Religious Discrimination by the Republican State of Arizona?

I know my history, its your premise that there was successful containment, with which I have issue. Was consciencious objector status contained to the quakers, to the religious . No. There was no containment Was a right avoid public school successfully contained to the Amish, to the religious. No. The courts blasted a cavern size hole in law..

There is not thus far, in any civil rights legislation that I know of, an expressed entitlement for protected classes to refuse to serve or any entitlement to refuse to bake a cake. It does not fall under the housing, or employment, or public accommodation sections that these statutes normally cover. If a legislative body chooses to include a right not to bake cakes or a right to refuse service, it need only come up with the votes to pass the amendment to their civil rights statute , and a governor's signature. If Christians in a given jurisdiction, are so much more populous than gay people, it should be no trouble to for them to mobilize their army into a voting powerhouse and shove that legislation through. I somehow suspect that your numbers do not accurately reflect dimensions of the respective interests but that is your problem to discover. The constitution does have a mention of religion - in the establishment clause. You have to persuade the courts that being required to bake a cake by legislation, that you don't feel comfortable baking, represents a breach

That is no flaw in my argument. It is only up to the courts to 'defend religious freedom', if religious freedom is somehow threatened by a business owner being required to bake and decorate a cake he does not feel comfortable baking and decorating and he is forced to do so. .

But he does not have to bake the cake or decorate it. He is obliged to refrain from visiting his problem on the customer. He can subcontract the order so that someone else off site does the same sex cakes. He can hire an employee who does not have such an objection and have that employee do these orders. He can structure his service in such a way that the options for cake decorating are not gender based by offering pre-selected phrases and decorations( gender neutral) and posting them. He can frost the cakes, put on the roses etc, and have the customer buy those grooms and brides, and they can mix and match as they please and they can shove them into the cake when they get in the car. He can bake other stuff and stop baking wedding cakes, He can hand over his business license and sell his bakery to someone who can manage to obey all the laws and regulation required instead of the ones he feels comfortable with. Or he can decide that if the Bible does not say a word about same sex weddings or cakes, maybe God does not care as much about the issue as the religious right does.

Said business owner can still can pray however he please and as often as he pleases. He can write, read, own, and sell religious literature, movies, or books. He can study his theology in a group, on his own or in a class or university. He can create all forms of art to celibrate his faith or beliefs or God. He can attend his house of worship. He can give offerings and tithings as much or little as he chooses. He can wear his beads, or cross and decorate his home, his business or his car with all the symbols and scripture of his faith. He can proselytize to his heart's content He can even put up a placard declaring that what he bakes and sells, 'should not be interpreted as or constitute any recognition or endorsement of the any event at which it may be served'. Maybe he and the courts, will conclude his religious liberties are not quite so fatally wounded by this cake thing after all.

 

I'm confused. Not every case has a previous instance that has come before it. Not every case even has a similar case that has come before it.

So then it seems that everyone enjoys the protection of the Free Exercise Clause.

Okay, so then it should forbid it for the Muslim too, even though they have a 1400 year old religion that they can point at to justify their anti-Semitism.

Do you not know that this guy only won because the Colarado Civil Rights Commission treated him badly?

What did Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston have to do with Christians?

Isn't freedom of association protected in the Constitution?

Who were the libertarians promoting illegality in?

 

only if there are assaulting other customers with racist rhetoric, but if they are just wearing their Christian kkk outfits, I suppose not

 

yes, they discriminate based on the gender of the couple as you just proved, you said they would not marry two straight males either - thus it's gender discrimination

for not caring, you sure seem to care a lot about making sure businesses are allowed to discriminate based on gender

 

You see the reply? http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tate-of-arizona.547548/page-2#post-1070035190

 

We're just going around in circles, it's a waste of time.

 

But, you presented no argument that could possibly exempt the various bakers from state public accommodation law.

You need to come up with some actual line of logic.

 

I don't remember using the word "containment". If you mean that if Christians get the right to decline to participate in homosexual "marriages" that others will get the same right, you are correct. I don't really have a problem with that.

We already had those laws, in nearly every state in the nation, and the Court struck them all down at a blow. So your claim that Christians can pass legislation on these matters is so much bullshit. To my mind, we have an established religion in this country, and it's called secular humanism. Forcing a baker to bake a cake for a wedding he has no wish to bake a cake for is making him bow before the god of secular humanism. THAT is the breach of the 1st Amendment. The court found for the baker on the free speech argument, that mandating the baker to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding was compelled speech, and you cannot compel someone else's speech.

It is. That much should be obvious. If my religion says that it is a sin to touch the skin of a pig and someone comes to my shop and demands that I make them a ham sandwich, and then sues me when I refuse, my religious freedom (and my livelihood) are threatened.

This is false. Wedding cakes are individual creations, not mass produced. He could no more hand off the making of it than Leonardo da Vinci could hand off the creation of the Mona Lisa. And once again, you seem to be one of those who would put Christians out of business rather than let them follow the dictates of their conscience and their religion. I'm atheist now, but it's people like you who make me want to go back to church.

How bloody generous of you. I have news for you... Christians don't need your ****ing permission to do what God commanded them to do.

 

You'd be surprised. We have the records of court cases going back to the middle ages in Europe.

On this particular case (the taxi driver), I would tend to agree.

The rationale was free speech.

