rpn Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 No that does not allow rejecting gays. What it does do is prohibit government from banning religious thought or behavior unless it can demonstrate a compelling reason for whatever law they are creating.
california boy Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Discrimination is a part of life. We discriminate on the foods we eat, the places we go, the people we associate with. There are good and bad forms of it yet people seem to use it as if its always a bad thing. Is not a boycott a form of discrimination? In answer to your question, legalizing discrimination into law is not the same as the personal choices we make about where we shop. When we are talking about discrimination based on religion, race, gender, and orientation, it is NOT the same as discriminating on what we chose to eat for dinner. While the word is the same, meanings can be different. But then you knew that. You know what Carbon, I think you should continue on this campaign to promote discrimination against gays, blacks jews and anyone else you want. Why don't you contact the legislature to see if you can get them to put pressure on the Utah legislature to pass HB322 that will codify into law the legal ability to discriminate. It is such a fundamental teaching of Christ. I am sure the Savior would be so proud of you. Let's make it legal to not have to serve sinners in any way. If you really think this is a doctrine of Christ, then go for it. Continue to post how much you believe that you should have the legal right to discriminate. Start a campaign. See if you can get the Civil Rights laws overturned. I am sure you will be a big hero amongst some in this country. Your name can go down in history right along that fellow anti discrimination hero George Wallace. This is a personal attack. You are out of the thread..
carbon dioxide Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) You know what Carbon, I think you should continue on this campaign to promote discrimination against gays, blacks jews and anyone else you want. Why don't you contact the legislature to see if you can get them to put pressure on the Utah legislature to pass HB322 that will codify into law the legal ability to discriminate. It is such a fundamental teaching of Christ. I am sure the Savior would be so proud of you. Let's make it legal to not have to serve sinners in any way. If you really think this is a doctrine of Christ, then go for it. Continue to post how much you believe that you should have the legal right to discriminate. Start a campaign. See if you can get the Civil Rights laws overturned. I am sure you will be a big hero amongst some in this country. Your name can go down in history right along that fellow anti discrimination hero George Wallace. Do I believe the government should discriminate? No. Do I think employees of a business should discriminate? No. They are to do their job. Do I think individuals have a right to discriminate on their own time. Yes if one believes in freedom. I try to be as fair as I possibly can with people. I try to treat all people with as much respect as I can. Those who I don't like I don't harm or do anything negative against them. At most I will just avoid them. I grew up in a part of California where being white was considered other. Most of my classmates were Asian or Hispanic. Got along with them just fine. I just believe individuals do have a right to discriminate against people if they so choose and not all forms of discrimination are bad and opposed to all forms of affirmative action. Want a good form of public discrimination. Public restrooms where men go to their room and women go to theirs. Edited March 28, 2015 by carbon dioxide
danielwoods Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 In answer to your question, legalizing discrimination into law is not the same as the personal choices we make about where we shop. When we are talking about discrimination based on religion, race, gender, and orientation, it is NOT the same as discriminating on what we chose to eat for dinner. While the word is the same, meanings can be different. But then you knew that. "So how does the right to not be discriminated against factor in? When the t-shirt company or wedding venue or photographer or baker or candlestick maker declines to do business with us, which of our human rights have been infringed? The right to access baked goods? The right to a wedding reception at the venue of our choosing? What’s the underlying liberty we’re trying to protect?" from: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/sorry-gays-you-dont-have-the-right-to-be-free-from-discrimination/ 1
Stone holm Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Sorry, but the public sphere is protected by the constitution, freedom of speech, association, etc.. Only the state itself can't discriminate agains individuals. People are free to do so, until the constitution is obliterated by the left that is.Depends on how far we want to wind the clock back. The segregated lunch counters in the South were private, not government owned facilities. The Constitution has always contemplated that the Federal government and the State governments had the authority to regulate commerce. The aim of the Federal act with regards to peyote did not involve commerce, the Indiana Act does aim to protect the right to discriminate in commercial activity. So if the Indiana Act is upheld, then the person who for religious reasons believed the races should be kept separate, would be able to create segregated lunch counters in their restaurant or even to point blank refuse to serve people of color. The potential for a huge negative taint towards religion here is immense. If this type of law spreads, which it appears to be doing in Arkansas, it will accelerate the tendency of people to list themselves as "none" when it comes to religious affiliation. 2
danielwoods Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Depends on how far we want to wind the clock back. The segregated lunch counters in the South were private, not government owned facilities. The Constitution has always contemplated that the Federal government and the State governments had the authority to regulate commerce. The aim of the Federal act with regards to peyote did not involve commerce, the Indiana Act does aim to protect the right to discriminate in commercial activity. So if the Indiana Act is upheld, then the person who for religious reasons believed the races should be kept separate, would be able to create segregated lunch counters in their restaurant or even to point blank refuse to serve people of color. The potential for a huge negative taint towards religion here is immense. If this type of law spreads, which it appears to be doing in Arkansas, it will accelerate the tendency of people to list themselves as "none" when it comes to religious affiliation. I'm unaware of any contemporary cases where people (religious or otherwise) wish to segregate commercial activity based on race. The issue here is forcing people do something they don't want to do, such as create a cake that they don't offer. In essence, the government is telling them they no longer control their own business.
