Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 151
  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    I'm kind of at a loss to figure out how "Religious Exemption" laws can be considered anything other than a clear and obvious violation of the 1st amendment.

    I've engaged in debates here on the issue of whether businesses should be able to discriminate in who they serve and while I don't agree with the arguments that say that, as the most notable issue, that if a bakery doesn't want to bake a wedding for a gay marriage ceremony they should be allowed to not do it on the basis that one should have the choice of what they do with their property or which clients they deal with.

    But of course if I were to concede that argument, then it would stand to reason that one does not need to provide a reason to legally justify discrimination in who they serve because one needs no justification in order to exercise their rights.

    But allowing a law to stay on the book and give waivers ONLY to those who wish to violate it for religious reasons is clearly giving religious people a legal benefit that is not given to non-religious people and therefore is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

    I don't know if I'm going to hear from anyone who actually agrees with the religious exemption law but I'd at least be interested in hearing a rationale for how it is constitutionally valid.

  2. Likes evensaul liked this post
  3. #2
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm kind of at a loss to figure out how "Religious Exemption" laws can be considered anything other than a clear and obvious violation of the 1st amendment.

    I've engaged in debates here on the issue of whether businesses should be able to discriminate in who they serve and while I don't agree with the arguments that say that, as the most notable issue, that if a bakery doesn't want to bake a wedding for a gay marriage ceremony they should be allowed to not do it on the basis that one should have the choice of what they do with their property or which clients they deal with.

    But of course if I were to concede that argument, then it would stand to reason that one does not need to provide a reason to legally justify discrimination in who they serve because one needs no justification in order to exercise their rights.

    But allowing a law to stay on the book and give waivers ONLY to those who wish to violate it for religious reasons is clearly giving religious people a legal benefit that is not given to non-religious people and therefore is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

    I don't know if I'm going to hear from anyone who actually agrees with the religious exemption law but I'd at least be interested in hearing a rationale for how it is constitutionally valid.
    I agree. Iíve long wondered why special consideration is given to religious objections, as if such an objection has some deeper, more profound, weightier quality about it because itís a religious objection. GTFOH with that bullsh!t.

    Example:
    If I hold that rape is immoral because it harms the victim, why is a religious personís objection to the very same act regarded as more valuable? Because Jesus told them so?

    What if Iím a restaurant owner and I suddenly decide to discriminate against obese people on the basis of their implied sin of gluttony? Should I be able to say ďIím sorry, sir. We donít serve your kind, here. No all-you-can-eat buffet for you.Ē Complete nonsense.

  4. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm kind of at a loss to figure out how "Religious Exemption" laws can be considered anything other than a clear and obvious violation of the 1st amendment.
    Why would it violate the 1st amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I've engaged in debates here on the issue of whether businesses should be able to discriminate in who they serve and while I don't agree with the arguments that say that, as the most notable issue, that if a bakery doesn't want to bake a wedding for a gay marriage ceremony they should be allowed to not do it on the basis that one should have the choice of what they do with their property or which clients they deal with.
    When prohibition took effect, should the central portion of catholic mass have been outlawed?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_wine

    I mean if we are to accept the idea that religious exemptions are ******** reasoning and all.
    As in.. your pretty much o.k. with outlawing central religious practices (as a side effect to the central purpose of a law) that are centuries old.. because the whims of the majority blow one way or another?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But allowing a law to stay on the book and give waivers ONLY to those who wish to violate it for religious reasons is clearly giving religious people a legal benefit that is not given to non-religious people and therefore is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
    I don't think that is how it works, why do you think it works that way? Is there some court decision that you are thinking of?
    IE how is it a "special privilege" and what is wrong with "special privileges" constitutionally?
    For example, are tax credits for children a "special privilege" of parents, and thus unconst? What difference is there?

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    I agree. I’ve long wondered why special consideration is given to religious objections, as if such an objection has some deeper, more profound, weightier quality about it because it’s a religious objection. GTFOH with that bullsh!t.
    I think the reason would be called "historical context". Apparently, religion used to be a big thing, and there were all sorts of political problems that came up. In fact, now I would argue that the new religion is the "anti-God" religion. Where reasons involving God should be illegal, especially in the public realm. This religion granted special discrimination powers and exceptions because it doesn't call itself a "religion".

    Does it really make you feel better if I Don't call it a religious decision, but still base it on the fact that God Told me too?

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    What if I’m a restaurant owner and I suddenly decide to discriminate against obese people on the basis of their implied sin of gluttony? Should I be able to say “I’m sorry, sir. We don’t serve your kind, here. No all-you-can-eat buffet for you.” Complete nonsense.
    So you think someones reasoning X is nonsense.. so you should be able to outlaw it?
    Nice.
    I think rejecting the obvious existence of God is "Nonsense", No limits for me as well?
    No that is "religious" right, and so that is wrong.. but your "non religious" deceleration should have legal preference?

    I am trying to draw the unjustified distinction you are making.

    So I appeal to your "harm" principle.. What harm was done to the glutton?

    Story time.
    There is a local vet who owns a sandwich shop. He refuses to serve a specific race minority race because he has a burning hatred for him. The reasoning for that hatred is because they tried to kill him, and killed many of his friends.
    So racism is bad, so this guy has to serve his mortal enemies?

    Again.. what "harm" is done by him "refusing services"? Especially if he goes into business wishing to "reserve the right".
    Now.. how exactly are you going to FORCE him to serve anyone? Do you plan on using a gun at some point? (the IRS uses guns).
    IE What gov power and what limitation does it have? You know, in case the opposite view becomes the majority?
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I don't know if I'm going to hear from anyone who actually agrees with the religious exemption law but I'd at least be interested in hearing a rationale for how it is constitutionally valid.
    I'm not going to say I agree with it but I'll take a stab at it in that I don't want people fired or otherwise punished because they have a legitimate problem with something they have to do. Especially if it is something that changed after they had already had the job. As long as someone is provided who can do the task in replacement I'm going to tentatively say it is alright.

    The example of Kim Davis and how that was resolved is a good example.

    A pharmacist, on the other hand, has to follow the instructions of the doctor - I think there might be leeway in substituting generics but I don't know. But if there's only one pharmacist and they refuse to fill a morning after drug, then we have a problem because now you're denying service at a public accomodation. The pharmacy could bring in another pharmacist at their expense, one to fill religious exemptions I suppose.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  6. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why would it violate the 1st amendment?
    It gives religious thought a legal preference over non-religious thought.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    When prohibition took effect, should the central portion of catholic mass have been outlawed?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_wine
    I would argue that prohibition SHOULD NOT have taken effect and the religious infringement on Catholics would be one of many reasons that it should not have taken effect.

    But more to your point, if a religious observance violates the law (as an extreme example, religious human sacrifice) then it should be banned.

    If the observance does not cause any harm, then doing it should be legal for EVERYONE (every adult should be allowed to drink wine be it for religious or secular reasons).

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I mean if we are to accept the idea that religious exemptions are ******** reasoning and all.
    As in.. your pretty much o.k. with outlawing central religious practices (as a side effect to the central purpose of a law) that are centuries old.. because the whims of the majority blow one way or another?
    As I don't consider our laws to be the "whims of the majority" I reject your assessment of my position.

