Will religious "restoration" laws have some ugly unintended consequences?

[WorldWatcher]

If that's true then why does the government get to shut down a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

The government didn't close them down, which is what the statement to which I replied.

No fines have been assessed against Mr. and Mrs. Klein, the hearing for the amount of fines/damages was just last week and no ruling has been issued yet. The Klein's closed the storefront for Sweetcakes by Melissa because of a loss of revenue when cake orders were cancelled and wedding vendors stopped referring clients. The business is still open and function though out of the Klein's home.



>>>>

The fine was $150,000.
Oregon bakery must pay gay couple for refusing to make cake - NY Daily News

They haven't been fined yet. The hearing was just last week and no ruling on damages/fines has been issued yet.

Sweet Cakes discrimination closing remarks Should the baker pay for a pattern of discrimination OregonLive.com


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

If that's true then why does the government get to shut down a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

The government didn't close them down, which is what the statement to which I replied.

No fines have been assessed against Mr. and Mrs. Klein, the hearing for the amount of fines/damages was just last week and no ruling has been issued yet. The Klein's closed the storefront for Sweetcakes by Melissa because of a loss of revenue when cake orders were cancelled and wedding vendors stopped referring clients. The business is still open and function though out of the Klein's home.



>>>>

The fine was $150,000.
Oregon bakery must pay gay couple for refusing to make cake - NY Daily News

They haven't been fined yet. The hearing was just last week and no ruling on damages/fines has been issued yet.

Sweet Cakes discrimination closing remarks Should the baker pay for a pattern of discrimination OregonLive.com


>>>>

The fine was announced months ago, as I posted. This is just the confirmation of it.
From your link the lesbos sound like they belong in an asylum.

 

[Ravi]

Where has the government shutdown a bakery for not making a homo wedding cake?


>>>>

Oregon Bakers to Pay Up to 150K for Refusing Lesbian Couple a Wedding Cake - Breitbart
The state was simply wrong. If the bakery had been a non profit they would have have been able to refuse. But the Supreme Court negated that distinction in Hobby Lobby.

The government didn't close them down, which is what the statement to which I replied.

No fines have been assessed against Mr. and Mrs. Klein, the hearing for the amount of fines/damages was just last week and no ruling has been issued yet. The Klein's closed the storefront for Sweetcakes by Melissa because of a loss of revenue when cake orders were cancelled and wedding vendors stopped referring clients. The business is still open and function though out of the Klein's home.



>>>>

The fine was $150,000.
Oregon bakery must pay gay couple for refusing to make cake - NY Daily News

They haven't been fined yet. The hearing was just last week and no ruling on damages/fines has been issued yet.

Sweet Cakes discrimination closing remarks Should the baker pay for a pattern of discrimination OregonLive.com


>>>>

The fine was announced months ago, as I posted. This is just the confirmation of it.
From your link the lesbos sound like they belong in an asylum.

No, it wasn't. Even your link says that they could be fined up to $150,000. The fine amount has yet to be set. And THEY closed their business because people didn't want to deal with their bigotry so stopped shopping at their bakery.

 

[Ravi]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

The courts already decide if a person has a sincere religious belief.

 

[Gadawg73]

The one currently in the Georgia House in session now is opposed by almost all the Republican leaders in the House and Senate, Georgia Chamber of Commerce, Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Georgia Pacific, Coca Cola and most all other large businesses. We have one of the worst traffic grid problems in the nation, exploding state employee pension and health benefit problem and a host of other major issues and some folks are more worried about being able to say Jesus hated fags so they can to. Insane.

 

[SwimExpert]

I heard something in a news clip today about Indiana's new law, and it sent shivers down my spine.

It's still up to state courts to make a decision where a person has a sincere religious belief..."

This is a real problem. When the government starts evaluating the sincerity of people's religious beliefs, the 1st amendment ceases to exist. Government has no business weighing and measuring the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs. If a Jew eats bacon cheeseburgers twice a week and works on Saturday, is this evidence against him if he sues his previous employer for being fired because of his religion? If a Christian is promiscuous and never goes to church, do they lose the right to withhold birth control coverage if they own a company?

This is going to come back and bite us on the ass.

So you support making 'religious belief' a sort of 'get out of the Constitution free' card that someone can play anytime they don't like the idea of respecting the equal rights of others?

Quite the opposite. I'm opposed to it. And I'm also opposed to the courts getting to decide when the card applies.

I would prefer laws being applicable without regard to religious considerations. That would make the question of "sincere belief" moot.

 

[The Rabbi]

The one currently in the Georgia House in session now is opposed by almost all the Republican leaders in the House and Senate, Georgia Chamber of Commerce, Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Georgia Pacific, Coca Cola and most all other large businesses. We have one of the worst traffic grid problems in the nation, exploding state employee pension and health benefit problem and a host of other major issues and some folks are more worried about being able to say Jesus hated fags so they can to. Insane.

So the argument is that big business should dictate how people run their own businesses and the democratic process is wrong?

 

[SwimExpert]

This ruling makes all of these "religious freedom/restoration" law legal under prior precedent. Gays can boycott and raise a stink all they want, but it doesn't eh, change the law. Its there in black and white. They can petition for compliance with the government, but unless the government can prove they have a compelling interest in burdening the religious beliefs of the proprietor, there is nothing the gay community can do.

So if a person's "religious belief" is that black people are demons from Satan, the government is obliged to allow that person to refuse service to black people?

 

[The Rabbi]

This ruling makes all of these "religious freedom/restoration" law legal under prior precedent. Gays can boycott and raise a stink all they want, but it doesn't eh, change the law. Its there in black and white. They can petition for compliance with the government, but unless the government can prove they have a compelling interest in burdening the religious beliefs of the proprietor, there is nothing the gay community can do.

So if a person's "religious belief" is that black people are demons from Satan, the government is obliged to allow that person to refuse service to black people?

Actually the gov't is obliged to allow that person to refuse service for any reason whatsoever.
But the state of the law is religious objections cannot overcome constitutional barriers. So having a religious objection to paying taxes (an actual case) doesnt mean you dont have to pay taxes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The one currently in the Georgia House in session now is opposed by almost all the Republican leaders in the House and Senate, Georgia Chamber of Commerce, Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Georgia Pacific, Coca Cola and most all other large businesses. We have one of the worst traffic grid problems in the nation, exploding state employee pension and health benefit problem and a host of other major issues and some folks are more worried about being able to say Jesus hated fags so they can to. Insane.

So the argument is that big business should dictate how people run their own businesses and the democratic process is wrong?

So corporations aren't people?

lolol

How great the irony when market forces beat up on the rightwing social agenda.

 

[The Rabbi]

The one currently in the Georgia House in session now is opposed by almost all the Republican leaders in the House and Senate, Georgia Chamber of Commerce, Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Georgia Pacific, Coca Cola and most all other large businesses. We have one of the worst traffic grid problems in the nation, exploding state employee pension and health benefit problem and a host of other major issues and some folks are more worried about being able to say Jesus hated fags so they can to. Insane.

So the argument is that big business should dictate how people run their own businesses and the democratic process is wrong?

So corporations aren't people?

lolol

How great the irony when market forces beat up on the rightwing social agenda.

So if you like your doctor you can still keep him?
LOL! You are a drooling moron.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The one currently in the Georgia House in session now is opposed by almost all the Republican leaders in the House and Senate, Georgia Chamber of Commerce, Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Georgia Pacific, Coca Cola and most all other large businesses. We have one of the worst traffic grid problems in the nation, exploding state employee pension and health benefit problem and a host of other major issues and some folks are more worried about being able to say Jesus hated fags so they can to. Insane.

So the argument is that big business should dictate how people run their own businesses and the democratic process is wrong?

So corporations aren't people?

lolol

How great the irony when market forces beat up on the rightwing social agenda.

So if you like your doctor you can still keep him?
LOL! You are a drooling moron.

Most people can and did.

