Federal Texas Judge: Religious Businesses Protected From LGBT Discrimination Claims

Of course. As soon as you address my example, I will address yours.

 

Obviously laws are based on beliefs. The subject isn't about what laws are based on, however. The subject is about certain individuals being exempt from existing laws based on that individual's beliefs.

When a society puts a law in place, why would an individual's personal belief exempt them from that law, when others are subject to the law?

Taking your example concerning killing: In a society that has laws against murder, there may exist an individual who believes it is okay to kill someone for any reason whatsoever. Would that individual's belief make him exempt from the laws against murder? Of course not. And that concept should apply to all laws. If some individuals are exempt because of their belief, all should be exempt, regardless of their belief.

Point being: A non-religious person should have the same exemptions from laws that a religious person has. Why would society give special treatment under the law to religious people? Fairness would dictate that we apply the laws uniformly.

 

"Falling in love" as a human philosophical concept is not equitable with the mere sub-rational physical impetus to have sex (even if it interrelates with human concepts of erotic love). Much as how people can have sex with people they "aren't in love with", or how animals can mate despite not being able to comprehend higher rational human notions of love.

The point is that the evidence that sexual instinct relates to procreation (and therefore heterosexual intercourse only) is quite overwhelming, while the idea that there would be an instinct specifically to non-procreative intercourse is rather skeptical in comparsion.[/QUOTE]

 

If a business illegally discriminates, then hell, the victim should be entitled to the company's entire net worth.

 

Non religious people have the same freedom of religion and free (non) exercise there of rights as religious people do. How could a non religious person claim the protection from doing something or obeying some law based on religious belief when they have no religious belief to protect? Non religious people don’t have to stand for or recite the pledge of allegiance or to stand and close eyes for a public prayer at a public event or a congressional session opening invocation.

 

Wow, when you go Hyperbole you go whole hog, LMFAO.. I guess you got some real talk about unvaxxed and those with natural immunities being refused service. I bet this will be very illuminating INDEED?

 

I was simply asking to clarify your question.

There can be no claim by a landlord that a non- Christian tenant is resulting in an expectation for the landlord to work in violation of his faith. So no, he can't discriminate.

Now, if the tenant told his landlord to paint him a Jewish star on the apartment wall... that would be a different story and more in line with the bakery example.

 

[/QUOTE]

Actually "falling in love" isn't just a human philosophical concept. It is actually based upon hormones and endocrines and pheromones. All the things that attract us to a mate. Gay's have sexual attraction based upon those things just as you do. But they are attracted to the same things that the opposite sex is attracted to. This is not something that they can control any more than you are able to control your attraction to those things.

 

I read your post #66 after I posted what I wrote, and I readily admit you have a valid Constitutional point that I overlooked. I can't disagree with your premise.

I am looking at it from more of a libertarian view - if one citizen can be forced by law to do something or not to do something, every other citizen should be held to the same standard regarding the law. There shouldn't be any exemptions. But more to the point, I believe in an individual's right to choose who they want to associate with and trade with. Freedom demands such. I fully believe that a religious person should not have to go against his will and beliefs when dealing with others, and I support that because I believe in freedom. But non-religious people should not be forced to go against their will either. Again, because I believe in freedom.

A religious school should have the freedom to hire who they want, but a secular school should have that same freedom too.

 

Show me the law on that one. I don't believe that having not taken a vaccine would legally qualify as such; common sense dictates that the purpose of denying service to people without vaccines is about the potential contagiousness of the disease, not some arbitrary dislike of people having taken a vaccine.

As far as natural immunity goes, if this were legally protected (which I doubt that it currently is), then how would they prove it? Would a doctor be able to offer the proof in question?

 

No it isn't. Physical attraction and human concepts of "falling in love" are not the same thing. Physical attraction is sub-rational and instinctive, and has no more bearing on rational human notions of the subject than "physical instinct" does with humans designing super-computers or creating vast works of art.

(Claiming that these things are part of "sub-rational instinct" as opposed to rational and post-rational aspects of human mind and consciousness is as nonscientific and absurd).

