nittygritty Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 So we're blaming the discriminated for being discriminates, and your questioning the existence of a protected class, the very existence of which was made necessary by your groups desire to discriminate against them. Okay... Religion is also a "protected class" under discrimination laws. Link to post Share on other sites
Keenly Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I believe no matter what the entire Constitution is being chipped away at via the Supremes. IMO same sex marriage is a moral issue and I believe it has opened the door to many perversions, with the exception of pornography which probably opened that door. A moral issue FOR YOU. It's not a moral issue for me and millions of other Americans and it certainly is not a legal issue. Link to post Share on other sites
Keenly Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Religion is also a "protected class" under discrimination laws. Which means I can't refuse service just because some one is Christian or Muslim or Jewish. It doesn't mean that you are protected from punishment when you discriminate. It doesn't give.you the Right to discriminate, it gives you the right to be free from being discriminated against. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Keenly Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Wow ... to disagree with is the same as to discriminate against- now your playing games. If you can provide a reason why we should remove anti-discrimination laws, ANY reason other than the intent to discriminate, please telL me. If a burglar wants breaking and entering to be made legal, one can only reasonably assume it's because he intends on breaking and entering. Anyone who disagrees with discrimination laws wants to discriminate, there is no other logical reason to disagree with such a law. Or do you believe that religion should be a protected class, but sexual orientation should not be? Link to post Share on other sites
Author Yamaha Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 Freedom of religious expression.......is a civil right by the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities. Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. What do you think of this change of meaning? You could think, "it's about time", for those who oppose Christians and their views. Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 So people.should be able to refuse service to black people, gay people, and women right? I can't imagine why anyone would want discrimination to.be legal, unless they intended to discriminate.. I believe you are way off here. This is not about race, this is about same sex unions. FTR, it was your chosen political party (whichever that one might be today), of which I need to be clear- liberal dems, that called for segregation to begin with. that is done and changed, the laws of segregation were abolished, so yes discrimination laws are outdated. I was recently passively 'discriminated' against. I don't normally trust 'vibes' per se, although these vibes were almost direct communication, so I watch them carefully. The business owners were Muslim and I could tell beyond any shadow of a doubt I was not welcome. IMO it's not a big deal and I won't go back, and in fact appreciate the hate they radiated because I hate being where I'm not welcome (this was kind of weird given they appeared to be recent imports, but it's their business)... and especially to spend money there... This last paragraph was not to communicate (because I have no doubt you will jump all over this) that Christians hate gays or don't want them around. The Christians I know could give a rats backside if your gay or not. Link to post Share on other sites
Keenly Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I'm definitely not part of the two party system. I'm more libertarian. So you got a vibe, and you think that's discrimination? We're you served? We're you refused service? We're you asked to leave? Link to post Share on other sites
nittygritty Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) Which means I can't refuse service just because some one is Christian or Muslim or Jewish. It doesn't mean that you are protected from punishment when you discriminate. It doesn't give.you the Right to discriminate, it gives you the right to be free from being discriminated against. I know that it means that you can't refuse to hire them or choose to fire them based on those reasons. But the Supreme Court's citation on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby or the ruling on Same Sex marriage does not clarify what privately owned businesses are required to do Whe the law conflicts with their religious beliefs. There are plastic surgeons that refuse to do sex change operations based on it violating their ethical and moral beliefs, are they in violation of discrimination laws? Edited July 11, 2015 by nittygritty 1 Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 A moral issue FOR YOU. It's not a moral issue for me and millions of other Americans and it certainly is not a legal issue. So what your saying here is my view is less relevant? No? I'm seeing this more and more with liberals. Link to post Share on other sites
