For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[NYcarbineer]

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

The Court can protect everyone's rights but only if the Court is allowed to decide what is or isn't a right.

When the claim of a right to discriminate goes up against a claim of a right not to be discriminated against,

the decision has to be based on having decided which right is the legitimate right.

I think it is quite obvious that these people seem to think these laws were designed to "get them." In the mental health field, they have a tem for this. It is called a "persecution complex."

Most of our laws are designed to 'get' people who do certain things.

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

I understood what you said.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think it is quite obvious that these people seem to think these laws were designed to "get them." In the mental health field, they have a tem for this. It is called a "persecution complex."

Most of our laws are designed to 'get' people who do certain things.

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

I know that. These laws are in place to protect people from discriminatory business practices. ALL the people, even the Christians themselves. Only, some of them are too far gone to realize this.

"protecting" nothing but hurt feelings in this case, not actual harm.

You fainting flowers seem to be all big and tough when government does your dirty work, but being told "i'm sorry, we don't provide service X, please go to someone else" ZOMG, the vapors!!!!!

By that logic we should repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

Why isn't polygamy legal then?

 

[paddymurphy]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

You have the test backwards. The Supreme Court specifically held that the compelling governmental interest test does not apply to laws, like the Oregon law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court wrote:

"The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e.g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

… The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 888-89 (citations omitted).

"The Supreme Court has been closely divided on this issue. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, the Court greatly narrowed a 35-year-old constitutional doctrine that had required a government entity to prove that it had a “compelling interest” whenever a generally applicable law was found to infringe on a claimant’s religious beliefs or practices. Under current constitutional law as explained in Smith, a government burden on a religious belief or practice requires little justification as long as the law in question is determined to be generally applicable and does not target a specific religion or religious practice."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

So, the burden is on those challenging a law of general application to prove how it creates a burden on a specific religious belief or practice.

Once again running to 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to do your oppression for you.

Actually, the law was passed by the elected representatives of the people or Oregon. You are the one who wants to unelected judges to exempt bigots from laws that apply to everyone else.

 

[ChrisL]

“Discrimination” suggests that these vendors are being treated differently from other vendors, but that is not the case. If a state or municipality requires that public accommodations be provided equally regardless of sexual orientation, that applies equally to all businesses. There is not some perk or privilege that some businesses enjoy that these anti-gay vendors have been denied access to. Rather than being subjected to “discrimination, they are being held to the same consistent standard as everybody else. If it’s “on the menu” at a public business, all protected classes must have equal access to that accommodation.

Discrimination Is Okay If Other Businesses Can Provide The Service
One of the arguments that proponents of these laws have made is that it’s okay to let one religious business owner discriminate because there will be plenty of other businesses that don’t. Here’s the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro making this point:

This isn’t the Jim Crow South; there are plenty of wedding photographers — over 100 in Albuquerque — and bakeries who would be willing to do business regardless of sexual orientation, and no state is enforcing segregation laws. I bet plenty of Arizona businesses would and do see more customers if they advertised that they welcomed the LGBT community.

Shapiro isn’t wrong, but nondiscrimination protections aren’t just about access; they’re about basic equality. The injustice occurs in the moment when the refusal of service occurs. It’s a message to same-sex couples that they are less than — that they don’t deserve the same access to public goods as other newly forming families. Nondiscrimination protections literally mitigate harm by interrupting stigma. Other vendors can substitute the service, but they can’t undo the harm.

Moreover, Shapiro’s assumptions convey an urban bias. Attitudes toward LGBT people are dramatically improving, but in rural areas, there often aren’t other many options for services. When one Washington lawmaker was trying to legalize discrimination, one of his staffers told a constituent that if gay people in rural areas couldn’t find a grocery store that served them, they “can just grow their own food.” This is not a viable solution to guarantee equal access across society.



Dismantling The Religious Liberty Talking Points Used To Justify Anti-LGBT Discrimination ThinkProgress

 

[teapartysamurai]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

Why isn't polygamy legal then?

Rush said you libs were not going to be happy with gay marriage. Polygamy was next!

Thanks for proving him right!

 

[PratchettFan]

No, they are not. They are being punished for violating a law. You have already agreed that such laws are valid, you just don't think it should go as far as this particular one goes. Unless the courts indicate that such laws violate the Constitution, then people violate them at their own peril. They are not being singled out because of their beliefs, they are being treated exactly as everyone else is being treated.

They are violating the law due to their religious beliefs, and thus being punished for them. You can't separate the two of them. And being singled out or not is meaningless. The law is being used to punish their religious beliefs.

Their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. They are not being punished for their beliefs. They can believe whatever they like. They are being punished for violating the law.

If I believe God wants us to share all property communally, does that exempt me from car theft laws if I drive off with your car?

They are violating the law because of their beliefs. and in your 2nd example, again, there is an actual harm involved, which negates the protections found under the 1st amendment.

As I said, their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. And I am not harming you, I am helping you to understand that all property is a cage and doing you nothing but good. Why would you persecute me?

No, that argument just doesn't stand. I am pretty sure which way a good portion of SCOTUS would want to go on this, but the potential flood gate it would open is significant. My guess is they will refuse to hear the case - though I would really like them to.

If you take my car, I suffer harm. If my feelings are hurt but I still get the product I want with minimal additional effort, I am not harmed, or at least harmed much much less than someone facing a "bake or go away" choice that is an affront to their personal moral code.

I've told you, you don't suffer harm. My not taking it causes you harm and that is my religious belief.