Plus as already mentioned, people can be physically attracted to people but not "be in love with them". In fact, the physical aspects of sexual attraction can't even distinguish between a real person and a pornographic video, or a vagina and a "right hand".

Human concepts of love are not limited to "physical attraction". They include concepts such as love, devotion, philanthropy, sacrifice, and other concepts which interrelate with the rational and post-rational aspects of the human psyche.

It's already been explained that the instinctive drives toward sexual attraction relate to reproduction, so arguing that there would be some "genetic, hardwired pre-disposition exclusively to non-procreative intercourse" strikes one as odd, and doesn't have the evidence to support it that heterosexual attraction and associated procreation does.

Plus there are certain parts of the human body that both sexes are attracted to in the opposite sex anyway.

You keep saying that, but that's simply a disingenous propaganda narrative which is only invented for political gain, not facts or truth.

 

None of that is Constitutional. And this seems to be an argument from an odd view of "equality" rather than some vague platitude about "freedom".

 

If the principles there are morally right though, why should they not apply to anyone with "strongly held beliefs" regardless of whether those beliefs are labelled "religious" or not?

 

WOW! I have sitting right in front of me my lab results from Denver of my last blood panel and it has right on it the antibody results, you really need to bone up on this stuff Bro

 

Ok, I will rephrase. Do people enjoy legal protection from being told "We don't serve/hire/rent to your kind here!" based on their religion?

 

It may well be possible for exactly what you suggest to happen. It would be an individual right to hold to an opinion/belief of any kind and then seek an exemption based on it. The protection for religious people as well as for the press though are as explicitly protected as a group right and individual right as are the free speech, assembly, and association are in the first amendment of the constitution.

 

So you are NOT in favor of private businesses rights?

Interesting.

 

The problem comes when only one religion gets all the exemptions it wants but not the others.
Are you ready to live with exemptions for muslims, indus, jewish and other having an impact on your life or will you just accept the Christian ones?

 

You will have to be so kind as to develop your thought for me. From what I see, as the number of legally mandated restraints on an individual are decreased, that individual's freedom is increased. I am interested in hearing your thoughts if they differ from mine - I may learn something.

And yes, of course we need laws that restrain people from murder, etc. I suppose that therein lies the issue - what individual activities should be restrained in a civil society.

 

It has to include all religions and it usually does. So not only would I expect Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Native American, and others to be protected, I’d demand it. Religious liberty is for all religious beliefs including the choice to have none at all

 

I'm really not see how this could work since there are incompatibilities between those faith. Which rights would win in case of conflicts.

 

General law would always apply unless there is a conscience clause needed to protect the free exercise there of of a particular belief. If exceptions were sought by different groups both should separately get the exception as it applies to them. No sides exception should compel another side to observe their exception. If for example prisoners who were Jewish wanting kosher, Muslims and some Christians wanting no pork, and Hindus wanting no beef, and whoever wanting vegetarian for religious reasons can all be satisfied at the same time while everyone else follows a general diet.

 

You’re only enumerating this religious exception that are harmless. All religions have a darker sets of restrictions, many a Christian like you would categorically refuse to respect.

Also you’re advocating turning the USA into a theocracy at a time where religion is losing ground.

 

False equivalency.

We aren't talking about employees, or tenants, we are talking about producing a product.

Nobody should be forced to expend their labor to produce a product they don't agree with.

Would it be OK to tell a Jewish person they MUST bake a cake with nazi symbols on it?

The rights of one person should not Trump the rights of others.

Anybody of any protected class should be able to walk into any store and buy any product or service readily available without discrimination. However, they shouldn't be able to demand that a product be produced for their benefit which violates the rights and beliefs of the producer.

 

I agree that they should not be forced, but they absolutely are. No one is being forced to make a nazi cake. Using the Christian baker as an example, he enjoys legal protection from being discriminated against based on his beliefs. He can extend a righteous finger and say "We don't serve your kind here" while the the same cannot be done to him. (Do onto others)

That creates a "preferred citizen" in my view.

As far as forcing businesses to sell products they don't want to, (nazi cakes, penis cake toppers) that should never happen.