They Are Going After The Churches:

[Sparko]

Sure but only if you capitalize the first letter of your sentences.

003-initial-letter-o-q75-200x200.jpg nly because you asked nicely.

[Cow Poke]

Nonsense.



You're more biased than I am.

Whatever you say, junior.

[seer]

If we allow everyone with a business to discriminate at will, we will effectively have a society where people are not treated equal under the law. This was widespread in the US several decades ago. You're an old-timer, so you know this of course. That's why businesses that serve the general public have to abide by certain rules about discrimination. Does that violate the beliefs of avowed racists and sexists? You bet it does. You don't have to like black people, but if you're working at a business that serves the general public, you have to provide all people equal treatment. I have no problem with that. That's not unconstitutional. As Jefferson or Locke said (can't remember), your right to swing your arms in the air stops at my nose.

See that is exactly what I mean "if we allow." And it would not violate equal treatment under the law as long as the government does not discriminate. Yes freedom can be messy, but what is worse is exactly what is happening. And I'm not swinging my arms, I'm just associating with whom I please in both business and private life. And believe me Jefferson would be on my side.

If you use a church facility for non-church related activity open to the general public, you give up the right to impose your discriminatory practices. Just imagine if a church threw a non-church related event on its grounds and said "No niggers allowed. Period." That prevents a black person from being treated equally under the law.

That is just stupid, it has nothing to do with the law! This is why liberals like you are totalitarian in thought, word and deed. You have no problem forcing your beliefs on the rest of us.

[The Thinker]

See that is exactly what I mean "if we allow." And it would not violate equal treatment under the law as long as the government does not discriminate. Yes freedom can be messy, but what is worse is exactly what is happening. And I'm not swinging my arms, I'm just associating with whom I please in both business and private life. And believe me Jefferson would be on my side.

So you agree that Kim Davis, a government worker, had to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples? You'd have to in order to be consistent with what you just said.

And no "freedom" is not worse than millions of people getting discriminated against. You don't have to like black people, you can hate them all you want. You can not hang out with them or date them or invite them into your home all you want. If you have a private club you can disallow them. You can say and write racist things if you want in your personal life. But if you work for a business or own a business that serves the general public, you cannot discriminate against them just like I cannot discriminate against religious people when I'm at my job. I actually have to help religious organizations sometimes on my job. That's against my principles. Do I protest like a whiny little girl about it? No! I do my job because that's what I got hired to do. We all have to sometimes do things against our conscience. That's part of life. Grow up. You want to live in a world like this:

12002903_877086882383377_7746757089249814619_n-1.jpg

That is just stupid, it has nothing to do with the law! This is why liberals like you are totalitarian in thought, word and deed. You have no problem forcing your beliefs on the rest of us.

And to think, for a while I thought you were one of the smart ones on this site. It looks like I might be wrong. First of all, don't try to imply only liberals want to prevent businesses from putting signs in front that say "No niggers allowed." Many independents and conservatives agree with that too. The law is very simple, if you don't want to abide by non-discriminatory laws, then don't provide non-religious services to the general public. Very simple. Stop crying like a little baby pretending that we're taking away your right to be a religious bigot in all areas. You have that right.

[NorrinRadd]

So you agree that Kim Davis, a government worker, had to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples? You'd have to in order to be consistent with what you just said.

No. She is an individual person. Da gubmint has no right to impose its neutrality on her as a condition for her holding gubmint employment. Pragmatically speaking, godless jurists have abridged this freedom by holding that da gubmint must only make "reasonable accommodations" for people of strong religious convictions.

And no "freedom" is not worse than millions of people getting discriminated against. You don't have to like black people, you can hate them all you want. You can not hang out with them or date them or invite them into your home all you want. If you have a private club you can disallow them. You can say and write racist things if you want in your personal life. But if you work for a business or own a business that serves the general public, you cannot discriminate against them just like I cannot discriminate against religious people when I'm at my job. I actually have to help religious organizations sometimes on my job. That's against my principles. Do I protest like a whiny little girl about it? No! I do my job because that's what I got hired to do. We all have to sometimes do things against our conscience. That's part of life. Grow up. You want to live in a world like this:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17246[/ATTACH]

I wouldn't "like" that, but I do believe things *should* be more like that. I favor freedom above convenience (and above security, for that matter).

[Mountain Man]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]17246[/ATTACH]

The irony of this is that Muslims actually have refused to carry out certain duties as part of their job because it goes against their beliefs, such as refusing to deliver alcohol as a truck driver and then winning a generous wrongful termination suit when they were fired.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...sport-alcohol/

[rogue06]

The irony of this is that Muslims actually have refused to carry out certain duties as part of their job because it goes against their beliefs, such as refusing to deliver alcohol as a truck driver and then winning a generous wrongful termination suit when they were fired.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...sport-alcohol/

In Minnesota Somali cab drivers were refusing to pick up customers with dogs -- including service dogs -- because they consider them unclean. I believe they lost that one.

[Tassman]

No. She is an individual person. Da gubmint has no right to impose its neutrality on her as a condition for her holding gubmint employment. Pragmatically speaking, godless jurists have abridged this freedom by holding that da gubmint must only make "reasonable accommodations" for people of strong religious convictions.


I wouldn't "like" that, but I do believe things *should* be more like that. I favor freedom above convenience (and above security, for that matter).

The government has the right to legislate against discrimination.

At my local supermarket the Muslim check-out girl, in her hijab, seems to have no problem checking out my bottle of whisky as well as the usual packets of ham and bacon etc...along with the rest of my weekly supplies. If she refused on religious grounds, she would be fired...and so she should be. The same applies to the likes of Kim Davis, who seek to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else...or any other form of discrimination.

[NorrinRadd]

The government has the right to legislate against discrimination.

That's a pretend right, not a Constitutionally legitimate one.

At my local supermarket the Muslim check-out girl, in her hijab, seems to have no problem checking out my bottle of whisky as well as the usual packets of ham and bacon etc...along with the rest of my weekly supplies. If she refused on religious grounds, she would be fired...and so she should be. The same applies to the likes of Kim Davis, who seek to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else...or any other form of discrimination.

Apples and toboggans. The supermarket is a private business and indeed has -- or SHOULD have -- the right to fire anyone for any reason. Kim Davis works for da gubmint. Since it is expressly forbidden for da gubmint to either establish a religion or interfere with the free exercise of religion, and to impose any religious test as a condition for serving, it cannot legitimately require that Ms Davis, as part of her job, perform duties incompatible with her convictions.

And BTW, only a jackass would claim that her refusal to participate equates to her "imposing" her views on others. She did not try to force anyone to obey her beliefs. She did not try to prevent those people from obtaining the license elsewhere. All that state needs to do is have an alternative path for those relatively few cases where Ms Davis can't serve.

[Psychic Missile]

Apples and toboggans. The supermarket is a private business and indeed has -- or SHOULD have -- the right to fire anyone for any reason. Kim Davis works for da gubmint. Since it is expressly forbidden for da gubmint to either establish a religion or interfere with the free exercise of religion, and to impose any religious test as a condition for serving, it cannot legitimately require that Ms Davis, as part of her job, perform duties incompatible with her convictions.

And BTW, only a jackass would claim that her refusal to participate equates to her "imposing" her views on others. She did not try to force anyone to obey her beliefs. She did not try to prevent those people from obtaining the license elsewhere. All that state needs to do is have an alternative path for those relatively few cases where Ms Davis can't serve.

Having to get a license elsewhere is prevention. There's no guarantee that "elsewhere" is or isn't down the road, in the next county, out of state, or nonexistent. Theoretically, every single license issuer in the nation could have the same objection. Until or if someone can find an alternative, they are forced to follow her religious beliefs. Also, her free exercise interfered with the public's free exercise, even if momentarily, and I find it ridiculous that the free exercise of civil servants should trump that of the general public.

[NorrinRadd]

Having to get a license elsewhere is prevention. There's no guarantee that "elsewhere" is or isn't down the road, in the next county, out of state, or nonexistent. Theoretically, every single license issuer in the nation could have the same objection. Until or if someone can find an alternative, they are forced to follow her religious beliefs. Also, her free exercise interfered with the public's free exercise, even if momentarily, and I find it ridiculous that the free exercise of civil servants should trump that of the general public.

Why? Civil servants are still citizens. They have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to exercise their religion without interference from da gubmint. Why should her rights be subordinated to those of other citizens? In the case at hand, the onus is on da gubmint to create "reasonable accommodations" forthwith.

[Tassman]

That's a pretend right, not a Constitutionally legitimate one.

Apples and toboggans. The supermarket is a private business and indeed has -- or SHOULD have -- the right to fire anyone for any reason. Kim Davis works for da gubmint. Since it is expressly forbidden for da gubmint to either establish a religion or interfere with the free exercise of religion, and to impose any religious test as a condition for serving, it cannot legitimately require that Ms Davis, as part of her job, perform duties incompatible with her convictions.

And BTW, only a jackass would claim that her refusal to participate equates to her "imposing" her views on others. She did not try to force anyone to obey her beliefs. She did not try to prevent those people from obtaining the license elsewhere. All that state needs to do is have an alternative path for those relatively few cases where Ms Davis can't serve.

Ms Davis was indeed imposing her beliefs by denying equal service to all on the basis of these beliefs.

[seer]

So you agree that Kim Davis, a government worker, had to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples? You'd have to in order to be consistent with what you just said.

If someone else in her office could issue the licence then she should have the option to bow out, if not then she needs to do her job, or get another job.

And no "freedom" is not worse than millions of people getting discriminated against. You don't have to like black people, you can hate them all you want. You can not hang out with them or date them or invite them into your home all you want. If you have a private club you can disallow them. You can say and write racist things if you want in your personal life. But if you work for a business or own a business that serves the general public, you cannot discriminate against them just like I cannot discriminate against religious people when I'm at my job. I actually have to help religious organizations sometimes on my job. That's against my principles. Do I protest like a whiny little girl about it? No! I do my job because that's what I got hired to do. We all have to sometimes do things against our conscience. That's part of life. Grow up. You want to live in a world like this:

Then we completely disagree, freedom is paramount, never mind the fact there is no Constitutional grounding for this insidious power grab.

And to think, for a while I thought you were one of the smart ones on this site. It looks like I might be wrong. First of all, don't try to imply only liberals want to prevent businesses from putting signs in front that say "No niggers allowed." Many independents and conservatives agree with that too. The law is very simple, if you don't want to abide by non-discriminatory laws, then don't provide non-religious services to the general public. Very simple. Stop crying like a little baby pretending that we're taking away your right to be a religious bigot in all areas. You have that right.

One can understand, on an emotional level, anti-discrimination laws for African Americans but when you bring a Christian bakery to law for not wanting to participate in a Gay wedding, or fine a Church for not having transgender bathrooms or showers then that clearly violates religious conscience and just about every definition or concept of freedom as the Framers envisioned. Argue as you will Thinker - that is totalitarian in nature and practice.

[Jaecp]

Tass, you're coming at this from the wrong angle to Norin. Remember that, as an elected official, Kim Davis IS "The Gubmint" when she's acting in her official position

[Tassman]

Tass, you're coming at this from the wrong angle to Norin. Remember that, as an elected official, Kim Davis IS "The Gubmint" when she's acting in her official position