Federal Texas Judge: Religious Businesses Protected From LGBT Discrimination Claims

It’s not a matter of serving people at an establishment. He has no problem selling them anything in shop. The issue is using his free expression to create a new product expressing a message he disagrees with. No one should be coerced into creating expressions in violation of their beliefs.

 

That’s not the op.
The judge also said religious nonprofits, such as Bear Creek Bible Church in Keller, Texas, can refuse to hire and can fire LGBT employees under Title VII.

What religion says gays can’t have jobs?

 

Yet dems thought political opinion did.

 

And appealed all the way up to a 6-3 conservative stacked court? (Which will rule it legal on a nationwide basis, as opposed to just Texas?).

Sounds advantageous to me.

 

"Gays" don't exist - the only thing which exists is homosexual activity - the law doesn't care what a person "identifies" as, or whether they try to push the narrative that it's completely "genetic" or "hardwired from birth" (not because it's true, but because it's necessary to win political points. The law is only concerned with the type of sexual activity or relationships a person engages in.

We need to just evolve to the point that suggesting that a person is "born gay" is as laughable as assuming they are "born a Trump supporter" or "born a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles).

Good overall. Homosexuality is an activity that people choose to engage in, not a physical trait which is obviously the sole product of genetics or immutable from birth, such as race, skin color, or inherited disability.

So basically, this should only cover elective behavior, not idle and unprovable speculation about what "a person sexually identifies as".

 

One shouldn't have to be religious (or lie and claim religion) to be able to choose to not associate with a gay person. Or a straight person ...or a discriminatory person.

 

That's apples to oranges. I do think the dichotomic notion about "sincerely held religious beliefs" is unnecessary and since homosexual activity is an elective behavior like smoking or drinking it should be viewed as such, however this is obviously taking into account what the law currently is and how to change it, not just purely "wishful thinking".

 

Lol you never heard about businesses telling dems they didn’t want their business or to hire them?

 

I never thought it mattered if someone is born gay or not. You’re not born Catholic yet it’s still illegal to discriminated based on religion.

 

So businesses are telling you who you can and can't hold hands with.... But, sure, like the sign says,

 

Isn't heterosexual activity also thus an elective behavior?

 

Sure I was

 

Nope.. Not even on a application, along with race, age, gender and so on... Have you ever even applied for a job

 

Dems supported it, well now their hypocrisy is showing.

 

Religion is a choice

 

Yes, the behavior is elective, but the overwhelming evidence indicates that sexual impetus in humans and animals is genetically linked to procreation, so claiming that people are "born with an immutable" pre-disposition to homosexuality (which is non-procreative) is much more absurd and skeptical than saying that people and animals are born with a genetic pre-disposition to heterosexuality.

 

The sign has nothing to do with the laws that relate to "businesses open to the public".

And no, no one is willing or able to modify the extensive history of laws related to the the subject, just to sate some legally-illiterate fantasy, so who cares?

 

Churches and their missions have always had the right to not hire and thus fire people who live in ways that are not consistent with the churches mission and beliefs. That’s settled Supreme Court case law. This judge is simply extending this to closely held private businesses who’s owners have those same beliefs. Just like Hobby Lobby did in opposing aspects of Obamacare.

 

[

so if they decided their religion says not to hire blacks, that’s fine also right?

 

So is political opinion that dems were ok with refusing service to.

 

Both activities require choice. If one is a lawful excuse for discrimination, so should be the other. (no individual should be forced or coerced by the state to associate with another)

 

Didn't say it was law..

 

Yup, later on in life sure.. Still doesn't make your post any less nonsensical.. Clearly we are born in to what ever our parents are/believe or choose us to be..

 

How does newly elected Party get away with replacing/firing previous staff with people that aligned with the new party's political affiliation The hypocrisy is everywhere around us

 

Thousands of different animal species would disagree with you. They can only go by instinct. They can't think things like you just did. And instincts is something that is in DNA. Its as natural as jumping at a loud explosion. Or being afraid when someone points a gun at you. Or being angry when you daughter is raped. Or falling in love with the person that attracts you the most.