Discussion:
"Religious Liberty Lives"
(too old to reply)
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-06-28 19:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 12:45:14 PM UTC-4, Josh Rosenbluth
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 11:17:06 AM UTC-4, Josh Rosenbluth
On Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 9:06:17 AM UTC-4, David Hartung
However if the government is going to make public money
available to private schools, they may not discriminate
against religious schools. This is true mo matter the
religion involved.
Then if a baker is going to bake cakes for straight weddings,
he has to bake them for gay weddings too, especially if the
government tells him to do so by laws that discourage or
prevent discrimination.
That does not necessarily follow because in the former case it
is the government that is discriminating, while in the latter
case it is the private party that is discriminating. As such,
the legal issues are not the same in the two cases.
The government is ensuring equal protection under the law as per
the Constitution.
No. Anti-discrimination statutes that apply to places of public
accommodation are separate from the Constitutional requirement of
Equal Protection.
Oh, really? In what way that's different from this?
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its
territory the equal protection of the laws. This means that a state
must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar
conditions and circumstances.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection
Yes, really. The 14th applies only to when the state discriminates.
So it does not apply to private sector business people who believe that
to use their gifts to support same sex marriage is at odd with their
religious belief?
Although that *could* be an example of the state discriminating against
religion, as has been explained to you over and over and over again,
generally applicable laws that *incidentally* burden religious belief do
not violate the Constitution (either the Free Exercise or Equal
Protection clauses).
It's NOT incidental when it places one "belief" over another. The
choice between a soul and a gay is one of personal choice. NO one can
prove you have a soul or that they are gay. Being as they are NOT gay
but really they're a mentally ill heterosexual and a soul is a religious
tenet, there is no way to decide that a "soul" has to bake a cake for a
"gay", since neither exist in reality. It's like deciding if a BIG FOOT
has a right to ride a UNICORN, neither is part of reality so you can't
force your personal decision onto me.

Just as you can't force me to believe in gay as a sex or that a baker is
constitutionally bound to *involuntary servitude* to make a cake for any
person no matter their reason.
--
That's Karma
Don Kresch
2017-06-28 23:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 15:02:28 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Although that *could* be an example of the state discriminating against
religion, as has been explained to you over and over and over again,
generally applicable laws that *incidentally* burden religious belief do
not violate the Constitution (either the Free Exercise or Equal
Protection clauses).
It's NOT incidental when it places one "belief" over another. The
choice between a soul and a gay is one of personal choice. NO one can
prove you have a soul or that they are gay. Being as they are NOT gay
but really they're a mentally ill heterosexual and a soul is a religious
tenet,
There's no such thing as mental illness; we've been over this
before.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

Loading...