If Gays Are Allowed to Target and Discriminate Against Christian Businesses. . . .

[WorldWatcher]

Uhh..that case is about the head of the Baptist association for the preservation of white people...not allowing black people to eat at their restaurant....that is CLEARLY discrimination...and not even remotely close to what I was talking about.

The PA laws do not say you have to serve every customer that walks into your establishment, it just says you can't discriminate based on a protected status, again, I contend the bakery was only practicing a religious observance, and not discrimination.

Did you miss the part where the owner of Piggie Park said it was against his religion to serve black people?

How about Bob Jones University and their discrimination, it was against their religion.

Or maybe the Muslim taxi drivers that refused to pick up people with dogs (including the disabled with service dogs). Having anything to do with dogs is against their religion.



They made exactly the same claim as Mr. Phillips did. That serving someone equally was against their religion. They lost.


.>>>>

 

[ThisIsMe]

Uhh..that case is about the head of the Baptist association for the preservation of white people...not allowing black people to eat at their restaurant....that is CLEARLY discrimination...and not even remotely close to what I was talking about.

The PA laws do not say you have to serve every customer that walks into your establishment, it just says you can't discriminate based on a protected status, again, I contend the bakery was only practicing a religious observance, and not discrimination.

Did you miss the part where the owner of Piggie Park said it was against his religion to serve black people?

How about Bob Jones University and their discrimination, it was against their religion.

Or maybe the Muslim taxi drivers that refused to pick up people with dogs (including the disabled with service dogs). Having anything to do with dogs is against their religion.



They made exactly the same claim as Mr. Phillips did. That serving someone equally was against their religion. They lost.


.>>>>

In the case of piggy park, its said that they are of the Baptist faith. I'm not aware of any part of the Baptist faith that refuses people of any color. In this case, this observation is something they just made up and not part of any documented belief.

Not too familiar with BobJones, but the quick reading shows they didn't allow black students until 1970 or interracial dating until 2000. Again, something not found in the Bible, so they were wrong.

Yes, the bible does have some parts about interracial marriage, but this was not about skin color, but about not marrying into another group that would try to lead them away from their faith.

The issue with the taxi happened in the UK, so doesnt apply in this case. What happens in other countries is according to their laws, not ours. The difference between the bakery and the cab driver, however, is that as a cab driver, you are working for someone else, so you have to do as they tell you, the bakery, on the other hand, if the owners want to exercise their religious liberties, then that is their right. Had the cab driver been the owner of the cab, then that would have been in his right.

What you guys are trying to say is that anyone who practices a religion has no protection, which is not the case. The constitution specifically says that government will make no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

[Seawytch]

Uhh..that case is about the head of the Baptist association for the preservation of white people...not allowing black people to eat at their restaurant....that is CLEARLY discrimination...and not even remotely close to what I was talking about.

The PA laws do not say you have to serve every customer that walks into your establishment, it just says you can't discriminate based on a protected status, again, I contend the bakery was only practicing a religious observance, and not discrimination.

Did you miss the part where the owner of Piggie Park said it was against his religion to serve black people?

How about Bob Jones University and their discrimination, it was against their religion.

Or maybe the Muslim taxi drivers that refused to pick up people with dogs (including the disabled with service dogs). Having anything to do with dogs is against their religion.



They made exactly the same claim as Mr. Phillips did. That serving someone equally was against their religion. They lost.


.>>>>

In the case of piggy park, its said that they are of the Baptist faith. I'm not aware of any part of the Baptist faith that refuses people of any color. In this case, this observation is something they just made up and not part of any documented belief.

Not too familiar with BobJones, but the quick reading shows they didn't allow black students until 1970 or interracial dating until 2000. Again, something not found in the Bible, so they were wrong.

Yes, the bible does have some parts about interracial marriage, but this was not about skin color, but about not marrying into another group that would try to lead them away from their faith.

