Now with the Colorado ruling saying that religion can override public accommodation laws

[Harpy Eagle]

Idiot, you can't force me to do something I don't want to do.

Same with your bullshit vaccinations.

You have no right to impose ANYTHING on me. Especially not your moronic morality (or lack thereof).

Then it is safe to assume you disagree with the other SCOTUS ruling that said an employer must provide religious accommodations to those that ask for them?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Can I refuse service to anyone wearing a MAGA hat?

Yes.
But only if the MAGA hat wearer demanded you to put a MAGA sign in the store window.

 

[2aguy]

Can I refuse service to anyone wearing a MAGA hat?

You are just dumb enough to not understand that conservatives actually support your Right to serve or not serve anyone you want.......it is assholes like you who think the government should be able to order people to do what the left wants.....which, of course, means allowing you to discriminate based on race or any number of attributes...remember, it was the democrats who created jim crow...not republicans....

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You realize this was a First Amendment case, and that's about speech.

Owning a restaurant and then "refusing to serve black people" (!) is not "speech".

Neither is making a cake or a website.

 

[2aguy]

Then it is safe to assume you disagree with the other SCOTUS ruling that said an employer must provide religious accommodations to those that ask for them?

I agree with the Federal government having to do that........but private businesses should be able to do what they want.........private businesses will have to take their case back through the court system to have that specific concept adjudicated....

 

[2aguy]

Neither is making a cake or a website.

Yes......making a cake or a website is about free speech.........that you can't see that shows you are pretty blind.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is not surprising to see how the left here are so ignorant of understanding the basics of law.
Not even the simplest basis of it.

 

[Auld Phart]

Can I refuse service to anyone wearing a MAGA hat?

shouldn't b allowed to, no.

is serving someone wearing MAGA hats against your religion?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes......making a cake or a website is about free speech.........that you can't see that shows you are pretty blind.

No more so than making someone a lunch.

Look, I fully agree these businesses should be able to say no, but it is stupid to couch making a cake as free speech when making a sandwich is not

 

[iamwhatiseem]

No more so than making someone a lunch.

Look, I fully agree these businesses should be able to say no, but it is stupid to couch making a cake as free speech when making a sandwich is not

Because the sandwich has positively nothing to do with religion.
The wedding cake represents a religious act - getting married.
There is not one verse in any religious writing that says eating is a religious act.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Because the sandwich has positively nothing to do with religion.
The wedding cake represents a religious act - getting married.

Getting married is a civil thing, thus the need for a marriage license.

 

[SweetSue92]

No more so than making someone a lunch.

Look, I fully agree these businesses should be able to say no, but it is stupid to couch making a cake as free speech when making a sandwich is not

Not stupid.

One is feeding someone lunch. It's utilitarian.

The other is artistry to celebrate a life event, in this case, a wedding.

Big difference. Now you will pretend to be stupid and not understand it.

 

[scruffy]

Then it is safe to assume you disagree with the other SCOTUS ruling that said an employer must provide religious accommodations to those that ask for them?

lol - lmao !!!

THIS ^^^ is how leftards think.

You just proved you're a dyed in the wool leftard, son.

INDIVIDUALS have rights, mister. Corporations have no rights at all. Nary a one.

FedGov also has NO rights. Not a single stinkin fuckin one. All they have is OBLIGATIONS.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Why do you keep bringing up the democrat party.....and you are behind the times.....true, the kkk was a democrat party terrorist group.....but the democrat party has dropped them, they are too conspicuous......today, the democrat party uses the racist group, blm and the other idiots, antifa, to do their dirty work...in particular, the rich, trust fund kids in blm and antifa now burn, loot and murder in primarily black neighborhoods in the cities the democrat party controls.....they will be out in force fairly soon since we are approaching another election season......and the democrats love to turn loose their blm racists on their black neighborhoods....right before an election....

Stay on topic, moron.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

lol - lmao !!!

THIS ^^^ is how leftards think.

You just proved you're a dyed in the wool leftard, son.

INDIVIDUALS have rights, mister. Corporations have no rights at all. Nary a one.

FedGov also has NO rights. Not a single stinkin fuckin one. All they have is OBLIGATIONS.

So, let me get this straight.

It is wrong for the Govt to force a baker to make a cake they do not want to, but at the same time it is right and proper for the Govt to force that same baker to provide "religious accommodations" to its employees?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Getting married is a civil thing, thus the need for a marriage license.

Marriage is probably the only religious act that is also a civil act.
I actually agree that it is complicated, and needs clarification.
I have said for over 20 years now that the act of marriage needs to be split into two separate acts.
If a wedding cake was a legal requirement to getting civilly married, then the baker would be violating their civil rights. But it isn't. The baker in no way prevented them from getting married.
Also, homosexuality is explicitly against religious text of practically every religion on the planet.
So the baker, has a 1st amendment right to say he refuses to take part in an act that is against his religion, and can be shown to violate it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Should racial slavery be legal if based on a religious belief?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

INDIVIDUALS have rights, mister. Corporations have no rights at all. Nary a one.

So the court should reverse the Hobby Lobby decision?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Marriage is probably the only religious act that is also a civil act.
I actually agree that it is complicated, and needs clarification.
I have said for over 20 years now that the act of marriage needs to be split into two separate acts.

Personally I would like to see the government get out of the marriage business all together.

Interestingly enough, the wife and I got married and 5 months later had our religious wedding ceremony, so we essentially did what you are suggesting.

So the baker, has a 1st amendment right to say he refuses to take part in an act that is against his religion, and can be shown to violate it.

As I said I agree they have the right to say no, I just do not think it is a "free speech" issue.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Should racial slavery be legal if based on a religious belief?

Should be fine as long as they are following the rules God gave in the bible when He condoned slavery.