• 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!

Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage

Lovebug said:
Why the nasty remark?
Now go to a Muslim restaurant and order a BLT and a beer. Do you think they have a right not to serve what you ordered? Is it possible for you to go elsewhere?
Why do these people have to be so egotistical and stubborn, insisting they must get their darn cake at that particular bakery?
Yes, they made a point. They want to be accepted. What they don't see is their own intolerance. Accepting others for who they are is a two way street. Selfish and small minded, and unless they challenge other faiths, they are cowards too.
All of us have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not just a few.
Click to expand...

why dose the Muslim restaurant serve beer and a blt on their menu?
 
Dragonfly said:
Just checking here, are you fine with bakers who won't sell their products to:

A) fat people
B) women
C) black people
D) foreigners
E) anyone with blue eyes
F) ugly people

Are you saying any company, should have the right to turn away any business, for any reason they wish?

I mean, I pretty much feel that way, but I would suggest businesses who do that should have such things clearly stated, in writing in their store front, so that customers
can see who they're dealing with.
Click to expand...

No shirt, no shoes, no service?
When I go to an expensive restaurant and spend a lot of my hard earned money, I don't want any unwashed, ill mannered loud and foul mouthed drunks sitting next to me. If said restaurant allows such, I will take my money elsewhere.
Simple.
 
Lovebug said:
Why the nasty remark?
Now go to a Muslim restaurant and order a BLT and a beer. Do you think they have a right not to serve what you ordered? Is it possible for you to go elsewhere?
Why do these people have to be so egotistical and stubborn, insisting they must get their darn cake at that particular bakery?
Yes, they made a point. They want to be accepted. What they don't see is their own intolerance. Accepting others for who they are is a two way street. Selfish and small minded, and unless they challenge other faiths, they are cowards too.
All of us have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not just a few.
Click to expand...

I didn't make any distinction amongst religions, did I now.
 
Lovebug said:
No shirt, no shoes, no service?
When I go to an expensive restaurant and spend a lot of my hard earned money, I don't want any unwashed, ill mannered loud and foul mouthed drunks sitting next to me. If said restaurant allows such, I will take my money elsewhere.
Simple.
Click to expand...


See ya.
 
Fenton Lum said:
I didn't make any distinction amongst religions, did I now.
Click to expand...

Why the nasty remark? How about the rest of my points. Do people have the right to be demanding asses? Or can they go elsewhere?
 
Lovebug said:
They do?
Click to expand...

they seem to in your story

since weer talking about people ordering the regular products of an establishment here like any one else

and you weer comparing that to ordering at a Muslim restaurant
 
Lovebug said:
Why the nasty remark? How about the rest of my points. Do people have the right to be demanding asses? Or can they go elsewhere?
Click to expand...

The religious euros who "discovered" and "settled" this land mass were quite "demanding asses", wouldn't you agree? Genocide is quite "demanding" is it not?
 
Lovebug said:
No shirt, no shoes, no service?
When I go to an expensive restaurant and spend a lot of my hard earned money, I don't want any unwashed, ill mannered loud and foul mouthed drunks sitting next to me. If said restaurant allows such, I will take my money elsewhere.
Simple.
Click to expand...

no people who behave like you do in the restaurant if they are gay or fat or black or foreign or have blue eyes or are ugly
 
Dragonfly said:
Just checking here, are you fine with bakers who won't sell their products to:

A) fat people
B) women
C) black people
D) foreigners
E) anyone with blue eyes
F) ugly people

Are you saying any company, should have the right to turn away any business, for any reason they wish?

I mean, I pretty much feel that way, but I would suggest businesses who do that should have such things clearly stated, in writing in their store front, so that customers
can see who they're dealing with.
Click to expand...

Many do already. I have sign on my business and says "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." It allows me to discriminate, indiscriminately. :mrgreen:
 
Lovebug said:
No shirt, no shoes, no service?
When I go to an expensive restaurant and spend a lot of my hard earned money, I don't want any unwashed, ill mannered loud and foul mouthed drunks sitting next to me. If said restaurant allows such, I will take my money elsewhere.
Simple.
Click to expand...

Not sure how any of that applies to what I asked.
 
TurtleDude said:
If I were a betting man, there is some sentiment to reverse the decision of the lower courts
Click to expand...

I think it will be a 5-4 decision.

