Several states are legislating to discriminate (rating, Kansas, percent, first amendment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doesn't matter. They can still cut a white person's hair IF THEY CHOSE TO. Just like a religious bakery can CHOOSE to bake a cake for someone whose views and lifestyle do not mesh with their religious views. You are forcing the bakery to either give up their business or their religious views instead of asking the person wanting the cake to just find someone who is willing to bake it.
Actually they could, but it would probably be a very bad hair cut. Many hair dressers specialize in specific areas. I am a colorist, I had specialized training in color. I could cut your hair, but it would be a very bad cut, since I only studied cutting for a short time. Ethnic hair is different than Caucasian hair, and the methods used to cut one doesn't necessarily apply to the other. Baking a cake is baking a cake. The same recipe is used no matter the race, religion, or sexual orientation of the person purchasing a cake.
Kansas legislators Tuesday approved new legal protections for bakeries, photographers and others who refuse for religious reasons to supply goods or services for same-sex ceremonies, anticipating that federal courts could soon strike down the state’s ban on such unions.
Under the bill, no individual, business or religious group with “sincerely held religious beliefs” could be required by “any governmental entity” to provide services, facilities, goods, employment or employment benefits related to any same-sex marriage or domestic partnership.
Bills filed in the South Dakota and Kansas legislatures seek to protect clergy, church officials and businesspeople who refuse to provide services for same-sex marriages or receptions because of their religious beliefs.
The bills would prevent clergy or businesses from being forced to perform or supply goods or services to anything related to same-sex marriages. It could allow a business to refuse to host a reception for a same-sex couple legally married in another state.
The bills also say clergy and businesses could not be sued or charged with crimes if they refused to take part in gay marriages.
This is right, and proper. No one should be forced by government to violate their religious beliefs. This is a First Amendment Issue as well as a 13th Amendment issue, which deals with involuntary servitude.
The government cannot force a business or individual to perform a personal service, involuntarily, which requires them to violate their religious beliefs. Likewise a church, which would normally provide wedding services to it's members, at times and places chosen by the couple, and which are usually unique for each couple, would be involuntarily pressed into involuntary servitude.
Is a religious belief not enough to follow your own conscience? Its a free world.. I support gay rights but those rights STOP when it interferes with another person's rights... For instance, you have a right to throw your fists into the air but those rights STOP when it touches another person's face..
Why can't religious people just learn to keep their beliefs to themselves and learn to live with others not like them.
That isn't the point. It would be blasphemous for them to do this voluntarily, let alone be forced by government to perform such service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
Churches and religion already have protections granted by the government. But businesses deal with all people, not just religious people and they too need to keep their beliefs to themselves if they want to deal with the public and follow laws preventing undue discrimination. Having a belief does not mean one can use it to deny people service. One religion does not mean they can negate others rights for theirs. Religion is a choice, being gay is not.
This is right, and proper. No one should be forced by government to violate their religious beliefs. This is a First Amendment Issue as well as a 13th Amendment issue, which deals with involuntary servitude.
The government cannot force a business or individual to perform a personal service, involuntarily, which requires them to violate their religious beliefs. Likewise a church, which would normally provide wedding services to it's members, at times and places chosen by the couple, and which are usually unique for each couple, would be involuntarily pressed into involuntary servitude.
Churches are already protected by the 1st amendment.
Businesses are not churches. Baking cakes is not a religious activity. Making flower arrangements is not a religious activity. Taking pictures is not a religious activity.
If businesses are allowed to claim religion to violate laws, then anyone should be allowed to claim "religious belief" to break any law they choose. My religion says that speed limits are evil and traffic lights are from satan. Can I violate those laws? If my religion says that Jews are evil can I deny them service in my business?
People have used the bible to promote discrimination based on race, should they be allowed to do so legally? Some religions find women to be sub-human, should they be allowed to discriminate based on gender?
When has the government forced anyone to open a bakery? The business owner CHOSE to open a bakery, if baking cakes was against his religion maybe he should not have opened a bakery. By choosing to open a business they have to follow the laws of the state they are doing business in. Some states have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. If they can not follow the same laws as every other business owner, they should not have opened a business.
By choosing to open a business they have to follow the laws of the state they are doing business in. Some states have anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. If they can not follow the same laws as every other business owner, they should not have opened a business.
I guess Rosa Parks should have sat in the back of the bus.
Having specified sections of public transportation based on race is discrimination.
She violated either municipal or state law. If she wanted to ride in the front of the bus she should have lived in another city or state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
