First Amendment Question

No one is making a baker build a house or mechanic bake a cake but if a heart surgeon says he will not perform heart surgery on someone because of they don't like that persons race creed personal lifestyle or religion then that surgeon should be disbarred.

No one? Have you forgotten about the lawsuit where the florist was sued by a long-time customer because she drew the line at doing the flowers for his gay wedding? Tell me how she is not being forced into providing her services against her conscience. Since he was a long-time customer whose orientation she knew, this isn't about denying him service based on orientation but about not participating in something that violates her religious beliefs.

And how about laws that protect the consciences of medical professionals by allowing them to opt out of procedures they find objectionable? In other words, doctors do not have to perform abortions if they find that to be against their conscience. So, let's revisit your heart surgeon. What if performing that procedure violates his conscience?

It's not about the person on the table. It's about the person who provides the service. They are the people who shouldn't be forced. What makes the person receiving more worthy of protection than the one providing? Both should be protected and neither is more worthy of it than the other.

reply to post by ketsuko


That is correct no one is forcing her to provide a service she does not already provide.

You seem to think she can hide behind religion to with hold services from people she does not like.

Did they ask her to take pictures? No.

Bake a cake? No.

Provide a service she advertises to the general public? Yes.

Case closed. If she isn't willing to provide the service she advertises then what the hell is she doing advertising those services. What is next someones religion does not serve black, white, oriental.

Welcome to KFC but we don't serve your kind.

You do not seem to understand the discrimination laws.

reply to post by Grimpachi


She doesn't have to provide services to people she doesn't like, it is as simple as that. Discrimination laws do not encompass businesses from denying services or products to anyone at all, they only encompass employment security matters.. as far as I know, Maybe I'm wrong.. But, I have seen signs in Washington state on businesses that give notice that services can be denied to anyone for any reason at the business owners discretion.. Is that discrimination? Sure is, but it is legal and in effect right now. Discrimination encompasses far more than just the ones you see for employment laws and regs. Those laws do not apply in every situation.

But when she starts discriminating and denying services to people for whatever reason, then it like telling the public NOT to shop here , she is marketing the demise of her own business.

You come in and order a widget, and I look at you and see an I love Obama sticker on your jacket, I can tell you to get out right now, and if you don't leave immediately, you are then trespassing and now the police can throw you out all legal and proper.
Can you now sue me? Sure, you can sue anyone for anything and you can do it at any time you want. People do that a lot these days..
It is people's God given right to treat people like total dirt..

PS I wouldn't actually deny service if someone was wearing a pro Obama sticker, I just laugh on the inside and ignore it..

reply to post by alienreality


An owner can refuse service to anyone unless the reason is against public policy -- they can't discriminate based on race, sex, nationality, religion, etc. of the patron. But just not liking a particular person is not against public policy and the owner can refuse service.

It does happen that discrimination based on race, sex, etc. is sometimes the real reason, and the owner uses something else as a pretext, but it is very hard to prove. And the owner doesn't have to prove anything at all unless you sue them, which is probably not worth the time and effort.

They are not allowed to discriminate based on gender, race, sexuality or disability - because that is illegal - but it is perfectly legal to refuse service just because you don't like the look of someone.

Otherwise if it does go to court your reasoning better not be based on a demographic to infringe on peoples BASIC civil rights. And you better have a sign.

It seems those using religion as a reason to not serve people are just using religion as an excuse to be bigoted. Or they are horrible ignorant examples of their religion. Sorry We Don't Serve Your Kind.

Grimpachi
reply to post by ketsuko

 

That is correct no one is forcing her to provide a service she does not already provide.

You seem to think she can hide behind religion to with hold services from people she does not like.

Did they ask her to take pictures? No.

Bake a cake? No.

Provide a service she advertises to the general public? Yes.

Case closed. If she isn't willing to provide the service she advertises then what the hell is she doing advertising those services. What is next someones religion does not serve black, white, oriental.

Welcome to KFC but we don't serve your kind.

You do not seem to understand the discrimination laws.

edit on 5-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

No, she isn't discriminating against them for being gay. If she was doing that, she wouldn't have been selling them flowers to begin with. She had a long history of selling them flowers.

She is drawing the line at doing something that violates the dictates of her conscience. That is something entirely different.

Put it another way, Swingers Clubs are technically legal, but a lot of people see them as a bit dodgy. What if a Swingers Club tried to engage a caterer to serve one of their parties where there was going to be a lot of, erm, hooking up? According to you, no matter how much the caterer might think it wrong and feel bad about going with it, he or she would have to because they offer catering services to the public.

Again, this isn't about posting a bold sign on the door that advertises that you won't serve a person belonging to sub-group A. This is about protecting yourself from having to engage your services in the commission of things that violate your conscience. There is a difference.

Am I to infer that you dislike medical freedom of conscience laws?

reply to post by ketsuko


Did she offer her floral services to other weddings? If so that is the same as selling her flowers at her store.

It would be the same as Pizza hut saying we do not deliver to homes owner by orientals.

They can decline areas do to other reasons but cannot single out a cultural demographic.


The law is very clear on this matter I do not know why you are having such a hard time understanding it.


This doesn't have anything to do with medical freedom of conscious laws. The two are not anywhere equal.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Yep you are right.. People should never use their religion or beliefs like a shield for them to discriminate behind.. Let people make their own choices and just sell customers your product or service.. That, and I do not actually know of any religion that would condone it even, but people tend to start adding in their own rules and actions when they become over zealous. That right there would change the entire world if people would stop thinking they are God's police force. Now that I'm thinking about all this, it seems that this one factor, discrimination, is why the world is always in wars everywhere.. They all get killed and the next wave spawns and the cycle repeats again..

reply to post by alienreality


mate.

I think the tenants of most religions are good, but some people abuse them by taking one part and ignoring the others for purely selfish reasons. It isn't the religions fault but the individual.

Grimpachi
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Did she offer her floral services to other weddings? If so that is the same as selling her flowers at her store.

It would be the same as Pizza hut saying we do not deliver to homes owner by orientals.

They can decline areas do to other reasons but cannot single out a cultural demographic.


The law is very clear on this matter I do not know why you are having such a hard time understanding it.


This doesn't have anything to do with medical freedom of conscious laws. The two are not anywhere equal.

edit on 5-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

So a doctor can refuse to perform an abortion because it is against his conscience and religious beliefs ... but a florist cannot refuse to serve at a gay wedding?

So any business owner is now slave to the state and must subsume their conscience to the will of everyone else?

It's not hiding behind religion. It's not wanting to participate in something you feel violates your conscience. I understand how you might have trouble getting that being an atheist.

reply to post by ketsuko

So a doctor can refuse to perform an abortion because it is against his conscience and religious beliefs ... but a florist cannot refuse to serve at a gay wedding?

I knew you were going to try and use that and you obviously do not understand the difference.

If said doctor performed abortions he would have no right to refuse to perform them however you cannot force any old doctor that has not performed one or does not offer them to do one as that would be a new service.

You cannot force someone to offer services they do not already offer.


If that florist served strait weddings in the past or offered those services then she/he cannot refuse that service to other couples be they black, mixed, or gay. If she/he had never offered that service or performed that service for anyone then she/he would not be obligated to do so for anyone.

As I said you are not equating the examples correctly the things you are trying to compare are in no way the same.

reply to post by ketsuko


You are right about the florist, which I'm glad you brought up, but really? Are you advocating only providing services for people you like?

I thought about this earlier today, and I thought about being a doctor - someone comes up to your office with a broken leg, once again, and asks for help - and you say "Sorry, I don't help blacks." Or "Sorry, I don't help gays." Or "Sorry, I don't help single mothers."

Really? I don't think this is okay. Then the person states something like "Well, you are the only doctor around, and my leg is broken, and if I don't get it fixed soon, I'm going to end up dead from bleeding out."

And you say "Sorry, I don't help your kind here. Move along."

The florist is a good example of someone providing flowers to the community. She has the right to be straight - but how does it hurt her to provide flowers for someone's wedding where she doesn't agree with the circumstances? Does it make her feel uncomfortable? What's going on here?

-----

Now, think of this from the perspective of the person with the broken leg. They broke their leg. They see a medical clinic in the farm field or what have you - they head over there, it's the only one around, and they are met with someone who says they don't like that they are gay.

Well, it's damn hard to find medical service in these parts, he thinks, because it really is a crap shoot determining what the doctor's personal taste in patients is. It's too bad that means he'll have to bleed out.

The doctor goes back inside, feeling smug that he has fulfilled his religious obligation to the Lord.

Grimpachi
reply to post by ketsuko

 

So a doctor can refuse to perform an abortion because it is against his conscience and religious beliefs ... but a florist cannot refuse to serve at a gay wedding?

I knew you were going to try and use that and you obviously do not understand the difference.

If said doctor performed abortions he would have no right to refuse to perform them however you cannot force any old doctor that has not performed one or does not offer them to do one as that would be a new service.

You cannot force someone to offer services they do not already offer.

