Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Americans no religious freedom

sdonald52
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 3:20:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
As we begin to allow Muslims to violate our common laws to accomodate their faith, we attack Christians for practising their faith and for excercising their freedom to associate (or not) with whom they chose.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals just made a landmark decision that could affect every Christian business person in America.
Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin of Albuquerque, New Mexico are the owners of Elane Photography. They also happen to be Christians who do their best to live and run their business by their Christian values.

In 2006, Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography and asked they would photograph her "commitment ceremony" with her lesbian partner. Elaine Huguenin refused to accept the request based upon her Christian belief. Both Elaine and Jon felt strongly that the message being presented by the lesbian ceremony was against their Christian faith and therefore it would be wrong of them to participate in any fashion.
At the time, same-sex marriages and civil unions were not recognized as being legal in the state of New Mexico. Willock and her partner were attempting to do the next best thing in their minds by having a commitment ceremony.
After Elaine turned down the request, Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. The complaint stated that the Huguenins had discriminated against Willock because of her sexual orientation. In the meantime, Willock secured another photographer to photo their sinful and perverse ceremony.
In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that the Huguenins engaged in sexual orientation discrimination and ordered them to pay Willock $6,639.94 in legal fees. The case then went before a trial judge who upheld the commission"s decision.
In 2009, the Alliance Defense Fund appealed the court"s decision which moved the case before the New Mexico Court of Appeals who just rendered their decision to also uphold the commission"s ruling. Contained in the 45 page ruling, the court said that the photography business is a public accommodation and as such cannot use their faith to discriminate against others based upon sexual orientation. Part of the ruling read,
"The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests."
Jordan Lance, senior counsel and senior vice-president of the Office of Strategic Initiatives for the Alliance Defense Fund commented about the ruling saying,
"Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs. Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy? Of course not, and neither should the government force this photographer to promote a message that violates her conscience. Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court."
If this ruling is upheld by both the New Mexico Supreme Court and US Supreme Court, it could be used as the legal precedent for any homosexual to sue a Christian business if they believe they have been discriminated against in any form. It will also be used to force any Christian operating a business that is open to the public to do things that are against their faith or face a lengthy court battle and end up having to pay hefty fines and legal fees.
I"ve said this time and time again, that homosexuals do not want equal treatment, rather they want preferential treatment above and beyond what everyone else gets. They want special rights, not equal rights and they are succeeding in securing them at the cost of Christian"s rights. The only way for homosexuals to gain their rights is to strip Christians of theirs and that is exactly what is happening. And it"s happening because too many Christians in America have been too complacent and have done nothing to protect our Christian rights.
If what is happening to Elaine and Jon Huguenin disgusts and upsets you, then get off your butt and do something about it. Contact your own local, state and federal politicians and urge them to protect America"s Christian rights and values. Get out and help campaign for those men and women who will work to protect our rights. When November comes around, get out and vote for those candidates who will do what"s right.
Most importantly, pray, pray and pray some more. Prayer is the most powerful tool and weapon a Christian has. If every Christian earnestly prayed for our nation and its leaders, we would see a remarkable change in our country. I wish every Christian would post 2 Chronicles 7:14 in their homes and memorize it and teach it to their children. If we want to save our nation, we need to follow God"s instructions when He said,
"If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land."
Amen! Amen! Amen!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 5:45:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I love how you generalized from one gay couple to the entire homosexual community. I guess you must be a murderer because someone who shares a characteristic with you is a murderer too.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 10:12:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the photographers are very wrong for refusing the gay couple. They should do their best to serve the public. Nonetheless, I don't agree that the government has an interest so compelling as to use the force of law to require action. I would uphold their right if they refused to serve atheists or heterosexuals or whatever. (Yes, there are cases of discrimination against heterosexuals. http://www.edgesanfrancisco.com...)

There is a de facto religion that has a detailed theology. You must, under force of law, not smoke, and not drink a Big Gulp, not offend members of favored groups. You may offend members of not-favored groups; you must conserve energy, you must recycle. What the laws do collectively is establish a state religion and require that your personal religion be subordinated to the state religion.

