It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This Whole Indiana law thing...I'm Irritated.

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Walmart the company the destroyed mom and pop business in America for a example ?


I wonder what kind of problem Chick-fil-A is going to have with it?




posted on Mar, 31 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: kosmicjack


a reply to: Greathouse Well, in certain circumstances you can discriminate. But, as Olaru said, when your business enters the public domain, you have to accept the unwritten social contract that exists and is founded upon certain ideals..


I can totally agree with the statement. And society does and will decide what is socially acceptable. I find it reprehensible that the government has taken it upon itself to decide what is right for us.

What's the next decision the government will make? To much crime in the United States, then they will want to put a camera on every light post. Home invasions are evil will they want to put surveillance cameras in your home?

I mean Christ neither of those would surprise me. I've watched Rights erode away since I was a child. Now in most states you can't have a glass of wine with dinner and drive, yet the judges lawyers and politicians and police do it with very little risk to their selves.

Do you really think the seatbelt laws is to save lives? No of course not it's to save insurance companies money.

Our society has been so brainwashed by the government telling us what is right and what is wrong we've lost ourselves. Every time they take any right of choice from us it makes it easier for the next step they're going to take. That is what I find so offensive.

Sooner or later it will be a two-tiered society. Government and those little people that they know what's best for.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: olaru12

Yes I am a business owner am I am quite familiar with the regulations. To tell you the truth I agree with almost all of them. But I still think a man should be able to decide who he wants to do business with and that it should not be the governments decision. I have no problems I would follow everyone of the regulations on my own. It's just that I don't think the government has the right to tell me to. Can you get that through your thick head?


Or do the three of you somehow think you smell blood in the water where there isn't any?

I've seen Most people on this site complain regularly about government regulations and how Americans are losing their rights. Apparently you only want the rights lost that you agree with.

Which goes back to my original statement. Once you forfeit any right it's easier for the government to take them the next time.

Society does and will regulate ourselves in due time we do not need the government stepping in to tell us how it's done.



Which government don't we need?

Federal? State? Local?

I always think this is the CRAZIEST fallacy ever. The federal government is horrible and just in the way! While states rights is the way to go! It's about freedom!!! Lol just lol!



How many people does the the federal government hurt? Now how many people does the federal government help???

Now how many people does the state hurt? How many does it help?



Personally the state is who is killing us, while the right wing pretends it's the federal government who does. Sure the Feds tax the hell out of us, but at least they help.

Now how much does the state hurt society? Constant money grabbing traffic violations and red light camera type stuff. Competing with other states on who will allow you to pay there citizens less. Almost all of the police state stuff is from the state. Way more corruption stories from the state..... While who does the state governments help? Almost no one.


It's the state governments I've seen doing the Magority of raping and pillaging!
edit on 1-4-2015 by Entreri06 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

Wow just wow!!!

Somehow you missed the entire point of all my previous statements?

I never made a distinction between the two you did.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
So question.

Let's say that someone wants a KKK cake. Should businesses be forced to make it even though they fundamentally disagree?


How many times does this question have to be asked and answered for people to understand? If a business offers KKK cakes, then yes, they have to offer it to everyone. If they don't make KKK cakes, then no, a business shouldn't be forced to make something they don't ALREADY make for the general public!

This issue isn't about forcing a business to make a PRODUCT. It's about refusing to sell their products to certain PEOPLE.

In NONE of the legal cases, has a business been sued for refusing to make something that they don't already offer to the public. So, please, stop asking the same question.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Domo1
So question.

Let's say that someone wants a KKK cake. Should businesses be forced to make it even though they fundamentally disagree?


How many times does this question have to be asked and answered for people to understand? If a business offers KKK cakes, then yes, they have to offer it to everyone. If they don't make KKK cakes, then no, a business shouldn't be forced to make something they don't ALREADY make for the general public!

This issue isn't about forcing a business to make a PRODUCT. It's about refusing to sell their products to certain PEOPLE.

In NONE of the legal cases, has a business been sued for refusing to make something that they don't already offer to the public. So, please, stop asking the same question.


Agreed!!!So if a buisness offers cakes, they should sell cakes to anyone!! Not try and make some stand on the particular cake they want??


Or are you saying that a cake for gays is completely different then a cake for straights? That gays should have to go to a gay cake shop to get the exact same cake as the shop sells to every other person. That would just be ridiculous...
edit on 1-4-2015 by Entreri06 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

There are freedom of religion laws in this country, a person cannot in any way shape or form be discriminated against for following the dictates of their chosen religion.

These laws protect all religious persons, whether they be Muslims who need special work considerations or Christians.

In this country you cannot by law force a person to violate any tenant of their religion against their will, nor can you imprison them or sue them for refusing to violate the tenants of said religion. What tenants people break willingly is between them and God and considered a sin in nearly every religion, but forcing someone to break those tenants against their will and having legal ramifications for following the dictates of one's religion is illegal in this country according to constitutional law.

Those who are trying to change that and remove the legal protections given to all religious persuasions in this country are wrong, and so indiana enacted a law to protect those religious rights of people, wording it outside of religious context.

As gay marriage has come to the forefront, (which by the way it was Christians who helped me understand that gay people should have the same rights as others under the law, which includes tax breaks should they desire a state endorsed marriage) yet other problems have arisen..

In Christianity you are to follow the laws of the country in which you live to the best of your ability, UNLESS OR UNTIL which time those laws violate what are considered God's laws for them, in which case God's law trumps man's and when faced with that you see Christians facing death willingly, imprisonment willingly, all over the world.

Now, God's law says nothing about dealing with non-believers in a general way.. having non-believers who have their own ways for employee's, co-workers, customers in a general way such as dining out ect - all these things are good things...

but when religion mashes up with that, such as a Baptist minister who cannot marry (under God) two men, for instance without a direct violation of God's law for him... then you have a serious problem. You have then to go back to the constitution and call for freedom of religion and all such laws.. as that Baptist minister has the same rights to practice his religion as does the Muslim or the Hindu in this country.

Now, that is not saying that the two men cannot or should not be allowed under the law to be married, there are justices of the peace and even some so-called christian ministers willing to perform such marriages, but that is to say you cannot force this man to violate his religion against his will.

There are some grey areas involved in marriage, can a religious cake maker say no to someone wanting a cake because he feels it violates his religion to encourage what is to him, sin? Should someone be able to be sued out of business for following his or her religion? Not according to the constitution, but it seems people want to change that constitution to only protect the non-religious rather than every party...

and as such, when the laws meant to protect people are not protecting them appropriately, then new laws need to be enacted which will.

I for one never want to see the day in this country that someone can be sued or go to jail simply for following the tenants and dictates of their religion - no matter what that religion or non religion is. At the same time I don't want to see any actual discrimination, but religious persecution (ie: jailing or suing someone for following their religion) is actual discrimination too..and there you have an impasse, a place where neither parties rights should be able to trump the other...

so you have a place for new industry, or industry for the less religious.. there are new business opportunities to be had which many will take advantage of, and some few doors close... but that is okay too.. life is about change, and learning to work with one another societally.


edit on 2-4-2015 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

It is not a matter of it being a different kind of cake, it is a matter of encouraging sin. My father didn't drink alcohol as it was against his religious beliefs. He also did not work in a field which sold or served alcohol to others. Had his feild changed and began selling alcohol to others, he would have refused because it would have been, according to the faith he held, encouraging others to sin or helping others sin against God, which in his view and in his religion is a sin in and of itself.

In order to avoid selling alcohol to others he would have gone to jail, lost his job and starved to death if need be; his belief was that strong on the matter.

Just as he should have had the right to refuse if faced with that, so should others have the right to refuse to violate their religion in other matters. This is the thought process behind it, its not that its a different product or service, its that it is encouraging something bad according to their own personal belief.

Now, in any religion those "bad things" and the beliefs concerning encouraging "bad things" (sorry don't know what else to call it so its bad things for lack of better words) are going to vary from person to person. My father was stricter in following the tenants of his faith than many many others... but that was his belief and his faith and he was no hypocrite.

so really you will have only a few out of any group who follow the tenants of their faith more strictly, and only a few who this sort of thing will ever even be an issue with. But those few deserve legal protections just as much as gay people deserve legal rights - and no one's right should trump another persons, and there in lies certain impasses where everyone should be afforded their own legal rights.

People are looking to states where gay marriage laws have passed, seeing any legal issues that arise out of it and working on figuring out how to legally protect ALL potential parties - both the religious groups and the secular ones - simply because gay marriage will soon be legal in every state. Lets make sure all people are afforded protections then.

