Politics

[phgreek]

It's not a false choice. Either they fully allow massive oversight which is being negotiated or there is no deal. No sitting president is going to do otherwise with Iran and our ties to Israel.

The choices aren't just

1) we negotiate a deal for peaceful nucs, or
2) they are allowed to go rogue.

we have options. Unfortunately, they know the Obama administration will not use a military option...thats not to say anyone wants that...but you know how international politics works. My hope is the Obama Administration slow walks it some more...they could use the uncertainty of a new administration as leverage to indeed get a clear view of the existing program...specifically military components...thereby the understanding needed to move forward with a peaceful nuc deal.

Personally, I don't like Iran with more than some sticks and matches...but I understand that is not a tenable position. My preference would be that we did all the enrichment and provided and tracked the material for them...they could still have the power, just not the ability to "break out"...

The other thing...

They have not allowed "Massive" or complete oversight when they said they would as it stands...So why is that a valid choice until THEY demonstrate it is?

See the best way to show your intentions is adherence to existing agreements...so when you say negotiate a deal what you are saying is, ignore their past performance and hope they adhere in the future with an incomplete picture of what they have, and have successfully tested. They may well agree to anything, but will they comply. See their non compliance has been going on since 2011...do the math and tell me what the Obama administration has to lose by inking this deal...whatever it is...the non-compliance confrontation won't be on their watch. The Obama administration's lame duckedness and Iran's duplicity makes me skeptical a deal will be as good as it needs to be.

 

[connor_in]

What's absurd about anything I wrote? A perpetual state of war is a right wingers wet dream.

 

[Buster Bluth]

we have options. Unfortunately, they know the Obama administration will not use a military option...

Obama has shown the signs of being the wimp that the Right thinks he is (and wants him to be). He was ready to commit to a war against Assad just two years ago.

thats not to say anyone wants that...but you know how international politics works. My hope is the Obama Administration slow walks it some more...they could use the uncertainty of a new administration as leverage to indeed get a clear view of the existing program...specifically military components...thereby the understanding needed to move forward with a peaceful nuc deal.

Personally, I don't like Iran with more than some sticks and matches...but I understand that is not a tenable position. My preference would be that we did all the enrichment and provided and tracked the material for them...they could still have the power, just not the ability to "break out"...

The other thing...

They have not allowed "Massive" or complete oversight when they said they would as it stands...So why is that a valid choice until THEY demonstrate it is?

See the best way to show your intentions is adherence to existing agreements...so when you say negotiate a deal what you are saying is, ignore their past performance and hope they adhere in the future with an incomplete picture of what they have, and have successfully tested. They may well agree to anything, but will they comply. See their non compliance has been going on since 2011...do the math and tell me what the Obama administration has to lose by inking this deal...whatever it is...the non-compliance confrontation won't be on their watch. The Obama administration's lame duckedness and Iran's duplicity makes me skeptical a deal will be as good as it needs to be.

This is a lot of speculation on matters that only a few diplomats in the world are aware of, and drenched with an anti-Obama bias. We don't really have any choice but to watch and hope for the best.

 

[GoIrish41]

The choices aren't just

1) we negotiate a deal for peaceful nucs, or
2) they are allowed to go rogue.

we have options. Unfortunately, they know the Obama administration will not use a military option...thats not to say anyone wants that...but you know how international politics works. My hope is the Obama Administration slow walks it some more...they could use the uncertainty of a new administration as leverage to indeed get a clear view of the existing program...specifically military components...thereby the understanding needed to move forward with a peaceful nuc deal.

Personally, I don't like Iran with more than some sticks and matches...but I understand that is not a tenable position. My preference would be that we did all the enrichment and provided and tracked the material for them...they could still have the power, just not the ability to "break out"...

The other thing...

They have not allowed "Massive" or complete oversight when they said they would as it stands...So why is that a valid choice until THEY demonstrate it is?

See the best way to show your intentions is adherence to existing agreements...so when you say negotiate a deal what you are saying is, ignore their past performance and hope they adhere in the future with an incomplete picture of what they have, and have successfully tested. They may well agree to anything, but will they comply. See their non compliance has been going on since 2011...do the math and tell me what the Obama administration has to lose by inking this deal...whatever it is...the non-compliance confrontation won't be on their watch. The Obama administration's lame duckedness and Iran's duplicity makes me skeptical a deal will be as good as it needs to be.

This seems to assume that Obama has absolutely no real concern for the fate of the world beyond the conclusion of his second term. I'm OK with people disagreeing with the President, but suggesting that he wants the volitile nations of the Middle East to have the ability to build a nuclear weapon so long as it does not happen on his watch is not only unreasonable, but it also seems to suggest that he is an evil sociopath. Even if his legacy is all that he is thinking about, the falloout of his policies and foreign agreements down the road will certainly be part of the equasion of determining what that legacy will be, right? He is much, much smarter than you give him credit for, and he also legitamately wants to make the world a better place. You can disagree with how he goes about doing that, but to suggest that he doesn't care what happens come January 2017 is to suggest that he has no concern about the world his daughters will live in moving forward. The bolded comment is baseless and silly, and it is only believable by people who hate Obama so much that they will believe any hairbrained thing that points to his incompetence, stupidity and lack of concern for the nation or the world. You are smarther than to post something like this, phgreek.

 

[phgreek]

This seems to assume that Obama has absolutely no real concern for the fate of the world beyond the conclusion of his second term. I'm OK with people disagreeing with the President, but suggesting that he wants the volitile nations of the Middle East to have the ability to build a nuclear weapon so long as it does not happen on his watch is not only unreasonable, but it also seems to suggest that he is an evil sociopath. Even if his legacy is all that he is thinking about, the falloout of his policies and foreign agreements down the road will certainly be part of the equasion of determining what that legacy will be, right? He is much, much smarter than you give him credit for, and he also legitamately wants to make the world a better place. You can disagree with how he goes about doing that, but to suggest that he doesn't care what happens come January 2017 is to suggest that he has no concern about the world his daughters will live in moving forward. The bolded comment is baseless and silly, and it is only believable by people who hate Obama so much that they will believe any hairbrained thing that points to his incompetence, stupidity and lack of concern for the nation or the world. You are smarther than to post something like this, phgreek.

Will he endorse a deal that says never mind Iran can do what it wants...No.

Will he endorse a deal with forward contingencies? Will he do that deal ignoring Iran's current non-compliance with inspections? I think all of that is at least possible. Would he endorse such a deal if it were year two of his first term? I don't think so.

We'll see what comes...

 

[GoIrish41]

Will he endorse a deal that says never mind Iran can do what it wants...No.

Will he endorse a deal with forward contingencies? Will he do that deal ignoring Iran's current non-compliance with inspections? I think all of that is at least possible. Would he endorse such a deal if it were year two of his first term? I don't think so.

We'll see what comes...

I think given the fact that we do not know what will and will not be in the deal he is advocating for, none of us know what he will endorse. We can speculate about it all we want to, but I can say with a great deal of confidence he concern about Iran building a nuclear weapon does not only span two years. I have no reason to assume that his intentions anything but making the world a safer place ... and if you are honest about it, you don't either.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Polish Leppy has a PhD in partisan mudslinging.

jk lol

I don't need a PhD to sling mud! I did, however, apply to several schools' programs for partisan mudslinging and none of the leftists elites in charge accepted me because I was a white, conservative male. So much for diversity!

 

[phgreek]

Obama has shown the signs of being the wimp that the Right thinks he is (and wants him to be). He was ready to commit to a war against Assad just two years ago.

After two years of civil war where Assad used chemical weapons, and we verified it, and then wrung our hands after we said there'd be serious shit if he used chemical weapons...are you serious with this? Its exactly the type of thing that would encourage Iran to press this.

Also, the idea of military action...the country you are dealing with needs to think it possible...pretty sure Iran doesn't.

This is a lot of speculation on matters that only a few diplomats in the world are aware of, and drenched with an anti-Obama bias. We don't really have any choice but to watch and hope for the best.

The last sentence is speculation...thats pretty obvious. Alot of what I said was opinion about how I wish we'd come out. The one thing I said that is not speculation, and really the only thing that matters:

"They have not allowed "Massive" or complete oversight when they said they would as it stands... " its in IAEA reports since at least 2011, and it is clear Iran broke its 2003 agreement.

Iran isn’t providing needed access or information, nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post

 

[Grahambo]

I stated before but Iran doesn't need a nuke to get what they want but what they do need is for us to come to an agreement because of what we would give them in return.

They need it more then we do but the problem with the administration is..they are more concerned with legacy and making a deal just for the sake of a deal so they can say they made a deal and that's whats truly scary.

EDIT: Buster.....you belong in politics. You'd be good and I don't mean the politicking..but you get it man. Everything I read from you is good..keep it up.

 

[NDgradstudent]

So there has been lots of hand-wringing, empty threats, etc., from lefty celebrities and business people about Indiana's new RFRA law. In my view, it is all extremely disingenuous and dishonest. The law is nearly identical (and, as far as I can tell, actually identical in all substantive provisions) to the federal version of RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) passed nearly unanimously by Congress in 1993 (the vote was unanimous in the House and 97-3 in the Senate. It was signed by Pres. Clinton). The federal RFRA was intended to apply to state and local governments as well as to the federal government, but the Supreme Court held in 1997 that it can only apply to the federal government. As a result, many states have passed their own versions of RFRA, too. Identical laws to one Indiana just passed exist in 20 states, including TX, FL, IL, VA, and PA. So anyone threatening to boycott Indiana better boycott those states, too.

All of this raises the question: why is this causing so much consternation now, when it did not do so in 1993? The answer is obvious: gay rights was not a major liberal cause in 1993 as it is now. Religious liberty now takes a back seat to the ideology of "sexual liberationism," and so we hear about how religious liberty is just code for a "license to discriminate," etc. The new consensus liberal position is very anti-liberal. Although I oppose redefining marriage, there is a consistent position that supports doing so while also protecting religious liberty. Regrettably, the new consensus among liberals has rejected this position.

 

[pkt77242]

So there has been lots of hand-wringing, empty threats, etc., from lefty celebrities and business people about Indiana's new RFRA law. In my view, it is all extremely disingenuous and dishonest. The law is nearly identical (and, as far as I can tell, actually identical in all substantive provisions) to the federal version of RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) passed nearly unanimously by Congress in 1993 (the vote was unanimous in the House and 97-3 in the Senate. It was signed by Pres. Clinton). The federal RFRA was intended to apply to state and local governments as well as to the federal government, but the Supreme Court held in 1997 that it can only apply to the federal government. As a result, many states have passed their own versions of RFRA, too. Identical laws to one Indiana just passed exist in 20 states, including TX, FL, IL, VA, and PA. So anyone threatening to boycott Indiana better boycott those states, too.

All of this raises the question: why is this causing so much consternation now, when it did not do so in 1993? The answer is obvious: gay rights was not a major liberal cause in 1993 as it is now. Religious liberty now takes a back seat to the ideology of "sexual liberationism," and so we hear about how religious liberty is just code for a "license to discriminate," etc. The new consensus liberal position is very anti-liberal. Although I oppose redefining marriage, there is a consistent position that supports doing so while also protecting religious liberty. Regrettably, the new consensus among liberals has rejected this position.

Back seat how?

See the problem here is that you have one protected class (Religious people) demanding the right to discriminate against an unprotected class (gays). Gay people can not discriminate against Religious people because it is a protected class. So what you actually have is Religious people demanding the right to be treated differently, they should be allowed to discriminate who they serve/do business with while they themselves can not be discriminated against.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Back seat how?

Back seat in that protections for religious liberty such as those in Indiana's RFRA are now rejected by most liberals when those very same provisions were widely accepted by liberals (and just about everyone else) until relatively recently. How would you explain the massive shift in the liberal view since 1993? The same basic concerns you raise now could have been raised in 1993, but they were not.

I think most of us would accept that businesses have a "right to discriminate" on certain grounds. Some jurisdictions, such as D.C., prohibit discrimination in provision of goods on the basis on political affiliation. Does it follow from this that an owner of a printing business who supports gun control must produce a sign for an NRA member saying "the right to bear arms is our most important freedom"? Should a Jewish bakery be required to make a cake for the local Nazi party? Should a gay baker be required to make a cake for a local Christian group saying "25 years of defending true marriage between a man and a woman"?

RFRA laws potentially protect everybody, not just Christians. I personally would support expanding these laws to include any claim of conscience, not just a religious claim, but it is not as if only Christians can bring claims under RFRA. The reason liberals originally supported RFRA was concern for religious minorities.

 

[EddytoNow]

Back seat how?

See the problem here is that you have one protected class (Religious people) demanding the right to discriminate against an unprotected class (gays). Gay people can not discriminate against Religious people because it is a protected class. So what you actually have is Religious people demanding the right to be treated differently, they should be allowed to discriminate who they serve/do business with while they themselves can not be discriminated against.

That sums up their position pretty accurately. Isn't it pretty ironic that so-called Christians would be discriminating in the name of Jesus when Jesus, himself, spent his life ministering to those who had been cast aside by society, including prostitutes, lepers, and the like? What would Jesus do? I doubt he would be joining the effort to discriminate against the gay community.

 

[pkt77242]

Back seat in that protections for religious liberty such as those in Indiana's RFRA are now rejected by most liberals when those very same provisions were widely accepted by liberals (and just about everyone else) until relatively recently. How would you explain the massive shift in the liberal view since 1993? The same basic concerns you raise now could have been raised in 1993, but they were not.

I think most of us would accept that businesses have a "right to discriminate" on certain grounds. Some jurisdictions, such as D.C., prohibit discrimination in provision of goods on the basis on political affiliation. Does it follow from this that an owner of a printing business who supports gun control must produce a sign for an NRA member saying "the right to bear arms is our most important freedom"? Should a Jewish bakery be required to make a cake for the local Nazi party? Should a gay baker be required to make a cake for a local Christian group saying "25 years of defending true marriage between a man and a woman"?

RFRA laws potentially protect everybody, not just Christians. I personally would support expanding these laws to include any claim of conscience, not just a religious claim, but it is not as if only Christians can bring claims under RFRA. The reason liberals originally supported RFRA was concern for religious minorities.

It only protects Religious people, and you can not discriminate against someone because of Religion, so yes the baker would probably have to bake the cake for the Christian group. I am not for protecting political affiliation (you choose it), while things like color, sex, sexual orientation, etc. are genetic and thus need protection.

I am for refusing service when it makes sense, such as a person walks into your restaurant drunk and starts yelling and knocking things over, a person walks in with no clothes on, or starts yelling and cussing and refusing to quiet down. Those people are causing a scene and disrupting the business. The gay couple who walk in and want a cake made for their wedding are not really causing any problems.

As far as the 1993 federal law, yep you are correct that gay rights weren't as important then, but what does that matter? That is generally how it goes when it comes to Civil Rights. Women voting wasn't important until all of a sudden it became important (same thing with discriminating against them for things such as jobs), same thing with discrimination against blacks, it was ok until society decided it wasn't. The fact that 20+ years ago people were ok with it has no bearing on what matters now. Things change.

So back to the point, you have a Protected Class (Religious people) who want to discriminate against an unprotected class, while they themselves can not be discriminated against.

If Religious people feel that they should be able to discriminate against a person based off of that person's sexual identity then the Religious person should have to give up their right to be discriminated against.
Lets call it what it is, and that is that the Religious person wants special treatment.

 

[NDgradstudent]

It only protects Religious people, and you can not discriminate against someone because of Religion, so yes the baker would probably have to bake the cake for the Christian group. I am not for protecting political affiliation (you choose it), while things like color, sex, sexual orientation, etc. are genetic and thus need protection.[/U]

So things that we choose are not as important as supposedly "innate" things? If I am going to a friend's house and he is serving beef, and I have an allergy to beef, I assume that he probably should try to accommodate me and serve me something else. If I am not allergic to beef but instead I am a vegetarian, should he just tell me I'm out of luck? It is not obvious to me that aspects of "us" that are chosen are somehow less important or worthy of protection than those that are not chosen.

Just to be clear, your view is that the gay baker would get the exemption, but the Christian baker would not? This means that the gay baker would get more protection than the Christian baker. In my view, both people should get exemptions, so it is not true that one side gets more protection than the other.

I never denied that things change in politics and culture. Just don't tell me that religious people are demanding some brand-new, never-before-seen protection: they (we) are asking for the same protection everybody supported in 1993 as a federal statute (simply reflecting, I might add, what was the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause from 1963-1990).

Isn't it pretty ironic that so-called Christians would be discriminating in the name of Jesus when Jesus, himself, spent his life ministering to those who had been cast aside by society, including prostitutes, lepers, and the like? What would Jesus do? I doubt he would be joining the effort to discriminate against the gay community.

Jesus did not live at a time when the Jewish view of sexual ethics was challenged- to the extent he discussed the issue, he appeared to tighten the rules of the Mosaic Law (e.g. Matthew 5:27-28). Of course he defended the marginalized while also emphasizing resistance to sin (e.g. John 8:1-11). I would agree that Christians should not discriminate against gay people as such, but depending upon the type of product/service they are being asked to produce/provide, they might rightly have a conscientious objection. Your view would permit a law requiring that Christian obstetricians provide abortions, which seems to me unacceptable in a supposedly liberal society.

 

[Corry]

Just to be clear, your view is that the gay baker would get the exemption, but the Christian baker would not? This means that the gay baker would get more protection than the Christian baker. In my view, both people should get exemptions, so it is not true that one side gets more protection than the other. .

He's saying the exact opposite. In your scenario the gay baker could not legally with hold service based on the customers religious beliefs. The christian baker could however with hold service because of his religious beliefs. THat's the problem. IF you're religious you can't be discriminated against, but you can discriminate. All of this is really for not though IMO. As soon as a Muslim business owner uses this law to refuse service they will all go away.

 

[Wild Bill]

Law professor: Why Indiana needs 'religious freedom' legislation.

 

[pkt77242]

So things that we choose are not as important as supposedly "innate" things? If I am going to a friend's house and he is serving beef, and I have an allergy to beef, I assume that he probably should try to accommodate me and serve me something else. If I am not allergic to beef but instead I am a vegetarian, should he just tell me I'm out of luck? It is not obvious to me that aspects of "us" that are chosen are somehow less important or worthy of protection than those that are not chosen.

Just to be clear, your view is that the gay baker would get the exemption, but the Christian baker would not? This means that the gay baker would get more protection than the Christian baker. In my view, both people should get exemptions, so it is not true that one side gets more protection than the other.

I never denied that things change in politics and culture. Just don't tell me that religious people are demanding some brand-new, never-before-seen protection: they (we) are asking for the same protection everybody supported in 1993 as a federal statute (simply reflecting, I might add, what was the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause from 1963-1990).



Jesus did not live at a time when the Jewish view of sexual ethics was challenged- to the extent he discussed the issue, he appeared to tighten the rules of the Mosaic Law (e.g. Matthew 5:27-28). Of course he defended the marginalized while also emphasizing resistance to sin (e.g. John 8:1-11). I would agree that Christians should not discriminate against gay people as such, but depending upon the type of product/service they are being asked to produce/provide, they might rightly have a conscientious objection. Your view would permit a law requiring that Christian obstetricians provide abortions, which seems to me unacceptable in a supposedly liberal society.

Huh? You never gave a scenario about a Gay baker.

I am saying that Christians can not be discriminated against (due to being a protected class) while gay people can. A Christian can not go to a baker's shop and be turned down for a cake because they are a Christian, but a gay person can be refused service for no other reason then being gay. That is wrong.

As far as your analogy you gave about going to a friends house, what does that have to do with anything. Businesses are covered not going to a friends house.

Here is a look at our protected classes of people
Race
Color
Religion
National Origin
Sex
Pregnancy
Disability Status
Veteran
Citizenship
Age
Family Status
Genetic Information

Most of the things on there that we protect are things that can not be changed such as Race, Color, National Origin, Sex (ok we kind of can change but it shouldn't matter male or female), disability, age, genetic info, etc. Heck even a veteran can't choose to not be a veteran anymore. Depending on your view of Religion you can add it to that list if you want as well.

