TOTALLY GEEKED!

burns07 · Guru

RE: Big Gay Hate Machine closes Christian Pizzaria

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

burns07 wrote:
My point is that society evolves.
_________________________

name one " evolved " society / culture / major religion that condones and promotes homosexuality on this planet

you seem to think a group that comprises perhaps 2 or 3% of the population somehow has the authority, the " right " to determine what is to be the religious / moral / cultural norm for the other 97% of Americans who live here ? and they're openly practicing a way of life that is fundamentally repugnant to the overwhelming majority of humans on the entire planet ? are you delusional ?

Nope, not at all.

How many states have legalized homosexual marriage now?

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
burns07 wrote:
My point is that society evolves.
_________________________

name one " evolved " society / culture / major religion that condones and promotes homosexuality on this planet

you seem to think a group that comprises perhaps 2 or 3% of the population somehow has the authority, the " right " to determine what is to be the religious / moral / cultural norm for the other 97% of Americans who live here ? and they're openly practicing a way of life that is fundamentally repugnant to the overwhelming majority of humans on the entire planet ? are you delusional ?

Nope, not at all.
How many states have legalized homosexual marriage now?
flan

Not because the majority of the people wanted it. In fact, IN SPITE OF the majority of the people being against it...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
And society has had slaves since the beginning of time.

flan
You bring that up like it matters in this argument.
It doesn't.
If you had any true understanding of the Bible and God's rules for having servants.
Those who serve are exhalted.
But thanks for playing.
My point is that society evolves. Girls are no longer married off in their teens.
As to the bolded, though, I'm genuinely curious: if a person is taken from their homeland against their will, and beaten & forced to work, then they are supposed to feel exalted?
flan

There were a whole lot of issues related to slavery that cannot be summed up like that. You are talking about the recent slavery, not the slavery of the Biblical times. And recent slavery - most of them were conquered tribes sold by other African tribes as prisoners of war.

But slavery has nothing to do with this because YES, ridding the world of slavery is evolvement. Too bad it hasn't happened everywhere.

BUT, that has nothing to do with this topic whatsoever and bringing it up to deflect from the topic shows you have nothing further and relevant to add.

It is not an evolution for society to condone sin.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Wednesday 8th of April 2015 11:25:09 AM

Tinydancer · Guru

Some would have us embrace every one and every thing. Even things they know we cannot accept. Fortunately the Constitution is on the right side of this argument because men with a better grasp of what freedom is protected us from those who'd try to take that away.

chef · Guru

flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan

If it didn't matter what you said, I wouldn't have asked the question.

However, your response does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask if you believed that someone should be able to buy whatever regardless of sexual orientation. I asked why one thing is more important than the other. If discrimination is wrong, it's wrong period, not just when it favors the PC side of the coin.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Chef, you won't get an answer.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan
If it didn't matter what you said, I wouldn't have asked the question.
However, your response does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask if you believed that someone should be able to buy whatever regardless of sexual orientation. I asked why one thing is more important than the other. If discrimination is wrong, it's wrong period, not just when it favors the PC side of the coin.

Because a public business should serve all members of the public regardless of who they are. If they want to pick and choose clientele based off of whatever criteria they have (religious, etc) then they shouldn't be a public business. They could be members only as an example.

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

My tattoo parlor won't do neck tattoos or put vulgar words on someone. So they should be sued for their standards?

Ohfour · Hooker

Bonny22Pye wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan
If it didn't matter what you said, I wouldn't have asked the question.
However, your response does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask if you believed that someone should be able to buy whatever regardless of sexual orientation. I asked why one thing is more important than the other. If discrimination is wrong, it's wrong period, not just when it favors the PC side of the coin.
Because a public business should serve all members of the public regardless of who they are. If they want to pick and choose clientele based off of whatever criteria they have (religious, etc) then they shouldn't be a public business. They could be members only as an example.

Wrong. You can refuse service to anyone. What if someone came into a Christian Bookstore and was using the F-word loudly and often. There is no law against that. Should they be able to remove them?

chef · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Chef, you won't get an answer.

Not to the question I asked anyway. At least, most likely not.

chef · Guru

Bonny22Pye wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan
If it didn't matter what you said, I wouldn't have asked the question.
However, your response does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask if you believed that someone should be able to buy whatever regardless of sexual orientation. I asked why one thing is more important than the other. If discrimination is wrong, it's wrong period, not just when it favors the PC side of the coin.
Because a public business should serve all members of the public regardless of who they are. If they want to pick and choose clientele based off of whatever criteria they have (religious, etc) then they shouldn't be a public business. They could be members only as an example.

