When does personal belief get to be practiced and when not?

[billisonboard]

Dec 31, 2015 22:21:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...
The baker owns his bakery, and owns his skill set, labor, and time and may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. Period.  We settled the argument over the right to put someone to forced labor in the 1860's. ...

Again I agree completely that this should be the law of the land. At least that is until the baker asks for special status protected by governmental power.

[Gardening Grandma]

Dec 31, 2015 23:04:35 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Dec 31, 2015 22:51:49 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Being required to provide the services that you advertise and willingly provide, equally to all without discrimination is NOT "forced labor". At any time bakeries are free to stop selling wedding cakes. There's no "forced labor" in requiring them to do what they say they do.

If you don't want to bake wedding cakes... don't bake wedding cakes. Pretty simple.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong.  What is very simple is that, as I said, if you own a business you may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  If people like you continue to get your way, the only place a person will be able to "practice" their religion is (maybe) in a bedroom closet.  The aim of the homosexual activists is to criminalize Christianity because they cannot manage to agree to disagree with people whose deeply held religious belief is that homosexual behavior is a sin against God, and that they cannot participate in gay marriage because it desecrates a sacrament of their religion. The First Amendment prohibits interference by government with the FREE EXERCISE of their religion. Period.  There's no real debate-- we just have arrived at a point where the Constitution is not under attack- it is simply ignored, and may as well not exist.  We will either get our servants back under control, and clean house or we will continue to live under tyranny- tolerable though it may be for most, for now.  It will not always be tolerable, but by the time it's full blown hard tyranny- there'll be nothing any of us can do about it.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise and that's the law. You don't have to like it, but you are expected to obey the law.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2015 23:10:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We have three branches of government. Only the Congress may legislate. So, the fact that we live by Supreme Court "rulings" is purely voluntary. We have the right to simply ignore the illegitimate acts of the court.  Where Congress is concerned- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  If the free exercise of one's religion means you have to get a cake elsewhere- you have no "case", no argument, and the government has no legitimate power to force anyone to do anything that violates the free exercise of another's religion.  If the government is successful in criminalizing a religion- Christianity- then no one will be safe.

you can ignore any law you want, so long as you are willing to face the potential consequences of doing so.

and the government absolutely does have the right to limit the exercise of religion, if that exercise harms the person or property of non-consenting others.  for example, if your religion says that it is OK to have sex with your daughter, you are going to get stopped by the government.  sorry, but you just are.

[djAdvocate]

Dec 31, 2015 22:21:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Dec 29, 2015 18:32:54 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Here's what I read:

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake with a hateful message.  Baker refuses - Since the baker has a right to freedom of expression, no one's rights have been violated.

A customer comes into a bakery and wants a cake for a (gay) wedding.  Baker refuses because he/she doesn't "believe" in gay marriage - not OK because there's no violation of the baker's right to freedom of expression.

The baker owns his bakery, and owns his skill set, labor, and time and may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. Period.  We settled the argument over the right to put someone to forced labor in the 1860's. 

the FCRA superseded that in 1964:

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

a very simple way around the law is to turn the bakery into a non-profit, apparently.

[tallguy]

Or to run it privately out of their home, as the Oregon bakery is doing now.   Not open to the public?  Not subject to anti-discrimination laws.  No problem.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 1, 2016 15:04:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 31, 2015 22:21:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The baker owns his bakery, and owns his skill set, labor, and time and may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. Period.  We settled the argument over the right to put someone to forced labor in the 1860's. 

the FCRA superseded that in 1964:

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

a very simple way around the law is to turn the bakery into a non-profit, apparently.

The radical left, and gay activists are coming after everyone.  Even churches.  If we let the free exercise clause go without a fight, we'll lose ALL of our rights. This tolerable administrative tyranny will become a hard tyranny overnight.  Once principled, stubborn religious zealots are out of the way- governments run amok. It's just historical fact. It won't be "different this time".

