Jeb Bush Says Christian Business Owners Can Refuse To Serve Gay Weddings

Jeb Bush Says Christian Business Owners Can Refuse To Serve Gay Weddings

by Marina Fang | huffingtonpost.com | Posted: 05/17/2015 5:02 pm EDT
Excerpts:

"Likely Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said that Christian business owners should not have to provide services for gay weddings if it goes against their religious beliefs. "Yes, absolutely, if it\s based on a religious belief," he said when asked by the Christian Broadcasting Network in an interview Saturday if businesses should be able to decline services to same-sex weddings.

The former Florida governor justified his position by claiming that not providing a service does not count as discrimination if business owners feel that it violates their religious rights. "A big country, a tolerant country, ought to be able to figure out the difference between discriminating someone because of their sexual orientation and not forcing someone to participate in a wedding that they find goes against their moral beliefs," he said. "This should not be that complicated. Gosh, it is right now."

......

"The blurry distinction has become a controversial topic, as many wedding-related businesses around the country, like florists and bakeries, have turned down gay customers, citing religious freedom. The issue became politically charged in March, when Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (R) signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law, which allows businesses to cite religious rights as a reason for refusing service.

Many in the GOP presidential field, including Bush, defended the law. "Once the facts are established, people aren't going to see this as discriminatory at all," he said in March. After widespread backlash, Pence was forced to sign a revised version of the law, which delineated that businesses could not discriminate against customers and clients on the basis of sexual orientation or identity."

read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/17/jeb-bush-gay-weddings_n_7301728.html
......

IMO: One would think that after the Pence slap-down and his writing a "revised version" of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, things would be quiet for a change, but gay rights said that the "revised version" still gave room for more interpretation and more discrimination.

Jeb Bush again reiterated his views on marriage equality he said he is opposed to marriage equality, that gay marriage is not a constitutional right, and that republicans need to be slalwart supporters of traditional marriage - but he did say last month that "he would attend a gay wedding if asked." Phffft!

But traditional marriage has a lot of work to be done to bring it into the 21st Century live and kicking! Who would ever feel content or righteous leaving anyone out of tradtional marriages because of their sexual preferences...and what would it be next? - denying anyone with black hair, or someone wearing a beard, or the wrong clothes....the reasons that could be used would be exhaustive.

The fact still remains that the person owning the store is forcing the customer to be a part, or follow the religious convictions of the owner before the owner will consent to wait on him. That is unconstitutional and will never win in the courts....what are the republican presidential candidates thinking of? Are they attempting to take the place of our Supreme Court?

 

Religion should never be allowed as an excuse to discriminate. Anyone can claim "religion" to do whatever thay want. Very dangerous precedent.

Furthermore, this claim that business owners are "participating" in events contrary to their beliefs is hogwash. There's more to a wedding than cake. Even the cake has a long chain of suppliers and producers before it gets to the preparatory stage: Wheat farmers, sugar farmers, truck drivers, etc. Are they all "participating" in a gay wedding?

If you open a business to the public, you should serve everyone.

 

So are you saying someone could open their business, not to the public, but to only a certain orientation?

Straight-only shoe store?

 

No, that's not what I wrote. Here, I'll try again.

A business that is open to the public should serve everyone. My tax dollars provide public services to all businesses, so I should not be excluded from shopping in any one of them. Is that clearer?

 

Business owners should be able to discriminate as much as they want. The only requirement should be public posting of their discrimination policy.

 

As opposed to using the full force of government for force people to go against their religion.

 

What religious belief does baking violate?

 

Nope, that's clear. Thank you, I was kind of half joking. I'm sometimes poor at relaying sarcasm.

 

.......

Other than a customer loitering or committing a public offense, when a shop owner opens his store each day, he should be ready and willing to sell he wares, or serve any person that enters his place of business. The religion schtick is just cowardly misappropriation of cause of their intended action.

The posting of their discrimination policy would be fine fodder for a lawsuit for a gay couple who had stopped in to share a milkshake, while waiting for their wedding cake to be ready.

 

I disagree. The owner OWNS the business. They should be able to decide who they serve. But if they are going to discriminate, it should be posted policy.

 

And I own my tax dollars. Should I be able to decide which businesses receive fire and police protection?

It's not as easy as you make it sound. I am a firm believer in equality, but beyond that, we have a system in place that provides public services to everyone, businesses included. With such a system, as long as I can't choose who I "serve" with my tax money, businesses shouldn't be allowed to pock and choose either.

 

Public and private are not the same thing. Unless a business is paid through taxes (IE a government contractor) it should be free to discriminate as it wishes.

 

Steaming pile of dung. Having black hair, wearing a beard or the wrong clothes isn't mentioned in the Bible, homosexuality being wrong IS. Try again.

The only forcing being done is on the part of the customer. The customer can simply go elsewhere.

You will notice religion and religious practice is a protected class by not only the First Amendment to the Constitution as an inalienable right but also Codified in the Civil Rights Act. Alas LGBT is simply not there. That puts them in the same category as folks with red hair or thick mustaches and bushy eyebrows.

Hobby Lobby didn't have to pay for insurance that covers contraception at all. They reasonably chose insurance that covered 16 out of 20 oral contraception, excluding abortion pills which they find violates the tenants of their religion. Hobby lobby won their case because of the 1st Amendment's inalienable rights, codified in Civil Rights Act. It's time for the left to get over it or try to change the first amendment to the Constitution.

 

it applies for gay only motels....

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/2...tigated-for-discriminating-against-straights/

 

Homosexuality is a sin.

 

Public services. Services. You know. Fire. Police. The court system. Not the business itself. Capiche?

 

But baking is not. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is no more sinful than baking a cake for an adulterer...or a liar...or a thief... Baking a cake does not make me gay, a cheater, a liar or a thief, so your argument is weak.

 

The business pays taxes, so does the business owner. And combined they pay a lot more than you do. So why does your tax dollar "vote" count and theirs does not?

 

Private houses also receive the benefits of those services. Should they not be allowed to bar you entry?

 

First, some facts. The baker in Colorado, Jack Phillips, when asked by 2 gay men to bake a wedding cake for their wedding, refused but offered to bake a cake without any words or wedding decorations. The gays refused the offer. Phillips did not have a problem baking, he had a problem with the gay specific aspects.

Phillips also refuses to bake other items that he believes are sinful, such as Halloween cookies. I have no doubt that if an adulterer came into the bakery, declared himself an adulterer, and asked for an anniversary cake, Phillips would have responded in a similar fashion as he did to the gays.

In Christianity, knowingly supporting a sin is itself a sin. Baking a gay wedding cake does not make the baker gay, but the baker does support the concept of a gay wedding and homosexuality. Its no different than driving the adulterer to a hotel.

 

It is a sin to them. It is against their faith. That is not your call. It is their call.

 

I've always been for gay marriage, but I believe in freedom of association as well.

 

......

People who own businesses and are required to operate under certain rules. Rule 1 is Amendment 1 - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." [Therefore, attempting to insert your own "religious beliefs" is unconstitutional and against the spirit of Amendment 1 of keeping religion from getting a foothold in our government...the very thing our forefathers left Europe for, seeing the vast enmities religion can bring to any government! - therefore Amendment 1 proclaims there shall be no establishment of religion - which this case would bring...a chipping away of Amendment 1 until religion is once again ensconced in government....the very thing our writers of the Constitution were running from and warning us about. Anyone can practice any religion he wants, but must not intermingle it with religion in government...It would be chaos if every religion case came to court for arbitration on an issue in every state].

and:

Rule 2: Amendment XIV states that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [Therefore, no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges of citizens of the United States nor deprive or deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.]

 

You only posted a part of the first sentence of the First Amendment. This is what the First Amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

How convenient of you to leave out the part that destroys your entire argument.

 

.....

a] That is his problem; hand them 2 groom figures in a bag and let it go.

b] Adjudging Halloween cookies to be sinful merits a quick visit to a psychologist....

c] If the wife of the adulterer came in to buy a cake for her adulterer husband, would the baker sell it to her without a spiritual belch?