February 27, 201412 yr Do you really think the KKK would hire a black photographer? A lot of gay people don't look or act gay. Should those good Christian business owners ask everyone if they are gay or straight before they serve them? Perhaps we should have them stitch something to their clothing to show that they are gay, or make them wear an armband. But they could simply not wear that, maybe we should tattoo a serial number on their forearms so that every good Christian business owner would know not to serve them...It seems like that was done before somewhere. Of course we'll have to come up with different types for people that are Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic, atheist, have children out of wedlock etc. We wouldn't want those business owners having to serve anyone that did doesn't share their religious beliefs. Or is it okay to just single out the gay people and not serve them? You want to have an adult discussion about this or just continue with hyperbole.
February 27, 201412 yr You want to have an adult discussion about this or just continue with hyperbole. You're the one that started with the KKK trying to hire a black photographer. I can get just as ridiculous as you... My point is that no one is infringing on their religious freedom by asking that they treat all customers the same. Religious freedom only guarantees that the state will not establish a state religion or infringe on the rights of the people to worship. It does not give people the right to discriminate against others based on religious beliefs.
February 27, 201412 yr Like I heard on the radio yesterday: wait until members of the Westboro Baptist Church go into a floral shop owned by a gay man and ask for a floral arrangement saying all the anti gay stuff they preach or protest about at military funerals. He cannot refuse their business. Didnt the religious hospitals get out of being forced to follow the contraception requirements of ObamaCare?
February 27, 201412 yr You're the one that started with the KKK trying to hire a black photographer. I can get just as ridiculous as you... My point is that no one is infringing on their religious freedom by asking that they treat all customers the same. Religious freedom only guarantees that the state will not establish a state religion or infringe on the rights of the people to worship. It does not give people the right to discriminate against others based on religious beliefs. Not even close. You went on a rant about tattooing people like the Nazi's did. My example is one that could easily happen, for no other reason then for the KKK to inflict emotional distress on the black photographer. That's my whole point, where does religious freedom start and stop. If I believe being gay is a sin and photographing a gay marriage is a sin then isn't the government forcing me to photograph said wedding infringing on my right to practice my religion? And again, why should sexual orientation be protected?
February 27, 201412 yr Not even close. You went on a rant about tattooing people like the Nazi's did. My example is one that could easily happen, for no other reason then for the KKK to inflict emotional distress on the black photographer. That's my whole point, where does religious freedom start and stop. If I believe being gay is a sin and photographing a gay marriage is a sin then isn't the government forcing me to photograph said wedding infringing on my right to practice my religion? And again, why should sexual orientation be protected? Why shouldn't it? Almost every study that I've seen shows that gay people do not choose to be gay--they are born that way. Why should their "sin" be okay to discriminate against? If you are going to choose them to cull out of your customer base then you should also not serve anyone who is Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, has a child out of wedlock, has had an affair etc. All sins are supposed to be equal, while sitting in judgment make sure and not serve anyone whose personal life you don't agree with. No one is taking away the business owners ability to worship, they are asking that they treat everyone the same no matter what their makeup. Most true Christians should want to do that anyway. Since you like making up hypothetical situations. What if a group decides to base their religion on the purity of the white race? One of those people owns an apartment building. Should he be able to only rent to white people? Wouldn't want to force him to do something he doesn't believe in.
February 27, 201412 yr Author I didn't say anything. I was asking a question. What I'm struggling with is where the right to religious freedom begins and ends. I struggle based mainly on this... A person did not choose what color, gender, or age they are. A person did not choose their sexual orientation either....
February 27, 201412 yr Should a doctor be compelled to do an abortion. No, that's why many hosptials don't offer them.
February 27, 201412 yr I didn't say anything. I was asking a question. What I'm struggling with is where the right to religious freedom begins and ends. I struggle based mainly on this... I think the question you raise is one without an easy answer as there are many conflicts between laws and religious practices. What laws would prohibit the free exercise of religion? I think there are a lot of complicated issues here. There is no question that a law that bans a particular type of church, for instance, violates the First Amendment. But, what about laws that aren't specific to a particular religion that still affect religious practices? There are native religions that include the use of hallucinogenic drugs like peyote or marijuana, but those drugs are illegal. Do those laws violate the First Amendment? I think the overwhelming majority of us would say that they do not. The laws aren't specific to the native religions, they affect everyone and thus do not target practitioners, and the laws are societally necessary (granted, I disagree with them). On the other hand, if a law was passed that said wearing a burqa is illegal because it is a security risk, then I think we would all mostly agree that it violates the First Amendment because it targets a specific religious group and makes something illegal that is otherwise legal to any other individual. For instance, a man would be able to don baggy clothes and a hood, but a Muslim women would be barred from wearing a veil. In my view, when a law states that businesses can't discriminate against people due to race, gender, or sexuality then it effects all businesses and doesn't persecute a specific religious practice. Christians, for instance, are still free to believe and worship as they see fit, but they are still required to meet universal regulations if they operate a business. Therefore, I think such a law doesn't violate religious freedom. I also acknowledge that other people might find any law that impinges on a religious belief to be a violation. Yet, if this were reality then how would any law pass muster? Relatedly, couldn't any group of people interpret their religion to believe all sorts of practices, from the trivial to the nefarious, should be protected? As I said in another thread, I'm as much of a defender as civil liberties as there is, but I acknowledge they don't sanction chaos or make all laws invalid. Rather, they provide a safeguard against abuse and unrestrained authority. As such, I don't see such a regulation as an abuse against religious practices. Edited February 27, 201412 yr by Habib
February 27, 201412 yr You didn't answer the question. Does a business owner's right to religious freedom end when they open for business? And why should it include sexual orientation? If they are open to the public, yes. If they accept any public funds, or tax breaks, yes. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Katzenbach v. McClung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Trust me, this will be interpreted to cover homosexuals.
February 27, 201412 yr Why shouldn't it? Almost every study that I've seen shows that gay people do not choose to be gay--they are born that way. Why should their "sin" be okay to discriminate against? If you are going to choose them to cull out of your customer base then you should also not serve anyone who is Muslim, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, has a child out of wedlock, has had an affair etc. All sins are supposed to be equal, while sitting in judgment make sure and not serve anyone whose personal life you don't agree with. No one is taking away the business owners ability to worship, they are asking that they treat everyone the same no matter what their makeup. Most true Christians should want to do that anyway. Since you like making up hypothetical situations. What if a group decides to base their religion on the purity of the white race? One of those people owns an apartment building. Should he be able to only rent to white people? Wouldn't want to force him to do something he doesn't believe in. For every "study" you can find that shows people are born gay there is one that says the opposite. In truth there is no definite answer. The first amendment isn't limited to just ability to worship. By forcing someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs you are impeding on their religious freedom. To your example, that's a good question and one that makes this even more complicated.
February 27, 201412 yr A person did not choose their sexual orientation either.... That is your opinion.
February 27, 201412 yr Author So sexual orientation shouldn't be protected because people who don't like it say it's a choice, but religion, which is 100% a choice, deserves to be a protected class? Someone help me out with the logic on that one...
February 27, 201412 yr For every "study" you can find that shows people are born gay there is one that says the opposite. In truth there is no definite answer. The first amendment isn't limited to just ability to worship. By forcing someone to do something that is against their religious beliefs you are impeding on their religious freedom. To your example, that's a good question and one that makes this even more complicated. 1st Amendment's Religious Freedom is 2 parts. 1. the state will not make a religion (there will be no official religion and the state will not promote one over another. 2. The right to practice. What you are missing is that the right to practice is a private thing. When you avail yourself to the public, then you fall under the ICC.
February 27, 201412 yr It's also the correct one. Of course in your mind it's the correct one or you wouldn't have that opinion. However you have no more proof to back up your opinion then anyone stating it's a choice.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.