Religious Freedom and Private Property Rights

[JD Barleycorn]

Two things that the founders wished to have protected and both are under attack from the left again. The Arizona legislature has passed a law protecting both property rights and religious freedom. The left is calling it a discrimination against gay people law. They are full of it as usual.

The reason for the law is demonstrated in other states where people have lost their businesses and personal freedoms. Lets get down to brass tacks and talk about private property rights. Could I come into your house, set my ass in your favorite chair and watch TV without your permission? I would like to think not but I could point out that you do not own that house (shades of Obama), the bank owns that house until you pay it off. The bank is regulated by the government and in some cases owes money to the government for a bailout. The government owns your house which makes it public property. I'll take my snacks here beside me please. That bakery is private property and they have a right to deny service to anyone. The claim is that they don't serve gay people.... not true. They don't make gay wedding cakes because their religious beliefs preclude the idea of "gay marriage". If a gay person walks into the bakery and wants some brownies I am quite sure that they will get them. Unless they walk in wearing a tank top and chaps only. Once again, they have the right to refuse service. It is absolutely wrong to say that this is discriminating against gay people. It is discriminating against the idea of gay marriage. Just like you could discriminate against some neo-nazis who want a swastika cake or a known child molester who wants naked children to adorn his pastry. By forbidding people from acting on their beliefs and values is a repudiation of the core of the Constitution; personal freedom. You cannot force someone to take action in support of your personal freedom. That is for you to do.

If Arizona is forced to oppress the religious freedom of some for the rights of a few then what is being said about religious freedom in general? There is no religious freedom is it can be taken away by a vocal few. Gay people say that they will boycott Arizona, what if religiious people decided to do the same thing for the opposite reason. According to the elites their beliefs don't mean shit to the left leaning crowd. Would you same people force someone who is Jewish or Muslim to process pork in any way shape or form because people demand that they sacrifice their religious principals for the convenience of some?

For the mod, there is the fair time response to the other posting and not the same thing.

[Guest032516]

Thank you for your usual ridiculous post.

The bank may own your house, but the government cannot enter it even if they seize the bank's assets. The government cannot do anything the bank cannot do. unless you are in default, the government cannot come into your house.

You have completely confused private property rights and public business.

Businesses that are open to the public always have less rights than you do in your private home.

I do not know how this case should be decided, but it is a stretch to say that supplying the cake to a party is an infringement of someone's religious freedom.

Muslim cabdrivers in Minneapolis tried to refuse to transport passengers that were carrying alcohol, but they were rightly punished.

[Old-T]

More potentially troublesome to me are a couple situations that were likely not the intent of the law but will inevitably happen in due time:

--The clinic, not bakery, in a small one-clinic town that has moral issues with treating unwed mothers and turns away someone with a significant medical issue (and let's put aside abortion in this discussion).

--a white supremacist or black radical who belongs to a small radical church that believes people of another race are satin spawn. At what point does "religeous belief" become excused racial bigotry?

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Old-T

More potentially troublesome to me are a couple situations that were likely not the intent of the law but will inevitably happen in due time:

--The clinic, not bakery, in a small one-clinic town that has moral issues with treating unwed mothers and turns away someone with a significant medical issue (and let's put aside abortion in this discussion).

--a white supremacist or black radical who belongs to a small radical church that believes people of another race are satin spawn. At what point does "religeous belief" become excused racial bigotry?

Really, capitalism will take care of these situations if only the liberals trusted it. If one guy won't bake you a cake, go to the next bakery that caters to faggots. If the faggots get all riled up and get the community to shun the non faggot friendly confectionery, maybe he will go out of business, or bake cakes for fags as a result of getting his ass handed to him.
I hate fags but I always took their money - I'm a capitalist. I hate liberals but I took their money and worked for their interests - I'm a capitalist. I also deserve the freedom to refuse the business of someone I don't like for any reason. Let the market sort it out, not the fucking government.
At the rate we are going, we are going to have our spouses picked out for us to promote some public good.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Two things that the founders wished to have protected and both are under attack from the left again. The Arizona legislature has passed a law protecting both property rights and religious freedom. The left is calling it a discrimination against gay people law. They are full of it as usual.

The reason for the law is demonstrated in other states where people have lost their businesses and personal freedoms. Lets get down to brass tacks and talk about private property rights. Could I come into your house, set my ass in your favorite chair and watch TV without your permission? I would like to think not but I could point out that you do not own that house (shades of Obama), the bank owns that house until you pay it off. The bank is regulated by the government and in some cases owes money to the government for a bailout. The government owns your house which makes it public property. I'll take my snacks here beside me please. That bakery is private property and they have a right to deny service to anyone. The claim is that they don't serve gay people.... not true. They don't make gay wedding cakes because their religious beliefs preclude the idea of "gay marriage". If a gay person walks into the bakery and wants some brownies I am quite sure that they will get them. Unless they walk in wearing a tank top and chaps only. Once again, they have the right to refuse service. It is absolutely wrong to say that this is discriminating against gay people. It is discriminating against the idea of gay marriage. Just like you could discriminate against some neo-nazis who want a swastika cake or a known child molester who wants naked children to adorn his pastry. By forbidding people from acting on their beliefs and values is a repudiation of the core of the Constitution; personal freedom. You cannot force someone to take action in support of your personal freedom. That is for you to do.

