A tattoo artist could refuse to do a rainbow flag all day long.
Quote:
Yes, in ALL gay wedding cases. Yes. No. No.
Quote:
A tattoo artist could refuse to do a rainbow flag all day long.
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.
ramblin_ag02 said:
Public accommodation laws are a great example of good intentions leading to ridiculous unintended consequences
But one does get to **** on the First Amendment because of your "sexual orientation".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.
Goldwater was absolutely correct about this. Of course, he got tarred as a "racist" for saying so.ramblin_ag02 said:
Public accommodation laws are a great example of good intentions leading to ridiculous unintended consequences
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?
Quote:
Do you think US laws made the progress we see today?
Quote:
But one does get to **** on the First Amendment because of your "sexual orientation".
Quote:
Public accommodation laws are a great example of good intentions leading to ridiculous unintended consequences
commando2004 said:Goldwater was absolutely correct about this. Of course, he got tarred as a "racist" for saying so.ramblin_ag02 said:
Public accommodation laws are a great example of good intentions leading to ridiculous unintended consequences
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?
k2aggie07 said:
A government that defines rights is a government that can take them away.
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.
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.
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
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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".