RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service

RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:20:41 PM)
We already talked about how if a baker or barber could refuse on their religious beliefs so could a pharmacists or doctor or grocer or any other business we depend on for the necessities of life. At first thought the refusal of a baker does not seem that important...but could very well, if allowed, discriminate against a group of people and their rights because of YOUR religious beliefs you feel are more important than THEIR religious beliefs. Well this is what the first sentence of the first amendment deals with... Many of our forefathers were discriminated against because of their religion and the Constitution attempts to allow the freedom of religion...as long as the teachings and laws are not established by governments. This allows a judgement as to where your rights end and others begin...as has been judged in the baker case and as it should be. The only way your , and my, Christian beliefs can be law to non Christians is if these beliefs are mandated by our government...and this is against the Constitution you so adore when it agrees with your way of thinking. Butch

JVoV -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:25:49 PM)
Yet, with the Hobby Lobby case, there are still more questions than answers. And one of these denial of service cases is going to have to go to SCOTUS before we get a clear and definitive standard.

BamaD -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:28:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub We already talked about how if a baker or barber could refuse on their religious beliefs so could a pharmacists or doctor or grocer or any other business we depend on for the necessities of life. At first thought the refusal of a baker does not seem that important...but could very well, if allowed, discriminate against a group of people and their rights because of YOUR religious beliefs you feel are more important than THEIR religious beliefs. Well this is what the first sentence of the first amendment deals with... Many of our forefathers were discriminated against because of their religion and the Constitution attempts to allow the freedom of religion...as long as the teachings and laws are not established by governments. This allows a judgement as to where your rights end and others begin...as has been judged in the baker case and as it should be. The only way your , and my, Christian beliefs can be law to non Christians is if these beliefs are mandated by our government...and this is against the Constitution you so adore when it agrees with your way of thinking. Butch You talked about it no matter how many times you are told that isn't my position at all. Neither of these cases asked the woman to never go anywhere where she would be touched by a unrelated male, but she asked them to meet her religious views, in the other case nobody said the gays had to go straight but the gays demanded that the baker accept their religious view. In both cases it was the customer demanding that the businessman accept their believes. As for the medical fantasy someone in that profession has already explained to you that the argument is pure bull.

kdsub -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:33:49 PM)
Yep

BamaD -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:34:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV Yet, with the Hobby Lobby case, there are still more questions than answers. And one of these denial of service cases is going to have to go to SCOTUS before we get a clear and definitive standard. That is why they make these things civil cases, to keep them away from SCOTUS.

BamaD -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:38:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub We already talked about how if a baker or barber could refuse on their religious beliefs so could a pharmacists or doctor or grocer or any other business we depend on for the necessities of life. At first thought the refusal of a baker does not seem that important...but could very well, if allowed, discriminate against a group of people and their rights because of YOUR religious beliefs you feel are more important than THEIR religious beliefs. Well this is what the first sentence of the first amendment deals with... Many of our forefathers were discriminated against because of their religion and the Constitution attempts to allow the freedom of religion...as long as the teachings and laws are not established by governments. This allows a judgement as to where your rights end and others begin...as has been judged in the baker case and as it should be. The only way your , and my, Christian beliefs can be law to non Christians is if these beliefs are mandated by our government...and this is against the Constitution you so adore when it agrees with your way of thinking. Butch If a barber not cutting a woman's hair for religious reasons somehow leads to throwing gays off a roof, then how can you say that a church can refuse to do a gay wedding without believing that this too leads to murdering gays? Could it be that if you admit that it shows that you are defending the discrimination against Christians, or in this case Muslims. You also make the irrational argument that I only support the freedom of Christians while I am arguing in defense of a Muslim.

