What is wrong with the back of the bus if it arrives at the same destination as the front of the bus? What is wrong with having to use the back door if you get served the same food?
Your right to swing your arms stops where my nose begins. Sure, you can practice your religion publicly. But you can’t use it to harm others.
The problem here is that a certain small minority of religious bigots wants desperately to be able to use their religion to harm others. They’re play-acting that it comes from a libertarian ideal – a business owner should have the right to decide how he wants to do business. But that’s just a fig-leaf. They want to drive gays out of the businessplace, the workplace, housing, employment, education, and existence.
So there is a church near me that rents out its sanctuary for weddings for non-congregants (I don’t even think they require that the wedding be religious). Should they be required to make the sanctuary available to gay weddings if they make it available to straight weddings?
Here’s the problem I have. Let’s say I believe homosexuality is a sin. How does making a cake for a SSM translate into ME violating MY religious beliefs?
The other issue I have is how religious beliefs are practiced inconsistently. If divorce is a sin, then do bakers refuse to bake a cake if someone remarries? Have the bakers ever practiced pre-marital sex? etc.
Hobby Lobby was breaking the law. It mattered that they were doing so based on their religious beliefs.
What about “these modern times” makes you think that the free market would work any better now than it did then? Are human beings a different animal? Is the free market somehow different?
Have you noticed the battles we’ve been having in this country of late? There are obviously still plenty of people willing to discriminate and plenty of people who will support their doing so.
The only reason things are different these days is because of government intervention. Do away with that intervention and it’ll be 1950 again but with color TV, cell phones, MP3s and the internet.
And how is that unfair? It really sounds like some people just want to punish religious bigots for being religious bigots even if their actions have no real impact on anything.
Then you are going to need an amendment to the constitution modifying the free exercise clause. Constitutionally speaking, religion is not just some silly woo that we tolerate so long as it doesn’t affect anything. Religious freedom is a fundamental constitutional principle.
Except for the fact that there is real impact on peoples lives by religious bigots refusing to follow the law when it comes to public accommodations, other than the entire point of debate here you are right…
Reasonable accommodation must be made, if they cannot be made then the clerk is out of luck and can be fired. States on the other hand are absolutely obligated to provide those marriage licenses so if they can’t figure out how to make it work, they will have to fire those clerks and hire new ones. If they choose to just hire an extra shift of clerks then thats fine too.
I suspect most of those states also have constitutions that protect freedom of religion.
Because the law does not require bakers to refuse to sell gay wedding cakes, sitting nin the back of the bus was required by law. It is a private business exercising their prerogative as a private business. Prior to the civil rights act, if a private bus company decided that they would only take black passengers if they sat in the back of the bus, then I don’t know what sort of standing the black passenger has in court.
Civil rights are not just the natural result of the passage of time and the application of the constitution. It is the result of a lot of people getting off their ass to push for change in how people treat each other.
Equal protection under the law is also a fundamental constitutional principle. There is conflict here no doubt. What benefit is there to allowing bigotry on religious grounds? Why should we choose the 1st amendment over the 14th? If we choose the 1st over the 14th the injured parties are thousands of people who must endure discrimination. If we choose the 14th over the injured party is a minority of bigots who are using religion to justify bigotry.
If religious bigots are going to force the country to chose they are in my opinion going to be rather unhappy with the results. Keep forcing the issue and I expect you’ll see religious liberties lose their elevated status in law.
They thought they had this nailed down, restricting gays from being able to marry, want to roll the dice again?
I don’t believe these religious bigots are libertarian or even pretending to be. These religious bigots are simply religious bigots and would be happy to use government to force others to observe their religious beliefs if they could get away with it. The reason they are so afraid of something as unlikely as the imposition of Sharia law is because they would have us all ruled by their religious laws if they could.
So you may hate them but you may not discriminate against them because of their religion while they may discriminate against homosexuals because of their homosexuality.
I think they see it as “aiding and abetting”
Hypocrisy is rampant everywhere, not just amongst the religious.
There is a lot of question about whether or not it is against the law. Freedom of religion is a constitutional principle in every state I can think of.
What does equal protection have to do with the activities of a private business?
14th amendment has to do with (in part) equal protection:
" nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The bakery is not a state. So the 14th amendment really doesn’t apply to wedding cakes as it might apply to marriage licenses.
HIGHLY doubtful. Just because mainstream Americans are open to gay marriage despite the protests of the fundamentalists doesn’t mean they are ready to throw religious freedom under the truck. Religious freedom is enshrined in the constitution in a way that things like abortion and state paid legal counsel are not.
I wouldn’t get overconfident. When a state infringes on the rights of a citizen, the constitution can prefer one over the other. Its a much closer call when its one citizen’s rights against another citizen’s rights. I would suggest that the religious bigots have constitutional language to support them, what do you have in this battle of the rights?
Here is my opinion:
If the business is a sole proprietorship, the owner should have the same right of discrimination that I have if I own a home. In my home, I can decide whom I allow in and can kick anyone out at any time for any reason, no matter how stupid the reason is, and no matter how much of a jackass it makes me for doing it.
However, if the business is incorporated, it gains several benefits from the state, such as limitation of liability, and some tax benefits. I do not feel it is at all unreasonable for the state to attach strings to those benefits, such as telling them they can’t refuse service to people based on race, sex, religion, or whatever else we as a society deem an unacceptable grounds for discrimination.
So I should be able to refuse black people jobs and refuse business to black people because I’m a sole proprietor? I thank you for wishing me expanded rights but I really don’t need them.
I file a business license with the town to take part in commerce as a business. The city and state have a valid interest regulating commerce. I think the city should not issue licenses to businesses that discriminate against the cities population. I don’t think they have a very compelling case to regulate what goes on in my house.
The Voting Rights Act has stood its ground on the basis of the 14th and 15th Amendments. It requires privately owned public accommodations to serve all people equally.
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
HIGHLY doubtful. Just because mainstream Americans are open to gay marriage despite the protests of the fundamentalists doesn’t mean they are ready to throw religious freedom under the truck. Religious freedom is enshrined in the constitution in a way that things like abortion and state paid legal counsel are not.
I wouldn’t get overconfident. When a state infringes on the rights of a citizen, the constitution can prefer one over the other. Its a much closer call when its one citizen’s rights against another citizen’s rights. I would suggest that the religious bigots have constitutional language to support them, what do you have in this battle of the rights?
[/QUOTE]
I have the simple premise that our society will not continue to allow injustice in the form of bigotry. It is only a matter of time before we will be willing to modify the constitution to stamp out injustice.