Obama vs. religious freedom

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

 If I told you that you're going to burn in hell, you wouldn't find that rude and offensive?

No, I'm pretty much resigned to that fact.

Yeah well except it's not a fact. As far as I know, I don't have any reason to think that you're going to burn in hell.
You hiding something?

No, I'm not hiding anything - I'm just your average garden-variety sinner.

Should a Muslim caterer be allowed to refuse service to a customer who wishes to retain him to cater a Jewish event?

Sure why not?
Babu could simply say, terribly sorry Jerry, I don't do Kosher.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

 If I told you that you're going to burn in hell, you wouldn't find that rude and offensive?

No, I'm pretty much resigned to that fact.

Yeah well except it's not a fact. As far as I know, I don't have any reason to think that you're going to burn in hell.
You hiding something?

No, I'm not hiding anything - I'm just your average garden-variety sinner.

Should a Muslim caterer be allowed to refuse service to a customer who wishes to retain him to cater a Jewish event?

Sure why not?
Babu could simply say, terribly sorry Jerry, I don't do Kosher.

Then I'm assuming you have no problem if a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay ceremony on the grounds that homosexuality goes against the tenets of the baker's faith.
Correct?

Well no, that would be a problem because it's discrimination based on religion.

When Babu  says, terribly sorry Jerry, I don't do Kosher, it's not discrimination based on religion. It means that Babu does not prepare food that is Kosher because he doesn't have the know how and the knowledge to do it.
It does not have anything to do discrimination based on religion.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

 If I told you that you're going to burn in hell, you wouldn't find that rude and offensive?

No, I'm pretty much resigned to that fact.

Yeah well except it's not a fact. As far as I know, I don't have any reason to think that you're going to burn in hell.
You hiding something?

No, I'm not hiding anything - I'm just your average garden-variety sinner.

Should a Muslim caterer be allowed to refuse service to a customer who wishes to retain him to cater a Jewish event?

Sure why not?
Babu could simply say, terribly sorry Jerry, I don't do Kosher.

Then I'm assuming you have no problem if a baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay ceremony on the grounds that homosexuality goes against the tenets of the baker's faith.
Correct?

Well no, that would be a problem because it's discrimination based on religion.

When Babu  says, terribly sorry Jerry, I don't do Kosher, it's not discrimination based on religion. It means that Babu does not prepare food that is Kosher because he doesn't have the know how and the knowledge to do it.
It does not have anything to do discrimination based on religion.

By that logic, the baker could reasonably claim that he will not make a cake for a gay wedding because he does not have in his inventory a cake-topper figurine of two men holding hands. You see, he's not discriminating against gays - he just doesn't have the materials necessary to fulfill their demand for his services.

Yes, that's true. However he still could make the cake without the cake-topper figurine of two men holding hands, yes?

happy jack wrote:

I'd be more than happy to answer your question, but it would make it much easier if you were to actually ask me a question.

Could you not see them?  Maybe that was the problem.

I wrote:

If we're going to give religion a pass, we really have to give religion a pass, right? That was your whole argument. So should any of these backwater rednecks be able to exempt the spouse of an employee in an interracial marriage from health benefits, in part or in whole, based on their "moral objections" to the marriage? And if not, why is not okay to do it to such an employee (trampling all over the first amendment rights of the employer), but perfectly fine to do it to my wife?

I think that's the important one - where and how does the line gets drawn:  

Quote :

For instance, who is to decide what is sincere? Are the religious beliefs sincere if a cake seller will sell a cake to two divorced individuals for their second marriage but not to a same-sex couple for their first? Or does this cafeteria-style approach to Christianity expose a lack of sincerity of religious belief? This raises the question of who will determine the sincerity of a belief. The courts? If so, which religious leaders will advise the courts on that question, as it is clear that religious leaders increasingly disagree on the question of gay marriage and the full dignity of LGBT people?

Also, will the freedom to refuse to serve those who offend “sincerely held religious beliefs” extend to people of one faith expressing hostility toward people of another faith? If a Christian believes that Hindus worship a deity or deities that she finds offensive, will she be allowed to refuse to photograph a Hindu wedding or make a cake for a Hindu holy day based on her “sincerely held religious beliefs”?

And what about sincerely held beliefs that are not religious? At a time when 40 percent of people under 30 hold no specific religious affiliation, and when many of those identify as “spiritual but not religious,” how will the laws address those with “sincerely held spiritual beliefs”? And given the rise of atheism and secular humanism, will those who espouse no formal religion also have their sincerely held beliefs protected?

The rest of the questions were just kinda aimed in your general direction after it became apparent you bailed:

I wrote:

And just how awesome is it that Republicans are paving the way for Sharia law with this "freedom of religion above all else" nonsense?

I wrote:

Sounds perfectly reasonable and constitutionally protected to me, right? The doc's got religious freedom to watch his patients die as dictated by his magic invisible sky wizard just as pharmacists are able to tell rape victims "no emergency contraception for you!", right?

I wrote:

"Religious freedom" or civil rights...? Clearly, we can't have both.

Glad to see you're back.[/lie]

happy jack wrote:

If a minister of any denomination came into a T-shirt store with a gay proprietorship and told the proprietor that he wanted 100 T-shirts for his congregation emblazoned with the slogan “Homosexuals Shall Burn in Hell”, do you believe that the proprietor has the right to refuse to fill such an order?

Yes, absolutely, because of the spectacularly dickish message "You literally deserve to be horrendously tortured for all of eternity".  They can still get T-Shirts, just with something less monstrous.

happy jack wrote:

it is a declaration of a religious belief for some.

Irrelevant.  Religious belief doesn't magically make inflammatory nonsense any less inflammatory.  "GOD HATES FAGS" is still outrageous, even if Fred Phelps believes it really, really hard.

happy jack wrote:

Should a Muslim caterer be allowed to refuse service to a customer who wishes to retain him to cater a Jewish event?

No, absolutely not.  It's the same damn formula - [religious individual] providing services to [heathen].  Mix and match the denominations, it's all the same.  The owner has to provide the same services to every customer that comes through his door, be it selling T-Shirts, catered food, or wedding cakes.

Now, in your example, the Jewish customer can't force the owner to provide what he normally doesn't, i.e. kosher food.  Footlocker isn't "refusing service" to a customer if they show up and demand the latest Call of Duty on XBox as per the tenants of their faith; they're just in the wrong fucking store.

The photographers/bakers/caterers are simply facing the same "moral" quandary the restaurant owners in the south did after desegregation.  Either close shop or just fucking deal.  I'm sure there were a few holdouts back then too, whining about "freedom", but that's the price we pay for having a truly free society.  The Christian wedding photography/cake industry in particular got over interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, secular marriages, divorcees remarrying, weddings serving shellfish, polyblend dresses and tuxes, a whole host of biblical violations...  I have no doubt they'll survive this just fine too. (Or they can move to Russia, 'cause that is apparently a conservative paradise.) The fact that they're braying only about homosexuals rather than any of the still extant and common biblical wedding violations is just further proof this has *nothing* to do with religious freedom at all; it's just a tantrum being thrown by bigots, praying for one last chance to stick it to the gays.  They're out and open and free, spending money and spending their lives together... and the few holdouts left just can't fucking stand it.

happy jack wrote:

By that logic, the baker could reasonably claim that he will not make a cake for a gay wedding because he does not have in his inventory a cake-topper figurine of two men holding hands. You see, he's not discriminating against gays - he just doesn't have the materials necessary to fulfill their demand for his services.

Yeah, I didn't think you were married.  If you believe that would work, then you clearly have no understanding of how either the wedding cake or catering business works.  Or worse, you are married, and you bought your wedding cake out of the bargain bin at Stracks. Yikes.

You know, this isn't complicated. The Fourteenth Amendment spells it out quite clearly...

Quote :

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's clear to me that the Kansas law will be found to be unconstitutional, and the proposed Arizona law was also unconstitutional. A state is expressly forbidden from passing any law that violates the equal protection language of the Fourteenth Amendment.

happy jack wrote:

I'm sure that either your Hate Crime Detetctor or Artie’s Bona Fide Transsexual Detector has a feature or setting that could help us with the sincerity aspect, no?

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't answer this time around either.  But anyway, no need for our detectors.  Both concepts are already legally defined.    And there's the rub.  How do we decide what's a legal violation and what isn't?  Shouldn't they be all equal and valid?  Why not?  And how do we define such that doesn't pave the way stupidity like "Sharia law"?

happy jack wrote:

I’ve no doubt that you’re not glad to see me back. My presence here disrupts the usual custom of the regular posters jacking each other off while telling each other how smart they all are.

You got me.  Wanna make out now?  That's not too gay, is it?

happy jack wrote:

I don’t recall mentioning the word ‘kosher’, but feel free to make things up.

You didn't correct edge, so I had assumed he was on the correct line of thought.  Since it apparently wasn't, what point were you trying to make with your example of the Muslim caterer and Jewish customer?

happy jack wrote:

Yeah, I’m plenty married, and having been involved in the planning of my own wedding and, reluctantly, in the planning of weddings for various friends and relatives...

Oh, so then you knew it was bullshit?

happy jack wrote:

I would not be even the tiniest bit surprised to learn that these situations with the Baker/Photographer/Caterer/ What-Have-You vs. Gays are nothing but forced put-up jobs, along the lines of the Scopes trial.

Yup, homosexual customers trying to give a business owner their money must be a conspiracy. Assuming they are, does that somehow make discriminating against gays or teaching creationism in school any less illegal?

happy jack wrote:

It is not a process to be messed with, and they do not interrupt their planning to file a lawsuit.

Pfftt...  It is if it means the wedding will be paid for, and then some.  Finding a bigot business owner or a creationist school teacher is like winning the fucking lottery.  

Scorpion wrote:

You know, this isn't complicated. The Fourteenth Amendment spells it out quite clearly...

Yeah, where did all those Constitution worshiping conservatives go?  Nearly all of 'em just about vanished overnight.   

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

 

happy jack wrote:

I don’t recall mentioning the word ‘kosher’, but feel free to make things up.

You didn't correct edge, so I had assumed he was on the correct line of thought.  Since it apparently wasn't, what point were you trying to make with your example of the Muslim caterer and Jewish customer?

That a Muslim just might not want to cater to a Jew just for the fact that the Jew is a Jew.
 

He doesn't get to make that kind of call in this country.  Do you think that a Muslim has the right to refuse service to a Jewish person, or that a Jewish person has the right to refuse service to a Muslim?

Because no matter how you slice it, that's blatant bigotry.

happy jack wrote:

So that's what this is about.

Yes, it's totally not the fault of the outrageous bigots and their illegal discrimination whatsoever.

You failed to answer my questions. Again. I'll just assume you didn't see them.

I wrote:

Yup, homosexual customers trying to give a business owner their money must be a conspiracy. Assuming they are, does that somehow make discriminating against gays or teaching creationism in school any less illegal?

And also these:

I wrote:

How do we decide what's a legal violation and what isn't? Shouldn't they be all equal and valid? Why not? And how do we define such that doesn't pave the way stupidity like "Sharia law"?

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

I’ve no doubt that you’re not glad to see me back. My presence here disrupts the usual custom of the regular posters jacking each other off while telling each other how smart they all are.

You got me.  Wanna make out now?  That's not too gay, is it?

Watch out Heretic,He's an alleged multiple wedding planner and I hear his events are fabuuuuulous!

Oh,FYI everyone,my "usual custom" is to check in here for the laughs that delusional trollboy provides thinking he's some sort of clever debater. Once again I have not been disappointed   

Now cue the ubiquitous whine,that I'm a coward because I refuse to engage in the nonsense.

happy jack wrote:

I never said that discriminating against gays is not or should not be illegal.

Whatever.  How about actually addressing some of the outstanding questions that you've been asked?


For starters, I'd really like to see a response to our questions below...

Heretic wrote:

How do we decide what's a legal violation and what isn't?  Shouldn't they be all equal and valid?  Why not?  And how do we define such that doesn't pave the way stupidity like "Sharia law"?

Scorpion wrote:

Do you think that a Muslim has the right to refuse service to a Jewish person, or that a Jewish person has the right to refuse service to a Muslim?

If you're not prepared to answer simple questions, then just take a hike.

happy jack wrote:

It seems to me that the prevailing attitude here is that it is wrong for a businessperson to discriminate against a customer based upon the businessperson’s religious beliefs, but it is perfectly fine for a businessperson to discriminate against a customer based upon the customer’s religious beliefs (even moreso if Heretic and edge are personally offended by that customer’s beliefs).

Nope, seems to me like jack has a reading comprehension problem.

happy jack wrote:

It seems to me that the prevailing attitude here is that it is wrong for a businessperson to discriminate against a customer based upon the businessperson’s religious beliefs, but it is perfectly fine for a businessperson to discriminate against a customer based upon the customer’s religious beliefs (even moreso if Heretic and edge are personally offended by that customer’s beliefs).

Then you misread.  The business owner is discriminating against the product, not the person.  The customer is still free to do business and get the same neutral, non-offensive T-Shirts that everyone else does.  That's the difference; they are not refused any and all service outright. However, if the owner refuses all biblical quotes or Christian reference or refuses to serve Christians at all, then that would be religious discrimination against the customer.

happy jack wrote:

Unfortunately, both are religious beliefs, and should be treated as such (as long as the latter sentiment remains merely a statement of belief and is not acted upon).

The owner is treating it as such.  It just has absolutely no bearing on the transaction whatsoever.  Inflammatory nonsense is still inflammatory nonsense, and if the owner doesn't put inflammatory nonsense on his T-Shirts, the customers religion cannot force him to do so. End of story.

happy jack wrote:

So while a baker may not refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, he may discriminate against the product by refusing to include anything on the cake that would allude to a gay wedding, such as the aforementioned figurine of two men holding hands, or an icing inscription reading “Adam and Steve on Their Wedding Day”, as long as he is not refusing service to gays outright.

Right. Except that "No gay shit" would not clear the reasonableness test in a discrimination lawsuit. 'Cause it's clearly discrimination based on sexual orientation. The message "Congratulations Sam and Chris" is only offensive if you know who they are; the whole thing is only offensive if you know who's getting married. I already explained this:

I wrote:

The customer is still free to do business and get the same neutral, non-offensive T-Shirts that everyone else does. That's the difference; they are not refused any and all service outright. However, if the owner refuses all biblical quotes or Christian reference or refuses to serve Christians at all, then that would be religious discrimination against the customer.

"No gay shit" is not a valid legal justification for discrimination anymore than "No Jesus shit" is. I don't know how to explain that any simpler.

happy jack wrote:

And references to gay weddings are still references to gay weddings, and if the owner has never before included references to gay weddings on his cakes, the customer’s sexual orientation cannot force him to do so. End of story.

Would some links help? Pictures? A snappy infographic? I seriously do not understand why you're having such a hard time comprehending this. Maybe Scorpion can explain it better. He has much better patience with this kind of stupidity than I do.

Heretic wrote:

 He has much better patience with this kind of stupidity than I do.

Jack is not stupid, jack is just being a dickish troll.