Posted on 02/12/2014 10:25:08 PM PST by Olog-hai
Not just misleading, but mendacious.
Agree.
That is how the libs/gay activists won.
They reframed the argument such that gays are another persecuted minority, such as the blacks in 1970s Roots, making them sympathetic victims.
That is what the title did..
So-cons (and conservatives in general) need to learn how to do that.
I think the bill needs to be more broadly based in order to avoid charges of animus. Rather than focus on just same sex marriage, make it directed at any immoral behavior. So a small inn could refuse service to an unmarried couple, or businesses that are providing goods or services directed at couples could refuse service if it is determined that the parties are unmarried and unchaste.
All businesses and services should have an absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason or with no reason at all. When anyone objects to such a decision, all individuals should have an absolute right to refuse to do business with that particular business or person for any reason or with no reason at all. There should be no government involvement in such choices/squabbles.
I've been "preaching" that message for years. There's absolutely nothing stopping kids now from praying in school. Do we really want government approved prayer in schools? That's a rhetorical question.
Do we want prayer from principals and teachers of (name that religion) leading our children in prayer?
Teach your children how to pray wherever they want to.
I don't want my children/grand childre n learning to be "diverse" in their prayers.
Exactly correct. That is freedom of association.
I cannot be legally forced to associate with anyone I choose not to associate with.
Therefore all anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional.
Discrimination may be stupid (it greatly decreases your customer base for one thing) but it is a constitutional right.
This is already what the law is supposed to be, as the government has no constitutional authority to compel anyone to sell anything, but to codify it in state law isn’t a bad idea.
“If I can refuse service to someone, they can refuse service to me. Obviously, that can cause problems...”
What problems? If someone didn’t want to serve me, I’d walk away. I’d sacrifice being served in that situation for having the Constitution observed and respected. We’re all (supposed to be) free to associate with whomever we wish. Sad that a FReeper doesn’t understand that concept.
Nice try but ain’t gonna fly.
Still... our country began its dramatic downhill slide when Christian prayer was banned from schools.
Sure, prayer would be disgustingly “diverse” now, but if it hadn’t been banned in the first place, I expect the rise of political correctness would either not exist now, or not be as insidious as it is now. When God becomes illegal, ya gotta expect that bad things will happen.
Yeah great. F*** freedom of association, and while we're at it, f*** a free country. Government should be used to force me to interact and do business with people the state demands.
Even on FR people don't have a clue.
Indeed it is.
I retract my earlier statement about cynicism.
Creating a story that is completely out of context is an outright lie.
These guys should be called on the carpet for it.
The title of the bill is indeed religious freedom, supporting the excercise thereof, under our 1st amendment.
The story was a couple fraud with it’s own narrative:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3122392/posts?page=33#33
“What problems?”
Problems like when the majority of citizens decide to get together and deny services en masse to a minority of citizens, like, you know, happened in our country just a few decades ago. If you don’t see that as a pragmatic problem that comes along with certain freedoms, then I don’t know what to tell you.
“We’re all (supposed to be) free to associate with whomever we wish. Sad that a FReeper doesn’t understand that concept.”
This isn’t a matter that falls under freedom of association. Maybe you should learn what that freedom is before you try to condescendingly lecture others about it.
The marketplace should be the final arbiter. Not overbearing government. I should be able to sell goods and services to whomever I choose. The marketplace will ultimately give a thumbs up or thumbs down to my firm’s policies. Government should have no role and no right in the matter. Period.
People forget that in God’s eyes, homosexuality is indistinguishable from murder. He prescribed the same punishment for both offenses.
“The marketplace should be the final arbiter. Not overbearing government. I should be able to sell goods and services to whomever I choose.”
I agree. For example, there was a story the other day about a gentleman with a custom made car, who ended up donating it to Jay Leno, because he didn’t want it to be scavenged for parts after he died. Now, there are plenty of people who sell something and “want it to go to a good home”, like that gentleman. They’re doing nothing different than someone denying a service to a homosexual. Either way it’s discrimination, but one is termed lawful discrimination, and the other unlawful.
So, we’ve set up a system where a perfectly lawful choice becomes unlawful if exercised against certain groups. That makes the rest of us, who aren’t in those groups second class citizens, with lesser legal protection under the law. It also leaves the government in the position of criminalizing motives rather than actions. Just like “hate speech” laws, that is dancing dangerously close to “thoughtcrime”.
This so-called right to refuse service is not a constitutionally enumerated right.
However! ...
Not only have the states never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, but consider the following. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from making laws which unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, the 1st Amendment right to religious expression therefore trumping laws which protect constitutionally unprotected gay rights.
So state laws which protect gay rights may be in violation of Section 1 of 14A with respect to abridging religious expression.
These wedding cake bakers need to craft a policy such that they don’t turn anyone specific away, but they don’t provide the specific service that gays want.
Like no same sex related markings on the cake,
If gays want a opposite sex couple cake then sell them one,
Otherwise these bakers will always lose in court, at least in states like mine and many others.
Is refusing to sell rap CDs racist? More-so is it illegal?
That is how to reframe an argument, Dems fight to win,
“This so-called right to refuse service is not a constitutionally enumerated right.”
True, but, in the US, a right shouldn’t have to be enumerated in order to be asserted. That’s what we are supposed have the 10th amendment for, even if it mostly neutered at this point.
“Section 1 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from making laws which unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights, the 1st Amendment right to religious expression therefore trumping laws which protect constitutionally unprotected gay rights.”
Good catch, seems like a solid argument.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.