The issue with the taxi happened in the UK, so doesnt apply in this case. What happens in other countries is according to their laws, not ours. The difference between the bakery and the cab driver, however, is that as a cab driver, you are working for someone else, so you have to do as they tell you, the bakery, on the other hand, if the owners want to exercise their religious liberties, then that is their right. Had the cab driver been the owner of the cab, then that would have been in his right.

What you guys are trying to say is that anyone who practices a religion has no protection, which is not the case. The constitution specifically says that government will make no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

No, what we are saying is that racists didn't get religious exemptions, despite it being their "deeply held religious belief" that blacks and whites must remain separate..

And again, no, the Muslim taxi driver issue was not the UK.

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

 

[ThisIsMe]

Uhh..that case is about the head of the Baptist association for the preservation of white people...not allowing black people to eat at their restaurant....that is CLEARLY discrimination...and not even remotely close to what I was talking about.

The PA laws do not say you have to serve every customer that walks into your establishment, it just says you can't discriminate based on a protected status, again, I contend the bakery was only practicing a religious observance, and not discrimination.

Did you miss the part where the owner of Piggie Park said it was against his religion to serve black people?

How about Bob Jones University and their discrimination, it was against their religion.

Or maybe the Muslim taxi drivers that refused to pick up people with dogs (including the disabled with service dogs). Having anything to do with dogs is against their religion.



They made exactly the same claim as Mr. Phillips did. That serving someone equally was against their religion. They lost.


.>>>>

In the case of piggy park, its said that they are of the Baptist faith. I'm not aware of any part of the Baptist faith that refuses people of any color. In this case, this observation is something they just made up and not part of any documented belief.

Not too familiar with BobJones, but the quick reading shows they didn't allow black students until 1970 or interracial dating until 2000. Again, something not found in the Bible, so they were wrong.

Yes, the bible does have some parts about interracial marriage, but this was not about skin color, but about not marrying into another group that would try to lead them away from their faith.

The issue with the taxi happened in the UK, so doesnt apply in this case. What happens in other countries is according to their laws, not ours. The difference between the bakery and the cab driver, however, is that as a cab driver, you are working for someone else, so you have to do as they tell you, the bakery, on the other hand, if the owners want to exercise their religious liberties, then that is their right. Had the cab driver been the owner of the cab, then that would have been in his right.

What you guys are trying to say is that anyone who practices a religion has no protection, which is not the case. The constitution specifically says that government will make no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

No, what we are saying is that racists didn't get religious exemptions, despite it being their "deeply held religious belief" that blacks and whites must remain separate..

And again, no, the Muslim taxi driver issue was not the UK.

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

But the Baptist religion doesnt have a deeply held religious belief that they can't associate with people of other nationalities, so again, they were wrong and they were just making stuff up.

I apologize, I was reading a different story about the taxi driver. There was another article that happened in the UK.

So, I don't know much about muslims, but the article says they claim that transporting alcohol, and the saliva from a dog are a sin. So, if what I'm to understand, people of faith are supposed to ignore their own rules to accommodate others?

I get it, what you have is a group of people who dont want to respect the beliefs of others, but expect them to conform to their way of thinking. This gay couple could have simply recognized that this business had an issue doing the job based on their religious beliefs, and found another business, but, they wanted to make a fuss over it. They did not respect the religious belief of the bakery, but fully expect the bakery to respect their lifestyle.

I dont know what was going on in the mind of the gay couple, but they immediately jumped to "I was discriminated against", rather than taking a little self reflection and thinking "ok, they are people of faith, and their faith doesnt agree with my lifestyle, I can respect that", and move on.

 

[WorldWatcher]

In the case of piggy park, its said that they are of the Baptist faith. I'm not aware of any part of the Baptist faith that refuses people of any color. In this case, this observation is something they just made up and not part of any documented belief.

Not too familiar with BobJones, but the quick reading shows they didn't allow black students until 1970 or interracial dating until 2000. Again, something not found in the Bible, so they were wrong.

Yes, the bible does have some parts about interracial marriage, but this was not about skin color, but about not marrying into another group that would try to lead them away from their faith.

