Religious Discrimination by the Republican State of Arizona?

Of course not! You totally missed my point! Are you seriously saying that it wouldn't be on the news if wasn't illegal to have such a policy so no fine was issued?

 

it's very true, intra-gender marriage discrimination is about the gender of the couple, same as inter-racial marriage discrimination is about the race of the couple

if a gay man and a lesbian women want to marry, there is no issue

same as if two black people wanted to marry there was no issue, it was only when one white and one black wanted to marry each other that is became a issue

 

your made up book of fiction that supported slavery and beating slaves as long as they did not die within so many days bears no reality to to the present

"What the Bible says about Slavery"

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html

next your gonna say we should still be stoning people for picking up sticks on the weekend

 

I cannot control your hallucinations here.


And I still stand by the fact that a homosexual is able to, change its mind, and return to living a heterosexual lifestyle. Whereas no human on Earth gets to change their mind and return to being the Race which they used to be during yesteryears.

 

What about an inclusive town? Are you seriously saying that it wouldn't be on the news unless a fine was issued?

 

What I'm getting at is, if sexual orientation WAS a factor, wouldn't you suppose that this means that they have some sort of a problem with homosexuals?

Well you wouldn't you be happy to participate in a meeting against hating gays? And now that you know what I was saying, would you participate in an anti-gay hate group meeting?

The difference is, you are an employee, and by refusing to follow what your employer tells you to do, the worst consequence would be that you get fired, NOT government action against you as in these discrimination cases. If these business owners were happy to provide services to a same sex wedding but one of their employees refused to contribute towards it when ordered to do so, this wouldn't be the same thing. I would say that the employee has to follow orders or else quit.

 

Well thankfully there is no legal case YET. Perhaps you thought there was.

 

not all towns in the south would care, some want confederate statues in the center of town or on the state house lawns

 

But they WOULD care if a fine was issued?

 

exactly, which is why there should be a fine, to run the companies out of business and make it public record of their wrong doings

 

So you think that people in the south would boycott a business just because it has been issued with a fine?

 

I would hope so, do you think they would not?

 

To confirm, are these people in the south racists?

 

Are you sure about that?

 

Yes, they seem to have an issue with homosexuals (or at least with homosexuality). That doesn’t mean they’d necessarily simply refuse to serve homosexuals at all, be that for reasons of principle or practicality.

I still think the specifics are relevant, but given you can only work with simple answers lets just go with; No, I wouldn’t choose to participate in an anti-gay hate group meeting.

I wouldn’t avoid it at all costs. I wouldn’t want to break the law to avoid it and if I felt obliged to break the law to avoid it, I wouldn’t try to claim a special exemption from that law based on my personal beliefs.

As it happens I was technically working for the government (NHS) but I don’t think that’s relevant. The point is that sometimes you're obliged do things you’d rather not do (or face the consequences of refusing). That isn’t something unique to Christians or religious people in general, it applies equally to everyone.

 

Which case again? I don't remember now. The baker in Colorado? No, Justice Thomas wrote that he would have found for the baker on free speech grounds. Kennedy said it turned on the civil rights' commission's remarks of hostility to religion. I remember now that when they were discussing the case, Kennedy was said to be the foremost defender of free speech, but that he also has written every ruling "discovering" a right to homosexual marriage in a Constitution written when homosexuality was a crime punishable by imprisonment.

 

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

What cases were these?

So then what did you mean by "the rationale was free speech?" I mean if 'free speech' wasn't part of the insanely narrow decision written by the utterly useless Kennedy.

 

Well "for reasons of principle" would make no sense. If they had an issue with homosexuals, why would they want to associate with them in ANY way? And what do you mean "practicality?"

Why? Do you imagine a certain scenario with certain "specifics" which would make you more inclined to want to participate in an anti-gay hate group meeting?

Why not?

What would you say about a law which compelled you to do it? How would you feel if it was used against
you because you declined this service? Lets say that it is a law which made it illegal to refuse service to anyone.

You're right, it certainly isn't relevant. I was talking about government LEGAL action. Public sector employment should operate no differently to private sector employment.

Correct.

 

An “issue with homosexuals” could mean a whole range of different things. Some people don’t think homosexuals should be free to live, some people don’t think they should be openly homosexual in public and some people only think they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. The practicality aspect could be wanting to avoid misidentifying and loosing straight customers or thinking that they might win their case on the basis of refusing to make wedding cakes but not on the basis of refusing to serve homosexuals at all (even if they personally believed they shouldn’t be forced to).

I’m glad you finally got to the point on this angle and this is why is doesn’t matter why I wouldn’t want to do something I might be legally compelled to do - the principles are the same regardless. And yes, I can see myself in that situation and I’m sure I’d feel just as aggrieved and put-upon as the bakers did. I don’t lack basic human compassion for their situation even if I disagree with their reasons.

I still wouldn’t go to court to try to get some kind of exemption to the law for myself. If I felt strongly enough I might campaign against a bad law and push for democratic change but I’m not sure how high a priority I’d give something making life a bit difficult for me over all the policy issues that are literally matters of life and death for others. You know, things like efforts to make it socially acceptable to treat certain groups of people as second class citizens.

 

How is it life and death?

 

You misread. Other issues are life and death so they'd be my priority over this one.

 

I meant what you said about certain groups of people being treated as second class citizens

 

It's historically been a first step towards genocides.

 

So you're not drawing a connection between what you call 'second class citizenship' and people not wanting to participate in gay weddings?

 

I'm going to say no. It was a flippant throw-away comment at the end of a post that you read far too much in to. Maybe if you actually addressed the core point in my replies, I wouldn't be constantly repeating myself.