Keenly Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I know that it means that you can't refuse to hire them or choose to fire them based on those reasons. But the Supreme Court's citation on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby or the ruling on Same Sex marriage does not clarify what privately owned businesses are required to do Whe the law conflicts with their religious beliefs. There are plastic surgeons that refuse to do sex change operations based on it violating their ethical and moral beliefs, are they in violation of discrimination laws? That's a different scenario, because he is refusing to do ALL sex change operations. It only becomes discrimination when you offer a service to one group, but deny the rest based on the protected classes. Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 This last paragraph was not to communicate (because I have no doubt you will jump all over this) that Christians hate gays or don't want them around. The Christians I know could give a rats backside if your gay or not. *you are* not *your* Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I know that it means that you can't refuse to hire them or choose to fire them based on those reasons. But the Supreme Court's citation on the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby or the ruling on Same Sex marriage does not clarify what privately owned businesses are required to do Whe the law conflicts with their religious beliefs. There are plastic surgeons that refuse to do sex change operations based on it violating their ethical and moral beliefs, are they in violation of discrimination laws? I know Atheists who (and they are not 'haters' BTW) believe same sex unions are wrong and like stated in bold will not preform such procedures. Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 That's a different scenario, because he is refusing to do ALL sex change operations. It only becomes discrimination when you offer a service to one group, but deny the rest based on the protected classes. No it isn't- surgical procedures are surgical procedures and cakes are cakes. Some differ, but it is still the same. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
nittygritty Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) That's a different scenario, because he is refusing to do ALL sex change operations. It only becomes discrimination when you offer a service to one group, but deny the rest based on the protected classes. Okay, so if someone with religious beliefs that oppose same sex marriage or homosexuality wants to buy a wedding cake from a bakery owned by a gay baker and wants "God doesn't support gay marriage" or "Homosexuality is a sin" on it, a gay owned bakery is required by law to make that cake??? Edited July 11, 2015 by nittygritty Link to post Share on other sites
johan Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I feel society disintegrating as we speak. Where is anyone ever going to get cake? All I want is f*cking cake. I want my hate message on my cake, and if I ask you to make it for me, you damn well better do it. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
Keenly Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Okay, so if someone with religious beliefs that oppose same sex marriage or homosexuality wants to buy a wedding cake from a bakery owned by a gay baker and wants "God doesn't support gay marriage" or "Homosexuality is a sin" on it, a gay owned bakery is required by law to make that cake??? again, you're changing the situation. The reason The cake issue was discrimination is because this bakery made wedding cakes for straight couple. You can't perform a service for one group and deny it to another. That's what they did. If this gay bakery was in the habit of making cakes.for gays saying religion is gay, we hate religion, religion sucks etc, then they would have to sell the cake that said homosexuality is a sin and god hates gays and all that other stuff to the religious folk. However, if they refused any cake that had any type of hate speech, or refused to.make any cake for any person that had ANY kind of negative.message, that would not be discrimination. Let's compare apples to apples. Anytime.you Offer any service to one group but not another, you are discriminating. If you don't a service because you don't perform.that service to ANY group, that's not discrimination. Link to post Share on other sites
nittygritty Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 again, you're changing the situation. The reason The cake issue was discrimination is because this bakery made wedding cakes for straight couple. You can't perform a service for one group and deny it to another. That's what they did. If this gay bakery was in the habit of making cakes.for gays saying religion is gay, we hate religion, religion sucks etc, then they would have to sell the cake that said homosexuality is a sin and god hates gays and all that other stuff to the religious folk. However, if they refused any cake that had any type of hate speech, or refused to.make any cake for any person that had ANY kind of negative.message, that would not be discrimination. Let's compare apples to apples. Anytime.you Offer any service to one group but not another, you are discriminating. If you don't a service because you don't perform.that service to ANY group, that's not discrimination. So if a plastic surgeon puts breast implants in women they are required to put them in men? Nope, That is not what the Constitution or these Supreme Court rulings mean. Link to post Share on other sites
UpwardForward Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I feel society disintegrating as we speak. Where is anyone ever going to get cake? All I want is f*cking cake. I want my hate message on my cake, and if I ask you to make it for me, you damn well better do it. Making a cake is more simple than you would think. Have at it. Link to post Share on other sites
