Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Seperationn of Church and State

wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 5:29:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
N.C. Senate OKs bill allowing officials to refuse to officiate same-sex marriages

www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/02/n-c-senate-oks-bill-allowing-officials-to-refuse-to-officiate-same-sex-marriages

This, and the proliferation of similar such measures across many states, are ridiculous in the extreme, as well as blatantly unconstitutional under the separation of church and state. These people are PUBLIC OFFICIALS!!!!! Not ordained clergy. If they cannot seperate their duties as a PUBLIC OFFICIAL from their religious beliefs, then they are unqualified for the position and have absolutely no business holding a PUBLIC OFFICE. They either resign, or impeached immediately. No excuses.

Of course, this will lead to even more lawsuits at taxpayers expense (including LGBTQ taxpayers) which will probably end up before SCOTUS. All they will gain is the ability to pander for reelection votes by saying : "Hey! I tried!!! "

But they may not like the ultimate outcome if SCOTUS rightfully places limits on "religious freedoms " They have already ruled that there is a distinction and difference between religious beliefs and religious practices.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 7:19:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 5:29:54 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
N.C. Senate OKs bill allowing officials to refuse to officiate same-sex marriages

www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/02/n-c-senate-oks-bill-allowing-officials-to-refuse-to-officiate-same-sex-marriages

This, and the proliferation of similar such measures across many states, are ridiculous in the extreme, as well as blatantly unconstitutional under the separation of church and state. These people are PUBLIC OFFICIALS!!!!! Not ordained clergy. If they cannot seperate their duties as a PUBLIC OFFICIAL from their religious beliefs, then they are unqualified for the position and have absolutely no business holding a PUBLIC OFFICE. They either resign, or impeached immediately. No excuses.

Of course, this will lead to even more lawsuits at taxpayers expense (including LGBTQ taxpayers) which will probably end up before SCOTUS. All they will gain is the ability to pander for reelection votes by saying : "Hey! I tried!!! "

But they may not like the ultimate outcome if SCOTUS rightfully places limits on "religious freedoms " They have already ruled that there is a distinction and difference between religious beliefs and religious practices.

I would suggest you actually read the bill. According to Reuters: (http://www.reuters.com...)

"In North Carolina, some of the civil officers who perform marriages, known as magistrates, threatened to resign rather than perform unions that ran counter to their religious beliefs.

While the bill does not mention gay marriage explicitly, it allows employees to recuse themselves from performing marriages by citing a "sincerely held religious objection."

After submitting their objections in writing, magistrates would be barred from performing any marriage for six months or until they removed their objections.

The bill, which also applies to the registers of deeds who issue marriage certificates, would require local governments to ensure that eligible couples are not denied the right to marry."

Essentially, if a magistrates or clerk of court has a religious objection, they will be allowed to abstain from conducting all marriages. In turn, counties will be required to ensure that marriages will be performed to all. That is not very bad at all.
Daffypuck
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 7:22:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ill interject here and say that the topic of this thread needs to be reworded. There is no such thing as "separation of church and state." That is a myth and misinterpretation of the constitution.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 7:36:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 7:19:11 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 5:29:54 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
N.C. Senate OKs bill allowing officials to refuse to officiate same-sex marriages

www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/02/n-c-senate-oks-bill-allowing-officials-to-refuse-to-officiate-same-sex-marriages

This, and the proliferation of similar such measures across many states, are ridiculous in the extreme, as well as blatantly unconstitutional under the separation of church and state. These people are PUBLIC OFFICIALS!!!!! Not ordained clergy. If they cannot seperate their duties as a PUBLIC OFFICIAL from their religious beliefs, then they are unqualified for the position and have absolutely no business holding a PUBLIC OFFICE. They either resign, or impeached immediately. No excuses.

Of course, this will lead to even more lawsuits at taxpayers expense (including LGBTQ taxpayers) which will probably end up before SCOTUS. All they will gain is the ability to pander for reelection votes by saying : "Hey! I tried!!! "

But they may not like the ultimate outcome if SCOTUS rightfully places limits on "religious freedoms " They have already ruled that there is a distinction and difference between religious beliefs and religious practices.

I would suggest you actually read the bill. According to Reuters: (http://www.reuters.com...)

"In North Carolina, some of the civil officers who perform marriages, known as magistrates, threatened to resign rather than perform unions that ran counter to their religious beliefs.

While the bill does not mention gay marriage explicitly, it allows employees to recuse themselves from performing marriages by citing a "sincerely held religious objection."

After submitting their objections in writing, magistrates would be barred from performing any marriage for six months or until they removed their objections.

The bill, which also applies to the registers of deeds who issue marriage certificates, would require local governments to ensure that eligible couples are not denied the right to marry."

Essentially, if a magistrates or clerk of court has a religious objection, they will be allowed to abstain from conducting all marriages. In turn, counties will be required to ensure that marriages will be performed to all. That is not very bad at all.

If they are unable to preform the duties of the public office, they should not hold that public office, regardless of if the marriage is same sex or heterosexual. Their public office IS NOT a religious office.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 7:37:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 7:22:34 PM, Daffypuck wrote:
Ill interject here and say that the topic of this thread needs to be reworded. There is no such thing as "separation of church and state." That is a myth and misinterpretation of the constitution.

That is your interpretation
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 8:03:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 7:22:34 PM, Daffypuck wrote:
Ill interject here and say that the topic of this thread needs to be reworded. There is no such thing as "separation of church and state." That is a myth and misinterpretation of the constitution.

The phrase is not found in the US Constitution, but the sentiment is found in the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. Before the Civil War, this just applied to the federal government, and states could still establish a certain faith (it was always a denomination of Christianity.) After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment caused it to apply equally to all the states as well.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 8:06:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 7:36:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
If they are unable to preform the duties of the public office, they should not hold that public office, regardless of if the marriage is same sex or heterosexual. Their public office IS NOT a religious office.

It isn't a religious office, you are correct. However, this bill does not allow magistrates to specifically deny certain marriages. You can marry everybody or marry nobody. I really don't understand why that's a terrible idea...
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 8:09:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Conservatives are always for these laws that cover for religious convictions in the public sphere-- up until Islam gets into the picture...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 8:35:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 8:06:57 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 7:36:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
If they are unable to preform the duties of the public office, they should not hold that public office, regardless of if the marriage is same sex or heterosexual. Their public office IS NOT a religious office.

It isn't a religious office, you are correct. However, this bill does not allow magistrates to specifically deny certain marriages. You can marry everybody or marry nobody. I really don't understand why that's a terrible idea...

Performing marriages is part of the job description. If they can't perform their job duties, they should be disqualified from the job.

Have you ever been employed where you got to pick and choose what duties of the job you will or will not do? Would you hire someone to work for you and allow them to pick and choose their duties and responsibilities? ABSURD!!!!!!!
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 8:40:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 8:09:52 PM, Fly wrote:
Conservatives are always for these laws that cover for religious convictions in the public sphere-- up until Islam gets into the picture...

You are correct. But call them what they are :bigots, and listen to them deny and howl "RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION!!!!!! "

They don't understand 2 way streets.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 9:39:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 8:35:54 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:06:57 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 7:36:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
If they are unable to preform the duties of the public office, they should not hold that public office, regardless of if the marriage is same sex or heterosexual. Their public office IS NOT a religious office.

It isn't a religious office, you are correct. However, this bill does not allow magistrates to specifically deny certain marriages. You can marry everybody or marry nobody. I really don't understand why that's a terrible idea...

Performing marriages is part of the job description. If they can't perform their job duties, they should be disqualified from the job.

Have you ever been employed where you got to pick and choose what duties of the job you will or will not do? Would you hire someone to work for you and allow them to pick and choose their duties and responsibilities? ABSURD!!!!!!!

I imagine a Muslim or Jew working at a deli wouldn't be forced to handle pork... but that's just me.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 9:48:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 9:39:55 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:35:54 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:06:57 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 7:36:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
If they are unable to preform the duties of the public office, they should not hold that public office, regardless of if the marriage is same sex or heterosexual. Their public office IS NOT a religious office.

It isn't a religious office, you are correct. However, this bill does not allow magistrates to specifically deny certain marriages. You can marry everybody or marry nobody. I really don't understand why that's a terrible idea...

Performing marriages is part of the job description. If they can't perform their job duties, they should be disqualified from the job.

Have you ever been employed where you got to pick and choose what duties of the job you will or will not do? Would you hire someone to work for you and allow them to pick and choose their duties and responsibilities? ABSURD!!!!!!!

I imagine a Muslim or Jew working at a deli wouldn't be forced to handle pork... but that's just me.

Have Jewish or Muslim delis every offered pork for sale?

See, if it's not on the menu you are offering for sale, it isn't discrimination. But if it IS on the menu, then you should be obligated to serve it to anyone who ask for its.

If you are a florist who does wedding arrangements, then you do it for all. If you make wedding cakes, then you do it for all. If you don't do ANY weddings,
at all for anyone, then OK.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 9:53:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 9:48:42 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 9:39:55 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:35:54 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:06:57 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 7:36:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
If they are unable to preform the duties of the public office, they should not hold that public office, regardless of if the marriage is same sex or heterosexual. Their public office IS NOT a religious office.

It isn't a religious office, you are correct. However, this bill does not allow magistrates to specifically deny certain marriages. You can marry everybody or marry nobody. I really don't understand why that's a terrible idea...

Performing marriages is part of the job description. If they can't perform their job duties, they should be disqualified from the job.

Have you ever been employed where you got to pick and choose what duties of the job you will or will not do? Would you hire someone to work for you and allow them to pick and choose their duties and responsibilities? ABSURD!!!!!!!

I imagine a Muslim or Jew working at a deli wouldn't be forced to handle pork... but that's just me.

Have Jewish or Muslim delis every offered pork for sale?

See, if it's not on the menu you are offering for sale, it isn't discrimination. But if it IS on the menu, then you should be obligated to serve it to anyone who ask for its.

If you are a florist who does wedding arrangements, then you do it for all. If you make wedding cakes, then you do it for all. If you don't do ANY weddings,
at all for anyone, then OK.

That seems a little silly to me. Many restaurants have signs that state they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. I can't really see any good argument to force private businesses to trade with individuals when they don't want to. The fact that religious (bigoted, whatever you want to call it) bakers and florists are being *forced* to perform their services for individuals when they don't want to should be a cause of great concern for anyone who has even the tiniest belief in the idea of private property.

Public officials, probably. But private business? I don't think so.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:11:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Public officials whose religious beliefs would be violated in performing a same-sex wedding should absolutely have the option of opting out and letting somebody else handle said wedding.
In America, all groups of significantly large numbers (that is, at least a few thousand of them), whether it be homosexuals or Conservative Christians, should be accommodated if this nation cares about the Founding Principles of the United States.
I believe that homosexuality is immoral, but because of these principles the Christian Conservative movement is at fault for trying to outlaw it. Likewise, when it and similar things are legalized, we should make sure that they do not have negative consequences for the Christian community. Accommodation for all.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 10:39:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 10:11:16 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Public officials whose religious beliefs would be violated in performing a same-sex wedding should absolutely have the option of opting out and letting somebody else handle said wedding.
In America, all groups of significantly large numbers (that is, at least a few thousand of them), whether it be homosexuals or Conservative Christians, should be accommodated if this nation cares about the Founding Principles of the United States.
I believe that homosexuality is immoral, but because of these principles the Christian Conservative movement is at fault for trying to outlaw it. Likewise, when it and similar things are legalized, we should make sure that they do not have negative consequences for the Christian community. Accommodation for all.

IT'S THEIR FRICKING JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If thru can't do their job, get rid of them and get someone who CAN!!!!!!!!
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:01:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 9:53:05 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 9:48:42 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 9:39:55 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:35:54 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:06:57 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 7:36:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
If they are unable to preform the duties of the public office, they should not hold that public office, regardless of if the marriage is same sex or heterosexual. Their public office IS NOT a religious office.

It isn't a religious office, you are correct. However, this bill does not allow magistrates to specifically deny certain marriages. You can marry everybody or marry nobody. I really don't understand why that's a terrible idea...

Performing marriages is part of the job description. If they can't perform their job duties, they should be disqualified from the job.

Have you ever been employed where you got to pick and choose what duties of the job you will or will not do? Would you hire someone to work for you and allow them to pick and choose their duties and responsibilities? ABSURD!!!!!!!

I imagine a Muslim or Jew working at a deli wouldn't be forced to handle pork... but that's just me.

Have Jewish or Muslim delis every offered pork for sale?

See, if it's not on the menu you are offering for sale, it isn't discrimination. But if it IS on the menu, then you should be obligated to serve it to anyone who ask for its.

If you are a florist who does wedding arrangements, then you do it for all. If you make wedding cakes, then you do it for all. If you don't do ANY weddings,
at all for anyone, then OK.

That seems a little silly to me. Many restaurants have signs that state they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. I can't really see any good argument to force private businesses to trade with individuals when they don't want to. The fact that religious (bigoted, whatever you want to call it) bakers and florists are being *forced* to perform their services for individuals when they don't want to should be a cause of great concern for anyone who has even the tiniest belief in the idea of private property.

