thesometimesaint Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) And yet, you would be prosecuted... Does that mean the law violates the constitution? What about the anti-bigamy laws? If they're consenting adults it injures no one. Yep I would be. However If personal deeply held religious beliefs are a valid excuse to not follow the law then what possible justification is there for prosecuting me, or anyone else, for not following the law? Does a judge get to decide what religion is the one with the force of law? Possibly. Though I seriously doubt a judge would find it so. Possibly. Though I do think the issue of informed consent could come into play rather quickly.IE; If one or more of spouses didn't know about the bigamy Edited February 18, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Pahoran Posted February 18, 2015 Posted February 18, 2015 The United State Constitution protects individuals from Government actions. There is good reason to prohibit Governments from engaging in discriminatory conduct. But why should a individual be prohibited from discriminating against Mormons? Why shouldn't a business owner, who is opposed to the teachings of the LDS Church, be allowed to refuse services to Mormons? Actually I think they should be, if that's what they choose to do. Any business transaction is based upon a "meeting of the minds." I want to buy what you are selling, I'm willing to pay a price that is acceptable to you, so let's talk turkey. This rests upon the assumption that both parties are equally free to negotiate their position. But as soon as a government decrees that one party is not free to walk away from the negotiation while the other is, we have an unequal -- and therefore, inequitable -- arrangement in place. That said, given that there are such laws, it really ought to be possible to manage the inequity they impose. Laws could be framed to the effect that a business owner could conscientiously object to supporting specific LDS religious practices, while still being obliged to serve all patrons without asking their religious affiliation. The effect would be such that (for example) a baker couldn't refuse to sell a loaf of bread, a dozen buns, or anything else off-the-shelf to anyone who comes in, but could refuse to take on a commission for a bespoke item for a Mormon wedding. A photographer could refuse to attend a Mormon baptism. A florist could decline to provide flowers for the local ward's sacrament meeting. But all of these businesses would be otherwise expected to continue to serve all patrons in the ordinary course of their daily business. It really shouldn't be that hard to frame the laws to ensure that business owners can't say "We don't serve yer kind around here" but can say "That's not an event I feel comfortable being part of" without fear of legal repercussions. Regards, Pahoran
Kenngo1969 Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) So basically you want to bring back "separate but equal"?Nope. Thanks fer playin'! Edited February 20, 2015 by Kenngo1969
Recommended Posts