I'll bet they don't ask every customer their sexual orientation when they buy donuts either.Originally Posted by Deuce
I'll bet they don't ask every customer their sexual orientation when they buy donuts either.
The ACLU generally does NOT shop for causes. The way it works is that people file complaints with the ACLU. The only argument that you can make that the ACLU "Shops for causes" is that the ACLU does not respond to every complaint that they receive. It would be impossible. We had a board that would review the complaints once a month and we would decide how to respond to them and which ones we would take up. It generally was not based on any particular political view but rather which causes we believed had merit and that we could prevail on. Perhaps on a "national level" you may be correct, I am not sure. But on a state level at the ACLU we were not concerned about appellate courts, let alone the Supreme Court. We were primarily concerned with the state courts and whether we could prevail on behalf of the client.
I'm just saying you are using that word wrong. You can just as easily say that racists "conscientiously object" to being forced to support the mixing of the races, either in public accommodations or literally in reproduction or unions.
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
Nope. Bad analogy again because in this case, the seller never was willing to sell a "hunting knife to the black person". Your analogy would be more like saying the seller would sell the black guy a hunting knife, but not guns, because he only sells guns to white people. THAT is a more appropriate analogy.
The Indiana law goes beyond that. This is the reason why the outrage. Pence is a liar. He thought he could sign this into law and expand the ability of people to use religion to discriminate. He got caught...plain and simple.
Private schools.
The shooter was later found to be white.
No it can't. You keep trying to say it can, but it can't. I would love to see you show an example of how it can be used.
The law didn't have time to come into effect. The American people wouldn't stand for it.
Why does the law need to be changed then? If your side is telling the truth....there is no need for changes or any other kind of "clarification". Sorry...but use your head.
Nope, the objection is to the people involved in that event. They have no objection to the actual event by itself. They sell wedding cakes. In fact, the cake wasn't even being used at an actual wedding, but rather after the fact, in celebration of the union.
It depends on whether or not you provide those services to others but refuse to certain groups based on classifications of those people protected by the law.
For example, you cannot agree to provide a cake for a "pot legalization" party/rally for everyone except Mormons, because your beliefs go against contributing to other people breaking what you believe to be their religious tenets/restrictions. You couldn't agree to sell a cake for a Republican candidate to anyone except gay Republicans, at least not in places that include sexual orientation/sexuality as protected class. You can't refuse to provide services to a Planned Parenthood party/event, unless it included a certain percentage of black people.
The bakers all provided wedding cakes. They were refusing service based on the people involved in the event, not the actual event.
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote