FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: lvstephanie on April 07, 2015, 01:24:56 pm
-
With all of the focus on the new Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), I thought it would be a good topic for Debate & Discussion... Now I know there are laws on the books already that prohibit discrimination on certain characteristics of a person, but I'm more interested in hearing your philosophic views on the topic and not on what the current laws already say.
On the one hand, some view that our country prides itself in being a society open to all people and all ideas. As such, there should be no impediments in conducting business, meaning that a company shouldn't have the right to discriminate at all on their customers as discrimination puts up obstacles that impede commerce. Basically a person that wants to start a business has a choice whether or not to open their business to the general public. If they choose to open to the general public, then all of the goods and/or services has to be provided to any customer that wants to purchase said good and/or service regardless of any feelings that the business owner may towards the customer and/or their request. Under this theory, ShopRite would have been in the wrong when a NJ store decided not to decorate a birthday cake for an American child with Neo-*bleep* parents who happened to have given the kid the unfortunate name of Adolf Hitler Campbell (see here (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/happy-birthday-adolf-hitler-boy-*bleep*-leader-denied-shoprite-cake-article-1.358050)).
On the other hand, a truly Libertarian view would be more in line with the SNL skit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYFAOv94vHA) from the end of March which stated that companies that wished to use the new RFRA law to discriminate against homosexuals would be easy to spot due to them having a certain sign at which point SNL showed a picture of a shop with a "Going Out of Business" sign. Essentially, this view is that discrimination is just another freedom that the individuals should be able to have.Thus Racist Bob who is head of his chapter's KKK should be allowed to discriminate against non-Caucasian customers at his rib shack. But this freedom to discriminate is a two-way street. So while Racist Bob should be allowed to have and express his racist ideas, society also has the right to discriminate against him as well by not supporting his restaurant (even if they happen to be Caucasian and thus could eat at his joint), and perhaps even trying to get others to boycott the establishment as well. And if his views were vastly different from his customer base, eventually he'll go out of business. Thus the Libertarian view would be that as long as the government itself was not the entity discriminating people, we should allow discrimination. And those businesses that don't espouse the same values as their customers will go out of business thereby having self-policing via the free market.
Now I can see that there seems to be different types of discrimination, and some we as a society seem to want to protect while others we don't deem as important. As I've been thinking about this for the last few weeks, I've began to categorize these characteristics in 2 different ways... There are what I'd call native or a priori characteristics: those aspects of a person that they were born with including gender, race, and national origin. Then there are other characteristics that you learn or develop through education and/or life experiences; some of these include political party affiliation, religion, even mundane things like clothing style.
So while the Libertarian view may eventually lead to a society that is open to all customers thru pressures in the marketplace, some view that this route would take too long and hurt too many in the process. Or they fear that while the country may have an open marketplace on average, there'd be pockets of the population that would have regional discrimination (eg some of the former confederate states may allow places like Racist Bob's Rib Shack to exist). Hence they feel that government should make some laws that prevent discrimination on what we as a country feel are too important to allow the marketplace to dictate as an unethical forms of discrimination. This is basically what we have under our current laws. For the most part, we feel that characteristics that are beyond a person's control should not be a valid reason to discriminate against a person. As a result, while Racist Bob's restaurant wouldn't be able to discriminate against a person on the basis of their race, a fancy restaurant should still be able discriminate against those customers that don't follow their dress code like requiring men to wear a sport/suit coat.
There still is a bit of a gray area, however, with this partial protection of civil rights. One issue is that there are also some characteristics that although are not truly a priori, we still feel are too important and should be protected by government. For example, a person's religion isn't necessarily an innate characteristic in that a person can freely choose whether to believe in the religion of their family or choose to believe in a different religion completely. Yet we tend to believe that discriminating against a person based on their religion is also wrong. Another gray area is that some characteristics are in question as to whether they are in fact innate or learned traits. Some people feel that homosexuality is a personal choice and therefore shouldn't be protected, while others feel that people's sexual orientation is just something that they are born with and therefore should be an aspect of the individual that should be protected. Finally some traits that we think should be protected lead to other ideals of the individual that perhaps should not be protected. For example, we may feel that religion should be protected against discrimination but a not person's attire. Under this scenario, while a Muslim business may not be able to specifically discriminate against non-Muslims, they'd still be able to require male customers to be bearded and female customers to wear a headdress that covers their face thereby using other forms of allowed discrimination in order to essentially ensure that the majority of their customers are in fact Muslim.
-
Looks like no one wants to touch this.Id like to add to it.
First off,Gods stance on gay marriage will NEVER change.The bakeshop owner refused to bake the cake out of conscience.I think if you would have remained neutral in the baking of the cake,not inscribing anything on it and just selling it as is and explaining that to the gay couple it would have been ok.Afterall,he wasnt marrying them as a priest or a justice.
Whats the matter with this country?It is sooo full of it."In God we trust".What a joke!!Gay marriage legal in 37 states now,Pot being legalized!!
The whole world lies in power of wicked one.Who can deny that?
The bible also doesnt promote prejudice.
-
Funny...I posted my opinion on this but it's gone...unless it's under another heading.
The media did an injustice to the pizza shop. They asked a loaded question to the daughter of the owner who gave her OPINION ONLY. She was not the owner of the place. They never discriminated against anyone, served everyone in their place, but didn't want to CATER a gay wedding. Anyway, who in their right mind would want to have a wedding reception based on pizza?
It's my understanding that this law that was passed had nothing discriminatory about it. It was basically stating that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion; in other words, if someone wanted to refuse to bake a cake with words on it or not cater a wedding that would compromise their belief, the shop or owner could not be sued because it would be their right.
I still don't see what is so wrong with some groups that they have to hassle everyone. In fact, I believe the brouhaha over the pizza shop was a setup by a gay rights group. They could have easily gone to another business that would cater their pizza wedding but they had to cause a lot of harm to this shop. Not right. That's discrimination in reverse.
I watched a video a couple weeks ago where a straight guy tried to order a cake for a pro-traditional event and all the places he called (that he knew were gay) refused. They had the right to refuse the guy's request and so did the pizza shop. But a gay rights group didn't see it that way. They felt they had the right to refuse the pro-traditional event but the pizza shop didn't have the right to refuse the gay wedding.
So silly. Slam me, bash me if you want, but that's my opinion.