Grimpachi is correct, this law is strictly about enforcing discrimination - denying an offered service to someone because of something about them.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


Sorry to burst your bubble that you live in, but if you came into my house I have every right to toss you out on your ass if I don't like what you are saying. You fail to see that 1A states "Congress," not my home or your home or the general public. The property owner (where ever you might find yourself) has every right to post certain rules in regards to accessing the property.

You see signs that state "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" in many business. Why are we holding doctors from exercising their right to serve who they please?? If a doctor won't see you because you are gay, GO FIND ANOTHER DOCTOR!!!! Everyday, people find new ways to be "discriminated" against simply because they don't like another's views/opinions or they way they might conduct business. Recently, I saw a business refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because they didn't agree with the lifestyle. The court sided with the gay couple. Why can't anyone disagree anymore?? Hell, if the founding fathers wouldn't have disagreed with the British Crown, this great country never would have been formed.

Listen, folks, take everyone's opinion with a grain of salt. Quit labeling everything as "discrimination" or "racism."

bmullini
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

Hell, if the founding fathers wouldn't have disagreed with the British Crown, this great country never would have been formed.

You are into a "Catch 22" situation.

Without "The Crown" there would have been no colonies.
Without the colonies there would have been no US.

seeker1963
reply to post by darkbake

 

The whole idea of "Freedom of Speech" was to protect "UNPOPULAR" speech!

After all, is there really a need to protect popular speech?

People seem to avoid thinking about the 1st in that manner now a days.....

This is a large piece of urban folk lore. The idea is to protect anti government speech. The reason religion is added is because the pulpit in america at that time was rife with preachers unsympathetic to the crown to put it mildly. It was also to protect the new republic from having state approved clergy and denominations at the expense of crushing all others. America at the time had many denominations that were not connected to officially recognized, by the crown, church denominations which were few really. These served the purpose of the crown.

The press, the church just about any platform for speaking out against the government were to be protected.

TDawgRex
reply to post by darkbake

 

Pesky thing that free speech. It can be used as a sword or a shield. But I'm all for it, for better or worse.

And to be truthful, I enjoy engaging in dialogue with those I disagree with. It keeps things interesting. And of course, if things get over-heated and the conversation devolves into name calling and can’t be steered back, I can always walk away. But sometimes I don’t, because getting under ones skin can be enjoyable at times as well.

Wonderfully put, I just wish more people, especially those who claim to practice 'social justice' online were intelligent enough to know that sometimes you need to just walk away. That truly is the wonderful thing about freedom of speech and expression. If you don't agree with what someone else says, whether it be in writing, speech, or on some form of media, you always have the choice to just not read, not listen, or turn it off.

Now for one that has bothered me for years now. A little quick background, I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male far into middle age. There is a single word that as all of the stated I am not supposed to say in public, or anywhere I can be recorded. That word is 'n-word', now I personally don't like the damn word and choose to not use it. I find it extremely offensive simply because of the connotations attached to it, but it is just a word, it is not a black word, it is not a white word, and the fact that people have been brought up on hate crime charges for using this word appalls and offends me in the extreme.

Making ''n-word'' a word that whites can't use is blatant infringement of our freedom of speech, and as such any legal charges or lawsuit brought about because of the use of this word should be thrown out of court as a frivolous, at best, and a constitutional violation at worst.

reply to post by darkbake


Who is being denied basic services because of religion?

reply to post by bmullini

Sorry to burst your bubble that you live in, but if you came into my house I have every right to toss you out on your ass if I don't like what you are saying. You fail to see that 1A states "Congress," not my home or your home or the general public. The property owner (where ever you might find yourself) has every right to post certain rules in regards to accessing the property.

I was not talking about private property, I was talking about speaking/communication in the public domain. It should go without saying that a property owner has absolute, sole right over their property.

You see signs that state "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" in many business. Why are we holding doctors from exercising their right to serve who they please?? If a doctor won't see you because you are gay, GO FIND ANOTHER DOCTOR!!!! Everyday, people find new ways to be "discriminated" against simply because they don't like another's views/opinions or they way they might conduct business. Recently, I saw a business refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because they didn't agree with the lifestyle. The court sided with the gay couple. Why can't anyone disagree anymore?? Hell, if the founding fathers wouldn't have disagreed with the British Crown, this great country never would have been formed.

Actually, this is a very good point, and yes I agree.

alldaylong

bmullini
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

Hell, if the founding fathers wouldn't have disagreed with the British Crown, this great country never would have been formed.

You are into a "Catch 22" situation.

Without "The Crown" there would have been no colonies.
Without the colonies there would have been no US.

So?

reply to post by alldaylong


The statement is not a catch 22. The premise of my statement is that the first amendment is shrouded in the belief that you should be able to speak of injustice and tyranny when you see it.