Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That restriction on government applies only to the Congress of the United States but it represents a first principle of our Republic. Now a story of some people who make cakes from two different perspectives:

The religious freedom perspective: http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/ ... tian-faith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The anti discrimination perspective: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.co ... e_is_false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Though the headline of the article with the anti discrimination perspective says that what I've heard about the case is false, I don't see any factual information in the article to indicate that. Both articles indicate the same bottom line: The State of Oregon is telling some people who bake cakes that if they want to make a living doing that they have to violate their religious beliefs.

I think it's important to note that the principle involved isn't just being able to believe what you want, go to church, etc. It's the free exercise of religion. And when you tell people that they have to do something they think is wrong according to their religion or else they cannot be in the business they want to be in you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion in that case. There is just no intellectually honest way around that.

And there is no way we should be saying someone's purported "right" to force someone else to deal with them trumps someone else's fundamental right to the free exercise of religion. I think we are and it'll probably get worse. But we shouldn't be saying it. The fact that we are is a sad comment on the State of this nation and how far we've wandered from what this country is supposed to be about (which is NOT the idea of forcing people to deal with each other).

JohnStOnge wrote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

That restriction on government applies only to the Congress of the United States but it represents a first principle of our Republic. Now a story of some people who make cakes from two different perspectives:

The religious freedom perspective: http://www.onenewsnow.com/perspectives/ ... tian-faith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The anti discrimination perspective: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.co ... e_is_false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Though the headline of the article with the anti discrimination perspective says that what I've heard about the case is false, I don't see any factual information in the article to indicate that. Both articles indicate the same bottom line: The State of Oregon is telling some people who bake cakes that if they want to make a living doing that they have to violate their religious beliefs.

I think it's important to note that the principle involved isn't just being able to believe what you want, go to church, etc. It's the free exercise of religion. And when you tell people that they have to do something they think is wrong according to their religion or else they cannot be in the business they want to be in you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion in that case. There is just no intellectually honest way around that.

And there is no way we should be saying someone's purported "right" to force someone else to deal with them trumps someone else's fundamental right to the free exercise of religion. I think we are and it'll probably get worse. But we shouldn't be saying it. The fact that we are is a sad comment on the State of this nation and how far we've wandered from what this country is supposed to be about (which is NOT the idea of forcing people to deal with each other).

You're a bigger drama-queen than an entire all-girl junior high school John. And what is it with you fundamentalists forever playing the victim? As if anybody more than a few wackjobs gives a fvck about your goat-herder religion..

So this is basically a state's right to regulate commerce vs. the definition of "practice"?

If only you were this passionate about the equal protection clause.

I also like how the 2nd article blows the opening paragraph of the 1st article out of the water.

Here's my take on it:

If you want to use Freedom of Religion as your basis for denying customers, then fine. To me, that's a bad business decision. However, the basis of your denial is that gay marriage is a sin and devalues marriage. By that logic, you should deny ALL sinners and divorced couples. I don't think the gov't should tell you who you can and can't sell to. It's not like you're denying a loan, a job or something based off their marital status, race, gender, etc...

This world is full of gray areas and there's no hope for it.

Back in the day nearly all small businesses had a sign on the wall that stated: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". I'm OK with that.

houndawg wrote:Back in the day nearly all small businesses had a sign on the wall that stated: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". I'm OK with that.

I'm fine with that. Don't want to serve coffee to white trash, go ahead. But, their money is as good as everyone else's.

Ibanez wrote:

houndawg wrote:Back in the day nearly all small businesses had a sign on the wall that stated: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". I'm OK with that.

I'm fine with that. Don't want to serve coffee to white trash, go ahead. But, their money is as good as everyone else's.

Seems a no-brainer.

Grizalltheway wrote:If only you were this passionate about the equal protection clause.

The equal protection clause applies to States, not private individuals or businesses.

Also, it's been "interpreted" in an absurd manner by the Supreme Court. But that's another topic.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:If only you were this passionate about the equal protection clause.

The equal protection clause applies to States, not private individuals or businesses.

Also, it's been "interpreted" in an absurd manner by the Supreme Court. But that's another topic.

Where did you study constitutional law?

Ibanez wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
The equal protection clause applies to States, not private individuals or businesses.

Also, it's been "interpreted" in an absurd manner by the Supreme Court. But that's another topic.

Where did you study constitutional law?

Liberty University.