That's extreme. Again, turn the tables around and what's your answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
|
That's extreme. Again, turn the tables around and what's your answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again,
Do you right wingers know that you sound very Talibanish when you speak of your religion and women's rights??? You FORCE your religion on us in school. You FORCE your religion on us in the workplace. You FORCE your religion on us in the public square.
Why would you wanna do that?? Isn't freedom GOOD?
excon
I've never forced my religion on anyone, it goes against everything MOST Christians believe contrary to popular liberal opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So should the "God hates fags" group be allowed to celebrate in the gay place or not, or does your rule only apply to gays forcing a baker to make a cake? And why do you keep changing the subject?
should a Black caterer be forced to cater a local KKK rally ? NAH ;you know that aint happening . The courts would kick that case out before any serious argument was made .
Hello again,
I don't mumble... Leave your religion in church. If you open your doors to the PUBLIC, that means the PUBLIC. If SOME of the activities of your customers DISTURBS you to the point where you REFUSE to do business with them, then you SHOULDN'T BE in business.
Lemme ask you this.. If this bakery, or that hobby shop can REFUSE to serve people based on their DEEPLY held religious beliefs, can a COP? Can the drivers license bureau? Can his legislator? Can an election worker? Can a fireman? Why should THEIR religious freedom be compromised?
I've tried to point out to you what kind of country we'd have if you COULD discriminate like you WANT to... I suspect you can find religious reasons for slavery.
Nope. This is ANTI American. It's ANTI freedom. It's VERY Russian. In fact, it's very TALIBANISH!
excon
none of your examples are private businesses. The Civil Rights laws correctly addressed government discrimination. It goes too far when forcing private individuals or businesses to give up their right of free association .
The gay restaurant owner can say no but he will lose money -- LOTS of money. He's in business to make money. He doesn't have to say he's gay. And if the group knows that, it would be to his ADVANTAGE -- for business and political and social reasons -- to host the group. Actually, it would be a pie in the face of the "hate fags" group -- or as the Bible says, it would heap coals of fire on their heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
***ADDED*** When I started dating, my very conservative Lutheran parents refused to allow me to date Catholic boys. They believed there was something sinister about them and that they would lure me into the back seat of the car and have their way with me. (Think Reformation and Martin Luther and the Catholic Church as the historical basis for this concern.) Yes, I know -- silly, senseless discrimination. (P.S. I found out teen Baptist and Jewish and atheist AND Lutheran boys were just as interested in the back seat of a car.)
Of course the gay haters have as much right to service and products as anyone right? Or to build a church too!!
I may be open to the public but it's still MY business, not a government agency. You don't have an unlimited right to force me to participate in things I find abhorrent. I realize you think you do, like forcing pharmacists to sell abortifacients, doctors to perform abortions, nuns to buy contraceptives or bakers to cater gay weddings, but that vision of your Country is much more terrifying than allowing reasonable people to set limits on accommodating everyone's demands in their private lives and "private" businesses. Your view is fascist.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
it's called the business owner's choice. #39 I argued that it's against the business interest if it's strictly a financial decision. But obviously there is more involved in the decision than that . Does a restaurant lose business when they discriminate against men without shirts and shoes ? Yes ;but they are catering to a clientele of their choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Does a network discriminate when it refuses to air an ad for a Catholic hospital or a pro 2nd amendment ad? How about a doctor that refuses a Medicaid patient?
No shoes, No shirt, No service", Now No GAYS? Well it use to be NO blacks, or whites only.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Is that discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I have to call you on this one. The discrimination is in the Health Code. Bare feet are prohibited from restaurants for sanitation reasons. This is why you often see beach-side restaurants with racks of flip-flops by the door. It's cheaper to provide the flip-flops than make beach goers change.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
ok then I'll take it up a notch .. There are restaurants here that will not serve men unless they are wearing a suit jacket . No sanitation issues there .
And schools that demand their students wear uniforms. And sports teams that demand the players wear protective pads and helmets or uniforms that look like underwear.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
A better example by far. Another would be more historical: "No Irish" signs on numerous businesses up until the 50s.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This ties in with the thread I started about the Bank manager carrying a gun. What rights does a business owner have? Whether exercising those rights is profitable is a distraction.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
my right trumps your right is a useless debate
Clete,
How many useless debates have you or I or the both of us participated in on this one forum?
part 1 ... too long to put in one response :
Quote:
Some have claimed that a bill recently passed by the Arizona legislature would give businesses broad license to not serve someone for being gay. This claim, though, may be a misreading, according a CP legislative analysis. While the bill is an attempt to broaden who is covered under its religious freedom protections, in all cases it actually narrows when a religious belief could be used to refuse service.
Here are six important points to understand about the just-passed bill:
1. If Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signs it, the bill, S.B. 1062, would make some modifications to a 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
2. Under current Arizona law, if a business wanted to discriminate against gays, they would not need this bill to be passed to do so. It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.
3. Even though business owners across most of Arizona (and much of the United States) have the right to deny service to gays, they are not doing so. Opponents of the bill claim it would usher in an era of "Jim Crow for gays," in which gays would be denied service at businesses across the state. If business owners really wanted to do this, though, they could already be doing it. The bill does not make that more or less likely. Business owners do not want to deny service to gays. This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive - turning away customers is no way to run a business.
4. A RFRA law, either state or federal, does not give anyone the license to do anything they want based upon their religious beliefs. Rather, it says what needs to happen for the government to take away someone's religious freedom. RFRA provides citizens with religious freedom protections, but that does not mean that everyone who claims their religious freedom is violated will win a court case using RFRA as their defense5. No business has ever successfully used RFRA, either a state RFRA or the federal RFRA, to defend their right to not serve gays. In fact, no business has even been before a court claiming to have that right.
5. No business has ever successfully used RFRA, either a state RFRA or the federal RFRA, to defend their right to not serve gays. In fact, no business has even been before a court claiming to have that right
6. Even if a business wanted to claim the right to not serve gays under RFRA, their claim would be even harder to defend under S.B. 1062. So, anyone who is concerned that someone may one day try to use RFRA to discriminate against gays should prefer the bill that was just passed over current law.
part 2
Quote:
To understand these points, it first helps to understand the history of RFRA.
RFRA was first a federal law, passed by Congress in 1993, in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Employment Division vs. Smith (1989). In that case, the Court did not protect the religious freedom of a member of the Native American Church who used peyote, a hallucinogenic, as part of a religious ceremony. The state did not violate Smith's religious freedom, the Court concluded in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, because the law making illegal the use of the hallucinogenic applied to people of all faiths, not just the Native American Church.
Many were deeply concerned about what that decision would mean for religious freedom in the United States. In practice the decision meant that if a government policy interferes with a person's right to freely practice their religion, that is acceptable as long as the policy was not specifically designed to do so.
A broad coalition of both conservatives and liberals came together, therefore, in support of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This law would tell the courts that the state may only violate someone's religious freedom under certain conditions (more on these later), and it is up to the government to show those conditions are met. Plus, having a law that is generally applicable (applies to all faiths and those with no faith), is not sufficient reason to deny someone religious freedom.
The law was passed by an overwhelming majority, a unanimous vote in the House and a 97 to three vote in the Senate, and signed by a Democratic president - Bill Clinton.
Later, though, the U.S. Supreme Court would rule, in Boerne vs. Flores (1996), that RFRA cannot be applied to state laws. States would have to pass their own RFRA if they wanted it to apply to their state and local laws, the Court said. So, many states did exactly that. Arizona was one of those states.
The bill passed Thursday by the Arizona legislature modifies that existing law. More specifically, it more precisely spells out what RFRA was always understood to mean. Arizona legislators believed a few points needed to be clarified mainly for two reasons, [COLOR=#093d72]according to Arizona State Representative John Kavanagh[/COLOR].
First, the Obama administration's birth control mandate raised the question of whether RFRA applies to a person's religious freedom when they own a business. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide that question next Summer. Two Christian owned businesses, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Woods Specialties, sued the government over the mandate, saying it violated their religious freedom.
Douglas Laycock, the Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School, was instrumental in helping get the federal RFRA passed. He points out for a Feb. 19 [COLOR=#093d72]ScotusBlog post[/COLOR] that RFRA was always understood to protect corporations, including for-profit corporations. The birth control mandate cases, though, demonstrate the possibility that judges may not see it that way, even though that was the intent of the legislators who passed those laws.
Second, in a case involving a wedding photographer who refused to work at a gay wedding based upon her religious beliefs, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the state's RFRA law only applies when the government is a party in the case. RFRA was never understood to mean that by the legislators who passed it, but that case demonstrated the need to make the Arizona state law more specific.
