Federal Texas Judge: Religious Businesses Protected From LGBT Discrimination Claims

yes because discrimination is bad
right?

 

has nothing to do with contact with sinners
it is not wanting to participate in their sin
I'm sure they would be more than happy to bake them a birthday cake

 

if being gay is in your DNA why haven't they found it yet?
they have found every other gene that indicates every other attribute in humans why not the so called gay gene?

 

No one is not selling cakes to homosexuals.

 

but it is OK to say I only serve the vaccinated?

 

the act its serf is but the urge isn't
that is built in it is natural instinct to procreate so to insure the survival of the species
that is why being gay is unnatural it goes against instinct it provides no benefit to a survival of a species it is counter to it

 

I can pick up any “holy” book in the library and in 60 seconds come up with a reason not to do business with anyone at all.
Don’t let imaginary friends do your thinking for you, it’s bad for business.

 

Provided you make an exception for those with legit medicinal or religious reasons not to get it

 

In any circumstance? And presumably not only business owners? Aren't you essentially arguing for any religious person to be exempt from any law they say violates their religious beliefs?

But what if a non-religious person has just as deeply held beliefs, maybe even about exactly the same things? On the basis of your position, why should anyone be coerced or compelled to violate their deeply held beliefs?

 

Most religious business owners don't discriminate though, so even if prospective customer knew the religion of the owners (though why would they), it would be wrong for them to assume the business would discriminate against them. After all, these businesses don't put up signs reading "No blacks, No Irish, No gays" do they?

 

Unless the government has a compelling interest involved in the enforcement of a law for the common good that constrains ones deeply held religious beliefs then the belief should have the conscience clause exemption.

 

They didn’t refuse to make the cake. Just refused the offensive message they wanted.

I do find it funny the left claims a business can do whatever they want censoring political viewpoints as long as they are not religious.

 

Bad example since this case is about hiring/firing.

 

If there was no compelling interest in enforcing a law, that would be an argument to repeal the law entirely, not just grant a subset of the population an exemption.

The question here is whether one set of "strongly held beliefs" should overrule the law but not other equally "strongly held beliefs".

 

Oh, I thought you were talking about a real problem.

 

The issues as to

the constitution free exercise there of clause and the RFRA hold that the default goes to the religious believer. Unless the state interest is strong enough for a court to allow the state to over rule the belief, such as making sure minors get medical attention and blood transfusions even if the parents don’t want to. Saving a life is an example of a public or state interest.

 

As opposed to forcing somebody to work for somebody else in which they share opposing views?

The rights of the LGBTQXYZ end when they start to infringe on others rights.

If a religiously held belief that gay marriage is wrong, forcing a faithful baker to make a cake for a gay wedding violates his rights.

Nobody should be forced into labor, doing something they disagree with.

 

They haven't.

 

Good example. Now lets take a business owner that disagrees with religious beliefs and denies goods/services/employment/housing based on that person's religious beliefs. Is this still okay?

 

I wasn't asking about want is constitutional, I was asking about what is morally right. I appreciate that is something so rarely considered on this topic.

 

Watch when muslims in the US start implementing sharia laws... this ****'s going to get good!

 

If a law is such that the beliefs of certain people cause them to be exempt, then we should all be exempt. I don't see how certain beliefs exempt an adult from following the law. Perhaps a law that has exemptions based on belief isn't deserving of being a law at all.

 

I believe that what I’ve advocated for and believe the constitution and RFRA allows for IS morally right.

 

Every part of the law is based on beliefs. The belief that it is wrong to kill someone has no basis in nature for instance.

 

Just to clarify, let's say a landlord won't rent to somebody that is not a christian?