• 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!

Pending state religious freedom act a 'license to discriminate'

It absolutely is. To force someone to engage in an association in which he would not choose to engage is a violation of his freedom of association.

agood thing thats not happening, so now if you disagree we are waiting for the facts to prove your claim, your opinion and feeling on the matter. thanks
 
You've only continuing with this late to the party duplicate thread because your tactics are noticed in the original thread.
 
The Constitution is the highest law, and there is nothing in it that supports the idea that government can compel you to waive one right as a condition of being allowed to exercise another.

I guess you missed the part that said "association" does not mean serving the public. We all still have freedom of association. Don't invite your gay neighbors over for that bar-b-que. It's within your right. It's within his rights not to invite you, an old white guy, over to his shindig. Freedom of assocation.

Open a business to the "public," and you are no longer having a bar-b-que. You're not associating. You're doing business with the public. You, an individual, cannot define who is and who is not the public in our country.

It is the law of the land. We don't have monarchy and dictators. We have the law. If you don't like it, give a big campaign donationa and have the law changed, as Rand Paul wants to do.
 
Last edited:
It is the law of the land. We don't have monarchy and dictators. We have the law. If you don't like it, give a big campaign donationa and have the law changed, as Rand Paul wants to do.

you are correct, some people like to ignore the constitution though or only use it when it works for them
 
I don't think it's unreasonable panic or fear for people to take action to protect individual freedoms when there have been lawsuits and people punished for not providing services that went against their beliefs. In cases like the bakery that didn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding (and not because they were homosexuals) should be considered a violation of the baker's personal freedoms and rights. Don't want the state pushing the morals of the public at large upon everyone by denying homosexuals marriage certificates? It should go both ways in that homosexuals or any other group can't demand forced servitude from individuals or force people to do things to cater to them that goes against the individuals beliefs. I don't think it's it's absurd to take measures to protect individual rights when such rights have been attacked in other areas.

To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is 'compelling' - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.' To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."

Tough to argue with that.
 
The Constitution is the highest law, and there is nothing in it that supports the idea that government can compel you to waive one right as a condition of being allowed to exercise another.

I think logic takes care of that. If rights didn't have limits then there would be no rights. They'd cancel each other out.

Take the freedom of speech and personal property rights. If freedom of speech were absolute, then you'd be free to say anything you want including false things that damage someone else's property. If property rights were absolute then even true statements that damaged your property would be banned. Everything is a check and a balance.
 
I think logic takes care of that. If rights didn't have limits then there would be no rights. They'd cancel each other out.

Take the freedom of speech and personal property rights. If freedom of speech were absolute, then you'd be free to say anything you want including false things that damage someone else's property. If property rights were absolute then even true statements that damaged your property would be banned. Everything is a check and a balance.

There is nothing in the Constitution that supports any “right” to have someone be forced to do business with you who does not want to do business with you. Such a “right” would indeed be in direct conflict with freedom of association, which is strongly implied in the First Amendment, and in the cases under dispute, it is in conflict with freedom of religion, which is explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment.

I find no rational basis for arguing that phony made-up “rights” can ever legitimately trump genuine Constitutionally-affirmed rights.
 
1.)There is nothing in the Constitution that supports any “right” to have someone be forced to do business with you who does not want to do business with you. Such a “right” would indeed be in direct conflict with freedom of association, which is strongly implied in the First Amendment, and in the cases under dispute, it is in conflict with freedom of religion, which is explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment.
2.) I find no rational basis for arguing that phony made-up “rights” can ever legitimately trump genuine Constitutionally-affirmed rights.

1.) weird i dont see ONE single person using your made up strawman
2.) agreed that's why your straw man fails and you cant support them with and facts whats so ever
 
There is nothing in the Constitution that supports any “right” to have someone be forced to do business with you who does not want to do business with you. Such a “right” would indeed be in direct conflict with freedom of association, which is strongly implied in the First Amendment, and in the cases under dispute, it is in conflict with freedom of religion, which is explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment.

I find no rational basis for arguing that phony made-up “rights” can ever legitimately trump genuine Constitutionally-affirmed rights.

I agree, and yet here you are implying that there is some constitutionally affirmed "right" to do business with the public. There isn't.

If you're so homophobic that you don't want to risk being forced to do business with gays, it's no problem: you are free to choose not to do business with anyone.
 
I agree, and yet here you are implying that there is some constitutionally affirmed "right" to do business with the public. There isn't.

If you're so homophobic that you don't want to risk being forced to do business with gays, it's no problem: you are free to choose not to do business with anyone.

Every man needs to be able to make a living. Although not explicitly stated in the COnstitution, I think it stands to reason that the ability to make a living through honest means is one of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment. Certainly, a much stronger case can be made for this right than for a “right” to have someone be forced to do business with you who does not want to do business with you.

And there is certainly nothing in the Constitution that suggests nor allows any authority on the part of government to compel any citizen to give up his First Amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom of religion, as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.
 
Every man needs to be able to make a living. Although not explicitly stated in the COnstitution, I think it stands to reason that the ability to make a living through honest means is one of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment. Certainly, a much stronger case can be made for this right than for a “right” to have someone be forced to do business with you who does not want to do business with you.

And there is certainly nothing in the Constitution that suggests nor allows any authority on the part of government to compel any citizen to give up his First Amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom of religion, as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.

Where is your constitutional right to discriminate? Because unless you have that, then congress is free (as they have done) to pass a significant body of legislation that prohibits businesses from discriminating based on certain classes. The courts have repeatedly found that the state has a compelling interest in doing so. Hence a business open to the public cannot serve whites only.

I find it interesting that your initial argument is that made up rights don't trump rights enumerated in the constitution. And your defense of that is that every man needs to be able to make a living, therefore choosing who you want to do business with is an unenumerated right and moreover that unenumerated right should trump the right of anyone else to be treated equally. Kind of a tortured defense, no?
 
Every man needs to be able to make a living. Although not explicitly stated in the COnstitution, I think it stands to reason that the ability to make a living through honest means is one of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment. Certainly, a much stronger case can be made for this right than for a “right” to have someone be forced to do business with you who does not want to do business with you.

And most men (and women) who make a living aren't doing business with the general public at all. They're employees. Or they sell a product or service that only faceless corporations would want. Hell, some of them are even professional gamblers. You'll have to do considerably better than this argument.
 
They intended this overreaching law to be virtually impossible to undo.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/House/pdf/2014-HEBH-5958.pdf

1 Sec. 7. If any provision of this act or any application of
2 such a provision to any person or circumstance is held to be
3 unconstitutional, the remainder of this act and the application of
4 the provision to any other person or circumstance is not affected.



This law is also a direct attack on the secular structure of the US Constitution, and the government. It would seem that any secular law is in their opinion anti-religious and therefore discriminatory. But if it isnt secular then what will it be instead; nonsecular?

1 (b) Laws neutral toward religion may burden religious exercise
2 as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise.
3 (c) Government should not substantially burden religious
4 exercise without compelling justification.



The law is so loosely written that it could easily be abused. Basically anyone that wants to can use this law even if they have no grounds to use it.

6 (b) "Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of
7 religion, including an act or refusal to act, that is substantially
8 motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not
9 compelled by or central to a system of religious belief.


If this law was enacted and truly disallowed neutral laws, it would create a court overload, as many religions complained about specific non neutral laws.
 
1.)Every man needs to be able to make a living. Although not explicitly stated in the COnstitution, I think it stands to reason that the ability to make a living through honest means is one of the unenumerated rights mentioned in the Ninth Amendment. Certainly, a much stronger case can be made for this right than for a “right” to have someone be forced to do business with you who does not want to do business with you.

2.) And there is certainly nothing in the Constitution that suggests nor allows any authority on the part of government to compel any citizen to give up his First Amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom of religion, as a condition of being allowed to make an honest living.

1.) you must be on the wrong thread because again theres nothing here that stops a man from making a living nor is there any right to force someone to do business with you. If you are on the right thread those two strawmen completely fail and nobody honest will take them seriously.
2.) make that 3 failed strawmen since this isnt happening either.

If you have a real argument you cant back up with facts, logic, rights and legality please do so, making stuff up wont work.
 
It makes him unhappy. That's all he needs.

yep thats what he seems to base his views of right and wrong on. . . . feelings and nothing else matters. Not laws, not the constitution, not rights just his feelings/opinions.
 
yep thats what he seems to base his views of right and wrong on. . . . feelings and nothing else matters. Not laws, not the constitution, not rights just his feelings/opinions.

That's how most theists operate, pure emotion, zero rational thought.
 
It absolutely is. To force someone to engage in an association in which he would not choose to engage is a violation of his freedom of association.

Should an EMT be allowed to let a gay person die because their religion says to let them die?
 
Back
Top Bottom