It's a popular logic around here.... 😟

[quote=victor809]

By that logic everything (and I mean literally everything) which any person can imagine (man-bear-pig anyone?) has equal potential for existence, and equal relevance in your eyes.

[/quote]

AND!?!?!?! WTF is wrong with equality? Huh?!!?

[quote=dstieger]AND!?!?!?! WTF is wrong with equality? Huh?!!?

[/quote]

well first off, businesses are gonna be required to bake man-bear-pig wedding cakes.

That's gonna cause a fuss....

Wait... what? There is no such thing as a manbearpig?

What the he11 is that thing I have locked in a chest in my basement then?

😱

poor CROS... 😞

OMG! Drafter found CROS!

[quote=QMPASH]Your argument is specious, at best. A publisher can publish ANYTHING they want and refuse ANY manuscript they desire, legally. Gun dealers are already selling guns to these people, albeit illegally (in most cases.) And, in most states, it is illegal to sell liquor, especially in a bar, to someone who is drunk. On the other hand, the Indiana Law COULD be interpreted to mean that a restaurant, for just one example, could refuse to serve a Black, Jews, Muslims, Blue Collar workers or any other group.[/quote]

Your correct in using "specious", however it describes your response. Please point out what section of the law would allow, the highlighted section above, on a religious bases?

Perhaps you didn't read the first line of my post, I pasted it below and highlighted that first line for you.:

[quote=Gene363]

If it isn't about race, a business owner should be able to refuse any customer, do we want to force;

A publisher to print books for NAMBLA or even porn

A gun dealer to sell guns to skin heads, religious nuts

A liquor store to sell to a drunk person

[/quote]

.....

.....

.....

Did Gene just say "blue-collar" was a race?

...

...

HD must have hacked his account.

they're not considered people of collar?

[quote=victor809].....

.....

.....

Did Gene just say "blue-collar" was a race?

...

...

HD must have hacked his account. [/quote]

April Fools!

Actually, I quoted it from a post by "QMPASH"

[quote=opelmanta1900]they're not considered people of collar?[/quote]

Womp....

=d>

Drafter, I will try to be as direct as I can. You are talking about 2 very different issues. One revolves around a law that will create few if any problems in reality, even though many people are worked up over it's theoretical implications. The other revolves around very real 1st amendment concerns. Of course this is just my opinion.

[quote=victor809].....

.....

.....

Did Gene just say "blue-collar" was a race?

...

...

HD must have hacked his account. [/quote]

Hey man, you dont choose to be blue collar. Some people are just born that way. 😣

is it the same as being born in da ghetto..?? 😕

[quote=Speyside]Drafter, I will try to be as direct as I can. You are talking about 2 very different issues. One revolves around a law that will create few if any problems in reality, even though many people are worked up over it's theoretical implications. The other revolves around very real 1st amendment concerns. Of course this is just my opinion.[/quote]

What did you do with gryphonms?

Did Spey ask us what he should think?

Seems lot's of folks are missing some basic points.

There's that thing called the 1st Amendment to the constitution which reads:

[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances[/quote]

In 1878 the SCOTUS ruled in Reynolds vs. United States:

[quote]Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices[/quote]

In 1940 the SCOTUS ruled in Minersville School District v. Gobitis:

[quote]members of the Jehovah's Witnesses in a school could be required to salute the flag[/quote]

But reversed itself in 1943 with the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ruling stating:

[quote]...holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school.[/quote]

In 1963, the Warren court seemingly ruled in Sherbert v. Verner case:

[quote]to condition the availability of benefits upon this appellant's willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties[/quote]

In 1990, the SCOTUS ruled in Employment Division v. Smith:

[quote]as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause[/quote]

So what does all of this mean? Who knows. But, from the looks of things, the SCOTUS has ruled many times that laws are unconstitutional if they target religious practices.

So the bigger question is real simple: Is it a religious practice to discriminate against behavior?

An even bigger question is waiting to be asked: What happens if LGBT become a protected class? At that point you have two protected classes with competing interests. Who's right's trump who's?

Who ever greases the most palms.....so to speak.

[quote=victor809]well first off, businesses are gonna be required to bake man-bear-pig wedding cakes.

That's gonna cause a fuss....[/quote]

"...and the pig got up, and slowly walked away."

[quote=Abrignac]Seems lot's of folks are missing some basic points.

There's that thing called the 1st Amendment to the constitution which reads:

In 1878 the SCOTUS ruled in Reynolds vs. United States:

In 1940 the SCOTUS ruled in Minersville School District v. Gobitis:

But reversed itself in 1943 with the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ruling stating:

In 1963, the Warren court seemingly ruled in Sherbert v. Verner case:

In 1990, the SCOTUS ruled in Employment Division v. Smith:

So what does all of this mean? Who knows. But, from the looks of things, the SCOTUS has ruled many times that laws are unconstitutional if they target religious practices.

So the bigger question is real simple: Is it a religious practice to discriminate against behavior?

An even bigger question is waiting to be asked: What happens if LGBT become a protected class? At that point you have two protected classes with competing interests. Who's right's trump who's?[/quote]

Shame on you for looking things up.

An interesting set of rulings. Looks like it goes back and forth a bit.

I'd argue the 1943 reversal isn't necessarily applicable as it specifies that it is the free speech clause of the 1st amendment, NOT the religious liberties clause, an important distinction.