 

[ChrisL]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

Freedom of religion does not include freedom to discriminate. You are still free to practice your religion, choose any religion, attend any church, etc., etc. You just cannot use your "freedom of religion" as an excuse to discriminate against certain sectors of the public when you open a business. If you cannot handle that, then don't open a business, or expect to be sued.

 

[teapartysamurai]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

You have the test backwards. The Supreme Court specifically held that the compelling governmental interest test does not apply to laws, like the Oregon law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court wrote:

"The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e.g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

… The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 888-89 (citations omitted).

"The Supreme Court has been closely divided on this issue. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, the Court greatly narrowed a 35-year-old constitutional doctrine that had required a government entity to prove that it had a “compelling interest” whenever a generally applicable law was found to infringe on a claimant’s religious beliefs or practices. Under current constitutional law as explained in Smith, a government burden on a religious belief or practice requires little justification as long as the law in question is determined to be generally applicable and does not target a specific religion or religious practice."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

So, the burden is on those challenging a law of general application to prove how it creates a burden on a specific religious belief or practice.

Once again running to 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to do your oppression for you.

Actually, the law was passed by the elected representatives of the people or Oregon. You are the one who wants to unelected judges to exempt bigots from laws that apply to everyone else.

Passed in one state and now forced on the rest of the country by unelected judges.

That makes it even worse.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

No, if you are not a religious institution, your religious beliefs are not a good enough reason to discriminate against the public, any portion of the public. You are not being treated any differently from any other business. Get it? Probably not.

Again, why does going into business mean you lose your rights as an american without a compelling government interest?

Who gets to decide what is or is not a compelling interest

And beyond that, it would be terribly unfair to the bigot providing a service of a "compelling interest". I'm a bigot grocer that doesn't want those F word for gay men in my store...how come the baker across the street gets to kick out the queers and I don't?

Necessity and timeliness. Plus point of sale and a contracted service are two different things.

I didn't ask for the basis. I asked who gets to decide.

 

[paddymurphy]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

 

[teapartysamurai]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

Why isn't polygamy legal then?

Rush said you libs were not going to be happy with gay marriage. Polygamy was next!

Thanks for proving him right!

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

 

[paddymurphy]

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

You have the test backwards. The Supreme Court specifically held that the compelling governmental interest test does not apply to laws, like the Oregon law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court wrote:

"The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e.g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

… The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 888-89 (citations omitted).

"The Supreme Court has been closely divided on this issue. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, the Court greatly narrowed a 35-year-old constitutional doctrine that had required a government entity to prove that it had a “compelling interest” whenever a generally applicable law was found to infringe on a claimant’s religious beliefs or practices. Under current constitutional law as explained in Smith, a government burden on a religious belief or practice requires little justification as long as the law in question is determined to be generally applicable and does not target a specific religion or religious practice."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

So, the burden is on those challenging a law of general application to prove how it creates a burden on a specific religious belief or practice.

Once again running to 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to do your oppression for you.

Actually, the law was passed by the elected representatives of the people or Oregon. You are the one who wants to unelected judges to exempt bigots from laws that apply to everyone else.

Passed in one state and now forced on the rest of the country by unelected judges.

That makes it even worse.

What the **** are you talking about? The law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation only applies in Oregon. A few other states and some cities and counties have similar laws. In most of the country, it is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. You ought not comment on things you know so little about.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

Where does religious freedom end, and secular law take over?

 

[paddymurphy]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

The constitution does not say a thing about people being able to ignore laws because they claim that it violates their faith. So, if the Constitution is right, then there should be no exception for religious based refusals to follow the law.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

Why isn't polygamy legal then?

Rush said you libs were not going to be happy with gay marriage. Polygamy was next!

Thanks for proving him right!

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

I'm extremely aware of that. I used to live in Idaho, which is a big Mormon enclave. They still practice polygamy. Trust me.

That issue is what kept Utah from becoming a state for a while. The Feds required them to give up polygamy to become a state.

But one instance of what YOU think is a violation of the 1st Amendment doesn't justify ANOTHER case of violating the 1st Amendment. Nor does it mean we can't fight it.

Who really needs to learn to read?

 

[teapartysamurai]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

And that freedom of religion has never allowed a citizen to simply refuse to follow a law that applies to everyone simply by saying that it violates their faith. Even under the broader test used before Unemployment Division v. Smith, the burden had to be "significant.
"After Sherbert and Yoder, the Court applied the religious-exemption doctrine by examining two questions: Has the government significantly burdened a sincerely motivated religious practice? If so, is the burden justified by a compelling state interest? Increasingly, however, the Court narrowed the concept of a “significant burden” to religion and in a series of decisions throughout the 1980s, the Court rejected many free- exercise claims on this basis. The Court also became more willing to label state interests as “compelling” in cases where religious practice was significantly burdened by a general law."

Well the court is wrong, the Constitution is right.

Wouldn't be the first time the court ignored the Constitution to suit their own biases and agendas.

Where does religious freedom end, and secular law take over?

At the 1ST AMENDMENT, which says you can't pass a law restricting the freedom of religion.

 

[paddymurphy]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

Um, how about they are willing to take it as far as the 1st Amendment??????

You know that freedom of religion part of the Constitution has been around a LOT longer than this bad ruling by the USSC.

Why isn't polygamy legal then?

Rush said you libs were not going to be happy with gay marriage. Polygamy was next!

Thanks for proving him right!

Learn to read.

Polygamy was a core religious belief of the Mormon church.

Why wasn't it protected by the 1st Amendment?

See if you can give a straight answer to that question. I'm betting you can't.

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition