Religious conscience and providing services

[RealityCheck]

Not doing something is not acting.

Doesn't matter how many times you say this. Discrimination is an act. Thats what the arizonabill would've permitted, active discrimination.

 

[MachZer0]

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

There's nothing of the sort in the Constitution

 

[MachZer0]

Doesn't matter how many times you say this. Discrimination is an act. Thats what the arizonabill would've permitted, active discrimination.

Doesn't matter how many times it's disputed, electing not to do something is choosing not to act whereas the alternative being supported is forcing people to act in violation of their consciences

 

[morningstar2651]

I understand the First Amendment

No. You don't. I've read your posts. You are painfully ignorant of constitutional law and law in general. You frequently argue against the conclusions of judges despite the fact that they are experts on law...and you are not.

 

[MachZer0]

No. You don't. I've read your posts. You are painfully ignorant of constitutional law and law in general. You frequently argue against the conclusions of judges despite the fact that they are experts on law...and you are not.

Others argue against the Constitution despite what it says

 

[TLK Valentine]

Others argue against the Constitution despite what it says

Others ignore over a century of Supreme Court decisions and case law.

 

[RealityCheck]

Others argue against the Constitution despite what it says

So where in the Constitution are there limits placed on free speech?

Where in the Constitution does it say that citizens not part of a militia may own arms without restriction?

 

[Grizzly]

Wanted to bump this. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case of the photographer who was sued for denying services. The lower courts opinions stand.

"Without comment Monday, justices denied the petition of a New Mexico photographer who was sanctioned under state law for refusing to document a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.

The court's refusal to intervene means those financial penalties stand."


Justices reject review of religious liberty in the marketplace case - CNN.com

 

[MachZer0]

Wanted to bump this. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case of the photographer who was sued for denying services. The lower courts opinions stand.

"Without comment Monday, justices denied the petition of a New Mexico photographer who was sanctioned under state law for refusing to document a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony.

The court's refusal to intervene means those financial penalties stand."


Justices reject review of religious liberty in the marketplace case - CNN.com

A true miscarriage of justice

 

[Grizzly]

A true miscarriage of justice

The process the judges use to select which cases to hear is a mystery to me.

 

[MachZer0]

The process the judges use to select which cases to hear is a mystery to me.

There are similar cases pending. It may be that they felt one of the others has more merit

 

[Bedford]

A true miscarriage of justice

We understand that is an opinion you hold.

In reality, if a business is open to the public and the state law clearly states that a business cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, then in this case justice was served.

 

[keith99]

It's weird because, as an atheist, I've never been refused services based upon moral indignation.

I wonder why it's so important for Christians to oppose people being Gay and not really other things.

Is there an atheist equivalent of the gay lisp or the limp wrist?

I've never had any issues either, but a lot is because in the flesh 99.9% of the time strangers do not know my religious position. And non strangers who would be dicey never find out.

 

[keith99]

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

Major fail.

There is clear case law that Cab drivers and Innkeepers have an obligation to provide service, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Clear case law that only idiots or people who never travel would want changed.

 

[keith99]

The process the judges use to select which cases to hear is a mystery to me.

One huge problem in understanding is that in any case there are multiple factors involved.

One that I think few people consider is a lot of the time unless there is a gross and significant injustice involved they will pass on cases where there are multiple issues involved as such is not apt to lead to useful case law.

 

[Arcangl86]

One huge problem in understanding is that in any case there are multiple factors involved.

One that I think few people consider is a lot of the time unless there is a gross and significant injustice involved they will pass on cases where there are multiple issues involved as such is not apt to lead to useful case law.

Also there are other factors. The Supreme Court only takes cases they consider to be of significant national interest. The fact that this case is the case of a single state court deciding federal law, and it doesn't conflict with any federal courts is reason enough not to take it.

 

[Maren]

A true miscarriage of justice

Actually, they upheld the law according to past decisions of the Supreme Court, as I have pointed out previously -- as well as the original judge's ruling showed. This decision was not a surprise.

 

[MachZer0]

Actually, they upheld the law according to past decisions of the Supreme Court, as I have pointed out previously -- as well as the original judge's ruling showed. This decision was not a surprise.

What they did is ignore the law of the land which is the Constitution

 

[MachZer0]

We understand that is an opinion you hold.

In reality, if a business is open to the public and the state law clearly states that a business cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation, then in this case justice was served.

A state law that forces a person to act in violation of his religious beliefs is a miscarriage of justice.

 

[MachZer0]

Major fail.

There is clear case law that Cab drivers and Innkeepers have an obligation to provide service, irrespective of their religious beliefs. Clear case law that only idiots or people who never travel would want changed.

I could just s easily say that only idiots would force someone to act in violation of their religious beliefs.