. So I guess you support massive deportations regardless of how long people were here, or how many kids born here they have, the law is the law.

Again, if you want to talk about immigration, open a thread about it. This thread is not about immigration. It is about discrimination.

This is about the logical disconnect you are showing. all you say is "It's the law, fuh fuh fuh" and when shown another example of the law being ignored, you can't comment on it, because you know you are A-OK with that law being broken, and thus your whole logic chain comes crashing down.

What example? I haven't seen you do anything but whine about how it's unfair that you can't discriminate against the gays.

 

[PratchettFan]

Most of our laws are designed to 'get' people who do certain things.

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

No, they are not. They are being punished for violating a law. You have already agreed that such laws are valid, you just don't think it should go as far as this particular one goes. Unless the courts indicate that such laws violate the Constitution, then people violate them at their own peril. They are not being singled out because of their beliefs, they are being treated exactly as everyone else is being treated.

They are violating the law due to their religious beliefs, and thus being punished for them. You can't separate the two of them. And being singled out or not is meaningless. The law is being used to punish their religious beliefs.

Their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. They are not being punished for their beliefs. They can believe whatever they like. They are being punished for violating the law.

If I believe God wants us to share all property communally, does that exempt me from car theft laws if I drive off with your car?

 

[martybegan]

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

Also, a bakery is just a regular business. It is not recognized as a "religious institution." Therefore, you are required to follow the laws and you are not exempt.

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have "religious freedom" to discriminate against customers when you open a business unless you are a "religious institution." Get it? In the eyes of the law, none of your rights are violated. You are being treated exactly as any other business operating under their jurisdiction.

Again, you just argue the law, and not the rightness or wrongness of the law.

I don't see anything wrong with the laws. They prevent people like you from practicing discrimination. That's a good thing.

How about if they come around and make you choose between your morals and your livelihood?

 

[ChrisL]

Also, a bakery is just a regular business. It is not recognized as a "religious institution." Therefore, you are required to follow the laws and you are not exempt.

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have "religious freedom" to discriminate against customers when you open a business unless you are a "religious institution." Get it? In the eyes of the law, none of your rights are violated. You are being treated exactly as any other business operating under their jurisdiction.

Again, you just argue the law, and not the rightness or wrongness of the law.

I don't see anything wrong with the laws. They prevent people like you from practicing discrimination. That's a good thing.

How about if they come around and make you choose between your morals and your livelihood?

Make your choice. Simple. If your morals prevent you from treating everyone the same, then the problem is YOU.

 

[martybegan]

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

No, they are not. They are being punished for violating a law. You have already agreed that such laws are valid, you just don't think it should go as far as this particular one goes. Unless the courts indicate that such laws violate the Constitution, then people violate them at their own peril. They are not being singled out because of their beliefs, they are being treated exactly as everyone else is being treated.

They are violating the law due to their religious beliefs, and thus being punished for them. You can't separate the two of them. And being singled out or not is meaningless. The law is being used to punish their religious beliefs.

Their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. They are not being punished for their beliefs. They can believe whatever they like. They are being punished for violating the law.

If I believe God wants us to share all property communally, does that exempt me from car theft laws if I drive off with your car?

They are violating the law because of their beliefs. and in your 2nd example, again, there is an actual harm involved, which negates the protections found under the 1st amendment.

 

[ChrisL]

And they are wrong.

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

No, they are not. They are being punished for violating a law. You have already agreed that such laws are valid, you just don't think it should go as far as this particular one goes. Unless the courts indicate that such laws violate the Constitution, then people violate them at their own peril. They are not being singled out because of their beliefs, they are being treated exactly as everyone else is being treated.

They are violating the law due to their religious beliefs, and thus being punished for them. You can't separate the two of them. And being singled out or not is meaningless. The law is being used to punish their religious beliefs.

Their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. They are not being punished for their beliefs. They can believe whatever they like. They are being punished for violating the law.

If I believe God wants us to share all property communally, does that exempt me from car theft laws if I drive off with your car?

They are violating the law because of their beliefs. and in your 2nd example, again, there is an actual harm involved, which negates the protections found under the 1st amendment.

Good geebus, you're an idiot. Don't ever open a business.

 

[martybegan]

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have "religious freedom" to discriminate against customers when you open a business unless you are a "religious institution." Get it? In the eyes of the law, none of your rights are violated. You are being treated exactly as any other business operating under their jurisdiction.

Again, you just argue the law, and not the rightness or wrongness of the law.

I don't see anything wrong with the laws. They prevent people like you from practicing discrimination. That's a good thing.

How about if they come around and make you choose between your morals and your livelihood?

Make your choice. Simple. If your morals prevent you from treating everyone the same, then the problem is YOU.

So basically "follow MY moral code, and everything is OK"

It's easy to say you support "freedom" when you think it only means freedoms you agree with.

 

[martybegan]

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

No, they are not. They are being punished for violating a law. You have already agreed that such laws are valid, you just don't think it should go as far as this particular one goes. Unless the courts indicate that such laws violate the Constitution, then people violate them at their own peril. They are not being singled out because of their beliefs, they are being treated exactly as everyone else is being treated.

They are violating the law due to their religious beliefs, and thus being punished for them. You can't separate the two of them. And being singled out or not is meaningless. The law is being used to punish their religious beliefs.

Their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. They are not being punished for their beliefs. They can believe whatever they like. They are being punished for violating the law.

If I believe God wants us to share all property communally, does that exempt me from car theft laws if I drive off with your car?

They are violating the law because of their beliefs. and in your 2nd example, again, there is an actual harm involved, which negates the protections found under the 1st amendment.

Good geebus, you're an idiot. Don't ever open a business.

I understand these concepts are going over your head. May I suggest the Hello Kitty Message board as something more your speed?

 

[Auld Phart]

How would a baker, florist or photographer know if someone was divorced, a virgin, if they lived with someone? Another epic fail because you didn't THINK before you spewed.

How would they know? Well, in order to register, they have to get the address of the people they are working with, and if the bride and groom have the same address, they'd know they lived together, wouldn't they.

I didn't even hit on divorce, mostly because the bible is all over the map on that subject. But if the baker said, "Hey, weren't you in here two years ago with some other dude?" they'd know.

As far as knowing if someone is a virgin, Well, the bible has that totally covered.


22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die:because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Right? I mean, that's totally in the bible, and Jesus didn't change the rules, did he?

Nope. WE changed the rules. Just like we changed the rules on homosexuality.

"How would they know? Well, in order to register, they have to get the address of the people they are working with, and if the bride and groom have the same address, they'd know they lived together, wouldn't they. "

Or they could be using either his or her address to consolidate things.

 

[martybegan]

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

Also, a bakery is just a regular business. It is not recognized as a "religious institution." Therefore, you are required to follow the laws and you are not exempt.

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

 

[Wildman]

You are an oppressive broken record.

not only her, but every fucking libertard on this forum.., and may include about 99.9999999% of the liberfools in this country. ......

 

[ChrisL]

Also, a bakery is just a regular business. It is not recognized as a "religious institution." Therefore, you are required to follow the laws and you are not exempt.

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

No, if you are not a religious institution, your religious beliefs are not a good enough reason to discriminate against the public, any portion of the public. You are not being treated any differently from any other business. Get it? Probably not.