KVM do you believe it is constitutional to require citizens to wear face masks during a pandemic and for business owners to refuse them service if they don't comply?
Based on the constitution, I believe any private business has the right to deny service for any reason. Not wearing a mask is a perfectly acceptable reason to deny. Just like shirts/shoes.
As for the first part, I don't see any reason that mandating masks would be unconstitutional. Limiting gatherings is another story as we're seeing in PA.
So color of your skin is a perfectly good reason to deny service to someone?
It's not wrong he's voted against same *** marriage countless times, he was strongly in favor of dont ask dont tell, he supported conversion therapy, the so called religious freedom is just saying i hate the gays and I'm blaming jesus for it. The law literally lets people deny anyone gay because they think its a sin, how is that not homophobic?
Because its their right per the constitution. Every law must be constitutional. If they don't want to serve someone based on religious beliefs they shouldn't be required too per the constitution. Constitution is the key here. And, honestly, why would anyone from the LGBTQ community want to buy from them? It shouldn't be an issue.
I'm not anti gay marriage. If people want to get married then allow them but not everyone has to agree with that. I don't see the courts overturning that.
The conversion therapy is the only thing that could be considered homophobic but Biden fully supported that too back in the day. Didn't most people? Obviously its looks horrible now and was horrible then but things change. I dont believe Pence supported this "recently" but if I'm wrong about that then, yes, that's 100% unacceptable.
We realize politicians are supposed to vote how their people want them too, right? They're too represent the community.
Well if my religion makes me not want to serve black people, that's my constitutional right? Gee, sounds like great logic there. I can make up a religion right now that says that blacks are inferior and not serve them, awesome!
Anyone who uses a 1787 document to justify their bigotry is an idiot, looking directly at you KVM.
You realize our society is solely based on that document which has and will continue to be amended. You can be angry all you want but every law in the US must be constitutional. This is why courts exist.
For some reason you all don't comprehend the difference between understanding the law and your beliefs matching it. I'd serve anyone if I owned a business but I'm not naive enough that I ignore others constitutional right of religious freedom. See what happens in countries without religious freedoms.
I'm not even religious and I comprehend this.
If your religious freedoms impede on my rights as a person - which should be to be served regardless of my gender, race, religion, ***ual orientation, etc. which people have fought hard for hundreds of years to achieve, then I say **** your religious freedoms. You can have religious freedom all you want but if you want to operate within a mixing pot society then you better leave the bigotry at the door.
The fact that you are arguing that people should have the right to treat people differently based on their religion is exactly why we have seperation of church and state and have had hundreds of years of oppression to fight against. It's the laziest excuse to be a bigot ever.
Explain how you think "separation of church and state" applies to a privately owned business.
Religious beliefs have no place in politics just like they have no place in justifying bigotry in privately-owned businesses. Denying service based on ***uality, race, religion, etc. is not justifable and the fact that you are excusing it with "religious freedom" based on your originalist views is laughable. It's not the 18th century anymore grandpa, time to get with the times.
It's not wrong he's voted against same *** marriage countless times, he was strongly in favor of dont ask dont tell, he supported conversion therapy, the so called religious freedom is just saying i hate the gays and I'm blaming jesus for it. The law literally lets people deny anyone gay because they think its a sin, how is that not homophobic?
Because its their right per the constitution. Every law must be constitutional. If they don't want to serve someone based on religious beliefs they shouldn't be required too per the constitution. Constitution is the key here. And, honestly, why would anyone from the LGBTQ community want to buy from them? It shouldn't be an issue.
I'm not anti gay marriage. If people want to get married then allow them but not everyone has to agree with that. I don't see the courts overturning that.
The conversion therapy is the only thing that could be considered homophobic but Biden fully supported that too back in the day. Didn't most people? Obviously its looks horrible now and was horrible then but things change. I dont believe Pence supported this "recently" but if I'm wrong about that then, yes, that's 100% unacceptable.
We realize politicians are supposed to vote how their people want them too, right? They're too represent the community.
Well if my religion makes me not want to serve black people, that's my constitutional right? Gee, sounds like great logic there. I can make up a religion right now that says that blacks are inferior and not serve them, awesome!
Anyone who uses a 1787 document to justify their bigotry is an idiot, looking directly at you KVM.
You realize our society is solely based on that document which has and will continue to be amended. You can be angry all you want but every law in the US must be constitutional. This is why courts exist.
For some reason you all don't comprehend the difference between understanding the law and your beliefs matching it. I'd serve anyone if I owned a business but I'm not naive enough that I ignore others constitutional right of religious freedom. See what happens in countries without religious freedoms.
I'm not even religious and I comprehend this.
If your religious freedoms impede on my rights as a person - which should be to be served regardless of my gender, race, religion, ***ual orientation, etc. which people have fought hard for hundreds of years to achieve, then I say **** your religious freedoms. You can have religious freedom all you want but if you want to operate within a mixing pot society then you better leave the bigotry at the door.
The fact that you are arguing that people should have the right to treat people differently based on their religion is exactly why we have seperation of church and state and have had hundreds of years of oppression to fight against. It's the laziest excuse to be a bigot ever.
Explain how you think "separation of church and state" applies to a privately owned business.
Religious beliefs have no place in politics just like they have no place in justifying bigotry in privately-owned businesses. Denying service based on ***uality, race, religion, etc. is not justifable and the fact that you are excusing it with "religious freedom" based on your originalist views is laughable. It's not the 18th century anymore grandpa, time to get with the times.
You're wrong legally. You keep arguing what is right socially which is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
You're going to be angry in the coming months because you don't comprehend (or refuse to accept) how laws are enacted enforced and upheld by the court.
Religious beliefs have always been a major part of politics. You know that right?
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
It's not wrong he's voted against same *** marriage countless times, he was strongly in favor of dont ask dont tell, he supported conversion therapy, the so called religious freedom is just saying i hate the gays and I'm blaming jesus for it. The law literally lets people deny anyone gay because they think its a sin, how is that not homophobic?
Because its their right per the constitution. Every law must be constitutional. If they don't want to serve someone based on religious beliefs they shouldn't be required too per the constitution. Constitution is the key here. And, honestly, why would anyone from the LGBTQ community want to buy from them? It shouldn't be an issue.
I'm not anti gay marriage. If people want to get married then allow them but not everyone has to agree with that. I don't see the courts overturning that.
The conversion therapy is the only thing that could be considered homophobic but Biden fully supported that too back in the day. Didn't most people? Obviously its looks horrible now and was horrible then but things change. I dont believe Pence supported this "recently" but if I'm wrong about that then, yes, that's 100% unacceptable.
We realize politicians are supposed to vote how their people want them too, right? They're too represent the community.
Well if my religion makes me not want to serve black people, that's my constitutional right? Gee, sounds like great logic there. I can make up a religion right now that says that blacks are inferior and not serve them, awesome!
Anyone who uses a 1787 document to justify their bigotry is an idiot, looking directly at you KVM.
You realize our society is solely based on that document which has and will continue to be amended. You can be angry all you want but every law in the US must be constitutional. This is why courts exist.
For some reason you all don't comprehend the difference between understanding the law and your beliefs matching it. I'd serve anyone if I owned a business but I'm not naive enough that I ignore others constitutional right of religious freedom. See what happens in countries without religious freedoms.
I'm not even religious and I comprehend this.
If your religious freedoms impede on my rights as a person - which should be to be served regardless of my gender, race, religion, ***ual orientation, etc. which people have fought hard for hundreds of years to achieve, then I say **** your religious freedoms. You can have religious freedom all you want but if you want to operate within a mixing pot society then you better leave the bigotry at the door.
The fact that you are arguing that people should have the right to treat people differently based on their religion is exactly why we have seperation of church and state and have had hundreds of years of oppression to fight against. It's the laziest excuse to be a bigot ever.
Explain how you think "separation of church and state" applies to a privately owned business.
Religious beliefs have no place in politics just like they have no place in justifying bigotry in privately-owned businesses. Denying service based on ***uality, race, religion, etc. is not justifable and the fact that you are excusing it with "religious freedom" based on your originalist views is laughable. It's not the 18th century anymore grandpa, time to get with the times.
You're wrong legally. You keep arguing what is right socially which is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
You're going to be angry in the coming months because you don't comprehend (or refuse to accept) how laws are enacted enforced and upheld by the court.
Religious beliefs have always been a major part of politics. You know that right?
Perhaps, but blacks going to school with whites was also illegal at one time. Saying "it's illegal" does excuse immorality. Your morals are clearly ****** though so preaching to a wall.
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
It's not wrong he's voted against same *** marriage countless times, he was strongly in favor of dont ask dont tell, he supported conversion therapy, the so called religious freedom is just saying i hate the gays and I'm blaming jesus for it. The law literally lets people deny anyone gay because they think its a sin, how is that not homophobic?
Because its their right per the constitution. Every law must be constitutional. If they don't want to serve someone based on religious beliefs they shouldn't be required too per the constitution. Constitution is the key here. And, honestly, why would anyone from the LGBTQ community want to buy from them? It shouldn't be an issue.
I'm not anti gay marriage. If people want to get married then allow them but not everyone has to agree with that. I don't see the courts overturning that.