That doesn't answer why one thing is more important than another. A person's rights don't end just because they own a business.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Bonny22Pye wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan
If it didn't matter what you said, I wouldn't have asked the question.
However, your response does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask if you believed that someone should be able to buy whatever regardless of sexual orientation. I asked why one thing is more important than the other. If discrimination is wrong, it's wrong period, not just when it favors the PC side of the coin.
Because a public business should serve all members of the public regardless of who they are. If they want to pick and choose clientele based off of whatever criteria they have (religious, etc) then they shouldn't be a public business. They could be members only as an example.

Freedom of religion means not having to set aside your religion to make a living. If that was the case - then it is not freedom at all.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan
If it didn't matter what you said, I wouldn't have asked the question.
However, your response does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask if you believed that someone should be able to buy whatever regardless of sexual orientation. I asked why one thing is more important than the other. If discrimination is wrong, it's wrong period, not just when it favors the PC side of the coin.
Because a public business should serve all members of the public regardless of who they are. If they want to pick and choose clientele based off of whatever criteria they have (religious, etc) then they shouldn't be a public business. They could be members only as an example.
Freedom of religion means not having to set aside your religion to make a living. If that was the case - then it is not freedom at all.

So at what point is it not ok to say it's "My religions says I can't provide this?"

Bonny22Pye · Guru

chef wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan
If it didn't matter what you said, I wouldn't have asked the question.
However, your response does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask if you believed that someone should be able to buy whatever regardless of sexual orientation. I asked why one thing is more important than the other. If discrimination is wrong, it's wrong period, not just when it favors the PC side of the coin.
Because a public business should serve all members of the public regardless of who they are. If they want to pick and choose clientele based off of whatever criteria they have (religious, etc) then they shouldn't be a public business. They could be members only as an example.
That doesn't answer why one thing is more important than another. A person's rights don't end just because they own a business.

I'm trying to come up with a very succinct way of stating my views on this. I'll come back to this shortly.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan
If it didn't matter what you said, I wouldn't have asked the question.
However, your response does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask if you believed that someone should be able to buy whatever regardless of sexual orientation. I asked why one thing is more important than the other. If discrimination is wrong, it's wrong period, not just when it favors the PC side of the coin.
Because a public business should serve all members of the public regardless of who they are. If they want to pick and choose clientele based off of whatever criteria they have (religious, etc) then they shouldn't be a public business. They could be members only as an example.
Freedom of religion means not having to set aside your religion to make a living. If that was the case - then it is not freedom at all.
So at what point is it not ok to say it's "My religions says I can't provide this?"

When there is a compelling reason, the court will apply strict scrutiny. That's the legal standard. For example, parents who won't treat their sick children on religious grounds - there is a compelling reason, the life of the child. Cake at your wedding by a specific baker is not compelling. When two rights collide, you have to determine which is more compelling. And in this instance - is it more compelling that a person be able to force someone to make them a wedding cake, or that a person be allowed to follow their religious conscience? I believe the latter is more compelling, and that is what the constitution says.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan
If it didn't matter what you said, I wouldn't have asked the question.
However, your response does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask if you believed that someone should be able to buy whatever regardless of sexual orientation. I asked why one thing is more important than the other. If discrimination is wrong, it's wrong period, not just when it favors the PC side of the coin.
Because a public business should serve all members of the public regardless of who they are. If they want to pick and choose clientele based off of whatever criteria they have (religious, etc) then they shouldn't be a public business. They could be members only as an example.
Freedom of religion means not having to set aside your religion to make a living. If that was the case - then it is not freedom at all.
So at what point is it not ok to say it's "My religions says I can't provide this?"
When there is a compelling reason, the court will apply strict scrutiny. That's the legal standard. For example, parents who won't treat their sick children on religious grounds - there is a compelling reason, the life of the child. Cake at your wedding by a specific baker is not compelling. When two rights collide, you have to determine which is more compelling. And in this instance - is it more compelling that a person be able to force someone to make them a wedding cake, or that a person be allowed to follow their religious conscience? I believe the latter is more compelling, and that is what the constitution says.

How is this different in your opinion on people not serving black people? They could just go to a different diner right? They don't have to have a sandwich from that particular restaurant.

