Evangelicals explain their support for Trump. It's the racism that stands out.

[rightwinger]

What countries have been invaded by Muslims?

Are you ******* serious?

Show us a Muslim nation that is invading others

Wow. Already moving the goal posts.


They expanded by the sword and fire until they were stopped in all directions.

That they are not currently launching formal wars of aggression right now, is because they have been getting their asses kicked for quite some time, not a change to peace and love.


Dumbass.

FAIL

You claim Muslims are warlike. We have many, many Muslim nation’s
Show where they went to war to spread Islam. If it is in the Koran, they will not care about the consequences

 

[Lysistrata]

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

That was for overall, not joining objector. Being a medic was an easier route, and usually even more dangerous. And a lot of people faked objector status in Vietnam as opposed to WWII.

And now your anti-religious bias shows, wow, it only took 4 posts.

And refusing taxes is different then saying "I don't want to fight". Again plenty of medics in WWII were objectors, they still went there and risked their lives.

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

 

[Correll]

What countries have been invaded by Muslims?

Are you ******* serious?

Show us a Muslim nation that is invading others

Wow. Already moving the goal posts.


They expanded by the sword and fire until they were stopped in all directions.

That they are not currently launching formal wars of aggression right now, is because they have been getting their asses kicked for quite some time, not a change to peace and love.


Dumbass.

FAIL

You claim Muslims are warlike. We have many, many Muslim nation’s
Show where they went to war to spread Islam. If it is in the Koran, they will not care about the consequences

Sure they would. Being warlike and being suicidal do not go hand in hand.

 

[martybegan]

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

That was for overall, not joining objector. Being a medic was an easier route, and usually even more dangerous. And a lot of people faked objector status in Vietnam as opposed to WWII.

And now your anti-religious bias shows, wow, it only took 4 posts.

And refusing taxes is different then saying "I don't want to fight". Again plenty of medics in WWII were objectors, they still went there and risked their lives.

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

 

[rightwinger]

What countries have been invaded by Muslims?

Are you ******* serious?

Show us a Muslim nation that is invading others

Wow. Already moving the goal posts.


They expanded by the sword and fire until they were stopped in all directions.

That they are not currently launching formal wars of aggression right now, is because they have been getting their asses kicked for quite some time, not a change to peace and love.


Dumbass.

FAIL

You claim Muslims are warlike. We have many, many Muslim nation’s
Show where they went to war to spread Islam. If it is in the Koran, they will not care about the consequences

Sure they would. Being warlike and being suicidal do not go hand in hand.

I asked, what countries have been invaded by Muslims
You mocked....Are you serious?

I am still waiting for a reply. The far right constantly claims Islam is a religion of war

I asked you a simple question.....show me

There are six Islamic States and dozens more that are Muslim majority

Show where they are waging war on non Muslim states

 

[rightwinger]

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

That was for overall, not joining objector. Being a medic was an easier route, and usually even more dangerous. And a lot of people faked objector status in Vietnam as opposed to WWII.

And now your anti-religious bias shows, wow, it only took 4 posts.

And refusing taxes is different then saying "I don't want to fight". Again plenty of medics in WWII were objectors, they still went there and risked their lives.

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

So if they refuse to serve negroes, it is their business?

 

[BlackSand]

Always quite humorous when atheist liberals like you try to lecture Christian people about their faith and how they should practice it. ... ...

It's even funnier when they attempt to express that not voting for their favorite sinner ...
Is any worse than voting for another sinner ...

They attempt to suggest that because one person is a sinner ...
And you may vote for another person that is a sinner ...
You somehow embrace the latter sinner's sins.

We are all sinners ...
All sins are equal in the eyes of God ...
So on the sinning question, no one person is better than another in the eyes of God.

What they are attempting to do is assume the divinity of God in passing their own unworthy judgment on a person's sin.
That's what makes God divine and people assholes.

Unfortunately ... There are plenty of people who call themselves Christians that do the exact same thing ...

.​

.​

 

[martybegan]

That was for overall, not joining objector. Being a medic was an easier route, and usually even more dangerous. And a lot of people faked objector status in Vietnam as opposed to WWII.

And now your anti-religious bias shows, wow, it only took 4 posts.

And refusing taxes is different then saying "I don't want to fight". Again plenty of medics in WWII were objectors, they still went there and risked their lives.

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

So if they refuse to serve negroes, it is their business?

Show me a religion that makes being black a sin, and then we can talk.

 

[Lysistrata]

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

That was for overall, not joining objector. Being a medic was an easier route, and usually even more dangerous. And a lot of people faked objector status in Vietnam as opposed to WWII.

And now your anti-religious bias shows, wow, it only took 4 posts.

And refusing taxes is different then saying "I don't want to fight". Again plenty of medics in WWII were objectors, they still went there and risked their lives.

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

He was the one who got the business license, which requires following the rules.Let him surrender his license and go private as an artist. He was the one who advertised wedding cakes, even online. He deliberately hid himself in his advertising while saying that his services were available to the public. If one advertises that s/he creates wedding cakes, this is what one does or surrender the business license.

The only "compelling government interest" involved here is ensuring the free flow of commerce and the lack of discrimination in it.

 

[rightwinger]

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

So if they refuse to serve negroes, it is their business?

Show me a religion that makes being black a sin, and then we can talk.

Your question

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide?

So should businesses refuse service to blacks if they don’t want to provide?

 

[rightwinger]

That was for overall, not joining objector. Being a medic was an easier route, and usually even more dangerous. And a lot of people faked objector status in Vietnam as opposed to WWII.

And now your anti-religious bias shows, wow, it only took 4 posts.

And refusing taxes is different then saying "I don't want to fight". Again plenty of medics in WWII were objectors, they still went there and risked their lives.

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

He was the one who got the business license, which requires following the rules.Let him surrender his license and go private as an artist. He was the one who advertised wedding cakes, even online. He deliberately hid himself in his advertising while saying that his services were available to the public. If one advertises that s/he creates wedding cakes, this is what one does or surrender the business license.

The only "compelling government interest" involved here is ensuring the free flow of commerce and the lack of discrimination in it.

And that is the crux of the argument

As an individual, you have the right to hate anyone you want.

A business does not have a right to hate

 

[martybegan]

That was for overall, not joining objector. Being a medic was an easier route, and usually even more dangerous. And a lot of people faked objector status in Vietnam as opposed to WWII.

And now your anti-religious bias shows, wow, it only took 4 posts.

And refusing taxes is different then saying "I don't want to fight". Again plenty of medics in WWII were objectors, they still went there and risked their lives.

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

He was the one who got the business license, which requires following the rules.Let him surrender his license and go private as an artist. He was the one who advertised wedding cakes, even online. He deliberately hid himself in his advertising while saying that his services were available to the public. If one advertises that s/he creates wedding cakes, this is what one does or surrender the business license.

The only "compelling government interest" involved here is ensuring the free flow of commerce and the lack of discrimination in it.

Laws cannot override constitutional rights. Free exercise is a right. Do you really want the concept of "Bake or else" applied to everything? Why does a gay couple's butthurt override a religious person's butthurt just because they want to sell something.

Gay Marriage is a new concept. someone could have gone into the wedding cake business under the assumption they would never have had to provide a cake for a gay wedding. Why should they be punished for not wanting to provide this one single service? Why is the only choice do it or do something else?

Are you that ******* petty that you must have everyone think like you, act like you, believe like you, OR ELSE?

So if a Butcher sells meat, ALL butchers must sell pork, even Jewish ones, because pork is a meat?

 

[martybegan]

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

So if they refuse to serve negroes, it is their business?

Show me a religion that makes being black a sin, and then we can talk.

Your question

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide?

So should businesses refuse service to blacks if they don’t want to provide?

The market would handle that on it's own. Government is no longer needed.

Considering I agree with PA laws when it comes to actual PA's, the whole "No Blacks allowed" sign thing would be illegal to me.

 

[martybegan]

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

He was the one who got the business license, which requires following the rules.Let him surrender his license and go private as an artist. He was the one who advertised wedding cakes, even online. He deliberately hid himself in his advertising while saying that his services were available to the public. If one advertises that s/he creates wedding cakes, this is what one does or surrender the business license.

The only "compelling government interest" involved here is ensuring the free flow of commerce and the lack of discrimination in it.

And that is the crux of the argument

As an individual, you have the right to hate anyone you want.

A business does not have a right to hate

Why does a business give up it's constitutional rights automatically just because it it selling something?

 

[Lysistrata]

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

He was the one who got the business license, which requires following the rules.Let him surrender his license and go private as an artist. He was the one who advertised wedding cakes, even online. He deliberately hid himself in his advertising while saying that his services were available to the public. If one advertises that s/he creates wedding cakes, this is what one does or surrender the business license.

The only "compelling government interest" involved here is ensuring the free flow of commerce and the lack of discrimination in it.

Laws cannot override constitutional rights. Free exercise is a right. Do you really want the concept of "Bake or else" applied to everything? Why does a gay couple's butthurt override a religious person's butthurt just because they want to sell something.

Gay Marriage is a new concept. someone could have gone into the wedding cake business under the assumption they would never have had to provide a cake for a gay wedding. Why should they be punished for not wanting to provide this one single service? Why is the only choice do it or do something else?

Are you that ******* petty that you must have everyone think like you, act like you, believe like you, OR ELSE?

So if a Butcher sells meat, ALL butchers must sell pork, even Jewish ones, because pork is a meat?

Oh, poor you. If there is a shift in the wedding-cake business, the business owners have to deal with it as part of their business. It it a very different set of circumstances if a business owner does not stock that product, which means that it is not in-house. I doubt that the local Afghani-run kabob place can get you a pork chop on special order. When one goes into a store expecting to find what one wants to buy (this happened to me yesterday), it is not the store's responsibility to get it for you. They have only what they have in stock.

 

[martybegan]

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the ******* closet"?

Interesting.

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

He was the one who got the business license, which requires following the rules.Let him surrender his license and go private as an artist. He was the one who advertised wedding cakes, even online. He deliberately hid himself in his advertising while saying that his services were available to the public. If one advertises that s/he creates wedding cakes, this is what one does or surrender the business license.

The only "compelling government interest" involved here is ensuring the free flow of commerce and the lack of discrimination in it.

Laws cannot override constitutional rights. Free exercise is a right. Do you really want the concept of "Bake or else" applied to everything? Why does a gay couple's butthurt override a religious person's butthurt just because they want to sell something.

Gay Marriage is a new concept. someone could have gone into the wedding cake business under the assumption they would never have had to provide a cake for a gay wedding. Why should they be punished for not wanting to provide this one single service? Why is the only choice do it or do something else?

Are you that ******* petty that you must have everyone think like you, act like you, believe like you, OR ELSE?

So if a Butcher sells meat, ALL butchers must sell pork, even Jewish ones, because pork is a meat?

Oh, poor you. If there is a shift in the wedding-cake business, the business owners have to deal with it as part of their business. It it a very different set of circumstances if a business owner does not stock that product, which means that it is not in-house. I doubt that the local Afghani-run kabob place can get you a pork chop on special order. When one goes into a store expecting to find what one wants to buy (this happened to me yesterday), it is not the store's responsibility to get it for you. They have only what they have in stock.

I am not the issue here. unlike you i support people's rights even when i disagree with their actions, or would never do what they want to do.

You are drawing an arbitrary line. A wedding cake is a wedding cake, meat is meat. Why does one get a pass an the other not a pass?

Your bias makes you feel like ******* over people you disagree with. Your statism makes you run to government to do your dirty work for you. And your overall asshole nature makes you get some feeling of glee when said people's lives get ruined.

All over a single cake for a single event that the couple in question can easily get somewhere else.

This isn't denying point of sale, this isn't making people not sit at a counter, this is purely spite on your part.

What a miserable human being you must be.

 

[rightwinger]

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

So if they refuse to serve negroes, it is their business?

Show me a religion that makes being black a sin, and then we can talk.

Your question

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide?

So should businesses refuse service to blacks if they don’t want to provide?

The market would handle that on it's own. Government is no longer needed.

Considering I agree with PA laws when it comes to actual PA's, the whole "No Blacks allowed" sign thing would be illegal to me.

The market did not handle it on its own. In practice, Jim Crow America conspired to refuse service to blacks

Same thing is happening with Gay Marriage. They lost the issue in the courts and now are conspiring to prevent service to gay marriage

It does not just apply to cakes. It applies to photography, limos, receiption halls, music, invitations, hotels

 

[martybegan]

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

So if they refuse to serve negroes, it is their business?

Show me a religion that makes being black a sin, and then we can talk.

Your question

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide?

So should businesses refuse service to blacks if they don’t want to provide?

The market would handle that on it's own. Government is no longer needed.

Considering I agree with PA laws when it comes to actual PA's, the whole "No Blacks allowed" sign thing would be illegal to me.

The market did not handle it on its own. In practice, Jim Crow America conspired to refuse service to blacks

Same thing is happening with Gay Marriage. They lost the issue in the courts and now are conspiring to prevent service to gay marriage

It does not just apply to cakes. It applies to photography, limos, receiption halls, music, invitations, hotels

The market before and during the 60's and the market today are two different things.

For contracted services, why is this an issue?

Why should people be forced to endorse a ceremony they don't believe in?

Progressives don't just have to win, they have to crush their opponents and ruin them. What a ******* bunch of pathetic losers you are.

 

[Lysistrata]

Who ever said that. Not all religions are the same. Even considering only the Abrahamic faiths, Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are all divided into separate religions according to their differences in beliefs. There is a very large difference between a southern baptist or an assembly of god and an orthodox.
What I'm saying is that it is up to a practitioner of any religion to make plans for dealing with mainstream society. For example, if one is Jewish or Muslim, don't get a job in a meatpacking plant that handles pork. Please don't apply for a job in a meatpacking plant if you are a vegetarian Hindu.The general public is not obligated in any way to cater to anyone of these people or go around them. It's the attempts by some of these groups to shift the burden of their beliefs on to others that is the problem.

I've seen these cases:

• Seventh Day Adventist can't work on Saturday, but accepts a job at a 24/7 manufacturing company. The labor contract goes by seniority in terms of who gets weekends off. No. He doesn't get to skip to the top of the seniority list. Should a co-worker be required to give up Saturday and work in his place? NOT
• Flight attendant converts to Islam and then refuses to serve alcohol on board. At first, her colleagues took over and then got tired of doing it and complained. Now she's suing her employer.
• Jewish woman manages office that closed at six. Then she wants to leave work on Friday in winter in time to make it home to light the Sabbath candles at sundown and complete the prayers that will lead her family into the Sabbath celebration, as it is tradition that the family matriarch does this. NOPE.

The burden falls on the individual. I have lived within blocks of Orthodox Jewish families, who walked to services on Saturdays and hired people to come switch on their lights when they could not and warm their food, cooked the day before. I have lived near an Amish market that was open from Thursdays through Saturdays, where Amish sold their cheeses, meats, jellies, pretzels. They cannot drive motor vehicles that would bring them down to the DC area from Pennsylvania or wherever, so they hired drivers and trucks.

The people you defend want to push their burdens onto others, yet these burdens are of their own choosing.

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

He was the one who got the business license, which requires following the rules.Let him surrender his license and go private as an artist. He was the one who advertised wedding cakes, even online. He deliberately hid himself in his advertising while saying that his services were available to the public. If one advertises that s/he creates wedding cakes, this is what one does or surrender the business license.

The only "compelling government interest" involved here is ensuring the free flow of commerce and the lack of discrimination in it.

Laws cannot override constitutional rights. Free exercise is a right. Do you really want the concept of "Bake or else" applied to everything? Why does a gay couple's butthurt override a religious person's butthurt just because they want to sell something.

Gay Marriage is a new concept. someone could have gone into the wedding cake business under the assumption they would never have had to provide a cake for a gay wedding. Why should they be punished for not wanting to provide this one single service? Why is the only choice do it or do something else?

Are you that ******* petty that you must have everyone think like you, act like you, believe like you, OR ELSE?

So if a Butcher sells meat, ALL butchers must sell pork, even Jewish ones, because pork is a meat?

Oh, poor you. If there is a shift in the wedding-cake business, the business owners have to deal with it as part of their business. It it a very different set of circumstances if a business owner does not stock that product, which means that it is not in-house. I doubt that the local Afghani-run kabob place can get you a pork chop on special order. When one goes into a store expecting to find what one wants to buy (this happened to me yesterday), it is not the store's responsibility to get it for you. They have only what they have in stock.

I am not the issue here. unlike you i support people's rights even when i disagree with their actions, or would never do what they want to do.

You are drawing an arbitrary line. A wedding cake is a wedding cake, meat is meat. Why does one get a pass an the other not a pass?

Your bias makes you feel like ******* over people you disagree with. Your statism makes you run to government to do your dirty work for you. And your overall asshole nature makes you get some feeling of glee when said people's lives get ruined.

All over a single cake for a single event that the couple in question can easily get somewhere else.