-
Although I agree that the story about the pizza shop seemed more like a hit piece (esp. since it was just a hypothetical question that the owner's daughter was asked), at the same time I think that that the girl's opinion was in the wrong and not what the law was addressing. You are correct in stating that the law was to prevent the government from putting a burden on a person's own religious expression. It was more in response to the federal RFRA signed by then President Clinton as well as the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision, the most recent challenge to that federal law. However, SCOTUS also decided in a 1997 decision that the federal RFRA held only to the federal government, so individual states had to enact their own RFRA in order to protect against religious burdens at the state and/or local level, hence the reason why Indiana along with some 20 other states have enacted their own version of the federal law.
The federal law essentially reinstated what is known as the Sherbert Test which applied a strict scrutiny to the apparent burden on religion. This means that the government is found to go against the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment if 1) it directly places a burden against a particular religion (eg specifically targets a religion or religious practice), 2) the government's law has no compelling interest (eg the government must have a prime motive for the law in protecting the general public's interest), or 3) if that law (even with compelling interest) has not been narrowly tailored to ensure it continues the state's compelling interest while using the least restrictive means to do so. Thus, were Iowa to enact a law that doesn't allow a Wiccan priestess from giving an invocation prayer to the state's legislature (while allowing clergy of other faiths to do so) would violate the 1st condition of the strict scrutiny of the law. Likewise a law that makes beards illegal -- even if applied to everyone regardless of religion -- would violate the 2nd prong of the Sherbert Test since there is no compelling reason for the state to enact such a law. Finally, laws that prohibit drug use, including peyote in religious ceremonies, would violate the 3rd since even though the state has a compelling interest in protecting the public's health and safety, a blanket proscription against drugs doesn't account for the possibility of using the drug in a controlled religious ceremony that still is in line with the underlying compelling interest (ie using the drug in a controlled environment of the ceremony still prevents the abuse of the drug, and the person's health and safety is ensured by the strict religious standards of its use).
In the case of the pizza restaurant, the only law that could be considered to be the burden to this business is the Civil Rights Act (CRA) in which Title 2 states that a business open to the general public cannot discriminate against a person's race, sex, religion, or national origin. Now even though it doesn't specifically prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that Title 7 of the CRA protects against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in employment as this is covered under the protections based on a person's sex, so it's possible that a similar argument could be made when serving a customer as well. So assuming that the legal contention would be on Title 2 of the CRA, I think that the pizza parlor would lose on the basis that catering a pizza party (regardless of what it is for) isn't based on any religious beliefs; in other words, the pizza restaurant wasn't being asked to officiate the wedding nor is the making and delivering of pizzas to an event somehow religious in nature. Thus the CRA in this instance isn't burdening the owner of the pizza place's religious beliefs.
However I know I'm basing my arguments on a supposition that refusing to cater an event for a homosexual customer is in violation of the CRA. As I mentioned, the actual law does not stipulate that sexual orientation is a protected trait. This is in part why I was looking for a more philosophical discussion vs. a legalistic one. Legally a business has great latitude in what they may discriminate against including sexual orientation (provided that there are no state laws prohibiting it), political affiliation, or even a person's name. But the question is, is this right? Should businesses be allowed such a wide ability to discriminate? Or should there be more protections in place to prevent discrimination esp. in a business setting?
-
I think the owner said and did the right thing when he re-opened on 4/1.
Not to cater party because in Gods eyes he would be celebrating something in Gods eyes that was a sin.
On the other hand he had no problem if they ate in his place.
The apostles said,we must obey God as ruler rather than man"when Gods rule and mans rule collided.
Kudos to the owner.
As many of you know <not to get off topic>blood is sacred to God.The eating of it is NOT supported in bible.Many have died in Gods memory to support HIS view on this.
-
Back in the 60s,M.Ali refused to go in the army.He said,I have nothing against the N.Vietnamese.
The government punished him taking away his championship belt.
I am sure in Gods eyes he did the right thing still.
The world is in the mess its in today because its NOT governed by our creator which initially was supposed to be.
Because the gay situation is so widely accepted today more than ever,even those that are against it are afraid to speak out because they feel like they are in a minority.
Again i applaude this owner NOT sinning in Gods eyes.
-
You said, "I think that the pizza parlor would lose on the basis that catering a pizza party (regardless of what it is for) isn't based on any religious beliefs; in other words, the pizza restaurant wasn't being asked to officiate the wedding nor is the making and delivering of pizzas to an event somehow religious in nature."
Oh, but they WERE asked to CATER the wedding, not just deliver pizza. Catering a wedding means to be there from the beginning to the end of the meal or whatever function a person is hired for and this is something that would have gone against their beliefs since it was a same sex marriage ceremony and something against their religious beliefs.
They should have the right to refuse to any function, just like any gay business owner should have the right to refuse any function too, but the gay rights group in Indiana (or wherever the protesters were from) don't think anyone should have those rights except them. That's not acceptable. What they believe is that it's their right and perfectly okay to refuse to cater a traditional wedding if they don't want to do it, but no one has the right to refuse to cater a same sex wedding or any other function they feel doesn't fall in line with their life. That's not acceptable. The RFRA law was trying to make it equal for all.
As for Ali, the government didn't take away his title. The boxing association did that plus suspended him for 3 years. The government felt he switched to Islam so he could evade being drafted and this is why the feds came down hard on him. This didn't help his popularity, either because people were still patriotic.
-
Sfreeman,the point i was trying to make with Ali is he was still punished for as you say....NOT being patriotic.He didnt want to take it a step furthur and have to kill someone he had nothing against.
Jesus said those that take to the sword will die by it.I am NOT referring to self-defense either.Of course yo would protect yourself and loved ones if need be.
The Vietnam war was certainly one of nonsense.I feel sorry for those killed or wounded in someway and NOT knowing why!!
-
I am opposed to gay marriage. I also disagree with the homosexual lifestyle. However, I can still love all people as Jesus did without supporting their lifestyle.
-
Sfreeman,the point i was trying to make with Ali is he was still punished for as you say....NOT being patriotic.He didnt want to take it a step furthur and have to kill someone he had nothing against.
Jesus said those that take to the sword will die by it.I am NOT referring to self-defense either.Of course yo would protect yourself and loved ones if need be.
The Vietnam war was certainly one of nonsense.I feel sorry for those killed or wounded in someway and NOT knowing why!!
Those that served knew why they signed up and what the war was all about. That was my era. The guys from my county and town area went willingly. My cousin stepped on an IED and died, but it didn't stop anyone from signing up after that. It was a matter of freedom for a country that was asking us for help to fight off communism. If the president(s) would have allowed the military to "do their thing," it would have been over within months...but the military's hands were tied, just like they were in Iraq and are in Afghanistan. A friend of ours was in Viet Nam and what did he have to defend himself? A rifle and RUBBER bullets. He was wounded but received NO medal.
Our armies can't fight anymore. They're not allowed to and the idiotic rules of engagement are the problem. Each president makes it tougher to engage an enemy. They take the defense away but allow the "enemies" to do whatever they want to do while our armies are helpless.
I better get off this subject as it still upsets me.
-
Sorry and dont mean to upset you.
I am also from that era.I passed my army physical with flying colors.Nixon instituted a birthday lottery for draft then.My number came out right in the middle.I think it was enuff to keep me out.
While you say many signed up for it willingly,many also knew it was a bunch of BS!!
I am glad i didnt have to make a decision whether to be like Ali or go get possiblly killed or wounded.
The 6000 yrs of mans rule on earth should convince many of Eccl 8:9
Man has dominated himself to his own injury
-
When I said the pizza parlor would lose on the basis of it going against their religion, the point I was trying to make is that I was making a distinction between the wedding ceremony and the wedding reception. When people request for a restaurant to cater their wedding, they are almost always referring to the reception. I don't know of any religion in which partaking in a catered meal is important to the tenants of the religion or important to the wedding ceremony. In other words, the wedding ceremony itself is act that the pizza place would have an issue with in relation to their beliefs, not the non-religious wedding reception afterwards. That was why I was saying, being asked to cater a wedding reception isn't doing something against their religion whereas officiating the wedding ceremony would be something that is against their religion. For example, I also work as a karaoke DJ as a side job. I have already decided that I'd cater any wedding reception that any customer requests. However I won't agree if they ask me to run the music for the wedding ceremony itself (regardless of religion or sexual orientation). I'd just let the customer know that I see the ceremony itself as something special / holy and I don't want to tarnish anyone's beliefs in order to appease the other party.
-
In my humble opinion, all the attention given by the media to subjects such as gay rights, gay marriage, race riots, global warming, etc. ad nauseum are simply ploys to keep American's attention off the things that our big daddy government is doing.
Therefore we are doing nothing but infighting while all sorts of cover-ups, outright lies and entitlement mentalities are being perpetrated.
Am I being too simplistic? :confused1:
-
I think celebrating something is the same as supporting it.This isnt the same as someone coming in and ordering a slice of pizza.
Everything gets exposed sooner or later Linder.Truth eventually surfaces.
-
Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do. You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer.
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.
-
Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do. You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer.
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.
According to your idea that business owners should not discriminate against anyone, then a black carpenter would have to build the cross for the KKK that will later be burnt in front of his shop. A homosexual print shop would have to print out banners and signs that read "God Hates F*gs" so that they can demonstrate on the sidewalk outside his store. A Jewish deli owner would have to cater a Neo-N*zi meeting. And the pastor that has a DJ business on the side would have to host a stripper's birthday party that had numerous undressed women and men in attendance. And all of the movie theaters that regulate what customers are allowed to view based on the MPAA's rating system should be charged with age discrimination when they prohibit a 10 year old from seeing a NC-17 rated movie.
-
Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do. You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer.
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.
These are private sector companies, they are not in business to serve the public.
-
Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do. You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer.
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.
According to your idea that business owners should not discriminate against anyone, then a black carpenter would have to build the cross for the KKK that will later be burnt in front of his shop. A homosexual print shop would have to print out banners and signs that read "God Hates F*gs" so that they can demonstrate on the sidewalk outside his store. A Jewish deli owner would have to cater a Neo-N*zi meeting. And the pastor that has a DJ business on the side would have to host a stripper's birthday party that had numerous undressed women and men in attendance. And all of the movie theaters that regulate what customers are allowed to view based on the MPAA's rating system should be charged with age discrimination when they prohibit a 10 year old from seeing a NC-17 rated movie.
"Have to?" No. The black carpenter would never be asked to make a cross for the Klan. Klan builds their own.
The homosexual owners of the print shop would never be asked by the "God hates f*gs" group to make their banners. WBC makes their own.
Jewish deli owner would never be asked to cater a Neo-*bleep* anything. Because they're Jews.
It's not discrimination to refuse to do business with someone who hates you. The hate in your examples are from customer to business.
In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/ for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.
And no matter how you slice it, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
-
Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do. You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer.
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.
These are private sector companies, they are not in business to serve the public.
Who buys their merchandise, if not the public?
-
Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do. You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer.
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.
According to your idea that business owners should not discriminate against anyone, then a black carpenter would have to build the cross for the KKK that will later be burnt in front of his shop. A homosexual print shop would have to print out banners and signs that read "God Hates F*gs" so that they can demonstrate on the sidewalk outside his store. A Jewish deli owner would have to cater a Neo-N*zi meeting. And the pastor that has a DJ business on the side would have to host a stripper's birthday party that had numerous undressed women and men in attendance. And all of the movie theaters that regulate what customers are allowed to view based on the MPAA's rating system should be charged with age discrimination when they prohibit a 10 year old from seeing a NC-17 rated movie.
"Have to?" No.
Actually, yes they would "have to". When we are talking about laws, we have the underlying understanding that we as a society have given the government the right to execute the laws by means of force if need be. If the law states that no business can refuse service to another person for any reason, a business that does decide to discriminate would face the force of the government including shackling up the owner and hauling them off to jail at the end of a gun.
To be fair, in your first reply, you said that "personally" you don't think it's right for a business to be able to discriminate, and it was I that brought in the legal element. So assuming that you were not wanting to codify that sentiment into law, then you're correct that they wouldn't "have to" do anything they didn't want to because there is no government entity forcing the business to be open to everyone.
The black carpenter would never be asked to make a cross for the Klan. Klan builds their own.
The homosexual owners of the print shop would never be asked by the "God hates f*gs" group to make their banners. WBC makes their own.
Jewish deli owner would never be asked to cater a Neo-*bleep* anything. Because they're Jews.
