Page 200 of 214 FirstFirst ... 100150190198199200201202210 ... LastLast
Results 1,991 to 2,000 of 2133

Thread: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed[W:1581]

  1. #1991
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,965

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    As the Hobby Lobby case shows, religious freedom is far from being completely negated. It's not the case that religion can never be a valid reason to be granted exceptions to laws. Moreover, they are talking about laws that have no intent to restrict or promote religious expression, that have good reasons for existing aside from that. Laws that restrict religious expression qua religious expression are unconstitutional.

    These judges argue that since America is so religiously diverse that religion can never be a consideration. That's a bit too cynical and too unconsititional. It's the court's job to weigh these competing rights. They are not at liberty to just negate a right across the board because they think it too hard to consider it.
    One thing the Hobby Lobby ruling doesn't do - is allow RFRA's to be used to as a cudgel to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

    "But on Monday morning, the apocalypse didn’t come. In fact, quite the opposite: In its ruling for Hobby Lobby, the court—in an opinion authored by arch-conservative Justice Samuel Alito—explicitly stated that RFRA could not be used as a “shield” to “cloak … discrimination in hiring” as a “religious practice to escape legal sanction.” RFRA doesn’t permit employers to break a law when there is a compelling government interest backing that regulation, and, according to Alito, the government “has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.”

    Alito cites racial discrimination in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence, cabins the court’s ruling even further, making clear that the majority isn’t rewriting RFRA (or the First Amendment) to protect anti-gay discrimination.

    Kennedy denies that the opinion is a startling “breadth and sweep,” noting that this case could easily be “distinguish[ed] ... from many others in which it is more difficult” to strike a balance between legal regulations and “an alleged statutory right of free exercise.”

    While religious liberty may permit employers to exercise their own beliefs to a point, “neither may that same exercise unduly restrict … employees in protecting their own interests.” Translation: This case is about birth control and nothing more—and as a general rule, employees still have a compelling interest in most laws that protect their rights."

    The Hobby Lobby ruling is good for gays and doesn't allow discrimination.

    The linked article further goes on to discuss how the majority in that decision took on Ginsburg's direct question of whether religious liberty allowed anti-gay discrimination (& not just in employment): “Would RFRA require exemptions in cases of this ilk?” she asks. “And if not, how does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation, and which are not?”

  2. #1992
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    The pizza place far beat out cancer patients and Boston Marathon bombing victims. Yay religion!
    Christians, and others, supported the rights of the persecuted Pizza business owner while the leftist Rolling Stone put the Boston Marathon bomber on the cover of their magazine.

  3. #1993
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-26-17 @ 08:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    17,480

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Christians, and others, supported the rights of the persecuted Pizza business owner while the leftist Rolling Stone put the Boston Marathon bomber on the cover of their magazine.
    Yup Rolling Stone is horrible. But it is also terribly unfortunate that so many other causes on Gofundme have received nowhere near the support the pizza place did. Why are cancer patients and Boston Marathon victims less worthy of financial support than the pizza place?

  4. #1994
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    05-24-17 @ 02:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,919
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    ...

    While I personally do not believe religious folk should be forced to provide services that may contradict their religious beliefs I think your emotional hyperbole is probably not going to help advance that case. But it does make me happy to see people citing religious liberty as their motivation because in the long run that is going to lead to greater tolerance for everyone because freedom of conscience flows both ways.
    I don't believe it's hyperbole to say that if the state forces servitude on people against their beliefs in such a trivial matter as baking a cake then there is very little the state won't force on citizens.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  5. #1995
    Curmudgeon


    LowDown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    05-24-17 @ 02:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,919
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    One thing the Hobby Lobby ruling doesn't do - is allow RFRA's to be used to as a cudgel to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

    "But on Monday morning, the apocalypse didn’t come. In fact, quite the opposite: In its ruling for Hobby Lobby, the court—in an opinion authored by arch-conservative Justice Samuel Alito—explicitly stated that RFRA could not be used as a “shield” to “cloak … discrimination in hiring” as a “religious practice to escape legal sanction.” RFRA doesn’t permit employers to break a law when there is a compelling government interest backing that regulation, and, according to Alito, the government “has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce.”

    Alito cites racial discrimination in his opinion. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence, cabins the court’s ruling even further, making clear that the majority isn’t rewriting RFRA (or the First Amendment) to protect anti-gay discrimination.

    Kennedy denies that the opinion is a startling “breadth and sweep,” noting that this case could easily be “distinguish[ed] ... from many others in which it is more difficult” to strike a balance between legal regulations and “an alleged statutory right of free exercise.”

    While religious liberty may permit employers to exercise their own beliefs to a point, “neither may that same exercise unduly restrict … employees in protecting their own interests.” Translation: This case is about birth control and nothing more—and as a general rule, employees still have a compelling interest in most laws that protect their rights."

    The Hobby Lobby ruling is good for gays and doesn't allow discrimination.

    The linked article further goes on to discuss how the majority in that decision took on Ginsburg's direct question of whether religious liberty allowed anti-gay discrimination (& not just in employment): “Would RFRA require exemptions in cases of this ilk?” she asks. “And if not, how does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation, and which are not?”
    The other side of the coin is that there must be a compelling state interest before religious freedoms can be abridged. Negation of religious freedom is not a given.

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --HL Mencken

  6. #1996
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,965

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by LowDown View Post
    I don't believe it's hyperbole to say that if the state forces servitude on people against their beliefs in such a trivial matter as baking a cake then there is very little the state won't force on citizens.
    Was the gov't forcing "servitude" when it said the Atlanta hotel had to admit black guests?

    Was it forcing "servitude" when it told the owner of Piggie Park restaurants - even though he religiously believed blacks should not be integrated, so therefore they could not eat at his diners?

  7. #1997
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    05-25-17 @ 02:43 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,578

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    There are at least two Supreme Court decisions, Hurley and Dale, that prove your assertions are false. Both involved state public accommodations laws which prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. And in both cases, the Court held the law as applied was unconstitutional because it violated a First Amendment right of the public accommodation involved. State public accommodations laws often extend to many things besides hotels, restaurants, and movie theaters, and extending them so far is one reason they tend to conflict with First Amendment freedoms. Where the public accommodation is mainly commercial, a duty to serve is most likely to exist, but there is no bright line between commercial association and expressive association. Justice O'Connor discussed this at length in her concurring opinion in another state public accommodations law case, Roberts v. Jaycees.

    The Coeur d'Alene ordinance is another example of a law that attempted to force the very kind of service you claim "no law has ever forced." It threatened the Christian owners of a for-profit wedding chapel with fines and jail time because they declined to let their business be used for same-sex weddings. The town backed down only when the owners filed a suit in federal court. The Supreme Court has made clear in West Virginia Board of Educ. v. Barnette and later in Wooley v. Maynard that laws which compel people to endorse, propound, or celebrate views they do not agree with violate the freedom of speech.
    The cases in question are Boy Scouts of America v Dale (2000) or Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995).
    Boy Scouts of America v. Dale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Both due with with a private organizations right to exclude members when the presence of that member negatively impacts the ability of the group to publicly or privately express their beliefs. The boyscout successfully argued that the organizing principle of their organization was to instil values in young people, among them that homosexuality was wrong.

    In both cases we're dealing with private groups being forced to be inclusive in a way that negates the purpose of their existence. This is akin to the KKK being forced to accept black members. Were that the case the KKK would no longer be an anti-black group. Their freedom of speech would have been impinged.

    The bakery is a public for profit business, not a private non-profit group. Thus it fails one leg of the test. Second, anti-wedding-cakes at gay weddings is not a reasonable organizing principle for a business. "I want to start a business to further the view that wedding cakes at gay weddings are wrong" Ridiculous! So it also fails the second part of the test.

    What exactly were you trying to get at by referencing these unrelated cases?

  8. #1998
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    58,340

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    Was the gov't forcing "servitude" when it said the Atlanta hotel had to admit black guests?

    Was it forcing "servitude" when it told the owner of Piggie Park restaurants - even though he religiously believed blacks should not be integrated, so therefore they could not eat at his diners?
    Yes...

  9. #1999
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    05-25-17 @ 02:43 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,578

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Yes...
    So servitude is being forced to do anything you don't want to do?

  10. #2000
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    58,340

    Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    So servitude is being forced to do anything you don't want to do?
    If it is for the direct benefit of someone else.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •