Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The 2nd amendment makes no mention of threatening people so your comparison fails.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.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.
People really need to stop ending their responses with this smiley. It's really juvenile.
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.
A;ready addressed. The limits to free exercise involve preventing people from acting. this is a case of forcing people to actNope, 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.
Sorry, but forcing a business owner serve someone is exchanging the owner's liberty for the customer's security
A;ready addressed. The limits to free exercise involve preventing people from acting. this is a case of forcing people to act
The incorporation doctrine applies the amendments against the states as well.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
A;ready addressed. The limits to free exercise involve preventing people from acting. this is a case of forcing people to act
States shuld be in compliance with the Constitution, which is the whole pointYep. 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
Decling to do something is choosing not to act. The anti-discrimination laws are forcing people to act in violation of their religious consciencesAlso.... 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.
States shuld be in compliance with the Constitution, which is the whole point
Decling to do something is choosing not to act. The anti-discrimination laws are forcing people to act in violation of their religious consciences
I believe there is a case pending as we speakIf 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?
States shuld be in compliance with the Constitution, which is the whole point
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?