Here's why religious restoration acts are repressive

[AvgGuyIA]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Precisely. This needs to go to the SCOTUS and that point argued. Or states call a Constutional convention and fix it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Even if a Christian were forced against their will to perform wedding services for a gay couple it is understandable that the couple would always question the level of service and suspect it was deficient.

If someone told me they were unwilling to perform that service and only did so because they were forced to it I would always think that there was something that could have been better.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

No, baking a cake or arranging flowers for a same sex wedding is sinful and corrupt. The same sex marriage is sinful and corrupt. Enabling it and participating in it should be voluntary.
Or should we force people who are against capital punishment for religious reasons to prepare the execution room?

Baking and floral arraigning are not holy rites or sacramental rituals. They are, in fact, the stock and trade of merchants who happen to be bakers and florists.

Yes they are and compromising your religious beliefs should be voluntary. I think civil unions are fine but homosexual marriages are an abomination. I refuse to participate in an abomination. Your mileage may vary.

No one is asking these wedding vendors to participate in anything. Bakers do not participate in the wedding. They bake, decorate and deliver a cake. Period.

Ya know who DOES participate? The wedding party, perhaps a clergyman or a municipal official or a captain on the high seas. The invited guests participate. But the vendors are plying their trade, not officiating, participating or approving the wedding.

If I believe that providing a cake or flowers is participating, who are you to say it is not?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The free exercise of my religion prohibits my participation.

Yours may not. By all means, bake a cake. I have no problem with how you practice your faith.

You have a presidanse. SCOTUS affirmed 1st amendment right for corporations. That was for Speech. It's not hard to apply that to Religion.

Let's go,for it. We have injured parties to the PA law as the Left is applying it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Even if a Christian were forced against their will to perform wedding services for a gay couple it is understandable that the couple would always question the level of service and suspect it was deficient.

If someone told me they were unwilling to perform that service and only did so because they were forced to it I would always think that there was something that could have been better.

Frankly, I wouldn't consider eating something cooked for me by someone against their will, but maybe that's just me.

Of course, we all know that couple had no intention of ever actually getting a wedding cake from that bakery. They just wanted to have a public hissy fit.

 

[dblack]

But if you operate a licensed business offering services to the public, your 'right' to discriminate against a group you deem unworthy of your services ends when you open your shop for business. Otherwise, other ersatz Christians can start discriminating against other groups as they hide behind their peculiar dogma.

You're just repeating the law. The debate is whether this is justified or not.

 

[Zander]

Even if a Christian were forced against their will to perform wedding services for a gay couple it is understandable that the couple would always question the level of service and suspect it was deficient.

If someone told me they were unwilling to perform that service and only did so because they were forced to it I would always think that there was something that could have been better.

No kidding!!

If I were forced to bake a homo-cake against my will......it'd be a doozy! Like this one....

 

[bodecea]

You don't get to redefine Christian beliefs to suit yourself or your agenda.

Nor do people who "suddenly" find it part of their religion to deny business services to their fellow law-abiding citizens.

 

[bodecea]

Even if a Christian were forced against their will to perform wedding services for a gay couple it is understandable that the couple would always question the level of service and suspect it was deficient.

If someone told me they were unwilling to perform that service and only did so because they were forced to it I would always think that there was something that could have been better.

No kidding!!

If I were forced to bake a homo-cake against my will......it'd be a doozy! Like this one....

I'm sure you would. It's part of your religion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Denying normal business services provided to everybody else except those you do not like religiously is not going to withstand constitutional review.

 

[Katzndogz]

Can a prostitute be raped? If a prostitute refuses to service a particular john and he rapes her does his leaving money on her body make the rape not have happened?

 

[dblack]

Denying normal business services provided to everybody else except those you do not like religiously is not going to withstand constitutional review.

Do you have any opinions? Arguments? Or just empty predictions?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Denying normal business services provided to everybody else except those you do not like religiously is not going to withstand constitutional review.

Do you have any opinions? Arguments? Or just empty predictions?

I thought I would post as you do. It's liberating!

 

[dblack]

Denying normal business services provided to everybody else except those you do not like religiously is not going to withstand constitutional review.

Do you have any opinions? Arguments? Or just empty predictions?

I thought I would post as you do. It's liberating!

Oh, good. Then maybe you'll start making genuine arguments for your positions instead of tedious taunts and asinine remarks. Let's start with this. Why are you opposed to religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws?

My point of view is that they are actually a perversion of the first amendment, and ironically indulge the same corporatist, interest-group politics that drive the anti-discrimination laws in the first place. Protected classes and PA laws are an affront to the basic freedom of conscience of everyone. But giving religious people and opt-out is simply divide-and-conquer. It actually makes it the intrusive civil rights legislation that much harder to repeal. If we're going to have bad laws, everyone should suffer equally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

1. Religious liberty, which is based on private association, does not extend into the public square. You can't act like an asshole to people you don't like and deny them services and goods that you give to everyone else.

2. Protected classes and PA laws are necessary because of pricks like you and guarantee basic civil liberties to everyone.

3. No one is denied to believe whatever they wish. You can worship the Mole God, dblack, and none will come and make you afraid.

 

[dblack]

1. Religious liberty, which is based on private association, does not extend into the public square. You can't act like an asshole to people you don't like and deny them services and goods that you give to everyone else.

The 'public square' consists of public property. Private property doesn't become "public" merely because people are trading.

Protected classes and PA laws are necessary because of pricks like you and guarantee basic civil liberties to everyone.

You don't know me at all. What civil liberties to PA laws protect? Is there an inalienable right to be treated the same as everyone else?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, your arguments fail, dblack. When business is doing services and goods in public, guess what? It's public.

Sure I know you. You are an online prick. Which is your right, but I will call you on it. You can be a prick, and it comes with a price.

In public, of course there is a basic level of treatment. That's what CRA was about. That is what marriage equality is about.

You sound like a brain dead libertarian.

 

[dblack]

Nope, your arguments fail, dblack. When business is doing services and goods in public, guess what? It's public.

Sure I know you. You are an online prick. Which is your right, but I will call you on it. You can be a prick, and it comes with a price.

In public, of course there is a basic level of treatment. That's what CRA was about. That is what marriage equality is about.

You sound like a brain dead libertarian.

Yeah. Nothing but insults. I figgered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your objections were routed, and you were treated as you deserved.

Act like a smarmy libertarian, be treated as such.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Whats the big deal with treating all customers the same regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientaion?

Most of America has no problem doing it

Great! Go buy your cake from one of them.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

[Business does not have the right when offering service and goods to the entire public to discriminate against any of that public based on religious values.

Well, you're wrong. Businesses even have Freedom of Speech (buying campaign commercials). We have a very good case for this "clause" too. See you in court.