Religious conscience and providing services

[MachZer0]

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.

The 2nd amendment makes no mention of threatening people so your comparison fails.

 

[poolerboy0077]

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.

Whether or not amendments have limits will be based not on the presence of other statutes since they cannot override constitutional law, but on the scope of said amendments which allows for other laws to weigh in.

People really need to stop ending their responses with this smiley. It's really juvenile.

 

[bhsmte]

The 2nd amendment makes no mention of threatening people so your comparison fails.

And the 1st has no mention of using religious beliefs to discriminate.

 

[MachZer0]

People really need to stop ending their responses with this smiley. It's really juvenile.

 

[bhsmte]

Whether or not amendments have limits will be based not on the presence of other statutes since they cannot override constitutional law, but on the scope of said amendments which allows for other laws to weigh in.


People really need to stop ending their responses with this smiley. It's really juvenile.

Your saying the same thing I am. Those other laws exist, because they do not violate the constitution.

 

[MachZer0]

And the 1st has no mention of using religious beliefs to discriminate.

It's inherent in the free exercise clause

 

[bhsmte]

It's inherent in the free exercise clause

Nope, it has limitations.

That is unless, the supreme court eventually rules on this and gives carte blanche to everyone to refuse service to anyone for religious beliefs. I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

 

[MachZer0]

Nope, it has limitations.

That is unless, the supreme court eventually rules on this and gives carte blanche to everyone to refuse service to anyone for religious beliefs. I wouldn't hold your breath on that one.

A;ready addressed. The limits to free exercise involve preventing people from acting. this is a case of forcing people to act

 

[RealityCheck]

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

Yep. Tough day for the business owner that he has to comply with anti-discrimination laws. That's what you get for signing an agreement with the state that your business will comply with the laws of the state and the nationn

 

[RealityCheck]

A;ready addressed. The limits to free exercise involve preventing people from acting. this is a case of forcing people to act

You dont understand first amendment case law if thats what you think.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Yep. Tough day for the business owner that he has to comply with anti-discrimination laws. That's what you get for signing an agreement with the state that your business will comply with the laws of the state and the nationn

The incorporation doctrine applies the amendments against the states as well.

 

[RealityCheck]

A;ready addressed. The limits to free exercise involve preventing people from acting. this is a case of forcing people to act

Also.... the characterization as "forcing people to act" is misleading. Discrimination is an act. Refusing services is an act. Discriminatory refusal of services is an act.

The limits to free exercise that you accept thus apply. The law may bar people from acting in a discriminatory manner.

 

[MachZer0]

Yep. Tough day for the business owner that he has to comply with anti-discrimination laws. That's what you get for signing an agreement with the state that your business will comply with the laws of the state and the nationn

States shuld be in compliance with the Constitution, which is the whole point

 

[MachZer0]

You dont understand first amendment case law if thats what you think.

I understand the First Amendment

 

[MachZer0]

Also.... the characterization as "forcing people to act" is misleading. Discrimination is an act. Refusing services is an act. Discriminatory refusal of services is an act.

The limits to free exercise that you accept thus apply. The law may bar people from acting in a discriminatory manner.

Decling to do something is choosing not to act. The anti-discrimination laws are forcing people to act in violation of their religious consciences

 

[bhsmte]

States shuld be in compliance with the Constitution, which is the whole point

If what you claim is true, states are not complying with the constitution, there are plenty of people who think like you and have deep pockets, why don't they file suit and take it all the way to the supreme court for them to set this straight?

 

[RealityCheck]

Decling to do something is choosing not to act. The anti-discrimination laws are forcing people to act in violation of their religious consciences

Tough, because as I said, discriminatory refusal of services is an action, not a refusal to act.

So either you act to comply with law, or uou act in defiance of the law.

 

[MachZer0]

If what you claim is true, states are not complying with the constitution, there are plenty of people who think like you and have deep pockets, why don't they file suit and take it all the way to the supreme court for them to set this straight?

I believe there is a case pending as we speak

 

[MachZer0]

Tough, because as I said, discriminatory refusal of services is an action, not a refusal to act.

So either you act to comply with law, or uou act in defiance of the law.

Not doing something is not acting.

 

[RealityCheck]

States shuld be in compliance with the Constitution, which is the whole point

States comply with the Constitution by not permitting business owners to actively discriminate against particular classes of customers based on personally held beliefs.