    And since I do not necessarily agree with all of our laws, you also cannot assume that I accept any particular law and in fact, I vehemently reject outlawing wine at Catholic Mass.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think that is how it works, why do you think it works that way? Is there some court decision that you are thinking of?
    I'm referring to the position that Christian should not be forced to bake cakes for gay marriages because doing so violates their beliefs.

    In this debate I'm not necessarily challenging the position that bakers should not be forced to bake cakes for gay marriages if they don't want to (I do reject that notion but I'm not debating it in this thread) but if we are going have a law that says that bakers cannot refuse clientele based on their sexual orientation, then it applies to everyone. Giving religious people an exemption from a law that everyone else must follow is giving religious preference which is a violation of the 1st amendment.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    IE how is it a "special privilege" and what is wrong with "special privileges" constitutionally?
    For example, are tax credits for children a "special privilege" of parents, and thus unconst? What difference is there?
    The difference is the 1st amendment forbids laws from giving religions special treatment. There's nothing in there about children.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think the reason would be called "historical context". Apparently, religion used to be a big thing, and there were all sorts of political problems that came up. In fact, now I would argue that the new religion is the "anti-God" religion. Where reasons involving God should be illegal, especially in the public realm. This religion granted special discrimination powers and exceptions because it doesn't call itself a "religion".
    Can you support this assertion?



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Story time.
    There is a local vet who owns a sandwich shop. He refuses to serve a specific race minority race because he has a burning hatred for him. The reasoning for that hatred is because they tried to kill him, and killed many of his friends.
    So racism is bad, so this guy has to serve his mortal enemies?
    Except the people who enter his shop are not his mortal enemies. Let's assume that he fought in Vietnam and the people who were trying to kill him in the war were Vietnamese and therefor Asian so he became prejudiced against asians.

    So now a Japanese guy enters his shop. The Japanese guy has never tried to kill him nor has any other Japanese person. But the guy is prejudice against ALL asians so he won't serve the Japanese guy based on his racism against Asians.

    In that situation, he is wrong. He is even wrong, as in completely incorrect, that a mortal enemy has even entered his shop. People aren't your mortal enemies just because you think they are. If one thinks squirrels are his mortal enemies, that doesn't make it so.

    Now, if a specific enemy soldier who he actually fought in the war entered, then he would have a valid reason to tell him to get out but then his rejection would not be race-based.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Again.. what "harm" is done by him "refusing services"? Especially if he goes into business wishing to "reserve the right".
    Now.. how exactly are you going to FORCE him to serve anyone? Do you plan on using a gun at some point? (the IRS uses guns).
    IE What gov power and what limitation does it have? You know, in case the opposite view becomes the majority?
    Well, if every business in a city refused to serve you, you would definitely be harmed. For one, the money you work for would be worthless. If 50% of the businesses refused to serve you, it wouldn't be as bad as if every business refused but it would still be harmful. And if were 10% it would be even less harmful but still harmful.

    So how harmful is basically a matter of what percentage is refusing service but any percentage short of zero percent does some harm.
    Last edited by mican333; May 5th, 2017 at 10:51 AM.

  7. Likes DevilPup John, MindTrap028 liked this post
  8. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm kind of at a loss to figure out how "Religious Exemption" laws can be considered anything other than a clear and obvious violation of the 1st amendment.

    I've engaged in debates here on the issue of whether businesses should be able to discriminate in who they serve and while I don't agree with the arguments that say that, as the most notable issue, that if a bakery doesn't want to bake a wedding for a gay marriage ceremony they should be allowed to not do it on the basis that one should have the choice of what they do with their property or which clients they deal with.

    But of course if I were to concede that argument, then it would stand to reason that one does not need to provide a reason to legally justify discrimination in who they serve because one needs no justification in order to exercise their rights.

    But allowing a law to stay on the book and give waivers ONLY to those who wish to violate it for religious reasons is clearly giving religious people a legal benefit that is not given to non-religious people and therefore is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

    I don't know if I'm going to hear from anyone who actually agrees with the religious exemption law but I'd at least be interested in hearing a rationale for how it is constitutionally valid.
    In principle, I agree with you as I have read ahead to some of your more recent posts. In an ideal world, the government wouldn't make laws which should require religious exemptions. I think prohibition was an example. Fair enough. However, we have perfectly well-intentioned laws to prevent things like discrimination. In a perfect world, these laws wouldn't exist (and we can argue what perfect means some other time). The laws do exist, but they also create a quandary. They attempt to give Constitutionally protected equal access to the public square, however, as a blunt instrument, these laws also curtail the ability of merchants to exercise their 1st amendment rights.

    I'll use the baker example, since you brought it up. Condoning/Opposing same-sex marriage is a political view. Further, it is often based on a religious view. Anyone should have the right to express their political and religious views. Owning a bakery does not disqualify me from my 1st amendment rights. Now, we have a conflict. Does someone's 14th amendment rights trump someone's 1st amendment rights? I don't think it is a stretch to allow that, in this case, the 1st amendment be given precedent. I am not saying it MUST be true. I am simply saying that such an outcome would be reasonable. Since all you are asking for is a rationale, I believe I have met the requirements. You may be tempted to explain that such a law is bad and shouldn't exist. I'd agree. In the real world, though, bad laws get made and legislators operate in the real world, so they may legislate exemptions.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. Thanks Squatch347, MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  10. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    This post is bloated, I know you won't respond to some of it, and don't expect you too.
    Probably would cut some of it out. too tired. and, no spell check for you (soup Nazi voice)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It gives religious thought a legal preference over non-religious thought.
    What kind of thought would outlaw religious thought?
    Like say, human sacrifice? (Since we are going with the most absurd and extreme religious possibilities.)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I would argue that prohibition SHOULD NOT have taken effect and the religious infringement on Catholics would be one of many reasons that it should not have taken effect.

    But more to your point, if a religious observance violates the law (as an extreme example, religious human sacrifice) then it should be banned.

    If the observance does not cause any harm, then doing it should be legal for EVERYONE (every adult should be allowed to drink wine be it for religious or secular reasons).
    That is all well and good, but this goes back to Historical context. Why o Why in the world would the founding fathers try to protect religion at all, if what SHOULD happen is enough?

    As it is, they argued that we didn't need a bill of rights (bases of your objection) because the gov wasn't given the powers required to violate them..
    yet here we are. It is almost like, I don't know, those guys knew what they were doing. It's strange really.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As I don't consider our laws to be the "whims of the majority" I reject your assessment of my position.

    And since I do not necessarily agree with all of our laws, you also cannot assume that I accept any particular law and in fact, I vehemently reject outlawing wine at Catholic Mass.
    Well, you are defending a position on the gov that says it should consider religion at all. You would give preferance to purely secular reasoning. (and of course not see that as a problem)
    So, when the gov passes laws that you don't agree with, but are in accordance with that thought.. YOU have to defend it!
    Just like I while not being a catholic, must defend a gov that would give them an exemption.... right. I mean, you brought up human sacrifices for a reason, and I assume that reason is because it is
    a "religous" example that my position must address.

    I hardly think you would accept "well I don't agree with that so..."