thesometimesaint Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) I'm unaware of any contemporary cases where people (religious or otherwise) wish to segregate commercial activity based on race. The issue here is forcing people do something they don't want to do, such as create a cake that they don't offer. In essence, the government is telling them they no longer control their own business. SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States No one is forced to bake a cake for anyone. There are legal penalties for a business to refuse to do business based on race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation.No one controls their own business. They are ALL required by law to meet the requirements of the law. Everything from electrical codes to occupant capacity rates to paying taxes. Don't like it. Then don't start a business. BTW I'm not a member of any political party. Ps;Suppose it is in my religion to not serve Christians because I don't believe in their choice of lifestyle and beliefs. "Are you a Christian?"Customer, "Why yes I am!""Sorry, we don't serve your types here. Goodbye. Have a nice day." Edited March 28, 2015 by thesometimesaint 2
Tacenda Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States No one is forced to bake a cake for anyone. There are legal penalties for a business to refuse to do business based on race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation.No one controls their own business. They are ALL required by law to meet the requirements of the law. Everything from electrical codes to occupant capacity rates to paying taxes. Don't like it. Then don't start a business. BTW I'm not a member of any political party. Ps;Suppose it is in my religion to not serve Christians because I don't believe in their choice of lifestyle and beliefs. "Are you a Christian?"Customer, "Why yes I am!""Sorry, we don't serve your types here. Goodbye. Have a nice day." This would especially be bad if you were out of gas with no other stations nearby, and in a hot desert, lol!! .
Stone holm Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Just read the actual texts of the Indiana statute. It appears to me that the FLDS would have a strong argument under the statute to make plural marriage legal in Indiana. 1
danielwoods Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States No one is forced to bake a cake for anyone. There are legal penalties for a business to refuse to do business based on race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, and increasingly sexual orientation.No one controls their own business. They are ALL required by law to meet the requirements of the law. Everything from electrical codes to occupant capacity rates to paying taxes. Don't like it. Then don't start a business. BTW I'm not a member of any political party. Ps;Suppose it is in my religion to not serve Christians because I don't believe in their choice of lifestyle and beliefs. "Are you a Christian?"Customer, "Why yes I am!""Sorry, we don't serve your types here. Goodbye. Have a nice day." Unfortunately that is a misrepresentation of the issue. Rather, it's not a refusal to serve someone, but a refusal to make something they don't offer. In essence, going into toy store and demanding a burger.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Your travel down down this rabbit hole necessitates non-discrimination for a never-ending variety of situations, including:- a LDS baker MUST bake a cake for a polygamist wedding- a minority owned bakery MUST bake a cake for a Klan wedding"- a Muslim MUST bake a cake for a Jewish wedding- a gay baker must bake a cake for a Fundamentalist Christian weddingetc...... with a the symbols, decorations, and sayings the wedding party wishes to include.
thesometimesaint Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Unfortunately that is a misrepresentation of the issue. Rather, it's not a refusal to serve someone, but a refusal to make something they don't offer. In essence, going into toy store and demanding a burger. Again no one is being forced to sell something their business doesn't make/carry. Say I own a grocery store, and I personally don't like green beans. There is no law requiring me to sell and/or carry green beans. But if I choose to sell and/or carry green beans. I can't refuse to sell them to you for the above reasons.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) Depends on how far we want to wind the clock back. The segregated lunch counters in the South were private, not government owned facilities. The Constitution has always contemplated that the Federal government and the State governments had the authority to regulate commerce. The aim of the Federal act with regards to peyote did not involve commerce, the Indiana Act does aim to protect the right to discriminate in commercial activity. So if the Indiana Act is upheld, then the person who for religious reasons believed the races should be kept separate, would be able to create segregated lunch counters in their restaurant or even to point blank refuse to serve people of color. The potential for a huge negative taint towards religion here is immense. If this type of law spreads, which it appears to be doing in Arkansas, it will accelerate the tendency of people to list themselves as "none" when it comes to religious affiliation.You almost got away with that, you sneaky devil.The lunch counters were segregated under what we know as "Jim Crow Laws". So it WAS government mandated discrimination, which is unconstitutional, as was pointed out. It was not private discrimination that the government stepped in and fixed, they only fixed themselves- the government.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws Edited March 28, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 (edited) The government has no compelling interest to force a business to cater to whomever walks through the door. Edited March 28, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr
BookofMormonLuvr Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 Again no one is being forced to sell something their business doesn't make/carry. Say I own a grocery store, and I personally don't like green beans. There is no law requiring me to sell and/or carry green beans. But if I choose to sell and/or carry green beans. I can't refuse to sell them to you for the above reasons.So I as a baker can decide that all my wedding cakes will read, "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" and feature a bride and groom atop every cake? It is the product I sell after all. 1
Freedom Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 The government has no compelling interest to force a business to cater to whomever walks through the door. Yes it does. if you run a business, the law ensures that you can go buy product there whether you are gay, Mormon, Muslim or black. I should be able to go to any retail outlet and purchase without concern of being turned away because of my religion, the color of my skin or my sexual orientation. If a Mormon went to a community made up entirely of evangelical Christians and the businesses in this community refused to serve them because they are purchasing items for their daughter who is going on a mission, or their son who is getting married, this would be reprehensible. It is illegal. This law will be thrown out in short order. It is not against the law for two gay people to get married and a photographer is not 'celebrating gay marriage' by providing their services at the wedding any more than the local grocery store is celebrating Islam by selling milk to a Muslim who is preparing for a religious festival. 1
strappinglad Posted March 28, 2015 Posted March 28, 2015 I seem to recall a sign that was in the window of many food establishments that read " NO SHOES NO SHIRT NO SERVICE " . That was certainly a way to discriminate against some people, but it wasn't against a protected class so it was OK. Could Costco , as a membership required business, choose to not sell a membership to certain people, say blue-eyed Scandahovians , and get away with it by law? Could a cake baker establish a business that was private in that it required a signed membership form which asserted one was strictly heterosexual. The business then only sold to membership holders. Legal or not ?
carbon dioxide Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 Yes it does. if you run a business, the law ensures that you can go buy product there whether you are gay, Mormon, Muslim or black. I should be able to go to any retail outlet and purchase without concern of being turned away because of my religion, the color of my skin or my sexual orientation. If a Mormon went to a community made up entirely of evangelical Christians and the businesses in this community refused to serve them because they are purchasing items for their daughter who is going on a mission, or their son who is getting married, this would be reprehensible. It is illegal. This law will be thrown out in short order. It is not against the law for two gay people to get married and a photographer is not 'celebrating gay marriage' by providing their services at the wedding any more than the local grocery store is celebrating Islam by selling milk to a Muslim who is preparing for a religious festival. I have visited many stores in my life and none of them ever asked what my religion was. If they did I would respond "none of your business." Business owners are in business to make money. Even racist ones will sale stuff to people they don't like as they do not mind taking their money. I think there is a certain level of exaggeration of what will happen with these laws. The vast majority of the time, people will get what they want. If one goes into a business and they are denied a sale, they will find a dozen other places that will make a sale. Should a photographer be forced to take pictures of things that disturb them including nude pictures of a customer? Nobody should be forced to participate in something that goes against their conscience. Gay marriage my not be against the law but why should a photographer be forced to attend a gay wedding? It is one thing to sale flowers or bake a cake for a gay couple in their own shop. It is another to ask them to take an hour or two out of their lives and attend something they find offensive. Plus who wants to anger a photographer? If I was a photographer and I was forced to take pictures at a gay wedding, you better believe I would take some pretty crappy pictures. I would get my revenge one way or the other and all they could do is ask for a refund. I would be ok with that. I would lose some money but they would end up with bad pictures of their wedding and would they really redo the wedding? I don't think so.
GingerRed Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) You have a point.........if anyone was forced by law to provide a service like that, there's no law that says is has to be good. All they would have to do is take crappy pictures or bake a really lousy , bad tasting cake. Suppose the person even tells the customer....."by law I can't refuse you my services...but I will be upfront with you....you will NOT like what you will get for your money. It will be the worst service you ever get. So you can force me to provide for you...or...go find another service. " What would happen then, I wonder? I would never be the kind of person to force someone to do anything, because I would surely be worried about exactly those kind of consequences happening! Why would anyone want to risk ruining their important occasion like that, just to prove a point? Red (PS...just for the record, it wouldn't bother me personally, providing those type of services to gays, blacks, Muslims or pink poka dot people. It would not offend me ) Edited March 29, 2015 by GingerRed
mikegriffith1 Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-freedom-bill-gay-rights/index.htmlReally curious if this gets a veto or not. The idea behind the bill is to protect religious business owners from being sued for merely not wanting to service a ceremony that they find spiritually and morally offensive. There have been a number of cases in the last few years where Christian vendors were used or even fined for politely declining to service a gay ceremony, even though in each case the gay couple had absolutely no problem finding another vendor. The principle is that you can't force a Christian businessman to attend or host a ceremony that he finds offensive. This is nothing like a restaurant refusing to simply serve a couple a meal--it has nothing do with such a scenario.
mikegriffith1 Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 The idea behind the bill is to protect religious business owners from being sued for merely not wanting to service a ceremony that they find spiritually and morally offensive. There have been a number of cases in the last few years where Christian vendors were used or even fined for politely declining to service a gay ceremony, even though in each case the gay couple had absolutely no problem finding another vendor. The principle is that you can't force a Christian businessman to attend or host a ceremony that he finds offensive. This is nothing like a restaurant refusing to simply serve a couple a meal--it has nothing do with such a scenario.Ughh!!!!! That should read, "a number of cases in the last few years where Christian vendors were sued or even fined. . . ."
mikegriffith1 Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 Using the logic employed by the gay rights crowd, a Muslim man in New York who was about to marry a plural wife (but who would only have one wife on U.S. soil because the two others were back in Saudi Arabia) could sue an Orthodox Jewish florist if the florist politely declined to service his plural wedding. What happened to the gay rights crowd's repeated assurance--and complaint--that "if you're not gay, gay marriage won't affect you"? Over and over they made this point and then asked, "So what difference does it make to you, since you're not gay and it won't affect you?" Yeah, well it turns out that if you're a religious person and you happen to be a florist, photographer, baker, or wedding planner, gay marriage could put you out of business and/or get you sued and/or get you fined for merely politely declining to service a ceremony that you find offensive. If the gay rights crowd would show a modicum of respect for the beliefs and values of religious people, this would not be an issue. In every single case so far, gay couples had no problem at all simply getting another vendor--another florist, another photographer, etc. They weren't "discriminated" against in any way. They were not "denied" a "basic service." On a fundamental human level, why would anyone want someone at their ceremony who they knew did not want to be there? If I were hosting a seminar on the health risks of homosexual conduct, and I walked into a print shop to have them print up some booklets to hand out at the seminar, and the printer happened to be gay and told me he did not want to print what he considered to be "anti-gay propaganda," I would simply thank him for his time and go find another printer. I would never dream of suing him or otherwise trying to get him in trouble. I would respect his beliefs and feelings, even though I found them absurd. Why can't gays show the same tolerance and respect for religious vendors who find gay marriage offensive? We're not talking about a basic service, i.e., food, lodging, car repair. We're talking about an optional convenience. No one "has" to have a baker bake a wedding cake. You can bake your own wedding cake (I know couples whose family made the wedding cake.). No one "has" to have a florist do a flower arrangement at their wedding. They can go buy their own flowers and arrange them themselves. No one "has" to have a photographer photograph their wedding. With digital cameras nowadays, a couple could easily just have a couple friends take pictures before and during the wedding and reception. 2
thesometimesaint Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) So I as a baker can decide that all my wedding cakes will read, "Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" and feature a bride and groom atop every cake? It is the product I sell after all. Not a smart business move, but yes you sure can. What you can't do is tell anyone they can't buy that cake. Edited March 29, 2015 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted March 29, 2015 Posted March 29, 2015 You have a point.........if anyone was forced by law to provide a service like that, there's no law that says is has to be good. All they would have to do is take crappy pictures or bake a really lousy , bad tasting cake. Suppose the person even tells the customer....."by law I can't refuse you my services...but I will be upfront with you....you will NOT like what you will get for your money. It will be the worst service you ever get. So you can force me to provide for you...or...go find another service. " What would happen then, I wonder? I would never be the kind of person to force someone to do anything, because I would surely be worried about exactly those kind of consequences happening! Why would anyone want to risk ruining their important occasion like that, just to prove a point? Red (PS...just for the record, it wouldn't bother me personally, providing those type of services to gays, blacks, Muslims or pink poka dot people. It would not offend me ) That is a threat punishable under law.
Recommended Posts