Personal religious beliefs to not have to confirm to something someone else agrees with an an essential element of larger organizaed religion. This is spelled out in the United States Code.

Religous beliefs to not have to conform with the bible.

(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–5 - Definitions

The issue with the taxi happened in the UK, so doesnt apply in this case.
What happens in other countries is according to their laws, not ours. The difference between the bakery and the cab driver, however, is that as a cab driver, you are working for someone else, so you have to do as they tell you, the bakery, on the other hand, if the owners want to exercise their religious liberties, then that is their right. Had the cab driver been the owner of the cab, then that would have been in his right.

Minnesotra is in the US, not the UK.

What you guys are trying to say is that anyone who practices a religion has no protection, which is not the case. The constitution specifically says that government will make no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Wrong.

I'm saying that private business owners should be treated equally under the law. WHat you want under current law is for Christian owners to be able to refuse service to gays, but a gay shop owner can't refuse service to Christian under both State and Federal laws.

What I want is...

The Christian owners to be able to discriminate against gays...
The Gay shop owner to be able to discriminate against an outspoken Christian...
The redneck shop owner to be able to refuse service to Mexicans...
The resist shop owner to be able to refuse service to blacks...
etc.
etc.

I want PA laws repealed and rights property and association of ALL shop owners restored.

.>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Uhh..that case is about the head of the Baptist association for the preservation of white people...not allowing black people to eat at their restaurant....that is CLEARLY discrimination...and not even remotely close to what I was talking about.

The PA laws do not say you have to serve every customer that walks into your establishment, it just says you can't discriminate based on a protected status, again, I contend the bakery was only practicing a religious observance, and not discrimination.

Did you miss the part where the owner of Piggie Park said it was against his religion to serve black people?

How about Bob Jones University and their discrimination, it was against their religion.

Or maybe the Muslim taxi drivers that refused to pick up people with dogs (including the disabled with service dogs). Having anything to do with dogs is against their religion.



They made exactly the same claim as Mr. Phillips did. That serving someone equally was against their religion. They lost.


.>>>>

In the case of piggy park, its said that they are of the Baptist faith. I'm not aware of any part of the Baptist faith that refuses people of any color. In this case, this observation is something they just made up and not part of any documented belief.

Not too familiar with BobJones, but the quick reading shows they didn't allow black students until 1970 or interracial dating until 2000. Again, something not found in the Bible, so they were wrong.

Yes, the bible does have some parts about interracial marriage, but this was not about skin color, but about not marrying into another group that would try to lead them away from their faith.

The issue with the taxi happened in the UK, so doesnt apply in this case. What happens in other countries is according to their laws, not ours. The difference between the bakery and the cab driver, however, is that as a cab driver, you are working for someone else, so you have to do as they tell you, the bakery, on the other hand, if the owners want to exercise their religious liberties, then that is their right. Had the cab driver been the owner of the cab, then that would have been in his right.

What you guys are trying to say is that anyone who practices a religion has no protection, which is not the case. The constitution specifically says that government will make no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

No, what we are saying is that racists didn't get religious exemptions, despite it being their "deeply held religious belief" that blacks and whites must remain separate..

And again, no, the Muslim taxi driver issue was not the UK.

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

But the Baptist religion doesnt have a deeply held religious belief that they can't associate with people of other nationalities, so again, they were wrong and they were just making stuff up.

I apologize, I was reading a different story about the taxi driver. There was another article that happened in the UK.

So, I don't know much about muslims, but the article says they claim that transporting alcohol, and the saliva from a dog are a sin. So, if what I'm to understand, people of faith are supposed to ignore their own rules to accommodate others?

I get it, what you have is a group of people who dont want to respect the beliefs of others, but expect them to conform to their way of thinking. This gay couple could have simply recognized that this business had an issue doing the job based on their religious beliefs, and found another business, but, they wanted to make a fuss over it. They did not respect the religious belief of the bakery, but fully expect the bakery to respect their lifestyle.

I dont know what was going on in the mind of the gay couple, but they immediately jumped to "I was discriminated against", rather than taking a little self reflection and thinking "ok, they are people of faith, and their faith doesnt agree with my lifestyle, I can respect that", and move on.

Yes they did. You don't get to decide someone else's religious beliefs. It doesn't matter if YOU believe it, they did. The SCOTUS did not rule that the bible didn't support their claim.

The Muslims lost their case too. If your religion prohibits you from performing your job, find another one.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes they did. You don't get to decide someone else's religious beliefs. It doesn't matter if YOU believe it, they did. The SCOTUS did not rule that the bible didn't support their claim.

The Muslims lost their case too. If your religion prohibits you from performing your job, find another one.

Kennedy said that the Christian cannot be punished in the marketplace for exercising his 1st Amendment rights. So we have two cases that Findings are diametrically opposed to each other. The USSC is going to have to resolve that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

In the case of piggy park, its said that they are of the Baptist faith. I'm not aware of any part of the Baptist faith that refuses people of any color. In this case, this observation is something they just made up and not part of any documented belief.

Not too familiar with BobJones, but the quick reading shows they didn't allow black students until 1970 or interracial dating until 2000. Again, something not found in the Bible, so they were wrong.

Yes, the bible does have some parts about interracial marriage, but this was not about skin color, but about not marrying into another group that would try to lead them away from their faith.

Personal religious beliefs to not have to confirm to something someone else agrees with an an essential element of larger organizaed religion. This is spelled out in the United States Code.

Religous beliefs to not have to conform with the bible.

(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

42 U.S. Code § 2000cc–5 - Definitions

The issue with the taxi happened in the UK, so doesnt apply in this case.
What happens in other countries is according to their laws, not ours. The difference between the bakery and the cab driver, however, is that as a cab driver, you are working for someone else, so you have to do as they tell you, the bakery, on the other hand, if the owners want to exercise their religious liberties, then that is their right. Had the cab driver been the owner of the cab, then that would have been in his right.

Minnesotra is in the US, not the UK.

What you guys are trying to say is that anyone who practices a religion has no protection, which is not the case. The constitution specifically says that government will make no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Wrong.

I'm saying that private business owners should be treated equally under the law. WHat you want under current law is for Christian owners to be able to refuse service to gays, but a gay shop owner can't refuse service to Christian under both State and Federal laws.

What I want is...

The Christian owners to be able to discriminate against gays...
The Gay shop owner to be able to discriminate against an outspoken Christian...
The redneck shop owner to be able to refuse service to Mexicans...
The resist shop owner to be able to refuse service to blacks...
etc.
etc.

I want PA laws repealed and rights property and association of ALL shop owners restored.

.>>>>

If a religion does not conform to their written scripture, then it's not really religion is it? I mean if one wants.to make up their own terms, I suppose they can, but it wouldn't be within the confines of an established religion. I dont believe one can call themselves aChristian, but then not practice what the bible teaches, and make up their own rules.

I already recognized the article he was talking about was not the one I read. There was another, almost exact scenario happen in the UK. .

I do not want business owners to be able to refuse business to anyone, unless they are exercising a protected right under the constitution, which freedom of religion, and freedom to practice religion, is.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Uhh..that case is about the head of the Baptist association for the preservation of white people...not allowing black people to eat at their restaurant....that is CLEARLY discrimination...and not even remotely close to what I was talking about.

The PA laws do not say you have to serve every customer that walks into your establishment, it just says you can't discriminate based on a protected status, again, I contend the bakery was only practicing a religious observance, and not discrimination.

Did you miss the part where the owner of Piggie Park said it was against his religion to serve black people?

How about Bob Jones University and their discrimination, it was against their religion.

Or maybe the Muslim taxi drivers that refused to pick up people with dogs (including the disabled with service dogs). Having anything to do with dogs is against their religion.



They made exactly the same claim as Mr. Phillips did. That serving someone equally was against their religion. They lost.


.>>>>

In the case of piggy park, its said that they are of the Baptist faith. I'm not aware of any part of the Baptist faith that refuses people of any color. In this case, this observation is something they just made up and not part of any documented belief.

Not too familiar with BobJones, but the quick reading shows they didn't allow black students until 1970 or interracial dating until 2000. Again, something not found in the Bible, so they were wrong.

Yes, the bible does have some parts about interracial marriage, but this was not about skin color, but about not marrying into another group that would try to lead them away from their faith.

The issue with the taxi happened in the UK, so doesnt apply in this case. What happens in other countries is according to their laws, not ours. The difference between the bakery and the cab driver, however, is that as a cab driver, you are working for someone else, so you have to do as they tell you, the bakery, on the other hand, if the owners want to exercise their religious liberties, then that is their right. Had the cab driver been the owner of the cab, then that would have been in his right.

What you guys are trying to say is that anyone who practices a religion has no protection, which is not the case. The constitution specifically says that government will make no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

No, what we are saying is that racists didn't get religious exemptions, despite it being their "deeply held religious belief" that blacks and whites must remain separate..

And again, no, the Muslim taxi driver issue was not the UK.

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs

But the Baptist religion doesnt have a deeply held religious belief that they can't associate with people of other nationalities, so again, they were wrong and they were just making stuff up.

I apologize, I was reading a different story about the taxi driver. There was another article that happened in the UK.

So, I don't know much about muslims, but the article says they claim that transporting alcohol, and the saliva from a dog are a sin. So, if what I'm to understand, people of faith are supposed to ignore their own rules to accommodate others?

I get it, what you have is a group of people who dont want to respect the beliefs of others, but expect them to conform to their way of thinking. This gay couple could have simply recognized that this business had an issue doing the job based on their religious beliefs, and found another business, but, they wanted to make a fuss over it. They did not respect the religious belief of the bakery, but fully expect the bakery to respect their lifestyle.

I dont know what was going on in the mind of the gay couple, but they immediately jumped to "I was discriminated against", rather than taking a little self reflection and thinking "ok, they are people of faith, and their faith doesnt agree with my lifestyle, I can respect that", and move on.

Yes they did. You don't get to decide someone else's religious beliefs. It doesn't matter if YOU believe it, they did. The SCOTUS did not rule that the bible didn't support their claim.

The Muslims lost their case too. If your religion prohibits you from performing your job, find another one.

But the bakery didn't actually lose this case. Scotus ultimately sided with them.

In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

An excerpt from that article:

"The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection."

So they noted the hostility toward his sincere religious objection. Sounds to me as if they are saying that sincere religious objection is a credible argument.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If a religion does not conform to their written scripture, then it's not really religion is it? I mean if one wants.to make up their own terms, I suppose they can, but it wouldn't be within the confines of an established religion. I dont believe one can call themselves aChristian, but then not practice what the bible teaches, and make up their own rules.

Under federal law (linked previously), an individuals religious beliefs to NOT have to confirm to an established religion.

Religous beliefs to not have to conform with the bible.

(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

I do not want business owners to be able to refuse business to anyone, unless they are exercising a protected right under the constitution, which freedom of religion, and freedom to practice religion, is.

See that's the difference. You appear to support big government overreach as long as you agree with the personal motivations of the person doing the discriminating and want special rights for someone to hide behind religion as an excuse (although it didn't work for the owners of Piggie Park, Bob Jones University, or Minnesota Taxi drivers).

I think under rights of property and association private entities should be able to refuse service for any reason they want. Yes it will be messy at times, but just is the price of individual liberty and freedom.

I think all people should be treated equally, others don't unless it is their ox being gored.


.>>>>

 

[ThisIsMe]

If a religion does not conform to their written scripture, then it's not really religion is it? I mean if one wants.to make up their own terms, I suppose they can, but it wouldn't be within the confines of an established religion. I dont believe one can call themselves aChristian, but then not practice what the bible teaches, and make up their own rules.

Under federal law (linked previously), an individuals religious beliefs to NOT have to confirm to an established religion.

Religous beliefs to not have to conform with the bible.

(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.

I do not want business owners to be able to refuse business to anyone, unless they are exercising a protected right under the constitution, which freedom of religion, and freedom to practice religion, is.

See that's the difference. You appear to support big government overreach as long as you agree with the personal motivations of the person doing the discriminating and want special rights for someone to hide behind religion as an excuse (although it didn't work for the owners of Piggie Park, Bob Jones University, or Minnesota Taxi drivers).

I think under rights of property and association private entities should be able to refuse service for any reason they want. Yes it will be messy at times, but just is the price of individual liberty and freedom.

I think all people should be treated equally, others don't unless it is their ox being gored.


.>>>>

So, the code you cited is pertaining to the use of land for religious activities. Or the rights of institutionalized people to practice religion. I'm no lawyer so I'll defer to your judgment here, but I do wonder if that definition is all encompassing, or only related to the specific dialogue in that code.

Quite the opposite as far as government overreach. My aim is to keep government out of the process and let people practice as they choose, as long as they are not truly discriminating. Again, this opens up the possibility for abuse, because your never know if someone was truly exercising a religious observation, or just hiding behind it to simply discriminate...

In the case of the bakery, after deliberation, it appears they came to the conclusion that the Baker was showing a sincere objection based on a religious belief.

I think you and I are actually on the same side of this. I want people to have more freedoms, and I think "pc" has done nothing good for the nation. People are afraid of labels, and some perceived repercussion from that label. Perhaps if we all just grow up and have abackbone, and not care what someone else calls you, or thinks of you, we would all be better off.

 

[Silhouette]

I think you and I are actually on the same side of this. I want people to have more freedoms, and I think "pc" has done nothing good for the nation. People are afraid of labels, and some perceived repercussion from that label. Perhaps if we all just grow up and have abackbone, and not care what someone else calls you, or thinks of you, we would all be better off.

You mean when it comes to behaviors right? Or the other class: innate, like race or gender? You think "darkies" ought to sit at the far end of the lunch counter? Or is their skin color something they can't help?

Conversely, people could reject the black people if they did say, deviant sex parades where they invited kids to watch, yes? Then if those folks wanted ANY product perceived to help or facilitate them spreading their lifestyle "as normal" in society, the proprietor says "no". Religion or none. (That's because in this particular example there are laws on the books in all 50 states forbidding aiding child sex crimes).

For instance. As the difference between innate discrimination and BEHAVIORAL discrimination. I think the USSC is going to make this distinction because it really does make all the difference in the world. I mean if we've set "you can do deviant sex stuff in front of kids" as the bar, then what other group behaviors could we ban if the 14th says "all are equal"? Yeah, the USSC is going to have to do something about that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So, the code you cited is pertaining to the use of land for religious activities. Or the rights of institutionalized people to practice religion. I'm no lawyer so I'll defer to your judgment here, but I do wonder if that definition is all encompassing, or only related to the specific dialogue in that code.

Quite the opposite as far as government overreach. My aim is to keep government out of the process and let people practice as they choose, as long as they are not truly discriminating. Again, this opens up the possibility for abuse, because your never know if someone was truly exercising a religious observation, or just hiding behind it to simply discriminate...

In the case of the bakery, after deliberation, it appears they came to the conclusion that the Baker was showing a sincere objection based on a religious belief.

I think you and I are actually on the same side of this. I want people to have more freedoms, and I think "pc" has done nothing good for the nation. People are afraid of labels, and some perceived repercussion from that label. Perhaps if we all just grow up and have abackbone, and not care what someone else calls you, or thinks of you, we would all be better off.

Pretty close, but you only want freedom of religion, so that people can discriminate based on their personal beliefs - well personal beliefs as long as they are religion based. Remember "religion based" not "it says or doesn't' say it in the Bible" as not all religions are based on the Bible and anyone can interpret the Bible in their own way.