So my question to you why should Religion be protected and why should Sexual Orientation not be protected? Why should a Religious baker be able to refuse service to a gay person but a gay person can not refuse service to a Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish person, etc)?

See to me they both should be Protected.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

He's saying the exact opposite. In your scenario the gay baker could not legally with hold service based on the customers religious beliefs. The christian baker could however with hold service because of his religious beliefs. THat's the problem. IF you're religious you can't be discriminated against, but you can discriminate. All of this is really for not though IMO. As soon as a Muslim business owner uses this law to refuse service they will all go away.

It will certainly challenge some people. I think a fair amount of people would actually say..."wait...not every religion."

 

[wizards8507]

That sums up their position pretty accurately. Isn't it pretty ironic that so-called Christians would be discriminating in the name of Jesus when Jesus, himself, spent his life ministering to those who had been cast aside by society, including prostitutes, lepers, and the like? What would Jesus do? I doubt he would be joining the effort to discriminate against the gay community.

There's a nuance here that you need to acknowledge before you go throwing everyone in favor of religious freedom protections in the same camp.

Some people believe that Christian enterprises should discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Others (including myself) believe that Christian enterprises should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Separately, you're making a huge false equivalency between associating with sinners and being complicit in their sin. Jesus ministered to prostitutes but he didn't HELP them do their prostituting. Refusing to sell a gay man a bagel for breakfast is way different than refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

 

[wizards8507]

As soon as a Muslim business owner uses this law to refuse service they will all go away.

Muslim business owners already are using this law and others like it, and anyone who has a problem with that is a big ole' hypocrite.

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs - ABC News

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Muslim business owners already are using this law and others like it, and anyone who has a problem with that is a big ole' hypocrite.

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs - ABC News

I agree with that.

 

[EddytoNow]

So things that we choose are not as important as supposedly "innate" things? If I am going to a friend's house and he is serving beef, and I have an allergy to beef, I assume that he probably should try to accommodate me and serve me something else. If I am not allergic to beef but instead I am a vegetarian, should he just tell me I'm out of luck? It is not obvious to me that aspects of "us" that are chosen are somehow less important or worthy of protection than those that are not chosen.

Just to be clear, your view is that the gay baker would get the exemption, but the Christian baker would not? This means that the gay baker would get more protection than the Christian baker. In my view, both people should get exemptions, so it is not true that one side gets more protection than the other.

I never denied that things change in politics and culture. Just don't tell me that religious people are demanding some brand-new, never-before-seen protection: they (we) are asking for the same protection everybody supported in 1993 as a federal statute (simply reflecting, I might add, what was the interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause from 1963-1990).



Jesus did not live at a time when the Jewish view of sexual ethics was challenged- to the extent he discussed the issue, he appeared to tighten the rules of the Mosaic Law (e.g. Matthew 5:27-28). Of course he defended the marginalized while also emphasizing resistance to sin (e.g. John 8:1-11). I would agree that Christians should not discriminate against gay people as such, but depending upon the type of product/service they are being asked to produce/provide, they might rightly have a conscientious objection. Your view would permit a law requiring that Christian obstetricians provide abortions, which seems to me unacceptable in a supposedly liberal society.

When one opens up a business, he is free to offer whatever services or products he wants. It becomes discrimination when that service or product is denied to someone based upon some preconceived prejudice. The Christian baker could choose not to sell wedding cakes to anyone. Nothing illegal about that. It becomes discrimination when he chooses to bake cakes for one group based upon sexual preference and denies cakes to another based upon an alternate sexual preference.

Likewise, the obstetrician can offer whatever services he wants. If he chooses to perform no abortions, I see no discrimination. An abortion can be obtained elsewhere legally. It becomes discrimination when he provides abortions for one group and denies abortions to another.

Another example would be the owner of a construction company. He can specialize in replacing roofs. It wouldn't be discrimination if he told a customer that he didn't remodel interiors. However, it would be discrimination if he replaced the roof of a heterosexual couple and refused to replace the roof of a gay couple. If he refused to remodel the bathroom of the gay couple, it would not be discrimination if he also refused to remodel the bathrooms of heterosexual couples.

In other words, it should be permissable to tell a prospective customer that you do not provide the requested service or product (if, in fact, you do not provide that product or service to anyone). If I sell brand new Ford automobiles, I can tell a customer looking for a Chevrolet that he needs to look elsewhere. I would not be free to deny someone the right to purchase a Ford automobile based upon religion, sexual preferences, skin color, nationality, etc.

All of this assumes the prospective customer can afford my services or products.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

When one opens up a business, he is free to offer whatever services or products he wants. It becomes discrimination when that service or product is denied to someone based upon some preconceived prejudice. The Christian baker could choose not to sell wedding cakes to anyone. Nothing illegal about that. It becomes discrimination when he chooses to bake cakes for one group based upon sexual preference and denies cakes to another based upon an alternate sexual preference.

Likewise, the obstetrician can offer whatever services he wants. If he chooses to perform no abortions, I see no discrimination. An abortion can be obtained elsewhere legally. It becomes discrimination when he provides abortions for one group and denies abortions to another.

Another example would be the owner of a construction company. He can specialize in replacing roofs. It wouldn't be discrimination if he told a customer that he didn't remodel interiors. However, it would be discrimination if he replaced the roof of a heterosexual couple and refused to replace the roof of a gay couple. If he refused to remodel the bathroom of the gay couple, it would not be discrimination if he also refused to remodel the bathrooms of heterosexual couples.

In other words, it should be permissable to tell a prospective customer that you do not provide the requested service or product (if, in fact, you do not provide that product or service to anyone). If I sell brand new Ford automobiles, I can tell a customer looking for a Chevrolet that he needs to look elsewhere. I would not be free to deny someone the right to purchase a Ford automobile based upon religion, sexual preferences, skin color, nationality, etc.

All of this assumes the prospective customer can afford my services or products.

As a baker, I only bake a certain type of cake: a cake for heterosexual weddings. I don't offer any other services. Which is really no different than a Jewish bakery opening up that only offers to bake cakes for bar mitzvahs.

A Jehovah's witness bakery opens up and they only celebrate successful medical procedures that didn't include blood transfusions.

A scientology bakery opens up that only sells cakes to crazy people.

How do you draw the line between niche product and discrimination?

 

[ACamp1900]

As a baker, I only bake a certain type of cake: a cake for heterosexual weddings. I don't offer any other services. Which is really no different than a Jewish bakery opening up that only offers to bake cakes for bar mitzvahs.

A Jehovah's witness bakery opens up and they only celebrate successful medical procedures that didn't include blood transfusions.

A scientology bakery opens up that only sells cakes to crazy people.

How do you draw the line between niche product and discrimination?

It's discrimination when it helps turn out the vote..........

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It's important to distinguish between professions that have a creative element (custom cake-baking, photography, painting, etc.) and those that are purely commercial.

The former have a much more legitimate argument based on the right of conscience than the latter.

 

[dshans]

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs - ABC News

"In 2008, Minnesota’s Muslim taxi drivers lost their battle in court, with the state’s court of appeals ruling that drivers could be penalized according to the Metropolitan Airports Commission’s rules. Those rules suspend the license of drivers for 30 days for refusing a pick-up. A second infraction brings a two-year revocation."

 

[pkt77242]

It's important to distinguish between professions that have a creative element (custom cake-baking, photography, painting, etc.) and those that are purely commercial.

The former have a much more legitimate argument based on the right of conscience than the latter.

Do you think that a wedding cake baker (who is Christian) should be able to turn down a Muslim couple?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Do you think that a wedding cake baker (who is Christian) should be able to turn down a Muslim couple?

Should a catering company owned by Muslims be able to refuse a party/ event whose organizers request pork?

 

[woolybug25]

So here is a twist. Those of you that think business should be able to discriminate based on religious beliefs... what about race?

For instance. A man of middle eastern descent comes into a bakery. Should the owner be able to racially profile him as a muslim and refuse service? Under your guise of religious freedom he would be doing nothing wrong, correct?