 

[Skylar]

Religious 'restoration' laws aren't thought through. If Christian dogma trumps civil law.......so does Sharia. You're literally subsuming civil law, the courts, even the USSC in a subservient, submissive status below radical Islam. Or moderate Islam. Or Buddhism. Or Zorastrianism. Or Satanism. Or any religious belief anywhere.

The fringe left has been pushing the idea that mere FEELINGS should be legally authoritative. The fringe right has now officially adopted the same argument. Simply slapping the word 'religious' in front of it.

And the part that's astonishing? When the courts predictably slap this shit down, as they should.....some Christians, oblivious to the unintended consequences of their demands, will cast themselves as downtrodden victims. And the failure of Christianity to be the legally dominant force in our nation as a 'war on Christians'.

There are just some folks that define themselves by a perception of persecution and victimhood.

 

[SwimExpert]

Actually the gov't is obliged to allow that person to refuse service for any reason whatsoever.

Clearly you're a ******* idiot, because indeed the government does forbid discrimination based on race, generally speaking. That fact is not in question by anyone other than you, the village idiot. Everyone else understands that my question poses the issue of whether religious belief can supersede the law's otherwise applicable prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race.

But the state of the law is religious objections cannot overcome constitutional barriers. So having a religious objection to paying taxes (an actual case) doesnt mean you dont have to pay taxes.

What the **** are you talking about? Are you even awake? Or are is your face falling on the keyboard and accidentally clicking the "post" button? What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. Your post reads like magnetic poetry. I believe that someone has assembled a series of words and phrases that are likely to be useful in a conversation on this topic, and you're assembling them in random order to decide what you will post.

"Religious objections cannot overcome constitutional barriers" makes no sense whatsoever. What constitutional barriers? Nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit a person from committing murder, from discriminating against another person, pay taxes, etc. Those laws are legislative. We have to pay taxes because Congress created that law.

As the village idiot I can't really expect you to comprehend even basic and simple concepts on your own. I shall speak with the individuals responsible for spoon feeding you your ABCs and ensure that they will fulfill their duties in the future. In the meantime, I will assist where they have failed to complete their usual tasks. The SCOTUS precedents that have dealt with (and rejected) religious objections to paying taxes are not readily reconcilable with the Hobby Lobby decision. The primary change that has transpired between those older cases and the new reality is "religious freedom restoration" statutes, and this has resulted in a new precedent. Previously a religious objection to a law did not excuse compliance with said law, so long as the law was otherwise lawful. Thus, if you objected to taxation laws on religious grounds, it did not matter. You still have to comply with the law. If you have a religious belief in plural marriage, it does not matter, legal prohibitions still apply. If you have a religious belief that includes human sacrifice, it does not matter. There is no "maybe" or "sometimes" or "how sincere is your belief" about it.

Under the new precedent, incorporating relatively new "religious freedom restoration" statutes, the situation is very different. Now, religious objections can excuse a person from complying with an otherwise legal law. So, can a business refuse service to a black person based on a religious objection, in violation of anti discrimination laws? Maybe. Sometimes. How "sincere" is the religious belief?

The courts are now going to be engaged in deciding people's religious beliefs, picking and choosing when people may or may not engage in religious observation, and and the general validity of a person's religious feelings.

 

[SwimExpert]

Religious 'restoration' laws aren't thought through. If Christian dogma trumps civil law.......so does Sharia.

Exactly. Unintended consequences. And some really dangerous ones, at that. Instead of restoring religious freedom, the result is actually judicial screening and arbitrating of religion.

I do not follow a particular organized religion, but I am devoutly spiritual and adhere to a religious code that has been revealed to me on my own journey. Some of my beliefs would probably be considered quite alien to many, If some component of my own religious beliefs comes in conflict with a legal requirement or prohibition, how will I obtain a remedy under these "restoration" statutes? The courts will have to evaluate the "sincerity" of my religious beliefs. But how are they to do that? On what basis can they make such a determination without also judging the validity of my personal system? In fact, they cannot.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually the gov't is obliged to allow that person to refuse service for any reason whatsoever.

