Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
Originally posted by youflog1hawk:
Re: Big ten
newjeru posted on 3/30/2015...
Or better yet let's not serve colored people in our restaurant because of our religious beliefs. Guess you did not major in American History did you?
Another false equivalency. The baker did not refuse all other services just the one that his constitutional rights afford him or her. Unless you are stating the religious have no rights in the Constitution. You will have to do better than that.
Flog: Which "baker" case are you referring to, specifically? I'd like to discuss the merits, if you have time.
I'll even post this FoxNews article discussing a few cases, is it one of these?
I don't understand your false-equivalency claim, but that is largely because it is nonsensical. These two things seem quite comparable:
Religious belief that "blacks" are dirty, unwashed heathen sinners that should be eradicated from the earth: Not served in diner.
Religious belief that homosexuals (or their weddings?) are inherently sinful in their activities: Not a cake baked for.
But I'll let you tell me which specific case so that we can really get in to the details of what "constitutional rights" are specifically afforded him/her....................................................................
Try Colorado Baker and religious freedom. Or Bed n breakfast in NY. I do not believe your intent is honorable. You cannot argue with those who refuse facts or make up their own facts. Nonsensical? I guess it was not the religious that were the driving force to free slaves.
[/QUOTE]
I don't understand your false-equivalency claim, but that is largely because it is nonsensical. These two things seem quite comparable:
Why is this so hard. Where do our rights come from? That's the first hurdle. A black american cannot change his color his rights are no different than one who cannot change from Caucasian. The baker would not bake and decorate a cake because of his religious RIGHTS are being infringed. He did not deny all his services just the one that would promote an action that his religion taught was wrong. He had no problems selling them other things like cup cakes or other items not related to the ceremony. Blacks at times were not allowed ANY service because they were black not because of an action but by being black(not because they were heathens).
Why are we making the gays a special class other than for political motives? Liberal mafia! No facts they are born that way. We just want it over the the rights of others. I say lets us use that argument for pedophiles, Kleptomaniacs, polygamy,etc. Lets go easy on them they are born that way. As a side note this line of thinking is a belief of many like Dawkins "that we are just dancing to our own DNA" just chemicals in motion. It is so incoherent. When you invent a right the consequences are you must take the rights away from others. These others have constitutional rights in writing. I would not want anyone religious to promote by force of government something that goes against their belief. Hobby Lobby anyone.
Answer this. Is it a right of gay bakers to deny a christian who comes in and ask to decorate a cake that says marriage is only for a man and women! I say the gay baker can deny service.
Its not hard to sit back and see the hysteria of the left for the political correct movement they want. Showing how intolerant, hateful, and liars they are and to see how easily the public is swayed by such lies.
[/QUOTE]
Some of your rantings are fun, some are just simplistically ignorant.
"Answer this. Is it a right of gay bakers to deny a christian who comes
in and ask to decorate a cake that says marriage is only for a man and
women! I say the gay baker can deny service."
Well, you use the word "right" and I don't think you know what it actually means. What "right" are you conferring upon gay bakers? The right to do business with whom they wish? Can you point me in the direction of that right? The Tenth maybe? Homosexuality, as far as I am aware, is not a "religion" and has no "beliefs". A homosexual baker who doesn't want to make a cake that is offensive to himself regarding gay marriage would be identical to a hipster not wanting to decorate a cake blessing bad coffee.
Second, the business owner (gay-baker) would be denying a, likely, "religious"-belief cake...thereby denying service because of the customer's religious beliefs. Most (all?) States have codified protections in public accommodations for religion and religious beliefs.
Can't believe it took two paragraphs to define such a simple concept. Sure, you are allowed to have a belief that anybody (say, a redhead) should be allowed to deny anyone (say, a blonde) for any reason (being blonde).....and there isn't anything stopping that currently, at least, usually, until a "protected" trait is involved, such as denying someone for being Christian. But, even then you are allowed to have your beliefs, feel free to believe that anyone/everyone should be allowed to deny service to Muslims, but the laws say otherwise, and there aren't many people trying to overturn those.
"Why is this so hard. Where do our rights come from? That's the first
hurdle."
