Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why would discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class seriously be considered equal protection under the law?There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.
I understand what you are posting and how the law is applied.
I am just wondering why discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class could seriously be considered equal protection under the law.
Giving examples of what is done does not explain how it represents equality.
Now if you want to say a bunch of people figured their discrimination is justified, then I am okay with that ... But that still doesn't make it equal nor does it support the idea the protected class that is discriminated against is actually protected in any way other than unsubstantiated verbage.
.
A case such as the one in Colorado where a merchant refused to serve a customer because of religious beliefs did not involve two protected classes. The gay coupled was protected under the Colorado anti-discrimination law which covers public accommodations and thus was a protected class. The baker was not a member of a protected class in Colorado because state and federal laws protecting religious freedom and free speech did not apply to this case.
A protected class is not protected against all discrimination. The laws are specific as to types of discrimination covered.
I really don't remember the arguments in the Hobby Lobby case. However in the Colorado baker discrimination case, the gay couple were clearly protected by the Colorado Anti-discrimination law because it specifies public accommodations. The defense was not able to show how selling a cake to a gay couple or putting their names on the cake violated freedom of religion or speech.The Red Eye talkers
I think there are good arguments on both sides of the issue. Judge Spense in his ruling in Colorado state wrote, "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are." One has to question what religious beliefs are being violated? Jesus lived among and embraced sinners. His message was of love and forgiveness, not hate.I agree, however doctors do have the right to choose who they treat except in a life threatening emergency as long as their reason relates to the practice of medicine. With this new law, I guess a doctor could reject a patient because they are gay.The person in this thread that first suggested the idea that doctors would not treat someone because of their sexual preference was someone arguing against the Indiana law.
Their description of the circumstances was an analogy ... Sorry if you cannot tell the difference between an analogy and reality.
Lolz ... You go through all that trouble to argue with someone over nothing.
.
That changes nothing. Doctors should not discriminate. Doctors are supposed to see people as human beings in need of healing. Being a doctor is much more important than being a baker. That is my point.
What I find strange about this law, is that it makes the assumption that a business owner will be able to determine that a person is gay by their appearance or action. The fact is there are millions of men who are effeminate but aren't gay just as there are women that have masculine features but aren't lesbians. Heterosexual men and women will often show affection to members of their own sex. If will be interesting to see the reaction of heterosexuals when they have been denied service because they have been labeled as being gay; should make interesting lawsuits.
This law will certainly joint the long list of America' stupidest laws.
I agree with most of your post, but I don't think the government has the right to tell a baker that he has to cater to a gay person if he doesn't wish too. If it is your own business, it should be your decision. It would be a stupid decision, and they will lose customers. Also, it's important to know who exactly you are doing business with.
If a baker can say no to doing a wedding cake for a gay couple because it violates his religious beliefs, then why shouldn't the town plumber, grocery, pharmacist, or dentist be able to do so.
The Red Eye talkers brought up this point. The Christian or Muslim baker has no right to refuse selling cupcakes or cookies with a cup of coffee to a gay couple.
I was so tired last night I wish I could remember the name of the legal beagle they were quoting, damn. Sorries I can't give you a link.
But here is where everything changes. If the baker bakes the wedding cake for a gay couples wedding then he/her/they are now actively participating in an act that goes against their faith.
That's how the RFRA came in for Holly Lobby from what I gather. I'm no lawyer, winging it here. To provide the abortion pill would be participating in a sin. I'm simplifying but I hope I'm making sense.
Holly Lobby had no problem with all sorts of contraception. Just the abortion coverage. And the penalty they would endure by refusing to provide this part of the coverage would be too great.
And by the way the Supremes ruling for Holly Lobby was based on the Federal RFRA from 1993. And they expanded the law by their ruling.
Where within the Constitution is the government provided the power to dictate morality? Is not ones choice to provide or refuse service?
Why would discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class seriously be considered equal protection under the law?There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.
I understand what you are posting and how the law is applied.