BamaD -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:43:48 PM)
So if I go into a Kosher Jewish deli and order a ham sandwich I can sue them if they don't provide it for me.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:45:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So if I go into a Kosher Jewish deli and order a ham sandwich I can sue them if they don't provide it for me. Leave the Jews alone, please. Go Hal-Al (of course the PPLs won't like that). Michael

kdsub -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:45:24 PM)
Keep in mind the Hobby Lobby case is different... They did not want to pay for the birth control which is against their religion... if you applied this to the baker then the baker would have to be paying the Lesbians to make their cake... this is not the case... and also keep in mind the medical insurance was not offered to the general public... What do you think the judgement would be if Hobby Lobby refused service to women they suspected were on birth control medication? Butch

BamaD -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:48:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Keep in mind the Hobby Lobby case is different... They did not want to pay for the birth control which is against their religion... if you applied this to the baker then the baker would have to be paying the Lesbians to make their cake... this is not the case... and also keep in mind the medical insurance was not offered to the general public... What do you think the judgement would be if Hobby Lobby refused service to women they suspected were on birth control medication? Butch You are out in lala land again. There is only one way they would know. What do you think the outcome would be if someone demanded birthcontrol coverage from them, oh that's right, you lose.

BamaD -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 8:50:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Keep in mind the Hobby Lobby case is different... They did not want to pay for the birth control which is against their religion... if you applied this to the baker then the baker would have to be paying the Lesbians to make their cake... this is not the case... and also keep in mind the medical insurance was not offered to the general public... What do you think the judgement would be if Hobby Lobby refused service to women they suspected were on birth control medication? Butch Your argument is and always had been that if they aren't willing to violate their beliefs they have no right to be in business. Dress it up any way you want, that is what it comes down to.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 9:12:54 PM)
I've always believed in doing business on a handshake and having the ability to just tell someone: "I don't like or trust you so, I refuse to do business with you." Agreed doctors and other emergency service people kind of give up that right, when they decide that's what they want to do for a living, but there's a huge difference between denying someone some stitches and a bandage and denying them a cake. There are plenty of people with whom I still refuse to do business; potheads, and drunks being amongst them. Michael

BamaD -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 9:39:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I've always believed in doing business on a handshake and having the ability to just tell someone: "I don't like or trust you so, I refuse to do business with you." Agreed doctors and other emergency service people kind of give up that right, when they decide that's what they want to do for a living, but there's a huge difference between denying someone some stitches and a bandage and denying them a cake. There are plenty of people with whom I still refuse to do business; potheads, and drunks being amongst them. Michael Bigot

Zonie63 -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 11:16:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny No shirt, no shoes, no service. Signs like that always bring the wiseass out of me. "Hey, the sign didn't say anything about 'no pants'!" [;)]

RottenJohnny -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/28/2015 11:28:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny No shirt, no shoes, no service. Signs like that always bring the wiseass out of me. "Hey, the sign didn't say anything about 'no pants'!" [;)] Or underwear. [:D]

GotSteel -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/29/2015 3:48:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moderator3 Apparently this is something you all wish to debate and I just want it to be debated without having to lock it down again. shrug it'll happen, happens like clockwork since the problems never actually get dealt with.

Musicmystery -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/29/2015 6:54:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny No shirt, no shoes, no service. Signs like that always bring the wiseass out of me. "Hey, the sign didn't say anything about 'no pants'!" [;)] However, the law does.

Zonie63 -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/29/2015 7:05:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny No shirt, no shoes, no service. Signs like that always bring the wiseass out of me. "Hey, the sign didn't say anything about 'no pants'!" [;)] However, the law does. Yes, I knew that. I was just joking around.

Zonie63 -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/29/2015 7:22:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So if I go into a Kosher Jewish deli and order a ham sandwich I can sue them if they don't provide it for me. It's not the same argument. If they don't have ham anywhere in the store, then they can't make a sandwich out of what they don't have. We're talking about specific religious beliefs here, and the argument the store owner is making "I can not [perform this service] because to do so would violate my beliefs." There are rules in the Jewish religion regarding the eating of pork. There are rules in the Muslim religion regarding whether a man can cut the hair or touch a woman who's not his wife or blood relative. These are specific, unambiguous rules which are documented in Scriptures and can be easily verified. There are NO RULES in the Christian religion about baking a cake for a gay wedding. If there was, then maybe (just maybe) they'd have an argument. If there are any rules to that effect, then they've already ostensibly violated them by continuing to reside in a country where homosexuality has been made legal. So, it's too late for them to save their souls now; might as well just bake the cake.

Arturas -> RE: Religious Rights Not "Good Enough" to Refuse Service (7/29/2015 7:36:01 AM)
quote: There are NO RULES in the Christian religion about baking a cake for a gay wedding Actually there is. God destroyed an entire city of homosexuals. Given that example not baking them a cake should be interpreted as a kindness.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625