I dont think a Political party should be a protected class and I dont think anyone else should be a protected class. If I own something and its 100% mine, then I should make the rules. If I cost myself business then thats on me. Again if I own it 100%, I make the rules.

 

And I will tell you this, I do make the rules on what I own 100%. :thumb:

I dont think a Political party should be a protected class and I dont think anyone else should be a protected class. If I own something and its 100% mine, then I should make the rules. If I cost myself business then thats on me. Again if I own it 100%, I make the rules.

 

And I will tell you this, I do make the rules on what I own 100%. :thumb:

 

I disagree. It has the potential to lead to situations like in Cuba where somebody could be imprisoned simply for having the wrong political ideology.

 

Perhaps the term imprisoned is a bit much, but I certainly think that we would want to prohibit discrimination based upon political beliefs as much as we would any other type of discrimination.

I disagree. It has the potential to lead to situations like in Cuba where somebody could be imprisoned simply for having the wrong political ideology.

 

Perhaps the term imprisoned is a bit much, but I certainly think that we would want to prohibit discrimination based upon political beliefs as much as we would any other type of discrimination.

 

Then this guy is wrong. Good luck with the resident Liberals.

 

But I still make my rules on what I own.

I dont know. I have not decided where I stand on this. Its a slippery slope to quote theguru. I agree its probably legal but its also hypocritical. Im going to have to stew on it.

 

How is it hypocritical ?

How is it hypocritical ?

 

Its according to who is being discriminated against. If its a LGBT or a Liberal that hates Trump or anyone else that opposed their views its ok. Imagine if I had said this about a Hillary or Bernie supporter? Or a Muslim. I would be tarred and feathered. If its a Trump supporter or a Christian its ok. All they are is a bunch of racist bigots anyway.

 

The Supreme court has become nothing more than a puppet of the party that appointed them. My views are tainted however as I am a white Bible believing Christian whose religious liberties and what I believe are of no matter to the great free and open minded thinkers of our great society now. Justice for everyone but those Christians. Sue them. Get rid of them. Silence them. Hang them on the Cross will be next. Thats what Jesus endured and the servants are not above the master......

I dont think a Political party should be a protected class and I dont think anyone else should be a protected class. If I own something and its 100% mine, then I should make the rules. If I cost myself business then thats on me. Again if I own it 100%, I make the rules.

 

And I will tell you this, I do make the rules on what I own 100%. :thumb:

 

Agreed on the first sentence but certainly not on the bolded.

Agreed on the first sentence but certainly not on the bolded.

 

Why should one group be anymore protected than anyone else?

Its according to who is being discriminated against. If its a LGBT or a Liberal that hates Trump or anyone else that opposed their views its ok. Imagine if I had said this about a Hillary or Bernie supporter? Or a Muslim. I would be tarred and feathered. If its a Trump supporter or a Christian its ok. All they are is a bunch of racist bigots anyway. The Supreme court has become nothing more than a puppet of the party that appointed them. My views are tainted however as I am a white Bible believing Christian whose religious liberties and what I believe are of no matter to the great free and open minded thinkers of our great society now. Justice for everyone but those Christians. Sue them. Get rid of them. Silence them. Hang them on the Cross will be next. Thats what Jesus endured and the servants are not above the master......

 

 

I thought you were saying the landlord is being hypocritical.

 

Your rights as a Christian are no less than they ever were.

I thought you were saying the landlord is being hypocritical.

 

Your rights as a Christian are no less than they ever were.

 

Come on Clyde, you know better than that.

 

Christian rights are attacked every day by those that disagree with the "close minded bigots".

Come on Clyde' date=' you know better than that. Christian rights are attacked every day by those that disagree with the "close minded bigots".[/quote']

 

Attacked is irrelevant. I only care what happens in the courts.

 

A Christian not being able to something in the name of God is not an attack.

Attacked is irrelevant. I only care what happens in the courts.

 

A Christian not being able to something in the name of God is not an attack.

 

So attacks are OK?

 

So the same holds for Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc.?

 

I'm not OK with anyone being attacked.

Attacked is irrelevant. I only care what happens in the courts.

 

A Christian not being able to something in the name of God is not an attack.

 

What about a Muslim women not allowed to wear a Hijab while at work? The Supreme Court ruled that preventing a Muslim women from doing so was an infringement on civil rights. Why should preventing a Christian from doing something in the name of God be any different?

So attacks are OK?

 

So the same holds for Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc.?

 

I'm not OK with anyone being attacked.

 

What type of attacks are we talking about? I assumed you guys meant legal attacks.

What about a Muslim women not allowed to wear a Hijab while at work? The Supreme Court ruled that preventing a Muslim women from doing so was an infringement on civil rights. Why should preventing a Christian from doing something in the name of God be any different?

 

Is there an equivalent for Christians that is not allowed by law?

Is there an equivalent for Christians that is not allowed by law?

 

You had originally said that a Christian not being able to do something in the name of God is not an attack, but somehow a Muslim woman not being able to wear a hijab at her place of employment is considered an infringement on civil rights, per the Supreme Court. So either you disagree with the courts ruling, or you believe that there is a double standard among Christianity and Islam.

 

To answer your question, the fundamental principle is that an authoritative figure, whether that be the supreme court, employer, or whoever, is preventing you from upholding your religious beliefs. In the case of the Muslim woman, her employer was not letting her uphold her religious belief by refusing to allow her to wear a hijab. Couldn't the case of the baker being forced to conduct business with the gay customer be interpreted as the federal government preventing the business owner of upholding his religious belief?