Arkansas lawmakers pass religious-belief bill

dbphoenix said:
In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances."

In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute.
More...

Finally you cite some cases that are pertinent to the Indiana situation!
 
You call it discrimination, but homos are not a protected class, except where there are specific laws designating them as such. The point of Reynolds is not that religious beliefs must be kept in the closet, but that they do not always override important state policy considerations, eg protecting people from human sacrifces. The Indiana law, and other such laws, make the point that religious freedom is also an important state policy and that it is not lightly to be infringed upon.

There is a basic issue here , and it has to do with compulsion. There is a big difference in a court saying a state law or policy discriminates against a group unfairly, and a court ordering an individual to do something against their will and their religious principles.

And dB, before you deliver any more pompous lectures, you might look up the legal definition of common carrier and educate yourself on why they have wider duties to serve the public than ordinary businesses.
 
gwb-trading said:
Bottom Line: Discrimination is not good for your business. If you discriminate you will go out of business. Any business owner that does not understand this deserves what is going to happen to them.
More...
Can't go along with this, brother GW.
But, enjoy most of your posts.
 
Maybe we should just yield to all of Obama's lawlessness.
Oh?...We have to buy whatever you say?...Okay brother Barry...We know you'll retaliate if we don't.

Man, are there enough people left in this country who will stand up and say NO when bullshit is thrown at them to keep life at a sane level???

Americans are a bunch of COWARDS.

Yeah, I said it...COWARDS.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
You call it discrimination, but homos are not a protected class, except where there are specific laws designating them as such. The point of Reynolds is not that religious beliefs must be kept in the closet, but that they do not always override important state policy considerations, eg protecting people from human sacrifces. The Indiana law, and other such laws, make the point that religious freedom is also an important state policy and that it is not lightly to be infringed upon.

There is a basic issue here , and it has to do with compulsion. There is a big difference in a court saying a state law or policy discriminates against a group unfairly, and a court ordering an individual to do something against their will and their religious principles.

And dB, before you deliver any more pompous lectures, you might look up the legal definition of common carrier and educate yourself on why they have wider duties to serve the public than ordinary businesses.
More...
.

It's not about "homos". It's about discrimination,to which those groups I quoted object.

As for compulsion, apparently you didn't read the legal opinions I quoted.

As for common carrier, public is public. There are no degrees of "public". If you serve the public, you must obey the law. If you don't like that, go private, change the law, or move to a theocracy.
 
To be clear, here's where I stand:

If I start a restaurant, everybody can come in and chow down.
When the government tells me I have to cater for a homosexual wedding; ain't gonna happen.
 
BSAM said:
Can't go along with this, brother GW.
But, enjoy most of your posts.
More...


I agree with what GW is saying, bottom line is its not worth it especially if your a conservative to inject yourself into political issues.

I dont agree with with the nazi's going after business's based on their political beliefs, but i do believe its not worth it for the business to make a stance politically, its pretty tough to argue against that point.

Can you name a business that has benefited from discriminating? When it comes to this most businesses wont even take a stance against the most egregious hate groups because its not worth it to them to piss people off, a person who doesnt support your views is alot more likely to boycott your business than a person who supports your views is to go there more often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top