(October 22, 2014 at 9:10 am)Heywood Wrote: Freedom of Religion has been around a lot longer than anti-discrimination laws.

This is an irrelevant point. The right to bar minorities from one's business was around since before the Civil War, it was removed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in a place of public business there is no extant right to do so, no matter how long that right had been in place. Laws aren't granted seniority based on time in service.

(October 22, 2014 at 9:10 am)Heywood Wrote: Free exercise of religion trumps anti-discrimination laws as evidenced by the numerous ministerial exceptions the courts say exists.

These ministers have every right to refuse gay marriages in any church they wish to start, so far as I can see; and that's a right of refusal I would defend, even though I am pro-marriage equality.

(October 22, 2014 at 9:10 am)Heywood Wrote: The government cannot force a minister to preform a religious ceremony against his will.

The government can force him to conduct business in a non-discriminatory manner. Perhaps if they weren't acting like the moneychangers in the Temple, they'd have a better leg to stand on?

A business should be a non-prophet organization. Introducing money into the equation naturally calls into question the sincerity of their convictions, to my mind.

(October 22, 2014 at 10:01 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 22, 2014 at 9:58 am)Heywood Wrote: The error in your thinking is you think religion and business are mutually exclusive. Sorry, but religious activities preformed by citizens don't magically disappear because they become entangled in business.....and yes I agree this is a business and not a church. A law which limits the free exercise of religion should be struck down because it is unconstitutional.

When it comes to the legal code that all businesses follow, yes Woody, religion stays out of it. They're running a business, not a church, they have to follow the legal codes for business, it's very simple.

Just because a bakery owner thinks interracial marriage is a sin beacuse of their faith, they still have to serve those couples. Just because an accountant thinks homosexuality is against their religion, they don't get to turn away gay people because of their faith. Renting out their space in a for profit business is no different, and these pastors have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

If you think that law should be struck down, fine, vote on it. But you don't get to break the law with impunity until then.

There is no principle which says religion cannot be entangled with business.....you're just making that up. A lot of people make their living peddling religion. They engage in the business of religion.

There are a lot of people who engage in the business of speech. Just because they try to utilize their constitutional right to speak to make a living doesn't mean they lose it.

Last, no one is breaking the law with impunity. A lawsuit was filed so that they wouldn't have to choose between breaking the law or engaging in religious ceremony mandate by the state.

---

(October 22, 2014 at 10:05 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 22, 2014 at 10:02 am)Heywood Wrote: I don't like any anti-discrimination laws except those which apply to the government. If a private doctor did not want to operate on me because of the color of my skin, then he should be free to refuse.

How very easy to say. I'm going to take a wild swing in the dark and say you're...probably a white, straight, married Christian living in a western country? Easy to say that man.

It would be easy for anyone to say if the government didn't pass discriminatory laws or laws that enabled discrimination in the first place......but that is the subject of another thread.

(October 22, 2014 at 10:11 am)Heywood Wrote:

(October 22, 2014 at 10:01 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: When it comes to the legal code that all businesses follow, yes Woody, religion stays out of it. They're running a business, not a church, they have to follow the legal codes for business, it's very simple.

Just because a bakery owner thinks interracial marriage is a sin beacuse of their faith, they still have to serve those couples. Just because an accountant thinks homosexuality is against their religion, they don't get to turn away gay people because of their faith. Renting out their space in a for profit business is no different, and these pastors have to play by the same rules as everyone else.

If you think that law should be struck down, fine, vote on it. But you don't get to break the law with impunity until then.

There is no principle which says religion cannot be entangled with business.....you're just making that up. A lot of people make their living peddling religion. They engage in the business of religion.

There are a lot of people who engage in the business of speech. Just because they try to utilize their constitutional right to speak to make a living doesn't mean they lose it.

Last, no one is breaking the law with impunity. A lawsuit was filed so that they wouldn't have to choose between breaking the law or engaging in religious ceremony mandate by the state.

---

(October 22, 2014 at 10:05 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: How very easy to say. I'm going to take a wild swing in the dark and say you're...probably a white, straight, married Christian living in a western country? Easy to say that man.

It would be easy for anyone to say if the government didn't pass discriminatory laws or laws that enabled discrimination in the first place......but that is the subject of another thread.

You keep saying 'entangled with business' as if that grants them special privilege. It doesn't. They can hang corsses in their business, stick up posters about how you're going to hell if you don't accept christ, plaster "God Bless You" all over their place of business if they want to. The law doesn't prohibit them from performing or expressing relgious beliefs or rituals, it prohibits discrimination based on the protected statuses of the non-discriminitaion laws. This business is offering a product for purchase, and they have to follow the same rules as any other for-profit business. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

You can't have it both way Woody. You can't run a business with the same financial aims as any other business, but then claim that you don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else because of a religious objection.

You don't get to play tennis without the net, and you don't get to worm out of business law that applies to everyone else.

Oh, and don't even try to start with the 'anti-discrimination laws are discrimination against Christians' shit.

And apparently, they had to change their website, according to these screenshots taken by Jeremy Hooper:

Before the issue arose:


And after:




Apparently, they don't mind offending their god by honoring other religious beliefs, but are rather using their faith to shelter their bigotry.

No complaint has been filed against the Knapps. It is the Knapps who are suing under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. No one is prosecuting them. Any suggestion that a complaint has been filed against them is disingenuous. Theirs is a preemptive suit.

However, I agree that they should not be required to preform marriage ceremonies which violate that religious beliefs, even if they preform those ceremonies as a business. Whether they should be required to preform such ceremonies if they were in court clerks or other government employees who's job description includes preforming civil marriage ceremonies is another question.

The First Amendment says:

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.

I don't see the part where it says, "unless you are running a business for profit."

That being said, the Knapps aren't suing under the First Amendment, they are suing under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which states:

Quote: Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

Recently, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the USSC ruled that compelling closely held for profit corporations, whose shareholders object to certain contraceptives for religious reasons to provide those contraceptives violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Based on that ruling, the Knapps may very well prevail.

Fucking goddamn apostates.

The Knapps ain't worth our time debating here.

(October 22, 2014 at 10:30 am)Jenny A Wrote: No complaint has been filed against the Knapps. It is the Knapps who are suing under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. No one is prosecuting them. Any suggestion that a complaint has been filed against them is disingenuous. Theirs is a preemptive suit.

However, I agree that they should not be required to preform marriage ceremonies which violate that religious beliefs, even if they preform those ceremonies as a business. Whether they should be required to preform such ceremonies if they were in court clerks or other government employees who's job description includes preforming civil marriage ceremonies is another question.

The First Amendment says:

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.

I don't see the part where it says, "unless you are running a business for profit."

That being said, the Knapps aren't suing under the First Amendment, they are suing under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which states:

Quote: Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

Recently, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the USSC ruled that compelling closely held for profit corporations, whose shareholders object to certain contraceptives for religious reasons to provide those contraceptives violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Based on that ruling, the Knapps may very well prevail.

That would be fine if they were only offering the religious marriage ritual, even if they were selling it. But according to their website they do have a marriage license office, which means that they are selling a product that is similar to a clerk's.

Also, nobody really brought up the first amendment, it's more about anti-discrimination laws.

(October 22, 2014 at 10:36 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(October 22, 2014 at 10:30 am)Jenny A Wrote:

---

No complaint has been filed against the Knapps. It is the Knapps who are suing under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. No one is prosecuting them. Any suggestion that a complaint has been filed against them is disingenuous. Theirs is a preemptive suit.

However, I agree that they should not be required to preform marriage ceremonies which violate that religious beliefs, even if they preform those ceremonies as a business. Whether they should be required to preform such ceremonies if they were in court clerks or other government employees who's job description includes preforming civil marriage ceremonies is another question.

The First Amendment says:


I don't see the part where it says, "unless you are running a business for profit."

---

That being said, the Knapps aren't suing under the First Amendment, they are suing under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which states:


Recently, in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the USSC ruled that compelling closely held for profit corporations, whose shareholders object to certain contraceptives for religious reasons to provide those contraceptives violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Based on that ruling, the Knapps may very well prevail.

That would be fine if they were only offering the religious marriage ritual, even if they were selling it. But according to their website they do have a marriage license office, which means that they are selling a product that is similar to a clerk's.

Also, nobody really brought up the first amendment, it's more about anti-discrimination laws.

emphasis mine.

That might make a difference. Should be interesting to see if it does.

(October 22, 2014 at 10:31 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Fucking goddamn apostates.

The Knapps ain't worth our time debating here.

Some weeks ago I debated with a friend of mine(who happens to live in the same Idaho city as the subject church/business) about why I agreed with laws that criminalized people falsifying applications to get jobs on farms to video animal abuse. He would go on and on about how the cows were being rapped and such. I told him his argument wasn't compelling that because unfortunately....if you are going to give people the right to privacy....some people are going to abuse that right in ways which facilitate them doing bad things.

The Knapps might be pieces of shit trying to game the system...or they might be sincere adherents to their religion. Unfortunately if you are going to grant people the freedom of religion....your just going to have to accept that some people will use it as cover to engage in behavior you don't like.

---

(October 22, 2014 at 10:40 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(October 22, 2014 at 10:36 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: That would be fine if they were only offering the religious marriage ritual, even if they were selling it. But according to their website they do have a marriage license office, which means that they are selling a product that is similar to a clerk's.

Also, nobody really brought up the first amendment, it's more about anti-discrimination laws.

emphasis mine.

That might make a difference. Should be interesting to see if it does.

I could see where they might be required to facilitate non religious aspect of the marriage....i.e. the license...the flowers...perhaps even the venue. I just can't see how a court could credibly compel them to preform a religious wedding ceremony if they don't want too.

(October 22, 2014 at 10:45 am)Heywood Wrote:

(October 22, 2014 at 10:31 am)vorlon13 Wrote: Fucking goddamn apostates.

The Knapps ain't worth our time debating here.

Some weeks ago I debated with a friend of mine(who happens to live in the same Idaho city as the subject church/business) about why I agreed with laws that criminalized people falsifying applications to get jobs on farms to video animal abuse. He would go on and on about how the cows were being rapped and such. I told him his argument wasn't compelling that because unfortunately....if you are going to give people the right to privacy....some people are going to abuse that right to help them facilitate doing bad things.

The Knapps might be pieces of shit trying to game the system...or they might be sincere adherents to their religion. Unfortunately if you are going to grant people the freedom of religion....your just going to have to accept that some people will use it as cover to engage in behavior you don't like.

---

(October 22, 2014 at 10:40 am)Jenny A Wrote: emphasis mine.

That might make a difference. Should be interesting to see if it does.

I could see where they might be required to facilitate non religious aspect of the marriage....i.e. the license...the flowers...perhaps even the venue. I just can't see how a court could credibly compel them to preform a religious wedding ceremony if they don't want too.

The religious ceremony isn't the point, and never was. You'll notice I emphasized that a few posts back. If this business has a venue that sells marriage licenses (a document that directly enters into the US government), they have to follow the non-discrimination laws that any other purveyor of these documents does.

If their advertised product/service was just "traditional weddings that follow X, Y, Z", then that would be the product/service they sell, and people who wanted one of those would purchase it (and I don't even know if I'm comfortable with that, but it would be legal). But dealing in government documents is not something that allows for discrimination, especially based on religion.