Religious Discrimination by the Republican State of Arizona?

you were the one that said an extension was needed? now your saying it's already covered? make up your mind....

Christian pharmacists have been denying legal prescriptions sadly

 

Are you under the impression that Public Accommodation laws do not only protect the customer that is interacting with a business?

 

Well no, I didn't say any extension was needed, I was asking you if you would extend the laws to protect racists. Then you asked why I would be against extending them and you seemed to imply that the current law wouldn't protect me if I was denied service on the basis of my race. Is this right?

 

I did not imply that at all, I implied that you should be serviced regardless, I believe you should be able to sue a business that denies you service without just cause

 

Well I'm a libertarian, so I would respect a businesses right to refuse service to me. You don't have a right to my services and I don't have a right to your services. No such right exists in the United States Constitution. Anyway, no such laws are required, because like I said, there is no problem to fix. There is no discrimination in 2019! People are served! It would be destructive to any business if they discriminated!

 

What cases are these?

 

You're technique is to say stuff at random and then try to get someone to teach you the subject.

You aren't reading anything. There is a ton written on this subject There is the oral argument before the SC that adds significant clarity.

IF you want to discuss this subject ...

... do your homework.

 

You don't know the FIRST THING about this case!!!

Then, you go with the vulgar ad hom.

 

This isn't complicated. You obviously wouldn't say that someone legally has to sketch, paint or sculpt something for someone would you?

 

I am VERY MUCH up to speed on this case. He SPECIFICALLY SAYS in this video that he wasn't discriminating against the couple! Watch from 4:02 - 4:47.

 

I have defended my position, you just happen to disagree. That isn't a failure on either part. I'll explain my position here one last time but your response is going to be exactly the same.

If my girlfriend went in to one of these bakeries and ordered a cake for her wedding to me they would happily serve her. If my boyfriend went in and ordered exactly the same cake for his wedding to me, they would refuse. The only difference between those scenarios is the gender of the customer.

It doesn't matter that they serve everyone if they don't treat them equally. If a company employs men and women but pays the women less (for the same work), would that OK?

All the cases include religious discrimination as at least part of the basis for their complaints. They're saying the law is treating them unfairly due to their religion. If they win their cases, other religious business owners could bring a similar case on the precedent but non-religious business owners could not.

There are all sorts of complications, legal tricks and, frankly, lies involved in these cases (on all sides) but it boils down to them wanting to operate their business differently to what is set out in law because of their religious beliefs and practices. If they wanted all businesses to be treated equally, they'd just be fighting to repeal these laws entirely. But they don't.

 

I think what worries them is icky yucky sex acts that they think the Bible refers to as abomination. They don't want the social sanction of the unions in which these acts take center stage in their imagination. They think that the Bible gives them a cover to express that contempt, by discriminating against the wedding and the people who will be there supporting two people having homosexual sex.

Frankly I think in a few more years, there will be more stories when cakes are ordered for anniversaries of these same couples and you will realize its not the ceremony two years or five years back that is their problem.

 

He denied them advertised service at his public accommodation.

He did NOT deny that.

Again, you're not bothering to do anything to understand this case.

 

Did you know that the commies in Minnesota passed a law that makes it illegal to even discuss one particular issue?

Local legislators seek to repeal controversial Dan Patch moratorium
*The Dan Patch Moratorium, better known as the “gag order” among local officials, was pushed into the 2002 Senate transportation bill by Republican lawmakers from Bloomington and Edina. The line’s proximity to residential homes created noise, safety and aesthetic concerns that were at the core of the opposition.

The moratorium bans state agencies and the Metropolitan Council from spending anything on work that would further explore the possibility for commuting on the line. It also required that references to the railroad be erased from various documents.*
https://www.swnewsmedia.com/savage_...cle_8579d1b8-ba54-559d-8e63-9fe2675b08d9.html

So if they can pass such a law that makes it illegal to even mention this issue what is to stop them from passing laws to make it illegal to discuss other issues?

 

seriously, you have not heard about Christian pharmacists refusing to fill valid doctors prescriptions based on their religious beliefs

maybe time for AI to replace pharmacists, pretty easy job to have AI replace

 

I am an American and I believe if you claim to be selling something and refuse because someone is the wrong race... it's wrong

your upset cause you know such a law IS needed, otherwise you would not go on and on and on and on about this if the law would make no difference one way or the other

 

No, the law ONLY affects certain people in the wedding services industry when the laws are wrongly applied against them. However, the laws are not needed to stop businesses from adopting policies of refusing to serve gay people. The fact that they would certainly go out of business is enough to stop any business from having such policies.

 

I only heard of the one case. Do you have case details for the ones that you know about?

 

The United States Constitution I would've thought, but perhaps the US is even more of a joke than I thought. Perhaps The Constitution is only good IN THEORY!

 

And which law is that breaking?

 

What does that have to do with private businesses? Maybe you're forgetting that The Constitution is about what CONGRESS can or cannot do.

 

This went all the way to the SC and you don't know what law is at issue?

Why are you even here?

 

JUST WOW!!!

 

THAT'S your argument? Seriously? I thought that you were much more capable than that.

 

It seemed that you may have been saying that denying an advertised service at a public accommodation is illegal.