by KateWild 176 Replies latest watchtower scandals
SyntaxError1974
She had many options other than being offensive.
Yes and No.
You make a good point. There are many discrete ways to handle this that would avoid a lawsuit. The easiest is simply stating that you are busy and cannot fulfill their order.
At the same time, why can I not cite my religion as a reason for denying service? Am I not permitted to act on my faith? Am I not permited to mention religion in the public sphere?
Wow,
Some posters are being tormented, followed around actually, by the LGBT community. I feel so left out. They never bother me. I don't even know who these people are. Is it me or is it them? Why am I not important enough to be harrassed by them??? My ex GF was bi. Maybe that's why.
Seriously, I don't know what to do with these comments, but thanks to those of you who post such drivel because you are doing much more for the lurkers and viewers of this OP with your very strange posts than I ever could. This is a simple matter. Follow along. The SCOTUS and other national courts have determined that it is against their respective constitutions to discriminate against, among others, the LGBT community in the areas we have discussed on this OP and others. They have it right. Haters are in the minority and are shrinking in numbers every day. Cloaking your hatred behind ridiculous rationale and straw man arguments fools no one. It is hate.
Practice your religion in your church and home. If you take it into the subsidized, regulated, constitutionally protected arenas of life, your religion has its limits. As it should.
Obviously, most of you believe that this woman was wrong to deny this couple service.
Are there any acceptable reasons for denying someone service?
The SCOTUS and other national courts have determined that it is against their respective constitutions to discriminate against, among others, the LGBT community..
Let's talk about that for a moment. We fought a Civil War and passed a constituational amendment to end slavery. We past another constituational amendment to allow women to vote. We passed a federal law to end discriminstation against African Americans.
However in case of homosexual marriages, there has been no constitutional amendment. Quite the opposite, there were federal and state laws and state constitutional amendments opposing it. Suddenly, the SCOTUS decides to take sides in a social debate to override the will of the majority.
It did so without the backing of any federal constituational amendments or laws.
This is the real threat. We have a president who will only enforce laws he likes and uses executive orders to do what he wants. We have a congress which has effectively surrended its constitutional duty to control the purse. We have a SCOTUS that is legistlating from the bench in opposition to federal and state laws.
Once again, go ahead and cheer. You reap what you sow. What you are sowing is anarchy and tyrrany.
Obviously, most of you believe that this woman was wrong to deny this couple service.
Are there any acceptable reasons for denying someone service?
Yes of course there are. A good rule of thumb is the "What" Vs " Who".
For example you can refuse service based on WHAT someone is wearing. No shoes ? no service ? for EVERYBODY. But what if you only refuse service for black folks without shoes? Then this would be unacceptable because you are denying service based on WHO it is. Get the point?
Again, when you have a customer facing business, you are not afforded any personal liberties, because your business IS NOT a person. Your business is an entity that serves the public. An entity has no personal views.
If you own a business that makes cakes for example and you are a JW, and you don't want to bake for a gay person, you don't need to bake the cake, but your BUSINESS does. So if you have another employee that is ok with this, you must have this employee provide the service.
However in case of homosexual marriages, there has been no constitutional amendment.
It seems you are confused. In the United States, civil marriage is governed by state law. Now, state law must stay within the boundaries of the US constitution. The US constitution already allows the marriage between people of the same sex, hence based on this, many states have legalized gay marriage. Logically no amendment is needed.
If anything, it would be the other way around. There would need to be an amendment to make gay marriage illegal. And that is exactly what the FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT is - a proposed amendment to restrict marriage between a man and woman. This amendment has failed to pass every time it goes to voting, and will always fail, because it's based on bigotry
mrh: "Yes, the LGBT community is worse than the JW. The JW may shun you, but once you deal with that, they leave you alone to live your life. There is no getting away from the LGBT community. If you disagree with them, they will go after you with a passion."
JWs still come through my neighborhood every couple of months, ringing buzzers, trying to get inside apartment buildings, leaving their invitations and tracts to litter the area. There haven't been carloads of LGBTs going door-to-door around here trying to recruit like the JWs. I have both JW and gay family members, it's only the JWs that don't let me live my life. There is a large LGBT community in my city and it seems very easy to get away from it. But then, I'm not trying to start a battle by disagreeing with their civil rights. So in my experience JWs are much worse than the LGBT community.
And the irony is that JWs are ready to go to court to insure THEIR rights to tell everyone else that their religions are a scam, the governement is run by the devil, and rocks will soon fall from the sky to smash open the skulls of all non-JWs!
You have a right to trade only because society grants it. Trade is denominated in legal tender, it is regulated by public laws and it is supported by public infrastructure. Those same laws have provided protection from discrimination. If you wish to trade under the protection of a legal system you dont get to pick and choose which laws you like.
redvip2000,
That was a confused response which actually augmented my point.
First, civil marriage was governed by state law until the Surpreme Court decided to override multiple state laws and extend the Equal Protection Clause under the 14th Amendment to include sexual orientation. In doing so, it also ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. How can someone possibly conclude that an amendment that (1) ended slavery, (2) denied Confederate officers from holding office, and (3) voided the Confederate debt is relavent to sexual orientation? Is there any limits to how broad the equal protection clause can be intepretted?
Second, sexual orientation is rapidly becoming a "Protected Class." I would encourage you to investigate "Protected Class." You will notice that all of them are defined by a federal act. In the case of sexual orientation, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was specifically written to ensure that it was not a protected class.
Billy,
You have a solid point. I may have to yield this one. Having said that, the JW aren't going around suing business, and they do not have the mainstream media spreading their propaganda.
Qcmbr,
You have made the best counter point on this thread. It really should be the starting point of this conversation.
Freedom of religion is an explicitly protected constitutional right. The right to trade is protected (implicitly?) in the constitution and by federal law. As established by case law, homosexuals now have the right not to be discriminated. The courts have essentially decided that when those rights collide, the right of homosexuals trump that of the right to trade (or not) and freedom of religion.
It is very disturbing that the courts are saying that one's sex life is more important than (a) the right to trade (or not) and (b) the freedom to act on your religious beliefs. ????
There was an interesting article published approximately one month ago. It showed that the number of new businesses in this country have been cut in half over the last 30 years. The more rules you impose on new businesses (especially one dictating who they need to serve and requiring that they ignore their religious beliefs), the more that they are going to stop serving the public.
It is very disturbing that the courts are saying that one's sex life is more important than (a) the right to trade (or not) and (b) the freedom to act on your religious beliefs. ????
Surly no one really thinks sexuality can be reduced to “one’s sex life”. It’s like comparing racism and all its damage to a `fuss about colour`. Sex and colour come into it but that’s not what it really is about at all.