Ohfour · Hooker

Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan
If it didn't matter what you said, I wouldn't have asked the question.
However, your response does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask if you believed that someone should be able to buy whatever regardless of sexual orientation. I asked why one thing is more important than the other. If discrimination is wrong, it's wrong period, not just when it favors the PC side of the coin.
Because a public business should serve all members of the public regardless of who they are. If they want to pick and choose clientele based off of whatever criteria they have (religious, etc) then they shouldn't be a public business. They could be members only as an example.
Freedom of religion means not having to set aside your religion to make a living. If that was the case - then it is not freedom at all.
So at what point is it not ok to say it's "My religions says I can't provide this?"
When there is a compelling reason, the court will apply strict scrutiny. That's the legal standard. For example, parents who won't treat their sick children on religious grounds - there is a compelling reason, the life of the child. Cake at your wedding by a specific baker is not compelling. When two rights collide, you have to determine which is more compelling. And in this instance - is it more compelling that a person be able to force someone to make them a wedding cake, or that a person be allowed to follow their religious conscience? I believe the latter is more compelling, and that is what the constitution says.
How is this different in your opinion on people not serving black people? They could just go to a different diner right? They don't have to have a sandwich from that particular restaurant.

It is not the same at all. First of all - I do not believe that it is okay to refuse to serve ANYONE in a diner. And it would not be ok to refuse to serve a homosexual a cupcake or a birthday cake, or to take a portrait, or to refuse them entry to a church for that matter. It is the PERSON vs. an ACTIVITY. A gay wedding is a sin - there is no getting around that. And nobody should be forced to actively participate in someone else's sin. Besides that, no one should have to deliver a cake anywhere they don't want to, for ANY reason, even if it's just that the traffic is bad in that part of town. Owning a business does not equal indentured servitude to the public.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.

Being a homosexual isn't a sin, either. But acting on those feelings is.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef, I respect your beliefs. I just disagree.

flan
Awesome!
So ... I ask again ...
Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?
It doesn't matter what I say. Your mind is made up.
I believe that a human being should be able to walk into a shop & buy a cake or flowers or a tuxedo, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It's a business transaction. Period.
flan
If it didn't matter what you said, I wouldn't have asked the question.
However, your response does not answer the question asked. I didn't ask if you believed that someone should be able to buy whatever regardless of sexual orientation. I asked why one thing is more important than the other. If discrimination is wrong, it's wrong period, not just when it favors the PC side of the coin.
Because a public business should serve all members of the public regardless of who they are. If they want to pick and choose clientele based off of whatever criteria they have (religious, etc) then they shouldn't be a public business. They could be members only as an example.
Freedom of religion means not having to set aside your religion to make a living. If that was the case - then it is not freedom at all.
So at what point is it not ok to say it's "My religions says I can't provide this?"
When there is a compelling reason, the court will apply strict scrutiny. That's the legal standard. For example, parents who won't treat their sick children on religious grounds - there is a compelling reason, the life of the child. Cake at your wedding by a specific baker is not compelling. When two rights collide, you have to determine which is more compelling. And in this instance - is it more compelling that a person be able to force someone to make them a wedding cake, or that a person be allowed to follow their religious conscience? I believe the latter is more compelling, and that is what the constitution says.
How is this different in your opinion on people not serving black people? They could just go to a different diner right? They don't have to have a sandwich from that particular restaurant.
It is not the same at all. First of all - I do not believe that it is okay to refuse to serve ANYONE in a diner. And it would not be ok to refuse to serve a homosexual a cupcake or a birthday cake, or to take a portrait, or to refuse them entry to a church for that matter. It is the PERSON vs. an ACTIVITY. A gay wedding is a sin - there is no getting around that. And nobody should be forced to actively participate in someone else's sin. Besides that, no one should have to deliver a cake anywhere they don't want to, for ANY reason, even if it's just that the traffic is bad in that part of town. Owning a business does not equal indentured servitude to the public.

So a venue could say I won't hold your wedding here because your black?

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.

I'm not talking about the Bible per say. I'm saying that people could deny various groups by just saying my religion. Think of all the crazy cults and bizarre religions out there.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

No. That is not caparable. A person can't choose to be black or not. A person can choose not to marry a person of the same sex. A person can even choose to refrain from homosexual behavior.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.
I'm not talking about the Bible per say. I'm saying that people could deny various groups by just saying my religion. Think of all the crazy cults and bizarre religions out there.

So what?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.
I'm not talking about the Bible per say. I'm saying that people could deny various groups by just saying my religion. Think of all the crazy cults and bizarre religions out there.