If Arizona is forced to oppress the religious freedom of some for the rights of a few then what is being said about religious freedom in general? There is no religious freedom is it can be taken away by a vocal few. Gay people say that they will boycott Arizona, what if religiious people decided to do the same thing for the opposite reason. According to the elites their beliefs don't mean shit to the left leaning crowd. Would you same people force someone who is Jewish or Muslim to process pork in any way shape or form because people demand that they sacrifice their religious principals for the convenience of some?

For the mod, there is the fair time response to the other posting and not the same thing.

This is an excellent post. Unfortunately, liberals hate it when their inconsistencies are exposed. They are ironically consistent in attacking those who expose them!

[timpage]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Really, capitalism will take care of these situations if only the liberals trusted it. If one guy won't bake you a cake, go to the next bakery that caters to faggots. If the faggots get all riled up and get the community to shun the non faggot friendly confectionery, maybe he will go out of business, or bake cakes for fags as a result of getting his ass handed to him.
I hate fags but I always took their money - I'm a capitalist. I hate liberals but I took their money and worked for their interests - I'm a capitalist. I also deserve the freedom to refuse the business of someone I don't like for any reason. Let the market sort it out, not the fucking government.
At the rate we are going, we are going to have our spouses picked out for us to promote some public good.

So when the cretins in Arizona say it's ok not to allow a Jew into their place of business because they're a Jew, you'll be ok with it, right?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

Really, capitalism will take care of these situations if only the liberals trusted it. If one guy won't bake you a cake, go to the next bakery that caters to faggots. If the faggots get all riled up and get the community to shun the non faggot friendly confectionery, maybe he will go out of business, or bake cakes for fags as a result of getting his ass handed to him.
I hate fags but I always took their money - I'm a capitalist. I hate liberals but I took their money and worked for their interests - I'm a capitalist. I also deserve the freedom to refuse the business of someone I don't like for any reason. Let the market sort it out, not the fucking government.
At the rate we are going, we are going to have our spouses picked out for us to promote some public good.

You miss my point, especially in the first example. I really don't a lot care if a person is refused service in a bakery. They are unlikely to starve to death before finding another one. That is why I redirected it to a much more concerning issue of a clinic. And no, there are plenty of places in rural America--including Arizona--where the distance to the next clinic is literally a life threatening distance away. When refusing service results puts someone's life at risk--for supposed "religious" reasons--I don't view that in the same light as a bakery. Sadly, I don't have huge confidence that the legislators actually put thought into it beyond the superficial. I spent too much time with legislators to trust their due diligence.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by timpage

So when the cretins in Arizona say it's ok not to allow a Jew into their place of business because they're a Jew, you'll be ok with it, right?

Sure - someone will take my money.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You miss my point, especially in the first example. I really don't a lot care if a person is refused service in a bakery. They are unlikely to starve to death before finding another one. That is why I redirected it to a much more concerning issue of a clinic. And no, there are plenty of places in rural America--including Arizona--where the distance to the next clinic is literally a life threatening distance away. When refusing service results puts someone's life at risk--for supposed "religious" reasons--I don't view that in the same light as a bakery. Sadly, I don't have huge confidence that the legislators actually put thought into it beyond the superficial. I spent too much time with legislators to trust their due diligence.

Ok - you have a point there but I doubt any ER would refuse gays with emergencies. From what I've heard about gerbils up the ass, they mostly laugh at them for their follies. Monopolies and emergencies would seem like legitimate exception to the pro religious freedom bill. This diverse multicultural democracy gets more and more complicated everyday.

[Old-T]

With thought through caveats--and you bring up another good one in monopolies such as utilities--I would have far less concern with such legislation.

And in a rural clinic it need not be a whole ER that has issues with a class of people, but the one Doc on duty that night (often there is only one), or the one paramedic in the ambulance.

[Mr MojoRisin]

I would have to disagree with anyone who thinks a business establishment has the right to refuse services to anyone who is a member of a particular group of people. Of course none of us has to particularly like anyone based on their race, religious belief or sexual orientation, but we can't deny them their basic rights. I would say the only time services can and should be refused to someone is if they pose a public health concern to others. For example a patron enters a sandwich shop barefooted no shirt and covered in filth.

Jim

[CuteOldGuy]

Just a question, Mojo. If it's my money at risk in the business, why do you get to tell me who I must serve?

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Just a question, Mojo. If it's my money at risk in the business, why do you get to tell me who I must serve?