I want equal treatment under the law for all private business owners. The law is not functioning equally when someone can claim religious beliefs and turn away homosexuals (or blacks/interracial couples [like Piggie Park and Bob Jones University or disabled people like the Muslim cab drivers) and yet a gay business owner cannot refuse service to a particular customer because of the customers religious beliefs.

That is what it appears you are advocating for when you want a religious exemption to generally applicable laws. I think rights of property and association should be restored to all business owners to refuse service for whatever reason they want. Let the market then sit in judgement of their behavior.


.>>>>

 

[ThisIsMe]

So, the code you cited is pertaining to the use of land for religious activities. Or the rights of institutionalized people to practice religion. I'm no lawyer so I'll defer to your judgment here, but I do wonder if that definition is all encompassing, or only related to the specific dialogue in that code.

Quite the opposite as far as government overreach. My aim is to keep government out of the process and let people practice as they choose, as long as they are not truly discriminating. Again, this opens up the possibility for abuse, because your never know if someone was truly exercising a religious observation, or just hiding behind it to simply discriminate...

In the case of the bakery, after deliberation, it appears they came to the conclusion that the Baker was showing a sincere objection based on a religious belief.

I think you and I are actually on the same side of this. I want people to have more freedoms, and I think "pc" has done nothing good for the nation. People are afraid of labels, and some perceived repercussion from that label. Perhaps if we all just grow up and have abackbone, and not care what someone else calls you, or thinks of you, we would all be better off.

Pretty close, but you only want freedom of religion, so that people can discriminate based on their personal beliefs - well personal beliefs as long as they are religion based. Remember "religion based" not "it says or doesn't' say it in the Bible" as not all religions are based on the Bible and anyone can interpret the Bible in their own way.


I want equal treatment under the law for all private business owners. The law is not functioning equally when someone can claim religious beliefs and turn away homosexuals (or blacks/interracial couples [like Piggie Park and Bob Jones University or disabled people like the Muslim cab drivers) and yet a gay business owner cannot refuse service to a particular customer because of the customers religious beliefs.

That is what it appears you are advocating for when you want a religious exemption to generally applicable laws. I think rights of property and association should be restored to all business owners to refuse service for whatever reason they want. Let the market then sit in judgement of their behavior.


.>>>>

No, I dont want people to be able to discriminate based on personal beliefs. I said, if there is a valid religious objection, that is sincere, in other words, if you can point to a precedent in their bible or scripture, then sincere religious objection be allowed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, I dont want people to be able to discriminate based on personal beliefs. I said, if there is a valid religious objection, that is sincere, in other words, if you can point to a precedent in their bible or scripture, then sincere religious objection be allowed.

That is exactly what you want, you want religious people to be able tod refuse service as long as you consider their religious beliefs to be valid. And again, different people interpret the Bible differently and not all religious beliefs are based on the Bible nor do they need to be a central tenant of an established religion to be valid - for that person.

Who are you to say that religious beliefs against blacks aren't valid, while someone else says religious beliefs against gays aren't valid. The owner of Piggie Park, the founders of Bob Jones University, and past treatment of blacks by Mormon's were all valid according to their religious beliefs at the time.

As a function of law, why should religious beliefs be granted an exception to anti-discrimination but other beliefs in discrimination aren't considered valid?



Restore rights of property and association to private business owners and those questions become irrelevant since the owners of private businesses can refuse for any reason - religion based or not.


(NOTE: I'm not condoning discrimination either by a gay shop owner, a christian baker, a redneck racist, etc. - I'm saying it should be beyond the scope of government to interfere with such private business transaction beyond to cause of measurable harm.)


.>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

No, I dont want people to be able to discriminate based on personal beliefs. I said, if there is a valid religious objection, that is sincere, in other words, if you can point to a precedent in their bible or scripture, then sincere religious objection be allowed.

What if I sincerely object to lifestyles & behaviors that like to put on regular deviant sex act parades where they invite kids to watch? I don't have to be religious to follow child protection laws.