Clearly you're a ******* idiot, because indeed the government does forbid discrimination based on race, generally speaking. That fact is not in question by anyone other than you, the village idiot. Everyone else understands that my question poses the issue of whether religious belief can supersede the law's otherwise applicable prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race.

But the state of the law is religious objections cannot overcome constitutional barriers. So having a religious objection to paying taxes (an actual case) doesnt mean you dont have to pay taxes.

What the **** are you talking about? Are you even awake? Or are is your face falling on the keyboard and accidentally clicking the "post" button? What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. Your post reads like magnetic poetry. I believe that someone has assembled a series of words and phrases that are likely to be useful in a conversation on this topic, and you're assembling them in random order to decide what you will post.

"Religious objections cannot overcome constitutional barriers" makes no sense whatsoever. What constitutional barriers? Nowhere in the constitution does it prohibit a person from committing murder, from discriminating against another person, pay taxes, etc. Those laws are legislative. We have to pay taxes because Congress created that law.

As the village idiot I can't really expect you to comprehend even basic and simple concepts on your own. I shall speak with the individuals responsible for spoon feeding you your ABCs and ensure that they will fulfill their duties in the future. In the meantime, I will assist where they have failed to complete their usual tasks. The SCOTUS precedents that have dealt with (and rejected) religious objections to paying taxes are not readily reconcilable with the Hobby Lobby decision. The primary change that has transpired between those older cases and the new reality is "religious freedom restoration" statutes, and this has resulted in a new precedent. Previously a religious objection to a law did not excuse compliance with said law, so long as the law was otherwise lawful. Thus, if you objected to taxation laws on religious grounds, it did not matter. You still have to comply with the law. If you have a religious belief in plural marriage, it does not matter, legal prohibitions still apply. If you have a religious belief that includes human sacrifice, it does not matter. There is no "maybe" or "sometimes" or "how sincere is your belief" about it.

Under the new precedent, incorporating relatively new "religious freedom restoration" statutes, the situation is very different. Now, religious objections can excuse a person from complying with an otherwise legal law. So, can a business refuse service to a black person based on a religious objection, in violation of anti discrimination laws? Maybe. Sometimes. How "sincere" is the religious belief?

The courts are now going to be engaged in deciding people's religious beliefs, picking and choosing when people may or may not engage in religious observation, and and the general validity of a person's religious feelings.

You cant read my post and understand it and follow on with keyboard diarrhea. You're a joke.

 

[The Rabbi]

Religious 'restoration' laws aren't thought through. If Christian dogma trumps civil law.......so does Sharia.

Exactly. Unintended consequences. And some really dangerous ones, at that. Instead of restoring religious freedom, the result is actually judicial screening and arbitrating of religion.

I do not follow a particular organized religion, but I am devoutly spiritual and adhere to a religious code that has been revealed to me on my own journey. Some of my beliefs would probably be considered quite alien to many, If some component of my own religious beliefs comes in conflict with a legal requirement or prohibition, how will I obtain a remedy under these "restoration" statutes? The courts will have to evaluate the "sincerity" of my religious beliefs. But how are they to do that? On what basis can they make such a determination without also judging the validity of my personal system? In fact, they cannot.

So you admit to being delusional. That explains a whole bunch.

 

[SwimExpert]

You cant read my post and understand it and follow on with keyboard diarrhea.

Yes people, Rabbi really is that stupid. So stupid, he doesn't even realize he just admitted his posts are keyboard diarrhea. Or, that it's a self proving fact!

I shall call this the Axiom of Rabbi.

 

[The Rabbi]

You cant read my post and understand it and follow on with keyboard diarrhea.

Yes people, Rabbi really is that stupid. So stupid, he doesn't even realize he just admitted his posts are keyboard diarrhea. Or, that it's a self proving fact!

I shall call this the Axiom of Rabbi.

You're dismissed, junior.

 

[Freemason9]

Retard Radio must be issuing talking points on this crap--I've heard this reference to "Bill Clinton" and "19 other states" several times today already from callers to CSPAN.