- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Serious question/hypothetical for you legal eagle types
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:43 pm to Antonio Moss
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:43 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
No, that would be chaos.
i think they're saying that society protects people who have characteristics they cannot control that historically have been discriminated against...but then you get to religion and you have to go wut?
0
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Right, and as I said a moment ago everything covered under the 1st ammendment is a choice.
eh...we choose our religion
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:44 pm to L.A.
quote:
Do you agree with the court's decision to force the baker to do this?
The decision to find for the plaintiffs was the 100% correct call under Oregon law. Now I'm not sure what the actual result of the court case was. Maybe a fine, maybe a court order to actual bake a cake (I kind of doubt this).
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:45 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:I implied no such thing.
You begged the question by implying the 2 groups are similar.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:45 pm to L.A.
quote:
So, to use your words, aren't racist assholes (and their ilk) most in need of protection?
From the state, yes.
quote:
All 1st ammendment protections, if I'm not mistaken, cover actions that citizens CHOOSE, like speech, religion, freedom to assemble, etc
Protect them from the state.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:46 pm to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
You begged the question by implying the 2 groups are similar.
what is the objective definition of what makes something able to gain extra rights via anti-discrimination laws?
i think that's what the OP is asking
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:46 pm to cwill
quote:Excellent point. Thanks. Of course it was the state that forced the baker to bake a cake, so I'm not sure where that leaves us.
Protect them from the state.
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 2:47 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:That's precisely what I'm asking.
what is the objective definition of what makes something able to gain extra rights via anti-discrimination laws?
i think that's what the OP is asking
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:48 pm to VOLhalla
quote:
Having a religious belief can invalidate a law? Explain please
If the law violates Free Exercise as encompassed by the First Amendment, or a state constitutional or statutory right regarding religious practice, then the law may be invalidated. States have to show a "compelling interest" in order to regulate a religious practice (Sherbert v. Verner.)
In fact, this bill in AZ has been so egregiously misrepresented by the media that 99.9% of people don't realize that it is nothing more than a clarification on AZ's version of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) - a federal statute which permits those accused of breaking the law with a "religious practice" defense.
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:54 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Just like you can't choose to be a woman
This, however, is becoming less true, which could lead to some interesting things going forward.
What happens when we can choose what gender to be? Is it okay to discriminate then?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:55 pm to Antonio Moss
Again, it's been a while, but wasn't sherbet overturned?
And do you agree with the statement that having a religious belief doesn't automatically give one an out from obeying a Constitutionally valid law?
And do you agree with the statement that having a religious belief doesn't automatically give one an out from obeying a Constitutionally valid law?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:56 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:I'm not a lawyer, but I would think the issue there would be that while they chose their sex, they did not choose their gender confusion.
This, however, is becoming less true, which could lead to some interesting things going forward.
What happens when we can choose what gender to be? Is it okay to discriminate then?
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:58 pm to L.A.
quote:
the Oregon baker who was forced by the courts to bake a cake for a gay wedding
quote:The gay couple are members of a "protected class."
So, to use your words, aren't racist assholes (and their ilk) most in need of protection? Should not the laws against discrimination apply to what one chooses to be? All 1st ammendment protections, if I'm not mistaken, cover actions that citizens CHOOSE, like speech, religion, freedom to assemble, etc.
If they choose to target an orthodox muslim baker because of his "antigay beliefs", that is their prerogative. If they demand he make a cake with the image of Muhammed overseeing a gay wedding, it is their right to expect it be made, to command it be made . . . or force the baker to shutter his business.
For the baker it is a sacrilege. For the couple it is a "point to be made". The government is their enabler. Their target is an individual unequal and inferior under the law. The muslim is a lesser citizen than his tormentors.
The eventual extension is for gays to view it as their government-given right to demean, belittle and exclude such lesser citizens.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 2:59 pm to L.A.
Probably so. Just an interesting thought I had reading through your thread.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:12 pm to theunknownknight
quote:But you can't discriminate based off of the other person's religion which is a choice.
Implicit proposition: You can NEVER choose to be gay. Just like you can't choose to be a woman or a minority.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:17 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
In fact, this bill in AZ has been so egregiously misrepresented by the media that 99.9% of people don't realize that it is nothing more than a clarification on AZ's version of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) - a federal statute which permits those accused of breaking the law with a "religious practice" defense.
It was redundant and unnecessary, but the clear intent and message expressed by all of its supporters was that it was specifically targeting gays and that's what I find objectionable and I think created the firestorm.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:27 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:I'd love to hear a legal argument against your reasoning, because it seems to me you've hit the nail right on the head.
The gay couple are members of a "protected class."
If they choose to target an orthodox muslim baker because of his "antigay beliefs", that is their prerogative. If they demand he make a cake with the image of Muhammed overseeing a gay wedding, it is their right to expect it be made, to command it be made . . . or force the baker to shutter his business.
For the baker it is a sacrilege. For the couple it is a "point to be made". The government is their enabler. Their target is an individual unequal and inferior under the law. The muslim is a lesser citizen than his tormentors.
The eventual extension is for gays to view it as their government-given right to demean, belittle and exclude such lesser citizens.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:43 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
If they choose to target an orthodox muslim baker because of his "antigay beliefs", that is their prerogative. If they demand he make a cake with the image of Muhammed overseeing a gay wedding, it is their right to expect it be made, to command it be made . . . or force the baker to shutter his business.
If the Muslim baker wouldn't serve a cake with the image of Muhammed to a heterosexual or a homosexual then he hasn't violated Oregonian law.
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:48 pm to Revelator
Ok nvm forgot about Windsor 
This post was edited on 2/27/14 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 2/27/14 at 3:56 pm to C
quote:
You can discriminate by political affiliation so no issues I would think.
Probably, if the Nazi asks you to bake a cake, but what if the Nazi applies for a job?
OR. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 260.665(1)–(2)
[No person may] directly or indirectly subject any person to undue influence [defined to include loss of employment or other loss or the threat of it] with the intent to induce any person to . . .[c]ontribute or refrain from contributing to any candidate, political party or political committee.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News