More Liberal Fascism?

[Psychic Missile]

Generally I don't think the government has any Constitutional right to tell a business who they have to serve or hire. Or a Home owner who they have to rent to etc... This is antithetical to the founding principle of freedom of association.

May I present a hypothetical? I'm curious about your response. Let's imagine your interpretation is correct and is seen as such by all government authorities. A specific town is made up of all white Americans. The majority of the town is overtly racist, and business owners decide to put up "no colored allowed" signs on their windows and recreate the segregation era amongst private businesses. Don't you think it's wrong for such a town to exist? How do you expect such a town to be remedied?

First, as far as the ACA, just look at the case with the Little Sisters of the Poor, or what is going on with the Catholic Church / Catholic Institutions and providing birth control. And no I'm not splitting hairs, that gay couple was not denied a wedding cake, they easily found a different baker. Like I said, they we mean - they just wanted to hurt this guy.

There's a big difference between having a non-profit comply with insurance law and dictating what a house of worship can or cannot endorse or condemn. That the couple was denied a cake at a business because of the way they were born is wrong. It makes sense that they would want a discriminatory business to comply with the law.

[lilpixieofterror]

If we are discussing an interpretation of the law where judges claim that churches not officiating gay weddings constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause, then precedent is important. If we are discussing a new law that violates the Constitution, then precedent is important. If your fear is that judges are going to radically alter how religious freedom and the equal protection clause have interacted ever since the country's founding, then either you don't know much about the members of the Supreme Court or you might as well consider all unConstitional rulings equally possible, since there is no evidence that this new interpretation is imminent. If we are discussing an amendment to the Constitution, then we can rest assured, because that's not going to happen any time soon.

I've evidently had trouble understanding your position, so if you feel I'm still in error or speaking to a straw man, then I ask that we return to my original statement that you responded to and you provide evidence that the concern that churches will be forced to officiate a wedding they disagree with is reasonable.

Whatever this has to do with anything I said...

[seer]

May I present a hypothetical? I'm curious about your response. Let's imagine your interpretation is correct and is seen as such by all government authorities. A specific town is made up of all white Americans. The majority of the town is overtly racist, and business owners decide to put up "no colored allowed" signs on their windows and recreate the segregation era amongst private businesses. Don't you think it's wrong for such a town to exist? How do you expect such a town to be remedied?

I personally would not live in such a town, I would live in and support a town that thought like I did. And remember even in the Jim Crow south the vast majority of business served blacks - and I would remedy it by moving or finding like minded people and setting up our own township. Because as noble as you may think these laws are, in the beginning, they have lead to totalitarian situation where a baker is punished for not making a cake for a gay wedding, or where a school district can't stop a male teacher from teaching dress like a woman.

There's a big difference between having a non-profit comply with insurance law and dictating what a house of worship can or cannot endorse or condemn. That the couple was denied a cake at a business because of the way they were born is wrong. It makes sense that they would want a discriminatory business to comply with the law.

First the Catholic Church does not see their institutions as separate from their Church. They are an organic whole. And forcing them by law to include birth control in their insurance policy is against their deeply help religious beliefs. So if the Government is willing to do that, it is only a short step to forcing Churches to perform Gay Marriages. And BTW Psychic the baker in question did not generally refuse or kick out gay customers, he just did not want to be a part of a homosexual marriage.

[Bill the Cat]

. And BTW Psychic the baker in question did not generally refuse or kick out gay customers, he just did not want to be a part of a homosexual marriage.

Exactly right here Seer. The homosexual individuals were not denied the right to purchase confections from the baker. They were not denied ALL services offered by the business ala Jim Crow era practices. They were denied ONE SPECIFIC TYPE of service the business offered because participating in it infringed on the religious beliefs of the baker.

[seer]

Exactly right here Seer. The homosexual individuals were not denied the right to purchase confections from the baker. They were not denied ALL services offered by the business ala Jim Crow era practices. They were denied ONE SPECIFIC TYPE of service the business offered because participating in it infringed on the religious beliefs of the baker.

Exactly, and this is why anti-discrimination laws, which were well meaning, are now being used as a tool to force conformity to an ideology. I see it as antithetical to just about every founding principle.