I think the opinion should be argued in a specific way.

just as a gay baker can refuse to make a religious cake or a cake they deem is unacceptabale the reverse has to be true as well.
now that doesn't mean they don't have to sell them a cake they can do so and the people decorate it themselves.

the other question is do the people have the ability to force someone else to host their event.
this is a critical ruling because it would have national impact.

there have been several small shop businesses that have been put out of business due to these types of rulings.
I think the SCOTUS is going to issue something similar to hobby lobby.

that businesses with small ownership or personal ownership have their religious views as part of their business.
that would be a consistent ruling and that courts and states must take that into account.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Many do already. I have sign on my business and says "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." It allows me to discriminate, indiscriminately. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

What does "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" really mean? -

These signs also don’t allow business owners to refuse service based on arbitrary reasons outside of the protected classes (though pointing out signs to cries of “No fair!” might avoid any further action on the part of spurned patrons). Instead, reasons must be legitimate enough to hold up in court. In general, refusal of service is justified in cases where a customer’s presence interferes with the safety and well-being of other patrons and the establishment itself. The most basic examples of this include patrons who are unreasonably rowdy, patrons lacking adequate hygiene, and those accompanied by large groups of non-customers.

Or consider this more nuanced example: In 2001, a California court ruled that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that denied members entry because they were wearing their club colors. The sports bar wasn’t denying the club members entry because they didn’t like their logo, but because management thought that allowing the colors to be worn could lead to fights with rival clubs inside the bar. Though no such fight had ever occurred, preventing hypothetical violence is considered a legitimate business interest.
Click to expand...

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/...fuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance

Which brings us back to the original restaurant signs. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” sounds vague and arbitrary. As we’ve seen, a business can’t just randomly refuse to serve someone.

“No shirt, no shoes, no service” on the other hand, is a clear dress code that could also relate to health and safety issues. You usually see the sign in beach towns where tourists of all kinds are apt to be walking around shirtless or shoeless. As long as the policy is applied to everyone equally, it’s not likely to violate any discrimination laws.
Click to expand...

Your sign is useless in a lawsuit.
 
Hatuey said:
What does "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" really mean? -



https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/...fuse-service-to-someone-because-of-appearance



Your sign is useless in a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

So? I routinely refuse service to people for all sorts of reasons. In fact I deny service more often than I grant service. If people want to sue me they can. Them winning the suit, not so much. They would not be able to prove I discriminate against "protected" classes, as I discriminate as a matter of routine indiscriminately. Especially as I have long standing preferred clients, that get priority over others on a very routine basis.
 
Dragonfly said:
Just checking here, are you fine with bakers who won't sell their products to:

A) fat people
B) women
C) black people
D) foreigners
E) anyone with blue eyes
F) ugly people

Are you saying any company, should have the right to turn away any business, for any reason they wish?

I mean, I pretty much feel that way, but I would suggest businesses who do that should have such things clearly stated, in writing in their store front, so that customers
can see who they're dealing with.
Click to expand...

Why do you equate religious freedom with your ridiculous list?
 
MaggieD said:
Why do you equate religious freedom with your ridiculous list?
Click to expand...

Why do you NOT equate discrimination, with this one version of "religious freedom"?

Do you, or do you not support a business being able to turn away anyone for any reason?

That's what you appear to support.

I won't serve you because you're gay.
I won't serve you because you're a Muslim.
I won't serve you because you're obese.
I won't serve you because you're a woman.
I won't serve you because you're a Jew.
I won't serve you because you came from Mexico.

Why is one okay, but the others are not?
 
Dragonfly said:
A few examples would be?

And perhaps reasons why?
Click to expand...

I am a business to business service, I very rarely do retail business and only to those I know as a favor, so I reject quite a bit of retail business. I have rejected business from major potential customers simply because just don't like them or how they do business. I don't extend credit to Arab and Indian owned and run businesses, unless I know them or people I know and trust can vouch for them and they have stellar credit. My previous experiences with Indians and Arabs have resulted in me going mafia on them to get my money from them. Same with eastern Europeans, especially Russians. I don't like having to break out my bat and gasoline can just get money I am owed. Not all Arabs, Indians (both varieties)and Russians are douche bags, but I found that more often than not they are and the reason I don't service them unless they have someone I trust vouches for them. I don't service gang bangers. I hate em, and they usually want me to move something they have most likely packed with drugs. Screw em. Mainly my reasons boil down to money, availability, or appropriateness.
 
Lovebug said:
Why the nasty remark?
Click to expand...
Because it is the source of the nastiness. Perhaps more accurately it should have said **** religious bigots and zealots.