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 1, 2016 14:59:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 31, 2015 23:10:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We have three branches of government. Only the Congress may legislate. So, the fact that we live by Supreme Court "rulings" is purely voluntary. We have the right to simply ignore the illegitimate acts of the court.  Where Congress is concerned- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  If the free exercise of one's religion means you have to get a cake elsewhere- you have no "case", no argument, and the government has no legitimate power to force anyone to do anything that violates the free exercise of another's religion.  If the government is successful in criminalizing a religion- Christianity- then no one will be safe.

you can ignore any law you want, so long as you are willing to face the potential consequences of doing so.

and the government absolutely does have the right to limit the exercise of religion, if that exercise harms the person or property of non-consenting others.  for example, if your religion says that it is OK to have sex with your daughter, you are going to get stopped by the government.  sorry, but you just are.

I agree completely.  Just like Rosa Parks.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 1, 2016 14:59:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Dec 31, 2015 23:10:34 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We have three branches of government. Only the Congress may legislate. So, the fact that we live by Supreme Court "rulings" is purely voluntary. We have the right to simply ignore the illegitimate acts of the court.  Where Congress is concerned- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  If the free exercise of one's religion means you have to get a cake elsewhere- you have no "case", no argument, and the government has no legitimate power to force anyone to do anything that violates the free exercise of another's religion.  If the government is successful in criminalizing a religion- Christianity- then no one will be safe.

you can ignore any law you want, so long as you are willing to face the potential consequences of doing so.

and the government absolutely does have the right to limit the exercise of religion, if that exercise harms the person or property of non-consenting others.  for example, if your religion says that it is OK to have sex with your daughter, you are going to get stopped by the government.  sorry, but you just are.

Red herring.  No one is proposing people be allowed to harm anyone, or force anyone to do anything-- well, except the bakers are being forced to bake cakes. Besides real harm- not "my feelings are hurt because I was refused service"- what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you have problems understanding? You have NO RIGHT to a cake.

[Opti]

Jan 2, 2016 10:15:58 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 1, 2016 14:59:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you can ignore any law you want, so long as you are willing to face the potential consequences of doing so.

and the government absolutely does have the right to limit the exercise of religion, if that exercise harms the person or property of non-consenting others.  for example, if your religion says that it is OK to have sex with your daughter, you are going to get stopped by the government.  sorry, but you just are.

Red herring.  No one is proposing people be allowed to harm anyone, or force anyone to do anything-- well, except the bakers are being forced to bake cakes. Besides real harm- not "my feelings are hurt because I was refused service"- what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you have problems understanding? You have NO RIGHT to a cake.

You mean like real harm like the baker posting their address on FB and the former customers getting threats including death threats?

I think that is real harm.

[Deleted]

No one stopped a stranger at gun point and forced them to do something they didn't want to do... These people operate a bakery. It is certainly within expectations to walk into a place that sells cakes, order a cake they sell routinely and expect to purchased said item.

No one is coming after churches, (who receive no public funds) and if they ever did, I'd protest that as vehemently.

Agreed on harm, death threats and potential loss of children is definite harm.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 2, 2016 10:21:26 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 2, 2016 10:15:58 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Red herring.  No one is proposing people be allowed to harm anyone, or force anyone to do anything-- well, except the bakers are being forced to bake cakes. Besides real harm- not "my feelings are hurt because I was refused service"- what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you have problems understanding? You have NO RIGHT to a cake.

You mean like real harm like the baker posting their address on FB and the former customers getting threats including death threats?

I think that is real harm.

When they filed suit, they made their information public.  I have zero sympathy for people who attack someone's livelihood.  You get what you get.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 2, 2016 10:26:26 GMT -5 oped said:

No one stopped a stranger at gun point and forced them to do something they didn't want to do... These people operate a bakery. It is certainly within expectations to walk into a place that sells cakes, order a cake they sell routinely and expect to purchased said item.