[Bill the Cat]

Another bit of hypocrisy from 2012:

Source:

[Executive director for Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, Raymond] Sexton said if a company based its decision on sexual orientation it would be violating the law, however, it would not be a violation if the refusal was over the message.

He said a gay printing company that was asked to print t-shirts from the Westboro Baptist Church, which is a militant anti-gay organization saying “Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God,” the gay group would have the right to refuse to print the order. “If the company does not approve of the message that is a valid non-discriminatory reason to refuse the work.”

He also said a black business owner would have the right to refuse to print a flyer for a Klan rally.

However, when asked if the same would apply to a company that said it did not support gay pride festivals, but would do a job for anyone including gays as long as the message was not contrary to its beliefs, Sexton was not as committed, simply saying “possibly.”

“This is a gray area, but possibly. I can’t say definitively, but it possibly could pass the test,” he said. “I would recommend they take the word ‘gay’ out of there and say they simply don’t approve of the message.”

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Another bit of hypocrisy from 2012:

Source:

[Executive director for Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, Raymond] Sexton said if a company based its decision on sexual orientation it would be violating the law, however, it would not be a violation if the refusal was over the message.

He said a gay printing company that was asked to print t-shirts from the Westboro Baptist Church, which is a militant anti-gay organization saying “Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God,” the gay group would have the right to refuse to print the order. “If the company does not approve of the message that is a valid non-discriminatory reason to refuse the work.”

He also said a black business owner would have the right to refuse to print a flyer for a Klan rally.

However, when asked if the same would apply to a company that said it did not support gay pride festivals, but would do a job for anyone including gays as long as the message was not contrary to its beliefs, Sexton was not as committed, simply saying “possibly.”

“This is a gray area, but possibly. I can’t say definitively, but it possibly could pass the test,” he said. “I would recommend they take the word ‘gay’ out of there and say they simply don’t approve of the message.”

© Copyright Original Source

It is not a bit of hypocrisy, it is the deep seated hypocrisy inherent to the modern liberal movement.

[Jedidiah]

It is not a bit of hypocrisy, it is the deep seated hypocrisy inherent to the modern liberal movement.

Amen.

[Psychic Missile]

Whatever this has to do with anything I said...

I responded to you by quoting myself.

I personally would not live in such a town, I would live in and support a town that thought like I did. And remember even in the Jim Crow south the vast majority of business served blacks - and I would remedy it by moving or finding like minded people and setting up our own township. Because as noble as you may think these laws are, in the beginning, they have lead to totalitarian situation where a baker is punished for not making a cake for a gay wedding, or where a school district can't stop a male teacher from teaching dress like a woman.

I don't think "if you don't like it, move" solves the problem. It doesn't help the people who can't or won't move for other reasons (just like you or I can't or won't move if current government policy disagrees with us). It also doesn't change the fact that a town in our country could work this way. I think less harm results from stopping discrimination than from forcing a business to take customers who belong to a minority they dislike. I never heard of this crossdressing teacher thing. Do you have a link?

First the Catholic Church does not see their institutions as separate from their Church. They are an organic whole. And forcing them by law to include birth control in their insurance policy is against their deeply help religious beliefs. So if the Government is willing to do that, it is only a short step to forcing Churches to perform Gay Marriages. And BTW Psychic the baker in question did not generally refuse or kick out gay customers, he just did not want to be a part of a homosexual marriage.

These organizations the law is being applied to are legally separate from the Catholic Church. A person can believe whatever they choose. That doesn't mean they get to change the law. I can imagine it's a short step from what you're saying to the encroachment of Sharia law neocons often talk about. The government is not telling the religion what it can or can't do as a church, it's telling an organization that it can't choose what type of insurance its employees have access to. I don't see it as a religious issue as much as an employment issue. If paid sick leave was mandated by the state, an organization can't say that this is against their religion so it doesn't apply. They are using their freedom of religion to argue that mandated employee benefits don't apply. You might as well go down the road of saying that paying taxes is against your religion.

Also, it doesn't matter to me that a business is discriminatory in one practice but not others. Businesses shouldn't be discriminatory.

