Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't. And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

 

[LOki]

As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

 

[Skylar]

As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

Not under our system of law.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

I'm taking into account our actual laws when coming to my conclusions. Mainly because they're relevant to likely outcomes.

 

[LOki]

As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

Not under our system of law.

Whatever. They're still businesses whether the law says so or not.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

I'm taking into account our actual laws when coming to my conclusions. Mainly because they're relevant to likely outcomes.

I'm not contesting what "is".

 

[dblack]

As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

 

[LOki]

As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

Nice!

 

[Skylar]

As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

its a simple recognition that churches aren't businesses nor commerce. Neither of which has ever been a recognized designation for the entire history of our nation.

 

[dblack]

As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

its a simple recognition that churches aren't businesses nor commerce. Neither of which has ever been a recognized designation for the entire history of our nation.

As well as a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Extending that precedent, by granting religious institutions exemptions to other laws the rest of us are obliged to follow, drives the point home. This remains one of the worst unresolved blunders of the SC.

 

[Skylar]

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

its a simple recognition that churches aren't businesses nor commerce. Neither of which has ever been a recognized designation for the entire history of our nation.

As well as a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Says you. No one, from the founders to the present day supreme court has ever found this to be true. I'm gonna have to go with the founders and 2 centuries of jurisprudence over you typing 10 words.

 

[dblack]

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.
They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

its a simple recognition that churches aren't businesses nor commerce. Neither of which has ever been a recognized designation for the entire history of our nation.

As well as a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Says you. No one, from the founders to the present day supreme court has ever found this to be true. I'm gonna have to go with the founders and 2 centuries of jurisprudence over you typing 10 words.

That's fine. But I'd hope you'd at least give it some thought yourself before going with the flow.

 

[Silhouette]

As well as a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Says you. No one, from the founders to the present day supreme court has ever found this to be true. I'm gonna have to go with the founders and 2 centuries of jurisprudence over you typing 10 words.

That's fine. But I'd hope you'd at least give it some thought yourself before going with the flow.

The "flow" in this debate, if anything could be an indication, is the Hobby Lobby Decision.

 

[dblack]

As well as a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Says you. No one, from the founders to the present day supreme court has ever found this to be true. I'm gonna have to go with the founders and 2 centuries of jurisprudence over you typing 10 words.

That's fine. But I'd hope you'd at least give it some thought yourself before going with the flow.

The "flow" in this debate, if anything could be an indication, is the Hobby Lobby Decision.

Absolutely. It's what first got me thinking about the issue.

 

[Ernie S.]

And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?

But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.

They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU

It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.

Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?

In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.

Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

 

[dblack]

But that's not really what they're asking for. 'Everyone else' risks being discriminated against every day. Instead of being treated like everyone else, they're asking to be added to the list of groups covered by 'protected classes' legislation. They're asking for the special privilege of forcing people who don't approve of their sexuality to server them regardless.

They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU

It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.

Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?

In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.

Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

 

[Ernie S.]

Agreed. Gays should seek them out and buy their cakes there.

Gays should be able to buy from anyone doing business with the public. As ordering a cake from a person who sells cake is a reasonable act. Denying cake because of the sexual orientation of the person ordering it isn't.

Why the hell not just go to a different bakery that would be happy to serve you?

Why should they have to hunt for a baker that isn't going to project his religious bigotry upon them? Again, the actions of the gays and lesbians in question are completely reasonable: order a cake from a person that sells cake. The response they face isn't reasonable.

You're insisting its the responsibility of the gays and lesbians to remedy someone *else's* religiously motivated bigotry. I disagree. Gays and lesbians are not responsible for the bigotry they face. And Its not their responsibility to remedy it.

Not rationally, and not under the law.

You can't answer a direct question......

I did: because they shouldn't have to. They have no responsibility to remedy someone else's religiously motivated bigotry.

So they would rather risk sub standard service?

Suppose you wanted to buy a house and the owner of your first choice refused to sell it to you. Would you look for another house of cry that you were discriminated against because an owner refused to put his house on the market at your preferred price?

Look! I'm not arguing that a baker refusing to bake a cake is right or wrong, just that it should be his choice to exercise his right to refuse to provide service and thus participate in something that goes against his religious beliefs.

Let the market judge him. They did that with Chic-fil-A.

How'd that work out for you?

 

[Ernie S.]

They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU

It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.

Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?

In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.

Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....

 

[Ernie S.]

As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

Did you read the next phrase?

 

[Syriusly]

They most certainly do want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to be able to go into a place of business and not have to think about or worry about whether or not they will be served. JUST LIKE YOU

It is those who believe that they have the right to discriminate in the name of god who want a special privilege to do so.

Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?

In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.

Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

I will give it a shot.

There have been multiple examples of historic discrimination by the majority against a minority(blacks, Jewish, native American, Catholics, etc, etc).

Looking back on history, some of that discrimination was truly repellant- and often widespread- widespread enough that African Americans from the North travelling to the south used maps to mark the gas stations and hotels that would serve them because most wouldn't.

There were three choices:
a) leave as is- let business's discriminate as they wish, often to the detriment of entire minority groups(property codiciles excluding certain races from subdivisions come to mind)- i.e. the status quo of 1960 or
b) mandate that all business's never discriminate against anyone for any reason or
c) address the actual issue- which is discrimination by the majority against specific minority groups that have suffered historic and widespread discrimination.

I suggest that c was and is the most reasonable solution to address persistent, historic and specific discrimination.

 

[dblack]

As regulating intrastate commerce is most definitely within the authority of the state.

Authority constrained by rights.

Which PA laws don't violate per our system of laws.
"Is/ ought" again.

Churches aren't businesses. Nixing any PA laws.

Churches are certainly businesses...they ought to be treated as such.

They aren't.

Yeah, they are.

And they're explicitly exempted from virtually all PA laws.

"Is /ought" again. I'm not contesting what "is".

Laws granting special exemptions to religious institutions, including tax exemptions, are in direct violation of the First Amendment - they are clearly laws "respecting an establishment of religion".

Did you read the next phrase?

I did. You're proving my point. Do you realize that?

 

[Syriusly]

Most kinds of discrimination aren't illegal. People are discriminated against every day because they're ugly, poor, fat, stupid, etc.... Should those traits also be added to the protected classes list?

In some places it IS illegal to discriminate based on the traits you mentioned.

Yep. And how would you answer the question? If anyone should be protected from discrimination, why shouldn't everyone?

Seawytch doesn't answer questions.

Frankly, both sides of the debate seem to ignore this question, and to me it seems by far the most important.

OK, I guess gays ARE discriminating against those holding strong religious values....

Yes- gays surely are discriminating by asking a business to sell them a cake......like they sell cakes to everyone else.