Public officials, probably. But private business? I don't think so.

So, according to your logic, "any reason at all ", any private business open to the general public should be able to refuse service to black people just because they want to. Just because they don't want to.

I thought SCOTUS already had something to say about that.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:04:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Restaurants can claim to reserve whatever right they choose, but whether the claim is backed by the full force of law is on much shakier ground...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:07:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 11:01:09 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 9:53:05 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 9:48:42 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 9:39:55 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:35:54 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:06:57 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 7:36:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
If they are unable to preform the duties of the public office, they should not hold that public office, regardless of if the marriage is same sex or heterosexual. Their public office IS NOT a religious office.

It isn't a religious office, you are correct. However, this bill does not allow magistrates to specifically deny certain marriages. You can marry everybody or marry nobody. I really don't understand why that's a terrible idea...

Performing marriages is part of the job description. If they can't perform their job duties, they should be disqualified from the job.

Have you ever been employed where you got to pick and choose what duties of the job you will or will not do? Would you hire someone to work for you and allow them to pick and choose their duties and responsibilities? ABSURD!!!!!!!

I imagine a Muslim or Jew working at a deli wouldn't be forced to handle pork... but that's just me.

Have Jewish or Muslim delis every offered pork for sale?

See, if it's not on the menu you are offering for sale, it isn't discrimination. But if it IS on the menu, then you should be obligated to serve it to anyone who ask for its.

If you are a florist who does wedding arrangements, then you do it for all. If you make wedding cakes, then you do it for all. If you don't do ANY weddings,
at all for anyone, then OK.

That seems a little silly to me. Many restaurants have signs that state they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. I can't really see any good argument to force private businesses to trade with individuals when they don't want to. The fact that religious (bigoted, whatever you want to call it) bakers and florists are being *forced* to perform their services for individuals when they don't want to should be a cause of great concern for anyone who has even the tiniest belief in the idea of private property.

Public officials, probably. But private business? I don't think so.

So, according to your logic, "any reason at all ", any private business open to the general public should be able to refuse service to black people just because they want to. Just because they don't want to.

I thought SCOTUS already had something to say about that.

No, but probably for different reasons that you would expect.

For now, let's say, sure, why not? Give me an argument for why the state should have the power to force private actors to engage in trade.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2015 11:10:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 8:09:52 PM, Fly wrote:
Conservatives are always for these laws that cover for religious convictions in the public sphere-- up until Islam gets into the picture...

EXACTLY. Christian conservatives love to use their religion to dictate legislation until Islam gains recognition, then they scream SHARIA LAW and try to bomb their countries.
RaceRealist
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 8:11:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 5:29:54 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
N.C. Senate OKs bill allowing officials to refuse to officiate same-sex marriages

www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/02/n-c-senate-oks-bill-allowing-officials-to-refuse-to-officiate-same-sex-marriages

This, and the proliferation of similar such measures across many states, are ridiculous in the extreme, as well as blatantly unconstitutional under the separation of church and state. These people are PUBLIC OFFICIALS!!!!! Not ordained clergy. If they cannot seperate their duties as a PUBLIC OFFICIAL from their religious beliefs, then they are unqualified for the position and have absolutely no business holding a PUBLIC OFFICE. They either resign, or impeached immediately. No excuses.

Of course, this will lead to even more lawsuits at taxpayers expense (including LGBTQ taxpayers) which will probably end up before SCOTUS. All they will gain is the ability to pander for reelection votes by saying : "Hey! I tried!!! "

But they may not like the ultimate outcome if SCOTUS rightfully places limits on "religious freedoms " They have already ruled that there is a distinction and difference between religious beliefs and religious practices.

Let us make the official religion jedi
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 8:21:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 5:29:54 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
N.C. Senate OKs bill allowing officials to refuse to officiate same-sex marriages

www.lgbtqnation.com/2015/02/n-c-senate-oks-bill-allowing-officials-to-refuse-to-officiate-same-sex-marriages

This, and the proliferation of similar such measures across many states, are ridiculous in the extreme, as well as blatantly unconstitutional under the separation of church and state. These people are PUBLIC OFFICIALS!!!!! Not ordained clergy. If they cannot seperate their duties as a PUBLIC OFFICIAL from their religious beliefs, then they are unqualified for the position and have absolutely no business holding a PUBLIC OFFICE. They either resign, or impeached immediately. No excuses.

Of course, this will lead to even more lawsuits at taxpayers expense (including LGBTQ taxpayers) which will probably end up before SCOTUS. All they will gain is the ability to pander for reelection votes by saying : "Hey! I tried!!! "

But they may not like the ultimate outcome if SCOTUS rightfully places limits on "religious freedoms " They have already ruled that there is a distinction and difference between religious beliefs and religious practices.

Question:
MUST public officials officiate any wedding they are hired to do?
Can they refuse due to conflicts of interest (not sure if SSM counts, but marrying a relation might)? Can they refuse if they believe the marriage is a sham, abusive, etc.?
My work here is, finally, done.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 8:41:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 11:07:38 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 11:01:09 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 9:53:05 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 9:48:42 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 9:39:55 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:35:54 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:06:57 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 7:36:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
If they are unable to preform the duties of the public office, they should not hold that public office, regardless of if the marriage is same sex or heterosexual. Their public office IS NOT a religious office.

It isn't a religious office, you are correct. However, this bill does not allow magistrates to specifically deny certain marriages. You can marry everybody or marry nobody. I really don't understand why that's a terrible idea...

Performing marriages is part of the job description. If they can't perform their job duties, they should be disqualified from the job.

Have you ever been employed where you got to pick and choose what duties of the job you will or will not do? Would you hire someone to work for you and allow them to pick and choose their duties and responsibilities? ABSURD!!!!!!!

I imagine a Muslim or Jew working at a deli wouldn't be forced to handle pork... but that's just me.

Have Jewish or Muslim delis every offered pork for sale?

See, if it's not on the menu you are offering for sale, it isn't discrimination. But if it IS on the menu, then you should be obligated to serve it to anyone who ask for its.

If you are a florist who does wedding arrangements, then you do it for all. If you make wedding cakes, then you do it for all. If you don't do ANY weddings,
at all for anyone, then OK.

That seems a little silly to me. Many restaurants have signs that state they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. I can't really see any good argument to force private businesses to trade with individuals when they don't want to. The fact that religious (bigoted, whatever you want to call it) bakers and florists are being *forced* to perform their services for individuals when they don't want to should be a cause of great concern for anyone who has even the tiniest belief in the idea of private property.

Public officials, probably. But private business? I don't think so.

So, according to your logic, "any reason at all ", any private business open to the general public should be able to refuse service to black people just because they want to. Just because they don't want to.

I thought SCOTUS already had something to say about that.

No, but probably for different reasons that you would expect.

For now, let's say, sure, why not? Give me an argument for why the state should have the power to force private actors to engage in trade.

The government doesn't force individuals to engage in business with the general public. But it does say, if you do business with the general public, these are the rules you must abide by.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 8:53:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/26/2015 8:41:03 AM, wsmunit7 wrote:

The government doesn't force individuals to engage in business with the general public. But it does say, if you do business with the general public, these are the rules you must abide by.

So, do you not proscribe to the old adage "we maintain the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2015 9:01:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/25/2015 9:48:42 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 9:39:55 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:35:54 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 8:06:57 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 2/25/2015 7:36:46 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
If they are unable to preform the duties of the public office, they should not hold that public office, regardless of if the marriage is same sex or heterosexual. Their public office IS NOT a religious office.

It isn't a religious office, you are correct. However, this bill does not allow magistrates to specifically deny certain marriages. You can marry everybody or marry nobody. I really don't understand why that's a terrible idea...

Performing marriages is part of the job description. If they can't perform their job duties, they should be disqualified from the job.

Have you ever been employed where you got to pick and choose what duties of the job you will or will not do? Would you hire someone to work for you and allow them to pick and choose their duties and responsibilities? ABSURD!!!!!!!

I imagine a Muslim or Jew working at a deli wouldn't be forced to handle pork... but that's just me.

Have Jewish or Muslim delis every offered pork for sale?

See, if it's not on the menu you are offering for sale, it isn't discrimination. But if it IS on the menu, then you should be obligated to serve it to anyone who ask for its.

This is interesting and I am curious to your response to this actual scenario:
Target (retail store) hires Muslims.
Muslims refuse to scan pork products, like bacon, that Target sells.
A manager is then called to ring up the selected items.

Now, aside from the inconvenience this is to the customer, it also mandates that a manager cannot be Muslim, otherwise, this bacon could never be sold.

So, should all employees be forced to leave their religious creed at the time clock, too?
My work here is, finally, done.