I am just wondering why discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class could seriously be considered equal protection under the law.
Giving examples of what is done does not explain how it represents equality.
Now if you want to say a bunch of people figured their discrimination is justified, then I am okay with that ... But that still doesn't make it equal nor does it support the idea the protected class that is discriminated against is actually protected in any way other than unsubstantiated verbage.
.
A case such as the one in Colorado where a merchant refused to serve a customer because of religious beliefs did not involve two protected classes. The gay coupled was protected under the Colorado anti-discrimination law which covers public accommodations and thus was a protected class. The baker was not a member of a protected class in Colorado because state and federal laws protecting religious freedom and free speech did not apply to this case.
A protected class is not protected against all discrimination. The laws are specific as to types of discrimination covered.
It seems to me like some people want a law that ALLOWS them to discriminate. They don't think ahead and they don't think about the unintended consequences of such things. While I don't agree with government interference, wouldn't it be real nice if we could move past all of this discriminatory bullshit?
Why would discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class seriously be considered equal protection under the law?There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.
I understand what you are posting and how the law is applied.
I am just wondering why discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class could seriously be considered equal protection under the law.
Giving examples of what is done does not explain how it represents equality.
Now if you want to say a bunch of people figured their discrimination is justified, then I am okay with that ... But that still doesn't make it equal nor does it support the idea the protected class that is discriminated against is actually protected in any way other than unsubstantiated verbage.
.
A case such as the one in Colorado where a merchant refused to serve a customer because of religious beliefs did not involve two protected classes. The gay coupled was protected under the Colorado anti-discrimination law which covers public accommodations and thus was a protected class. The baker was not a member of a protected class in Colorado because state and federal laws protecting religious freedom and free speech did not apply to this case.
A protected class is not protected against all discrimination. The laws are specific as to types of discrimination covered.
It seems to me like some people want a law that ALLOWS them to discriminate. They don't think ahead and they don't think about the unintended consequences of such things. While I don't agree with government interference, wouldn't it be real nice if we could move past all of this discriminatory bullshit?
Well it is good to know that we cannot discriminate against someone if there isn't a law calling it discrimination.
.
Of course they are. That's exactly what the queer Nazis are trying to do.yes....the Left's 'religion' has become very ugly in its march to stamp out Christian values...
Nobody is trying to "stamp out" your values. Especially not me. My aunt is a TRUE Christian. She wouldn't turn anybody away.
The queer nazis? Lol. Okay. I can see that there is no reasoning with you people. A hateful little man is what you are.
I'm done reasoning with queers. From now on it's all-out war on them.
Reasoning with them? By telling them you aren't going to serve them because of what they do in their bedrooms? Sorry, but that is FAR from being reasonable in my eyes.
Why would discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class seriously be considered equal protection under the law?There is nothing wrong with discrimination except when that discrimination is based of on race, religion, national origin, or sex and now in many states, sexual orientation. In states where gays are a protected class, it is illegal to for a merchant to refuse service to a gay person just because they are gay. The Supreme Court has "repeatedly found" that those engaged in commercial activity are subject to state discrimination laws, regardless of their religious beliefs. Refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage.
I understand what you are posting and how the law is applied.
I am just wondering why discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class could seriously be considered equal protection under the law.
Giving examples of what is done does not explain how it represents equality.
Now if you want to say a bunch of people figured their discrimination is justified, then I am okay with that ... But that still doesn't make it equal nor does it support the idea the protected class that is discriminated against is actually protected in any way other than unsubstantiated verbage.
.
A case such as the one in Colorado where a merchant refused to serve a customer because of religious beliefs did not involve two protected classes. The gay coupled was protected under the Colorado anti-discrimination law which covers public accommodations and thus was a protected class. The baker was not a member of a protected class in Colorado because state and federal laws protecting religious freedom and free speech did not apply to this case.
A protected class is not protected against all discrimination. The laws are specific as to types of discrimination covered.
It seems to me like some people want a law that ALLOWS them to discriminate. They don't think ahead and they don't think about the unintended consequences of such things. While I don't agree with government interference, wouldn't it be real nice if we could move past all of this discriminatory bullshit?
Well it is good to know that we cannot discriminate against someone if there isn't a law calling it discrimination.
.
So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?
Of course they are. That's exactly what the queer Nazis are trying to do.Sorry, I don't want to insult people, I really don't, but some people have turned their religion into a very UGLY thing. That's my opinion.
yes....the Left's 'religion' has become very ugly in its march to stamp out Christian values...
Nobody is trying to "stamp out" your values. Especially not me. My aunt is a TRUE Christian. She wouldn't turn anybody away.
The queer nazis? Lol. Okay. I can see that there is no reasoning with you people. A hateful little man is what you are.
So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?
Why would discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class seriously be considered equal protection under the law?I understand what you are posting and how the law is applied.
I am just wondering why discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class could seriously be considered equal protection under the law.
Giving examples of what is done does not explain how it represents equality.
Now if you want to say a bunch of people figured their discrimination is justified, then I am okay with that ... But that still doesn't make it equal nor does it support the idea the protected class that is discriminated against is actually protected in any way other than unsubstantiated verbage.
.
A case such as the one in Colorado where a merchant refused to serve a customer because of religious beliefs did not involve two protected classes. The gay coupled was protected under the Colorado anti-discrimination law which covers public accommodations and thus was a protected class. The baker was not a member of a protected class in Colorado because state and federal laws protecting religious freedom and free speech did not apply to this case.
A protected class is not protected against all discrimination. The laws are specific as to types of discrimination covered.
It seems to me like some people want a law that ALLOWS them to discriminate. They don't think ahead and they don't think about the unintended consequences of such things. While I don't agree with government interference, wouldn't it be real nice if we could move past all of this discriminatory bullshit?
Well it is good to know that we cannot discriminate against someone if there isn't a law calling it discrimination.
.
So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?
I think that discrimination between private individuals is just that...private.
Tell me the next time you hire a pedophile to babysit your children.
Of course they are. That's exactly what the queer Nazis are trying to do.yes....the Left's 'religion' has become very ugly in its march to stamp out Christian values...
Nobody is trying to "stamp out" your values. Especially not me. My aunt is a TRUE Christian. She wouldn't turn anybody away.
The queer nazis? Lol. Okay. I can see that there is no reasoning with you people. A hateful little man is what you are.
I'm done reasoning with queers. From now on it's all-out war on them.
And don't whine when you face a backlash from the educated public.
So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?
What gives you that Idea ... There is a law that indicates that is discrimination ... Haven't you been paying attention?
The gay couple sued the baker and won ... And I never said anything to the sort that refusing service to gays wasn't discrimination.
.
Why would discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class seriously be considered equal protection under the law?I understand what you are posting and how the law is applied.
I am just wondering why discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class could seriously be considered equal protection under the law.
Giving examples of what is done does not explain how it represents equality.
Now if you want to say a bunch of people figured their discrimination is justified, then I am okay with that ... But that still doesn't make it equal nor does it support the idea the protected class that is discriminated against is actually protected in any way other than unsubstantiated verbage.
.
A case such as the one in Colorado where a merchant refused to serve a customer because of religious beliefs did not involve two protected classes. The gay coupled was protected under the Colorado anti-discrimination law which covers public accommodations and thus was a protected class. The baker was not a member of a protected class in Colorado because state and federal laws protecting religious freedom and free speech did not apply to this case.
A protected class is not protected against all discrimination. The laws are specific as to types of discrimination covered.
It seems to me like some people want a law that ALLOWS them to discriminate. They don't think ahead and they don't think about the unintended consequences of such things. While I don't agree with government interference, wouldn't it be real nice if we could move past all of this discriminatory bullshit?
Well it is good to know that we cannot discriminate against someone if there isn't a law calling it discrimination.
.
So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?
I think that discrimination between private individuals is just that...private.
Tell me the next time you hire a pedophile to babysit your children.
Of course they are. That's exactly what the queer Nazis are trying to do.Nobody is trying to "stamp out" your values. Especially not me. My aunt is a TRUE Christian. She wouldn't turn anybody away.
The queer nazis? Lol. Okay. I can see that there is no reasoning with you people. A hateful little man is what you are.
I'm done reasoning with queers. From now on it's all-out war on them.
And don't whine when you face a backlash from the educated public.
The "backlash" comes from the ignorant. You'll watch the queers trample your rights into dust and do nothing about it
Why would discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class seriously be considered equal protection under the law?
A case such as the one in Colorado where a merchant refused to serve a customer because of religious beliefs did not involve two protected classes. The gay coupled was protected under the Colorado anti-discrimination law which covers public accommodations and thus was a protected class. The baker was not a member of a protected class in Colorado because state and federal laws protecting religious freedom and free speech did not apply to this case.
A protected class is not protected against all discrimination. The laws are specific as to types of discrimination covered.
It seems to me like some people want a law that ALLOWS them to discriminate. They don't think ahead and they don't think about the unintended consequences of such things. While I don't agree with government interference, wouldn't it be real nice if we could move past all of this discriminatory bullshit?
Well it is good to know that we cannot discriminate against someone if there isn't a law calling it discrimination.
.
So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?
I think that discrimination between private individuals is just that...private.
Tell me the next time you hire a pedophile to babysit your children.
Oh, there's that hyperbole. Lol. This has NOTHING to do with pedophilia. Pedophilia is not between consenting adults and is illegal. Drop that stupid argument.
Why would discriminating against one protected class in favor of another protected class seriously be considered equal protection under the law?
A case such as the one in Colorado where a merchant refused to serve a customer because of religious beliefs did not involve two protected classes. The gay coupled was protected under the Colorado anti-discrimination law which covers public accommodations and thus was a protected class. The baker was not a member of a protected class in Colorado because state and federal laws protecting religious freedom and free speech did not apply to this case.
A protected class is not protected against all discrimination. The laws are specific as to types of discrimination covered.
It seems to me like some people want a law that ALLOWS them to discriminate. They don't think ahead and they don't think about the unintended consequences of such things. While I don't agree with government interference, wouldn't it be real nice if we could move past all of this discriminatory bullshit?
Well it is good to know that we cannot discriminate against someone if there isn't a law calling it discrimination.
.
So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?
I think that discrimination between private individuals is just that...private.
Tell me the next time you hire a pedophile to babysit your children.
Or even someone who seems a little creepy.
It seems to me like some people want a law that ALLOWS them to discriminate. They don't think ahead and they don't think about the unintended consequences of such things. While I don't agree with government interference, wouldn't it be real nice if we could move past all of this discriminatory bullshit?
Well it is good to know that we cannot discriminate against someone if there isn't a law calling it discrimination.
.
So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?
I think that discrimination between private individuals is just that...private.
Tell me the next time you hire a pedophile to babysit your children.
Oh, there's that hyperbole. Lol. This has NOTHING to do with pedophilia. Pedophilia is not between consenting adults and is illegal. Drop that stupid argument.
I didn't say a child molester, I said a pedophile, as defined by their sexual attraction. Why wouldn't you let a pedophile watch your kids?
It seems to me like some people want a law that ALLOWS them to discriminate. They don't think ahead and they don't think about the unintended consequences of such things. While I don't agree with government interference, wouldn't it be real nice if we could move past all of this discriminatory bullshit?
Well it is good to know that we cannot discriminate against someone if there isn't a law calling it discrimination.
.
So, you think that refusing service to gays is NOT discriminatory?
I think that discrimination between private individuals is just that...private.
Tell me the next time you hire a pedophile to babysit your children.
Or even someone who seems a little creepy.
Problem with that is that having someone babysit your child is NOT a business venture.
WEll then what the hell are you arguing for here?
