- 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: The "religious right" is a boogeyman blown out of proportion
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:24 pm to Hawkeye95
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:24 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
no, you can sue someone pretty much for anything. It might be based off legislation or it might not. Without a link, I won't know.
I don't think you'd be able to reasonably bring about a discrimination lawsuit if there weren't any discrimination laws.
1
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:24 pm to cwill
quote:
I think that is how you see people seeing you when in fact most people know that religious right, social cons are just people who want to tell others how to live. You're nice and caring is long as everyone acts according to how you believe...and your beliefs are represented in law.
You need to look in the mirror. It's the gay lobby and left telling Christians how to live. Forced to bake a cake, photograph a wedding, etc.
You never hear stories about a Christian Minister suing a bakery because the gay baker refused to bake a cake for the Minister's Sunday School group. Or a priest suing a gay photographer for not photographing a communion.
I am sure if a gay baker refused to bake a cake for a Christian Pastor, you would have no problem with it
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:26 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
What else would you think they encompass?
I was just thinking about any legislation that prohibits voluntary, consensual behavior (but more specifically individual behavior as opposed to economic interaction). Drug laws are probably the biggest ones that come to mind.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:27 pm to HempHead
quote:
I don't think you'd be able to reasonably bring about a discrimination lawsuit if there weren't any discrimination laws.
no, really you can sue without that. You can sue for anything, which is the point of tort reform.
you might not win, but you can sue.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:27 pm to Hawkeye95
Here is one damned link for you. I am sick of you younger people calling for others to provide a link when you can't produce one about what you claim.
LINK
The First Amendment states:
The ACLU, a non-profit 501(c)3 (same status as the church) is promoting these laws that trample over the first amendment. They claim that a business owner no longer has those rights because they are a public accomodation. How in the hell is the ACLU a non-profit and aren't paying taxes (just like the church) when they are suing those tax paying business owners claiming they don't have the rights that a non-profit has yet they also state that any political endorsements in a church should revoke the tax-exempt status of the church.
quote:
The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights.
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.
Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.
LINK
The First Amendment states:
quote:
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
The ACLU, a non-profit 501(c)3 (same status as the church) is promoting these laws that trample over the first amendment. They claim that a business owner no longer has those rights because they are a public accomodation. How in the hell is the ACLU a non-profit and aren't paying taxes (just like the church) when they are suing those tax paying business owners claiming they don't have the rights that a non-profit has yet they also state that any political endorsements in a church should revoke the tax-exempt status of the church.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:29 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
no, really you can sue without that. You can sue for anything, which is the point of tort reform.
you might not win, but you can sue.
That's why I said 'reasonably'.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:29 pm to los angeles tiger
i don't have a problem with that. It's no different than if the bakery had refused service to a black customer.
i realize a lot of you on here don't think the bakery should receive repercussions in that scenario either but I just don't agree with that.
i realize a lot of you on here don't think the bakery should receive repercussions in that scenario either but I just don't agree with that.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:30 pm to goldennugget
quote:
You never hear stories about a Christian Minister suing a bakery because the gay baker refused to bake a cake for the Minister's Sunday School group. Or a priest suing a gay photographer for not photographing a communion.
well i agree they should not be forced to do this, but until recently it was illegal for gays to have sex in texas. So its not like there is no precedent for christians telling people what to do.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:31 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
i realize a lot of you on here don't think the bakery should receive repercussions in that scenario either but I just don't agree with that.
Should a black baker be able to refuse service to a klansmen? Should a Jewish delicatessen owner be able to refuse service to a skinhead?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:32 pm to goldennugget
quote:
You never hear stories about a Christian Minister suing a bakery because the gay baker refused to bake a cake for the Minister's Sunday School group. Or a priest suing a gay photographer for not photographing a communion.
I am sure if a gay baker refused to bake a cake for a Christian Pastor, you would have no problem with it
the reason the reverse doesn't happen is because Christians are not an oppressed minority in this country and i doubt there are many (if any) instances in modern times of someone being denied service because of their Christianity.
that said, religion is also a protected class and i would have no problem with the pastor suing in your hypo
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:33 pm to HempHead
quote:
Should a black baker be able to refuse service to a klansmen? Should a Jewish delicatessen owner be able to refuse service to a skinhead?
neither the skinhead nor the klansman would be covered as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act or the Constitution so that's not a valid comparison.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:36 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
neither the skinhead nor the klansman would be covered as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act so that's not a valid comparison.
All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:36 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
neither the skinhead nor the klansman would be covered as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act so that's not a valid comparison.
I'm not talking about legality. I'm talking about the right to voluntary association. What is the qualitative difference between the scenarios?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:37 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Ok Drac, should a gay baker be able to refuse to service members of the Westboro baptist church?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:37 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:sounds like this should be posted in the "Are Whites oppressed" thread.
neither the skinhead nor the klansman would be covered as a protected class under the Civil Rights
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:38 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:
All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.
a protected class are typically things that you don't choose (religion being the only one of those that is debatable)
being a skinhead or a klansman is a choice, thus not a protected class.
it's not a valid comparison.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:38 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:
All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.
so true. Why isn't everyone a protected class?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:38 pm to fleaux
quote:
Ok Drac, should a gay baker be able to refuse to service members of the Westboro baptist church?
no
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:40 pm to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:That's why the yowling over a fricking cake, they want protected status, the next step is ENDA full up protected status. It has nothing to do with reasonable expectations.
Why isn't everyone a protected class?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:40 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
the reason the reverse doesn't happen is because Christians are not an oppressed minority in this country and i doubt there are many (if any) instances in modern times of someone being denied service because of their Christianity.
What an arrogant statement of justifying injustice! How are gays "oppressed" in our society? Is it similar to how women are oppressed and therefore others are forced to provide for birth control and abortifacients? Is that why The Little Sisters of the Poor have been forced to sue the Obama administration?
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News