    --This is important--
    They weren't trying to outlaw wine at mass, they just so happen to by passing other laws.
    Like suppose the FDA made it illegal to have 100 people drink out of the same cup. Because.. yucky reasons.
    Great.. mass is illegal again. O, and the FDA can do it as they are not elected,and have jurisdicion. on top of that they can do it with the purpose of hurting religion because they are cecularist dicks, as long as they don't say it outloud. (of course no such people ever existed in history ... right!?)

    If you are against religous exemptions... this would fall under it and you need to address why the gov you want and the position you hold regarding that gov would be given the power to (ON A WHIM) outlaw central parts of an entire religion.
    Again, it isn't sufficient for you to not like how the gov acts, you are arguing for what powers they should have, and in so doing are denying them the power to make a "religous" exemption.
    (I doubt you will find much "harm" such to justify an outright attack on practice of catholic faith).

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm referring to the position that Christian should not be forced to bake cakes for gay marriages because doing so violates their beliefs.

    In this debate I'm not necessarily challenging the position that bakers should not be forced to bake cakes for gay marriages if they don't want to (I do reject that notion but I'm not debating it in this thread) but if we are going have a law that says that bakers cannot refuse clientele based on their sexual orientation, then it applies to everyone. Giving religious people an exemption from a law that everyone else must follow is giving religious preference which is a violation of the 1st amendment.
    I don't think it is. Nor do I think such a thing is inherently unconst, as it occurse with all sorts of other non-religous things in other areas.
    Bottom line, it isn't unconst to create exemptions. If it isn't unconst to create exemptions, then to outlaw exemptions regarding religions (in general) would be EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED TO AVOID.

    Do you atleast recoginze the harm in forcing people to labor for others whom they do not wish? maybe if the gov wouldn't be trying to infringe on liberty of others then we wouldn't have this religous problem at all?
    I mean, why should the gov force anyone to produce X for Y? ahh, the harm, the undefined, non discript harm caused by forcing a person to walk down the street and by from someone else.
    That is ridiculous, and.. it is your position. Because, maybe there won't be anyone else? (never supported in the past threads)

    What is the saddest part, is that by denying the simple ability to deny a service based on liberty for all, you force people to hide. So instead of showing their position to be flawed in reality and open market of ideas, they get to keep on doing what they want just where you can't see them.
    Do you want me to make a cake for your gay wedding..sorry, I am all booked up.
    What, you think I'm sexist biggoted etc? No sir, I hate everyone equally, I'm just really booked, can't shake free sorry.

    What kind of gov can stop it? ahh.. one that watches their every move, and makes sure that they don't bake a cake at all on that date. Yea, that is the kind and size gov we want. You know, to prevent Gay bob from being forced to walk down the street, or worse yet, pick up the phone and call another vender.. O the horror.
    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The difference is the 1st amendment forbids laws from giving religions special treatment. There's nothing in there about children.
    Actually there is, it is called equal application of the law. The idea that the laws should apply to everyone. You are appealing to it yourself, but dismissing a similar instance of the logic you are using.
    Bottom line, there are "EXEMPTIONS" for all sorts of things. To say that you can't create a religous one would be to treat religion differently, and thus unconst per your argument.
    Finally, no it does not forbid giving religion special treatment. It forbids "establishing" a state religion. That is two very different things.
    Like giving married people tax exemtions is not "establishing a state marriage", neither is giving religions tax exemptions establishing a state religion, ESPECIALLY when it applies to multiple religions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Can you support this assertion?
    You are going to have to be more specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Except the people who enter his shop are not his mortal enemies. Let's assume that he fought in Vietnam and the people who were trying to kill him in the war were Vietnamese and therefor Asian so he became prejudiced against asians.

    So now a Japanese guy enters his shop. The Japanese guy has never tried to kill him nor has any other Japanese person. But the guy is prejudice against ALL asians so he won't serve the Japanese guy based on his racism against Asians.

    In that situation, he is wrong. He is even wrong, as in completely incorrect, that a mortal enemy has even entered his shop. People aren't your mortal enemies just because you think they are. If one thinks squirrels are his mortal enemies, that doesn't make it so.

    Now, if a specific enemy soldier who he actually fought in the war entered, then he would have a valid reason to tell him to get out but then his rejection would not be race-based.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Well, if every business in a city refused to serve you, you would definitely be harmed. For one, the money you work for would be worthless. If 50% of the businesses refused to serve you, it wouldn't be as bad as if every business refused but it would still be harmful. And if were 10% it would be even less harmful but still harmful.

    So how harmful is basically a matter of what percentage is refusing service but any percentage short of zero percent does some harm.
    I did not ask that quesiton, I asked "WHAT HARM"

    So, quantify it, and justify it. Right now you have cart blanch to say "harm" exist, therefor outlaw it. Basically putting a simple "no thanks, I don't want your money, because I don't like you".
    on par with "Murder".

    Your explanation is vague and unhelpful, and politically useless. I can not see any justification to pass any law based on what youhave said, and I certainly would hate to see our gov take that position, as it would be so tyrannical an arbitrary as to require violent revolution.

    The point of my story is that "harm" is done to the seller by using force to enact your position (which is required). I would like to see at some point some one offer some actual reasoning for the position you hold in preferring one over the other.

    I really like the "because I don't like it" argument, because it is one of the worst most unprincipled reasons for the gov to do anything, and poses that special danger that I would try to convince you needs to be avoided at even high costs.


    (as a note, that guy would be the ONLY place I am aware of that would do such a thing in my city.. which has hundreds and hundreds of places to eat).
    Last edited by MindTrap028; May 5th, 2017 at 02:11 PM.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  11. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I'll use the baker example, since you brought it up. Condoning/Opposing same-sex marriage is a political view. Further, it is often based on a religious view. Anyone should have the right to express their political and religious views. Owning a bakery does not disqualify me from my 1st amendment rights. Now, we have a conflict. Does someone's 14th amendment rights trump someone's 1st amendment rights? I don't think it is a stretch to allow that, in this case, the 1st amendment be given precedent. I am not saying it MUST be true. I am simply saying that such an outcome would be reasonable. Since all you are asking for is a rationale, I believe I have met the requirements. You may be tempted to explain that such a law is bad and shouldn't exist. I'd agree. In the real world, though, bad laws get made and legislators operate in the real world, so they may legislate exemptions.
    I won't attack the argument itself (I disagree with it like you do but since it was offered as an example and not your official position, I don't think a rebuttal is warranted) but I don't see how it equates with validating a religious exemption. Going by your argument, everyone has the 1st amendment right to refuse to bake the cake in question, not just those that disagree on religious grounds so no exemption is needed.

  12. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What kind of thought would outlaw religious thought?
    Like say, human sacrifice? (Since we are going with the most absurd and extreme religious possibilities.)
    I didn't say anything about outlawing religious thought. I'm saying that illegal actions should not be made legal because they were religiously motivated.

    As an extreme example, I would not give some religious folks a pass on murdering someone because they did it for religious reasons (such as human sacrifice or killing a witch because they felt that's what God wanted of them).

    But this applies to any and all illegal actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is all well and good, but this goes back to Historical context. Why o Why in the world would the founding fathers try to protect religion at all, if what SHOULD happen is enough?