Keenly Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 So if a plastic surgeon puts breast implants in women they are required to put them in men? Nope, That is not what the Constitution or these Supreme Court rulings mean. Didn't I say let's compare apples to apples? I think surgery on the human body is also a little different than baking a cake. You'd probably have to go to a specialist. But seriously... Apples to apples. Link to post Share on other sites
nittygritty Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 If you can provide a reason why we should remove anti-discrimination laws, ANY reason other than the intent to discriminate, please telL me. If a burglar wants breaking and entering to be made legal, one can only reasonably assume it's because he intends on breaking and entering. Anyone who disagrees with discrimination laws wants to discriminate, there is no other logical reason to disagree with such a law. Or do you believe that religion should be a protected class, but sexual orientation should not be? You are going to run out of businesses to patronize if you think that businesses aren't allowed any leeway as far as discrimination laws are concerned. How many businesses give senior discounts or discounts for kids? Aren't all of those businesses discriminating against customers based on age? Does Hooters have any gay male waiters working for them? The Supreme Courts ruling on same sex marriage applied to the government issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples and allowing them to receive government marriage benefits. It didn't change The First Amendment. Link to post Share on other sites
UpwardForward Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Didn't I say let's compare apples to apples? I think surgery on the human body is also a little different than baking a cake. You'd probably have to go to a specialist. But seriously... Apples to apples. It is apples to apples. People in occupations being forced to do something that they do not believe in. I've heard of nurses who were forced to take part in abortions, or loose their jobs. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
nittygritty Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 It is apples to apples. People in occupations being forced to do something that they do not believe in. I've heard of nurses who were forced to take part in abortions, or loose their jobs. There are ongoing lawsuits from pharmacists who were fired for refusing to sell Plan B to customers because of their religious beliefs about abortion. I agree, it is apples to apples when people in occupations are being forced to do something or support something that goes against their beliefs. I do think this Supreme Court ruling is a slippery slope that opens up all kinds of challenges. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Keenly Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I was just curious, how many more pages of circles you guys would like to go in? I have the time, but at this point I'm probably just going to start copy pasting the same answers that were given to the same questions that were asked a dozen pages ago. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Keenly Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 There are ongoing lawsuits from pharmacists who were fired for refusing to sell Plan B to customers because of their religious beliefs about abortion. I agree, it is apples to apples when people in occupations are being forced to do something or support something that goes against their beliefs. I do think this Supreme Court ruling is a slippery slope that opens up all kinds of challenges. The pharmacist's job is to dispense medication. The pharmacist has NO right to interfere with medications especially ones prescribed by a doctor. You are interfering with that patients right to their own medical treatment. A pharmacist has no right to refuse a medication to a person because they disagree with it. It's not their business to intervene in some other persons medical goings-on. If the pharmacist holds views that prevent them from doing their job, which is to dispense prescribed medication, they must resign. They don't get to apply their own religious beliefs to some one else's medication. THAT would be forcing your religion onto another person. You can't inject your religion into a third parties business. That is not exercising your religious freedom, that is forcing your religion onto other people. This isn't rocket surgery. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
nittygritty Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 The pharmacist's job is to dispense medication. The pharmacist has NO right to interfere with medications especially ones prescribed by a doctor. You are interfering with that patients right to their own medical treatment. A pharmacist has no right to refuse a medication to a person because they disagree with it. It's not their business to intervene in some other persons medical goings-on. If the pharmacist holds views that prevent them from doing their job, which is to dispense prescribed medication, they must resign. They don't get to apply their own religious beliefs to some one else's medication. THAT would be forcing your religion onto another person. You can't inject your religion into a third parties business. That is not exercising your religious freedom, that is forcing your religion onto other people. This isn't rocket surgery. Actually, judges have been ruling in favor of the pharmacists. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts