01 Jul 23
@fmf saidSadly, the Supreme Court has ruled that discrimination is perfectly legal, and they even inferred that discrimination is "protected free speech".
The US Supreme Court has ruled that businesspeople have a first amendment right to refuse to provide services to gay people.
Is this, as some claim, a victory for religious liberty?
Or has this ruling, as others claim, legitimized a poison in US society?
God save us all.
@suzianne saidWhilst I agree with your principle about this, don’t you yourself discriminate against Republicans by claiming a Republican cannot be a real Christian?
Sadly, the Supreme Court has ruled that discrimination is perfectly legal, and they even inferred that discrimination is "protected free speech".
God save us all.
@fmf saidA person, as an owner of a private business, because it is their personal and private property, has the right to discriminate against anyone that seeks services that violate their personal convictions.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that businesspeople have a first amendment right to refuse to provide services to gay people.
Is this, as some claim, a victory for religious liberty?
Or has this ruling, as others claim, legitimized a poison in US society?
Government intrusion into that right is unconstitutional.
Let the society regulate itself. Overseers be damned.
The ruling by the Supreme Court isn't just a win for "religious liberty", but a victory for personal freedom everywhere against anyone seeking to impinge upon the personal and private convictions of another.
"Gay people" have no greater rights that override the rights of others, and the government has no jurisdiction in the affairs of law abiding private citizens in the administration of their businesses, or private lives, in a free society.
For a government to enforce laws that require private businesses or any other private and separate institution or peoples to acquiesce to the demands of a specific people group that practice a lifestyle that offends their moral convictions is tyranny.
It's as if people can't comprehend what constitutional liberty even means!
@josephw saidWhat if the business owner's "personal convictions" make them unwilling to serve African Americans? Or Jews? Or women?
A person, as an owner of a private business, because it is their personal and private property, has the right to discriminate against anyone that seeks services that violate their personal convictions.
01 Jul 23
@josephw saidacquiesce to the demands of a specific people
For a government to enforce laws that require private businesses or any other private and separate institution or peoples to acquiesce to the demands of a specific people group that practice a lifestyle that offends their moral convictions is tyranny.
It's as if people can't comprehend what constitutional liberty even means!
By "acquiesce to the demands of a specific people" do you mean "sell things to people who want them"?
01 Jul 23
@suzianne saidYou are following a narrative that mischaracterizes the ruling.
Sadly, the Supreme Court has ruled that discrimination is perfectly legal, and they even inferred that discrimination is "protected free speech".
God save us all.
That narrative is driven by an agenda.
That agenda is driven by indiscriminate sexual appetites that violate nature, and is an offense against God.
The only "rights" you have are enshrined in a constitution based on a biblical Judeo-Christian ethic.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,.."
It is NOT a right of a particular people group or individual to force their perceived rights on another to accept that group's or person's choice of lifestyle without discrimination.
It ain't gonna happen.
01 Jul 23
@josephw saidSo you feel it is a justifiable situation if a person arriving at a medical centre in a life threatening condition is refused medical care and dies…. because their private lifestyle offends your religious sensibilities?
You are following a narrative that mischaracterizes the ruling.
That narrative is driven by an agenda.
That agenda is driven by indiscriminate sexual appetites that violate nature, and is an offense against God.
The only "rights" you have are enshrined in a constitution based on a biblical Judeo-Christian ethic.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men a ...[text shortened]... ccept that group's or person's choice of lifestyle without discrimination.
It ain't gonna happen.
01 Jul 23
@fmf saidWhat do YOU mean "sell things to people who want them"?
acquiesce to the demands of a specific people
By "acquiesce to the demands of a specific people" do you mean "sell things to people who want them"?
If what you mean is that the proprietor of a business should custom design a product that meets the demands of anyone that causes an offense against the business owners moral or ethical convictions, then, by law, absolutely not.
01 Jul 23
@divegeester saidI'm assuming that the content of this thread is based on constitutional law.
So you feel it is a justifiable situation if a person arriving at a medical centre in a life threatening condition is refused medical care and dies…. because their private lifestyle offends your religious sensibilities?
You are now crossing the line into an area with regards to the Hippocratic oath.
Either way, if a doctor refuses services to an individual based on his, the doctors ethical/moral convictions, then who am I to force my will on his choice.
Keep the government out of it, and let society regulate itself.
01 Jul 23
@fmf saidI dont think a business can refuse to sell to someone based on race or nationality or sex. You can refuse to sell based on other criteria. Eg a known criminal you can refuse selling him.
What if the business owner's "personal convictions" make them unwilling to serve African Americans? Or Jews? Or women?
01 Jul 23
@rookie54 saidTill the schizo-Supreme Court decides it's unconstitutional for you to own private property.
@FMF
for my small business this has been a boon
for the folks who show up with a red hat, i can now tell em, "hit the road"
even if they're armed and have no teeth, i am no longer required to sell them meth
Communism = what's yours is mine
Capitalism = what's mine is mine
Christianity = what's mine is yours
Does anyone practice their particular religious/ideological perspectives perfectly?
Not that I've ever seen, except maybe the cults.
02 Jul 23
@josephw saidI mean the business person operating commercially in the public domain sells their product or service to members of the public without prejudice or discrimination as long as the customers are willing to pay and are behaving lawfully.
What do YOU mean "sell things to people who want them"?
@josephw saidChristianity = what's mine is yours
Till the schizo-Supreme Court decides it's unconstitutional for you to own private property.
Communism = what's yours is mine
Capitalism = what's mine is mine
Christianity = what's mine is yours
Does anyone practice their particular religious/ideological perspectives perfectly?
Not that I've ever seen, except maybe the cults.
Does anyone practice their particular religious/ideological perspectives perfectly?
When it comes to self-identifying Christian businesspeople, why indeed isn't it a case of "What's mine is yours", as in: What's my product/ service is yours to benefit from, without judgement, and even if you are a sinner"?
Especially given that Christians are exhorted to love their neighbours and love their enemies and judge others not lest they be judged.