By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sc94597 on 01 April 2015
Edit Thread
Zappykins said:
sc94597 said:
 

While I think the law should include any ethical views, as this refers to private property, I do have some criticisms of your post beyond that: 

1. Slippery Slope fallacy. Hippocratic oath prevents this in most cases. The doctor would likely lose his job and license (which is granted through private organizations) if he did that. A hospital that turned down sick people would likely have absymal reputation. 

2. Again Taxi cab drivers don't determine who they are allowed to drive, they just drive. It is a boss who determies this. And if Taxi corporations did this Lyft and Uber would run them into the ground. Furthermore, since Taxi companies have a monopoly privelge and subsidies by government in many cities, the city should/would threaten to remove said monopoly privelege if they were to discriminate. Taxi companies would comply with said cities because they realize they'd lose even more revenue if the city were to do this. 

3. It was a response to people getting sued hundreds of thousands of dollars or losing their business because they didn't provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding. 

4. No it's not. This is a false equivalence.  

5. Probably not. SCoTUS has shied away from determining sexuality as protected under the CRA. I don't see where the courts would conflict on this matter. As for seperation of church and state, it isn't a codified law but more of a legal policy. I do think non-religious ethical views/morals matter as well though. It is silly to single out only religous beliefs.  

6. The tax argument is legitimate for any one to be honest, not just religious people, but we won't get into that because I realize that isn't how the overwhelming majority of people see things. You only have rights in so much as you don't infringe upon others (not providing a piece of your property in exchange for another piece of property is not infringing on another's rights, although it might reduce their "positive freedoms.") If you steal from other people you are taking their property without their permission, therefore you are infringing on their property rights, and no - religion doesn't protect that, just like religion doesn't protect against murder and slavery. This one is a non-sequitur. 

1.  Actually no, the law allows religious feelings to override all other laws.  So you could not punish an ER doctor for refusing service. That would be a violating of the law.

2  Again, no unlike the national and all other laws, Indiana's one makes a special case for Private Business.  So they can do what they want or feel and can not be punished for it.

3.  They didn't lose money in the suit, they lost money cause nobody else wanted to buy from them.  They lost most all of their customers – bigotry is frowned upon in the USA.  And they violated State Law in that case AND make cakes for 'happy Satan Day' and other things (after the refusal) that would also be a violation of their 'Christian Values' if they genuily had some (But just hated the gay.)  They had also made cake for the two women, and their anniversaries for years before.  They only got in legal trouble because they directly violated State Law.

4.  Yes, this absolutely is a Christian version of Shiria Law.  It is directly against the founding of the country (removing all religion, and the head of the state and Church being the same person, etc.)  This law is against the founding principals of the USA.  This law puts religion above all other laws.  It's part of the reason the reaction is so huge. 

5.  You must not have followed the Prop 8 or DOMA cases where 'highest scrutiny' has been cited numerous times in Federal Courts. Also in In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008) was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.

6.  I know, isn't it fun!  Let's make a 'Church of the Tax Free!'

6a  Religions as used in the USA for nearly a hundred years to justify slavery (and in the areas long before that.)  And Rape of women and other such wholesome activities.

PS Someone has already made a ‘Church of Cannabis.'

Even Walmart and NASCAR have come out against it.  Rather amazing IMO.

You missed the context of my post. It was about markets targetting discrimination, not government. Nothing pertaining specifically to this law. 

4. No it's not. It is like saying, " if you advocate the government's involvement in the economy, it is the same thing as a communist." Rational people can calculate degrees of something, and this law is nowhere near as close to the breadth and depth in which Sharia law affects people's lives in Islamic countries (hetero and non hetero alike.) 

5. That has more to do with the 14th Amendment of the U.S constitution than CRA. As it is right now, the Supreme Court hasn't said anything about same-sex discrimination. Notice "laws that treat people differently" rather than "private persons that treat people differently." 

6. That seems out of context.