Now go to a Muslim restaurant and order a BLT and a beer.
Click to expand...
Why? Do they serve that to anyone else? Do you understand the difference?

Why do these people have to be so egotistical and stubborn
Click to expand...
There is nothing egotistical or stubborn about holding people to the responsibility they willingly undertake.

All of us have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not just a few.
Click to expand...
Yet you would deny it to some.
 
MaggieD said:
Why do you equate religious freedom with your ridiculous list?
Click to expand...

Because those who wish to override religious freedom have no interest in recognizing it.
 
Dragonfly said:
Why do you NOT equate discrimination, with this one version of "religious freedom"?

Do you, or do you not support a business being able to turn away anyone for any reason?

That's what you appear to support.

I won't serve you because you're gay.
I won't serve you because you're a Muslim.
I won't serve you because you're obese.
I won't serve you because you're a woman.
I won't serve you because you're a Jew.
I won't serve you because you came from Mexico.

Why is one okay, but the others are not?
Click to expand...

1. No one is refusing to serve anyone. People are refusing to serve gay weddings. This is an important point that opponents would do better to recognize and deal with honestly, as trying to pass over it only allows proponents of religious freedom to make that point and demonstrate a false presupposition.

2. If a devout Muslim or Jew doesn't wish to serve a woman, they are welcome to open up a business where men only serve men and women only serve women. The rest of us have no more right to trample on their faith with our beliefs in this scenario than we would to force a Muslim grocer to carry bacon and beer, or a Christian bookstore owner to carry porn.

3. The distinction between those who discriminate for religious reasons and those who do not is an important legal one. The government has to justify it's actions when limiting our freedoms, after all, and when it comes to the State limiting our religious freedoms, the standards the government has to meet are quite strict indeed:

First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest." Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.

The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.​


So the government would have to argue that:

A) gay couples being able to access wedding cakes is a core constitutional issue for the state government, and

B) Only religious bakers who refuse to provide service are available, and there are no other accessible bakers for the gay couples to access, and therefore forcing a religious baker to make the cake is the least restrictive way of addressing that core constitutional issue​


it's not a matter of "it's not fair" or "but I think it's mean".
 
cpwill said:
1. No one is refusing to serve anyone. People are refusing to serve gay weddings. This is an important point that opponents would do better to recognize and deal with honestly, as trying to pass over it only allows proponents of religious freedom to make that point and demonstrate a false presupposition.

2. If a devout Muslim or Jew doesn't wish to serve a woman, they are welcome to open up a business where men only serve men and women only serve women. The rest of us have no more right to trample on their faith with our beliefs in this scenario than we would to force a Muslim grocer to carry bacon and beer, or a Christian bookstore owner to carry porn.

3. The distinction between those who discriminate for religious reasons and those who do not is an important legal one. The government has to justify it's actions when limiting our freedoms, after all, and when it comes to the State limiting our religious freedoms, the standards the government has to meet are quite strict indeed:

First, the burden must be necessary for the "furtherance of a compelling government interest." Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.

The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.​


So the government would have to argue that:

A) gay couples being able to access wedding cakes is a core constitutional issue for the state government, and

B) Only religious bakers who refuse to provide service are available, and there are no other accessible bakers for the gay couples to access, and therefore forcing a religious baker to make the cake is the least restrictive way of addressing that core constitutional issue​


it's not a matter of "it's not fair" or "but I think it's mean".
Click to expand...

I see a very narrow ruling it will be 5-4 no doubt about it.

if their case is upheld then it will be a narrow ruling similar to hobby lobby.
that small owner businesses have a core tenet of faith that guides their business.
that the law must respect.
 
How is telling a gay couple to kick rocks, worshipping Christianity?
 
Winston said:
How is telling a gay couple to kick rocks, worshipping Christianity?
Click to expand...

You don't worship Christianity, we worship Christ. The Christian is expected to honor God in all that he or she does; your workplace is no less holy than your church building, and you are expected to be equally Christian in it. That means honoring God with your profession.

In this case, it's not "telling a couple of gay kids to kick rocks", it's declining to take part in a ceremony marking a twisting, misrepresenting, and dishonoring of one of God's greatest gifts and sacraments (marriage).

There are lots of other instances. For example, a Christian doctor should be willing to treat any woman to help save her from injury, or her life, or disease.... but should not be forced to conduct or take part in conducting abortions. The doctor isn't "telling women to go kick rocks", the doctor is refusing to take part in abortion, and it happens to be a woman who is going to be the one doing the asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom