If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[WorldWatcher]

You got it.

You cant discriminate because of someone's religion nor can you force someone to do something that goes against their sincerely held religious belief.

How is that equal treatment under the law?


.>>>>

 

[dblack]

You got it.

You cant discriminate because of someone's religion nor can you force someone to do something that goes against their sincerely held religious belief.

How is that equal treatment under the law?


.>>>>

It's not. But that is the apparent legal status quo.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Equal treatment = equal application the law. Not equal outcomes.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Perhaps you missed the news: Democrats now claim that it's okay for a restaurant owner to refuse to serve anyone whose politics they don't like. So, Christian businesses now merely need to say that they are refusing to serve gays because they don't like their politics.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Refusing to serve based on politics is a business decision not a legal one.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Equal treatment = equal application the law. Not equal outcomes.

It's not equal application of the law when the baker gets to discriminate based on sexual orientation (which is included in the law) but the gay shop owner cannot discriminate based on the religious beliefs of the customers.

That is different application of the law resulting in not equal outcomes, not equal application of the law resulting in different outcomes.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Perhaps you missed the news: Democrats now claim that it's okay for a restaurant owner to refuse to serve anyone whose politics they don't like. So, Christian businesses now merely need to say that they are refusing to serve gays because they don't like their politics.

Possible.

So Christian business owners are now supposed to submit customers to a questionnaire regarding politics and then consistently apply a policy? I would agree that was legal. However such a business model would mean the Christian business owner would have to maintain such questionnaires on file to prove that such a policy was not a mere sham for attempting to evade Public Accommodation laws. Gays have many of the same views as other democrats and republicans on a variety of issues. When it's shown that the Christian baker consistently refuses services to gays while providing the same service to democrats and republicans that hold the same views, then the sham is exposed and the Christian shop owner will still be in violation of the law.

.>>>>

 

[OODA_Loop]

It's not equal application of the law when the baker gets to discriminate based on sexual orientation (which is included in the law) but the gay shop owner cannot discriminate based on the religious beliefs of the customers.

That is different application of the law resulting in not equal outcomes, not equal application of the law resulting in different outcomes.
>>>>

Both parties have the same protections under the law.

The profession of homosexuality goes against long standing, well-documented religious doctrine across many different religions throughout time. As such it is a sincerely held religious belief and one cannot be compelled to violate those sacred tenets

 

[dblack]

Equal treatment = equal application the law. Not equal outcomes.

No one said anything about outcomes. You're confusing issues. If religious people have the right to discriminate based on their "sincerely held beliefs" then so should non-religious people. Anything else is not equal rights. It's special privilege for religions. Which, again, is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

 

[mikegriffith1]

In fact, the new liberal standard is that if you own a business and would find it morally offensive to serve someone, you can refuse them service and ask them to leave. That's what the "progressive" owner of the Red Hen did to Sarah Sanders and her family, and most liberals who commented on the matter said that was okay.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Equal treatment = equal application the law. Not equal outcomes.

No one said anything about outcomes. You're confusing issues. If religious people have the right to discriminate based on their "sincerely held beliefs" then so should non-religious people. Anything else is not equal rights. It's special privilege for religions. Which, again, is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Non-religious people do not have sincerely held religious beliefs

If they do they are protected = equal application of the law

 

[Silhouette]

Refusing to serve based on politics is a business decision not a legal one.

Not necessarily. For instance, the cafe that turned away Trump's people did so because of their deeply held convictions that Trump's folks do horrible things to,say, kids at the border. That's not proven, but that's how the Media is hyping it up. It's legality is questionable.

On the other hand, people who have seen real live or photographic evidence that LGBT embraces in pride doing deviant sex acts on parade where they invite kids to watch, have a loophole. That loophole is laws in all 50 states that require people not to aid or abet individuals or groups who embrace performing sex crimes against kids.

I am non religious basically. But I do have the strongest of convictions to NEVER condone, play along with or promote any individuals of a 100% "proud" lifestyle group that put on deviant sex shows/parades inviting kids to watch across the US every year since the 1960s. And as it turns out I'm required by law to fiercely resist such a culture.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Not necessarily. For instance, the cafe that turned away Trump's people did so because of their deeply held convictions that Trump's folks do horrible things to,say, kids at the border.

That is not a sincerely held religious belief.

 

[Silhouette]

Not necessarily. For instance, the cafe that turned away Trump's people did so because of their deeply held convictions that Trump's folks do horrible things to,say, kids at the border.

That is not a sincerely held religious belief.

I know. It is a sincerely held secular belief. But one held on dubious grounds. Much like hearsay.

Refusal to promote uber-documented and intrinsic to LGBT kid sex shows (pride parades) they all embrace is also a secular belief. And law in all 50 states. Even secular folks can't be forced to promote lifestyles they find wholly repugnant and/or are illegal to promote. What are there, millions of photos since the 1960s documenting the for-kids and whoever deviant sex parades? There may even be billions of photos by now.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Not necessarily. For instance, the cafe that turned away Trump's people did so because of their deeply held convictions that Trump's folks do horrible things to,say, kids at the border.

That is not a sincerely held religious belief.

I know. It is a sincerely held secular belief. But one held on dubious grounds. Much like hearsay.

Refusal to promote uber-documented and intrinsic to LGBT kid sex shows (pride parades) they all embrace is also a secular belief. And law in all 50 states. Even secular folks can't be forced to promote lifestyles they find wholly repugnant and/or are illegal to promote. What are there, millions of photos since the 1960s documenting the for-kids and whoever deviant sex parades? There may even be billions of photos by now.

Indiana landlord evicts church over sign saying 'LGBTQ is a hate crime'

 

[Silhouette]

Indiana landlord evicts church over sign saying 'LGBTQ is a hate crime'

What the sign should have said is "Colorado is a hate-state that punished a Christian for following the direct Command of God in Jude 1".

 

[dblack]

Equal treatment = equal application the law. Not equal outcomes.

No one said anything about outcomes. You're confusing issues. If religious people have the right to discriminate based on their "sincerely held beliefs" then so should non-religious people. Anything else is not equal rights. It's special privilege for religions. Which, again, is a direct violation of the First Amendment.

Non-religious people do not have sincerely held religious beliefs

If they do they are protected = equal application of the law

At least it's gratifying to see that 94% of the people answering my poll disagree with you.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Dont force acceptance of your sexual lifestyle on others and everything will be fine.

 

[dblack]

Dont force acceptance of your sexual lifestyle on others and everything will be fine.

Agreed. Likewise with religion. The whole idea of protected classes is bunk. If some wants to hang a 'No Christians' sign outside their business, it should be their right. That's the point of the thread.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Dont force acceptance of your sexual lifestyle on others and everything will be fine.

Agreed. Likewise with religion. The whole idea of protected classes is bunk. If some wants to hang a 'No Christians' sign outside their business, it should be their right. That's the point of the thread.

You're treading into dangerous waters there pal. Imagine the chaos. Anyone can discriminate against anyone for any reason, including the fact that they may have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed that day? We should not be encouraging or enabling discrimination.