Colorado baker told to bake that cake

[ThisIsMe]

Really? So if it's not documented in a book as part of a religion, you have no right to your beliefs?

Under freedom of religion, yeah, I’d say it has to be a documented part of that religion to claim it as a religious belief. I mean , I certainly don’t agree with just making stuff up and claiming it as a religious belief.

 

[mak2]

Under freedom of religion, yeah, I’d say it has to be a documented part of that religion to claim it as a religious belief. I mean , I certainly don’t agree with just making stuff up and claiming it as a religious belief.

Here comes that "creepin Sharia."

 

[dblack]

Under freedom of religion, yeah, I’d say it has to be a documented part of that religion to claim it as a religious belief. I mean , I certainly don’t agree with just making stuff up and claiming it as a religious belief.

And that's exactly how we've inverted the entire concept. We've take a provision designed to ensure freedom (the First Amendment) and twisted it to do the opposite.

 

[JoeB131]

And again, they cannot make laws that force a person to give up their cotus rights.

Businesses don't have rights. They have laws governing commerce.

As far as the Mormon thing, do you have a religious claim for heaping abuse on them for something Joseph smith did? No? Then yeah, PA laws would protect them, at that point it would be harassment also.

Come on, guy, either you have a right to public accommedation or you don't. Don't try to have it both ways.

If he had a sincerely held religious belief, the yes. The part that the left can’t seem to get past is that it all must be done because of hate. Again, I ask you to show examples of hate.

Yes, it's always about hate. A real Christian wouldn't care because, frankly, Jesus never cared about these things.

Him refusing service because you are a mixed couple isn’t him saying “I hate your lifestyle”, it’s him saying “my religion believes mix couples are a sin, and me making a cake specifically for the celebration of that sin would be the same as me laboring for that sin, so I cannot do this, but I’m more than happy to sell you anything already pre made”.

Actually, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on and we wouldn't even be having the conversation.

Yep. That's what your worldview comes down to. Angry mobs. No thanks.

No, man, I believe in rule of law. Rule of law says the state provides you the ability to run your business, but you have to accommodate all your customers without bias.

Like most libertarian children, you just want gov. to protect your privileges, and not the other guys.

My bad.... mobs AND a protection racket. Covering all the bases!

Hey, the point is, business couldn't exist without order and government. Now, you might want to live in a Mad Max kind of world, but the rest of us.. not so much.

 

[JoeB131]

And he pays taxes for all those services. If you are unhappy that a business may receive certain tax breaks, then take it up with your state and local city officials and tell them you want to remove tax breaks for any business that exercises their religious beliefs.

Nope. The taxpayers passed laws, and he has to follow the laws that exist.
This isn't complicated.

Is it documented in that religions books and teachings? Or is it something that they just made up? If it’s a teaching that is documented as a part of the religion, then that’s what I consider a “sincerely held religious belief”

Uh, really? If you want to go with the "Documented" beliefs, then he'd better be out stoning his neighbors for working on Sunday. Not just picking the one or two rules that validate his hate.

 

[dblack]

Like most libertarian children, you just want gov. to protect your privileges, and not the other guys.

Like most fascists, you want government to force your vision of the good life on the rest of society.

Hey, the point is, business couldn't exist without order and government. Now, you might want to live in a Mad Max kind of world, but the rest of us.. not so much.

Another statist trope. You have it exactly backwards. Government can't exist without people (and people doing business). This is where modern liberals have utterly betrayed the American dream. They are aggressively replacing individual rights with group privilege - privilege parsed out by a state that presumes to "manage" society.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Here comes that "creepin Sharia."

What about sharia?

 

[ThisIsMe]

And that's exactly how we've inverted the entire concept. We've take a provision designed to ensure freedom (the First Amendment) and twisted it to do the opposite.

I don’t see the issue here. Are we suggesting that people dont have the right to the free exercise of religion?

 

[mak2]

What about sharia?

claim Sharia law as a religious belief and boom, it is taking over.

 

[dblack]

I don’t see the issue here. Are we suggesting that people dont have the right to the free exercise of religion?

The point of the First is to protect religion from government interference. It's not meant to be a "get out of jail free" card, it's not "special rights for special people".

That said, these bake-the-cake laws DO violate individual rights, but it's at a much more fundamental level than religious liberty. Regardless of how you interpret the Constitution, I believe everyone should have the right to say "no", regardless of their reasons. That's basic self-determination, and we'd be insane to abandon it as a human right.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Businesses don't have rights. They have laws governing commerce.


Come on, guy, either you have a right to public accommedation or you don't. Don't try to have it both ways.



Yes, it's always about hate. A real Christian wouldn't care because, frankly, Jesus never cared about these things.



Actually, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on and we wouldn't even be having the conversation.



No, man, I believe in rule of law. Rule of law says the state provides you the ability to run your business, but you have to accommodate all your customers without bias.

Like most libertarian children, you just want gov. to protect your privileges, and not the other guys.


Hey, the point is, business couldn't exist without order and government. Now, you might want to live in a Mad Max kind of world, but the rest of us.. not so much.

Businesses don't have rights. They have laws governing commerce.

Businesses are run by people, and those people have religious rights.

Come on, guy, either you have a right to public accommedation or you don't. Don't try to have it both ways.

I just said, if you have a religious claim for heaping abuse on someone, then you have standing, but if you are just abusing someone because you don’t like them, then that’s harassment. What’s the problem with that?

Yes, it's always about hate. A real Christian wouldn't care because, frankly, Jesus never cared about these things.

You have yet to show or prove hate. As far as what Christian’s would or wouldn’t care about, is the act of same sex relations considered a sin or not?

Actually, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on and we wouldn't even be having the conversation.

Then why bring it up

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. The taxpayers passed laws, and he has to follow the laws that exist.
This isn't complicated.



Uh, really? If you want to go with the "Documented" beliefs, then he'd better be out stoning his neighbors for working on Sunday. Not just picking the one or two rules that validate his hate.

Nope. The taxpayers passed laws, and he has to follow the laws that exist.
This isn't complicated.

Again, laws don’t overrule the cotus.

Uh, really? If you want to go with the "Documented" beliefs, then he'd better be out stoning his neighbors for working on Sunday. Not just picking the one or two rules that validate his hate.

Again, God gave instructions to the people, but that doesn’t mean there is a standing order to kill people for working on the Sabbath. I’m not completely familiar with the story, but as I recall, God was talking to Moses wasn’t he? He was addressing them specifically.

Also, you are talking about Old Testament vs New Testament. The laws back in the days of Moses were different than in the days of Jesus.

 

[ThisIsMe]

claim Sharia law as a religious belief and boom, it is taking over.

No, because you don’t have any right to force other people into your religion. So, if people want to observe sharia traditions, that should be up to them, but to others, if they don’t want to observe sharia, then they don’t have to.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The point of the First is to protect religion from government interference. It's not meant to be a "get out of jail free" card, it's not "special rights for special people".

That said, these bake-the-cake laws DO violate individual rights, but it's at a much more fundamental level than religious liberty. Regardless of how you interpret the Constitution, I believe everyone should have the right to say "no", regardless of their reasons. That's basic self-determination, and we'd be insane to abandon it as a human right.

Well, what does the “free exercise of religion” mean then?

 

[dblack]

Well, what does the “free exercise of religion” mean then?

It means government can't tell you how to do religion. It doesn't mean anyone else must accommodate your religion, and it doesn't mean that you get a pass on laws that conflict with your religious views (eg if someone thinks beating their wife is a sacred duty, it doesn't matter - they still have to follow the law.)

 

[ThisIsMe]

It means government can't tell you how to do religion. It doesn't mean anyone else must accommodate your religion, and it doesn't mean that you get a pass on laws that conflict with your religious views (eg if someone thinks beating their wife is a sacred duty, it doesn't matter - they still have to follow the law.)

So, then, like joe, you believe that congress can pass laws that contradict the cotus, and take away rights?

 

[ThisIsMe]

It means government can't tell you how to do religion. It doesn't mean anyone else must accommodate your religion, and it doesn't mean that you get a pass on laws that conflict with your religious views (eg if someone thinks beating their wife is a sacred duty, it doesn't matter - they still have to follow the law.)

It means government can't tell you how to do religion

Exactly.

 

[dblack]

So, then, like joe, you believe that congress can pass laws that contradict the cotus, and take away rights?

Nope. I'm saying most people today misunderstand rights, in particular freedom of religion.

The Courts and lawmakers have turned freedom of religion inside out and it is now a corporatist perk for state approved religions. "Special rights for special people". It's how we roll.

 

[Chillicothe]

Businesses don't have rights. They have laws governing commerce.

Joe said it as succinctly as anyone can.
'A business ain't a human'...an 'American' human with COTUS rights.

It's an enterprise....conducted by humans to be sure, but there is a nuance there, a delineation that must be observed.

As a public 'enterprise' his is obligated to follow the laws of the land....specific to such enterprises. And the court so ruled.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. I'm saying most people today misunderstand rights, in particular freedom of religion.

The Courts and lawmakers have turned freedom of religion inside out and it is now a corporatist perk for state approved religions. "Special rights for special people". It's how we roll.

So, then, what is your interpretation of religious freedom? If the cotus say you have the free exercise of religion, what does that mean to you?

I don’t understand where you get the idea it’s about “state approved religions”. Are there some religions in the US that are not being given the same freedoms? The cotus doesn’t give deference to one religion or another. It just says that people have the right to practice their religion.