This issue is baffling to me and explainable only as an exercised in gay bullying. We had a clear-cut constitutional right, to free exercise of religion, balanced against a statutory mandate to serve gays. In that sort of case, the constitutional right should virtually always prevail. While the free exercise cases are not always models of clarity, the usual hallmark of cases where it is not recognized is that the behavior had a serious effect on others, eg fgm. Refusing to bake a cake that celebrates conduct your religion views as sinful hardly rises to that level. At worst the gays here suffered annoyance, a hugely serious matter for sure to SJWs but hardly of constitutional weight.
In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker who refused to make cake for gay wedding
- Thread starter qxr1011
- Start date
agree
but what about the right of mutilation if it by the religion?
should we allow cut clitoris to girls
or honor killings?
there may be plenty of what required by religion and still aplied in a very strict manner in some countries
where religion should stop in america?
If that is the case, even when sales drop and he can't bare the competition because he restricted his clients and his income, he will have to close the business. No problem there too. But sowell bases his argument with many examples, it is not simple statement out of the blue.
It shouldn't. That is what I meant with the Jordan Peterson video.
This is the natural consequence of these laws. Those who write the laws will always abuse it and that is what I meant with "dire consequences" in my last post. That is why these laws shouldn't even exist and he should be free to decide who he bakes to or not. And it isn't just Putin, every legislator, being in Parlament, Congress or a Dictator abuses the law and it is only applied to those not close to him. The solution is only one: not legislate in these matters. Laws should be kept to a minimum. Each new law is a step towards dictatorship.
i understand but sowel based his example on economical side of the issue completely forgot the moral side which is not less powerfull
baloney
any law is written moral of the society
not necessarily , one can intentionally misapply any law even those with which you agree to be on the books
There is no moral side. Moral is subjective, a free market is impartial, that is why it is best to let 'it' decide.
baloney(I feel so "new yorker" right now
)Written moral of PART of the society.
And 20% or even 10% of a society of 300.000.000 people is A LOT of people, so it is not right to impose an alledged "moral" on such a large group of people. It is not only right, it invites confrontation and even war... That is not good for "stability".
Agree. We live in an imperfect world. But what you said is just one more reason to keep laws to the minimum. It keeps the margin for intentional misapplience of law to the minimum too.