The conversion therapy is the only thing that could be considered homophobic but Biden fully supported that too back in the day. Didn't most people? Obviously its looks horrible now and was horrible then but things change. I dont believe Pence supported this "recently" but if I'm wrong about that then, yes, that's 100% unacceptable.
We realize politicians are supposed to vote how their people want them too, right? They're too represent the community.
Well if my religion makes me not want to serve black people, that's my constitutional right? Gee, sounds like great logic there. I can make up a religion right now that says that blacks are inferior and not serve them, awesome!
Anyone who uses a 1787 document to justify their bigotry is an idiot, looking directly at you KVM.
You realize our society is solely based on that document which has and will continue to be amended. You can be angry all you want but every law in the US must be constitutional. This is why courts exist.
For some reason you all don't comprehend the difference between understanding the law and your beliefs matching it. I'd serve anyone if I owned a business but I'm not naive enough that I ignore others constitutional right of religious freedom. See what happens in countries without religious freedoms.
I'm not even religious and I comprehend this.
If your religious freedoms impede on my rights as a person - which should be to be served regardless of my gender, race, religion, ***ual orientation, etc. which people have fought hard for hundreds of years to achieve, then I say **** your religious freedoms. You can have religious freedom all you want but if you want to operate within a mixing pot society then you better leave the bigotry at the door.
The fact that you are arguing that people should have the right to treat people differently based on their religion is exactly why we have seperation of church and state and have had hundreds of years of oppression to fight against. It's the laziest excuse to be a bigot ever.
Explain how you think "separation of church and state" applies to a privately owned business.
Religious beliefs have no place in politics just like they have no place in justifying bigotry in privately-owned businesses. Denying service based on ***uality, race, religion, etc. is not justifable and the fact that you are excusing it with "religious freedom" based on your originalist views is laughable. It's not the 18th century anymore grandpa, time to get with the times.
You're wrong legally. You keep arguing what is right socially which is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
You're going to be angry in the coming months because you don't comprehend (or refuse to accept) how laws are enacted enforced and upheld by the court.
Religious beliefs have always been a major part of politics. You know that right?
Perhaps, but blacks going to school with whites was also illegal at one time. Saying "it's illegal" does excuse immorality. Your morals are clearly ****** though so preaching to a wall.
Now this is "separation of church and state". The comparison isn't apt.
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
You realize the right to be agnostic or atheist is also protected as a religious freedom, correct?
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
You realize the right to be agnostic or atheist is also protected as a religious freedom, correct?
Right, but excusing and protecting the right to discriminate based on "religious freedom" is immoral and again, clearly your morals are ******. Stop dodging the main points of the conversation.
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
You realize the right to be agnostic or atheist is also protected as a religious freedom, correct?
Right, but excusing and protecting the right to discriminate based on "religious freedom" is immoral and again, clearly your morals are ******. Stop dodging the main points of the conversation.
I'm not dodging anything. Let's use Masterpiece Cake in Denver refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I'm going off memory BUT this is a private business owner that closes his store on Sundays, he doesn't allow alcohol in his cakes, he refuses to make cakes for anything that is against his beliefs (Halloween, Bachelor/Bachelorette parties, etc)--he's consistent. His religious beliefes have never been in doubt. If he's unwilling to provide a service for something that goes against his religion (the wedding not them being gay) he has every right to deny that service which the SCOTUS has confirmed. Even Breyer and Kagan agreed. ****, Kennedy wrote it who also wrote same-sex marriage decision. I don't understand why you can't see there's a difference here. If he refused to sell the cookies or a pre-made cake that would be different but they were asking him to make a cake special for the event. He stopped making wedding cakes for EVERYONE in order to abide by the injustice of the lower courts. It was simple and shocking that the lower levels of the courts failed him so badly.
Morals is about what you hold yourself to do not others. You guys don't seem to grasp that for some reason.
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
You realize the right to be agnostic or atheist is also protected as a religious freedom, correct?
Right, but excusing and protecting the right to discriminate based on "religious freedom" is immoral and again, clearly your morals are ******. Stop dodging the main points of the conversation.
I'm not dodging anything. Let's use Masterpiece Cake in Denver refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I'm going off memory BUT this is a private business owner that closes his store on Sundays, he doesn't allow alcohol in his cakes, he refuses to make cakes for anything that is against his beliefs (Halloween, Bachelor/Bachelorette parties, etc)--he's consistent. His religious beliefes have never been in doubt. If he's unwilling to provide a service for something that goes against his religion (the wedding not them being gay) he has every right to deny that service which the SCOTUS has confirmed. Even Breyer and Kagan agreed. ****, Kennedy wrote it who also wrote same-sex marriage decision. I don't understand why you can't see there's a difference here. If he refused to sell the cookies or a pre-made cake that would be different but they were asking him to make a cake special for the event. He stopped making wedding cakes for EVERYONE in order to abide by the injustice of the lower courts. It w***imple and shocking that the lower levels of the courts failed him so badly.
