A tattoo artist could refuse to do a rainbow flag all day long.

Quote:

---

Yes, in ALL gay wedding cases. Yes. No. No.

---

So all equal protection laws are unnecessary?

Quote:

---

A tattoo artist could refuse to do a rainbow flag all day long.

---

Sure if he has a thing against rainbows. Not if he loves doing rainbows on straight people only. It's not that difficult.

Never understood the idea of trying to make it illegal for people to be jerks. Losing proposition.

depends on what you mean by "jerks". Some legislation we have was necessary to even make the progress we have today.

No one has the right to my labor. Denying them the chance to employ me isn't a violation of their rights. The reality is people feel bad, they feel like the person is being mean to them or orthers. They justify it by putting in legal terms like rights or discrimination.

Public accommodation laws are a great example of good intentions leading to ridiculous unintended consequences

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

A tattoo artist could refuse to do a rainbow flag all day long.

---

Sure if he has a thing against rainbows. Not if he loves doing rainbows on straight people only. It's not that difficult.

---

It's amazing how hard it is for some people to grasp the difference.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Public accommodation laws are a great example of good intentions leading to ridiculous unintended consequences

---

It's an example of what was needed to prevent the total marginalization of certain people by the majority. No solution is perfect, but it is intended to uphold the basic rights and dignity of the individual.

diehard03 said:

---

The role of the government, in this case, is to protect individuals from discrimination in the market place. One doesn't get the right to break laws because of your religion.

---

But one does get to **** on the First Amendment because of your "sexual orientation".

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Public accommodation laws are a great example of good intentions leading to ridiculous unintended consequences

---

Goldwater was absolutely correct about this. Of course, he got tarred as a "racist" for saying so.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Which is why the law shouldn't make that determination. If you personally think it violates your religion you should be allowed to not take the order.

Just like how pop stars are refusing to play at a Trump inauguration.

Why is it a "right" to receive non-necessary services? Especially when others can step in place and do it instead.

---

Because there's always someone else that can step in? In every market? And there was never a time when a people group was denied by say...a majority of the businesses in operation? Even here in the US?

---

Do you think US laws made the progress we see today?

Quote:

---

Do you think US laws made the progress we see today?

---

I think it's foolish to think we'd be in the same place without them...because all we know is life with them. So, I think the burden of proof is on you to prove that we would be without them.

Are the the total cause? No. But I don't see how you can quantify their influence. (or lack thereof).

Quote:

---

But one does get to **** on the First Amendment because of your "sexual orientation".

---

Again, back to the point off this. Your First Amendment rights aren't trampled because you have to sell a similar cake to Adam and Steve as you do Adam and Eve.

Quote:

---

Public accommodation laws are a great example of good intentions leading to ridiculous unintended consequences

---

I'm still struggling to see the "ridiculous" unintended consequences here. I don't see pastors being forced to marry gay people. I do see people violating the law they were aware of and being punished for it.

commando2004 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Public accommodation laws are a great example of good intentions leading to ridiculous unintended consequences

---

Goldwater was absolutely correct about this. Of course, he got tarred as a "racist" for saying so.

---

Goldwater felt the states had the right to discriminate against people. That's why he was called racist.

Frok said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Which is why the law shouldn't make that determination. If you personally think it violates your religion you should be allowed to not take the order.

Just like how pop stars are refusing to play at a Trump inauguration.

Why is it a "right" to receive non-necessary services? Especially when others can step in place and do it instead.

---

Because there's always someone else that can step in? In every market? And there was never a time when a people group was denied by say...a majority of the businesses in operation? Even here in the US?

---

Do you think US laws made the progress we see today?

---

Do you think we'd be where we are without Eisenhower calling troops into Little Rock and federal civil rights legislation?

The ridiculousness happens when the government gets to tell people what does and does not violate their religious beliefs.

It gets even more ridiculous when the whole thing is over people being refused a non-essential service.

Isn't the point of a social contract that the government in fact defines the rights of citizens?

A government that defines rights is a government that can take them away.

k2aggie07 said:

---

A government that defines rights is a government that can take them away.

---

Our Constitution is a government document that defines rights in a legal sense. Of course a government can take away rights if the people allow it to.

Are you okay with our secular government defining what is and isn't valid religious belief? The cake issue and the Hobby Lobby birth control case were both over the same core issue. Someone claims their religious freedom is being violated, some else claims their civil rights are being violated, and a court decides who gets violated.

I just want to know where the court gets the right to validate or invalidate my religious beliefs when no one is being physically or economically harmed

Our constitution does not establish any rights in the bill of rights. Read it. It presumes they already exist and instead establishes that they won't be infringed.

Quote:

---

The ridiculousness happens when the government gets to tell people what does and does not violate their religious beliefs.

It gets even more ridiculous when the whole thing is over people being refused a non-essential service.

---

It's ridiculous to think that ones religious beliefs should trump the rights of others. It's ridiculous to talk about this topic in the same tone as someone being denied the right to assemble to worship. The whole reason we have this discussion is because someones "religious beliefs" infringes on upon someone else. You get to do anything else you want that doesn't hurt other people.

I think you're being a little dense about the "non-essential service" thing. it's not about the cake. it's just the catalyst for the greater discussion.

Quote:

---

Our constitution does not establish any rights in the bill of rights. Read it. It presumes they already exist and instead establishes that they won't be infringed.

---

The necessity of that action means they have the right to define rights. Else, there's no reason to do it.

Quote:

---

I just want to know where the court gets the right to validate or invalidate my religious beliefs when no one is being physically or economically harmed

---

The whole point is that there is a party that's harmed. It's the entire reason there's even a discussion.

Yeah, murder laws are why we don't have the right to murder other people.

Or more accurately the fact that murder laws exist demonstrate that the government is the sole reason we don't have the right to murder others.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

The ridiculousness happens when the government gets to tell people what does and does not violate their religious beliefs.

It gets even more ridiculous when the whole thing is over people being refused a non-essential service.

---

It's ridiculous to think that ones religious beliefs should trump the rights of others. It's ridiculous to talk about this topic in the same tone as someone being denied the right to assemble to worship. The whole reason we have this discussion is because someones "religious beliefs" infringes on upon someone else. You get to do anything else you want that doesn't hurt other people.

I think you're being a little dense about the "non-essential service" thing. it's not about the cake. it's just the catalyst for the greater discussion.

---

It's ridiculous to think that one's "sexual orientation" (see, I can use scare quotes too) should trump the enumerated Constitutional rights of others. It's ridiculous to talk about a "persecuted minority group" defined by voluntarily-chosen sexual behavior in the same tone as Black people being denied the right to vote. The whole reason we have this discussion is because far social leftists are making a deliberate point to destroy people's livelihood because of their religious beliefs. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you lose your rights when you decide to open a business.

Quote:

---

It's ridiculous to think that one's "sexual orientation" (see, I can use scare quotes too) should trump the enumerated Constitutional rights of others.

---

We keep trotting this out there like your expression of your faith doesn't hurt other people. This isn't a simple case of you being denied the right to practice your religion. It comes down to your expression denying the rights of someone else.

Quote:

---

It's ridiculous to talk about a "persecuted minority group" defined by voluntarily-chosen sexual behavior in the same tone as Black people being denied the right to vote. The whole reason we have this discussion is because far social leftists are making a deliberate point to destroy people's livelihood because of their religious beliefs. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you lose your rights when you decide to open a business.

---

No liberal that I know cares about anyone else's religious beliefs. They only care when they hurt other people. You act like liberals are going around saying, "THOSE EVIL CHRISTIANS ARE FEEDING THE POOR! THEY MUST BE STOPPED!!"

Homosexuals also aren't straight people who just felt like committing their lives to something randy.

Quote:

---

Yeah, murder laws are why we don't have the right to murder other people.

Or more accurately the fact that murder laws exist demonstrate that the government is the sole reason we don't have the right to murder others.

---

You can wink all you want, but what do you think would happen in society if we didn't have murder laws?

We voluntarily give up some freedoms to gain order, and we empower an entity to administer that order.

Murder isn't wrong because the government says so.

We don't have the right to life because the government says murder is illegal.

We wouldn't lose our right to life if the government stopped saying murder is illegal.

Murder would still be wrong, because the laws of the land are not the sole arbiters of truth.

Ergo, the rights enumerated in the bill of rights (for the most part) are not established by the bill of rights but are clearly presumed extant.

It's just semantics in the end. We are empowering the government to regulate various parts of our lives. There is a process to add and remove laws as society sees fit. There will be disagreement about which laws we have. This is a situation where there is disagreement.

Talking about this issue like the government is this entity that makes it's own rules and decisions is asinine.

Government is just another word for people. People also are not the sole arbiters of truth, even when their opinions are aggregated or when certain people become very powerful.

And it's not just semantics. These concepts matter...they're the philosophical foundation of our nation.

It's kind of mind boggling that a person posting on a philosophy board would suggest that a discussion about the ontological nature of the rights of human beings is "just semantics".

Quote:

---

Government is just another word for people. People also are not the sole arbiters of truth, even when their opinions are aggregated or when certain people become very powerful.

And it's not just semantics. These concepts matter...they're the philosophical foundation of our nation.

It's kind of mind boggling that a person posting on a philosophy board would suggest that a discussion about the ontological nature of the rights of human beings is "just semantics".

---

it's also mind boggling that instead of addressing the issue in these terms, we want to talk about the big bad government.

Nevermind, again, that many are choosing to view this issue as only how their religious rights are infringed instead of how of their expression of those rights infringe upon someone else.

There are no grounds for actual discussion on this topic unless we talk about rights.

Rights are either natural (i.e. there is such a thing as human rights, a set of ontological objects) or operative. They can also be one or both, which people sometimes distinguish as legal vs natural rights. Operative rights only exist once a law says they do.

Regardless, I don't see a case for a natural right to force someone to conduct business with you (or even to interact with you at all). There is a case for an operative right to do so, under certain circumstances. What people are suggesting here though is that this operative right, when exercised, violates other operative rights in our laws -- and perhaps some natural rights as well.