What risk are you talking about? Just for sake of this thread lets say you have an ice cream parlor and it just so happens you really don't like Asians, they just irk the fuck out of ya. One day this ono yoko looking scank enters the parlor wanting a cup of cherry vanilla. apart from the fact she is clearly Asian, she's dressed nice and places her order articulately. But you tell her anyway that you don't serve Asians. She tells you she's able to pay for her order and will leave. but you still refuse her business. To me that dilutes you as a person. Now on the flip side of the coin lets say you serve her without protest or regret, and patrons seated eating ice cream later tell you they are disappointed in you for serving the slope and they'll never come back to your shop because you serve Asians, who are nasty sneaky people. Even if you have a business to run you can't be a slave to others and their beliefs and you have to be careful on how far you take your own. I honestly believe that people regardless of their religion and ethnic background are all basically the same. We all want to be liked, respected, seen as interesting unique individuals by our peers .But we all have our differences as well, that's what makes life interesting.

Jim

[JD Barleycorn]

You are following along with what has been incorrectly said about this bill and not the real bill (kind of like piling on Sarah Palin for a comment made by a comedian impersonating her)

Here is how it works; Since we've been talking bakeries...you own a bakery. It is yours outright. It is 100% your property and you have some strongly held beliefs. Religious beliefs. People come in your bakery everyday and order cakes, designer bread, brownies, and other assorted pastries. No problem with anyone who comes in.

Now on three separate days you get a lesbian couple, Arayan nationa types, and Fred Phelps and family. The lesbian couple wants a wedding cake with two women on top. You apologize and say that you can't in good conscience participate in any way in something you think is wrong. You give them the number to another bakery who will do just as good a job as you. They leave. You know one of the women, she comes in all the time for some cherry tarts and you have no problem serving her. You're not against gay people, you just don't believe in gay marriage. If they ordered a birthday cake you would have happily made it.

The next day two guys with shaved heads and tats come in the door. They want a swastika shaped cake that says "All Jews Must Die: 80 years of ethnic purity". You tell them that you're sorry (not really) but you can't help them. They want to know why. You tell them that your religion says that all people are equal in the eyes of God and you can't express such sentiments for them even in frosting. They walk out mad and without asking for another address. You shout that they should try some brownies, they are so good that they could change your outlook on life.

The following day a gaggle of idiots shows up outside your door. Phelps and his tribe of lawyers come inside. They say that they heard about what you did with the lesbians and they want cupcakes made. Each cupcake should have a message; "God hates faggots", Faggots must die", "Homos are diseased", etc. You choke your bile down and tell them not just no, but HELL NO! Please leave my store now! My religion teaches me to hate the sin but love the sinner can I sell you some lemon creme puffs.

In each case the store owner can now be sued (it is a private business that is open to the public and not a public business) by any of the three groups. Your defense of religious principals is no longer protected by the Constitution and you become subject to state sponsored oppression. Going back to Germany; a person could attack a Jew, literally murder them in the street, and the state would officially look the other way to your crime which isn't a crime in late 1930s Germany.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You are following along with what has been incorrectly said about this bill and not the real bill (kind of like piling on Sarah Palin for a comment made by a comedian impersonating her)

Here is how it works; Since we've been talking bakeries...you own a bakery. It is yours outright. It is 100% your property and you have some strongly held beliefs. Religious beliefs. People come in your bakery everyday and order cakes, designer bread, brownies, and other assorted pastries. No problem with anyone who comes in.

Now on three separate days you get a lesbian couple, Arayan nationa types, and Fred Phelps and family. The lesbian couple wants a wedding cake with two women on top. You apologize and say that you can't in good conscience participate in any way in something you think is wrong. You give them the number to another bakery who will do just as good a job as you. They leave. You know one of the women, she comes in all the time for some cherry tarts and you have no problem serving her. You're not against gay people, you just don't believe in gay marriage. If they ordered a birthday cake you would have happily made it.

The next day two guys with shaved heads and tats come in the door. They want a swastika shaped cake that says "All Jews Must Die: 80 years of ethnic purity". You tell them that you're sorry (not really) but you can't help them. They want to know why. You tell them that your religion says that all people are equal in the eyes of God and you can't express such sentiments for them even in frosting. They walk out mad and without asking for another address. You shout that they should try some brownies, they are so good that they could change your outlook on life.

The following day a gaggle of idiots shows up outside your door. Phelps and his tribe of lawyers come inside. They say that they heard about what you did with the lesbians and they want cupcakes made. Each cupcake should have a message; "God hates faggots", Faggots must die", "Homos are diseased", etc. You choke your bile down and tell them not just no, but HELL NO! Please leave my store now! My religion teaches me to hate the sin but love the sinner can I sell you some lemon creme puffs.

In each case the store owner can now be sued (it is a private business that is open to the public and not a public business) by any of the three groups. Your defense of religious principals is no longer protected by the Constitution and you become subject to state sponsored oppression. Going back to Germany; a person could attack a Jew, literally murder them in the street, and the state would officially look the other way to your crime which isn't a crime in late 1930s Germany.

Ok well I get what you're talking about. I wouldn't be inclined to make a cake with something derogatory on it either. Same as a Shirt printer printing a T-Shirt with something racial on it. So it's not so much a question of racism or discrimination towards a group but rather their beliefs or intentions that go against a proprietors view point. Yes of course I wouldn't use my business to appease someone's ill intentions if was against my personal standards.

Jim