Morals is about what you hold yourself to do not others. You guys don't seem to grasp that for some reason.
Right, so if my religion refuses to sell cake to black people solely because they're black, that's perfectly ok? Most everyone would say no. But someone it's okay to disciminate against gays because "the Bible says so". It's morally wrong and you can use the ancient *** Bible or the 18th century Constitution to defend it, but those are systems of oppression that the LGBT and most minorities have fought for centuries against and aren't going to take kindly to your stupid *** conservative point of view.
You still haven't answered a great question, is refusing service to blacks okay? Isn't that why we had integration and the Civil Rights Movement, for this exact bullshit type of thinking that you're still defending?
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
You realize the right to be agnostic or atheist is also protected as a religious freedom, correct?
Right, but excusing and protecting the right to discriminate based on "religious freedom" is immoral and again, clearly your morals are ******. Stop dodging the main points of the conversation.
I'm not dodging anything. Let's use Masterpiece Cake in Denver refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I'm going off memory BUT this is a private business owner that closes his store on Sundays, he doesn't allow alcohol in his cakes, he refuses to make cakes for anything that is against his beliefs (Halloween, Bachelor/Bachelorette parties, etc)--he's consistent. His religious beliefes have never been in doubt. If he's unwilling to provide a service for something that goes against his religion (the wedding not them being gay) he has every right to deny that service which the SCOTUS has confirmed. Even Breyer and Kagan agreed. ****, Kennedy wrote it who also wrote same-sex marriage decision. I don't understand why you can't see there's a difference here. If he refused to sell the cookies or a pre-made cake that would be different but they were asking him to make a cake special for the event. He stopped making wedding cakes for EVERYONE in order to abide by the injustice of the lower courts. It w***imple and shocking that the lower levels of the courts failed him so badly.
Morals is about what you hold yourself to do not others. You guys don't seem to grasp that for some reason.
Right, so if my religion refuses to sell cake to black people solely because they're black, that's perfectly ok? Most everyone would say no. But someone it's okay to disciminate against gays because "the Bible says so". It's morally wrong and you can use the ancient *** Bible or the 18th century Constitution to defend it, but those are systems of oppression that the LGBT and most minorities have fought for centuries against and aren't going to take kindly to your stupid *** conservative point of view.
You still haven't answered a great question, is refusing service to blacks okay? Isn't that why we had integration and the Civil Rights Movement, for this exact bullshit type of thinking that you're still defending?
Again--the baker didn't refuse to sell them a cake--he can't refuse to sell to the LGBT community but he can refuse to design a cake specifically for a gay wedding. So, it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black". That's not a religious right. I'm confused why you're confused.
To repeat--it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black. Never said it was.
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
You realize the right to be agnostic or atheist is also protected as a religious freedom, correct?
Right, but excusing and protecting the right to discriminate based on "religious freedom" is immoral and again, clearly your morals are ******. Stop dodging the main points of the conversation.
I'm not dodging anything. Let's use Masterpiece Cake in Denver refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I'm going off memory BUT this is a private business owner that closes his store on Sundays, he doesn't allow alcohol in his cakes, he refuses to make cakes for anything that is against his beliefs (Halloween, Bachelor/Bachelorette parties, etc)--he's consistent. His religious beliefes have never been in doubt. If he's unwilling to provide a service for something that goes against his religion (the wedding not them being gay) he has every right to deny that service which the SCOTUS has confirmed. Even Breyer and Kagan agreed. ****, Kennedy wrote it who also wrote same-sex marriage decision. I don't understand why you can't see there's a difference here. If he refused to sell the cookies or a pre-made cake that would be different but they were asking him to make a cake special for the event. He stopped making wedding cakes for EVERYONE in order to abide by the injustice of the lower courts. It w***imple and shocking that the lower levels of the courts failed him so badly.
Morals is about what you hold yourself to do not others. You guys don't seem to grasp that for some reason.
Right, so if my religion refuses to sell cake to black people solely because they're black, that's perfectly ok? Most everyone would say no. But someone it's okay to disciminate against gays because "the Bible says so". It's morally wrong and you can use the ancient *** Bible or the 18th century Constitution to defend it, but those are systems of oppression that the LGBT and most minorities have fought for centuries against and aren't going to take kindly to your stupid *** conservative point of view.
You still haven't answered a great question, is refusing service to blacks okay? Isn't that why we had integration and the Civil Rights Movement, for this exact bullshit type of thinking that you're still defending?
Again--the baker didn't refuse to sell them a cake--he can't refuse to sell to the LGBT community but he can refuse to design a cake specifically for a gay wedding. So, it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black". That's not a religious right. I'm confused why you're confused.
To repeat--it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black. Never said it was.
My religion I just made up specifically says I can't make a cake for black weddings though. You'd probably scoff at that and say it's ridiculous.
But I guess because your religion is 2000 years old it makes it okay.
Right? It's the opposite of religion lol "religious freedom: doesn't really apply
Please tell me you guys are joking wiht this--please
Lol yes we know back in ******* 1400 it was practically illegal in Englad to be anything but a Christian old man. We've moved past that and now are trying to unravel the stupid shit you still interpret as okay because of an 18th century document and a Bible
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
You realize the right to be agnostic or atheist is also protected as a religious freedom, correct?
Right, but excusing and protecting the right to discriminate based on "religious freedom" is immoral and again, clearly your morals are ******. Stop dodging the main points of the conversation.
I'm not dodging anything. Let's use Masterpiece Cake in Denver refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I'm going off memory BUT this is a private business owner that closes his store on Sundays, he doesn't allow alcohol in his cakes, he refuses to make cakes for anything that is against his beliefs (Halloween, Bachelor/Bachelorette parties, etc)--he's consistent. His religious beliefes have never been in doubt. If he's unwilling to provide a service for something that goes against his religion (the wedding not them being gay) he has every right to deny that service which the SCOTUS has confirmed. Even Breyer and Kagan agreed. ****, Kennedy wrote it who also wrote same-sex marriage decision. I don't understand why you can't see there's a difference here. If he refused to sell the cookies or a pre-made cake that would be different but they were asking him to make a cake special for the event. He stopped making wedding cakes for EVERYONE in order to abide by the injustice of the lower courts. It w***imple and shocking that the lower levels of the courts failed him so badly.
Morals is about what you hold yourself to do not others. You guys don't seem to grasp that for some reason.
Right, so if my religion refuses to sell cake to black people solely because they're black, that's perfectly ok? Most everyone would say no. But someone it's okay to disciminate against gays because "the Bible says so". It's morally wrong and you can use the ancient *** Bible or the 18th century Constitution to defend it, but those are systems of oppression that the LGBT and most minorities have fought for centuries against and aren't going to take kindly to your stupid *** conservative point of view.
You still haven't answered a great question, is refusing service to blacks okay? Isn't that why we had integration and the Civil Rights Movement, for this exact bullshit type of thinking that you're still defending?
Again--the baker didn't refuse to sell them a cake--he can't refuse to sell to the LGBT community but he can refuse to design a cake specifically for a gay wedding. So, it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black". That's not a religious right. I'm confused why you're confused.
To repeat--it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black. Never said it was.
My religion I just made up specifically says I can't make a cake for black weddings though. But I guess because your religion is 2000 years old it makes it okay.
I don't think you grasp how "religion" is defined in the constitution or you're just being difficult because you know you don't have an argument or maybe both
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
You realize the right to be agnostic or atheist is also protected as a religious freedom, correct?
Right, but excusing and protecting the right to discriminate based on "religious freedom" is immoral and again, clearly your morals are ******. Stop dodging the main points of the conversation.
I'm not dodging anything. Let's use Masterpiece Cake in Denver refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I'm going off memory BUT this is a private business owner that closes his store on Sundays, he doesn't allow alcohol in his cakes, he refuses to make cakes for anything that is against his beliefs (Halloween, Bachelor/Bachelorette parties, etc)--he's consistent. His religious beliefes have never been in doubt. If he's unwilling to provide a service for something that goes against his religion (the wedding not them being gay) he has every right to deny that service which the SCOTUS has confirmed. Even Breyer and Kagan agreed. ****, Kennedy wrote it who also wrote same-sex marriage decision. I don't understand why you can't see there's a difference here. If he refused to sell the cookies or a pre-made cake that would be different but they were asking him to make a cake special for the event. He stopped making wedding cakes for EVERYONE in order to abide by the injustice of the lower courts. It w***imple and shocking that the lower levels of the courts failed him so badly.
Morals is about what you hold yourself to do not others. You guys don't seem to grasp that for some reason.
Right, so if my religion refuses to sell cake to black people solely because they're black, that's perfectly ok? Most everyone would say no. But someone it's okay to disciminate against gays because "the Bible says so". It's morally wrong and you can use the ancient *** Bible or the 18th century Constitution to defend it, but those are systems of oppression that the LGBT and most minorities have fought for centuries against and aren't going to take kindly to your stupid *** conservative point of view.
You still haven't answered a great question, is refusing service to blacks okay? Isn't that why we had integration and the Civil Rights Movement, for this exact bullshit type of thinking that you're still defending?
Again--the baker didn't refuse to sell them a cake--he can't refuse to sell to the LGBT community but he can refuse to design a cake specifically for a gay wedding. So, it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black". That's not a religious right. I'm confused why you're confused.
To repeat--it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black. Never said it was.
My religion I just made up specifically says I can't make a cake for black weddings though. But I guess because your religion is 2000 years old it makes it okay.
I don't think you grasp how "religion" is defined in the constitution or you're just being difficult because you know you don't have an argument or maybe both
I mean "arms" in the constitution (amendment) wasn't defined as an AK-47 but somehow conservatives have made that stretch, how is my new anti-black religion any different than Christianity as defined in the constitution?
Then he wonders why we call him homophobic and racist lol
Because I understand the law? If that makes people racist and homophobic--well, then we're pretty safe apparently.
Because your morality is clearly okay with this type of interpretation of the law, that's why
"law is reason unaffected by desire" or "law is reason free from passion". The interpretaton of law it doesn't involve morality. It involves design and intent.
People have religious freedom to be ******* Scientologists and all sorts of ridiculous shit, I am a business owner who is an anti-black religion. It is my right per the constitution to be this religion. Now is it okay for me to not serve blacks?
Then he wonders why we call him homophobic and racist lol
Because I understand the law? If that makes people racist and homophobic--well, then we're pretty safe apparently.
Because your morality is clearly okay with this type of interpretation of the law, that's why
"law is reason unaffected by desire" or "law is reason free from passion". The interpretaton of law it doesn't involve morality. It involves design and intent.
That's cute, it doesn't change the fact that you're defending laws intended to be racist and homophobic and oppressive.
I'm sure you'd follow all laws in Hitler's Germany as well ****
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
You realize the right to be agnostic or atheist is also protected as a religious freedom, correct?
Right, but excusing and protecting the right to discriminate based on "religious freedom" is immoral and again, clearly your morals are ******. Stop dodging the main points of the conversation.
I'm not dodging anything. Let's use Masterpiece Cake in Denver refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I'm going off memory BUT this is a private business owner that closes his store on Sundays, he doesn't allow alcohol in his cakes, he refuses to make cakes for anything that is against his beliefs (Halloween, Bachelor/Bachelorette parties, etc)--he's consistent. His religious beliefes have never been in doubt. If he's unwilling to provide a service for something that goes against his religion (the wedding not them being gay) he has every right to deny that service which the SCOTUS has confirmed. Even Breyer and Kagan agreed. ****, Kennedy wrote it who also wrote same-sex marriage decision. I don't understand why you can't see there's a difference here. If he refused to sell the cookies or a pre-made cake that would be different but they were asking him to make a cake special for the event. He stopped making wedding cakes for EVERYONE in order to abide by the injustice of the lower courts. It w***imple and shocking that the lower levels of the courts failed him so badly.
Morals is about what you hold yourself to do not others. You guys don't seem to grasp that for some reason.
Right, so if my religion refuses to sell cake to black people solely because they're black, that's perfectly ok? Most everyone would say no. But someone it's okay to disciminate against gays because "the Bible says so". It's morally wrong and you can use the ancient *** Bible or the 18th century Constitution to defend it, but those are systems of oppression that the LGBT and most minorities have fought for centuries against and aren't going to take kindly to your stupid *** conservative point of view.
You still haven't answered a great question, is refusing service to blacks okay? Isn't that why we had integration and the Civil Rights Movement, for this exact bullshit type of thinking that you're still defending?
Again--the baker didn't refuse to sell them a cake--he can't refuse to sell to the LGBT community but he can refuse to design a cake specifically for a gay wedding. So, it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black". That's not a religious right. I'm confused why you're confused.
To repeat--it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black. Never said it was.
My religion I just made up specifically says I can't make a cake for black weddings though. But I guess because your religion is 2000 years old it makes it okay.
I don't think you grasp how "religion" is defined in the constitution or you're just being difficult because you know you don't have an argument or maybe both
I mean "arms" in the constitution (amendment) wasn't defined as an AK-47 but somehow conservatives have made that stretch, how is my new anti-black religion any different than Christianity as defined in the constitution?
And I agree with you 100% regarding "arms" and fully support limitations on that because it was not the intent but it's still very different and I think you know that. There's been so many cases regarding the definition of religion what you're suggesting couldn't even happen truthfully.
Then he wonders why we call him homophobic and racist lol
Because I understand the law? If that makes people racist and homophobic--well, then we're pretty safe apparently.
Because your morality is clearly okay with this type of interpretation of the law, that's why
"law is reason unaffected by desire" or "law is reason free from passion". The interpretaton of law it doesn't involve morality. It involves design and intent.
That's cute, it doesn't change the fact that you're defending laws intended to be racist and homophobic and oppressive.
I'm sure you'd follow all laws in Hitler's Germany as well ****
To clarify you're comparing the constitution to ******* reign?
And that's not "cute"--it's just how law works. You're basically saying religion is racist and homophobic so religious freedom shouldn't be protected which....
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
You realize the right to be agnostic or atheist is also protected as a religious freedom, correct?
Right, but excusing and protecting the right to discriminate based on "religious freedom" is immoral and again, clearly your morals are ******. Stop dodging the main points of the conversation.
I'm not dodging anything. Let's use Masterpiece Cake in Denver refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I'm going off memory BUT this is a private business owner that closes his store on Sundays, he doesn't allow alcohol in his cakes, he refuses to make cakes for anything that is against his beliefs (Halloween, Bachelor/Bachelorette parties, etc)--he's consistent. His religious beliefes have never been in doubt. If he's unwilling to provide a service for something that goes against his religion (the wedding not them being gay) he has every right to deny that service which the SCOTUS has confirmed. Even Breyer and Kagan agreed. ****, Kennedy wrote it who also wrote same-sex marriage decision. I don't understand why you can't see there's a difference here. If he refused to sell the cookies or a pre-made cake that would be different but they were asking him to make a cake special for the event. He stopped making wedding cakes for EVERYONE in order to abide by the injustice of the lower courts. It w***imple and shocking that the lower levels of the courts failed him so badly.
Morals is about what you hold yourself to do not others. You guys don't seem to grasp that for some reason.
Right, so if my religion refuses to sell cake to black people solely because they're black, that's perfectly ok? Most everyone would say no. But someone it's okay to disciminate against gays because "the Bible says so". It's morally wrong and you can use the ancient *** Bible or the 18th century Constitution to defend it, but those are systems of oppression that the LGBT and most minorities have fought for centuries against and aren't going to take kindly to your stupid *** conservative point of view.
You still haven't answered a great question, is refusing service to blacks okay? Isn't that why we had integration and the Civil Rights Movement, for this exact bullshit type of thinking that you're still defending?
Again--the baker didn't refuse to sell them a cake--he can't refuse to sell to the LGBT community but he can refuse to design a cake specifically for a gay wedding. So, it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black". That's not a religious right. I'm confused why you're confused.
To repeat--it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black. Never said it was.
My religion I just made up specifically says I can't make a cake for black weddings though. But I guess because your religion is 2000 years old it makes it okay.
I don't think you grasp how "religion" is defined in the constitution or you're just being difficult because you know you don't have an argument or maybe both
I mean "arms" in the constitution (amendment) wasn't defined as an AK-47 but somehow conservatives have made that stretch, how is my new anti-black religion any different than Christianity as defined in the constitution?
And I agree with you 100% regarding "arms" and fully support limitations on that because it was not the intent but it's still very different and I think you know that. There's been so many cases regarding the definition of religion what you're suggesting couldn't even happen truthfully.
It's really not any different. Tha'ts the issue, conservatives conveniently want to interpret the constituation (and Bible for that matter if I may make that leap) in any way which benefits them.
The issue here is you're allowing people to use religion as a vehicle for bigotry and oppression.
This is not the same as wearing a mask or wearing a shirt to be served. This is oppression based on things beyond personal control, and the more you defend it the more there is going to be hate, homophobia, racism, etc.
I'm sure in your very narrow-minded priviledged life you've never experienced these things, or been the target of hate simply because of who you are, and it clearly shows otherwise you wouldn't have such an originalist viewpoint of age-old documents.
So color of your skin is a perfectly good reason to deny service to someone?
Religious beliefs have no place in politics just like they have no place in justifying bigotry in privately-owned businesses. Denying service based on ***uality, race, religion, etc. is not justifable and the fact that you are excusing it with "religious freedom" based on your originalist views is laughable. It's not the 18th century anymore grandpa, time to get with the times.
You're wrong legally. You keep arguing what is right socially which is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
You're going to be angry in the coming months because you don't comprehend (or refuse to accept) how laws are enacted enforced and upheld by the court.
Religious beliefs have always been a major part of politics. You know that right?
America exists primarily due to the right for religious freedoms. We need to understand that. I'm not religious at all. Never been to a church for anything other than a wedding funeral and baptism but I understand and accept that reality. You realize Biden talks about God at the time I hope.
Perhaps, but blacks going to school with whites was also illegal at one time. Saying "it's illegal" does excuse immorality. Your morals are clearly ****** though so preaching to a wall.
You do realize that the % of religious vs agnostic/atheist is declining at an extremely fast rate. Accepting injustices because "that's just reality and I accept it" doesn't mean other people feel the same way, and clearly there's a shift happening here. I hope you realize that old man.
Now this is "separation of church and state". The comparison isn't apt.
You realize the right to be agnostic or atheist is also protected as a religious freedom, correct?
Right, but excusing and protecting the right to discriminate based on "religious freedom" is immoral and again, clearly your morals are ******. Stop dodging the main points of the conversation.
This man is really trying to defend the legal right to discriminate
I'm not dodging anything. Let's use Masterpiece Cake in Denver refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. I'm going off memory BUT this is a private business owner that closes his store on Sundays, he doesn't allow alcohol in his cakes, he refuses to make cakes for anything that is against his beliefs (Halloween, Bachelor/Bachelorette parties, etc)--he's consistent. His religious beliefes have never been in doubt. If he's unwilling to provide a service for something that goes against his religion (the wedding not them being gay) he has every right to deny that service which the SCOTUS has confirmed. Even Breyer and Kagan agreed. ****, Kennedy wrote it who also wrote same-sex marriage decision. I don't understand why you can't see there's a difference here. If he refused to sell the cookies or a pre-made cake that would be different but they were asking him to make a cake special for the event. He stopped making wedding cakes for EVERYONE in order to abide by the injustice of the lower courts. It was simple and shocking that the lower levels of the courts failed him so badly.
Morals is about what you hold yourself to do not others. You guys don't seem to grasp that for some reason.
Atheism isn't a religion ****.
Proving his point that he's racist homophobic and Transphobic
Right, so if my religion refuses to sell cake to black people solely because they're black, that's perfectly ok? Most everyone would say no. But someone it's okay to disciminate against gays because "the Bible says so". It's morally wrong and you can use the ancient *** Bible or the 18th century Constitution to defend it, but those are systems of oppression that the LGBT and most minorities have fought for centuries against and aren't going to take kindly to your stupid *** conservative point of view.
You still haven't answered a great question, is refusing service to blacks okay? Isn't that why we had integration and the Civil Rights Movement, for this exact bullshit type of thinking that you're still defending?
Right? It's the opposite of religion lol "religious freedom: doesn't really apply
Then he wonders why we call him homophobic and racist lol
Please tell me you guys are joking wiht this--please
Again--the baker didn't refuse to sell them a cake--he can't refuse to sell to the LGBT community but he can refuse to design a cake specifically for a gay wedding. So, it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black". That's not a religious right. I'm confused why you're confused.
To repeat--it's not okay to refuse to sell to "black people because they're black. Never said it was.
Because I understand the law? If that makes people racist and homophobic--well, then we're pretty safe apparently.
My religion I just made up specifically says I can't make a cake for black weddings though. You'd probably scoff at that and say it's ridiculous.
But I guess because your religion is 2000 years old it makes it okay.
Because your morality is clearly okay with this type of interpretation of the law, that's why
Lol yes we know back in ******* 1400 it was practically illegal in Englad to be anything but a Christian old man. We've moved past that and now are trying to unravel the stupid shit you still interpret as okay because of an 18th century document and a Bible
I don't think you grasp how "religion" is defined in the constitution or you're just being difficult because you know you don't have an argument or maybe both
I mean "arms" in the constitution (amendment) wasn't defined as an AK-47 but somehow conservatives have made that stretch, how is my new anti-black religion any different than Christianity as defined in the constitution?
"law is reason unaffected by desire" or "law is reason free from passion". The interpretaton of law it doesn't involve morality. It involves design and intent.
People have religious freedom to be ******* Scientologists and all sorts of ridiculous shit, I am a business owner who is an anti-black religion. It is my right per the constitution to be this religion. Now is it okay for me to not serve blacks?
That's cute, it doesn't change the fact that you're defending laws intended to be racist and homophobic and oppressive.
I'm sure you'd follow all laws in Hitler's Germany as well ****
And I agree with you 100% regarding "arms" and fully support limitations on that because it was not the intent but it's still very different and I think you know that. There's been so many cases regarding the definition of religion what you're suggesting couldn't even happen truthfully.
To clarify you're comparing the constitution to ******* reign?
And that's not "cute"--it's just how law works. You're basically saying religion is racist and homophobic so religious freedom shouldn't be protected which....
It's really not any different. Tha'ts the issue, conservatives conveniently want to interpret the constituation (and Bible for that matter if I may make that leap) in any way which benefits them.
The issue here is you're allowing people to use religion as a vehicle for bigotry and oppression.
This is not the same as wearing a mask or wearing a shirt to be served. This is oppression based on things beyond personal control, and the more you defend it the more there is going to be hate, homophobia, racism, etc.
I'm sure in your very narrow-minded priviledged life you've never experienced these things, or been the target of hate simply because of who you are, and it clearly shows otherwise you wouldn't have such an originalist viewpoint of age-old documents.
Pages