I didn’t know about the Civil Rights Act of 1875-- but as you say, @DonnaL, it was declared unconstitutional in 1883. So I’m not following @fallenchemist’s argument. I’m not clear what law of the land was not being enforced that would have made segregated lunch counters illegal in 1960.
It’s neither here nor there, but the Civil Rights Act of 1875 prohibited discrimination in some types of public accommodation, such as hotels and public transportation, but not in restaurants. So it wouldn’t have forbidden the segregated lunch counter at Woolworth’s.
The only practical choice for people who can’t obey laws that control conduct of business, for religious reasons, is to refrain from working in such businesses.
He’s saying - if he wants to discriminate against Teh Gays because when he thinks about Teh Gay, it’s icky and against his religion, you can’t make him do otherwise, because his God is more powerful. So THERE.
So it’s basically a free-for-all, eh? Everyone just gets to claim that they have no choice but to follow their God? What is this, the medieval world?
“You don’t get a blanket exemption from obeying the law just by waving the banner of religion. This is well-established in US law. @awcntdb, if you want to live in a theocracy, you need to move to a theocracy. We don’t care what you think your God is telling you to do, and we don’t care what crackpot interpretation of US jurisprudence you have. You still have to obey the law.”
I cannot emphasize this enough - we don’t care what you think your God is telling you to do. Your God is telling you to color Easter eggs or refrain from eating meat on Fridays or go to church every Sunday or not mix meat and milk or cover your hair when worshiping … go for it, babes. But when it comes to interacting with other people, it is of no interest, nor does it need to be our concern, what your God says. We live in a civilized society, not a theocracy, and it’s incumbent on us all to work with one another. If you can’t handle that, then it’s incumbent on YOU to go live out in the country or whatever.
When I was younger, i.e. formative years, my Dad used to say that there are some laws, which are only for stupid people who do not understand their rights re the Constitution. It took a while for me to get it, but I finally understood it in college and grad school, in all its glory.
A state legislature and the federal government can pass any law it wants or even an administrative agency can write and pass whatever statute (which has the force of law) its wants. However, it does not mean said law or statute need be followed or that said law has moral weight or relevance on an individual vis a vis the the First Amendment.
Specifically, “our religious beliefs are…fettered” is not the same as being forced / mandated to act against one’s religious beliefs, as one can choose to ignore and challenge a law or choose not to participate in the activity, which would bring said law into play. In both cases, the result is not acting against one’s religious beliefs.
I hold a degree that according to administrative law set by a state agency I should not have. To have X license, it clearly stated (and still states) in the license-confering State statutes that I must have shown competency in and studied Y. Well, I looked them in the eye inane area and said “No darn way,” based on my religious beliefs. Hum…never heard a peep back from them, and I got everything on schedule just like everyone else. Really, only an idiot who did not know that such a requirement is blatantly unconstitutional would follow something they did not morally and religiously believe in.
I have invoked my religious freedom rights in umpteen of places when dealing with federal and state law and with businesses etc. with no issues. And I do believe that the difference is that when I challenge something if people try to come after me (or my family) because of my religious beliefs and try to hurt my family or business, they see someone who has no problem doing whatever necessary to destroy them back.
When it comes to my religious beliefs and the defense of family and my business, our family lives by the following, “You don’t start nothing; there will be nothing. Start something; there will be something. And we guarantee it will no work out well for you.” If one is not going to stand up for one’s religious beliefs and for one’s rights as enumerated in the Constitution, then there is no freedom as the Founder’s intended.
I understand that. If you believe that the pizzeria owners were only “behaving” in a certain way toward gays because of hate in answering the hypothetical posed to them about catering a gay wedding, then I get it is only about behavior to you, not a moral position.
For many, the pizzeria owners were not behaving toward gays in any particular way; they were following their religious moral codes. Refusing to further an activity, which is against their religion, is not a behavior, but the implementation of their religious moral truth. There is a difference. Behaviors can change easily; religious moral truths rarely do.
This is why when people say the owners are discriminating against gays falls on deaf ears for many, such as myself. No, they believe differently than the gay couples re marriage and are following their beliefs, not doing anything behaviorally because someone is gay or because they hate gays.
In fact, the owners said they do serve gay people, but that is different than promoting a ceremony that is against their religion. The owners view marriage as a religious ceremony withs specific religious purpose and some do not seem to want to acknowledge that fact - the owners do not see marriage as some secular ritual, and thus cannot religiously condone or be part of a wedding that does.
BTW, I remember seeing something about dogs getting married. I hope people understand that was a fun parody. Marriage is about vows. And since dogs do not talk or know religion they cannot take vows and the dog wedding was a fun show, not an actual wedding ceremony.
Oh, ok, so they wouldn’t do weddings for couples being married by a Justice of the Peace either then! I totally get it now! Maybe it would help their case if they said that.
BTW, since there are now a number of denominations doing same sex weddings, as mentioned above, you’re gonna have more than one problem with this line of argument.
It’s all BS about “promoting” a gay marriage or “participating” in it because you’ve been hired to supply a good or service.
Is the religious gun store owner who legally sells a gun to someone who later commits a murder/or a robbery with it (Thous Shalt Not Kill/Thous Shalt Not Steal) a participant in the murder or robbery? Can we charge him with that crime?
“When I was younger, i.e. formative years, my Dad used to say that there are some laws, which are only for stupid people who do not understand their rights re the Constitution. It took a while for me to get it, but I finally understood it in college and grad school, in all its glory.”
With all due respect, you’ve cited your dad before and while I’m sure he’s a lovely man, he’s no great authority to any of us.
Awc, would it also be your position that it is not necessary to, say, follow a state’s rules for being licensed in medicine or law - let the buyer beware and let the free market sort it out?
“The owners view marriage as a religious ceremony withs specific religious purpose and some do not seem to want to acknowledge that fact - the owners do not see marriage as some secular ritual, and thus cannot religiously condone or be part of a wedding that does.”
Take gay out of it for the moment.
So what prevents people from citing their religious beliefs as reason not to serve an interracial couple? Is it your belief that they be allowed to do so and again let the free market sort it out - let those who don’t want to serve interracial couples refrain, and let the market decide whether their businesses stay open (people flock to the restaurant that doesn’t serve interracial couples) or not (people boycott and they naturally shut down). Just trying to understand your guiding principle here.
Do you do business with and/or employ gay people? Leave gay marriage out of it for the moment.
If the gun shop owner knew the gun was going to be used in that manner, then yes, he is probably going to have legal problems.
Missing from this discussion is employee rights. If I own a bakery (but don’t cook), and my employee baker raises a religious objection to baking a cake, I cannot fire him for it.
I can’t join the army and then claim my religion prevents me from shooting a gun. I can’t join Honeybsked Ham and then claim I can’t sell ham to people. A request not to work on the Sabbath might or might not be accommodatable based on the specific job and the inconvenience it causes to the employer.
“If the gun shop owner knew the gun was going to be used in that manner, then yes, he is probably going to have legal problems.”
A religious gun store owner must know that a certain percentage of the guns he sells legally will be used in the commission of a crime, even without knowing which gun he has sold it would be. So why isn’t the fact that he sells guns at all not a violation of his/her religious beliefs? Or is Thou Shalt Not Kill/Thou Shalt Not Murder a lesser belief than marriage is only between a man and a women?