    As it is, they argued that we didn't need a bill of rights (bases of your objection) because the gov wasn't given the powers required to violate them..
    yet here we are. It is almost like, I don't know, those guys knew what they were doing. It's strange really.
    I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying. I'm specifically arguing for abiding by the bill of rights.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, you are defending a position on the gov that says it should consider religion at all. You would give preferance to purely secular reasoning. (and of course not see that as a problem)
    Nope. To be clear, I don't think one should get an exemption from following the law because their reasons for breaking the law is secular, either.

    I want religious reasons for breaking the law and secular reasons for breaking the law for breaking the law to be treated equally.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, when the gov passes laws that you don't agree with, but are in accordance with that thought.. YOU have to defend it!
    Just like I while not being a catholic, must defend a gov that would give them an exemption.... right. I mean, you brought up human sacrifices for a reason, and I assume that reason is because it is
    a "religous" example that my position must address.
    I'm using human sacrifice to provide a clear example of a religious thing that clearly violates civil law and any rational person would agree should be illegal.

    And while we are on the topic, I will assume that you are not for allowing human sacrifices for religious reasons because you hold that murder should be illegal for everyone.

    And you support the right of a baker to refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings but your argument is that EVERYONE should be allowed to do that as in both Christians and atheists should not be forced to "give up their rights" to refuse service.

    So I have to ask, is there a law that you think only religious people should be allowed to break but everyone else must follow? If not, then I'm not sure you really disagree with me. Maybe you don't agree that it's a constitutional issue so much but I would guess that you do agree that our laws should be applied to the religious and irreligious equally. But I'm clearly assuming this so I would like to see if you actually think that there are laws that one can break only for religious reasons (which of course means that you think it should be enforced for everyone else).

    I'm genuinely curious if you can come up with something.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    They weren't trying to outlaw wine at mass, they just so happen to by passing other laws.
    Like suppose the FDA made it illegal to have 100 people drink out of the same cup. Because.. yucky reasons.
    Great.. mass is illegal again. O, and the FDA can do it as they are not elected,and have jurisdicion. on top of that they can do it with the purpose of hurting religion because they are cecularist dicks, as long as they don't say it outloud. (of course no such people ever existed in history ... right!?)

    If you are against religous exemptions... this would fall under it and you need to address why the gov you want and the position you hold regarding that gov would be given the power to (ON A WHIM) outlaw central parts of an entire religion.
    Again, it isn't sufficient for you to not like how the gov acts, you are arguing for what powers they should have, and in so doing are denying them the power to make a "religous" exemption.
    (I doubt you will find much "harm" such to justify an outright attack on practice of catholic faith).
    If a law is passed for the purpose of restricting religious practices, then I would vehemently oppose it.

    And I'm also against laws made on a whim but then I don't think that's how laws are made so this issue is irrelevant.

    If it's a bad law, I oppose it. If it's a good law, I support it. And assuming I support the law, then I hold that it needs to be enforced for everyone and a laws that specifically says that one can break the law because they are doing it for religious reasons gives religion special treatment under the law. Likewise if there was a law that only religious people had to follow, it would be giving the irreligious special treatment and I would oppose that as well.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Do you atleast recoginze the harm in forcing people to labor for others whom they do not wish? maybe if the gov wouldn't be trying to infringe on liberty of others then we wouldn't have this religous problem at all?
    I mean, why should the gov force anyone to produce X for Y?
    That question forwards the premise that government does force someone to produce for someone else, which isn't true

    Since the primary example is cakes for gay marriages, tell me how the government can legally force you to make a cake for a gay wedding. To cut to the chase, they can't.

    And if you opened a cake shop, they still can't force you to do it because you can have a policy that you don't make wedding cakes for anyone, gay or straight. That might not be a good business model but you absolutely can do that so you are never forced to make cakes for gay weddings no matter what.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ahh, the harm, the undefined, non discript harm caused by forcing a person to walk down the street and by from someone else.
    That is ridiculous, and.. it is your position. Because, maybe there won't be anyone else? (never supported in the past threads)
    Right. Maybe there won't be anyone else (It's possible that there isn't two of every single shop in an area). And even if there is another shop, they might not want to sell to gays as well. In fact, the all of the businesses in town might band together and decide to not sell to gays. And this is possible because it's not impossible.

    Beginning to see the harm yet?




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What is the saddest part, is that by denying the simple ability to deny a service based on liberty for all, you force people to hide. So instead of showing their position to be flawed in reality and open market of ideas, they get to keep on doing what they want just where you can't see them.
    Do you want me to make a cake for your gay wedding..sorry, I am all booked up.
    What, you think I'm sexist biggoted etc? No sir, I hate everyone equally, I'm just really booked, can't shake free sorry.
    You know that wouldn't work, right? He can't dodge making gay wedding cakes by just saying that it's not because they are gay (he might get away with it once but if he did it consistently, it would be clear that he's refusing gay marriages). Really, it's exact opposite of what you are saying. He has to make the cake and he's free to express his views against gay marriage. "Here's your cake. BTW, I disagree with gay marriage". That's probably a bad business practice but there are no legal penalties for doing that so he's not forced to keep his opinions to himself.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What kind of gov can stop it? ahh.. one that watches their every move, and makes sure that they don't bake a cake at all on that date. Yea, that is the kind and size gov we want. You know, to prevent Gay bob from being forced to walk down the street, or worse yet, pick up the phone and call another vender.. O the horror.
    Good point. I forgot that every town in America has at least two cake shops. In my town alone there's a least two on every street so of course there would absolutely no problem walking to the next shop if the first one refuses. Why, every other business is a cake shop so of course it would be no big deal to go to the hundreds of other cake shops in town (none of which would likewise discriminate against gays) to buy a cake. Thank you SO much for setting me straight on this.

    But on a serious note, I think sarcasm is a poor debate technique. Besides being kind of rude, it's also imprecise was it requires one to glean your position based on you saying pretty much the opposite of what you mean and has the strong potential to lose the point due to vagueness. So to give you fair warning, I reserve the right to either not respond to sarcastic comments, take them literally as in pretend that you weren't being sarcastic ("I don't think having find another cake shop would qualify as horrible like you do but I agree that it is a bad thing), or respond in a likewise sarcastic manner as I did above. So if you really want to make a point, I suggest you state it directly as opposed to sarcastically.






    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Actually there is, it is called equal application of the law. The idea that the laws should apply to everyone. You are appealing to it yourself, but dismissing a similar instance of the logic you are using.

    Bottom line, there are "EXEMPTIONS" for all sorts of things. To say that you can't create a religous one would be to treat religion differently, and thus unconst per your argument.
    Where in the constitutions does it say that you can't treat religion differently? In fact the 1st amendment treats religious differently as it singles out religion as the thing that congress can set no law favoring.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally, no it does not forbid giving religion special treatment. It forbids "establishing" a state religion. That is two very different things.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT this statement and please use a linked source regarding the 1st amendment.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You are going to have to be more specific.
    I'm asking you to support the statement that you made. I guess you aren't going to do that. So I'll move on.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I did not ask that quesiton, I asked "WHAT HARM"
    And I answered your question by pointing out the harm. I will repeat it. I will bold the parts that specifically spell out the harm.

    Well, if every business in a city refused to serve you, you would definitely be harmed. For one, the money you work for would be worthless. If 50% of the businesses refused to serve you, it wouldn't be as bad as if every business refused but it would still be harmful. And if were 10% it would be even less harmful but still harmful.

    So how harmful is basically a matter of what percentage is refusing service but any percentage short of zero percent does some harm.


    Now a rebuttal to this argument would show that what I said is harm is not harm and explain why it's not harmful. Does your rebuttal do that?




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, quantify it, and justify it. Right now you have cart blanch to say "harm" exist, therefor outlaw it. Basically putting a simple "no thanks, I don't want your money, because I don't like you".
    on par with "Murder".

    Your explanation is vague and unhelpful, and politically useless. I can not see any justification to pass any law based on what youhave said, and I certainly would hate to see our gov take that position, as it would be so tyrannical an arbitrary as to require violent revolution.
    Nope. You have not at all shown that what I said is harmful is not harmful. You just said you don't agree or in other words "NOPE".

    NOPE is not a rebuttal. I have supported that it causes harm and you haven't rebutted it. But let me make my case even stronger.

    So let's say that it's established that any business can turn away any customer for any reasons, including being bigoted agains the customer. There is one grocery store in town and the owner doesn't like black people so he doesn't sell to black people. So black people can't buy groceries in the town. That's very harmful to those particular people. And it's also allowed. So whether or not this scenario would ever actually happen, this law would allow such harm to be perpetrated. So unless you take the position that this kind of thing should be allowed to happen, you have to make sure that the only grocery store in town sells to all races.

    My argument is that if there's only one grocery store in a town, it has to sell to black people as well as white people. Do you agree with my argument or not? If so, then you concede that at least some times, a store cannot discriminate based on race who it sells to. If not, then you are for allowing the store owner to harm the black community.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I really like the "because I don't like it" argument, because it is one of the worst most unprincipled reasons for the gov to do anything, and poses that special danger that I would try to convince you needs to be avoided at even high costs.
    I'd say you like that "I don't like it" argument because it's a straw man argument and straw men are much easier to attack than the arguments I'm actually making.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    (as a note, that guy would be the ONLY place I am aware of that would do such a thing in my city.. which has hundreds and hundreds of places to eat).
    How do you know that only one guy would do it?
    Last edited by mican333; May 7th, 2017 at 03:13 PM.

  13. #10
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,450
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So you think someones reasoning X is nonsense.. so you should be able to outlaw it?
    Nice.
    Ok, letís make sure weíre not talking past one another here.

    First, of course thatís not what Iím saying. You know Iím so stupid to argue something so dense, and I know youíre not that stupid to think that I am. So, with that in mind, letís leave stupid questions out of the discussion. That way neither of us has to look stupid.

    Example: OF COURSE it would be unconstitutional to force a Christian, or a Rabbi, or an Imam to perform a marriage ceremony that their beliefs donít allow them to endorse. Any such coercion on the part of the government would be unconstitutional, unlawful, unfair, and immoral. End of story.

    Second, hereís what I AM saying:

    Suppose secular clerk doesnít agree with gay marriage. Suppose the same clerk refuses issue a marriage license on the basis that heís opposed to gay marriage and the couple goes on to complain to the state. In that case, what recourse does the clerk have available to him that allows him to refuse without repercussion?

    My guess: He wouldnít stand a chance in a court of law. Why? Because he just morally objects to gay marriage, and thatís not enough.

    But if he goes on to say that his objection is a religious objection; that heís acting under ďGodís authorityĒ? Well, thatís a different story altogether. NOW he gets all sorts of support - gofundme pages, lawyers falling over themselves to jump in front of a Fox News camera, politicians dragging them along the campaign trail, etc. In fact, he could go on to defy and U.S. federal court order, and eventually go back to work.

    Now, Iím not saying that the religious person wouldnít suffer consequences (and Iím not saying that the person Iím obviously alluding to didnít suffer any consequences). What Iím saying is that, generally speaking, religious reasons for ďXĒ are given far more latitude and consideration than are secular reasons for ďXĒ.

    Ever wonder why needing to be able to identify a personís face in a state-issued photo ID is even controversial? I mean, it seems to me that itís such an obvious thing that it doesnít even bear discussing. OF COURSE you need to be able to see a personís face on a state-issued photo ID. But if youíre religious, all of a sudden we have to take it seriously, where many wise men gather and discuss the bottomless profundity of very serious religious idiosyncrasies. Yes, in any other context, itís absurd to think you can cover your face in a state-issued license meant to be used for identification, but when itís a religious question, well oh my, we must address the issue with serious tones and deep respect for this otherwise ridiculous idea.

    Now Granted, many states do not allow any religious headgear to obscure the personís face in a state-issued photo ID. But nonetheless, if it were just some dude that didnít want his face photographed, if his reasons werenít religious, then his objection would be dead on arrival. Uncover your face, or no photo ID for you. Thatís just the way it is, you irreligious dope. kthanxbai

    Now, having said that, Iím not sure where I stand on things like the cake bakers and so on, although where Iím leaning should be obvious.

  14. Likes MindTrap028, evensaul, mican333 liked this post
  15. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm referring to the position that Christian should not be forced to bake cakes for gay marriages because doing so violates their beliefs.
    I'm not entirely sure that it's a case of "baking cakes for gays violates Christian beliefs". There isn't anything in the bible about not baking cakes for gays. It seems more so that the Christian views their religious beliefs as having some social/political value and should therefore be forced onto others. Making a law protecting that is a 1st amendment violation.

    Regarding the sacramental wine question, I don't think that this is a very good example. IIRC, the 18th amendment would have banned all alcohol - even magic wine - were it not for the Volstead act, which specifically allowed the use of it for medicinal and religious purposes, which pretty much goes against what you're saying about how Trump's exemption violates the 1st. I think the act makes sense, though, since Prohibition wasn't about simply banning any/all alcohol, but really it was about people not getting drunk. And because magic wine is not about people getting drunk off anything other than their own faith-induced euphoria, then it should not be banned by the 18th.

    ================================

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Anyone should have the right to express their political and religious views.
    Unless the act of expressing those views is illegal. Suppose my political view was that there should be no people with shaved heads and ridiculously long goatees? Do I then have the right to express my view by going and cutting off those goatees whenever I see them? No, because expressing my view in that way would be illegal.

  16. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Unless the act of expressing those views is illegal. Suppose my political view was that there should be no people with shaved heads and ridiculously long goatees? Do I then have the right to express my view by going and cutting off those goatees whenever I see them? No, because expressing my view in that way would be illegal.
    You have the right to express your view. You don't have the right to force your view on me (i.e. by physically cutting my beard). However, you are free to prevent me from entering your home, your business, etc. Ever seen a sign which says no shoes no shirt no service. Places of business often restrict how men wear their facial hair. Whether this is based on a personal preference, hygiene, or a political view is not relevant and, frankly, unknowable.

    ---------- Post added at 11:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Going by your argument, everyone has the 1st amendment right to refuse to bake the cake in question, not just those that disagree on religious grounds so no exemption is needed.
    I'd agree that this is how it SHOULD BE. However, as I've noted, and I think you agree, bad laws do get passed. Since laws are not one person's opinion or views, but generally based on compromise, sometimes that compromise requires additional compromises to make the bill less objectionable to some. So, a group of lawmakers may compromise and cede the right to discriminate based on religious principles rather than any principle. I'd argue that some freedom is better than no freedom. So, while a religious exemption is a sign of a badly written law, it is, at least, may be preferable to no exemptions. Again, this is merely a rationale which you have claimed does not exist.

    Really, in this case, whether you like the law or dislike the law, religious exemptions are a compromise which allows either a bad law to be less bad or a good bill which otherwise couldn't get enough support.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You have the right to express your view. You don't have the right to force your view on me (i.e. by physically cutting my beard). However, you are free to prevent me from entering your home, your business, etc. Ever seen a sign which says no shoes no shirt no service. Places of business often restrict how men wear their facial hair. Whether this is based on a personal preference, hygiene, or a political view is not relevant and, frankly, unknowable.
    Again, if the way I choose to express my view is illegal, then I can't express it in that way. My view has nothing to do with long-goatees entering my home or business, it's about there not being any. In any case, I think the real issue is that a Christian baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake has no actual religious justification to do so - it's purely an expression of their desire to push their religion on others.

  18. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I'd agree that this is how it SHOULD BE. However, as I've noted, and I think you agree, bad laws do get passed. Since laws are not one person's opinion or views, but generally based on compromise, sometimes that compromise requires additional compromises to make the bill less objectionable to some. So, a group of lawmakers may compromise and cede the right to discriminate based on religious principles rather than any principle. I'd argue that some freedom is better than no freedom. So, while a religious exemption is a sign of a badly written law, it is, at least, may be preferable to no exemptions. Again, this is merely a rationale which you have claimed does not exist.
    Well, I didn't mean ANY rationale, no matter how bad it is. I mean a rationale that is legally valid. The exemption of "well, we don't like the law so you can break it as long as you do it for religious reasons" is a violation of the 1st amendment as it favors religious thought over secular thought.
    Last edited by mican333; May 10th, 2017 at 12:16 PM.

  19. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, I didn't mean ANY rationale, no matter how bad it is. I mean a rationale that is legally valid. The exemption of "well, we don't like the law so you can break it as long as you do it for religious reasons" is a violation of the 1st amendment as it favors religious thought over secular thought.
    If there is an exclusion written into the law, then you aren't breaking the law by claiming an exception. Why do we allow tax exemptions? If there is a tax, why should some conditions or persons be excluded? The rationale is that the law is not perfect and exceptions are required to make a desirable law less imperfect. We can argue, on a case by case basis, whether the exception has the intended effect, but as a general principle, it is the way compromises occur.

    Again, if the ideal is perfect freedom and a law impedes freedom, then any exception whereby freedom is gained makes the law better.

    ---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, if the way I choose to express my view is illegal, then I can't express it in that way. My view has nothing to do with long-goatees entering my home or business, it's about there not being any. In any case, I think the real issue is that a Christian baker refusing to bake a gay wedding cake has no actual religious justification to do so - it's purely an expression of their desire to push their religion on others.
    A Christian baker, by refusing to bake a cake, isn't trying to rid the world of gay people. You are making a false comparison. I also think it is odd you consider a baker exercising their freedom of speech equivalent to "pushing" their religion onto others. However, when that baker is forced, by law, to bake a cake which contains a message that they find objectionable, you don't believe the baker is being pushed.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  20. Thanks mican333 thanked for this post
    Likes Squatch347, MindTrap028 liked this post
  21. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,673
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If there is an exclusion written into the law, then you aren't breaking the law by claiming an exception. Why do we allow tax exemptions? If there is a tax, why should some conditions or persons be excluded? The rationale is that the law is not perfect and exceptions are required to make a desirable law less imperfect.
    That's an argument for having exemptions in general but it does not amount to a good reason for any specific exemption. In other words, to say that a SPECIFIC exemption is a good idea (like exempting religious bakers from making gay wedding cakes) one has to show that THAT specific exemption makes the law less imperfect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Again, if the ideal is perfect freedom and a law impedes freedom, then any exception whereby freedom is gained makes the law better.
    No, it makes the law less.

    Many of the laws are quite good, such as the law against murder and I'm not for adding any more exemptions than we already have. So I don't agree that exemptions are necessarily better. It's a case-by-base basis and the default is certainly not that it's a good idea. In fact, most exemptions that one can think up are probably bad ideas (like I just thought up exempting left-handed people from murder laws).



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, when that baker is forced, by law, to bake a cake which contains a message that they find objectionable, you don't believe the baker is being pushed.
    But no baker is forced to bake a cake for gay weddings. All they have to do is refuse to bake wedding cakes for anyone and then they can't be accused of discrimination when they won't make a cake for a gay wedding.
    Last edited by mican333; May 10th, 2017 at 06:11 PM.

  22. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    @ mican on the use of whim. Here because the gov changes it's mind about justification as often as it changes party, the nature of the gov is to be whimsical in it's given state. One day abortion was illegal in most states, the next.. legal. Yesterday weed was illegal, tomorrow it may be legal. Yesterday everyone understood that marriage was between a man and woman, today.. we are not sure what to put on the new Born's birth certificate in the "sex" column.

    It is a reference to the uncertainty of the future opinion of the gov on a given issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I didn't say anything about outlawing religious thought. I'm saying that illegal actions should not be made legal because they were religiously motivated.
    Well, that is either very ignorant, or naive to think that outlawing something that applies to religion (even if unseen consequence) is anything but outlawing that religious thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    As an extreme example, I would not give some religious folks a pass on murdering someone because they did it for religious reasons (such as human sacrifice or killing a witch because they felt that's what God wanted of them).

    But this applies to any and all illegal actions.
    Well, then much of my argument and points directly applies, because you appear to be blind to the effects laws can have on religion.
    And while you are using the language of legal vs illegal actions, laws generally shouldn't become hostile to religions without very, very good cause.

    For example, while the cause of prohibition had some merit, there absolutely should have been a religious exemption.
    Your stance is to say, well drinking was illegal, tough luck Catholics, your religion is stupid anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying. I'm specifically arguing for abiding by the bill of rights.
    Yea, the part that was to protect people from religious persecution by the state. on such things like prohibition being a great example of what the gov can do that could even accidentally abolish major religious practices.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Nope. To be clear, I don't think one should get an exemption from following the law because their reasons for breaking the law is secular, either.

    I want religious reasons for breaking the law and secular reasons for breaking the law for breaking the law to be treated equally.
    I think the point was to keep the gov from passing laws that abolish major and established religions.
    Like, the gov shouldn't be able to outlaw catholic mass, because it wakes up one day and thinks that alcohol should be illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm using human sacrifice to provide a clear example of a religious thing that clearly violates civil law and any rational person would agree should be illegal.

    And while we are on the topic, I will assume that you are not for allowing human sacrifices for religious reasons because you hold that murder should be illegal for everyone.

    And you support the right of a baker to refuse to bake cakes for gay weddings but your argument is that EVERYONE should be allowed to do that as in both Christians and atheists should not be forced to "give up their rights" to refuse service.

    So I have to ask, is there a law that you think only religious people should be allowed to break but everyone else must follow? If not, then I'm not sure you really disagree with me. Maybe you don't agree that it's a constitutional issue so much but I would guess that you do agree that our laws should be applied to the religious and irreligious equally. But I'm clearly assuming this so I would like to see if you actually think that there are laws that one can break only for religious reasons (which of course means that you think it should be enforced for everyone else).

    I'm genuinely curious if you can come up with something.
    1) Abortions as a practicing catholic DR.
    2) Birth control as a practicing catholic Dr.
    3) Right to refuse vaccines
    4) Prohibition (when it was a law).
    5) Right to refuse to swear on the bible in a court of law for atheists

    While the 4th is more of an example of the principle at work.

    Other than that, it is generally hard to think of a religious act that is outlawed at all. Due no doubt to their common good nature. However, never underestimate the gov ability to find evil where there isn't any.
    As I understand it churches in other countries are not allowed to "discriminate" against some groups by simply speaking against them.

    Of course that could never ever happen here.. right?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    If a law is passed for the purpose of restricting religious practices, then I would vehemently oppose it.

    And I'm also against laws made on a whim but then I don't think that's how laws are made so this issue is irrelevant.

    If it's a bad law, I oppose it. If it's a good law, I support it. And assuming I support the law, then I hold that it needs to be enforced for everyone and a laws that specifically says that one can break the law because they are doing it for religious reasons gives religion special treatment under the law. Likewise if there was a law that only religious people had to follow, it would be giving the irreligious special treatment and I would oppose that as well.
    Well, lets take providing abortions from faith based health providers. So keep in mind that fully 1/3 of hospitals in some areas are owned and run by the catholic church.
    Now we have laws that say healthcare providers must provide contraception (some of which directly contradict catholic doctrine). This is not an area that was just made up by the church, but one that has been held by the church ,and who's past LEGAL actions are now being made "illegal".

    So, should they get an exemption? You would say no, per your argument.
    to me that is inexcusably calloused to the religious that are doing good social work, only to have their values forcibly violated. For.. a whim of the gov.

    Now I say whim, because the law could easily be something else. These are not written in stone.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    That question forwards the premise that government does force someone to produce for someone else, which isn't true

    Since the primary example is cakes for gay marriages, tell me how the government can legally force you to make a cake for a gay wedding. To cut to the chase, they can't.

    And if you opened a cake shop, they still can't force you to do it because you can have a policy that you don't make wedding cakes for anyone, gay or straight. That might not be a good business model but you absolutely can do that so you are never forced to make cakes for gay weddings no matter what.
    Yes it is true, the force is fines and legal judgments. The bakers were being forced ot bake a cake, and it was for someone.
    So that sort of completes the circle. The gov forced them to bake a cake for someone.

    Your making some irrelevant distinctions. Taking the tact that the gov can't force one to open a bakery, or once they have a bakery to bake wedding cakes.
    So then the gov isn't forcing anyone to do work.
    While those are true, it doesn't follow that the gov hasn't forced the bakery to bake a cake for people against their personal will.
    You would do better to argue that it was justified action by the gov, as opposed to rejecting facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Right. Maybe there won't be anyone else (It's possible that there isn't two of every single shop in an area). And even if there is another shop, they might not want to sell to gays as well. In fact, the all of the businesses in town might band together and decide to not sell to gays. And this is possible because it's not impossible.

    Beginning to see the harm yet?
    Potential harm, not ACTUAL harm.

    I don't deny the possibility of harm, I deny that it is actually occuring.
    You do not support your case by supporting the existence of unlikely but possible harm.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You know that wouldn't work, right? He can't dodge making gay wedding cakes by just saying that it's not because they are gay (he might get away with it once but if he did it consistently, it would be clear that he's refusing gay marriages). Really, it's exact opposite of what you are saying. He has to make the cake and he's free to express his views against gay marriage. "Here's your cake. BTW, I disagree with gay marriage". That's probably a bad business practice but there are no legal penalties for doing that so he's not forced to keep his opinions to himself.
    it COULD work, because it isn't IMPOSSIBLE to work.
    I'm on equal footing with your ridiculous argument that they are harmed.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Good point. I forgot that every town in America has at least two cake shops.
    That's right, it's called the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Good point. I forgot that every town in America has at least two cake shops. In my town alone there's a least two on every street so of course there would absolutely no problem walking to the next shop if the first one refuses. Why, every other business is a cake shop so of course it would be no big deal to go to the hundreds of other cake shops in town (none of which would likewise discriminate against gays) to buy a cake. Thank you SO much for setting me straight on this.

    But on a serious note, I think sarcasm is a poor debate technique. Besides being kind of rude, it's also imprecise was it requires one to glean your position based on you saying pretty much the opposite of what you mean and has the strong potential to lose the point due to vagueness. So to give you fair warning, I reserve the right to either not respond to sarcastic comments, take them literally as in pretend that you weren't being sarcastic ("I don't think having find another cake shop would qualify as horrible like you do but I agree that it is a bad thing), or respond in a likewise sarcastic manner as I did above. So if you really want to make a point, I suggest you state it directly as opposed to sarcastically.
    Your "harm" is ridiculously impossible to occur in actuality in today's open market.
    Denial of service =/= harm when service can EASILY be acquired other places, and with a small amount of effort (IE a 30min drive) there is no one in this country without cake services of some kind.

    I don't see inconvenience as "harm".

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Where in the constitutions does it say that you can't treat religion differently? In fact the 1st amendment treats religious differently as it singles out religion as the thing that congress can set no law favoring.
    Was that a single religion, or religion in general?
    Also, in the next breath, it establishes special laws regarding religion. Namely "free exercise" right.
    What do you think "exercise" means?

    This is important because what "establish" means is also a subject of question, or rather, a point of importance.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT this statement and please use a linked source regarding the 1st amendment.
    I said"Finally, no it does not forbid giving religion special treatment. It forbids "establishing" a state religion. That is two very different things."

    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.
    http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-...t-and-religion
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I'm asking you to support the statement that you made. I guess you aren't going to do that. So I'll move on.
    I am doing that where you are clear as to what specifically you are questioning. As far as I'm concerned I have supported all of my statements so far, unless you raise a specific point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And I answered your question by pointing out the harm. I will repeat it. I will bold the parts that specifically spell out the harm.

    Well, if every business in a city refused to serve you, you would definitely be harmed. For one, the money you work for would be worthless. If 50% of the businesses refused to serve you, it wouldn't be as bad as if every business refused but it would still be harmful. And if were 10% it would be even less harmful but still harmful.

    So how harmful is basically a matter of what percentage is refusing service but any percentage short of zero percent does some harm.

    Now a rebuttal to this argument would show that what I said is harm is not harm and explain why it's not harmful. Does your rebuttal do that?
    Yes, my rebuttal is that what you describe does not exist and would not likely exist, so the "harm" it could possibly create does nor would reasonably exist.

    Further, you have not quantified the harm. you are arguing for an idea but there is no context to actually weigh. As far as I can tell you are calling an inconvenience "harm" and acting as though it is obvious.
    Just an FYI, some harm is necessary to some freedoms to exist.
    So far the harm you have described is so negligible that we should give preference to individual liberty vs state intervention.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Nope. You have not at all shown that what I said is harmful is not harmful. You just said you don't agree or in other words "NOPE".

    NOPE is not a rebuttal. I have supported that it causes harm and you haven't rebutted it. But let me make my case even stronger.
    See above

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So let's say that it's established that any business can turn away any customer for any reasons, including being bigoted agains the customer. There is one grocery store in town and the owner doesn't like black people so he doesn't sell to black people. So black people can't buy groceries in the town. That's very harmful to those particular people. And it's also allowed. So whether or not this scenario would ever actually happen, this law would allow such harm to be perpetrated. So unless you take the position that this kind of thing should be allowed to happen, you have to make sure that the only grocery store in town sells to all races.

    My argument is that if there's only one grocery store in a town, it has to sell to black people as well as white people. Do you agree with my argument or not? If so, then you concede that at least some times, a store cannot discriminate based on race who it sells to. If not, then you are for allowing the store owner to harm the black community.
    Questions
    1) As the only grocer, do you have a burden to show availability or some sort of waste? Such that, white people need to purchase as well., so they have equal "need" for the service.
    2) Why is it the grocer that responsibility to provide food to anyone, such that denial of services is seen as HIM harming someone. Why not reality at large?
    I mean, what if he closes his store completely, isn't he then "harming" EVERYONE, and by your harm logic should thus be "FORCED" to serve them? Why is it o.k. to force service to some groups (here Blacks) but not others (society at large when only one grocer is available)?

    Just an FYI, one of the major questions the Supreme court asks is "what is the limiting principle". That is what I am asking for here.

    Tentative answer..
    If you are coinciding that you have the burden to show 100% inability to readily purchase a product, then in the case of food. Yes, they can deny service. Mostly because of how I answer the two questions I posed to you. Namely, if I am not willing to prevent him from closing his doors completely because of the clear harm it would cause to everyone in that small 100% not served by a food source town. Then I can't force him to open his doors to any given individual, especially when he has personal reasons for not serving them (even if I don't like his reasons). That is the essence of liberty. The second being that there is no established expectation or right to service. I generally don't operate under the premise that others owe myself anything, other than to respect and protect my rights. So without a right to service, there is no weight on the side of the one being denied service.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    How do you know that only one guy would do it?
    Would you deny me a similar assumption that you make?
    Further, you are missing my point. That guy does it now, in today's political climate, and it is true as far as I know that he is the only person around that is THAT racist, because there is an apparent lack of
    businesses doing that.

    ---
    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Example: OF COURSE it would be unconstitutional to force a Christian, or a Rabbi, or an Imam to perform a marriage ceremony that their beliefs donít allow them to endorse. Any such coercion on the part of the government would be unconstitutional, unlawful, unfair, and immoral. End of story.
    I don't see that as apparent given the arguments offered here.
    What is different about marriage officiating and cakes?
    I mean, I understand your opinion, and share it, but it does not follow from micans argument for sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Suppose secular clerk doesnít agree with gay marriage. Suppose the same clerk refuses issue a marriage license on the basis that heís opposed to gay marriage and the couple goes on to complain to the state. In that case, what recourse does the clerk have available to him that allows him to refuse without repercussion?
    To let someone else do it, or quit the gov?

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Now, Iím not saying that the religious person wouldnít suffer consequences (and Iím not saying that the person Iím obviously alluding to didnít suffer any consequences). What Iím saying is that, generally speaking, religious reasons for ďXĒ are given far more latitude and consideration than are secular reasons for ďXĒ.
    That would be because religious reasons for X are addressed at least in part as "free exercise" clause of the const.


    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Now Granted, many states do not allow any religious headgear to obscure the personís face in a state-issued photo ID. But nonetheless, if it were just some dude that didnít want his face photographed, if his reasons werenít religious, then his objection would be dead on arrival. Uncover your face, or no photo ID for you. Thatís just the way it is, you irreligious dope. kthanxbai
    I think I see your point.
    I think the answer is in the reason for having a clause in the const ensuring the "free exercise of religion" and not ensuring "free right to do whatever the hell you want".

    Basically, religious reasoning should be protected specifically, where as secular reasoning may have a larger burden for justification.

    Quote Originally Posted by DIO
    Now, having said that, Iím not sure where I stand on things like the cake bakers and so on, although where Iím leaning should be obvious.
    The answer to that is based on how much value you put on liberty, and how much harm is caused by allowing that liberty.

    Personally, I value liberty very highly, and require a clear harm that is greater than the harm caused by violating the liberty. Also limiting principles are important.
    Hence my doubt over the gay marriage exception, but not for cake makers(in practice).
    The way I see it, the gov that can force a baker to make a cake, can force a pastor to service the same wedding (for the same reasons). If there is a distinction, or a limiting principle in the reasoning... I don't see it or am not aware of it.

    P.S. to the latter, churches are already taking steps to change how they do weddings to avoid that lack of limitation.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  23. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    A Christian baker
    What are you talking about - a person who bakes Christians? The fact that someone is a Christian has nothing to do with baking cakes, in any rational sense. By referring to themselves as "a Christian baker", it's already clear there's going to be issues with that, and it's exactly what I mean by pushing their religion onto others. When we start attaching labels in this way we're only asking for trouble, which is why secularism is truly the best way to go, as it keeps everyone safe. That way you could never have a town full of Muslim or Jewish bakers - they're all just bakers, and their value to the public is in the baking they do, and nothing else.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, when that baker is forced, by law, to bake a cake which contains a message that they find objectionable, you don't believe the baker is being pushed.
    Bakers bake cakes. They don't evaluate messages or find things objectionable. If the Christian, having completed the duties of the baker, feels they will somehow benefit from evaluating cake messages according to non-baker standards and finding them objectionable, they can do that in their own private mind/home after they're no longer in the bakery serving people who have come into their shop because they thought the shop had bakers who baked. Again, there is no religious basis which justifies the baker's refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

    Bottom line: it's unbelievable that people of faith still haven't learned the lesson taught by the countless times they've shot themselves in the foot with their attempts to push their religion into the public and/or political forum. It always makes me laugh when some religion whines that they can't do this or that and get some town council's permission to "share" their faith, only to be shocked and horrified to find out that the same permission also applies to other religions which they find blasphemous.

    If Trump's order actually ends up doing anything - and currently it looks like it won't really do anything at all - it'll just be one more lesson in why secularism is the only way to protect everyone's true religious freedom.

    You're right about the zombies starving - there aren't any brains they can feed on.

  24. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post

    A Christian baker, by refusing to bake a cake, isn't trying to rid the world of gay people. You are making a false comparison. I also think it is odd you consider a baker exercising their freedom of speech equivalent to "pushing" their religion onto others. However, when that baker is forced, by law, to bake a cake which contains a message that they find objectionable, you don't believe the baker is being pushed.
    What are they trying to do? What were the dime stores trying to accomplish by having segregated lunch counters?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  25. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    What are they trying to do? What were the dime stores trying to accomplish by having segregated lunch counters?
    Exactly. I'm reminded of this:

    Up until 1:30 I'm like, "You son of a bitch"
    After 1:45 I'm like, "You magnificent son of a bitch"

 

 
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Abortion is not a constitutional right
    By theophilus in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 31st, 2015, 12:04 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2010, 11:39 AM
  3. Home schooling not a constitutional right in California
    By MindTrap028 in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 5th, 2008, 02:01 PM
  4. Another Constitutional Convention?
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 6th, 2007, 04:07 PM
  5. Goldphoenix, on Constitutional Issues
    By Netopalis in forum General Debate
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 18th, 2007, 10:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •