|
Real0ne -> RE: Dukes of Hazzard canceled due to being racist. (7/4/2015 4:47:53 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MythIncDragon
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheUltimate4Him
This whole politically correct thing is getting out of hand. Canceling shows and taking down flags, expecting Christians to bake cakes for gay couples. What happened to freedom of EVERYONE's speech?
Interesting. Would you allow a baker to deny to bake a cake for a mixed race couple? A couple where one or both of them are divorced? An inter-religious couple. Would you allow the baker to discriminate against these groups too?? All of these justifications can be found in the bible. So where do we draw the line.
When you refuse to do business with a specific segment of the population because they are different then you that meets the definition of discrimination. Would we allow a Jew, working at a burger joint, to refuse to fill an order for a Bacon cheese burger? Would we allow a Muslim baker, to refuse to fill an order for a female customer? No. Why then should things be any different for a Christian baker?
The constitution guarantees ALL of us freedom of religion. However, this country was defined as a secular nation. Unlike England, where the King declared an official religion for the nation, and that every business, speech, etc had to comport to that doctrine. You are right to your religious freedoms, when it comes to a religious ceremony. However you do not have a right to infringe on civil liberties of someone else because you disagree with their way of life.
I happen to have been an interfaith ordained minister since 1992. Suppose I objected to same-sex marriage (which I don't). Suppose a couple came to me, looking for a minister to preform their wedding. Since this would count as a religious ceremony, I would be within my right to decline on religious grounds. However, if during the week I worked as a county clerk, solemnizing civil weddings, and they came in during the week, I should not be allowed to again deny to preform the service. In the first instance, it was religious freedom on my part. The second example is not a religious service, it is civil, and I cannot deny to preform the service because I disagree. Many women who are on birth-control take it to treat a medical issue with their reproductive health, and not prevent pregnancy. Should a pharmacist be allowed to refuse a prescription that someone needs to treat a medical condition because they have an objection?? How dare they endanger a woman's health because they object.
Freedom of religion only works when the pretexts of 'both' religions are satisfied.
The gubmint tried to control it by creatin g their own secular religion. it failed and continues to fail since anyone can make a law and enforce it with enough guns.
The only peaceable solution is when both people agree. Like you would agree to marry same sex couples because it does not run contrary to 'YOUR' religions beliefs.
On the other hand despite some people [not you] trying to spin this as simply someone who is offended is forced to comply with anothers religion their constitutional rights have been violated.
that said here is how the corrupt courts judicially manipulate situations to achieve their desired outcome:
The Act Of Selling Cakes Also Does Not Constitute “Speech”
Regardless of what the cake itself might communicate or not, the act of selling cakes is also not a form of speech; [however the act of making the cake 'IS' compelled compliance compliance to the state religion] thus, forcing a bakery to sell to a same-sex couple is not compelled speech:
Compelling a bakery that sells wedding cakes to heterosexual couples to also sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples is incidental to the state’s right to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and is not the same as forcing a person to pledge allegiance to the government or to display a motto with which they disagree. To say otherwise trivializes the right to free speech. [its forcing them to create a motto that they disagrtee with for others to use and display.]
Spencer went on to dismiss other offensive hypothetical situations, noting that they don’t apply since a cake was refused based on identity, not on content: [its no longer discrimnation and now we move full speed to 'offensive'.
Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church.
despite making the cake was equally offensive to the baker since it runs against their religious teachings.
The problem is that the state is forcing someone to bake a cake with a message that is clearly against their religion. FORCE instead of simply saying well go somewhere else.
The court forgives the state and punishes the citizen rather than taking notice of the constitutional question.
However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respodnents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech.
Baking Cakes Is Not Religious Conduct
Though Phillips objected to providing the cake on religious grounds, the ALJ pointed out that baking a cake is not actually conduct that is part of his religion. Thus, it does not qualify for exemption from regulation: [the judge nicely slips right by core argument that the cake becomes part of a religious act when it contains gay promotional designs which are contrary to his religion..........this is great stuff folks, this is how a court will manipulate around the facts and core argument by very slightly sidestepping the issues.......this is why you ALWAYS DEMAND A JURY!!!!!]
Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law; [Its not against the law, its against the legislated code which is in violation of the constitution right to exercise their religion! This is corruption from the top down] it adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate regulation of commercial activity. [which has nothing what so ever to do with religion, despite that being the case the 'state' threw in for good measure and without legitimate jurisdiction, they added religious regulation to a commercial activity] Respondents therefore have no valid claim that barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free exercise of religion. [FALSE when it runs contrary to someones religion, religions is now incorporated into the action.] Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States.
and then the gate keepers come in and rule in favor of the government because its impossible for the respondent to conceptualize every possible argument a judge can 'conjure' up while regulating from the bench.
This case could have implications for similar cases playing out in other states, such as another bakery in Oregon, a florist in Washington, and a photographer in New Mexico, whose case has now been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
they will lose because of the syntax terrorism religious people are being assaulted with from the state churches.
Hopefully at some point people will realize the necessity and function of the FULLY EMPOWERED jury not fearful of exercising their right to judge both the law and facts, and until then this kind of crap legislation will continue to stand [sm=passthelube.gif]
|
|
|
|
