I think that bridge has been crossed and burned behind us. Government gets into religious matters all the time by favoring one over another. Many of this is tradition from a time when Christian influence was stronger and more pervasive and easier to establish footholds where they’re not supposed to. Now we allow that tradition to go on because “its always been that way”. So while I think the intent you stated is factually correct, the practical outcome is not, and further disentanglements serves only to distance itself from religious matters where it SHOULD intervene, specifically, intervene to protect a less popular religion from Christianity.
Anyways, I just wanna add that I’m in no way defending religious bigots. I have low tolerance for haters of all stripes.
That includes uptight Christians, as well as uptight gays
Cheers!!
So, asking to be treated like everyone else is an act of hate now?
Have you read the whole thread??
Yep. Have you?
Obviously, I posted in it enough.
I dont think gays (or anyone else for that matter) should be discriminated against. Ever!! Period!!
But, If you decide to boycott someone (like Chick-Fil-A) and refuse to do business with them, then dont act all butthurt if someone else decides to stop doing business with you. To me its total hypocrisy.
Let me use an analogy, lets say you have some bully running around on the street beating people up. Of course, assaulting people is wrong, but if someone comes along and beats up the bully in return, that is also wrong.
So if you’re the bully, please dont whine and complain if you got your ass kicked, because you’ve done the exact same thing
Then how do you justify equating gays with religious haters? Boycotting a business is not an act of hate; discrimination based on bigotry is.
Thats a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact
Perhaps you missed the name of this forum.
Strong comeback
No. My line was simply intended to point out that the two rules you offered up were not always mutually exclusive.
When they conflict, in the federal sphere, the RFRA requires that the government interest which is in conflict with the religious imperative be “compelling,” and the law that burdens the religious imperative must be the least restrictive.
This is not true for the states – each state’s decisional law is slightly different.
So if a corporation (which is a person, remember), does something despicable, none of its victims should do anything about it because it might cause injury to the corporation’s employees? :smack:
The problem is that some people believe a man have sex with another man is “despicable.”
And the further problem is: there’s no source that is universally accepted by all people as defining the truth in these matters.
So if you concede that people may react to something “despicable” by harming innocent third parties, it seems to me that you concede that others can claim similar justifications in support of goals you find undesirable.
Some people also believe living alongside black people is “despicable”. Thankfully, the laws and the courts have decided that one cannot turn people away from their business (or their community, etc) due to race. So laws can be drawn up to protect individuals when such beliefs (when applied to business/communities/etc) are discriminatory.
Absolutely correct.
And that’s exactly my point. Laws are how we, as a society, express our collective will.
In addition, it’s germaine to point out that “no teaching creationism” only applies to government funded schools. I am free to open a private school and teach whatever view of creation I wish. What a government can do in relation to a private citizen is one thing, what private citizens do among themselves is completely different.
To expand the answer above to this post, the government can absolutely regulate housing sales under the various commerce acts. Government can set the rules so that one cannot refuse to sell a house to a person due to race (or other protected status). But the government cannot force a citizen to live next to anyone they “dispise”. That person is free to move anywhere they like.
–Missed edit window–
Can the government set up laws to force people to do something against their beliefs? Yes, there is precedent (outlawing bigamy even for Mormons, for example). Just be prepared, as Bricker points out, for the sword to cut both ways. If a bigot comes into your bakery and orders a cake celebrating the death of a civil rights/gay rights/anti-semite activist, be prepared to be skewered by the same law that protects you.
Just in case it’s not clear, I’m posting in opposition to the laws being discussed here for exactly the reasons I laid out - unintended consequences.
As rational, profit maximizing economic actors these business owners should realize money be green, yo.
So I can’t beat someone in self-defense? :dubious: