Better safe the sorry is the employable cliche here.
Better to save religious liberty at the expense of the state’s compelling interest being subjugated in some instances.[/quote]
Where do we draw the line? What if a business owner claims his religion forbids him from washing his hands before handling your food, or someone who claims that his religion doesn’t allow him to follow proper sanitation disposal protocols? If there isn’t some modicum of sanity here, this can set a precedent that has unintended legal consequences.
[/quote]
Hasn’t the government drawn enough lines? Consumers should draw the line.
Better safe the sorry is the employable cliche here.
Better to save religious liberty at the expense of the state’s compelling interest being subjugated in some instances.[/quote]
Where do we draw the line? What if a business owner claims his religion forbids him from washing his hands before handling your food, or someone who claims that his religion doesn’t allow him to follow proper sanitation disposal protocols? If there isn’t some modicum of sanity here, this can set a precedent that has unintended legal consequences.
[/quote]
Why would anyone eat at these places if it was found out that the owner practiced this? You wouldn’t need a law, the free market would solve it on its own (as it does most things).
Hasn’t the government drawn enough lines? Consumers should draw the line.[/quote]
The anti-discrimination laws aren’t going away, whether we like it or not, so it would be better to embrace some common sense exceptions, such as a compelling religious interest, than to go the directions things are going and just have to accept a total inability to refuse service, even if it conflicts with any religious belief.
Why would anyone eat at these places if it was found out that the owner practiced this? You wouldn’t need a law, the free market would solve it on its own (as it does most things).
[/quote]
The concept can extend beyond voluntary business transactions, so there has to be some limit or consistency to how far ‘reasonable’ exercise of religion allows a person to go in trumping some state law or local ordinance.
I think we’ve lost site of the fact that most of these issues involve small businesses. McDonald’s will always require their employees to wash their hands whether it’s against their beliefs or not.
Better safe the sorry is the employable cliche here.
Better to save religious liberty at the expense of the state’s compelling interest being subjugated in some instances.[/quote]
Where do we draw the line? What if a business owner claims his religion forbids him from washing his hands before handling your food, or someone who claims that his religion doesn’t allow him to follow proper sanitation disposal protocols? If there isn’t some modicum of sanity here, this can set a precedent that has unintended legal consequences.
[/quote]
It would have to be some damn good food for me to eat it, if it were cooked by someone refusing to wash his hands or sanitarily prepare it… I assume that goes for most, so the guy would probably be taking losses each day and soon close.
Non-fundamentalists see these Religious objections as silly. If you’re anti-gay and you claim “the bible says” you should also NOT
-use yeast in your baking
-be fat, or serve fat people
-have pierced ears/tattoos, or serve people with pierced ears/tattoos
-no 2nd weddings, or serving divorcees
-throw stones or something
To specifically single out “gay-marriage” as the ONE thing that is SO offensive really seems ridiculous. Even the Pope has adjusted the stance of the church.
The louder the fundamentalists yell about this ONE issue, the more they sound like snake-handlers or Westboro Baptists.
Back to the actual laws.
Someone posted a link to 10 groups helped by Religious Freedoms Laws. They were all small minority groups facing laws that could be PERCEIVED as “oppressive” and “arbitrary.” No eagle feathers or peyote for Native Americans, no beard for an imprisoned Muslim. In all cases it APPEARED like the laws of “the many” vindictively oppressed the freedom(civil rights) of the “peaceful few.”
To liberal types, Religious Freedoms laws today APPEAR to allow the “many”(conservative people with nice things) to use Freedom of Religion to discriminate against the Civil Rights of few (Gays, who just finally can enjoy what everyone else has enjoyed for hundreds of years).
As Strider says, the Religious Freedoms Laws, used the way Indiana appeared to be using them, looked like they violated Civil Rights laws. To liberal/reformer types, Civil Rights trump all other rights, right?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think we’ve lost site of the fact that most of these issues involve small businesses. McDonald’s will always require their employees to wash their hands whether it’s against their beliefs or not. [/quote]
I don’t disagree that private businesses should, in principle, be free to serve whomever they desire. However, I think it’s pretty clear that anti-discrimination laws aren’t going anywhere, and LGBT groups are gaining significant legal ground in becoming a protected class, so I don’t see much choice but to either accept the status legal quo or push for some legitimate religious exemptions, say for cases of marriage services, etc.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I think we’ve lost site of the fact that most of these issues involve small businesses. McDonald’s will always require their employees to wash their hands whether it’s against their beliefs or not. [/quote]
I don’t disagree that private businesses should, in principle, be free to serve whomever they desire. However, I think it’s pretty clear that anti-discrimination laws aren’t going anywhere, and LGBT groups are gaining significant legal ground in becoming a protected class, so I don’t see much choice but to either accept the status legal quo or push for some legitimate religious exemptions, say for cases of marriage services, etc.[/quote]
There is a ton of garbage in that post, so I’ll focus on one slice to save time.
[quote]FlatsFarmer wrote:
[to liberals] Civil Rights trump all other rights, right?
[/quote]
Nothing could be further from the truth. They support abortion which violates the most important civil right of all, life, and gun control/confiscation.
They are nothing short of massive fucking hypocrites manufacturing indignation for the “hip” outrage of the day.
EDIT: religious faith and free exercise thereof is a civil right.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
What if we extend it beyond the gay theme…
How about a devout Catholic that refused to provide goods and/or services when knowing one of the parties has been previously divorced?
Or a Southern Baptists that knows alcohol will be served at the reception?
Or a Church Of Christ that knows dancing will take place?
etc…etc. [/quote]
Should a Jewish Deli be forced to serve a bacon cheeseburger if a black, gay woman orders it?[/quote]
Don’t assume you know which side of the argument I’m on…I was only probing for consistency; however to answer your question I would have to know if the Jewish Deli served bacon cheeseburgers to begin with…
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
What if we extend it beyond the gay theme…
How about a devout Catholic that refused to provide goods and/or services when knowing one of the parties has been previously divorced?
Or a Southern Baptists that knows alcohol will be served at the reception?
Or a Church Of Christ that knows dancing will take place?
etc…etc. [/quote]
Should a Jewish Deli be forced to serve a bacon cheeseburger if a black, gay woman orders it?[/quote]
Don’t assume you know which side of the argument I’m on…[/quote]
Not my intention.
[quote]…I was only probing for consistency; however to answer your question I would have to know if the Jewish Deli served bacon cheeseburgers to begin with…
[/quote]
I’m pretty much trying to push it to the absurd in order to establish a baseline as well.
Think about it, it is only Christians catching heat for this. Muslims and Jews aren’t getting any press, and Muslims fucking hang gay people in other countries… Pretty sure we’re doing okay, even if a pizza shop isn’t legally obligated to cater a same sex marriage.
I think the real issue here is the chaos that would ensue if private businesses were permitted to serve the feces of HIV-infected individuals. Can you imagine the violence likely to occur in the long waiting lines for such a delicacy?
Or maybe the real issue is that minorities would just die out if serving them wasn’t mandatory. WASP(and white Catholics, too!) males are obviously principled enough to universally refuse payment from and service to all others.
All anti-discrimination laws applied to the private sector are solutions in search of problems.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
All anti-discrimination laws applied to the private sector are solutions in search of problems.[/quote]
There was a time and a place for anti-discrimination laws. They were absolutely necessary at certain points in our history.
Imho, that time has passed. [/quote]
Can you elaborate? I don’t see how we had a need for the laws at one time in our history and now no longer do. This seems inconsistent. [/quote]
Dude, I learned that they were needed at one time when I was in school. Duh. Plus: Kids in schools 50-100 years from now will definitely learn that modern(after I was born) anti-discrimination laws were never needed. The issues are just totally different.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
All anti-discrimination laws applied to the private sector are solutions in search of problems.[/quote]
There was a time and a place for anti-discrimination laws. They were absolutely necessary at certain points in our history.
Imho, that time has passed. [/quote]
Can you elaborate? I don’t see how we had a need for the laws at one time in our history and now no longer do. This seems inconsistent. [/quote]
Because at one time in U.S. history various groups, black people for example, were seen as inferior and treated by a large percentage of the population as such. That’s just not the case anymore, imo.
I’m not necessity advocate abolishing anti-discrimination laws, but I think if anything that could be scaled back with limited if any consequences.
I mean, could you image, if a store put up a sign that read “Whites Only” in their window or on their restroom? That business would be destroyed figuratively and in all likelihood literally.
