Republican Congress Strips Women and Gays of Rights Under Guise of ‘Religious Freedom’

a reply to: dragonridr

It doesn't matter what the example is that you give because every instance of this when it happens is going to be different. That means if and when it happens and someone reports it and they go to court it will be up to the court to decide whether or not Discrimination Laws were broken. If they were, they will be fined. If not then nothing happens.

I'm not going to bother debating different scenarios with you because I'm not a lawyer or a judge so I don't know the for sure what the outcome would be in ever case. All I'm telling you is that is the how the law works.

That is also why these "Religious Freedom Laws" are about making it so that business owners can't be sued if they are found to be Discriminating. That's all it's for. It just allows them to use it as a defense against being sued or fined in court for Discrimination.

Now, since Anti-Discrimination Laws apply equally to all Businesses of "public accommodation" that means these Religious Freedom Laws which exempt certain Businesses from the Law that would mean it is they who are getting special "privileges" granted to them, not the other way around. Gay people who are just trying to do business like anyone else in the public aren't asking for special treatment. It is these religious business owners who are asking to be "special.

a reply to: dragonridr

Sad that you think you can force people to do things against their will.

I don't get why you and beezzer and others think that.

Anyway you are talking about service which is beyond my understanding so you'll have to wait on others like Annee to reply.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: dragonridr

It doesn't matter what the example is that you give because every instance of this when it happens is going to be different. That means if and when it happens and someone reports it and they go to court it will be up to the court to decide whether or not Discrimination Laws were broken. If they were, they will be fined. If not then nothing happens.

I'm not going to bother debating different scenarios with you because I'm not a lawyer or a judge so I don't know the for sure what the outcome would be in ever case. All I'm telling you is that is the how the law works.

That is also why these "Religious Freedom Laws" are about making it so that business owners can't be sued if they are found to be Discriminating. That's all it's for. It just allows them to use it as a defense against being sued or fined in court for Discrimination.

Now, since Anti-Discrimination Laws apply equally to all Businesses of "public accommodation" that means these Religious Freedom Laws which exempt certain Businesses from the Law that would mean it is they who are getting special "privileges" granted to them, not the other way around. Gay people who are just trying to do business like anyone else in the public aren't asking for special treatment. It is these religious business owners who are asking to be "special.

Well there your wrong if a gay couple demands someone do something that is indeed imposing their rights over others. You basically say because they are gay they can force a person to enter into a legally binding contract. Where if they agreed to make the cake could be sued for not doing so.

If a gay couple wants one of his cakes simple they buy one he's already made.If he refuses to make them a special cake go somewhere else. The only person who losses here is the baker that could have made huge money on a cake.

a reply to: dragonridr

If he refuses to make them a special cake go somewhere else.

Yeah the ol' go somewhere else argument. That doesn't always work. Sometimes there's nowhere else to go.

The only person who loses here is the baker that could have made huge money on a cake.

Hopefully. But doesn't always work.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: dragonridr

If he refuses to make them a special cake go somewhere else.

Yeah the ol' go somewhere else argument. That doesn't always work. Sometimes there's nowhere else to go.

The only person who loses here is the baker that could have made huge money on a cake.

Hopefully. But doesn't always work.

Really that's odd you can go to Walmart or every grocery store and gurantee there is other bakerys as well. When they went in and was told no they got but hurt and said I'll show them. I don't agree with the bakers decision but than again I'm an athiest so it's just insane to me.But that said he has the right to say no if he chooses.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: beezzer

Nah you just don't get it yourself.

You apparently think the bakery have the right to refuse selling cakes to gay people for their weddings which they sell to other people.

If a gay couple walks onto a bakery they can have any cake he has made. If they want the baker to do something special for them the bakernel can say no for whatever reason they choose. The Baker is simply refusing to create a contract between him and the other party. Sad that you think you can force people to do things against their will. That is a comers tone of democracy the freedom to day no.

Not exactly. Most bakers have a catalog. If a gay couple order a standard cake from a catalog that is available to everyone, it would be discrimination to not bake the cake.

Lying is another story. A baker can lie and say he already has commitments for certain days. Or a certain cake is discontinued, or a specific decoration is on back order.

He can't outright say (in states with LGBT discrimination laws) that he is refusing for religious reasons.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Well there your wrong if a gay couple demands someone do something that is indeed imposing their rights over others. You basically say because they are gay they can force a person to enter into a legally binding contract. Where if they agreed to make the cake could be sued for not doing so.

No, I'm not saying that at all. You are saying that. I already said "nobody can make anyone do anything". Nobody can make anyone bake a cake or serve a pie or cook a piece of toast against their will. What they can do however, is file a civil suit against you for Discrimination and take you to court for Discrimination. If found guilty in a court of law for Discrimination you will be fined accordingly. Even then you aren't required to do what they wanted you to do but you will be responsible for paying that fine.

The court might also tell you that you need to stop breaking the law and to stop discriminating in your business and if you're caught again for Discrimination you will be fined again. Repeat as needed......

If a gay couple wants one of his cakes simple they buy one he's already made.If he refuses to make them a special cake go somewhere else. The only person who losses here is the baker that could have made huge money on a cake.

Whatever. You're talking about one possible scenario. It's not always going to be cakes and bakers and Gay Weddings. Recently there was a Doctor who refused to treat a newborn child of a Gay Couple that she'd already spoken with and the couple thought everything was fine until they showed up for another appointment only to find that she had passed them off to another Dr. because they were Gay and she felt she couldn't treat their baby.

That is a totally different example and like I said I'm not going to bother arguing each possible example that may come up or that is given because that is not what I do and wouldn't know if I'm correct in doing so. I'm just telling how the law is applied, what happens if someone violates it and why these Religious Freedom Laws are being put in place.

It's because certain Religious folk want to be able to Discriminate against certain people they don't like and they want to do it with their businesses without legal trouble. They want to be special and be given a legal exemption from a law that every other "Public Accommodation" business must follow.

I don't think I can word it any better than that.

a reply to: dragonridr

Really that's odd you can go to Walmart or every grocery store and gurantee there is other bakerys as well.

It can and did happen believe it or not.

originally posted by: Annee
Not exactly. Most bakers have a catalog. If a gay couple order a standard cake from a catalog that is available to everyone, it would be discrimination to not bake the cake.

Lying is another story. A baker can lie and say he already has commitments for certain days. Or a certain cake is discontinued, or a specific decoration is on back order.

He can't outright say (in states with LGBT discrimination laws) that he is refusing for religious reasons.

Exactly. That is a very important point right there. They should really be calling these laws "Religious Idiot" laws instead of Religious Freedom laws because if you actually need this law in place to avoid getting in trouble, you are an Idiot.

You can use any half way believable excuse to Not serve someone. Even simply, "I'm sorry I have another appointment for then." or "I'm sorry, we're closed such and such weekend for inspection" or whatever. It doesn't matter as long as it even sounds remotely possible. What you can't do is say, "No I won't do it because you're a dirty sinner faggot that my God doesn't like." Or some stupid ass thing like that. Which only an Idiot would even want to say or do when there are so many other options which one can take and avoid this whole mess.

But what we have are certain Religious people who simply do not feel that they should correct their Discriminatory actions in their Business practices because they are special. They don't think they have to follow the same laws as everyone else.

What's worse is that you can do those things legally within other types of businesses. But that isn't good enough either. They want to "Bake your cake and eat it too".

Without commenting on the rest of it, the basic summary of how people very high up make decisions is:

-Decide on a course of action
-Execute
-Tell the masses it's in the name of "freedom", or "liberty", or "democracy", whatever the buzzword of the day.

To be a politician is to be a dresser. Dressing actions with dress called morals.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: beezzer

Nah you just don't get it yourself.

