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.
Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.
And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.
And nobody is, certainly not the government. Your right to practice your religion is not being infringed upon.
yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.
Your believing it does does not make it so.
RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO
Freedom of Religion isn't limited to Churches or Clergy.
And you don't get to decide how a person follows their faith, and government sure as hell doesn't either.
And nobody is, certainly not the government. Your right to practice your religion is not being infringed upon.
yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.
Your believing it does does not make it so.
RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO
So the ACLU had to decide who's butt hurt is more viable, and they picked your side. Congrats.
Its great the ACLU has gone from protecting all civil rights to attacking those it finds wrong, similar to its position on the 2nd amendment.
I doubt the current version would protect the Nazis in Skokie.
What? That may have made sense in your head, but when you put it on paper...not so much.
Bigots tried for religious exemptions during desegregation. Should they have succeeded? They didn't, BTW.
Argument 1 is based on the presumption that any place that serves food is a public accommodation. That is wrong on its face, proven by private clubs.
That is false.
Not every place that serves food is a public accommodation. For profit businesses that serve food are a public accommodation defined under the law in the State of Oregon.
I serve food in my home, it is not a public accommodation because it is not a for profit business. My Church has Family Spaghetti Dinner Nights periodically, they are not a for profit business so don't fall under public accommodation laws.
That is wrong on its face, proven by private clubs.
To be more correct, Public Accommodation apply to for profit businesses (whether considered a "private club" or not. Public Accommodation laws don't apply to non-profit organizations and to fall into the "private club" category there are very specific requirements that must be met, including:
"1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3 .the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.)."
COSTCO, Sam's Club, and BJ's Warehouse are membership only to shop there (i.e. "private clubs") but as for profit businesses are still subject to Public Accommodation laws.
http://www.cmaa.org/uploadedFiles/PCS/MayJune02legal.pdf
Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not?
Argument 2 is based on the fallacy that since people go outside their house, they lose any right they have due to using public property.
I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses, not religious exemptions, but that rights of property and association be returned to business owners and let customers use their power of free speech to spotlight discriminatory business practices and then the market decide.
If a business doesn't want to server coloreds, or Asians, or Jews, or Muslims, or women, or homosexuals - they should be free to do so.
Argumen 3 is similar to argument 1, where you stretch PA to mean any transaction whatsoever, which was never the definition of a PA.
This false again.
The Oregon law has been posted for you multiple times, and this is a thread about the Oregon laws. The legislature clearly wrote a law that applied to all for profit businesses that provide goods and services.
>>>>
The origins of the whole PA concept comes from federal law, and federal law proscribed very specific conditions to what a PA is. Its current law at the state level that makes everything a PA.
Any my response was based on the post I commented on. He was the one that said "food=PA), not me.
The origins of the whole PA concept comes from federal law, and federal law proscribed very specific conditions to what a PA is. Its current law at the state level that makes everything a PA.
Any my response was based on the post I commented on. He was the one that said "food=PA), not me.
After reading the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution, would you say that PA laws extinguish any rights in the 1st Amendment as to exercise of faith? Especially where said exercise is passive refusal to participate or to refuse service when said service requires a Christian to abdicate key edicts of their faith?
Explain. And I want details, not ad hominems and a diversion.
And nobody is, certainly not the government. Your right to practice your religion is not being infringed upon.
yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.
Your believing it does does not make it so.
RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO
And nobody is, certainly not the government. Your right to practice your religion is not being infringed upon.
yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.
Your believing it does does not make it so.
RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO
So the ACLU had to decide who's butt hurt is more viable, and they picked your side. Congrats.
Its great the ACLU has gone from protecting all civil rights to attacking those it finds wrong, similar to its position on the 2nd amendment.
I doubt the current version would protect the Nazis in Skokie.
What? That may have made sense in your head, but when you put it on paper...not so much.
Bigots tried for religious exemptions during desegregation. Should they have succeeded? They didn't, BTW.
That discrimination was systemic and economic in nature, relegating an entire class of people to 2nd class citizen status. It cannot be compared to a couple needing to find another baker for their wedding, now matter how much you try to equate the two.
yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.
Your believing it does does not make it so.
RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO
yes it is. You just don't think the infringement is wrong.
Your believing it does does not make it so.
RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO
So the ACLU had to decide who's butt hurt is more viable, and they picked your side. Congrats.
Its great the ACLU has gone from protecting all civil rights to attacking those it finds wrong, similar to its position on the 2nd amendment.
I doubt the current version would protect the Nazis in Skokie.
What? That may have made sense in your head, but when you put it on paper...not so much.
Bigots tried for religious exemptions during desegregation. Should they have succeeded? They didn't, BTW.
That discrimination was systemic and economic in nature, relegating an entire class of people to 2nd class citizen status. It cannot be compared to a couple needing to find another baker for their wedding, now matter how much you try to equate the two.
Lame dodge. Why should anti gay bigots get religious exemptions we don't give racist bigots? Why do you believe one "deeply held belief" should be exempt while others are not?
Your believing it does does not make it so.
RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO
Your believing it does does not make it so.
RELIGIOUS REFUSALS TO PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS: FOUR REASONS TO SAY NO
So the ACLU had to decide who's butt hurt is more viable, and they picked your side. Congrats.
Its great the ACLU has gone from protecting all civil rights to attacking those it finds wrong, similar to its position on the 2nd amendment.
I doubt the current version would protect the Nazis in Skokie.
What? That may have made sense in your head, but when you put it on paper...not so much.
Bigots tried for religious exemptions during desegregation. Should they have succeeded? They didn't, BTW.
That discrimination was systemic and economic in nature, relegating an entire class of people to 2nd class citizen status. It cannot be compared to a couple needing to find another baker for their wedding, now matter how much you try to equate the two.
Lame dodge. Why should anti gay bigots get religious exemptions we don't give racist bigots? Why do you believe one "deeply held belief" should be exempt while others are not?
either bigot should not be given an exemption if the discrimination is systemic or widespread, or impacts time sensitive or necessary services (especially time sensitive AND necessary services.
So a hotel can't deny a room because "I don't like/believe X", but they should be able to say "sorry, we don't cater that type of wedding" as long as their are easily obtainable and comparable services readily available.
You seem to love it when people you disagree with get the same treatment, your concern seems hollow.
Not wanting to bake a cake does not equal getting fired or beating people up. and you beat something by convincing people of stuff, not by forcing them. Plus people are entitled to their opinions in this country, and entitled to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. You want everyone to be just. like. you, and worse, you want government to force them to comply.
And ive already stated that it should be all or none, when it comes to non essential non timely services.
You seem to love it when people you disagree with get the same treatment, your concern seems hollow.
Not wanting to bake a cake does not equal getting fired or beating people up. and you beat something by convincing people of stuff, not by forcing them. Plus people are entitled to their opinions in this country, and entitled to live their lives as they see fit as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. You want everyone to be just. like. you, and worse, you want government to force them to comply.
And ive already stated that it should be all or none, when it comes to non essential non timely services.
I have no interest in "convincing" the Christian Funditards of anything. IF they want to take their hatred and their sexual insecurities in the closet, they are welcome to do so. IF they bring it out in public, HR will be having a word with them.
the thing was, their homophobia DID harm someone else. That's why they are paying 135 Large right now. Heh, heh, heh...
Oh, I don't want them to be like me. I want them to be crushed. I want them worried that their CHurch will get branded a hate group and lose their tax exemptions. I want them to get nasty stares from their family members at Thanksgiving when they start ranting about "da Queers". I want these people to be utterly ostracized the way that assholes who put on Nazi Uniforms and Klan Robes are.
It's not enough to defeat you. We've already done that. I want to utterly crush their spirits as a personal thank you for getting Bush elected to a second term he didn't have to steal.
I know for a fact, that back in the 1970's one guy was fired from a local department store I was working for. He was hitting on his male coworkers. It made everyone rather uncomfortable. The guy was white, in his mid 20's, and was the touchy feely type where the guys were concerned.
I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses, not religious exemptions, but that rights of property and association be returned to business owners and let customers use their power of free speech to spotlight discriminatory business practices and then the market decide.
If a business doesn't want to server coloreds, or Asians, or Jews, or Muslims, or women, or homosexuals - they should be free to do so.
I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses, not religious exemptions, but that rights of property and association be returned to business owners and let customers use their power of free speech to spotlight discriminatory business practices and then the market decide.
If a business doesn't want to server coloreds, or Asians, or Jews, or Muslims, or women, or homosexuals - they should be free to do so.
I agree with most of what you say, except this part.
The thing about so-called private businesses is that they couldn't' exist without a massive taxpayer subsidy. Roads, law enforcement, infrastructure, a lot of the banking industry is all geared towards making life easier for businesses because they provide services and jobs. So the rest of us are subsidizing their business, even though 50% of small businesses fail. The very least we should expect is them to provide us the services they offer to provide if we have the money to pay for them and we bothered to make the trip to their place of business.
So while I would like to think a devastating Yelp review will put the bad actors out of business, I'm really not that trusting of the market.
How do you explain that fact the private businesses existed centuries before the government built roads or infrastructure?
I'll explain it for you: you're a fucking moron.
If I was that business owner I would burn everything I own, and YouTube it... And then tell the powers that be "try to get any blood out of this turnip"
How do you explain that fact the private businesses existed centuries before the government built roads or infrastructure?
I'll explain it for you: you're a fucking moron.
Which centuries were those? Because infrastructure and roads go all the way back to the Roman Empire.
Bet they didn't cover that in whatever Home Skule you went to, stupid.
If people were fined for being stupid, everyone would be broke. PS: And the government still wouldn't have enough money.Now we should all realize why the country is in such a fiscal mess. What cake is worth $135,000.00. Obviously, the GOVERNMENT values its own judgment far more than it values freedom of religious values.
Now imagine that this is only concerning making a cake. Heaven forbid the baker told that couple of homosexuals that they were in danger of going to hell!
They're being fined for being stupid.
Clearly you're unaware of how ridiculous and idiotic this is.If I was that business owner I would burn everything I own, and YouTube it... And then tell the powers that be "try to get any blood out of this turnip"
The government didn't build roads in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. That's when capitalism started, if you don't recall.
