Which comes first: Freedom of Religion or Civil Rights?

You realize that's what happened here, right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess the wedding cake store owner has to prove that it was acting biblically when it refused service to the lesbian couple. Where does it say in the bible that a merchant can refuse service to someone who is considered a sinner? Their actions might not be defensible, biblically speaking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no such thing as true religious convictions and false ones. It's not up to a court to investigate any sacred text.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It isn't legally relevant if they were acting "biblically." The law states you can't refuse someone service based on their sexual orientation. There are no exemptions for religious convictions.

 

Some states, not all of them. I don't think there is a federal law against it.

 

He was talking about this specific case, not in general. Oregon state law makes such discrimination illegal.

 

Yet you can't force a church to provide marriage service to a gay couple, because there are religious principals at play.

 

No, it's because it's a church.

 

And they cite their religious beliefs as justification. I don't see how this differs from a business owner who holds the same. Do the Boy Scouts still discriminate?

 

There are certain exemptions made to antidiscimination laws, one inherent one is that they don't apply to private people only organisations, so you can discriminate as much as you want about who YOU associate with. Religious organisations generally get exemptions as well, and in the US clubs do too which is how the scouts get around it, in Australia the scouts would have to make a case to the antidiscimation board as to why they NEEDED to discriminate and then either it would be ruled invalid or an exemption would be given. Anyway a bakery isn't a religious organisation, and its not a private club, it's a public business and so suck it up princess and make the dam order or go to jail. Your laws are way to weak as it is (ie the scouts) at least enforce the ones you DO have

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Since when can a state subvert the First Amendment? I hope they do take it to court.

 

irrelevant because this is not about them practicing there religion, its about them providing the service they advertise without discrimination

 

Not knowing the depth of their faith, I would be inclined to believe that their religion is reflected in their daily lives and actions, just like anybody who follows some code of conduct--religious or not. For anybody else, religion might not be the issue, but maybe it is for those involved. It might be the same as being told that you must discriminate. Certainly such a law would go against the moral grain of some people. I believe there is a legitimate argument for those people who hold to the principle of religious freedom and who practice it daily.

Religion isn't my game; however, I do believe that the First Amendment should stand. It didn't spell out any exceptions to the rule:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except when it is inconvenient for others.

 

So if my religious belief is that I should be allowed to torture and kill you thats ok because "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Thats what your saying, that religion trumps everything else and no one should have been charged over 11/9 because it was there religious beliefs that made them do it

 

Of course not--no more than I can yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, even though I have a right to free speech. If I decide to preach bigotry and hatred on the street, I have every right to do so, but you don't have to stand there and listen--no more than there is only one cake shop in town. Nobody died in this situation. The owner simply denied service based on their personal convictions. And, of course, another shop offered to provide the service.

 

I looked up the "marriage" in the Holy Bible.
http://www.holybible.com/search/sea...v&SearchPhrase=marriage&Book=&Chapter=&Verse=

I don't see any biblical justification for the store owner to refuse service to this gay couple. In the absence of a specific teaching to address this issue, the state is not infringing upon the religious rights of the store owner.

 

I think that most Christian folk view homosexuality as being evil. It is referenced in the bible:

http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm

I'm not an expert on theology, but I'm pretty sure the activity is condemned within many religious followings.

 

Irrelivent if there are other stores antidiscimination laws have nothing to do with freedom of religion firstly because bussiness don't have religions, if you offer a public service you offer that service to everyone. You can't ban blacks because "it's against my religion" and neither can you same sex couples

Get over your bigotry

 

We disagree. I hope they challenge the state law and pursue it in court. Just because a person owns a business doesn't mean they must abandon their religion.

 

Then you contradict yourself and agree there are natural, justified exemptions to certain freedoms. Just as you don't have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you don't have the right to deny service to someone (in Oregon, at least) based on their sexual orientation. (A better example would be you not having the right to publish a knowingly false, libelous article about someone even though the press is free in this country)

Apples and oranges. You're not allowed to deny service to someone based on their sexual orientation if you provide services to the public. If you operate a private club, then you can discriminate all you like, for whatever reason you like, but this is a bakery that serves the public, so there are certain standards they must abide by. One of those standards being "Don't refuse service based on sexual orientation."

Straw man. Anti-discrimination laws do not require that said discrimination leads to the death of the victim.

Which is illegal in this case, as their "personal convictions" (which is a nice way of hiding the term "bigotry") amounted to them denying service to a customer because of their sexual orientation.

Again, entirely irrelevant. Discrimination is not magically okay just because another provider stepped in and offered to make the product instead.