Couple fined for declining same-sex wedding on their farm

[bhsmte]

Good luck getting our friends on the Right to acknowledge that... I've tried for over a week to get any of them to say "Freedom of religion is not absolute" -- they just can't do it!

Some things are just too painful for one to acknowledge.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, not the free exercise of church

Rights are not absolute, particularly when they come into conflict. Courts have decided that Muslim cabdrivers can't refuse fares because they have alcohol with them. And Christian business-owners can't refuse gay people (in jurisdictions where gay people are protected by antidiscrimination laws).

 

[Ada Lovelace]

What happened to the right to chose what you can or cannot do on your own private property?

So sad. It is not right.

My grandparents resided in an apartment in the first small hotel they owned, but it being their place of residence didn't mean it wasn't also a public business. Similarly, it was legally decided that Liberty Ridge qualifies as a public accommodation because it regularly collects fees for space, facilities, services and meals, so it cannot be considered “distinctly private.” If they weren't considered a public accommodation they would not be subjected to compliance with the anti-discrimination provisions.

We used to live on a very scenic street and people would ask to have their weddings in our garden. Because it was a privately owned property rather than a business my parents had full discretion.

 

[MachZer0]

Correct, with limits.

Rights are not absolute, particularly when they come into conflict. Courts have decided that Muslim cabdrivers can't refuse fares because they have alcohol with them. And Christian business-owners can't refuse gay people (in jurisdictions where gay people are protected by antidiscrimination laws).

That's the standard fallback position which amounts to freedom of religion except when government restricts religious exercise. Which is tantamount to no freedom of religion at all

 

[bhsmte]

That's the standard fallback position which amounts to freedom of religion except when government restricts religious exercise. Which is tantamount to no freedom of religion at all

It is a position steeped in reality, which some do not want to acknowledge.

No freedom of religion at all?

Tell us that, when all churches are told what they can preach and who they must accept as members or to do weddings. Tell us that when you are told which God you must prey to and what church you must attend. Tell us that when you are not able to practice your chosen faith in the privacy of your own home and judge people who disagree with your religion in any way you choose in private.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It is a position steeped in reality, which some do not want to acknowledge.

Hate to say "I told you so..."

 

[vincenticus]

Hate to say "I told you so..."

 

[MachZer0]

It is a position steeped in reality, which some do not want to acknowledge.

No freedom of religion at all?

Tell us that, when all churches are told what they can preach and who they must accept as members or to do weddings. Tell us that when you are told which God you must prey to and what church you must attend. Tell us that when you are not able to practice your chosen faith in the privacy of your own home and judge people who disagree with your religion in any way you choose in private.

If you are told you can't decline business from a couple who want to do something on your property that violates your religious beliefs, it is not religious freedom. The homosexual agenda is being allowed to supplant religious liberty, a dangerous trend

 

[RDKirk]

Some things are just too painful for one to acknowledge.

I think that got settled 'way back when they prohibited Mormons at gunpoint from practicing polygamy.

 

[bhsmte]

If you are told you can't decline business from a couple who want to do something on your property that violates your religious beliefs, it is not religious freedom. The homosexual agenda is being allowed to supplant religious liberty, a dangerous trend

Unlimited religious freedom does not exist, when a person comes in touch with a customer in a public accommodating business.

This is reality. One can acknowledge this reality, one can whine about this reality, or one can actually show, how this reality is wrong, by providing a detailed legal argument as to why all these judges, have misinterpreted the law.

So far, all I see is whining. Still waiting for that detailed legal argument to support why business owners should be able to discriminate against a protected class. In other words, pretend you are in front of SCOTUS stating your case and lets hear it.

 

[bhsmte]

I think that got settled 'way back when they prohibited Mormons at gunpoint from practicing polygamy.

Not sure what that has to do with some on this board, not willing to acknowledge the freedoms involved in the 1st amendment are not limitless in nature.

 

[JayFern]

Not considering the consequences, either spiritual or secular.

There are no 'spiritual consequences' only imagined 'spiritual consequences'.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Good luck getting our friends on the Right to acknowledge that... I've tried for over a week to get any of them to say "Freedom of religion is not absolute" -- they just can't do it!

Freedom of religion is absolute, you can believe whatever you want. While you may not be able to physically practice anything you want, you are absolutely free to believe anything you want.

 

[bhsmte]

Freedom of religion is absolute, you can believe whatever you want. While you may not be able to physically practice anything you want, you are absolutely free to believe anything you want.

You acknowledge then, one can not physically practice their religion in a way that discriminates against a protected class in a public accommodating business?

And yes, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe about others who disagree with your beliefs, you are free to go to a church that agrees with your personal beliefs. You are free to change churches, if you happen to find a church that better fits your personal beliefs. You are free to discriminate against those you disagree with in regards to your private life, in regards to who you choose to have as friends and or invite in your home.

 

[AztecSDSU]

And yet I gave you an example where it did not.

Have you lived in a place where the majority of the opportunity for both commerce, jobs and housing were denied to you?

Then you might have some idea why we developed a legal tradition of public buisnesses being forced to cater to everyone within reason.

You're example is a gross oversimplification and you are heavily confusing government discrimination and private discrimination.

You do realize you aren't qualified for the vast majority of jobs available on a given day, right? Thus the vast majority of jobs would be denied to you. As a student that's fairly young in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country I certainly know what it's like to have to do so house hunting. Funny thing there is even in a housing market that's extremely expensive a student like myself was able to find perfectly suitable housing because, wait for it: the market. The government certainly was not required to come in and force someone to produce housing for me. There's always somebody out there that wants my money so they'll make something that caters to me. It's true now, it was true in the Jim Crow south, and it'll always be true.

You don't need the nanny state to solve your problems.

 

[AztecSDSU]

You acknowledge then, one can not physically practice their religion in a way that discriminates against a protected class in a public accommodating business?

And yes, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe about others who disagree with your beliefs, you are free to go to a church that agrees with your personal beliefs. You are free to change churches, if you happen to find a church that better fits your personal beliefs. You are free to discriminate against those you disagree with in regards to your private life, in regards to who you choose to have as friends and or invite in your home.

I would disagree that gays are a valid protected class and do think this is a matter that needs to be settled in a federal court. While I do not believe in any anti-discrimination laws, if protected classes are going to exist they should not include behavior groups. As such, forcing people to engage with a behavior group in a way that forces a violation of religious belief is a violation of the 1st amendment. Doing so allows the government an inroad into barring economic participation based on religious belief. As we've seen in the Hobby Lobby case the federal courts have been quite clear on that: the state can't pass laws that make people use their private property to service something they consider evil, in that case birth control and abortion coverage.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Freedom of religion is absolute, you can believe whatever you want. While you may not be able to physically practice anything you want, you are absolutely free to believe anything you want.

You may also not be able to legally practice whatever you want -- but congrats on the deflection attempt.

 

[JayFern]

What some of our liberal friends forget is that Jesus sat with sinners because He said they were sick and needed a doctor

Who knows what Jesus did or said? everything written about Jesus in the Bible is hearsay about hearsay.
Think about it please, the stories in the Bible about Jesus were written at the earliest 60 years after his death so the person writing them down got the stories from people who were themselves told the stories by others.

Please continue with the topic I did not mean this to be a derail.

 

[bhsmte]

I would disagree that gays are a valid protected class and do think this is a matter that needs to be settled in a federal court. While I do not believe in any anti-discrimination laws, if protected classes are going to exist they should not include behavior groups. As such, forcing people to engage with a behavior group in a way that forces a violation of religious belief is a violation of the 1st amendment. Doing so allows the government an inroad into barring economic participation based on religious belief. As we've seen in the Hobby Lobby case the federal courts have been quite clear on that: the state can't pass laws that make people use their private property to service something they consider evil, in that case birth control and abortion coverage.

Your opinion does not determine who should be a protected class.

 

[RDKirk]

There are no 'spiritual consequences' only imagined 'spiritual consequences'.

Well, it's his imagined spiritual consequences we're talking about--and he didn't give them any consideration.

That's not too much to ask. Elwood P. Dowd always made sure there was a seat available for Harvey whenever he took a seat anywhere, and even ordered a drink for Harvey at the bar.