Why should religious morality be considered special legally in a secular country?s

newsinfo.inquirer.net/880498/23-us-states-advancing-anti-gay-bills-rights-groups

CHICAGO, United States — Gay rights groups and child welfare advocates raised alarm Monday over what they see as legislative attempts in nearly two dozen US states to roll back recent anti-discrimination gains.

The advocacy groups are particularly concerned over a new law in South Dakota which allows adoption agencies to cite religious beliefs to potentially avoid working with gay parents.

The South Dakota law “is really just the beginning, and is part of a large wave” of similar efforts, said Sarah Warbelow, legal director at the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

ADVERTISEMENT
READ: Trump moves leave LGBT groups, religious conservatives wary

There are more than 100 similar bills in 23 states, according to HRC and the American Civil Liberties Union, including Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas and Tennessee.

The bills aim to loosen restrictions on discriminating against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people through religious exemptions, the groups said.

“We’re seeing different tactics and strategies being used to undermine the rights of LGBT people,” said Eunice Cho of the ACLU.

Texas was “the most egregious offender,” she said, with more than a dozen bills that would, among other things, change foster care rules, grant wedding vendors the right to refuse service, and allow county clerks to abstain from performing gay marriages.

---

If I said I am an atheist and so I want to deny Christians marriage licenses or foster kids because of my lack or religious beliefs my actions would be prohibited and held to be discriminatory. Do these people want to mimic Sharia law? We have Mexicans at our borders and Muslims on planes headed over and these people can only think of garnering votes by enshrining religious discrimination to the vulnerable? Where are their priorities?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4
nydailynews.com/life-style/colorado-baker-cakes-gay-weddings-panel-rules-article-1.1811676
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>Why should religious morality be considered special legally in a secular country?
the first amendment, you aids-ridden sodomite
>Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

civil rights were a mistake, taking away our freedom of association.
like affirmative action, it was only meant to be used for niggers, and not faggots, dogfuckers, and pedophiles.

>your rights end where my christfeels begin

>rights were given to us by our Creator according to our founding documents
>deny creator
>still want rights
kek

no one should have a right to force me to bake a pizza for your mock weddings anyway

what does yaaaas mean? is this just how faggots say yes?

If the laws are specifically designed only to accommodate Christians, then that is against the first amendment.

It is Black gay people speak that got co-opted by Whites.

they're not though, muslims can refuse to bake you a kebab for your fake weddings too

That hasn't come up in court I don't believe, but they would be obligated.

right yeah, by "can" i meant "should be able to in a sane society"

People have to serve everyone at their business equally and religion can't be a front for discrimination against people you hate. If you want to change that, change our laws, but that is how it currently stands with regards to access to public accommodations like bakeries.

>If you want to change that, change our laws
isn't that what the thread's about?
so sick of winning

Would be pretty hard to repeal the 1st and 14th amendments.

where in the 14th amendment do you see that you have a right to force me to provide you with a service?

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.

Talk to me when it's the government or government agencies denying rights, friend. If I don't wanna work with faggots, I don't have to. Your precious government can't force me to interact with you.

Depends on the state.

Gray ones have no protections for sexual orientation or gender identity.

Not really when Republicans are a few seats away from a constitutional majority.

still not seeing it, buddy.

>abridge the privileges
is it this?

Meant for

>the ultra violent religion isn't being targeted

Wow, I wonder why only Christians are forced to put aside their faith for a couple of faggots who could go anywhere else for their stupid cake.

Legally no one should be forced to serve anyone, that is their desicion as a business owner. Is it always the best desicion? No it can lead to people boycotting based on their values, but the government should not be allowed to force you to undermine your values while protecting others.

America and Saudi Arabia, two religious theocratic shit holes.

Because secular morality is not a real thing
Humanism is a religion

>Legally no one should be forced to serve anyone

Yeah jim crow was great.

>hates america
why don't you make like a tree and leaf then, go be a faggot in canada

If I recall in the story they had no idea about the owners' affiliations when they requested the cake and the baker didn't even ask them what they specifically wanted on the cake, it was just a brief 20 second exchange. While I wouldn't have sued them, the baker cannot use religion to deny services to a customer.

Well we sort of made it so you have to serve all customers with decisions in the 1950s stating restaurants had to serve Black customers.

It certainly kept the pants above our blacks' knees.

Jim Crow were laws mandating segregation

>to serve all customers with decisions
no they just dont allow discrimination based on race federally
Most states you can still tell faggots to fuck off

>faggots think they have a right to be granted children by others

Do you not understand that not everything is a right?

>While I wouldn't have sued them, the baker cannot use religion to deny services to a customer.
which is a violation of their first amendment right, because it prohibits their free exercise thereof

Id agree with you if all religions were held to the same standard. You keep referring to the law and how it 'should be'. However, you're ignoring that nobody is ever going to try this with a Muslim ran business.

These laws will only ever impact Christians in large because we aren't a minority religion which somehow makes it ok to inhibit our religious freedoms.

Well Colorado, where the gay cake case was filed, has protections for LGBT folk.

I don't think Muslims should get special treatment.

I don't think denying someone service at a business you own because of discriminatory preferences can be construed as religious speech.

You're missing my point and going straight to how you personally think it should be again. How you feel isn't going to change that these laws only inhibit the freedome of ONE religion, regardless of how the laws are spelled out and defended. Nobody with power or the average vocal person that agrees with these laws will ever apply it to a Muslim because that would be oppresive to the poor brown minority.

I'm in Oklahoma :)

>I don't think denying someone service at a business you own because of discriminatory preferences can be construed as religious speech.
it's its exercise, not speech
people should have the right to discriminate however they please in their business and hiring practices
>no shoes, no shirt, no service

Find me a case of a Muslim bakery denying services to gays then and it won't be hypothetical we can discuss it then.


Well then take that up with your state laws. Many have provisions regarding public accommodations and sexual orientation.

Truth hurts fuck face.

Find me a case of a Muslim bakery denying services to gays then and it won't be hypothetical we can discuss it then.
youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

...

...

pretend this post
began with a greaterthan symbol

So he should bring a case about it if it is so upsetting to them to fix this.

...

What the fug? Those people have to be photoshopped in, I can't imagine Trump would allow a bunch of people to put their hands on him in prayer.

...

What part of my previous statement do you not understand
>Nobody with power or the average vocal person that agrees with these laws will ever apply it to a Muslim because that would be oppressive to the poor brown minority"

Or he can not be a dumbass and just find a bakery that will instead of wasting a ton of time and money to prosecute someone for their religious beliefs. Hmmmmmm

Well in your example they didn't bring that person to court about it so nobody knows how the law would be applied.

I think the point of the case is to say nobody should have to waste time and money to find a bakery just because they are gay.

PIC FUCKIN' RELATED

children of satan always attack Christians. I wish you americans revert these degenerate laws this devil's slave obama has passed.

user, you are being really thick right now. It won't go to a court because it is a minority religion that isn't allowed to be attacked by the left, the only people who give a shit about the law in the first place. Nobody would know whether to support the poor oppressed gay person's rights or the poor oppressed Mulim's rights to practice their faith.

So why don't you move to a sandnigger shit hole?

this is our country.
no amount of judeo-atheistic/marxist subversion is going to change that

Well also because they were just asking for purposes of a youtube show, and it wasn't a real gay couple. I don't think religious faith should override civil obligations.

Why should I? Our "little US" is Berlin. Nowhere else will you find a "proud fag".

I fear it is irreversible. Your population was in perfect conditions (no war/revolution/crisis) for far too long. The decay has started in 60s, soon we 'll see its culmination.

Once again, what you 'think' and how things are actually applied are two different things. I'll also reiterate that I agree with you in spirit. However, that isn't how the law is going to be applied. If it is only ever going to be used to attack Christians, then it is a law I will not support. The fact that a Muslim has not yet been to court over a gay cake emphasizes how this law is only being applied to Christians.

>The fact that a Muslim has not yet been to court over a gay cake emphasizes how this law is only being applied to Christians.

0.7% of the US population is Muslim you stupid nigger

You truly are a fucking nigger? Trump voters are the basically niggers. Niggers are the most religious Americans. Guess what? Your nigges.

I'm not saying I think Muslims should be de facto exempt from the law. I think the fact that a Muslim hasn't been to court is more of a reflection of the distance between the gay community and the Muslim community. I doubt most gays would shop at a Muslim bakery to begin with, but that doesn't legitimize any discrimination on their part. Obviously it is hard to stamp this sort of thing out completely but I think if a case ever went to trial the Muslims would lose. Christians also are way more common in the U.S. than Muslims.