You apparently think the bakery have the right to refuse selling cakes to gay people for their weddings which they sell to other people.

If a gay couple walks onto a bakery they can have any cake he has made. If they want the baker to do something special for them the bakernel can say no for whatever reason they choose. The Baker is simply refusing to create a contract between him and the other party. Sad that you think you can force people to do things against their will. That is a comers tone of democracy the freedom to day no.

Not exactly. Most bakers have a catalog. If a gay couple order a standard cake from a catalog that is available to everyone, it would be discrimination to not bake the cake.

Lying is another story. A baker can lie and say he already has commitments for certain days. Or a certain cake is discontinued, or a specific decoration is on back order.

He can't outright say (in states with LGBT discrimination laws) that he is refusing for religious reasons.

\\\

No most bakers do not have a catalog they have pictures of cakes they did in the past. like an artist showing a painting. And even then when ordering a wedding cake its still a custom order the baker can decide legally he doesnt want to make that cake. If i wanted a cake with a naked woman on it the baker could say no i just dont make those kind of cakes. If a person wants to grooms on a cake again they say i dont make those kind of cakes. You're trying to force someone to have to do something in a legally binding contract. If the baker does not provide said cake on time he can and will be sued happens all the time. Why he entered into a contract to make the cake. Now that bakery i bet had wedding cakes pre made most do they could have easily bought one of those but obviously not what they wanted.

So at that point the baker has the right to not get into a contract to make the cake. Granted i think hes an idiot if he says its because they are gay when all he has to say is i really cant do it i already have 5 that week etc. But as with all religious nut cases the brain doesnt seem to work well im thinking this is almost a prerequisite of religions.But heres the catch i will support his right to not have to do something he doesnt believe in. No other class should get the power to force others to their will or do their bidding. Look at new york great example Cab drivers are mostly Muslim they will not let you into their cab with alcohol. This in itself is someone trying to force their beliefs on others. Yet its perfectly legal know why? Because you cant force or compel someone to go against their beliefs.

a reply to: dragonridr

If that's true that's sick and those muslims deserve to lose their jobs. There's enough drunk drivers out there killing people without refusing the few responsible ones one of the few ways to get home without driving themselves. Religious or not, this refusal is ethically irresponsible to society as a whole. These cabbies are about as responsible if the drunk driver then gets in his car and kills someone as the drunk driver.

Or you could say, repealing overly-intrusive government interference. I'm fine with all the groups you listed, but there has to be some kind of limits on the endless government rules and regs.
a reply to: Onslaught2996

a reply to: Parthin

So are you saying you support the idea that an employer should be able to fire you simply because you use "birth control, have an abortion, become pregnant by in-vitro fertilization, or simply becoming pregnant out of wedlock"???

So having Gov. protect people from their employers who are trying to dictate what they do in their personal lives is "Evil Government Intrusion"???

I'm just checking to see if that's what you're saying here???

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: dragonridr

If that's true that's sick and those muslims deserve to lose their jobs. There's enough drunk drivers out there killing people without refusing the few responsible ones one of the few ways to get home without driving themselves. Religious or not, this refusal is ethically irresponsible to society as a whole. These cabbies are about as responsible if the drunk driver then gets in his car and kills someone as the drunk driver.

I agree. I don't care what Religion you are you don't get to force your religious laws on other people when operating in secular society. I'm so f**king sick of all this BS. People wonder why everyone gives Religious people so much sh*t well this is why.

If you're Muslim and operate a cab you need to keep your religion in the front seat with you or whatever but refusing to do your job within a society where it's perfectly legal to have alcohol with you shouldn't be allowed. Of course the Religious will claim, "But you're not letting me observe my beliefs". BS. You're beliefs aren't my beliefs and it's you who are forcing your beliefs on us not the other way around. If you don't like it, don't drive a cab. Go work in a mosque or something and stay out of secular society if you don't like it. But you're not going to turn secular society in to some kind of Islamic state.

Same goes for other religions. Whatever faith you are, fine. Nobody is taking that away from you. But you don't get to turn the rest of society in to your little Theocratic world. Keep your stupid made up BS to yourself. (This should have been in the rant section.)

I've lived my whole life without being wrapped in protective bubblewrap. Somehow I did ok.
a reply to: mOjOm

originally posted by: Parthin
I've lived my whole life without being wrapped in protective bubblewrap. Somehow I did ok.
a reply to: mOjOm

Why not just answer the question?? I asked you a direct question, don't side step it. I'll ask again.

Do you support the idea that an employer should be able to fire you simply because you use "birth control, have an abortion, become pregnant by in-vitro fertilization, or simply becoming pregnant out of wedlock"???

a reply to: mOjOm

On my first job I was threatened with firing for having a run in my nylons.

They could also fire you for being pregnant. Or even talking about getting pregnant.

At the time it was legal.

Laws today prevent this.

As I undestand it (have not done the research) there are Muslim owed cab services that have a no alcohol rule. This is a company rule and applies to everyone equally. They are required to have a visible sign on their cab that says "alcohol restricted".

Alcohol is not a minority protected group.

I equate it to a baker provides a cake equally, but is not required to decorate it in a way they feel offended.

Cab driver provides alcohol free cab to everyone equally.

Muslims/Jews are not required to provide pork either, as they provide it for no one.

We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Majority does not rule. One person or 100 -- all have the same right to equal treatment.

a reply to: Annee

I disagree with it because it's a safety hazard to everyone else. I don't care about the rights of the drunk, I care that methods are not taken that make more drunk drivers than necessary, nor promote it.

By doing what these muslims are doing, they aren't discouraging people from drinking, nor are they in doing this not engaging in drunken debauchery (as they themselves are not drinking), instead they are making it harder for those who do get drunk to be responsible, and in doing so, encouraging those that do drink, do so irresponsibly.

I don't get why religious people do not understand that their religious rights are personal, and end with the self. What someone else does in secular society is irrelevant to their religious rights.

If you aren't drinking for religious reasons, then no one has a right to make you drink. If you're against homosexuality for religious reasons, no one has a right to make kiss or screw someone of the same gender. If you're against gay marriage, no one has a right to make you get married to a same sex partner. That's it, that's where your religious rights end in the secular world. No one can force you to personally do these activities yourself. The problem comes in that, for some f'd up reason, the religious have gotten the idea in their head that by engaging secularily with people who do, do these things themselves, it somehow means they are themselves engaging in the act, which is not the case.

If you go to a homosexual wedding, the only ones sinning are the homosexuals, not you. If you know your coworker is having an affair, but you keep working with them, it does not mean you are complicit in that affair. If someone buys a ring for their elicit partner from you as a jeweler it does not mean, you are engaging in having an affair, it's just secular commerce.

By refusing to engage in secular commerce, and thus not allowing people to make their own decisions on sinning, one is judging the other person, which is the providence of God to judge not them. If getting married to a same sex partner is wrong, God will judge them, you didn't marry a same sex partner, so God won't judge you. You didn't engage in the sin, you just sold a damn cake.

As for hating the sin, until your ass can prove to be without sin, cast not the first stone. No one's denying your sinning ass service for all the BS you engage in that's against your bible, so get off your hypocritical high horses and serve the other sinners same as your sinning asses are served without restriction. Choosing to only discriminate against the sin of homosexuality and homosexual marriage while ignoring the rest at your leisure is being discriminatory. It's specifically targeting homosexuals while letting sinners like yourselves and others skate by without hindrance. The reason you can't use religion to discriminate like this is because, frankly, you're full of # and most people know it.

Note, "you" is being used in the generic sense, and is not leveraged towards anyone in particular. Especially not the poster the first part of this rant is aimed at simply for clarification purposes. This has gone off a bit on a tangent.