Where do our rights come from? Well, considering we are talking about a statute passed by the Indiana state legislature, and we are talking about statutory rights (RFRA), rights come from laws. Obviously you want to try and "win" an argument by saying, "NO, our rights come from GOD!" which largely has no application. Do a simple thought experiment. If our rights "come from God", then they do in countries like, say, Iraq...how are those "god given rights" working out for them? Nobody is interceding on behalf of God, so, in discussions like this, about the, you know, law, rights come from the law. The Constitution restricts the government from passing certain laws...like those establishing religion, or curtailing freedom of speech, etc.
"A black american cannot change his color his rights are no
different than one who cannot change from Caucasian."
Ok..............
"The baker would not bake and decorate a cake because of his religious
RIGHTS are being infringed. He did not deny all his services just the
one that would promote an action that his religion taught was wrong. He
had no problems selling them other things like cup cakes or other items
not related to the ceremony. Blacks at times were not allowed ANY
service because they were black not because of an action but by being
black(not because they were heathens). "
Wait, what? So this Baker, which you think should be protected by RFRA, used his "religion" to deny a specific service....baking a wedding cake for homosexuals. And then you try to say that this can't happen to "blacks"....because they were denied "ANY" service in the past? This makes no sense. You need to understand first, that we can not question one's religious convictions, nor determine whether they are "commonly held", therefore if a person has a "religious objection" to "blacks", how could you possibly argue that they aren't allowed the RFRA protection?
You are, basically, saying that the Baker would have been wrong, not protected by RFRA, if he had refused to sell any cake to a homosexual...right? Why? Why is that your distinction?
"Why are we making the gays a special class other than for political
motives? Liberal mafia! No facts they are born that way."
Well now you are just throwing sht in the wind. This is extremely simple, try this: Can you think of another classification that has no "facts that they are born that way"? What is Religion, Alex?
"We just want it
over the the rights of others."
We just want what over the rights of others? Homosexuality?
"I say lets us use that argument for
pedophiles, Kleptomaniacs, polygamy,etc. Lets go easy on them they are
born that way. "
Wait, what? Let's do use that "argument" for pedophiles and kleptomaniacs. What "argument" are you talking about? The argument that homosexuals should be a protected class? I get it, it makes you feel "right" when you can compare homosexuality to pedophilia and kleptomania, hell throw in bestiality. One is not a crime (homosexuality) and the others are...because of consent. A person having nonconsensual sex with a minor is a criminal, a person stealing is a criminal, a person banging a cow is a criminal...none of those things are consensual. I know you don't want to/can't see that distinction, but your argument is bunk.
But this was brought up in another thread, a person's thoughts don't make them a criminal, their actions do. A person with pedophiliac tendencies is not a criminal without acting on them. Is that "going easy on them"?
"As a side note this line of thinking is a belief of many
like Dawkins "that we are just dancing to our own DNA" just chemicals in
motion. It is so incoherent. When you invent a right the consequences
are you must take the rights away from others. These others have
constitutional rights in writing."
I like that homosexuality, to you, is an "invented right", but none of the others (speech, religion, etc.) aren't. What makes one an "invented right" and the others not? Is being black an "invented right"? Clearly not, there is no "right" to be black, we have a right to equal treatment under the law, and we have specifically codified race as a protected class. Many states have specifically codified sexuality as a protected class.
"
I would not want anyone religious to
promote by force of government something that goes against their belief.
Hobby Lobby anyone. "
Who gets to determine their "beliefs"? A Congressional committee? You? If you can't investigate the sincerity of their beliefs then you must necessarily take them at face value, then why can't there be "religious beliefs" about everything...including refusal of a social security number or refusal to pay taxes or refusal of medical care for a child...you know, all things that the Courts have ruled against...and most people (likely you included) agree with.
Are you ok with people opting out of paying taxes due to religious beliefs?
"Showing how intolerant, hateful, and liars they are and to see how easily the public is swayed by such lies."
I love this line. You, apparently, are the victim. You play it well.
"I guess it was not
the religious that were the driving force to free slaves. "
Wait,
you are claiming that religion freed the slaves? Are you thinking that
slave-owners and the "south" in general were not religious? Is this a
serious claim?