Because the Marxist left pushed way too quickly on too many fronts. If Islam wasn't creeping into countries as well having triple-digit growth, then pushing mentally ill gender issues [trans] would be a lot easier. It all hit at once because they thought they could get away with it. Clinton was supposed to win the election and she would've cause radicalization than Obama could ever dream of.

Instead, the Democrat Media Complex is in hysterics, lashing out and trying to destroy the careers and lives of anyone who has a greater reach or challenges their sacred institutions. This is why the political hit job on Pewdiepie and Milo happened. Pewdiepie hit the early teen to early 20s generation and Milo challenged their grasped on academia. Say what you want about Milo with whatever retarded ideological puritanism; the guy is the living embodiment of Andrew Breitbart's observations, and as a result he is arguably the most powerful person on the political right.

Remember: everything is downstream from culture. The Marxist left controls the media which crafts the media, Hollywood that then supports it and makes it 'cool', and academia (university/public schooling) prepares and fosters a community of soft Marxism. Marxism has destroyed the Judeo-Christian values in society and as a result have destroyed a lot of what makes the West, the West. This resurgence of religiosity is the result of people such as myself who may identify as an atheist but understand how crucial those values are to the West. Gay marriage, transrights, etc are all pragmatic application of critical theory, shoehorning in Marxism protection of their racism, sexism, yada turtle shell.

The political right NEEDS to win this culture war. It is the future of Western civilization at stake, and it's taking place on the internet. Sup Forums and other free speech forums have a grand influence because they cannot be challenged: it is chaos incarnate.

Wow, you really showed me! How will I ever recover from this after another user posted a video of Muslims refusing to make gay cakes and I already referred to them being a religious minority!

I would hope that the Muslim would lose. However, I don't agree with how you seem to imply commonality protects them. Moreover, one of my main statements was that Christians being the largest religion in our country is exactly what makes it appropriate to attack them.

>THEYRE JUST SNEAKILY TAKING OUR RIGHTS
>Huh? You're saying they have a recognized and fundamental right to exercise their religion?
>FUCK THEIR RIGHTS THEY HURT MY RIGHTS

Absent SCOTUS granting writ and clarifying whether a state can compel someone to violate sincerely held religious beliefs, the states will be able to continue unfettered. This all assuming they pass the other tests and whatnot

Print this and mail to everyone.

Because your religious views are essentially your views about reality: about what undergirds the world, about what one ought to do, and what ought to be.

There are thus only two options: a) the government forces everyone to act in accordance with *their* religious views (probably utilitarian and materialistic), or b) they permit as much freedom to the individuals to make decisions on what is important as is feasible.

>If I said I am an atheist and so I want to deny Christians marriage licenses or foster kids because of my lack or religious beliefs my actions would be prohibited and held to be discriminatory.
You're describing government's behavior. You, as an individual should be able to not do business with Christians if you don't want. (I'm a Christian, but I realize that is the price of allowing us to do the same.)

I don't think attacking a baker for refusing service in a discriminatory manner is a religious attack. Regardless of his reasoning his actions were discriminatory and that was the problem with them, not his religion. Nothing in Christianity says not to bake cakes for gays, but that isn't the point. The point is his civil obligations as a baker to provide uniform public accommodations come before his religious beliefs.

>The point is his civil obligations as a baker to provide uniform public accommodations
Just because you *want* that to be a civil obligation, doesn't make it so. "Providing uniform public accomodations" is pretty lame compared to "being free to act in accordance with your conscience".

>refusing service in a discriminatory manner

I cant entirely agree with you here. The bakers are not flat out refusing service to gay people. They are refusing to make a cake for a ceremony that goes against their deeply held religious beliefs. Wish I could keep this dialogue going, but I have to go to work.

You have to understand that the store owner is a person too and his feelings and beliefs matter as much as the customer's.

They refused them service for a wedding cake at a bakery. Them being Christian is irrelevant.

First of all, they are not required to serve ANYONE simply by virtue of some assumed civic duty. They are, however, unable to deny services based on discrimination of a protected class IF their business is 1. Open to the publicand 2. Inherently connected to interstate commerce. There are more but those are the big ones.

This case is also more than a simple CRA or P&I claim. The business of professional cake baking is, for all relevant purposes, and art. Many bakers who prepare wedding cakes perceive such to be an act of support for the institution of marriage. This reframes the issue for what it really is: should an artist be forced to create art in support of an act which violates their sincerely held religious beliefs?