Note that the laws extend to symbolic acts as well as consequential ones. Air filters can, as a practical matter, make the air in a room full of smokers much cleaner than the air outdoors. Nonetheless, smoking is banned for neo-theological reasons. California was talking about banning black cars because theoretically they use more air conditioning. Users of electricity in amounts needed for air conditioning are penalized in California with four times higher utility rates. There are about four hundred rules of political correctness applied to K-12 textbooks.

What is happening is a clash between the state religion and traditional religion.
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 11:10:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 3:20:40 AM, sdonald52 wrote:
As we begin to allow Muslims to violate our common laws to accomodate their faith, we attack Christians for practising their faith and for excercising their freedom to associate (or not) with whom they chose.


The New Mexico Court of Appeals just made a landmark decision that could affect every Christian business person in America.
Elaine and Jonathan Huguenin of Albuquerque, New Mexico are the owners of Elane Photography. They also happen to be Christians who do their best to live and run their business by their Christian values.

In 2006, Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography and asked they would photograph her "commitment ceremony" with her lesbian partner. Elaine Huguenin refused to accept the request based upon her Christian belief. Both Elaine and Jon felt strongly that the message being presented by the lesbian ceremony was against their Christian faith and therefore it would be wrong of them to participate in any fashion.
At the time, same-sex marriages and civil unions were not recognized as being legal in the state of New Mexico. Willock and her partner were attempting to do the next best thing in their minds by having a commitment ceremony.
After Elaine turned down the request, Willock filed a complaint with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. The complaint stated that the Huguenins had discriminated against Willock because of her sexual orientation. In the meantime, Willock secured another photographer to photo their sinful and perverse ceremony.
In 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that the Huguenins engaged in sexual orientation discrimination and ordered them to pay Willock $6,639.94 in legal fees. The case then went before a trial judge who upheld the commission"s decision.
In 2009, the Alliance Defense Fund appealed the court"s decision which moved the case before the New Mexico Court of Appeals who just rendered their decision to also uphold the commission"s ruling. Contained in the 45 page ruling, the court said that the photography business is a public accommodation and as such cannot use their faith to discriminate against others based upon sexual orientation. Part of the ruling read,
"The owners of Elane Photography must accept the reasonable regulations and restrictions imposed upon the conduct of their commercial enterprise despite their personal religious beliefs that may conflict with these governmental interests."
Jordan Lance, senior counsel and senior vice-president of the Office of Strategic Initiatives for the Alliance Defense Fund commented about the ruling saying,
"Americans in the marketplace should not be subjected to legal attacks for simply abiding by their beliefs. Should the government force a videographer who is an animal rights activist to create a video promoting hunting and taxidermy? Of course not, and neither should the government force this photographer to promote a message that violates her conscience. Because the Constitution prohibits the state from forcing unwilling artists to promote a message they disagree with, we will certainly appeal this decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court."
If this ruling is upheld by both the New Mexico Supreme Court and US Supreme Court, it could be used as the legal precedent for any homosexual to sue a Christian business if they believe they have been discriminated against in any form. It will also be used to force any Christian operating a business that is open to the public to do things that are against their faith or face a lengthy court battle and end up having to pay hefty fines and legal fees.
I"ve said this time and time again, that homosexuals do not want equal treatment, rather they want preferential treatment above and beyond what everyone else gets. They want special rights, not equal rights and they are succeeding in securing them at the cost of Christian"s rights. The only way for homosexuals to gain their rights is to strip Christians of theirs and that is exactly what is happening. And it"s happening because too many Christians in America have been too complacent and have done nothing to protect our Christian rights.
If what is happening to Elaine and Jon Huguenin disgusts and upsets you, then get off your butt and do something about it. Contact your own local, state and federal politicians and urge them to protect America"s Christian rights and values. Get out and help campaign for those men and women who will work to protect our rights. When November comes around, get out and vote for those candidates who will do what"s right.
Most importantly, pray, pray and pray some more. Prayer is the most powerful tool and weapon a Christian has. If every Christian earnestly prayed for our nation and its leaders, we would see a remarkable change in our country. I wish every Christian would post 2 Chronicles 7:14 in their homes and memorize it and teach it to their children. If we want to save our nation, we need to follow God"s instructions when He said,
"If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land."
Amen! Amen! Amen!

Was this copied without attribution from here: http://iamisatthedoors.wordpress.com...
angelicaB
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 11:51:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
America is a place where people experience liberty. They e also have the freedom to choose their religion.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 12:33:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 11:51:50 PM, angelicaB wrote:
America is a place where people experience liberty.

Liberty exclusive to America? Please.

They e also have the freedom to choose their religion.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
TheAsylum
Posts: 772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 2:30:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think it is stretch to say we have no religious freedom, we do. You can not even say that most Christians don't. I know that the U.S. is reducing the freedom for Christians but that is at a snail's crawl. We have plenty of freedom still. Most rob themselves of freedoms.
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 7:33:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 10:12:15 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think the photographers are very wrong for refusing the gay couple. They should do their best to serve the public. Nonetheless, I don't agree that the government has an interest so compelling as to use the force of law to require action. I would uphold their right if they refused to serve atheists or heterosexuals or whatever. (Yes, there are cases of discrimination against heterosexuals. http://www.edgesanfrancisco.com...)

There is a de facto religion that has a detailed theology. You must, under force of law, not smoke, and not drink a Big Gulp, not offend members of favored groups. You may offend members of not-favored groups; you must conserve energy, you must recycle. What the laws do collectively is establish a state religion and require that your personal religion be subordinated to the state religion.

This guy knows what im talking about. Societal laws and rules themselves are form of religion.


Note that the laws extend to symbolic acts as well as consequential ones. Air filters can, as a practical matter, make the air in a room full of smokers much cleaner than the air outdoors. Nonetheless, smoking is banned for neo-theological reasons. California was talking about banning black cars because theoretically they use more air conditioning. Users of electricity in amounts needed for air conditioning are penalized in California with four times higher utility rates. There are about four hundred rules of political correctness applied to K-12 textbooks.

What is happening is a clash between the state religion and traditional religion.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 7:55:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 5:45:47 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I love how you generalized from one gay couple to the entire homosexual community.
When the law gives out benefits to a certain kind of gay couple, more gay couples will follow their example. The same principle works with any other population.

Liberty exclusive to America? Please.
Liberty has its problems in America, but in most supposedly liberal democracies you can't even express irrational hatred without the gestapo coming down on you.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 9:05:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 7:55:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Liberty exclusive to America? Please.
Liberty has its problems in America, but in most supposedly liberal democracies you can't even express irrational hatred without the gestapo coming down on you.

Liberty with restrictions is still liberty. Maybe not complete liberty, but if we had complete liberty we would have anarchy (not saying anarchy is bad, it's just not what anyone has). My point being that all liberty is restricted to some level, since I can't just go and use my possessing liberty as an excuse to go gun down 20 people and shrug it off like it's no big deal. To say liberty with restrictions isn't actually liberty is absurd.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 9:10:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 7:55:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/17/2012 5:45:47 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I love how you generalized from one gay couple to the entire homosexual community.
When the law gives out benefits to a certain kind of gay couple, more gay couples will follow their example. The same principle works with any other population.

His claim was that because this one gay couple wanted special attention at the cost of the rights of others, all gay couples are advocating for this. That is a blatant lie.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 1:58:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 9:10:37 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/18/2012 7:55:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/17/2012 5:45:47 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I love how you generalized from one gay couple to the entire homosexual community.
When the law gives out benefits to a certain kind of gay couple, more gay couples will follow their example. The same principle works with any other population.

His claim was that because this one gay couple wanted special attention at the cost of the rights of others, all gay couples are advocating for this. That is a blatant lie.
Where did he actually claim that?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 1:58:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 9:05:04 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 9/18/2012 7:55:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Liberty exclusive to America? Please.
Liberty has its problems in America, but in most supposedly liberal democracies you can't even express irrational hatred without the gestapo coming down on you.

Liberty with restrictions is still liberty.
I...

I don't even...

what?

I can just imagine Hitler totally saying: "You have freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want as long as I don't disapprove."

Maybe not complete liberty, but if we had complete liberty we would have anarchy
You don't need anarchy, just NONAGGRESSIVE governance.

My point being that all liberty is restricted to some level, since I can't just go and use my possessing liberty as an excuse to go gun down 20 people and shrug it off like it's no big deal.
You have the free use of your body and your gun. That you don't have the free use of THEIR body with your bullets is not a restriction on your liberty, it is a matter of theirs.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 2:25:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 1:58:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/18/2012 9:05:04 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 9/18/2012 7:55:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Liberty exclusive to America? Please.
Liberty has its problems in America, but in most supposedly liberal democracies you can't even express irrational hatred without the gestapo coming down on you.

Liberty with restrictions is still liberty.
I...

I don't even...

what?

I can just imagine Hitler totally saying: "You have freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want as long as I don't disapprove."

You act like this disproves my point, yet I fail to see yours.

Maybe not complete liberty, but if we had complete liberty we would have anarchy
You don't need anarchy, just NONAGGRESSIVE governance.

The very existence of government places restrictions upon our liberty in exchange for security. Regardless of it's aggressiveness, it still places at least some restriction on the person.

My point being that all liberty is restricted to some level, since I can't just go and use my possessing liberty as an excuse to go gun down 20 people and shrug it off like it's no big deal.
You have the free use of your body and your gun. That you don't have the free use of THEIR body with your bullets is not a restriction on your liberty, it is a matter of theirs.

The very fact that their liberties prevent me from exercising my liberties to the extend I want is a restriction on me. Life is full of restrictions. I cannot legally violate someone else's liberty, which is a restriction upon my abilities.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:14:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 2:25:32 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 9/19/2012 1:58:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/18/2012 9:05:04 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 9/18/2012 7:55:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Liberty exclusive to America? Please.
Liberty has its problems in America, but in most supposedly liberal democracies you can't even express irrational hatred without the gestapo coming down on you.

Liberty with restrictions is still liberty.
I...

I don't even...

what?

I can just imagine Hitler totally saying: "You have freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want as long as I don't disapprove."

You act like this disproves my point, yet I fail to see yours.
You can't just say "Freedom has limits" and not even specify those limits and have your concept of freedom be taken seriously. Freedom with whatever goddamn limits the government pleases is a contradiction.


Maybe not complete liberty, but if we had complete liberty we would have anarchy
You don't need anarchy, just NONAGGRESSIVE governance.

The very existence of government places restrictions upon our liberty in exchange for security. Regardless of it's aggressiveness, it still places at least some restriction on the person.
By what voodoo?

The very fact that their liberties prevent me from exercising my liberties
It doesn't. It prevents you from exercising their liberties. Their body is no part of your liberty.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:24:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 2:49:28 PM, adontimasu wrote:
"We have no religious freedom because Muslims practice their religious freedom!"
Are you retarded?

Remember, us muzzies just want to suppress the religious freedom of the kafir and convert them all through "stealth jihad". ;) It's how we roll, y'know.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:49:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 7:14:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/19/2012 2:25:32 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 9/19/2012 1:58:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/18/2012 9:05:04 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 9/18/2012 7:55:12 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Liberty exclusive to America? Please.
Liberty has its problems in America, but in most supposedly liberal democracies you can't even express irrational hatred without the gestapo coming down on you.

Liberty with restrictions is still liberty.
I...

I don't even...

what?

I can just imagine Hitler totally saying: "You have freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want as long as I don't disapprove."

You act like this disproves my point, yet I fail to see yours.

You can't just say "Freedom has limits" and not even specify those limits and have your concept of freedom be taken seriously. Freedom with whatever goddamn limits the government pleases is a contradiction.

I can't speak for Zaradi, but I think I see his point. Constraining ourselves to this website as a analogue for a government (I know you are laughing), we have reasonable freedoms of speech, but we don't have the freedom to impersonate other people. [Section 'G' under Content Posted and Code of Conduct http://www.debate.org... and see all the Imabench impersonators] So, one can say that our Freedom to Speech is limited. In actual life, you can say that you have freedom of movement--you can basically go wherever you like. However, you cannot trespass on someone's property. So, your freedom of movement is limited.

As for your analogy to Hitler's freedom of speech, the populous can still, well, speak. However, in that scenario, the freedom of speech is so constrained that anybody might as well say that they don't have freedom of speech.


Maybe not complete liberty, but if we had complete liberty we would have anarchy
You don't need anarchy, just NONAGGRESSIVE governance.

The very existence of government places restrictions upon our liberty in exchange for security. Regardless of it's aggressiveness, it still places at least some restriction on the person.

By what voodoo?

I can't say anything about non-aggressive governments, since I do not know a whole lot about it, but governments impose restrictions on us by not allowing us to, say, trespass on someone's property, or take someone's life, etc.

The very fact that their liberties prevent me from exercising my liberties

It doesn't. It prevents you from exercising their liberties. Their body is no part of your liberty.

Their right to property prevents me from taking their property or using their property without their permission. Their right to their own stuff prevents me from getting my grubby paws all over them.
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 8:49:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"cough"
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:56:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 7:49:21 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
I can't speak for Zaradi, but I think I see his point. Constraining ourselves to this website as a analogue for a government (I know you are laughing)
Of course I am. If the owners of this website have ever shown us one goddamn weapon I never heard of it.

we have reasonable freedoms of speech, but we don't have the freedom to impersonate other people.
Sure we do, we just have to step off the property line to do it.

So, one can say that our Freedom to Speech is limited. In actual life, you can say that you have freedom of movement--you can basically go wherever you like. However, you cannot trespass on someone's property.
In other words, you have freedom of movement but not ownership of another's property. No contradiction, freedom entails freedom to do what you want with what is yours, not with what is another person's.

So, your freedom of movement is limited.
Limited definitionally, not at random whim of some goddamn bureaucrat.


As for your analogy to Hitler's freedom of speech, the populous can still, well, speak. However, in that scenario, the freedom of speech is so constrained that anybody might as well say that they don't have freedom of speech.
"It's true but it's false" is neither possible nor helpful.

I can't say anything about non-aggressive governments, since I do not know a whole lot about it, but governments impose restrictions on us by not allowing us to, say, trespass on someone's property, or take someone's life, etc.
That would be nonaggressive government, and has nothing to do with preventing us from doing something that does NOT involve that which belongs to another.


The very fact that their liberties prevent me from exercising my liberties

It doesn't. It prevents you from exercising their liberties. Their body is no part of your liberty.

Their right to property prevents me from taking their property or using their property without their permission.
That wasn't part of your liberty in the first place. If they and all their business associates were subtracted from the world, your freedom would still not include those things because their property would not exist.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
1dustpelt
Posts: 1,970
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 5:21:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
lolwut
Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 10:06:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 3:25:33 AM, Mirza wrote:
May I introduce a couple of appropriate forums for this topic, mister? http://debate.org... http://debate.org...
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 4:20:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
To the OP:

The law in question reads, in part:
"any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services . . . to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, spousal affiliation[,] or physical or mental handicap." Section 28-1-7(F)

A "public accommodation" is:
"any establishment that provides or offers its services . . . to the public, but does not include a[n] . . . establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private." Section 28-1-2(H).

http://www.nmcompcomm.us...

This isn't an attack on Christians, per se, but an attack on discrimination. Whatever happened to "we may refuse service to anyone for any reason"?

Even if that reason is stupid, like racism, a business owner should have the right to refuse service, just like the public have the right to refuse patronage. Otherwise, we just make exception for some and not others. For example, a bigoted restaurateur must serve any race that comes in, but it could refuse service to criminals, nerds, or even people that don a rival sports team's jersey.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 11:09:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And we need religious freedom because....?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."