These are specious arguments. In each case, you are not arguing the impossibility of a situation, but rather the improbability of it. Yet the whole situation regarding the pizza parlor could just as easily be argued in the same way: no gay couple would ask an openly Christian restaurant to cater their wedding either (and none have; the incident arose when a journalist asked the owner's daughter about this hypothetical situation). But when considering whether to regulate something, it isn't enough to just state that something is improbable and therefore such a situation shouldn't even be considered; rather the law needs to consider all possible cases, even those that are highly improbable. In fact, I could actually see some of these situations happening, not because the customer likes the business, but rather because they dislike it. I could see the WBC going to that homosexual-ran print shop just to spite that business, esp. if they see how they can use the law as a weapon against that business they despise.
It's not discrimination to refuse to do business with someone who hates you. The hate in your examples are from customer to business.
So by this definition, it would not be considered "discrimination" if a white store owner refuses to do business with Malcolm X-like civil rights leader that has been overheard by the shop owner as saying that all white men are evil. Or for an openly Christian pizza parlor to refuse to do a wedding for a homosexual couple because the gay couple hates Christians and were only attempting to undermine the restaurant owner's Christian beliefs (yes, some homosexuals can hate Christians just as much as some Christians hate homosexuals).
In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/ for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.
And in every other example I've given, the discrimination has always been the business against the customer. It would be the carpenter that discriminates against the KKK, the print shop owner discriminating against the WBC, the deli owner that discriminates against the Neo-N*zis, the movie theater against the minor child. I don't understand where you were going with this esp. since it would be pointless considering the opposite possibility (ie the customer discriminating against the business) since customers do discriminate against which business they patron in a free market where such choices exist. Unless that statement goes back to your previous comment that treating someone different because of their characteristics or ideas isn't "discrimination" if the person making this distinction feels that they have been wronged by the other party, which I don't buy (and neither would the courts were a civil rights suit brought against the white owner refusing business against a black person that hates whites).
I think the distinction that Hawkeye was trying to make is that these are private transactions as opposed to something through the public / government sector. And the issue here is the point I was trying to make in answering the "Has to?" question... A private transaction is conducted on a volunteer basis: both the customer and the business undergo a mutually agreed upon transaction to the mutual benefit of both parties. The government, on the other hand, also has the power of force behind it. So while I have a choice whether I want to spend my money at a particular establishment or rather just save my money for something else, I cannot do the same when the government wants my money to pay for some service, even if I might never benefit from such a service. This is why the "Jim Crow" laws were wrong; not that the discrimination itself was wrong, but because the discrimination was coming from the government that had force behind it ensuring that everyone had to discriminate, even if they'd rather not. For example, a restaurant owner may not have wanted to discriminate against black customers because of the loss of business, but under the Jim Crow laws, they would have to because the law is telling them to discriminate. This is also why so much of the Civil Rights Act focused on discrimination inside the government structure, and not as much in terms of interactions within the private sector.
-
Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do. You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer.
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.
These are private sector companies, they are not in business to serve the public.
Who buys their merchandise, if not the public?
Private consumers. Private sector companies are in business to make a profit, not serve the public.
In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/ for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.
And no matter how you slice it, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
And what if it was a Muslim owned pizza place or cake decorator, and the event was a "Draw Mohammad Contest" like in Garland, Texas. Would the owner be discriminating if he/she refused to cater the event?
-
Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do. You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer.
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.
These are private sector companies, they are not in business to serve the public.
Who buys their merchandise, if not the public?
Private consumers. Private sector companies are in business to make a profit, not serve the public.
Then why do they need a license (government issued) to do business?
In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/ for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.
And no matter how you slice it, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
And what if it was a Muslim owned pizza place or cake decorator, and the event was a "Draw Mohammad Contest" like in Garland, Texas. Would the owner be discriminating if he/she refused to cater the event?
No. In this instance, it would be refusing to spread the ignorance.
As it was in the case of the bakery in Denver who refuse to accept an order for an anti-gay cake.
-
Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do. You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer.
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.
According to your idea that business owners should not discriminate against anyone, then a black carpenter would have to build the cross for the KKK that will later be burnt in front of his shop. A homosexual print shop would have to print out banners and signs that read "God Hates F*gs" so that they can demonstrate on the sidewalk outside his store. A Jewish deli owner would have to cater a Neo-N*zi meeting. And the pastor that has a DJ business on the side would have to host a stripper's birthday party that had numerous undressed women and men in attendance. And all of the movie theaters that regulate what customers are allowed to view based on the MPAA's rating system should be charged with age discrimination when they prohibit a 10 year old from seeing a NC-17 rated movie.
"Have to?" No.
Actually, yes they would "have to". When we are talking about laws, we have the underlying understanding that we as a society have given the government the right to execute the laws by means of force if need be. If the law states that no business can refuse service to another person for any reason, a business that does decide to discriminate would face the force of the government including shackling up the owner and hauling them off to jail at the end of a gun.
To be fair, in your first reply, you said that "personally" you don't think it's right for a business to be able to discriminate, and it was I that brought in the legal element. So assuming that you were not wanting to codify that sentiment into law, then you're correct that they wouldn't "have to" do anything they didn't want to because there is no government entity forcing the business to be open to everyone.
The black carpenter would never be asked to make a cross for the Klan. Klan builds their own.
The homosexual owners of the print shop would never be asked by the "God hates f*gs" group to make their banners. WBC makes their own.
Jewish deli owner would never be asked to cater a Neo-*bleep* anything. Because they're Jews.
These are specious arguments. In each case, you are not arguing the impossibility of a situation, but rather the improbability of it. Yet the whole situation regarding the pizza parlor could just as easily be argued in the same way: no gay couple would ask an openly Christian restaurant to cater their wedding either (and none have; the incident arose when a journalist asked the owner's daughter about this hypothetical situation). But when considering whether to regulate something, it isn't enough to just state that something is improbable and therefore such a situation shouldn't even be considered; rather the law needs to consider all possible cases, even those that are highly improbable. In fact, I could actually see some of these situations happening, not because the customer likes the business, but rather because they dislike it. I could see the WBC going to that homosexual-ran print shop just to spite that business, esp. if they see how they can use the law as a weapon against that business they despise.
It's not discrimination to refuse to do business with someone who hates you. The hate in your examples are from customer to business.
