Religious conscience and providing services

[Grizzly]

I don't know of any religion that demands it's members to refuse to serve homosexuals.

But that's not the point (as you know). All that would be required is an assertion of a religiously-held belief. That belief could be inline with religious doctrine or not.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What anti-discrimination laws are being used for is to force people to commit acts they consider sinful. that's a gross violation of the First Amendment

The courts disagree, but I do appreciate that what you really have a problem with is anti-discrimination laws. I think that really is the heart of the matter.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't know of any religion that demands it's members to refuse to serve homosexuals.

We'll add it to the list of things you don't know.

 

[MachZer0]

There are people (even people I've seen on this board) who believe the bible says that blacks and whites should not intermarry. If they ran businesses that served same-race weddings, but refused to service mixed-race weddings, currently anti-discrimination laws would force them to commit acts they'd consider sinful (at least according to your logic).

Do you disagree with those laws?

I've said very clearly many times that I believe a business should be able to refuse service to anyone

 

[Grizzly]

I've said very clearly many times that I believe a business should be able to refuse service to anyone

Don't you think that would turn the United States into third-world hell-hole?

 

[TLK Valentine]

But that's not the point (as you know). All that would be required is an assertion of a religiously-held belief. That belief could be inline with religious doctrine or not.

And as we all know, one man's doctrine is another man's excuse.

 

[MachZer0]

Don't you think that would turn the United States into third-world hell-hole?

NO, it would reestablish liberty

 

[TLK Valentine]

NO, it would reestablish liberty

Liberty needs reestablishing?

 

[MachZer0]

Liberty needs reestablishing?

Yes

 

[RealityCheck]

I've said very clearly many times that I believe a business should be able to refuse service to anyone

Good for you.

The federal government and Supreme Court disagree with you.

Your opinion is therefore not terribly relevant until you can justify it and maybe explain why your advocacy for discrimination should be taken seriously.

 

[MachZer0]

Good for you.

The federal government and Supreme Court disagree with you.

Your opinion is therefore not terribly relevant until you can justify it and maybe explain why your advocacy for discrimination should be taken seriously.

In the relevant discussion here, the First Amendment agrees with me.

 

[Grizzly]

NO, it would reestablish liberty

I guess in a sense that would be true for business owners. But I'm guessing other's would experience less liberty.

 

[MachZer0]

I guess in a sense that would be true for business owners. But I'm guessing other's would experience less liberty.

Sorry, but forcing a business owner serve someone is exchanging the owner's liberty for the customer's security

 

[Maren]

You said people aren't being forced to provide a service, they just can't refuse to provide it. that's a self contradiction

No, that isn't what I said; which I have to guess is the reason you didn't actually use my quote. If you want to paraphrase what I said, it would be: you don't have to provide a service, but if you chose to provide it to the public you then must provide it to the public. To borrow from Yoda, it is essentially: do or not do.

 

[Bedford]

I guess in a sense that would be true for business owners. But I'm guessing other's would experience less liberty.

Some just don't care as long as they get theirs.

 

[MachZer0]

No, that isn't what I said; which I have to guess is the reason you didn't actually use my quote. If you want to paraphrase what I said, it would be: you don't have to provide a service, but if you chose to provide it to the public you then must provide it to the public. To borrow from Yoda, it is essentially: do or not do.

Contradiction in bold

 

[super animator]

Contradiction in bold

Fail to read.

 

[MachZer0]

Fail to read.

 

[super animator]

The fact that your posting nothing, but spam just reinforce my point.

 

[bhsmte]

In the relevant discussion here, the First Amendment agrees with me.

It is your interpretation of the 1st amendment that you choose and you ignore how this factors into other laws on the books.

We have an amendment that states we can bear arms, but it doesn't mean we can threaten whoever we want or tell them to leave a public business by pointing a gun at them.

In essence, when the owner of a public business refuses to serve certain people because of religious beliefs, they are simply waiving their religion at them to shoo them away, vs pointing a gun at them.