Will religious "restoration" laws have some ugly unintended consequences?

[NYcarbineer]

[Gay people in America are simply going to need to start claiming that their belief in gay rights is a religious belief.

THEN where the fuck will your RWnuts go?

A religion based on racial superiority is already approved so that's hardly a stretch.

Gays need to 'marry' in church ceremonies to establish their unions as religious exercises (regardless of whether same sex marriage is legal in the state) and then if they are refused service, or housing, or employment, etc., anywhere,

they should sue on the grounds that they've been discriminated against because of their religion.

 

[SwimExpert]

So if a person's "religious belief" is that black people are demons from Satan, the government is obliged to allow that person to refuse service to black people?

How patently absurd. There are in fact limits, believe it or not.

I look forward to a demonstration.

Then all you need do is read, if you are capable of such.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So if a person's "religious belief" is that black people are demons from Satan, the government is obliged to allow that person to refuse service to black people?

How patently absurd. There are in fact limits, believe it or not.

I look forward to a demonstration.

Then all you need do is read, if you are capable of such.

It's called the law, genius. I'm not going to coddle you.

 

[whitehall]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

I don't think biting on the ass is allowed either. There is no way to tell if a person is homosexual or heterosexual and that's fine. The thing that the sissies conveniently leave out is that it ain't about a person's sexual preference. It's about offensive displays suggesting the compulsion to commit sodomy. The state has merely reassured religious people that their 1st Amendment right to religious freedom trumps the sodomite "right" to annoy customers with offensive behavior.

 

[The Rabbi]

If that's true then why does the government get to shut down a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

They closed up because their bigotry cost them a huge chunk of their business. The 'free market' got them. lol

I knew you were a mental defective. But I had no idea just how drooling stupid you are. You need to quit posting here because your posts get dumber and dumber.
Gov't imposing a fine is not the free market.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If that's true then why does the government get to shut down a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

They closed up because their bigotry cost them a huge chunk of their business. The 'free market' got them. lol

I knew you were a mental defective. But I had no idea just how drooling stupid you are. You need to quit posting here because your posts get dumber and dumber.
Gov't imposing a fine is not the free market.

The (potential) fine came after the market bounced them back home.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If that's true then why does the government get to shut down a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

They closed up because their bigotry cost them a huge chunk of their business. The 'free market' got them. lol

I knew you were a mental defective. But I had no idea just how drooling stupid you are. You need to quit posting here because your posts get dumber and dumber.
Gov't imposing a fine is not the free market.

The fine came after the market bounced them back home.

They haven't even been fined (yet), the hearing to determine the amount and damages was just last week. There has been no order setting a fine yet.

Sweet Cakes discrimination hearing looks at bakery owners side OregonLive.com

>>>>

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

They closed up because their bigotry cost them a huge chunk of their business. The 'free market' got them. lol

I knew you were a mental defective. But I had no idea just how drooling stupid you are. You need to quit posting here because your posts get dumber and dumber.
Gov't imposing a fine is not the free market.

The fine came after the market bounced them back home.

They haven't even been fined (yet), the hearing to determine the amount and damages was just last week. There has been no order setting a fine yet.

Sweet Cakes discrimination hearing looks at bakery owners side OregonLive.com

>>>>

Fine, pun intended. Better now?

 

[FA_Q2]

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

They closed up because their bigotry cost them a huge chunk of their business. The 'free market' got them. lol

I knew you were a mental defective. But I had no idea just how drooling stupid you are. You need to quit posting here because your posts get dumber and dumber.
Gov't imposing a fine is not the free market.

The fine came after the market bounced them back home.

They haven't even been fined (yet), the hearing to determine the amount and damages was just last week. There has been no order setting a fine yet.

Sweet Cakes discrimination hearing looks at bakery owners side OregonLive.com

>>>>

I would imagine that the legal fees getting this far have had a lot to do with them closing shop as well though. The market would have shut them down anyway - being a bigot is pretty harshly treated these days - but legal battles can kill a business all on there own even if you win the case.

 

[eots]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere

religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

I can see it all now

 

[2aguy]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

Obviously you lefties forgot...this was signed into law by Bill ( the serial sexual predator) back in the 90s and passed unanimously in the senate in legislation created by Orrin Hatch and ted ( remember Mary Joe) Kennedy...in reaction to a Native American who lost his job because he used peyote in a religious ceremony....

so Harry Reid, Nancy pelosi, Diane feinstein, dick Durban and the other lefty nuts,signed this into federal law already.....and yet you dipsticks didn't mind back then or even care until it was used to attack Christians practicing their religious freedom....then when it was targeted to protect them....then you can't stand the law...they are supposed to be kept legally imperiled so your gay fascist allies and other lefty groups can target and destroy them easily......

And a bunch of other states also have this law...already......

Video Protests over Indiana version of RFRA seem to miss one important point Hot Air

CNN’s announcer doesn’t get around to mentioning until almost at the end of the segment that other states have similar laws, and never mentions that the federal government does as well. Senators Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy sponsored the original Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) after the Supreme Court’s Smith decision that failed to protect a Native American who was denied employment benefits after having tested positive for peyote. Bill Clinton signed that RFRA into law in 1993 after it passed unanimously in the Senate.

Since then, 19 other states have passed similar legislation to apply RFRA to their own jurisdictions:

Indiana has come under fire for a bill signed Thursday by Gov. Mike Pence (R) that would allow businesses to refuse service for religious reasons. The NCAA has voiced its concern ahead of Final Four in Indianapolis next week, there are calls to boycott the state, and Miley Cyrus has even weighed in, calling Pence a name that we can’t reprint on this family Web site in an Instagram post.

But Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. …

Indiana might be treated as if it’s the only state with a bill like this, but it’s not.

Another 11 states have judicial precedents that constitute a RFRA policy in their courts. Over the last twenty-plus years, RFRA statutes have a clear track record of careful jurisprudence, because they don’t protect ad-hoc discrimination on any basis. That’s true on both federal and state levels, and we know this in part because the hysterics shrieking over the law in Indiana offer nothing but ignorant hypotheticals. They cannot point to a case where RFRA has been used to justify broad discrimination, because it never has.

 

[2aguy]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

and some more truth...I know...the truth burns lefties like a cross burns Dracula

Except, though, that almost no one is arguing that exercise of religion excuses bigotry. Christians have not objected to providing services to LGBT customers, but to being forced to participate in same-sex weddings by the state, either by baking a cake for one or having to photograph it, and then getting forced out of business by fines when they refuse out of religious conscience. Furthermore, Christians can’t “abuse” RFRA, because it’s the courts that use it to adjudicate disputes of this kind. RFRA laws constrain the states and their actions — they don’t undo public-accommodation laws for citizens. (Merely putting a RFRA sign in the window, so to speak, doesn’t make discrimination a RFRA case.)

 

[2aguy]

'Will religious "restoration" laws have some ugly unintended consequences?'

"Restoration," indeed – the notion is idiocy; religion is in no need of "restoration."

This nonsense is predicated on a ridiculous, unfounded perception by Christians that they're being somehow 'disadvantaged,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Public accommodations laws in no way 'interfere' with Christian religious practice, particularly with regard to gay patrons.

except...you know....when the gay fascists use the government to take the businesses and life savings and retirement savings of people who won't bake them one specific type of cake....they will bake them anything else....just not a wedding cake....and for that tiny act of religious observance...they must lose everything....

 

[NYcarbineer]

If that's true then why does the government get to shut down a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

They closed up because their bigotry cost them a huge chunk of their business. The 'free market' got them. lol

I knew you were a mental defective. But I had no idea just how drooling stupid you are. You need to quit posting here because your posts get dumber and dumber.
Gov't imposing a fine is not the free market.

"Sweet Cakes closed its doors in Dec. 2013, in the midst of the public backlash from the investigation. The owner of the bakery said she would keep baking cakes at a home-based bakery."

Bakery risks large fine for anti-gay discrimination

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.

“There’s nothing wrong with what we believe,” he said. “It’s a biblical point of view. It’s my faith. It’s my religion.”"

What 'biblical' point of view. Where in the Bible does it say one must refuse to do business with a sinner, even if it says homosexuality is a sin?

 

[The Rabbi]

"Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.

“There’s nothing wrong with what we believe,” he said. “It’s a biblical point of view. It’s my faith. It’s my religion.”"

What 'biblical' point of view. Where in the Bible does it say one must refuse to do business with a sinner, even if it says homosexuality is a sin?

You're really stupid, you know that?

 

[SwimExpert]

Obviously you lefties forgot...this was signed into law by Bill ( the serial sexual predator) back in the 90s and passed unanimously in the senate in legislation created by Orrin Hatch and ted ( remember Mary Joe) Kennedy...in reaction to a Native American who lost his job because he used peyote in a religious ceremony....

You're an idiot. I'm not a leftist, I'm a conservative, moron. I don't care who passed what bill, it doesn't change the fact that the government has no place weighing and measuring people's religious beliefs. Statist asshats like you are ruining this country.

 

[2aguy]

how am I the statist.....and if you are a conservative we are on the same side so you get a pass this time for calling me names.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obviously you lefties forgot...this was signed into law by Bill ( the serial sexual predator) back in the 90s and passed unanimously in the senate in legislation created by Orrin Hatch and ted ( remember Mary Joe) Kennedy...in reaction to a Native American who lost his job because he used peyote in a religious ceremony....

You're an idiot. I'm not a leftist, I'm a conservative, moron. I don't care who passed what bill, it doesn't change the fact that the government has no place weighing and measuring people's religious beliefs. Statist asshats like you are ruining this country.

Pity we're all not pragmatists, and pursue facts rather than subjective political dogma.

And it is a fact that 'religious restoration' laws are unnecessary and inane, that courts will indeed be compelled to decide what is a 'real' religion and what is not, and what is 'real' religious doctrine and what is not. People can claim all manner of 'religious exemptions' to avoid complying with just, necessary, and proper laws.

It is not the role of the courts to decide what is a 'true religion.'

 

[The Rabbi]

Obviously you lefties forgot...this was signed into law by Bill ( the serial sexual predator) back in the 90s and passed unanimously in the senate in legislation created by Orrin Hatch and ted ( remember Mary Joe) Kennedy...in reaction to a Native American who lost his job because he used peyote in a religious ceremony....

You're an idiot. I'm not a leftist, I'm a conservative, moron. I don't care who passed what bill, it doesn't change the fact that the government has no place weighing and measuring people's religious beliefs. Statist asshats like you are ruining this country.

Pity we're all not pragmatists, and pursue facts rather than subjective political dogma.

And it is a fact that 'religious restoration' laws are unnecessary and inane, that courts will indeed be compelled to decide what is a 'real' religion and what is not, and what is 'real' religious doctrine and what is not. People can claim all manner of 'religious exemptions' to avoid complying with just, necessary, and proper laws.

It is not the role of the courts to decide what is a 'true religion.'

But it is the court's role to decide what true marriage is. And a bunch of other things liberal weenies have rushed to have adjudicated in courts rather than by vote.