The burden on the State to prove their interest is significant enough to merit such an infringement is a significant one as freedom to practice religion is a fundamental right afforded greater protection under the Constitution.

You aren't familiar with the law that controls in cases like this, are you user? Them being Christian and only denying to bake a WEDDING CAKE but still serving gay customers in other capacities completely reframes the issue at hand.

No by civil law in Colorado stating that public accommodations may not discriminate against customers for sexual orientation. Not some metaphorical duty, a legal one. It is a state law so it doesn't have to conduct interstate commerce for this to apply. The state has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens rights to access goods and services.

And I would argue that, as applied, Colorado's statute violates the baker's equal protection under the 14th amendment by infringing upon their freedom to practice their religion unfettered. That they have served the couple in matters which do not relate marriage supports this position.

At the end of the day, either someone is denied a service, or someone is forced under penalty of law (read gunpoint) to work for someone else. Which ones worse?

It would be better to argue this is a 14th P&I challenge rather than equal protection, I believe. My mistake.

Service denial otherwise people could just claim their religion justifies discrimination. The guy was fined I believe not jailed. It is a civil not criminal matter.

There is no basis for secular morality, there is no evidence that any kind of secular morality exist.

Pretty quick judgment for such a nuanced issue. How much of a fine? What sort of effect might this have on the perception of those who hold religious convictions? Should priests also be forced to marry gay christians against their convictions?

The reality is this is far too broad a restriction of a fundamental liberty interest. The customers have an interest as well, but all must be taken in context. Ultimately this law is unlikely to survive strict scrutiny. The public interest is likely not of the magnitude to merit compelling an artist to produce art in support of an act which violates their beliefs. Additionally, as said before, the law is not narrowly tailored and could be framed in a way that preserves both parties' liberty interests.

I also want to address your point about potential abuse: the courts have already development a methodology which tests the sincerity of one's beliefs. That the baker only refused to sell them a wedding cake but had no problems selling other goods gives support to finding their beliefs to be sincere.

No he wasn't fined (the baker) he was ordered to attend sensitivity training and to bake cakes for everyone (he responded by saying he wouldn't make wedding cakes anymore).


nydailynews.com/life-style/colorado-baker-cakes-gay-weddings-panel-rules-article-1.1811676

Practicing ones religion is a constitutional right. Being a faggot? Not so much.

And this shows why this law is unconstitutional as applied. This is an undue burden placed upon one solely because of their religion.

Having to serve gay customers isn't a burden.

What's to stop me then from forcing a construction business (who happen to be Christian) to build a large erect penis on my property? I can just claim homophobia and discrimination when they say no and force them to build a giant disgusting degenerate statue for me while I laugh at them. Sound tolerant? Sound peachy?

This angers me to no end.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.
I reserve that power for myself.

this is exactly what Trump promised, you can't get mad now

For you, faggot. Why do you think your philosophy of life and conduct trumps everyone elses?

Don't be reductionist, user. It makes you seem insincere.

It's not "serving gay customers." It's being forced to accept commission for art that supports an act which violates sincerely held religious beliefs. A wedding cake, in no form, can simply be classified as a simple "good" without stripping the situation of nuance. When it comes to constitutional matters, we don't get to ignore the nuance just because it might go against that which we agree with.

While we are in agreement in regards to the baker, it's worth nothing that this isn't quite a parallel. The fact that wedding cakes are inherently connected to Christianity, and any other religion which places sanctity upon marriage, is what makes this an issue. This isn't a general denial based solely on personal prejudice.

Trying to claim that because it is "art" discrimination is justified is silly. It is like saying a diner that won't serve Blacks is a food artistry center. A wedding cake is a simple good. The nuances humans attach to it are not objective and therefore cannot be the basis for law.

>Gay rights groups
>Child welfare advocates

Amazing that this is in the same sentence.

Except that's wrong as sentimentality has been held time and time again to hold legal significance.

I ask this out of genuine interest: how familiar are you with the guiding principals within our law? Because I assure you the law is not 100% objective, nor has it ever been so. Sentimentality, sincerely held beliefs, and the like are significant in various legal matters. A sentiment attached to a religious belief is substantially significant in matters which infringe upon that belief. This does not mean that every instance where the same occurs results in overturning of the law, but the factors must be weighed on balance with the appropriate amount of deference owed to the bakers fundamental right.