[seer]

I don't think "if you don't like it, move" solves the problem. It doesn't help the people who can't or won't move for other reasons (just like you or I can't or won't move if current government policy disagrees with us). It also doesn't change the fact that a town in our country could work this way. I think less harm results from stopping discrimination than from forcing a business to take customers who belong to a minority they dislike. I never heard of this crossdressing teacher thing. Do you have a link?

http://moms.popsugar.com/Cross-dress...VIDEO-27332120

These organizations the law is being applied to are legally separate from the Catholic Church. A person can believe whatever they choose. That doesn't mean they get to change the law. I can imagine it's a short step from what you're saying to the encroachment of Sharia law neocons often talk about. The government is not telling the religion what it can or can't do as a church, it's telling an organization that it can't choose what type of insurance its employees have access to. I don't see it as a religious issue as much as an employment issue. If paid sick leave was mandated by the state, an organization can't say that this is against their religion so it doesn't apply. They are using their freedom of religion to argue that mandated employee benefits don't apply. You might as well go down the road of saying that paying taxes is against your religion.

I have no idea what you are saying. How are the Little Sisters of the Poor legally separated from the Catholic Church? Whether you like it, it is an encroachment on religious freedom. And paid leave would not violate long held religious beliefs.

[Psychic Missile]

http://moms.popsugar.com/Cross-dress...VIDEO-27332120

I can understand opposition because of potential unprofessionalism, but I also don't think any real harm can come from it.

I have no idea what you are saying. How are the Little Sisters of the Poor legally separated from the Catholic Church? Whether you like it, it is an encroachment on religious freedom. And paid leave would not violate long held religious beliefs.

Are they their own organization or are they legally indistinguishable from the Catholic Church? In the casework I see "Little Sisters of the Poor, Baltimore, Inc."

I looked into the case more and how it works is that an organization can choose not to supply contraception through their insurance if they meet certain criteria. If they make this decision, then the insurance agency finds a third party to provide contraception to employees who want it. The organization doesn't even have to tell its employees about this option. Under so-called church plans, the third party doesn't even have to provide contraception.

The complaint is that by asking for exemption, LSotP would be allowing a third party to provide contraception. The rulings against them were because 1. a third party providing contraception would not infringe upon their religious freedom, and 2. their third party doesn't have to provide contraception.

So not only does it appear to have been a non-issue, but it is not applicable to forcing churches to officiate weddings.

[seer]

I can understand opposition because of potential unprofessionalism, but I also don't think any real harm can come from it.

Thank you, you made my case. Many of us do not want cross dressers teaching our kids.

Are they their own organization or are they legally indistinguishable from the Catholic Church? In the casework I see "Little Sisters of the Poor, Baltimore, Inc."

I looked into the case more and how it works is that an organization can choose not to supply contraception through their insurance if they meet certain criteria. If they make this decision, then the insurance agency finds a third party to provide contraception to employees who want it. The organization doesn't even have to tell its employees about this option. Under so-called church plans, the third party doesn't even have to provide contraception.

The complaint is that by asking for exemption, LSotP would be allowing a third party to provide contraception. The rulings against them were because 1. a third party providing contraception would not infringe upon their religious freedom, and 2. their third party doesn't have to provide contraception.

So not only does it appear to have been a non-issue, but it is not applicable to forcing churches to officiate weddings.

But they are still paying for the insurance! And if it is so black and white why did the Supreme Court first grant an injunction then take the case?

[Psychic Missile]

Thank you, you made my case. Many of us do not want cross dressers teaching our kids.

Why do you not want that?

But they are still paying for the insurance! And if it is so black and white why did the Supreme Court first grant an injunction then take the case?

Their insurance wouldn't be paying for contraception. I don't know why the Supreme Court did that. I'm getting my info from here.

[seer]

Why do you not want that?

Because it is deviant behavior, a poor role modeling for children.

Their insurance wouldn't be paying for contraception. I don't know why the Supreme Court did that. I'm getting my info from here.

Well there has got to be some more to it.

[lilpixieofterror]

I responded to you by quoting myself.

Ok, if that is what you want to tell yourself...