Given that, here are some of the main changes the Arizona bill would make:
- Those covered by RFRA would include "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization."
- A religious freedom violation can be asserted "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding."
- The person asserting a religious freedom violation must show three things: "1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief. 2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held. 3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs."
.
part 3
Issue Analysis: Arizona Bill Does Not Give Businesses License to Discriminate Against GaysQuote:
In sum, the bill would essentially make three changes for RFRA: 1) Clarify that any association, including for-profit corporations, are covered. 2) Clarify that the government does not have to be a party in the case. And, 3) to prevent frivolous RFRA claims, require that those claiming a religious freedom violation show that there is an actual religious belief behind their action, that they are sincere in their religious belief, and a state action has placed a substantial burden on their religious belief.
While the first two changes are designed to make sure that religious freedom is protected in the broadest way possible, the third change is to make sure that people are not concocting their own religion or religious belief in order to sue. If the bill is passed, those asserting a religious freedom violation would have to prove to the court that it is based upon an actual religious belief, and that they hold strongly to that religion.
While the bill clarifies the broad coverage of RFRA, it also makes it more difficult to sue under RFRA. Let us assume, though, the Arizona bill is signed and becomes law, and someone is able to pass those stricter tests and is allowed to sue under RFRA. Being allowed to sue does not mean they automatically win in court.
Under RFRA, government action may still violate one's religious beliefs. To do so, though, it must show there is a "compelling government interest" and the "least restrictive means" were used to further that government interest. Claiming the law is generally applicable (applies to all faiths or no faith), though, is not sufficient reason, under RFRA, to take away someone's religious freedom.
This means RFRA is telling the court to balance the needs of government to accomplish its purposes against the religious freedom of its citizens. Religious freedom must be protected, unless there is an important government purpose that outweighs religious freedom and there is no other way to accomplish that purpose without violating someone's religious belief.
Recent cases involving Christian vendors refusing service for gay weddings has, understandably, been part of the debate over the Arizona bill. Those recent cases, though, involving wedding photographers and wedding cake bakers, are not about discrimination against gays. The photogaphers and bakers in those cases have made clear they would gladly serve gays outside the context of a same-sex wedding. They are not refusing to serve gays, they are refusing to serve a same-sex wedding.
Should the government be able to force them to violate their religious conscience? A court using RFRA would apply the balancing test: the answer is yes, only if there is a compelling governmental interest and the least restrictive means of furthering that interest were used.
At this point, it should be clear why the Arizona bill would not usher in an era of "Jim Crow for gays" in that state. Even if there were a host of Arizona businesses hoping to turn away gay customers (there is not), this bill would not make that any more likely. In fact, just the opposite. Sueing under RFRA is made more difficult by the Arizona bill.
This whole op is much ado about nothing
Hello again, tom:Hmmm.. So, says your right wing CHRISTIAN rag. But, I ain't buying it.Quote:
This whole op is much ado about nothing
excon
You want everyone to give gays some space on marriage and such? Why then are you not willing to give others some space on their religious rights? Can you see no scenario in which a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, gay business owner is justified in refusing to violate their conscience?
Hello again, Steve:Uhhh, NO. If I inquired, MOST of the people I deal with in life, DO things in their life that VIOLATE my conscience, INCLUDING you. If I eliminated them all, I'd be ALONE. Is TALKING to you any different than SELLING you something??? NO! Why haven't you asked ME about stuff I do??? I'm SURE there's stuff that will OFFEND your conscience.. Why isn't THAT enough to END our relationship??? Why is what I do in bed your business anyway??? Nope. I'm IN business. I don't wanna know stuff about my customers. THEY don't wanna know stuff about me... Your friend, Catsmine, thinks that if I was HONEST, I'd wear SIGN around my neck saying that I'm an exconvict. Well, I think he should wear a sign around his neck saying he's an a$$hole.Quote:
Can you see no scenario in which a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, gay business owner is justified in refusing to violate their conscience?
excon
Apple Wants Arizona Governer To Veto Gay Discrimination Bill | Cult of Mac
Arizona lawmaker who voted for anti-gay bill now wants it vetoed or repealed | The Raw Story
Giving lawmakers the benefit of a doubt, you cannot ignore the backlash on business and perception of citizens making their own lives more difficult, because one group thinks they can discriminate against another and be protected from legal redress in a court of law as Tom pointed out.
It has nothing to do with what you do, it's about using the force of government to compel others to violate their religious beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Gay marriage has to do with human rights, has nothing to do with religious rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
as with immigration ;Arizona is trying to adopt the FEDERAL law. RFRA was passed in 1993 by a unanimous vote in the House ;and, in the Senate, only three senators voted against it .It was signed into law by President Bill Clintoon. That is the law of the land . But SCOTUS ruled in 1997 that RFRA did not apply to the states (City of Boerne v. Flores ) .Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Arizona 's SB 1062 is an attempt to make the State law the same as the Federal law already on the books for 20 years !
Its REPUBLICAN lawmakers in Arizona using state government to make it easier to violate the rights of its some of citizens based solely on the religious beliefs of others of its citizens. In fact even religious people of good conscious don't agree with this new law and feel its WRONG.
It should be pointed out that the law was vetoed the first time it came across the governors desk. Probably will again.
This is not about gay marriage. It is not about what OTHERS do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
As I just said, it's about using the force of government to compel others to violate their religious beliefs and values, as in FORCING a bakery owner to cater a gay wedding. FORCING a Jewish caterer to serve pork. FORCING a gay caterer to cater a "God hates fags" banquet. FORCING the black caterer to serve the KKK banquet.
Nonsense, where do you have the right to a cake from a particular baker? FYI, I'm not arguing FOR the law, I say in a civilized society it should be unnecessary. I wouldn't force you to host the Westboro crowd, why would you force me to host the pregame party for the Folsom Street Fair?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The government forces me to stop at intersections. The government forces me to educate my children. The government forces me to pay taxes. Those may be against my religious beliefs or even my personal beliefs. And I'm okay with it. I know there is a greater good and that I will benefit from it. If I don't want to have to stop at intersections, I won't drive. If I had to educate my children, I just won't have any. If I don't want to pay taxes, I'll move somewhere where there is no requirement to pay taxes. If I own a bakery and don't want to sell my stuff to some people, I will find some other line of work.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Again, this is not about merely selling the product and traffic laws are irrelevant. It is about forced ACCEPTANCE and forced PARTICIPATION (as in the contraceptive mandate) in things that violate REASONABLE religious beliefs. The business owner is perfectly willing to accept the business consequences, so what's it to you and why would you want to use someone who is clearly uncomfortable anyway?
These people in Oregon aren't being unreasonable or rude, and in return they were harassed, intimidated and threatened and the benevolent state of Oregon was good enough to state their intent to reeducate and rehabilitate the business owners, not the militant LBGT community that shut them down. Sorry, but there's just something wrong with that picture.
You may have a point Speech if getting comfortable is the issue, and not just cover for denying the value of a group of people who are different than you are. I agree that something can be worked out but not a law that makes it okay to deny a group based on belief in the meantime.
That's a disturbing picture.
Again and again, it is not about discriminating against gays, and we are not talking about denying their value. It is about compulsory participation, it is about official coercion and imposing values on others - something you whine about yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
If someone categorically refuses to sell to gays under any circumstance then we can talk, but it is not unreasonable for a PRIVATE business to decline to PARTICIPATE in or FACILITATE a gay wedding, a God hates fags banquet, a KKK wedding. Or say a Christian bookstore to decline to sell the Satanic Bible, a gay T-shirt company owner decline printing anti-gay marriage messages, a gay bar refusing to host a Duck Dynasty reunion. Is it?
Hello again, Steve:
It's absolutely about discriminating against gays and you're using religion to do it.Quote:
Again and again, it is not about discriminating against gays,
excon
It's just as much discriminating against religious by forcing them to violate their beliefs, and you're using gay victimhood to do it. I really don't for a minute believe you can't find a scenario in which a PRIVATE business owner would be justified in declining to be a party to something that offends them.
Like I said, I don't think a law should be necessary, but apparently your side is unwilling to be reasonable, to live and let live, to respect my autonomy, choices and beliefs as you demand I not only respect yours but APPROVE. Put that shoe on the other foot as you have so many times here before, you don't like it one bit. Why should I?
If he's opeating out of his home kitchen, I agree with you. If he has a sign and business on Main St., I don't. What if this business owner/baker takes the OT lterally and refuses to sell to women who don't have their heads covered? or to men who have cut their hair? Methinks he should find another line of work.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
he could equally decide to not sell to women or men who have their heads covered, just opening a store doesn't mean he has to accept anyone
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:24 PM. |