• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

If it is for the direct benefit of someone else.

So if you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding that doesn't want your cake, it's no longer servitude?
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

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.

There is no such thing as a compelling state interest. The state does not have interests of its own and these so called interests are not protected by the constitution. In fact, they are not even mentioned.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

So if you're forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding that doesn't want your cake, it's no longer servitude?

What? If I'm forced to make a cake for your benefit I'm an involuntary servant.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

More, from a rude pundit on that case, and the Scalia majority ruling (which has a direct line to today's RFRA's):

<snip>
"And that's because it was designed to undo the ****ery of the Supreme Court in a couple of cases, most specifically the 1990 decision in Employment Division v Smith. In the 6-3 majority's decision, the Court held that the state of Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to two drug counselors who had been fired because they had taken peyote as part of a Native American religious ceremony.

The Court especially had issue with the idea that the state might not have a "compelling interest" in using drug laws against the two men. Said the Court, "If the 'compelling interest' test is to be applied at all, then, it must be applied across the board, to all actions thought to be religiously commanded.

Moreover, if 'compelling interest' really means what it says (and watering it down here would subvert its rigor in the other fields where it is applied), many laws will not meet the test.

Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society's diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them. Precisely because 'we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference'...

and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind."


The decision goes on to list these obligations, like "compulsory military service," "health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws" even minimum wage laws. In some ways, the decision makes a great deal of sense. It's just in the case of the Smith defendants, the overreach is kind of stunning.

By the way, you know who wrote this decision that smacked down religion as a reason to violate laws? Antonin Scalia."

The Rude Pundit: History Lesson for Assholes: Bill Clinton Is Not Your Religious "Freedom" Tool

The court defending itself with an argument that has no constitutional basis is pretty pathetic. So can any of these judges tell me where the constitution mentions the existence of a compelling state interest? No, because they made it up.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

This is what real involuntary servitude looks like:





Letting Tony and Lakeisha eat hamburgers in your roadway diner to eat as every other law abiding customer -- [X] Not
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

This is what real involuntary servitude looks like:





Letting Tony and Lakeisha eat hamburgers in your roadway diner to eat as every other law abiding customer -- [X] Not

If I'm forced to serve someone I am very much their involuntary servant.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

What? If I'm forced to make a cake for your benefit I'm an involuntary servant.

First.. lets call a spade a spade. Involuntary servitude is slavery.
Involuntary servitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, your definition of slavery is being forced to do something you don't want to do, which benefits someone else.

Things that are slavery:
Caring for your children.
Being a child.
Going to school.
Following traffic laws.
Meeting contractual obligations.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

First.. lets call a spade a spade. Involuntary servitude is slavery.
Involuntary servitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, your definition of slavery is being forced to do something you don't want to do, which benefits someone else.

Things that are slavery:
Caring for your children.
Being a child.
Going to school.
Following traffic laws.
Meeting contractual obligations.

That idiocy was tried in the landmark case Heart of Atlanta Motel v US -- where the hotel owner claimed renting rooms to blacks put him in a position of involuntary servitude - violating his Thirteenth Amendment rights. Ha!

The Justices didn't buy it, and ruled 9-0.

One of a number of cases the CRA was found to be Constitutional.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

That idiocy was tried in the landmark case Heart of Atlanta Motel v US -- where the hotel owner claimed renting rooms to blacks put him in a position of involuntary servitude - violating his Thirteenth Amendment rights. Ha!

The Justices didn't buy it, and ruled 9-0.
One of a number of cases the CRA was found to be Constitutional.

So nine idiots couldn't bring themselves to admit the law is involuntary servitude. So what?
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

First.. lets call a spade a spade. Involuntary servitude is slavery.
Involuntary servitude - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, your definition of slavery is being forced to do something you don't want to do, which benefits someone else.

Things that are slavery:
Caring for your children.
Being a child.
Going to school.
Following traffic laws.
Meeting contractual obligations.

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.

Forcing someone to make a cake for someone else is involuntary servitude even according to your link.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

So nine idiots couldn't bring themselves to admit the law is involuntary servitude. So what?

SCOTUS has ruled numerous times to uphold the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Acts.

They are the ones this country decided - long, long, ago, who determine the Constitutionality of laws when they are challenged in court.

Why do you hate the way our Republic is set up?
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

SCOTUS has ruled numerous times to uphold the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Acts.

They are the ones this country decided - long, long, ago, who determine the Constitutionality of laws when they are challenged in court.

Why do you hate the way our Republic is set up?

Because it has allowed the government to gift itself power that was never granted to it when its ruling document was created.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

lol.

And now we go back to a con kookily having an issue with the centuries old doctrine of Judicial Review.

:rolleyes:

What's next?

¡Viva la Revolución?
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

lol.

And now we go back to a con kookily having an issue with the centuries old doctrine of Judicial Review.

:rolleyes:

What's next?



¡Viva la Revolución?

Do you like courts having no checks placed on them? I don't.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

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?
Why d you think they were less worthy? How much did you donate to these causes?

Perhaps atheists and others don't realize how much they owe to Christian charity.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Because human sacrifice is a religious belief that has existed and could exist as a part of religion. It is extreme, but still an example of where the Constitution limits people's religion. Another would be in the consequences of actions (which I did mention and you ignored) for sins/wrongdoing in many religions, which include killing people for various offenses. And yes, those are in the Bible.

Actually, you are wrong, we do restrict people in the "free exercise" of some beliefs. If someone feels that the Bible compels them to kill homosexuals or witches (and they view practicing Wiccans or palm readers as witches) or that the Koran compels them to beat their disobedient wives or kill their promiscuous daughters or sisters, they are prevented from doing those things by our laws that are based on religious beliefs.

And here are the verses that support those people who might believe those things:

Exodus 22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Leviticus 20:13 - If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Heck, apparently President Obama's own grandmother believes that beating disobedient wives is okay. And this, although a relatively minor belief at least here in the US, is still a belief in many different religions, including some fundamentalist Christian sects.

My respond to the so called "Wife Beating is allowed at anytime" lie against Islam:

And while there are plenty of honor killings outside of Islam, and they are denounced by many Muslims, especially since they are not reportedly condone by the Koran, they are still seen by too many Muslims as a religious necessity to maintain family honor.

Your opening proposition that Christians committing 'human sacrifice' is IMHO now thoroughly debunked...The only way you can make your point seems to be in that there may or may not be some fringe groups somewhere, that at some point in history have been tied in some way to human sacrifice in NO WAY means that the State keeping its nose out of religion constitutionally is up for interpretation. Face it, you used a ridiculous, hyperbolic example, and it should draw nothing but dismissal and laughter....

This pizza joint, who doesn't do catering in the first place, and was set up to answer a stupid question, by a stupid reporter should indeed be protected in answering the way that they did, and you don't have to like it...But to compare protecting them to somehow condoning some centuries past practice by some pagan trash religion in no way responds to my question, so just admit it...You can't...Islam is the closest thing to any mainstream religion that today kills as a result of what their holy book tells them to do, and as such I think diminishes their standing as a religion.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

SCOTUS has ruled numerous times to uphold the Constitutionality of the Civil Rights Acts.

They are the ones this country decided - long, long, ago, who determine the Constitutionality of laws when they are challenged in court.

Why do you hate the way our Republic is set up?

SCOTUS is not a legislative body....At least not how it was set up.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Do you like courts having no checks placed on them? I don't.

They do have checks. Have the legislature write Constitutionally sound laws. Get up movement to amend the Constitution.

Deal with the fact we've had Judicial Review since even before our Founding.

Who else do you presume is the arbiter of the Constitutionality of laws?

<I should remember who I'm talking to when I ask this question...>
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

SCOTUS is not a legislative body....At least not how it was set up.

No, they are the Judicial branch.

They decide the Constitutionality of laws, and rule on cases and controversies brought to them through the Court system.

Too bad you don't like it.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

God hates cakes.

The moral of the story is you can't have your gay and eat it too.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Your opening proposition that Christians committing 'human sacrifice' is IMHO now thoroughly debunked...The only way you can make your point seems to be in that there may or may not be some fringe groups somewhere, that at some point in history have been tied in some way to human sacrifice in NO WAY means that the State keeping its nose out of religion constitutionally is up for interpretation. Face it, you used a ridiculous, hyperbolic example, and it should draw nothing but dismissal and laughter....

This pizza joint, who doesn't do catering in the first place, and was set up to answer a stupid question, by a stupid reporter should indeed be protected in answering the way that they did, and you don't have to like it...But to compare protecting them to somehow condoning some centuries past practice by some pagan trash religion in no way responds to my question, so just admit it...You can't...Islam is the closest thing to any mainstream religion that today kills as a result of what their holy book tells them to do, and as such I think diminishes their standing as a religion.

Except I never said "Christians commit human sacrifice". That is some weird strawman you made up.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

You knew it was coming........;)

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

Well that was pretty stupid.

Not content with his latest cake idiocy, Crowder Godwins it.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

Except I never said "Christians commit human sacrifice". That is some weird strawman you made up.

See, that's the problem, is that you won't name what religions you are talking about, along with recent examples of their attempts at human sacrifice as I asked...You only come back with vague references to either religions centuries past, or some reference to witches and warlocks, as if that meets the parameters of "main stream religion" in the United States....Face it, you have NOTHING.
 
Re: Indiana's 'No Gay Wedding' Pizzeria Has Closed

No, they are the Judicial branch.

They decide the Constitutionality of laws, and rule on cases and controversies brought to them through the Court system.

Too bad you don't like it.

"Don't like it"? That's YOU saying that, not me....However, I suspect you would be among the first to dislike things from SCOTUS when they decide against your world view...Like say Citizens United....;)

There are many problems with SCOTUS today. Everything from deciding cases on precedent, to some of the Justices openly admitting that they look to other countries decisions to decide what should happen in rulings. Not to mention the nature of lifetime appointments.

So, it's not that I don't like how the system was set up my friend, it's that over time progressives like yourself have cheered the corruption of the system.
 
Back
Top Bottom