As I've said- Congress shall make NO law.  A business owner's private property, their labor, and their skill set is not for the government to broker as it sees fit. A person has full freedom of association to choose to voluntarily serve anyone they choose, and to deny service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all.  There's no harm done in telling someone you won't bake them a cake.  There are other options, but even if not- no one has a "right" to a cake. There's no compelling government or public interest in using violence to force one person to bake a cake for another. And no one ever went into business with the expectation that they'd check their right to freely exercise their religion.

No one is coming after churches, (who receive no public funds) and if they ever did, I'd protest that as vehemently.

You're wrong. And I wish you would.

Agreed on harm, death threats and potential loss of children is definite harm.

No one received death threats for not receiving a cake. They only got death threats after threatening violence- via government as their agent- against the baker.  Once we agree violence is acceptable, we cannot pretend to be surprised when others express a belief that violence to force their way on others is acceptable.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Bottom line is that as a society, we have to decide whether we shall decide matters through a series of individual, voluntary, and peaceful decisions- or whether we shall support the use of violence to force our way on others.  Once you decide violence is acceptable, you cannot then pretend to be surprised when people who disagree with you on a matter think violence and force are legitimate means of settling your differences.

[Opti]

Jan 2, 2016 11:40:14 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 2, 2016 10:21:26 GMT -5 Opti said:

You mean like real harm like the baker posting their address on FB and the former customers getting threats including death threats?

I think that is real harm.

When they filed suit, they made their information public.  I have zero sympathy for people who attack someone's livelihood.  You get what you get.

I guess I don't have much sympathy for people who break the law and try to hide behind their religion.

IMO the owners attacked their own livelihood by not following the law. It's like speeding, just because you don't get caught does not mean you were in the right.

[Opti]

Jan 2, 2016 11:48:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Bottom line is that as a society, we have to decide whether we shall decide matters through a series of individual, voluntary, and peaceful decisions- or whether we shall support the use of violence to force our way on others.  Once you decide violence is acceptable, you cannot then pretend to be surprised when people who disagree with you on a matter think violence and force are legitimate means of settling your differences.

One of these days you might get clear on what violence is and is not. Did the recent kerfuffle in your family with the lawsuit involve violence or simply legal paperwork?

[billisonboard]

Jan 2, 2016 11:48:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Bottom line is that as a society, we have to decide whether we shall decide matters through a series of individual, voluntary, and peaceful decisions-

e.g. filing with the government paperwork for incorporation

or whether we shall support the use of violence to force our way on others.  Once you decide violence is acceptable, you cannot then pretend to be surprised when people who disagree with you on a matter think violence and force are legitimate means of settling your differences.

e.g. bankruptcy laws which force people to accept the choices of others.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2016 12:15:50 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jan 2, 2016 11:48:23 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Bottom line is that as a society, we have to decide whether we shall decide matters through a series of individual, voluntary, and peaceful decisions-

e.g. filing with the government paperwork for incorporation

or whether we shall support the use of violence to force our way on others.  Once you decide violence is acceptable, you cannot then pretend to be surprised when people who disagree with you on a matter think violence and force are legitimate means of settling your differences.

e.g. bankruptcy laws which force people to accept the choices of others.

"under threat of violence", as Paul would put it.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2016 10:21:26 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jan 2, 2016 10:15:58 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Red herring.  No one is proposing people be allowed to harm anyone, or force anyone to do anything-- well, except the bakers are being forced to bake cakes. Besides real harm- not "my feelings are hurt because I was refused service"- what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you have problems understanding? You have NO RIGHT to a cake.

You mean like real harm like the baker posting their address on FB and the former customers getting threats including death threats?

I think that is real harm.

so did the court.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2016 10:15:58 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 1, 2016 14:59:57 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you can ignore any law you want, so long as you are willing to face the potential consequences of doing so.

and the government absolutely does have the right to limit the exercise of religion, if that exercise harms the person or property of non-consenting others.  for example, if your religion says that it is OK to have sex with your daughter, you are going to get stopped by the government.  sorry, but you just are.

Red herring.  No one is proposing people be allowed to harm anyone, or force anyone to do anything-- well, except the bakers are being forced to bake cakes. Besides real harm- not "my feelings are hurt because I was refused service"- what part of "Congress shall make no law..." do you have problems understanding? You have NO RIGHT to a cake.

i disagree.  the cake lady PROPOSED that her religion should allow her to discriminate in her "food distribution service" (i presume this is how Oregon thinks of bakeries).  if this case had been decided in the cake lady's favor, it would have set a very bad precedent. 

this had nothing to do with cakes.  it had to do with accommodation, and later, public shaming.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2016 10:11:33 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 1, 2016 15:04:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the FCRA superseded that in 1964:

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

a very simple way around the law is to turn the bakery into a non-profit, apparently.

The radical left, and gay activists are coming after everyone.  Even churches.  If we let the free exercise clause go without a fight, we'll lose ALL of our rights. This tolerable administrative tyranny will become a hard tyranny overnight.  Once principled, stubborn religious zealots are out of the way- governments run amok. It's just historical fact. It won't be "different this time".

no, this is precisely the flaw in your thinking.  the left is not after everyone.  just those that fail to accommodate.  nothing unusual.  societies have sought accommodation dating back to the Dark Ages.  you know, that time that conservatives want to return us to?

[dondub]

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong. What is very simple is that, as I said, if you own a business you may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. If people like you continue to get your way, the only place a person will be able to "practice" their religion is (maybe) in a bedroom closet. This is a completely bizarre assertion that isn't remotely close to the truth.


The aim of the homosexual activists is to criminalize Christianity because they cannot manage to agree to disagree with people whose deeply held religious belief is that homosexual behavior is a sin against God, and that they cannot participate in gay marriage because it desecrates a sacrament of their religion. And here I thought the aim of "homosexual activists" was to simply be treated 'constitutionally' where all are treated equally. Thus their victory in getting gay marriage legalized is a Constitutional victory for all. The idea that they are attempting to "criminalize Christianity" is simply ludicrous homophobia at it most extreme.

First Amendment prohibits interference by government with the FREE EXERCISE of their religion. Period. Refusing to sell cake has nothing at all to do with the FREE EXERCISE of their religion. Baking and commerce are not protected religious activities. Just because these homophobic Christian whiners are hiding behind a false belief system that has no support from Jesus Christ doesn't make them legit. There's no real debate-- we just have arrived at a point where the Constitution is not under attack- it is simply ignored, and may as well not exist. We will either get our servants back under control, and clean house or we will continue to live under tyranny- tolerable though it may be for most, for now. It will not always be tolerable, but by the time it's full blown hard tyranny- there'll be nothing any of us can do about it. The real 'tyranny' has always been that practiced by Christians who have eagerly discriminated against fellow American citizens since day 1. Even now, the more extreme of this element have by far perpetrated more terrorist death and destruction on America since 9/11. These so called believers in the Word have gleefully participated in genocide, slavery, segregation, laws against inter racial "sacraments of matrimony", blatant and open racism in laws, housing, jobs, etc. These activities, of course, have always had a Biblical imprimatur. Thanks so much.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 2, 2016 13:18:57 GMT -5 dondub said:

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong. What is very simple is that, as I said, if you own a business you may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. If people like you continue to get your way, the only place a person will be able to "practice" their religion is (maybe) in a bedroom closet. This is a completely bizarre assertion that isn't remotely close to the truth.

it is an assertion that could have been reasonably made between 1860 and 1963.  not since then, however.

[weltschmerz]

Dec 31, 2015 23:04:35 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Dec 31, 2015 22:51:49 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Being required to provide the services that you advertise and willingly provide, equally to all without discrimination is NOT "forced labor". At any time bakeries are free to stop selling wedding cakes. There's no "forced labor" in requiring them to do what they say they do.

If you don't want to bake wedding cakes... don't bake wedding cakes. Pretty simple.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong.  What is very simple is that, as I said, if you own a business you may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  If people like you continue to get your way, the only place,  a person will be able to "practice" their religion is (maybe) in a bedroom closet.  The aim of the homosexual activists is to criminalize Christianity because they cannot manage to agree to disagree with people whose deeply held religious belief is that homosexual behavior is a sin against God and that they cannot participate in gay marriage because it desecrates a sacrament of their religion. The First Amendment prohibits interference by government with the FREE EXERCISE of their religion. Period.  There's no real debate-- we just have arrived at a point where the Constitution is not under attack- it is simply ignored, and may as well not exist.  We will either get our servants back under control, and clean house or we will continue to live under tyranny- tolerable though it may be for most, for now.  It will not always be tolerable, but by the time it's full blown hard tyranny- there'll be nothing any of us can do about it.

h, please! Gluttony is a 'sin against God' and you don't see these so-called "Christian" bakeries refusing to serve the morbidly obese.

Same goes for tattooed people, women wearing pants or women with short hair.

They serve all the sinners, but glom onto to refusing to serve homosexuals because they think gays are icky.

It's discrimination hiding behind the bible, pure and simple.

[Deleted]

Dec 31, 2015 23:04:35 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Dec 31, 2015 22:51:49 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Being required to provide the services that you advertise and willingly provide, equally to all without discrimination is NOT "forced labor". At any time bakeries are free to stop selling wedding cakes. There's no "forced labor" in requiring them to do what they say they do.

If you don't want to bake wedding cakes... don't bake wedding cakes. Pretty simple.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong.  What is very simple is that, as I said, if you own a business you may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  If people like you continue to get your way, the only place a person will be able to "practice" their religion is (maybe) in a bedroom closet.  The aim of the homosexual activists is to criminalize Christianity because they cannot manage to agree to disagree with people whose deeply held religious belief is that homosexual behavior is a sin against God, and that they cannot participate in gay marriage because it desecrates a sacrament of their religion. The First Amendment prohibits interference by government with the FREE EXERCISE of their religion. Period.  There's no real debate-- we just have arrived at a point where the Constitution is not under attack- it is simply ignored, and may as well not exist.  We will either get our servants back under control, and clean house or we will continue to live under tyranny- tolerable though it may be for most, for now.  It will not always be tolerable, but by the time it's full blown hard tyranny- there'll be nothing any of us can do about it.

You may refuse to anyONE... Yes. "One" being the important part of that phrase. You cannot refuse to a CLASS/GROUP. That's discrimination, and it's illegal.

If you know someone is a troublemaker you can refuse service to them... and them alone. You cannot refuse service because someone is gay, or black, or female, or other "class/group" distinction.

So no, I'm not wrong.

If "people like me" get our way the only place people will be able to practice their religion is places they SHOULD practice it... in the privacy of their own homes, in their places of worship, amongst other likewise believers, and anywhere/everywhere that it doesn't force beliefs or cause discrimination on anyone else (that last one is especially important).

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2016 10:11:33 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 1, 2016 15:04:48 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the FCRA superseded that in 1964:

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

a very simple way around the law is to turn the bakery into a non-profit, apparently.

The radical left, and gay activists are coming after everyone.  Even churches.  If we let the free exercise clause go without a fight, we'll lose ALL of our rights. This tolerable administrative tyranny will become a hard tyranny overnight.  Once principled, stubborn religious zealots are out of the way- governments run amok. It's just historical fact. It won't be "different this time".

No one is letting the "free exercise" clause go... they are just making sure one group doesn't hinder the "free exercise" of others.

If the religion of "Person A" says "you must adorn one wall of every dwelling you take shelter in, no matter how long or short your time there, with a permanent sigil of our faith"... do you get to put permanent decorations on the walls of places you visit? No. You don't. Your rights don't supersede the rights of others. 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 1, 2016 5:45:23 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

Dec 31, 2015 23:04:35 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong.  What is very simple is that, as I said, if you own a business you may refuse service to anyone for any reason, or no reason at all.  If people like you continue to get your way, the only place a person will be able to "practice" their religion is (maybe) in a bedroom closet.  The aim of the homosexual activists is to criminalize Christianity because they cannot manage to agree to disagree with people whose deeply held religious belief is that homosexual behavior is a sin against God, and that they cannot participate in gay marriage because it desecrates a sacrament of their religion. The First Amendment prohibits interference by government with the FREE EXERCISE of their religion. Period.  There's no real debate-- we just have arrived at a point where the Constitution is not under attack- it is simply ignored, and may as well not exist.  We will either get our servants back under control, and clean house or we will continue to live under tyranny- tolerable though it may be for most, for now.  It will not always be tolerable, but by the time it's full blown hard tyranny- there'll be nothing any of us can do about it.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the Supreme Court ruled otherwise and that's the law. You don't have to like it, but you are expected to obey the law.

Slave owners obeyed the law. There's no inherent virtue in the expectation that people obey the law.  I will not argue that there will be consequences for civil disobedience, and it's best if people do not employ violence, but instead resist peacefully as a means of correcting the error in thinking that infects so many.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Jan 2, 2016 18:52:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 2, 2016 10:11:33 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The radical left, and gay activists are coming after everyone.  Even churches.  If we let the free exercise clause go without a fight, we'll lose ALL of our rights. This tolerable administrative tyranny will become a hard tyranny overnight.  Once principled, stubborn religious zealots are out of the way- governments run amok. It's just historical fact. It won't be "different this time".

No one is letting the "free exercise" clause go... they are just making sure one group doesn't hinder the "free exercise" of others.

If the religion of "Person A" says "you must adorn one wall of every dwelling you take shelter in, no matter how long or short your time there, with a permanent sigil of our faith"... do you get to put permanent decorations on the walls of places you visit? No. You don't. Your rights don't supersede the rights of others. 

The problem comes with the considerable confusion on the left between rights, and demands.  There's no right to a cake- for any purpose. As I've said, any business owner has an absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason- or no reason at all.  There's no right to demand a cake. There's no legitimate government use of violence- the threat of confiscation of property, and/or arrest and incarceration for refusing to bake a cake.  Period. This is one of those black and white issues. Those that disagree with me are simply wrong.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2016 0:20:10 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Jan 2, 2016 18:52:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

No one is letting the "free exercise" clause go... they are just making sure one group doesn't hinder the "free exercise" of others.

If the religion of "Person A" says "you must adorn one wall of every dwelling you take shelter in, no matter how long or short your time there, with a permanent sigil of our faith"... do you get to put permanent decorations on the walls of places you visit? No. You don't. Your rights don't supersede the rights of others. 

The problem comes with the considerable confusion on the left between rights, and demands.  There's no right to a cake- for any purpose. As I've said, any business owner has an absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason- or no reason at all.  There's no right to demand a cake. There's no legitimate government use of violence- the threat of confiscation of property, and/or arrest and incarceration for refusing to bake a cake.  Period. This is one of those black and white issues. Those that disagree with me are simply wrong.

if you have immense power and privilege, the only demand you have is to preserve it.  but it is always good PR to call it a "right". 

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

The Bible says we are to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves.  In this situation, I would make certain that every single wedding cake my bakery produced, without exception, contained the verses, "At the beginning He made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

There would be no exceptions. If you ordered a wedding cake from my bakery, you get the verse. You can customize anything but the verses from the Bible. If you still want the cake from us to celebrate the marriage of Steve, Steve, and their horse- great. Here you go.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 5, 2016 0:25:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The Bible says we are to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves.  In this situation, I would make certain that every single wedding cake my bakery produced, without exception, contained the verses, "At the beginning He made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

There would be no exceptions. If you ordered a wedding cake from my bakery, you get the verse. You can customize anything but the verses from the Bible. If you still want the cake from us to celebrate the marriage of Steve, Steve, and their horse- great. Here you go.

and i would fight to the death the right for you to make that cake.

have at it.

edit: there is nothing in that passage that says anything against gay marriage.  it is a stretch to have it cover lesbians, however.