Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If it works then what historical source are they citing? The only citations I was able to find about that essay you linked were a couple of news articles that dated back as far as 2009, none of which had anything to do with historical religious/legal philosophy. This suggests that this "traditional meaning" that they've put together is their opinion on what the "traditional meaning" of religious freedom was.

You want historical context? Fine. It really was not hard to find. Here is everything you ever wanted to know about concepts of religious freedom.

America's True History of Religious Tolerance | History | Smithsonian

When did it start to change?? I would say quite recently........ Here's a look at history of 'religious freedom' laws

• June 30, 2014: Supreme Court upholds religious challenge to Affordable Care Act.

A divided Supreme Court ruled that closely held corporations can decide for religious reasons not to include contraception coverage in health insurance plans offered to employees.

The five justices in the majority characterized their opinion as a narrow ruling applying to four types of birth control and to the two family-owned corporations that brought the challenge — the Hobby Lobby craft store chain and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Mennonite-owned cabinet maker. But the four justices who dissented said the ruling expanded the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to protect companies.

9 Ind. CEOs call for changes to 'religious freedom' law

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the ruling "invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith." She said, for example, that a company could decide that covering vaccinations or paying the minimum wage violates their religious belief. And she noted past religious freedom challenges brought by a restaurant chain that didn't want to serve African Americans and by a photography studio that didn't want to take pictures at a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.

Kevin Russell, a former Supreme Court law clerk who argues frequently before the high court, wrote in an analysis after the decision that the court has never decided whether the government has the compelling interest required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to ban discrimination based on sex, disability or sexual orientation.

"It seems likely that the debate will have to be settled in further litigation," he wrote.

• March 26, 2015: Pence signs Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case, Pence said Indiana needs its own version of the federal law to "ensure that religious liberty is fully protected under Indiana law."

Apple's Tim Cook blasts 'religious freedom' laws
Indiana became the 20th state to enact such a law, although the laws are not all the same.

 

[sealybobo]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

Here’s what I think. You can’t make a baker draw a cock cake. You can’t make a Jewish tattoo artist draw a swastika so I guess you can’t make them provide insurance that covers birth control.

People who work for them have to pay out of pocket.

And I’m liberal

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

 

[irosie91]

I wonder how much these folks screaming "abomination!" are enjoying their lives as Hasidic Jews. I don't think they have ever read what the Christians refer to as the Old Testament. Genesis is interesting, but so are Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I guess if any have a brother who dies childless, they will have sex with their brother's widow to produce a child in their brother's name. Oh, there is lots in the OT. Any of you need to purify yourselves? Do any of you believe in the Republic, or are you still monarchists? And then there is the rule against adultery that made it in to the Top Ten, as did the prohibition of theft. Hummm.

what do Hasidic Jews have to do with this thread, cocksucking whore??? I have never heard a
Hasidic jew scream "ABOMINATION"

 

[irosie91]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

Here’s what I think. You can’t make a baker draw a cock cake. You can’t make a Jewish tattoo artist draw a swastika so I guess you can’t make them provide insurance that covers birth control.

People who work for them have to pay out of pocket.

And I’m liberal

I have never encountered a jewish tattoo artist. Such a person is unlikely since tattoos are proscribed by jewish law---
they are generally unpopular even amongst secular jews----
it's a matter of custom and culture

 

[bodecea]

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

From a legal perspective just calling yourself a "private club" does not cut the mustard as to being exempt from Public Accommodation law. COSTCO and Sam's Club are both private clubs in that you have to be a member to shop there, that doesn't exempt them from PA laws.

If the business is for profit? Nope, not an excepted. If the "private club" status is an attempt to evade PA laws? Not, not excepted.

Here are a few things that are looked at:

The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


>>>>

That's the point the religious people would have to be selective and only allow people who aren't sinners to join their private cake club

Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another fucking baker.

Why would a christian wanting a wedding cake have to go find another baker if they were refused service based on being christian?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Anyway, since you're standing by this "traditional definition" of religious freedom, and since this "traditional definition" has no mention of being forced to contradict one's own beliefs, do you consider it a violation of a Muslim's religious freedom to feed them bacon in prison?

Yes I do consider it a violation of that Muslim's rights. And now, you're going to say that force feeding him bacon is the equivalent of you having to provide a cake for a gay wedding. Bullshit. That Muslim is a captive, he has no choice in the matter. YOU do have a choice, you can give some thought to what religious freedom really means, or go into another business.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

But there is a fine line. Can you think of a situation where someone obscene is pushing a private business into refusing service?

 

[irosie91]

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

From a legal perspective just calling yourself a "private club" does not cut the mustard as to being exempt from Public Accommodation law. COSTCO and Sam's Club are both private clubs in that you have to be a member to shop there, that doesn't exempt them from PA laws.

If the business is for profit? Nope, not an excepted. If the "private club" status is an attempt to evade PA laws? Not, not excepted.

Here are a few things that are looked at:

The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


>>>>

That's the point the religious people would have to be selective and only allow people who aren't sinners to join their private cake club

Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another fucking baker.

Why would a christian wanting a wedding cake have to go find another baker if they were refused service based on being christian?

because a particular Christian PROFESSIONAL cake baker may not want to meet the specifications of that particular
Christian's desired cake

 

[danielpalos]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

Maybe this will help you to see the error of your ways:

Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.

2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.


One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

Sorry, but that website's a fuckin mess. I'm gonna need some citation on that traditional meaning of religious freedom that doesn't include anything about being forced to act in contradiction to one's beliefs, and I'm done trying to navigate that tragedy to find their references.

This article's basically telling me that that traditional meaning of religious freedom implies that feeding Muslims bacon in prison isn't a violation of their religious freedom. Is that your opinion, as well?

The cite works for me. It appears that you reading comprehension needs some work. Otherwise you would understand that the point is that the traditional interpretation of religious freedom is all about how you live your life and NOTHING to do with trying to control how others live, or penalizing them for it. You got it exactly backwards

If it works then what historical source are they citing? The only citations I was able to find about that essay you linked were a couple of news articles that dated back as far as 2009, none of which had anything to do with historical religious/legal philosophy. This suggests that this "traditional meaning" that they've put together is their opinion on what the "traditional meaning" of religious freedom was.

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

Anyway, since you're standing by this "traditional definition" of religious freedom, and since this "traditional definition" has no mention of being forced to contradict one's own beliefs, do you consider it a violation of a Muslim's religious freedom to feed them bacon in prison?

dietary restrictions are a consideration in modern times, anyway.

Simply incorporate on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis, if you feel that strongly about morals.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

But there is a fine line. Can you think of a situation where someone obscene is pushing a private business into refusing service?

Someone obscene?? Please rephrase the question

 

[sealybobo]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

But there is a fine line. Can you think of a situation where someone obscene is pushing a private business into refusing service?

Someone obscene?? Please rephrase the question

The example I like is does the Jewish tattoo artist have to give a guy a nazi tattoo?

 

[danielpalos]

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

From a legal perspective just calling yourself a "private club" does not cut the mustard as to being exempt from Public Accommodation law. COSTCO and Sam's Club are both private clubs in that you have to be a member to shop there, that doesn't exempt them from PA laws.

If the business is for profit? Nope, not an excepted. If the "private club" status is an attempt to evade PA laws? Not, not excepted.

Here are a few things that are looked at:

The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


>>>>

That's the point the religious people would have to be selective and only allow people who aren't sinners to join their private cake club

Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another fucking baker.

Why would a christian wanting a wedding cake have to go find another baker if they were refused service based on being christian?

because a particular Christian PROFESSIONAL cake baker may not want to meet the specifications of that particular
Christian's desired cake

do they advertise as Bakers of Faith?

 

[danielpalos]

I'm also not pushing for religious people being able to control how others live. Me refusing to do business with you isn't the same as me controlling how you live. Me offering jobs for voluntary applicants but not offering birth control as compensation is not the same as me controlling how you live. Just like lumping in hate and oppression with this level of discrimination, you're just trying to use hyperbole to make the concept we're discussing -feel- more threatening. I'm not interested in emotional appeals or some random website operator's opinions on history.

It's discrimination. It is marginalizing people. If you have the right to walk into a business expecting to be served and not be humiliated or inconvenienced, than every one does. Creating an environment where people do have to think about those things because of who they are is a form of control

But there is a fine line. Can you think of a situation where someone obscene is pushing a private business into refusing service?

Someone obscene?? Please rephrase the question

The example I like is does the Jewish tattoo artist have to give a guy a nazi tattoo?

does he have recourse to his Constitution or is the right wing, eschewing Any form of Capitalism, for their Socialism on a National basis.

 

[irosie91]

From a legal perspective just calling yourself a "private club" does not cut the mustard as to being exempt from Public Accommodation law. COSTCO and Sam's Club are both private clubs in that you have to be a member to shop there, that doesn't exempt them from PA laws.

If the business is for profit? Nope, not an excepted. If the "private club" status is an attempt to evade PA laws? Not, not excepted.

Here are a few things that are looked at:

The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


>>>>

That's the point the religious people would have to be selective and only allow people who aren't sinners to join their private cake club

Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another fucking baker.

Why would a christian wanting a wedding cake have to go find another baker if they were refused service based on being christian?

because a particular Christian PROFESSIONAL cake baker may not want to meet the specifications of that particular
Christian's desired cake

do they advertise as Bakers of Faith?

does not matter. A professional does not have to
compromise his principles in the commission of his
art

 

[DOTR]

Pretty straight-forward. This is a question to anyone who believes that business owners should be forced to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do business. Also, let me preface this by saying that I am non-religious and that, personally, I generally lean pro-choice and pro-gay-rights. This principle is an exception.

Why? Why should business owners be forced to offer certain forms of compensation (birth control, for instance) if the practice of their religion forbids it?

Why should business owners be forced to abandon their moral reservations and do business with people with whom they'd rather not?

The first amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it make an exception for the public sector. Nowhere does it say, "Except when doing business".

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand birth control as compensation from an employer. This is simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

Nowhere in the bill of rights is the right to demand service of a business owner. Again, simply a commonly held opinion of leftists.

So if the Bill of Rights guarantees religious practice, but nowhere in the founding documents are the rights to demand service or particular forms of compensation, why do both of these things outweigh the right to free exercise?

Particularly, if gay rights activists say that equality of marriage is a right, and rights aren't up for a vote, then why do these same activists believe that the right to the free exercise of religion -can- be infringed when it suits their agenda?

Anyone? Why are your opinion-based rights more valid than the actual legal rights of religious business owners?

The hallmark of marxism is control.

 

[bodecea]

Don't. Give. A. Fuck.

They don't want to bake you a cake. Doesn't matter why. Go find another baker. Give them a shitty review on Yelp and Facebook. But hauling them into court and closing down their livelihood because your feewings are hurt? Get the fuck over yourself.

I agree, that's the way the law should be.

Although that doesn't preclude the discussion what the law actually is or correcting people when they make up alternative facts to fit a narrative instead of the real facts of the case(s).



>>>>

the law should not and doesn't allow bigoted lowlife twits to decide they can jim crow others when they're working in or running a public business.

Have I thanked you yet for showing up and dropping the IQ of the entire discussion by 10 points just by your presence?

Hmmmmm....is that a christian response

 

[jillian]

They chose to open a business open to the public therefore they are held to public accommodation laws just like every other business.

If they do not want to operate according to the law of the land then they can close up shop or structure their business as a private membership only club and that way they can only do business with the people whose sins are acceptable to them and who choose to pay the membership fees

From a legal perspective just calling yourself a "private club" does not cut the mustard as to being exempt from Public Accommodation law. COSTCO and Sam's Club are both private clubs in that you have to be a member to shop there, that doesn't exempt them from PA laws.

If the business is for profit? Nope, not an excepted. If the "private club" status is an attempt to evade PA laws? Not, not excepted.

Here are a few things that are looked at:

The "public" versus "distinctly private" accommodation distinction makes critical an understanding of what factors courts will consider to determine if a club is public or private for purposes of the PHRA. Courts interpreting similar statutes have considered the following factors in making that determination:

1. the genuine selectivity of the group in the admission of its members;
2. the membership's control over the operations of the establishment;
3. the history of the organization;
4. the use of the facilities by nonmembers;
5. the purpose of the club's existence;
6. whether the club advertises for members;
7. whether the club is profit or nonprofit; and
8. the formalities observed by the club (e.g. bylaws, meetings, membership cards, etc.).

Anti-Discrimination Laws Applicable to Private Clubs or Not? - FindLaw


>>>>

That's the point the religious people would have to be selective and only allow people who aren't sinners to join their private cake club

Yes, that all sounds a LOT simpler and more logical than you just going and finding another fucking baker.

Why would a christian wanting a wedding cake have to go find another baker if they were refused service based on being christian?

because a particular Christian PROFESSIONAL cake baker may not want to meet the specifications of that particular
Christian's desired cake

the specifications of the cake would be "Congratulations".

and they don't get to do that.

ooops

 

[jillian]

Don't. Give. A. Fuck.

They don't want to bake you a cake. Doesn't matter why. Go find another baker. Give them a shitty review on Yelp and Facebook. But hauling them into court and closing down their livelihood because your feewings are hurt? Get the fuck over yourself.

I agree, that's the way the law should be.

Although that doesn't preclude the discussion what the law actually is or correcting people when they make up alternative facts to fit a narrative instead of the real facts of the case(s).



>>>>

the law should not and doesn't allow bigoted lowlife twits to decide they can jim crow others when they're working in or running a public business.

Have I thanked you yet for showing up and dropping the IQ of the entire discussion by 10 points just by your presence?

Hmmmmm....is that a christian response

the S and M queen thinks she can bully everyone. it's so cute.... but then again, I expect nothing less from trash.

 

[deanrd]

Why Must We Abandon Our Religious Beliefs to Operate A Business?

Evangelicals abandon their religious beliefs to follow Trump. They see him as a cultural leader and a role model.