This isn't denying point of sale, this isn't making people not sit at a counter, this is purely spite on your part.

What a miserable human being you must be.

In spite of your insults, this turns on what a business has in stock and what crafts one advertises and then fails to do. the rest of your comment is horseshit.

 

[martybegan]

Why should a person who owns their own business be forced to provide a good or service they don't want to provide? All of your examples are about employers and employees, not a private business wholly owned by a certain persons or person.

In the cases above, the worst thing that happens is the person loses their job. They are not fined for their acts, they are not told they can never work again in a field similar to the one they just got fired from. In the cake cases the government has said either bake a cake for this, or never bake cakes again. And by the way here's a 400k fine for hurting someone's feelings.

What the people I "defend' want to do is not provide one particular type of service, and just that one. They all agree that they can't deny walk in/generic/point of sale items to people just because they are gay. They just don't want to be part of a ceremony they find sinful and against their religion.

This service is non critical, it is not time-sensitive, and it can easily be gotten by another provider. This is not about accommodation by employers as you state above, this is about a person's freedom to engage in commerce and not have to violate their morals. The government can have a say in which cases are valid or not, but based on the 1st amendment and free exercise, they must defer to a person's religious exercise unless a compelling government interest can be found. And even then they must rectify the situation using the least intrusive method possible.

He was the one who got the business license, which requires following the rules.Let him surrender his license and go private as an artist. He was the one who advertised wedding cakes, even online. He deliberately hid himself in his advertising while saying that his services were available to the public. If one advertises that s/he creates wedding cakes, this is what one does or surrender the business license.

The only "compelling government interest" involved here is ensuring the free flow of commerce and the lack of discrimination in it.

Laws cannot override constitutional rights. Free exercise is a right. Do you really want the concept of "Bake or else" applied to everything? Why does a gay couple's butthurt override a religious person's butthurt just because they want to sell something.

Gay Marriage is a new concept. someone could have gone into the wedding cake business under the assumption they would never have had to provide a cake for a gay wedding. Why should they be punished for not wanting to provide this one single service? Why is the only choice do it or do something else?

Are you that ******* petty that you must have everyone think like you, act like you, believe like you, OR ELSE?

So if a Butcher sells meat, ALL butchers must sell pork, even Jewish ones, because pork is a meat?

Oh, poor you. If there is a shift in the wedding-cake business, the business owners have to deal with it as part of their business. It it a very different set of circumstances if a business owner does not stock that product, which means that it is not in-house. I doubt that the local Afghani-run kabob place can get you a pork chop on special order. When one goes into a store expecting to find what one wants to buy (this happened to me yesterday), it is not the store's responsibility to get it for you. They have only what they have in stock.

I am not the issue here. unlike you i support people's rights even when i disagree with their actions, or would never do what they want to do.

You are drawing an arbitrary line. A wedding cake is a wedding cake, meat is meat. Why does one get a pass an the other not a pass?

Your bias makes you feel like ******* over people you disagree with. Your statism makes you run to government to do your dirty work for you. And your overall asshole nature makes you get some feeling of glee when said people's lives get ruined.

All over a single cake for a single event that the couple in question can easily get somewhere else.

This isn't denying point of sale, this isn't making people not sit at a counter, this is purely spite on your part.

What a miserable human being you must be.

In spite of your insults, this turns on what a business has in stock and what crafts one advertises and then fails to do. the rest of your comment is horseshit.

A meaningless point. If a wedding cake is a wedding cake, why isn't meat meat? Until recently there WAS no such thing a same sex marriage. Why is there a need by progressives to not only win when it comes to government, but to force everyone to live how YOU want to live OR ELSE.

And as an aside, I SUPPORTED New York passing legislation to legalize Same sex marriage. I would probably support States making plural marriage legal as well, via legislative action. My issue has always been FORCING States to issue SSM licenses via court action,and FORCING people to provide services they don't want to under penalty of fine and losing their businesses.

And as I said before when it comes to actual point of sale transactions, I SUPPORT PA laws. I support PA laws when it comes to things like Hotel rooms and such. What I don't support is extending PA laws to things like ******* wedding cakes orders weeks or months in advance, that can be gotten from someone else just as easily, in order to fill the void in progressive's souls that requires them to not only get what they want from the government, but force others to act like them and think like them OR ELSE.

Get that through your thug head?