The courts take into consideration bona-fide religious beliefs - not crazy. You can't make up your own religion.

Besides - sin is about BEHAVIOR, not existence.

Ohfour · Hooker

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.
I'm not talking about the Bible per say. I'm saying that people could deny various groups by just saying my religion. Think of all the crazy cults and bizarre religions out there.

So everyone loses their religious freedom because of a couple of but jobs?

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.
I'm not talking about the Bible per say. I'm saying that people could deny various groups by just saying my religion. Think of all the crazy cults and bizarre religions out there.
The courts take into consideration bona-fide religious beliefs - not crazy. You can't make up your own religion.
Besides - sin is about BEHAVIOR, not existence.

Just out of curiosity, do you know what makes a religion count? I've always wondered what some idiots would have to do to have a religions declared real.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.
I'm not talking about the Bible per say. I'm saying that people could deny various groups by just saying my religion. Think of all the crazy cults and bizarre religions out there.
So everyone loses their religious freedom because of a couple of but jobs?

I don't think people should, I'm just curious what the line is. How do courts decide? What if some crazy Xenu scientologist came up with bizarre rules about their religion.

Aren't Muslims freaking out about having to take off their burqa's in court?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.
I'm not talking about the Bible per say. I'm saying that people could deny various groups by just saying my religion. Think of all the crazy cults and bizarre religions out there.
The courts take into consideration bona-fide religious beliefs - not crazy. You can't make up your own religion.
Besides - sin is about BEHAVIOR, not existence.
Just out of curiosity, do you know what makes a religion count? I've always wondered what some idiots would have to do to have a religions declared real.

It doesn't take much. There is the flying spaghetti religion.

but if that particular religion said they couldn't serve their spaghetti with a spoon, and a customer asked for a spoon, they should be able to refuse without a law suit or fear of losing their business.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.
I'm not talking about the Bible per say. I'm saying that people could deny various groups by just saying my religion. Think of all the crazy cults and bizarre religions out there.
The courts take into consideration bona-fide religious beliefs - not crazy. You can't make up your own religion.
Besides - sin is about BEHAVIOR, not existence.
Just out of curiosity, do you know what makes a religion count? I've always wondered what some idiots would have to do to have a religions declared real.
It doesn't take much. There is the flying spaghetti religion.
but if that particular religion said they couldn't serve their spaghetti with a spoon, and a customer asked for a spoon, they should be able to refuse without a law suit or fear of losing their business.

What if they couldn't serve women spaghetti because they were considered unclean on all even days of the week?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Bonny22Pye wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.
I'm not talking about the Bible per say. I'm saying that people could deny various groups by just saying my religion. Think of all the crazy cults and bizarre religions out there.
The courts take into consideration bona-fide religious beliefs - not crazy. You can't make up your own religion.
Besides - sin is about BEHAVIOR, not existence.
Just out of curiosity, do you know what makes a religion count? I've always wondered what some idiots would have to do to have a religions declared real.
It doesn't take much. There is the flying spaghetti religion.
but if that particular religion said they couldn't serve their spaghetti with a spoon, and a customer asked for a spoon, they should be able to refuse without a law suit or fear of losing their business.
What if they couldn't serve women spaghetti because they were considered unclean on all even days of the week?

All the what if's.

What if you wanted to tell some one "God bless you" when they sneeze but that would get you fined or arrested?

All of it, every what if, is protected by the first amendment. The right to practice your religion is just that, a right.

What we need to ask is not what if their religion says they can't., but what if they can't because it is a religious thing?

Every religion is protected under the first amendment. If we begin limiting one, it won't be long till it is something from another. And then another. And it will keep on until there is no religious freedom at all. For anyone.

Ohfour · Hooker

That's fine. Its such a minute percentage of the population, they wouldn't be in business long. But they should be able to adhere to their beliefs...

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
That's fine. Its such a minute percentage of the population, they wouldn't be in business long. But they should be able to adhere to their beliefs...

Well, I can behind that. Let them limit their business and let people boycott or whatever if it irritates the public at large rather than having a court decide every little if and then this thingy...

WYSIWYG · Guru

"YOUR" Bible? What bible is that? And it's not HATE to refuse to participate in a sin. That is where you thinking is not logical. - Lawyerlady

_________________

Yes, "MY" Bible. The one I grew up learning from, that my parents bought me, from the Christian bookstore in town, when they believed I was ready to start reading and learning about God.

I agree it's not hate to refuse to participate in sin. Baking and selling a cake isn't sin. Attending a meal with nonbelievers isn't a sin. Actively joining them in their gay matrimonial bed could be a sin, but no one is being asked to do that, are they?

WYSIWYG · Guru

Freedom of religion means not having to set aside your religion to make a living. If that was the case - then it is not freedom at all. - Lawyerlady

_____________________

I agree. And if someone from the government forcibly made them open a business where they might have to serve people who they didn't want to serve because they wanted to discriminate against them because they thought their religion said they had to, you might have a point. That's not the case here.

WYSIWYG · Guru

When there is a compelling reason, the court will apply strict scrutiny. That's the legal standard. - Lawyerlady

______________________

Are you suggesting that "equal treatment of citizens by a public business" isn't a compelling reason? If that's what you are suggesting, I disagree.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"YOUR" Bible? What bible is that? And it's not HATE to refuse to participate in a sin. That is where you thinking is not logical. - Lawyerlady

_________________

Yes, "MY" Bible. The one I grew up learning from, that my parents bought me, from the Christian bookstore in town, when they believed I was ready to start reading and learning about God.

I agree it's not hate to refuse to participate in sin. Baking and selling a cake isn't sin. Attending a meal with nonbelievers isn't a sin. Actively joining them in their gay matrimonial bed could be a sin, but no one is being asked to do that, are they?

I don't think riding a bicycle or owning a car or wearing "English" clothes is a sin but the Amish do. Are we going to force them to conform? No. So, others have their beliefs as well.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Where in the Bible does it say that being black is a sin? That's the issue. RELIGIOUS freedom.
I'm not talking about the Bible per say. I'm saying that people could deny various groups by just saying my religion. Think of all the crazy cults and bizarre religions out there.
The courts take into consideration bona-fide religious beliefs - not crazy. You can't make up your own religion.
Besides - sin is about BEHAVIOR, not existence.
Just out of curiosity, do you know what makes a religion count? I've always wondered what some idiots would have to do to have a religions declared real.

Unfortunately, this body of preexisting caselaw is not terribly broad or deep. As we’ll see later, for instance, it tells us less than we’d like to know about what counts as a compelling interest. But what counts as a substantial burden is somewhat clearer; we’ll see this in more detail in a later post, but for now, note that the following all constitute a substantial burden:

The government’s compelling someone to do something that violates his religious beliefs, or prohibiting someone from doing something that is mandated by his religious beliefs.
The government’s denying someone a tax exemption or unemployment compensation unless he does something that violates his religious beliefs, or refrains from something that is mandated by his religious beliefs.
As to state and federal constitutional regimes, it’s not clear whether the above also applies when the objector’s conduct is merely motivated by his religious beliefs (e.g., the objector thinks it’s a religiously valuable thing for him to stay home on the Sabbath, rather than a religious commandment) and not actually mandated by those beliefs. The federal RFRA, many state RFRAs, and RLUIPA expressly apply to “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by … a system of religious belief.”
The beliefs need not be longstanding, central to the claimant’s religious beliefs, internally consistent, consistent with any written scripture, or reasonable from the judge’s perspective. They need only be sincere.

Recall, though, that a finding of substantial burden on sincere religious beliefs simply shifts the burden to the government: The government may still justify the burden by showing that applying the law to the objectors is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest.

This entire article makes it clear as mud - http://volokh.com/2013/12/02/1a-religious-freedom-restoration-act/

What is a sincere belief? Good luck trying to convince the court that flying spaghetti is a sincere religious belief - they might lock you in the looney bin.

Tinydancer · Guru

The obvious answer to this is to go to a bakery that has no problem filling your order for a gay wedding cake. There hasn't been one single word from those of you who'd like to trample my right to freedom of religion about how simple it would be to go somewhere else. Ahhh but then they wouldn't get their 15 minutes of fame or the chance to grub money from some business owner who has the RIGHT to refuse. Why do these drama llama's get to have their way no matter what?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
When there is a compelling reason, the court will apply strict scrutiny. That's the legal standard. - Lawyerlady

______________________

Are you suggesting that "equal treatment of citizens by a public business" isn't a compelling reason? If that's what you are suggesting, I disagree.

Not when it directly infringes on of person's religious objections. And it's not equal treatment they are seeking - it's special treatment. The baker would be more than happy to supply them a wedding cake for any heterosexual marriage.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

The real problem here is that the people arguing against the religious freedom aspect do not have the proper respect for the religious rights in this country. You treat them secondary, and they are not.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

chef wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Chef, you won't get an answer.
Not to the question I asked anyway. At least, most likely not.

Then why bother asking?

I already answered your snarky question in my Spotlight Thread, even though several posters said that you were out of line.

I'll just let you & Lily reveal in your holier than thou existence.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Chef, you won't get an answer.
Not to the question I asked anyway. At least, most likely not.
Then why bother asking?
I already answered your snarky question in my Spotlight Thread, even though several posters said that you were out of line.
I'll just let you & Lily reveal in your holier than thou existence.
flan

Excellent question. Everyone knows you won't even address a question that doesn't fit with your views, or might require you to admit you are wrong. You don't call them questions - you call them "traps". Of course, they are only "traps" if they are valid.

Tinydancer · Guru

flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Chef, you won't get an answer.
Not to the question I asked anyway. At least, most likely not.
Then why bother asking?
I already answered your snarky question in my Spotlight Thread, even though several posters said that you were out of line.
I'll just let you & Lily reveal in your holier than thou existence.
flan

Wow. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Chef, you won't get an answer.
Not to the question I asked anyway. At least, most likely not.
Then why bother asking?
I already answered your snarky question in my Spotlight Thread, even though several posters said that you were out of line.
I'll just let you & Lily reveal in your holier than thou existence.
flan

You can't be this thick. You can't think anyone is this stupid.

The question in this thread has not been answered.

You're becoming a joke and you are doing it to yourself.

It's past sad and moving into the realm of pathetic.

disbelief

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Chef, you won't get an answer.
Not to the question I asked anyway. At least, most likely not.
Then why bother asking?
I already answered your snarky question in my Spotlight Thread, even though several posters said that you were out of line.
I'll just let you & Lily reveal in your holier than thou existence.
flan
Excellent question. Everyone knows you won't even address a question that doesn't fit with your views, or might require you to admit you are wrong. You don't call them questions - you call them "traps". Of course, they are only "traps" if they are valid.

I have, in the past, called YOUR questions "traps" because I am not on the witness stand. You're a lawyer & unfortunately, you act like one.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Chef, you won't get an answer.
Not to the question I asked anyway. At least, most likely not.
Then why bother asking?
I already answered your snarky question in my Spotlight Thread, even though several posters said that you were out of line.
I'll just let you & Lily reveal in your holier than thou existence.
flan
Excellent question. Everyone knows you won't even address a question that doesn't fit with your views, or might require you to admit you are wrong. You don't call them questions - you call them "traps". Of course, they are only "traps" if they are valid.
I have, in the past, called YOUR questions "traps" because I am not on the witness stand. You're a lawyer & unfortunately, you act like one.
flan

My questions have not been lawyer questions - they are pointed questions to the flaws in your argument. If being a lawyer makes me see the flaws in your arguments better, too bad.

Tinydancer · Guru

If you call it a trap or a trick question then you have the perfect excuse not to answer. flan seems to have more excuses than she does reasons for the things she says.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tinydancer wrote:
If you call it a trap or a trick question then you have the perfect excuse not to answer. flan seems to have more excuses than she does reasons for the things she says.

And apparently, if a lawyer asks a question - she's on the witness stand. Better tell my kids to take an oath when I ask them if they have homework.

chef · Guru

flan327 wrote:
chef wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Chef, you won't get an answer.
Not to the question I asked anyway. At least, most likely not.
Then why bother asking?
I already answered your snarky question in my Spotlight Thread, even though several posters said that you were out of line.
I'll just let you & Lily reveal in your holier than thou existence.
flan

Why bother? In hopes that you might actually answer the question instead of dancing around it.

My question to you on your spotlight wasn't snarky. It wasn't a feel good, warm fuzzies question but it wasn't snarky. I was genuinely curious as to why you make digs at people when it's not warranted. There have been times you have come onto a thread only to make a dig. I just wanted to know why that is. I don't understand that type of behavior. I thought that maybe you were hoping to achieve something by acting in such a manner.

Holier than thou? No. I'm simply not afraid of asking the tough questions. I'm also not afraid to stand up for my God at ALL times, not just when it's comfortable, PC, or otherwise world-approved. I don't like everything that's written in the Bible but I also do not seek ways to invalidate the verses I don't like. Nor do I make excuses for them.

Here's another tough question for you: Why did my question lead you to call me holier than thou?