How to protect religious freedom and conscience rights

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wonder no more, it depends on whether the Constitution should evolve via amendment or focus more on originalist doctrine. No founding father would approve of gay marriage. Acknowledge the fact and let's move on?

No founding father would have considered Second Amendment rights to be applicable to women or non-white men. Is that really the standard you want?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Where in the Constitution does it say church and state must be separate? How did THAT become "Constitutional"?

Answer: It was taken as original intent. NO SIGNERS of the founding documents approved of homosexual marriage.

It is true that the founding fathers would likely not approve; if I remember right, George Washington court marshaled a soldier for homosexual sex...?

However, humanity moves on and the very essence of American ideals for Independence rests in allowing individuals the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't impede on other's rights.

In other words, we are no longer bound by the same prejudices as the people of the late 1700s. Well...a lot of us aren't.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then why did they not put that in the Constitution?

Do you understand what a Constitution is?

I'm trying to understand you. Let's be Socratic. What is so obvious about 18th century beliefs regarding human sexuality that was not added to the Constitution, but was surely part of the founders' intent?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The fact that you're comparing businesses who decide not to serve certain groups - despite choosing to operate a business which is required to do that by law - with not being allowed to open a business because you belong to a certain group is hilarious.

Here's a tip: "Right to discriminate" is not a thing.

Don't be so sure. My business can make X cakes per hours. Should I make them for the nice people or for the couple yelling and screaming at me and threatening me that unless I use resources to choose them as clients I am "discriminating"!

Do you know any small business owners with a backlog of work, who choose kind clients instead of bitter clients? Have you watched a team of people labor for days to make one cake in "Cake Boss" on TV? Do those people take on pissed-off, militant clients often?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't be so sure. My business can make X cakes per hours. Should I make them for the nice people or for the couple yelling and screaming at me and threatening me that unless I use resources to choose them as clients I am "discriminating"!

Once again, that's not what these cases represent. What is happening in these cases is the businesses are offering services, then when particular people are asking for those services, they are being denied that service by the business because of the fact that they belong to a protected group.

Your characterization of this as people "yelling and screaming and threatening" you is utterly ludicrous. That's like saying that the protesters who endured incredible discrimination during the civil rights movement were "threatening and yelling and screaming" to be allowed to sit at a counter in bars and be allowed to go to school. Your misrepresentation of these people is disgusting, and you should feel ashamed.

Do you know any small business owners with a backlog of work, who choose kind clients instead of bitter clients?

Once again, characterizing it like this is immoral and you know it.

Have you watched a team of people labor for days to make one cake in "Cake Boss" on TV? Do those people take on pissed-off, militant clients often?

Rein in your ignorance, please.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No founding father would have considered Second Amendment rights to be applicable to women or non-white men. Is that really the standard you want?

Well, THERE's some ignorance! There were armed women and people of color since before Colonial times. What nonsense you promote!

 

[BilliardsBall]

By "career or business path" I meant instead of wedding cakes, maybe market something else. Cupcakes? Pies? Erotic cakes?

You are missing the point. Whatever cakes your small business bakes, you will likely avoid providing product for ticked off buyers who threaten you with lawsuits, even before you vend!

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is true that the founding fathers would likely not approve; if I remember right, George Washington court marshaled a soldier for homosexual sex...?

However, humanity moves on and the very essence of American ideals for Independence rests in allowing individuals the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn't impede on other's rights.

In other words, we are no longer bound by the same prejudices as the people of the late 1700s. Well...a lot of us aren't.

The framers didn't intend for the pursuit of happiness to contravene the Bible, morals or natural law.

The pursuit of happiness for me would include not having gays on parade in front of children.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are missing the point. Whatever cakes your small business bakes, you will likely avoid providing product for ticked off buyers who threaten you with lawsuits, even before you vend!

There's a simple solution to that:

Don't illegally discriminate against your customers and open yourself up to being sued.

I know it sounds crazy, but it just might work!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The framers didn't intend for the pursuit of happiness to contravene the Bible, morals or natural law.

The founding fathers were largely deist, and the separation of church and state established clearly that they believed happiness and equality was independent of any religious doctrine.

The pursuit of happiness for me would include not having gays on parade in front of children.

Because, to you, having gay people in front of children is upsetting, somehow?

That really says more about you than it does anybody else.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

When the law says "if you choose to operate a business, here are the basic requirements you must meet" and a person voluntarily decides to go into business - or continue to operate a business - and accept this responsibility, they were not forced to meet the requirements that go along with their choice.

When the law says "if you choose to operate a business, here are the basic requirements you must meet" and a person voluntarily decides to go into business - or continue to operate a business - and accept this responsibility, they were not forced to meet the requirements that go along with their choice.

There was no conflict for the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop until the State decided to change the definition of marriage.

Meaning, any and all homosexual customers where having all of their requests met and no one's religious convictions were being violated.

Then, all of a sudden, the State (politicians and judges) made a decision that potentially placed this, and other, business owners into situations where their religious convictions could be violated.

If that were not bad enough, then the State claimed that they would need to violate their religious belief or lose their livelihood.

No one should be forced to make that decision.

This is no different, in my opinion, than the State making a law respecting the establishment of a religion.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Right to religion doesn't mean it's alright torture people even evil or devilish people of hell.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There was no conflict for the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop until the State decided to change the definition of marriage.

Actually, the change was thatvthe courts striking down an illegal law. Do you think that the State should be allowed to have illegal laws?

Meaning, any and all homosexual customers where having all of their requests met and no one's religious convictions were being violated.

Then, all of a sudden, the State (politicians and judges) made a decision that potentially placed this, and other, business owners into situations where their religious convictions could be violated.

Judicial decisions are a bit of a blunt instrument. All they can do is strike down unjust laws; they can't really craft new laws.

If the federal legislature had been more on the ball, they could have arranged a more gradual change for businesses. Blame conservative legislators for blocking attempts to do this and insisting that an illegal law should stay on the books. They could have dealt with it, but they didn't, so the courts got involved.

Of course, it would be ridiculous for businesses to expect that laws will never change. Factories that were built decades ago still have to have modern pollution controls, even though this cost might never have been considered when the factory was built. Lunch counters that were established during segregation now have to serve people of all races, regardless of the opinions of the owner. The same holds here.

If that were not bad enough, then the State claimed that they would need to violate their religious belief or lose their livelihood.

No one should be forced to make that decision.

That's hardly the decision in question. If their bigotry wouldn't allow them to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple, they could always sell other baked goods besides wedding cakes.

If they did decide to close the bakery, I have no doubt that they'd be able to find other employment to preserve their livelihood.

This is no different, in my opinion, than the State making a law respecting the establishment of a religion.

If your thinking is that muddled on this issue, then you have my sympathies. I wish you a quick recovery for whatever impairment you're suffering from.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You are missing the point. Whatever cakes your small business bakes, you will likely avoid providing product for ticked off buyers who threaten you with lawsuits, even before you vend!

Does that happen? How in the world can you be sued if you haven't yet provided a service?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The framers didn't intend for the pursuit of happiness to contravene the Bible, morals or natural law.

The pursuit of happiness for me would include not having gays on parade in front of children.

The framers borrowed more from enlightenment thinkers than the Bible.

If we are talking natural law, then by all means, indulge in your sexual desires!

What about Gay Pride parades not occuring in front of kids would make you happy?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The founding fathers were largely deist, and the separation of church and state established clearly that they believed happiness and equality was independent of any religious doctrine.


Because, to you, having gay people in front of children is upsetting, somehow?

That really says more about you than it does anybody else.

You don't understand. We chose to not explain sexuality to our toddlers, than had to when men were kissing in public and the children asked about their (abnormal to them) behavior.

And yes, I have a problem with gay parades when children see the worst kind of immoral excesses on display, profanities shouted, people in bizarre clothing or nude, etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Once again, that's not what these cases represent. What is happening in these cases is the businesses are offering services, then when particular people are asking for those services, they are being denied that service by the business because of the fact that they belong to a protected group.

Your characterization of this as people "yelling and screaming and threatening" you is utterly ludicrous. That's like saying that the protesters who endured incredible discrimination during the civil rights movement were "threatening and yelling and screaming" to be allowed to sit at a counter in bars and be allowed to go to school. Your misrepresentation of these people is disgusting, and you should feel ashamed.


Once again, characterizing it like this is immoral and you know it.


Rein in your ignorance, please.

Many in the civil rights movement... were civil, yes.

Many of the gays suing bakeries have a vicious, cruel agenda. I don't want my cakes made by racists! I don't want to force them to have more paid business! That's the point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't understand. We chose to not explain sexuality to our toddlers, than had to when men were kissing in public and the children asked about their (abnormal to them) behavior.

There are groups that sometimes hold up signs with pictures of bloody dismembered fetuses at my local hospital. I can only presume that you have the same concern for the parents struggling with how to explain that to their children.

And yes, I have a problem with gay parades when children see the worst kind of immoral excesses on display, profanities shouted, people in bizarre clothing or nude, etc.

So you have a problem with the free expression of others?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You don't understand. We chose to not explain sexuality to our toddlers, than had to when men were kissing in public and the children asked about their (abnormal to them) behavior.

What are you talking about? Why would this be any different if they saw straight people kissing? They're exposed to kissing all the time. You don't have to talk about sex to explain why people do that, do you?

And yes, I have a problem with gay parades when children see the worst kind of immoral excesses on display, profanities shouted, people in bizarre clothing or nude, etc.

Maybe don't take kids to those kinds of displays, then? The gay pride parades I've seen are not "immoral excesses". They come with no more excess or profanity or "bizarre clothing" that many other parades.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Many in the civil rights movement... were civil, yes.

And many in the gay rights movements are civil, too. You're categorizing all of them as uncivil purely because they are protesting unfair treatment.

Many of the gays suing bakeries have a vicious, cruel agenda.

Again, this is nonsense. Equality is not a vicious, cruel agenda.

Your double-standard is clearly on display here.

CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT: Important protests for equality.
GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT: A vicious, cruel agenda.

I don't want my cakes made by racists! I don't want to force them to have more paid business! That's the point.

Nobody can force them to bake cakes. They can choose not to be bakers. They just don't have the right to use that business to discriminate unlawfully against certain groups.

How do you not get that?