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.

 

Should muslims be able to ban you from eating pork/drinking alcohol ?

page: 8
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
The question was not about anyone forcing anyone to serve or sell any product that they didn't see fit. The question was "should anyone(regardless of religion) be allowed to dictate what you can or cannot eat or drink".
Now as for forcing any muslim business owner to sell you any product he does not stock (whether it's against his religion or not) you have to be an idiot to go into the shop knowing they don't stock it. And you have to be a total idiot to try and force the issue through law.




posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

No, you are fear mongering. No one with any authority has ever said that churches - ANY churches/mosques/synagogues in America will be forced to marry gays.

Our government has no authority over churches in other parts of the world, so I don't know why you keep bringing up other countries.

Can we just stick to America, because that is where the ruling on same-sex marriages occurred, and that is the country that the OP is focusing on.

WHERE IS THE OUTCRY THAT YOU CANNOT GET MARRIED IN A CHRISTIAN CHURCH IF YOU'RE GAY? The only outcry I've seen has been from Christians screaming that it's the end of the world because gays can now get a marriage license.


In all fairness to him (or her) however, that's what they said in the UK when their law passed and now the first lawsuit is beginning.


There are a lot of unintended consequences with well intentioned laws. Take the ADA--nobody wants to discriminate against disabled people and they thought a law protecting them was very nice but we have certainly seen things like a cottage industry of lawyers who search around for places to sue under the ADA, thinks being defined as a "disability" to a ridiculous extent like "kleptomania" being a disability so UPS was sued for firing a delivery guy who stole or AA forced to re-hire pilots who flew drunk because alcoholism was a disability and so forth. Just because lawyers and politicians promise not to do something, they most definitely will unless there is something specific that forbids them in the law.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

They don't have separation of church and state in the UK, it's really a different situation over there.

The Loving v Virginia Supreme Court case took away all bans of interracial marriage. I have yet to see any cases of churches forced to marry interracial couples, but I have seen a few cases of churches turning interracial couples away.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: FinalCountdown

and issuing marriage licenses to people is the job of some court clerks but for some reason, it seems that some of them are having their religious beliefs about gay marriage respected. some businesses had a problem with providing insurance coverage to women and their's were respected...
something tells me that there isn't much about this that is being done to preserve any PERSON'S right to practice their relgion as they see fit.
it's about giving businesses a little more power to control their employees and causing a political ruckus about the gov't doing something some don't believe in.
giving religious freedom to people seems to not be anywhere in the agendas.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: NavyDoc

You mean being added to same list that you as a white (race) Christian (religion) male (sex) belong to?

How evil of us.......


I'm an atheist mixed race male, so you lose 2/3.


You are still protected then. Duh.......


Nice assumptions though, which just shows and demonstrates the underlying bigotry and prejudice of the left.


Hmmm.....since I'm a white man, I wonder how I am bigoted and/or have prejudice.? And since I am not "on the left" as you say, I again don't see the connection. Who is the one assuming now?


And no, "evil white males" are not a protected class and can be discriminated against quite freely. There are set asides and scholarships and a myriad of federal and state programs that specifically exclude white males.


I am an "evil white male". Yet I was a protected class as a victim during a crime that was considered a "hate crime". Go figure.......but white men aren't protected?

edit on 2-7-2015 by IslandOfMisfitToys because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBlackDog
a reply to: Cabin

I work for a Muslim owned business and they couldn't care less if I ate a bacon sandwich at work .
I think some people like to make problems from nothing.


bingo!!!...welcome to some of the discussions on ATS.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   
If you are living in an apartment building and it's easter morning, you easter ham is in the oven and the smell is not only filling your apartment with it's sweet smell but also you muslim neighbors who are complaining that not only are they finding it religiously offensive but also the smell is making them sick. do they have the right next year to force you to change dinner plans and cook a turkey instead?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Cabin

I need bacon to survive



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: ketsuko
The question was not about anyone forcing anyone to serve or sell any product that they didn't see fit. The question was "should anyone(regardless of religion) be allowed to dictate what you can or cannot eat or drink".
Now as for forcing any muslim business owner to sell you any product he does not stock (whether it's against his religion or not) you have to be an idiot to go into the shop knowing they don't stock it. And you have to be a total idiot to try and force the issue through law.



Oh, should a caterer be expected to cater an event they find objectionable?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
are businesses expecting their employees to do things that they find objectable?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: NavyDoc

They don't have separation of church and state in the UK, it's really a different situation over there.

The Loving v Virginia Supreme Court case took away all bans of interracial marriage. I have yet to see any cases of churches forced to marry interracial couples, but I have seen a few cases of churches turning interracial couples away.


AH, but that was back in a time when he had a little more restraint in our now over-litigious society.

Nobody back then imagined a thieving delivery driver being reinstated under a suit due to his "disability" of kleptomania either.
edit on 2-7-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Good thing there is a legal precedent established that prevents any such lawsuits from going anywhere.
Bob Jones University v. United States

First what it was:

Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination.


Now for the decision and applicable part that applies to what we are discussing here (I bolded it):

Bob Jones University v. United States was decided May 24, 1983 in an 8-1 decision with majority opinion written by Warren E. Burger, and joined by William J. Brennan, Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor. The Court, speaking through Burger, read a "common law" public interest requirement into the statute governing tax-exempt charitable status, and cited Congress' refusal to intervene as proof that they approved of the IRS's construction of the statute. The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions."[2]



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko
are businesses expecting their employees to do things that they find objectable?



No, at least most can ask for reasonable accommodation. I remember threads here about Muslim checkers being allowed to ask for different positions if they didn't want to handle alcohol and pork in the checkout lines.

But you didn't answer my question:

Should you a caterer be able to refuse an event he or she finds objectionable?
edit on 2-7-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: NavyDoc

You mean being added to same list that you as a white (race) Christian (religion) male (sex) belong to?

How evil of us.......


I'm an atheist mixed race male, so you lose 2/3.


You are still protected then. Duh.......


Nice assumptions though, which just shows and demonstrates the underlying bigotry and prejudice of the left.


Hmmm.....since I'm a white man, I wonder how I am bigoted and/or have prejudice.? And since I am not "on the left" as you say, I again don't see the connection. Who is the one assuming now?


And no, "evil white males" are not a protected class and can be discriminated against quite freely. There are set asides and scholarships and a myriad of federal and state programs that specifically exclude white males.


I am an "evil white male". Yet I was a protected class as a victim during a crime that was considered a "hate crime". Go figure.......but white men aren't protected?


Your prejudice was in the assumption that someone who disagrees with you was a white male christian. You brought it up. You made the assumption.

White males are not a protected class--look at the myriad of race based set asides, employment step ups, scholarships, and different standards in hiring for government jobs. That there is racially based discrimination allowed is a fact--the establishment and liberals just like who is being discriminated against and think they have a good excuse to do so.

Medical schools, for example, made me meet a higher standard for admission because my mix of races wasn't protected. Only Latino and African american students were given the preferences. Asians and Indians are not minority enough, apparently.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Good thing there is a legal precedent established that prevents any such lawsuits from going anywhere.
Bob Jones University v. United States

First what it was:

Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination.


Now for the decision and applicable part that applies to what we are discussing here (I bolded it):

Bob Jones University v. United States was decided May 24, 1983 in an 8-1 decision with majority opinion written by Warren E. Burger, and joined by William J. Brennan, Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O'Connor. The Court, speaking through Burger, read a "common law" public interest requirement into the statute governing tax-exempt charitable status, and cited Congress' refusal to intervene as proof that they approved of the IRS's construction of the statute. The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions."[2]


That's not true. It does not eliminate churches. All they said their was that their ruling did not extend to churches as the case they were arguing was about schools.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
if they ask for accomodation is the business forced to give it to them or are they doing it out of the kindness of their heart?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

It's still a mark against any fight to attempt this. Do you think that if this went to court this lawsuit WOULDN'T be brought up in defense of not striking down tax exempt status in churches? That's at least one more argument against than for at the minimum.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ketsuko
if they ask for accomodation is the business forced to give it to them or are they doing it out of the kindness of their heart?



The business must give it to them. Otherwise, it's discrimination. The employee can sue.

But I notice you are ignoring my question. Unless of course you are now going to gotcha.

So you're presumption is that a caterer MUST cater a porn shoot or a KKK rally no matter what the public perception could mean to his or her reputation.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
no, I am just trying to determine if the business world is expected to extend the same courtesy to their employees. since well, in my opinion if any group is deserving of the courtesy, the whole chain is.
so in this case, I guess that since the law requires accomodation unless is causes undue hardship on the business and the courts have traditionally been pretty lax when it comes to how much hardship is consider undue, well then my answer to you would be that no, they shouldn't be forced to cater an event they find offensive as long as it doesn't cause undue hardship on the customer.... with the consideration of what is undue being as equally lax as it is with the business community.

www.gazettextra.com...
edit on 2-7-2015 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Being a Muslim is like being in AA. In AA if you get drunk you just ask forgiveness because your powerless and next week do it again and it's cool. A Muslim can do whatever he wants as long as he claims he's trying to takeover an infidel. No rules that is why people in prison love the mohammadd dude he's the ultimate AA leader.






new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join