I'm not sure. The newspaper articles I read at the time said it was Irish Catholics running the parade who didn't want the homosexual lobby in their parade. But the decision turned on free speech and free association rather than freedom of religion.

It's in there. Whether or not the Court is upholding it properly is another matter. They struck down a Christian legal society and the Jaycees but upheld the Democrats. Why a group of 15 people at a law school rates lower than millions of Democrats who never see each other in terms of "freedom of association" I can't answer.

Anyone they told didn't have to pay their income taxes. I went to one of their meetings, so they told me. I was fresh out of law school, though, so I knew they were full of ****.

 

Which case are you pointing to with that?

Let's remember that these cake issues go far beyond cakes in terms of what a business may do when faced by a customer, an applicant for employment, etc.

If a baker doesn't need to bake a cake, then why would a public accommodation need to rent a room, a real estate sell a house or rent an apartment, an insurance agent sell a home, auto or health policy, a restaurant serve, etc.?

Our economic and political system are set up to depend on private enterprise to deliver goods and services required for life, AND to provide the employment that allows their purchase.

You are attacking that system.

Not that it matters, but God did not command you to be a butt.

He commanded you to have a VERY different kind of relationship with thosee aroound you.

 

I am not attacking the free enterprise system, the homosexual lobby is attacking the right of Christians to engage in free enterprise. Years ago, hotels and motels refused to rent to unmarried couples (hetero or homo), and it's still legal to do so. But they don't because it's not economically advantageous to do so. But if a Christian opened a hotel and refused to rent to unmarried couples, he would be within his rights to do so. I see no difference here.

It's interesting that you bring up health insurance. You didn't mention life insurance, but it would be rational to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of life and health insurance, at least in terms of rates, because homosexuals have a significantly shorter life expectancy than heterosexuals. For males, the explanation is relatively easy, but the same shortened life span applies to lesbians, the explanation for which is much more mysterious.

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. (ESV)

 

Absolutely FALSE.

The court ruled on the basis that Colorado failed in their duty to carry out the law without disrespecting the religious beliefs of those being charged. The officials behaved in an unacceptable manner, thus essentially causing the case to be tossed.

The decision states this explicitly, pointing out the problems of denying services on the basis of religion and stating that future courts would need to address whether dicrimination on the basis of religion such as in the cake case was constiitutional.

Go read the decision.

 

Your claim that economics would drive a solution is PROVABLY false.

If that were true, other forms of discrimination would also be ended through the demands of economics.

Yet, this does NOT happen.

Your suggestion that a policy should cost more is totally irrelevant. The baker didn't propose a higher cost for the cake - he simply denied service. It's not about how much one has to pay - it's that discrimination on the basis of inherent, immutable attributes such as skin color, heritage, gender, religion, etc., are simply not legitimate grounds for discrimination.

Once again, we're talking about how our system provides products, services, employment, etc. Suggesting you aren't attacking that is nonsense.

 

Years ago Christians owned slaves in America. Hotels and motels didn't even let African Americans drink from the same water fountains, let alone rent a room. The Bible said skin color marked a line damned by God.

We've come some distance by then. We ARE going to continue to move forward to civil rights equality as per our constitution. You can sell your religion, but you can't use our political and economic systems to damage the lives of those you hate.

What makes you think hotels can search out whether you are married?

This is 2019.

 

Its not generosity. Its what the first amendment was actually designed to protect right here." Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

 

Short response: Why should homosexuals be a protected class? It's not a fundamental attribute that someone is born with or not born with. It's a behavior. Even homosexuals who aren't comfortable with their own sexuality can "play it straight" and never be suspected of being homosexual. And why shouldn't religion trump? Religion IS a protected class, and has been for a long time.

 

Think it doesn't matter in 2019? (This happened in December, but close enough.) A guy collapsed at a dance and after the other dancers tried to revive him, an ambulance was called. When the ambulance took him away, his girlfriend of some 20 years was denied the right to accompany him in the ambulance because she wasn't married to him.

What makes you think I hate homosexuals? I think lesbians are hot, male homosexuals are disgusting, both are pitiable, and neither can get married because they can't consummate the relationship. But I don't hate them.

I don't doubt that we're going to continue to move down the road to hell (whether that constitutes "forward" or not, I won't say), but I'm firmly convinced from my study of history that it's a sign of the end of our civilization and our society. Cross-dressing lesbian feminist Camille Paglia thinks so, too, so I'm in good company.

 

Kennedy said this?

If Freedom of Association is in there, then hasn't anyone tried to challenge the Civil Rights Act since it was introduced?

What cases were these?

 

The fact that they weren't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation but instead are happy to serve gays and do so all of the time!

 

No, you were just unable to defend your position under intense scrutiny. That is surprising because you're normally much more capable than that. You have failed to explain how someone "[treats] people differently on the basis of their gender" if they serve both males and females every single day of the week! You have failed to explain how religious groups "claim to be fighting for equal treatment when in reality they're fighting for special treatment." And you have failed to explain how they think that anti-discrimination laws shouldn't apply equally to all businesses. That is a poor effort.

 

You could get around it by not doing custom work.

You could have 199 standard invitations available with only the names changing, all numbered by sample and wire bound to choose from.

Those who ask for custom work you could refer to other artists who do custom work.

 

You do realise that they are artists who want to create art, right?

 

They want to do two things: create art, and not run afoul of the law while it exists.

 

Oh I see, in the meantime. Yeah, sure they could do this. Why 199?