What is the scope of your religious freedom as a business?

[rightwinger]

So Red states are clamoring to pass laws allowing business to refuse to serve those who their religious beliefs say are sinners

- Can a doctor cite his religious objection to adultery and refuse to deliver a baby to a woman who is not married?

- Can businesses in a community refuse to serve a couple who are unmarried and live together?

- Can a business refuse to serve at a wedding among atheists?



.

 

[rightwinger]

Has our country reached a point where business can now serve moral judgement on its customers?

 

[Pop23]

This is about cake, photography and flowers.

Drama much?

 

[Rocko]

.[/QUOTE]

So Red states are clamoring to pass laws allowing business to refuse to serve those who their religious beliefs say are sinners

- Can a doctor cite his religious objection to adultery and refuse to deliver a baby to a woman who is not married?

- Can businesses in a community refuse to serve a couple who are unmarried and live together?

- Can a business refuse to serve at a wedding among atheists?



.

Those are all dumb questions, RW. Have you been thinking again?

 

[g5000]

This is about cake, photography and flowers.

Drama much?

 

[Pop23]

.

So Red states are clamoring to pass laws allowing business to refuse to serve those who their religious beliefs say are sinners

- Can a doctor cite his religious objection to adultery and refuse to deliver a baby to a woman who is not married?

- Can businesses in a community refuse to serve a couple who are unmarried and live together?

- Can a business refuse to serve at a wedding among atheists?



.

Those are all dumb questions, RW. Have you been thinking again?[/QUOTE]

Don't be absurd, RW lets MSNBC think for him.

 

[Pop23]

This is about cake, photography and flowers.

Drama much?

So the answer is yes.

Dramas yo thang.

 

[g5000]

Those are all dumb questions, RW. Have you been thinking again?

Dumb questions? Really?

Doctor refuses to treat baby of lesbian parents because they re gay.

 

[Rocko]

Those are all dumb questions, RW. Have you been thinking again?

Dumb questions? Really?

Doctor refuses to treat baby of lesbian parents because they re gay.

Obviously the doctor was wrong and can be sued for discrimination. What is there to debate?

 

[g5000]

Those are all dumb questions, RW. Have you been thinking again?

Dumb questions? Really?

Doctor refuses to treat baby of lesbian parents because they re gay.

Obviously the doctor was wrong and can be sued for discrimination. What is there to debate?

You said they were dumb questions. Obviously, they aren't. Real life has come up and smacked you in the face once again.

So why not answer them, coward.

 

[Rocko]

Those are all dumb questions, RW. Have you been thinking again?

Dumb questions? Really?

Doctor refuses to treat baby of lesbian parents because they re gay.

Obviously the doctor was wrong and can be sued for discrimination. What is there to debate?

You said they were dumb questions. Obviously, they aren't. Real life has come up and smacked you in the face once again.

So why not answer them, coward.

Lol They are dumb questions because the answers are self evident.

My answers are no to #1, no to # 2, and no to #3

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Businesses open to the general public are subject to Federal, state, and local public accommodations laws, laws that are necessary, proper, and Constitutional pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Because the primary intent of these laws is regulatory, they in no way 'violate' religious freedom.

Not all classes of persons are afforded protections under public accommodations laws, however; gay Americans cannot seek relief under Federal law, for example, and that's also the case in many states.

Classes of persons not afforded protection under a given public accommodations law may be refused service by a private business owner with impunity, where the adversely effected class of persons may not file suit in court to seek injunctive relief.

In the 'gay cake' case in Colorado, the baker was enjoined from discriminating against gay patrons because to do violated Colorado law concerning public accommodations; the Colorado law was upheld as Constitutional and correctly applied because it sought to regulate commerce, not impede 'religious freedom.'

Unfortunately there are many business owners who use 'religious objections' in bad faith, as a facade behind which they hide their unwarranted fear and hatred of gay Americans, as well as their fear and hatred of other classes of persons not afforded protections by state or local law, and refuse to accommodate gay Americans only to harm and humiliate them, not to conform to 'religious belief.'

 

[AmericanFirst]

Has our country reached a point where business can now serve moral judgement on its customers?

Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. Let the fags cry.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

So Red states are clamoring to pass laws allowing business to refuse to serve those who their religious beliefs say are sinners

- Can a doctor cite his religious objection to adultery and refuse to deliver a baby to a woman who is not married?

- Can businesses in a community refuse to serve a couple who are unmarried and live together?

- Can a business refuse to serve at a wedding among atheists?



.

The ^ "questions" are without relevance.

The law that passed in Indiana merely gave a legal right to sue (or defend) to those who would seek to make out the claim that the government is seeking or would be seeking to impose an undue burden on their right of religious belief and practice.

It would not make it "legal" to discriminate against gays in general, no matter what the popular liberal propaganda might have you believe.

 

[rightwinger]

This is about cake, photography and flowers.

Drama much?

Where in these laws does it place a limit on only cake, photography and flowers?

Doesn't the religious beliefs of a business apply to all areas and not just gays?

 

[rightwinger]

Those are all dumb questions, RW. Have you been thinking again?

Dumb questions? Really?

Doctor refuses to treat baby of lesbian parents because they re gay.

Obviously the doctor was wrong and can be sued for discrimination. What is there to debate?

How can the doctor be discriminating when these are hard held religious beliefs?

 

[bripat9643]

Has our country reached a point where business can now serve moral judgement on its customers?

That's the way it's always been, moron.

 

[Disir]

So Red states are clamoring to pass laws allowing business to refuse to serve those who their religious beliefs say are sinners

- Can a doctor cite his religious objection to adultery and refuse to deliver a baby to a woman who is not married?

- Can businesses in a community refuse to serve a couple who are unmarried and live together?

- Can a business refuse to serve at a wedding among atheists?



.

The ^ "questions" are without relevance.

The law that passed in Indiana merely gave a legal right to sue (or defend) to those who would seek to make out the claim that the government is seeking or would be seeking to impose an undue burden on their right of religious belief and practice.

It would not make it "legal" to discriminate against gays in general, no matter what the popular liberal propaganda might have you believe.

It gave for-profit businesses the ability to use the "free exercise" claim in private lawsuits. It moves for-profit businesses to equal footing as individuals and churches.

 

[rightwinger]

Those are all dumb questions, RW. Have you been thinking again?

Dumb questions? Really?

Doctor refuses to treat baby of lesbian parents because they re gay.

It seems odd that a doctor would draw the line at lesbians

There are may sinners much worse than being a lesbian. Single mothers, atheists, interfaith marriages. Yet the doctor would deliver their babies

 

[Seawytch]

Those are all dumb questions, RW. Have you been thinking again?

Dumb questions? Really?

Doctor refuses to treat baby of lesbian parents because they re gay.

Obviously the doctor was wrong and can be sued for discrimination. What is there to debate?

Morally the doctor was wrong...legally, she was within her "rights". The doctor can't be sued because there are not laws protecting gays there.