But this is going to mean growing up a little bit, it means that the gay couple needs to say to themselves "You know what, that religious person has rights also, so I will make sure to help them by protecting their rights" and other people in the industry need to step up and say "hey, we are non-religious or a religious person who has no issue with this sort of thing - come do business with us!" You will find yourself swimming in much more of the later than you realize right now..

I'm willing to fight to anyone's rights, but I do feel that those same people should be just as willing to fight for my rights too... respect is a two way street not a one way street.
edit on 2-4-2015 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: tothetenthpower

There are freedom of religion laws in this country, a person cannot in any way shape or form be discriminated against for following the dictates of their chosen religion.

These laws protect all religious persons, whether they be Muslims who need special work considerations or Christians.

In this country you cannot by law force a person to violate any tenant of their religion against their will, nor can you imprison them or sue them for refusing to violate the tenants of said religion. What tenants people break willingly is between them and God and considered a sin in nearly every religion, but forcing someone to break those tenants against their will and having legal ramifications for following the dictates of one's religion is illegal in this country according to constitutional law.

Those who are trying to change that and remove the legal protections given to all religious persuasions in this country are wrong, and so indiana enacted a law to protect those religious rights of people, wording it outside of religious context.

As gay marriage has come to the forefront, (which by the way it was Christians who helped me understand that gay people should have the same rights as others under the law, which includes tax breaks should they desire a state endorsed marriage) yet other problems have arisen..

In Christianity you are to follow the laws of the country in which you live to the best of your ability, UNLESS OR UNTIL which time those laws violate what are considered God's laws for them, in which case God's law trumps man's and when faced with that you see Christians facing death willingly, imprisonment willingly, all over the world.

Now, God's law says nothing about dealing with non-believers in a general way.. having non-believers who have their own ways for employee's, co-workers, customers in a general way such as dining out ect - all these things are good things...

but when religion mashes up with that, such as a Baptist minister who cannot marry (under God) two men, for instance without a direct violation of God's law for him... then you have a serious problem. You have then to go back to the constitution and call for freedom of religion and all such laws.. as that Baptist minister has the same rights to practice his religion as does the Muslim or the Hindu in this country.

Now, that is not saying that the two men cannot or should not be allowed under the law to be married, there are justices of the peace and even some so-called christian ministers willing to perform such marriages, but that is to say you cannot force this man to violate his religion against his will.

There are some grey areas involved in marriage, can a religious cake maker say no to someone wanting a cake because he feels it violates his religion to encourage what is to him, sin? Should someone be able to be sued out of business for following his or her religion? Not according to the constitution, but it seems people want to change that constitution to only protect the non-religious rather than every party...

and as such, when the laws meant to protect people are not protecting them appropriately, then new laws need to be enacted which will.

I for one never want to see the day in this country that someone can be sued or go to jail simply for following the tenants and dictates of their religion - no matter what that religion or non religion is. At the same time I don't want to see any actual discrimination, but religious persecution (ie: jailing or suing someone for following their religion) is actual discrimination too..and there you have an impasse, a place where neither parties rights should be able to trump the other...

so you have a place for new industry, or industry for the less religious.. there are new business opportunities to be had which many will take advantage of, and some few doors close... but that is okay too.. life is about change, and learning to work with one another societally.



Who decides what's considered a religion? If you believe whatever god said you can smoke crack, is that still protected? What if you believe in neo nazism? That could be considered a religion right, satanism of course should also be allowed to worship any tenants as well right?



Also does it say in the bible you shouldn't trade with sinners? Can't remember where it says "tho shalt not serve that pole smoker, pie ! Ahmen!"


Hell, tho it does comment on homosexuality. I can't say it truely mentions the tenants of Christian cake making.



People could literally claim anything they wanted as a tenant of a religion, Murder rape whatever.

Like I said who decides what religions are real?
edit on 2-4-2015 by Entreri06 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Entreri06

It is not a matter of it being a different kind of cake, it is a matter of encouraging sin. My father didn't drink alcohol as it was against his religious beliefs. He also did not work in a field which sold or served alcohol to others. Had his feild changed and began selling alcohol to others, he would have refused because it would have been, according to the faith he held, encouraging others to sin or helping others sin against God, which in his view and in his religion is a sin in and of itself.

In order to avoid selling alcohol to others he would have gone to jail, lost his job and starved to death if need be; his belief was that strong on the matter.

Just as he should have had the right to refuse if faced with that, so should others have the right to refuse to violate their religion in other matters. This is the thought process behind it, its not that its a different product or service, its that it is encouraging something bad according to their own personal belief.

Now, in any religion those "bad things" and the beliefs concerning encouraging "bad things" (sorry don't know what else to call it so its bad things for lack of better words) are going to vary from person to person. My father was stricter in following the tenants of his faith than many many others... but that was his belief and his faith and he was no hypocrite.

so really you will have only a few out of any group who follow the tenants of their faith more strictly, and only a few who this sort of thing will ever even be an issue with. But those few deserve legal protections just as much as gay people deserve legal rights - and no one's right should trump another persons, and there in lies certain impasses where everyone should be afforded their own legal rights.

People are looking to states where gay marriage laws have passed, seeing any legal issues that arise out of it and working on figuring out how to legally protect ALL potential parties - both the religious groups and the secular ones - simply because gay marriage will soon be legal in every state. Lets make sure all people are afforded protections then.

But this is going to mean growing up a little bit, it means that the gay couple needs to say to themselves "You know what, that religious person has rights also, so I will make sure to help them by protecting their rights" and other people in the industry need to step up and say "hey, we are non-religious or a religious person who has no issue with this sort of thing - come do business with us!" You will find yourself swimming in much more of the later than you realize right now..

I'm willing to fight to anyone's rights, but I do feel that those same people should be just as willing to fight for my rights too... respect is a two way street not a one way street.


So did your father not invite people who drink alcohol to his BBQs? Or not serve people who drank alcohol in whatever buisness he was in? You know, not to back up alcohol drinking since it's a sin?


Or is being gay the only sin worth withholding goods and services?



See my previous post. Basically saying who gets to decide what religions count?



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

The individual must decide.. there are religions that are practiced and legally recognized in this country as religious organizations, but it is up to the individual whether or not they believe encouraging sin is a sin for them or not or what might constitute that...

To be honest I am not sure where concerns gay marriage if making a cake would be encouraging it or not, but if faced with that I would want to pray about it for a while first before making that decision.. but the decision must be between myself and God..

because simply whatever I chose to do would be between myself and God in the end. I would support anyone's right to say yes after prayerful consideration, and their right to say no after prayerful consideration..no matter what I might personally think about right or wrong..

I know for a fact if some couple couldn't get a cake elsewhere I would step up to the plate and make one for them, regardless because discrimination is wrong, and every couple would have a right to have a nice wedding in my view, so I would make certain no one would go without..

but whether I would initially encourage someone to look elsewhere first or not I don't know, but its my right as a religious person to have the option to follow my religion to the best of my ability, so long as I am not harming another person..and its my right to not be persecuted in this country for practicing my faith..

the same as it is why I would make sure no one did without... because just as much as I do not deserve to be persecuted neither does another person... but I want the option to follow my religion to the best of my ability, which means sometimes saying no to things that are considered socially acceptable...



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

No, there was never alcohol served or had in my house growing up, no matter who was there or what the occasion was... if someone wanted to drink alcohol they would need to leave in order to do so, and if alcohol was given as a gift it was refused and explained that it was against my fathers faith.

and my parents had friends and company anyway... imagine.. people respecting another human beings right to practice what they believe.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB


and my parents had friends and company anyway... imagine.. people respecting another human beings right to practice what they believe.


Which is the entire difference between public and private domains.

Did you know that if a church tells it's congregation to vote for let's say the Conservative person in an election, or even the liberal one, they would loose their Tax Exempt Status?

That's because religion, doesn't get to interfere with the law, it's one of our most basic tenants.

As a business owner, you actually have NO legal right to deny services to anybody except for a very few, limited things.

Sexual Orientation is not one of them. It doesn't matter that you aren't OK with baking a cake for a gay couple. It's none of their business how you feel and it's none of yours how they go about their lives.

If you CHOOSE to serve the public as a business, then you must accept the fact that you cannot just serve whoever you'd like, whenever you'd like.

That's the sort of thing that leads to segregation.

~Tenth



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

yet where marriage is concerned, which for well over 2000 years has been primarily a religious institution, you will find some religions clashing with secular laws..

If I was a minister in my faith, I would go to jail before I would personally marry a gay couple... but I do understand that marriage has now because something outside of faith as well and as such the gay couple should be entitled to secular benefits of state marriage.

In this country, we have religious freedom. The business has to provide accommodation for the Muslim to practice his faith, under the law, because of religious freedom - for instance.

Now you have an area where the secular is clashing with established faith... marriage. Til now, if you were in the wedding industry in any way, you were able to practice your faith without fear of anything happening outside of that faith..

that is changing, although the wedding industry is still mainly religious, you are mixing secular in with it also... therefore rather than changing an entire industry which for centuries has been primarily a religious institution, to a secular one..you should allow for reasonable accommodation.

should everyone who is religious leave the industry in order to accommodate their faith? If so what will the religious do when they want a religious marriage?

Here I think you simply have to allow for the respect of all persons.. and that means respecting the religious as much as respecting the secular..people have the right to reasonable accommodation for the practicing of faith, and in marriage you will see an actual need to say said reasonable accommodations are necessary.
edit on 2-4-2015 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB


yet where marriage is concerned, which for well over 2000 years has been primarily a religious institution, you will find some religions clashing with secular laws..


And that's not the fault of the gay community, that's the fault of your own government. They chose to use marriage as a legal institution which provided rights to some and not others.

That's the entire argument. Marriage has become a social program that offers discounts and benefits. It MUST be open to all consenting adults, regardless of sexual orientation.


If I was a minister in my faith, I would go to jail before I would personally marry a gay couple... but I do understand that marriage has now because something outside of faith as well and as such the gay couple should be entitled to secular benefits of state marriage.


Nobody is ever going to force any pastors to perform same sex marriages.


In this country, we have religious freedom. The business has to provide accommodation for the Muslim to practice his faith, under the law, because of religious freedom - for instance.


That's not the same thing as refusing service based on your own personal beliefs.


should everyone who is religious leave the industry in order to accommodate their faith? If so what will the religious do when they want a religious marriage?


If they allow other people's lives to affect them that much, then that's their problem. It's not the fault of the non religious that the religious don't like what they are doing.

Marriage should have been SECULAR from the MOMENT the government created a social program from it.

Period.

The only reason that it hasn't been this way sooner is because RELIGION discriminated against same sex couples, and since they held the majority of the seats of power in those days, they were encouraged and allowed to do so.


Here I think you simply have to allow for the respect of all persons.. and that means respecting the religious as much as respecting the secular..people have the right to reasonable accommodation for the practicing of faith, and in marriage you will see an actual need to say said reasonable accommodations are necessary.


And that works both ways. If I'm an Atheist business owner, I can't refuse service to Christians, even though it offends me that they have these views or do these things etc.

So neither can the Christian Bakery refuse the gay couple their wedding cake. We allow for reasonable accommodation right?

~Tenth




edit on 4/2/2015 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: Entreri06

No, there was never alcohol served or had in my house growing up, no matter who was there or what the occasion was... if someone wanted to drink alcohol they would need to leave in order to do so, and if alcohol was given as a gift it was refused and explained that it was against my fathers faith.

and my parents had friends and company anyway... imagine.. people respecting another human beings right to practice what they believe.



But your father did buisness with people who drank alcohol right?

He didn't refuse to give service to people who drank right?

A completely false comparison. Your father didn't serve alcohol. He would however serve some one who drank alcohol.

A fair comparison is if your father was being forced to sell anal lube. Not your father making a cake for a gay couple.

Committing no other sin is considered fair to with hold unrelated goods and services. If you have killed some one and still get served. Commit adultery and still get served. Lie, cheat and steal. Still get served.

But if your gay!?!? You better go get a gay cake cause I'm not making it!! Ridiculous....


So who does get to decide what religions are fair game for these laws?

If you believe your god lets you rape or smoke crack, is that covered? What if your god says Mexicans are the master race, can you refuse service to all non Hispanic people?


Really y'all just think you should be able to put your personal Christian beliefs on others. Muslims can't stone adulterers, white supremists can't be racists, Rastas can't smoke pot, but Christians get to hate gays! That's what really matters.



edit on 2-4-2015 by Entreri06 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

I am not arguing that gays should not be allowed secular marriage. I agree that upon which time there came to be legal benefit to marriage that it should be then open to all.

Concerning reasonable accomodation... if a Muslim, for instance, gets a job at Mcdonald's, for instance, they can refuse to handle pork, including cooking it, or serving it to a customer.. a Muslim can and has every single legal right to say no.

Now.. because Mcdonald's is a large company and most people in this country aren;t Muslim, there is usually always someone in the business who can step up to the plate and make the pork product and serve it to a customer, and the business, BY LAW, has to accommodate the Muslim in this due to non-discrimination laws and freedom of religion laws..

Now, in the wedding industry you don't have lots of large companies with many or multiple employees. A wedding photography company is usually one photographer, and he is the owner of his own company.. a cake maker might only employ the owner of the business and a couple other people..

Now, if I feel it is against my religion to encourage something that is expressly forbidden in my religion then wherever I work must allow me to say no, and refuse that particular thing..No matter what my religion happens to be, whether it be hindu, Muslim, buddist or Christian ect ect.

In the case of a business that only employs the owner, or only employs two or three people then you will run into times in which reasonable accommodation cannot be had.. ie: there is no one in that particular business who is able according to their religion to step up to the plate and serve the customer..

In those cases it must be allowed for religious freedom and the reasonable accommodation to be "no, we simply cannot take on this contract."



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: tothetenthpower

yet where marriage is concerned, which for well over 2000 years has been primarily a religious institution, you will find some religions clashing with secular laws..

If I was a minister in my faith, I would go to jail before I would personally marry a gay couple... but I do understand that marriage has now because something outside of faith as well and as such the gay couple should be entitled to secular benefits of state marriage.

In this country, we have religious freedom. The business has to provide accommodation for the Muslim to practice his faith, under the law, because of religious freedom - for instance.

Now you have an area where the secular is clashing with established faith... marriage. Til now, if you were in the wedding industry in any way, you were able to practice your faith without fear of anything happening outside of that faith..

that is changing, although the wedding industry is still mainly religious, you are mixing secular in with it also... therefore rather than changing an entire industry which for centuries has been primarily a religious institution, to a secular one..you should allow for reasonable accommodation.

should everyone who is religious leave the industry in order to accommodate their faith? If so what will the religious do when they want a religious marriage?

Here I think you simply have to allow for the respect of all persons.. and that means respecting the religious as much as respecting the secular..people have the right to reasonable accommodation for the practicing of faith, and in marriage you will see an actual need to say said reasonable accommodations are necessary.




Agree with tenth on everything but figured I would add : Christians believe marriage is a religious institution, but we don't require a religion to get married. Millions of people go to the justice of the peace or are Athiests. What makes you legally married is a state marriage licence not a service in a church. A service in the church doesn't make you legally married but a licence without a marriage in a church does.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

It's not about hating gays. I personally hate no 'group".. certainly not a person for being same sex oriented..(although I reserve judgement and friendships about people based on personalities.. ie: don't want to be around drug addicts, gay or straight.. not trustworthy individuals although even for them I am willing to reserve judgement to the individual)

BUT, homosexuality is expressly forbidden in my religion and it is not my personal practice.. I see it to be wrong from my religious standpoint..

This would not mean I would not be friends with a person who is homosexual, it does not mean I would not work side by side with a homosexual individual.. to me, they are someone of a different belief and a much different outlook on life..

that is not hatred... it just is..



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB


Concerning reasonable accomodation... if a Muslim, for instance, gets a job at Mcdonald's, for instance, they can refuse to handle pork, including cooking it, or serving it to a customer.. a Muslim can and has every single legal right to say no.


That is NOT the same thing. That's an employee/employer relationship. The laws are entirely different, it's not even the same kind of law.


Now, if I feel it is against my religion to encourage something that is expressly forbidden in my religion then wherever I work must allow me to say no, and refuse that particular thing..No matter what my religion happens to be, whether it be hindu, Muslim, buddist or Christian ect ect.


Not if you are a business owner, refusing service to a customer. You just can't do that, period. Doesn't matter what you feel, you opened a business that serves the general public.


In the case of a business that only employs the owner, or only employs two or three people then you will run into times in which reasonable accommodation cannot be had.. ie: there is no one in that particular business who is able according to their religion to step up to the plate and serve the customer..


No the reasonable accomodation, is that you suck it up and perform the requested service, because outside of baking that cake, you aren't encourgaging anything. The cake has very little to do with supporting 'gay marriage' or a 'gay lifestyle' of any kind.

It's simply a means for you to express your disagreement with another person's life, by denying them a service. Which is entirely different than refusing to associate or converse with them.


In those cases it must be allowed for religious freedom and the reasonable accommodation to be "no, we simply cannot take on this contract."


But that's not reasonable. That's selfish and illegal, and discriminatory when it comes to offering a service.

ETA: the only way that you can do what you'd like as stated above, is to have a MEMBERS only business. Then you can refuse service or membership to however you please, without recourse.

~Tenth


edit on 4/2/2015 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join