So by this definition, it would not be considered "discrimination" if a white store owner refuses to do business with Malcolm X-like civil rights leader that has been overheard by the shop owner as saying that all white men are evil. Or for an openly Christian pizza parlor to refuse to do a wedding for a homosexual couple because the gay couple hates Christians and were only attempting to undermine the restaurant owner's Christian beliefs (yes, some homosexuals can hate Christians just as much as some Christians hate homosexuals).
In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/ for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.
And in every other example I've given, the discrimination has always been the business against the customer. It would be the carpenter that discriminates against the KKK, the print shop owner discriminating against the WBC, the deli owner that discriminates against the Neo-N*zis, the movie theater against the minor child. I don't understand where you were going with this esp. since it would be pointless considering the opposite possibility (ie the customer discriminating against the business) since customers do discriminate against which business they patron in a free market where such choices exist. Unless that statement goes back to your previous comment that treating someone different because of their characteristics or ideas isn't "discrimination" if the person making this distinction feels that they have been wronged by the other party, which I don't buy (and neither would the courts were a civil rights suit brought against the white owner refusing business against a black person that hates whites).
I think the distinction that Hawkeye was trying to make is that these are private transactions as opposed to something through the public / government sector. And the issue here is the point I was trying to make in answering the "Has to?" question... A private transaction is conducted on a volunteer basis: both the customer and the business undergo a mutually agreed upon transaction to the mutual benefit of both parties. The government, on the other hand, also has the power of force behind it. So while I have a choice whether I want to spend my money at a particular establishment or rather just save my money for something else, I cannot do the same when the government wants my money to pay for some service, even if I might never benefit from such a service. This is why the "Jim Crow" laws were wrong; not that the discrimination itself was wrong, but because the discrimination was coming from the government that had force behind it ensuring that everyone had to discriminate, even if they'd rather not. For example, a restaurant owner may not have wanted to discriminate against black customers because of the loss of business, but under the Jim Crow laws, they would have to because the law is telling them to discriminate. This is also why so much of the Civil Rights Act focused on discrimination inside the government structure, and not as much in terms of interactions within the private sector.
[/quote
Nobody "has to" discriminate. Even with Jim Crow laws, a person had a choice. We are under no obligation to follow an unjust law. A law that makes discrimination legal, is itself illegal.
-
Personally, I think it's wrong to discriminate against anyone.
If you are in business to serve the public, that's what you do. You're not condoning someones' lifestyle by treating them as you would any other customer.
Your customers' lifestyle is not your business.
These are private sector companies, they are not in business to serve the public.
Who buys their merchandise, if not the public?
Private consumers. Private sector companies are in business to make a profit, not serve the public.
Then why do they need a license (government issued) to do business?
In the example of the bakery refusing to make a cake, or a pizza :/ for a gay wedding, the discrimination is coming from the business to the customer.
And no matter how you slice it, that's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
And what if it was a Muslim owned pizza place or cake decorator, and the event was a "Draw Mohammad Contest" like in Garland, Texas. Would the owner be discriminating if he/she refused to cater the event?
No. In this instance, it would be refusing to spread the ignorance.
As it was in the case of the bakery in Denver who refuse to accept an order for an anti-gay cake.
Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
Spreading the ignorance? What ignorance? That the Islamic religion forbids one from drawing Muhammad? There's not a single verse in the Quran that even implies that you shouldn't have any pictures of Muhammad.
The reality is that both of this events are very similar in that they are viewed basically as sin to those in that religion. To claim otherwise would be naive.
-
Nobody "has to" discriminate. Even with Jim Crow laws, a person had a choice. We are under no obligation to follow an unjust law.
I guess you don't have to follow any law as long as you're willing to give up your rights to the government... A person that didn't follow the Jim Crow laws would be sent to prison. So I could sacrifice my rights to life, liberty, and / or the pursuit of happiness depending on what the government takes as punishment to not abide by a law that I felt was unjust.
A law that makes discrimination legal, is itself illegal.
This is the rallying cry of Spring Breakers that cannot purchase alcohol because they are under age. After all, most all states discriminate against anyone under 21 years of age to purchase alcohol. And who knows what the "birthers" were thinking since the Constitution of the US must itself be illegal because it discriminates against not only a person's age, but also their national origin in order to run for president.
Seriously, though, this is part of the reason why I don't like such general statements as "it's wrong to discriminate against anyone." This was why I opened the topic by talking about what I viewed as 2 types of discrimination: against an innate trait a person is born with vs. some arbitrary characteristic that a person can more easily change. That is why I have absolutely no problem to allow businesses to discriminate against a customer for a very minor, changeable characteristic like a restaurant discriminating against a customer that isn't wearing the business' dress code. On the other hand, I do think it's wrong to discriminate against a person's race.
-
Nobody "has to" discriminate. Even with Jim Crow laws, a person had a choice. We are under no obligation to follow an unjust law.
I guess you don't have to follow any law as long as you're willing to give up your rights to the government... A person that didn't follow the Jim Crow laws would be sent to prison. So I could sacrifice my rights to life, liberty, and / or the pursuit of happiness depending on what the government takes as punishment to not abide by a law that I felt was unjust.
A law that makes discrimination legal, is itself illegal.
This is the rallying cry of Spring Breakers that cannot purchase alcohol because they are under age. After all, most all states discriminate against anyone under 21 years of age to purchase alcohol. And who knows what the "birthers" were thinking since the Constitution of the US must itself be illegal because it discriminates against not only a person's age, but also their national origin in order to run for president.
Seriously, though, this is part of the reason why I don't like such general statements as "it's wrong to discriminate against anyone." This was why I opened the topic by talking about what I viewed as 2 types of discrimination: against an innate trait a person is born with vs. some arbitrary characteristic that a person can more easily change. That is why I have absolutely no problem to allow businesses to discriminate against a customer for a very minor, changeable characteristic like a restaurant discriminating against a customer that isn't wearing the business' dress code. On the other hand, I do think it's wrong to discriminate against a person's race.
The penalty for not following jim crow was more than jail. Lynching, murders, beatings, burnings, of both blacks and whites.
Jim Crow laws mainly came about because former slave owners weren't willing to let it go. They believed themselves superior, and by hook or by crook, they were going to stay in power.
They pitted whites against blacks, and fleeced them both.
''I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."
<http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/1987_winter/second.html>
The same thing is going on now, with all these "religious freedom" laws.
We are being played. And it's still wrong.
-
Nobody "has to" discriminate. Even with Jim Crow laws, a person had a choice. We are under no obligation to follow an unjust law.
I guess you don't have to follow any law as long as you're willing to give up your rights to the government... A person that didn't follow the Jim Crow laws would be sent to prison. So I could sacrifice my rights to life, liberty, and / or the pursuit of happiness depending on what the government takes as punishment to not abide by a law that I felt was unjust.
A law that makes discrimination legal, is itself illegal.
This is the rallying cry of Spring Breakers that cannot purchase alcohol because they are under age. After all, most all states discriminate against anyone under 21 years of age to purchase alcohol. And who knows what the "birthers" were thinking since the Constitution of the US must itself be illegal because it discriminates against not only a person's age, but also their national origin in order to run for president.
Seriously, though, this is part of the reason why I don't like such general statements as "it's wrong to discriminate against anyone." This was why I opened the topic by talking about what I viewed as 2 types of discrimination: against an innate trait a person is born with vs. some arbitrary characteristic that a person can more easily change. That is why I have absolutely no problem to allow businesses to discriminate against a customer for a very minor, changeable characteristic like a restaurant discriminating against a customer that isn't wearing the business' dress code. On the other hand, I do think it's wrong to discriminate against a person's race.
The penalty for not following jim crow was more than jail. Lynching, murders, beatings, burnings, of both blacks and whites.
Jim Crow laws mainly came about because former slave owners weren't willing to let it go. They believed themselves superior, and by hook or by crook, they were going to stay in power.
They pitted whites against blacks, and fleeced them both.
''I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."
<http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/1987_winter/second.html>
The same thing is going on now, with all these "religious freedom" laws.
We are being played. And it's still wrong.
You are being played if you really feel the religious freedom restoration act laws have anything to with discrimination.
First of all, they are not new. Clinton signed them into law back in 1993, and many states have already had them in place.
Second, it's been dumbed down to something about gay wedding cakes, and that's simply not the case. The last RFRA was an Apache leader who was returned some sacred eagle feathers. There was also the case in Texas were the school demanded a Native American boy to cut his hair, but he won his case against the school saying that they violated his RFRA rights. The boy received an award from the ACLU, which was when ACLU was very vocal in its support of the RFRA. Now, the ACLU is trying to claim the RFRA promotes discrimination? It's laughable. 99.9% of the RFRA cases have nothing to do with a business refusing to serve a certain customer. Sometimes you need to read more than just the headlines.
-
Nobody "has to" discriminate. Even with Jim Crow laws, a person had a choice. We are under no obligation to follow an unjust law.
I guess you don't have to follow any law as long as you're willing to give up your rights to the government... A person that didn't follow the Jim Crow laws would be sent to prison. So I could sacrifice my rights to life, liberty, and / or the pursuit of happiness depending on what the government takes as punishment to not abide by a law that I felt was unjust.
A law that makes discrimination legal, is itself illegal.
This is the rallying cry of Spring Breakers that cannot purchase alcohol because they are under age. After all, most all states discriminate against anyone under 21 years of age to purchase alcohol. And who knows what the "birthers" were thinking since the Constitution of the US must itself be illegal because it discriminates against not only a person's age, but also their national origin in order to run for president.
Seriously, though, this is part of the reason why I don't like such general statements as "it's wrong to discriminate against anyone." This was why I opened the topic by talking about what I viewed as 2 types of discrimination: against an innate trait a person is born with vs. some arbitrary characteristic that a person can more easily change. That is why I have absolutely no problem to allow businesses to discriminate against a customer for a very minor, changeable characteristic like a restaurant discriminating against a customer that isn't wearing the business' dress code. On the other hand, I do think it's wrong to discriminate against a person's race.
The penalty for not following jim crow was more than jail. Lynching, murders, beatings, burnings, of both blacks and whites.
Jim Crow laws mainly came about because former slave owners weren't willing to let it go. They believed themselves superior, and by hook or by crook, they were going to stay in power.
They pitted whites against blacks, and fleeced them both.
''I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."
<http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/1987_winter/second.html>
The same thing is going on now, with all these "religious freedom" laws.
We are being played. And it's still wrong.
You are being played if you really feel the religious freedom restoration act laws have anything to with discrimination.
Sometimes you need to read more than just the headlines.
Amazingly enough, I do read more than the headlines.
The RFRA laws are being used to discriminate.
And if you don't get that, you haven't been paying attention.
-
Amazingly enough, I do read more than the headlines.
The RFRA laws are being used to discriminate.
And if you don't get that, you haven't been paying attention.
Obviously, you don't. You haven't come close to being able to articulate an understanding of the RFRA, let alone explain how it makes it legal for businesses to discriminate. You are regurgitating headlines, similar to claim you made a few weeks ago that the minimum wage would have been $23+ if adjusted for inflation. It's propaganda, not facts.
If you look want to look at origins of the RFRA, it was passed (97 to 3 in the senate) after a business owner legally fired an employee for using peyote, which peyote is central part of his Native American religious ceremonies. It protected employees against the "evil" business owners. None of this was seen as controversial, and was almost universally trumpeted as a great thing recently.
So what changed? It really started with the Hobby Lobby decision. Which is little odd, because there was nothing controversial about the Obama Administration stated that Wheaton College could not be sued by an employee for failing to provide contraceptive coverage because it imposes a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion. That's right, even a corporation has it's own religious rights. The "controversial" Indiana law did nothing more than write into code that the private enforcement of public laws, such as discrimination claims, can be defended if it posed a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion. It's still a matter then for the courts to decide if the substantial burden actually exists. It's simply not a license to discriminate as the headlines suggest. In no way does the RFRA provide immunity from discrimination suits.
The comedy of it all has been the rush to appease all the decenters of the law, which has caused numerous politicians to stick their foot in their mouth. Most notably, the Connecticut Governor who condemned the Indiana law while failing to realize his own a state had a much more restrictive RFRA law on the books. The Connecticut law only needs to show that a "burden" exists in ones right to free exercise of religion. His response to the people pointing that out should have given anyone capable of free-thought to realize that the RFRA wasn't the issue. He claimed that unlike Indiana, his state had more anti-discrimination laws on the books. If the RFRA is "acceptable" in one state because of other anti-discrimination laws, the RFRA isn't actually the real issue. You don't need knowledge of the laws to see that.
Finally, you claim that the RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. In reality, no RFRA law has ever been used to successfully defend anti-gay discrimination. Not once. There's been cases where businesses have tried to use the RFRA in defense of anti-gay discrimination suits, but have failed. If the RFRA hasn't been used for anti-gay purposes in the past 20+ years, why is there so much concern now and for the future? As is the case most times in politics, you're likely answer is another group trying to get rid of the RFRA and is simply "playing" people into believing this somehow has something to do with anti-gay discrimination.
-
I think the whole thing with the pizza place was a scam. They received close to a million dollars from supporters from a go fund me account to help support them since they closed their shop. Shortly after the valance got so huge, they reopen the shop.
-
JMC if what you say is correct how do you know they may have done good with the money,like help the poor?
Because the greater percent dont give a <bleep> for what Gods laws are thats why this discussion goes back and forth.In this case this owner cared NOT to celebrate a sin in Gods eyes.Examples are made by the apostle Peter when Gods laws are compromised by mans.Again i know that means NOTHING to most of you but in owners case here it did.
Lets not forget the pressure thats put on 37 states to marry gays even tho this country is so hypocritical in using "In God we trust"
What a JOKE!!!
-
I also forgot to add,"one nation,under god"
HILARIOUS!!!
-
Amazingly enough, I do read more than the headlines.
The RFRA laws are being used to discriminate.
And if you don't get that, you haven't been paying attention.
Obviously, you don't. You haven't come close to being able to articulate an understanding of the RFRA, let alone explain how it makes it legal for businesses to discriminate. You are regurgitating headlines, similar to claim you made a few weeks ago that the minimum wage would have been $23+ if adjusted for inflation. It's propaganda, not facts.
If you look want to look at origins of the RFRA, it was passed (97 to 3 in the senate) after a business owner legally fired an employee for using peyote, which peyote is central part of his Native American religious ceremonies. It protected employees against the "evil" business owners. None of this was seen as controversial, and was almost universally trumpeted as a great thing recently.
So what changed? It really started with the Hobby Lobby decision. Which is little odd, because there was nothing controversial about the Obama Administration stated that Wheaton College could not be sued by an employee for failing to provide contraceptive coverage because it imposes a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion. That's right, even a corporation has it's own religious rights. The "controversial" Indiana law did nothing more than write into code that the private enforcement of public laws, such as discrimination claims, can be defended if it posed a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion. It's still a matter then for the courts to decide if the substantial burden actually exists. It's simply not a license to discriminate as the headlines suggest. In no way does the RFRA provide immunity from discrimination suits.
The comedy of it all has been the rush to appease all the decenters of the law, which has caused numerous politicians to stick their foot in their mouth. Most notably, the Connecticut Governor who condemned the Indiana law while failing to realize his own a state had a much more restrictive RFRA law on the books. The Connecticut law only needs to show that a "burden" exists in ones right to free exercise of religion. His response to the people pointing that out should have given anyone capable of free-thought to realize that the RFRA wasn't the issue. He claimed that unlike Indiana, his state had more anti-discrimination laws on the books. If the RFRA is "acceptable" in one state because of other anti-discrimination laws, the RFRA isn't actually the real issue. You don't need knowledge of the laws to see that.
Finally, you claim that the RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. In reality, no RFRA law has ever been used to successfully defend anti-gay discrimination. Not once. There's been cases where businesses have tried to use the RFRA in defense of anti-gay discrimination suits, but have failed. If the RFRA hasn't been used for anti-gay purposes in the past 20+ years, why is there so much concern now and for the future? As is the case most times in politics, you're likely answer is another group trying to get rid of the RFRA and is simply "playing" people into believing this somehow has something to do with anti-gay discrimination.
Hawkeye, it's really very simple. My rights end where yours begin.
A person has a right to their religious views, but when the practice of their religion interferes with another persons rights, that's not allowed.
And thank you for calling me stupid. I'm not, but at least it lets me know I'm wasting my time with you. :)
-
Amazingly enough, I do read more than the headlines.
The RFRA laws are being used to discriminate.
And if you don't get that, you haven't been paying attention.
Obviously, you don't. You haven't come close to being able to articulate an understanding of the RFRA, let alone explain how it makes it legal for businesses to discriminate. You are regurgitating headlines, similar to claim you made a few weeks ago that the minimum wage would have been $23+ if adjusted for inflation. It's propaganda, not facts.
If you look want to look at origins of the RFRA, it was passed (97 to 3 in the senate) after a business owner legally fired an employee for using peyote, which peyote is central part of his Native American religious ceremonies. It protected employees against the "evil" business owners. None of this was seen as controversial, and was almost universally trumpeted as a great thing recently.
So what changed? It really started with the Hobby Lobby decision. Which is little odd, because there was nothing controversial about the Obama Administration stated that Wheaton College could not be sued by an employee for failing to provide contraceptive coverage because it imposes a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion. That's right, even a corporation has it's own religious rights. The "controversial" Indiana law did nothing more than write into code that the private enforcement of public laws, such as discrimination claims, can be defended if it posed a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion. It's still a matter then for the courts to decide if the substantial burden actually exists. It's simply not a license to discriminate as the headlines suggest. In no way does the RFRA provide immunity from discrimination suits.
The comedy of it all has been the rush to appease all the decenters of the law, which has caused numerous politicians to stick their foot in their mouth. Most notably, the Connecticut Governor who condemned the Indiana law while failing to realize his own a state had a much more restrictive RFRA law on the books. The Connecticut law only needs to show that a "burden" exists in ones right to free exercise of religion. His response to the people pointing that out should have given anyone capable of free-thought to realize that the RFRA wasn't the issue. He claimed that unlike Indiana, his state had more anti-discrimination laws on the books. If the RFRA is "acceptable" in one state because of other anti-discrimination laws, the RFRA isn't actually the real issue. You don't need knowledge of the laws to see that.
Finally, you claim that the RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. In reality, no RFRA law has ever been used to successfully defend anti-gay discrimination. Not once. There's been cases where businesses have tried to use the RFRA in defense of anti-gay discrimination suits, but have failed. If the RFRA hasn't been used for anti-gay purposes in the past 20+ years, why is there so much concern now and for the future? As is the case most times in politics, you're likely answer is another group trying to get rid of the RFRA and is simply "playing" people into believing this somehow has something to do with anti-gay discrimination.
Hawkeye, it's really very simple. My rights end where yours begin.
A person has a right to their religious views, but when the practice of their religion interferes with another persons rights, that's not allowed.
And thank you for calling me stupid. I'm not, but at least it lets me know I'm wasting my time with you. :)
I most certainly never called you stupid.
My rights end where yours begins. No argument there. My point was that the RFRA has never been used to infringe on gay rights despite claims to the contrary. Sure, businesses have refused service to gay weddings and claimed RFRA protection, but that has never been upheld in court. That's the point. A business owner could claim protection under the First Amendment as well, but that doesn't mean the courts are going to agree.
-
When paints stated "A person has a right to their religious views, but when the practice of their religion interferes with another persons rights, that's not allowed," that is only partially correct... Since our country prides itself in offering its people freedom to act, the purpose of laws is to dictate what should happen when one person's rights interact with another person's rights; usually it isn't so clear-cut to say that a person's religious rights are interfering with another person's rights and therefore the other person's rights trump the religious views. The legislatures have to determine which rights / freedoms cause the most harm when interacting with another person's rights. For example, murder in self-defense is considered legal (or may carry a much lesser penalty than murder in the 1st degree) because we feel that a person protecting their own rights to life and / or their property is more important to protect than the thug victim's life that was planning to harm the actual murderer. This is why the federal RFRA law stipulates that there has to be a "substantial burden" placed on a person's religious views in order for those views to be the prevailing right to be preserved. This is also why it would be more difficult for a company to use RFRA laws in order to discriminate against a person of a protected class. A company couldn't just choose to not do business with a gay couple because the company's (or owner's) religious views are against homosexuality; they'd also have to show that what the gay couple is asking the company to do actually goes against something the company's religion.
-
Amazingly enough, I do read more than the headlines.
The RFRA laws are being used to discriminate.
And if you don't get that, you haven't been paying attention.
Obviously, you don't. You haven't come close to being able to articulate an understanding of the RFRA, let alone explain how it makes it legal for businesses to discriminate. You are regurgitating headlines, similar to claim you made a few weeks ago that the minimum wage would have been $23+ if adjusted for inflation. It's propaganda, not facts.
If you look want to look at origins of the RFRA, it was passed (97 to 3 in the senate) after a business owner legally fired an employee for using peyote, which peyote is central part of his Native American religious ceremonies. It protected employees against the "evil" business owners. None of this was seen as controversial, and was almost universally trumpeted as a great thing recently.
So what changed? It really started with the Hobby Lobby decision. Which is little odd, because there was nothing controversial about the Obama Administration stated that Wheaton College could not be sued by an employee for failing to provide contraceptive coverage because it imposes a “substantial burden” on its free exercise of religion. That's right, even a corporation has it's own religious rights. The "controversial" Indiana law did nothing more than write into code that the private enforcement of public laws, such as discrimination claims, can be defended if it posed a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion. It's still a matter then for the courts to decide if the substantial burden actually exists. It's simply not a license to discriminate as the headlines suggest. In no way does the RFRA provide immunity from discrimination suits.
The comedy of it all has been the rush to appease all the decenters of the law, which has caused numerous politicians to stick their foot in their mouth. Most notably, the Connecticut Governor who condemned the Indiana law while failing to realize his own a state had a much more restrictive RFRA law on the books. The Connecticut law only needs to show that a "burden" exists in ones right to free exercise of religion. His response to the people pointing that out should have given anyone capable of free-thought to realize that the RFRA wasn't the issue. He claimed that unlike Indiana, his state had more anti-discrimination laws on the books. If the RFRA is "acceptable" in one state because of other anti-discrimination laws, the RFRA isn't actually the real issue. You don't need knowledge of the laws to see that.
Finally, you claim that the RFRA laws are being used to discriminate. In reality, no RFRA law has ever been used to successfully defend anti-gay discrimination. Not once. There's been cases where businesses have tried to use the RFRA in defense of anti-gay discrimination suits, but have failed. If the RFRA hasn't been used for anti-gay purposes in the past 20+ years, why is there so much concern now and for the future? As is the case most times in politics, you're likely answer is another group trying to get rid of the RFRA and is simply "playing" people into believing this somehow has something to do with anti-gay discrimination.
Hawkeye, it's really very simple. My rights end where yours begin.
A person has a right to their religious views, but when the practice of their religion interferes with another persons rights, that's not allowed.
And thank you for calling me stupid. I'm not, but at least it lets me know I'm wasting my time with you. :)
I most certainly never called you stupid.
My rights end where yours begins. No argument there. My point was that the RFRA has never been used to infringe on gay rights despite claims to the contrary. Sure, businesses have refused service to gay weddings and claimed RFRA protection, but that has never been upheld in court. That's the point. A business owner could claim protection under the First Amendment as well, but that doesn't mean the courts are going to agree.
I apologize. You called my thinking naive, which I interpreted as equivalent to stupid.
Hobby Lobby's claim to the contrary, corporations have no god, but profit.
A business has no religion, so how can it claim religious freedom?
Rights should be reserved for living persons, not legal constructs.
-
I apologize. You called my thinking naive, which I interpreted as equivalent to stupid.
Hobby Lobby's claim to the contrary, corporations have no god, but profit.
A business has no religion, so how can it claim religious freedom?
Rights should be reserved for living persons, not legal constructs.
The owners of Hobby Lobby are living persons with religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby isn't open on Sundays because of their religious beliefs. They commit 50% of their earnings a year to various religious missions. They had already put religion before profits.
Legally, it really just comes down to the legal concept Corporate Personhood, which gives corporations some of the same legal rights and responsibilities as an individual. It's also the same legal concept that allows a corporation to be sued.
-
every one should be free to do their own religion as long as their not out hurting killing people
-
every one should be free to do their own religion as long as their not out hurting killing people
What gives mankind the right how the TRUE GOD wants to be served?
Read Rev 4:11 and understand why the TRUE God has that right!!
A landlord can decide what tenants he has.How much more if God created the earth and us!!
-
When the Pharissees thought they were worshiping god go read what the son of the TRUE GOD Jesus Christ told them and who they were really serving!!
Not that most of you care anyway because in the times we live in even when truth and logic can dominate...people are so set in their ways they still dont give a D*M!!