North Carolina to Limit Bathroom Use by Birth Gender

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SeannyM said:
There is a big difference between a consumer choosing not to spend money at a location or a business choosing to set up shop in a different state and refusing to serve someone because of who they are.
Click to expand...
No–you (and soo many others) have it exactly reversed. The baker denies service based on who they are, not on who the consumer is as a person. In other words, the baker is following their conscience by refusing to participate in something they do not accept.

In the NC case, some people and businesses are choosing to do the same thing–they are refusing to conduct their business in NC because doing business there would conflict with who they are as people and businesses (or it would conflict with their personal conscience). There is not even a wafer of difference between the two scenarios, except in the case of the baker, we have forgotten that we are supposed to have complete freedom of religion an no laws should be passed restricting, reducing, or prohibiting that freedom.

As soon as people attacking religious freedoms have their freedoms threatened, they will finally understand what they are doing.
 
irishpatrick said:
No–you (and soo many others) have it exactly reversed. The baker denies service based on who they are, not on who the consumer is as a person. In other words, the baker is following their conscience by refusing to participate in something they do not accept.

In the NC case, some people and businesses are choosing to do the same thing–they are refusing to conduct their business in NC because doing business there would conflict with who they are as people and businesses (or it would conflict with their personal conscience). There is not even a wafer of difference between the two scenarios, except in the case of the baker, we have forgotten that we are supposed to have complete freedom of religion an no laws should be passed restricting, reducing, or prohibiting that freedom.

As soon as people attacking religious freedoms have their freedoms threatened, they will finally understand what they are doing.
Click to expand...
Do you think that this principle you mentioned about the baker denying service based upon who they are is something that should be allowed in all circumstances? Would it be acceptable in your opinion for a baker who belonged to the KKK to deny service to a Jew or a black person because they don’t accept black people and Jews? Would it be OK for a Protestant to deny service to Catholics? And what about public servants? Would it be OK for a racist county clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because this county clerk believes that interracial marriage is wrong?
 
Thorolfr said:
Do you think that this principle you mentioned about the baker denying service based upon who they are is something that should be allowed in all circumstances? Would it be acceptable in your opinion for a baker who belonged to the KKK to deny service to a Jew or a black person because they don’t accept black people and Jews? Would it be OK for a Protestant to deny service to Catholics? And what about public servants? Would it be OK for a racist county clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because this county clerk believes that interracial marriage is wrong?
Click to expand...
Straw man arguments.
 
Thorolfr said:
You didn’t answer the question. What limits are there on who a baker can deny service to based on their own religious, political or other beliefs (in your opinion)?
Click to expand...
That is an appropriate question.

The limits are based in the person’s legitimate religious beliefs. They cannot be created out of thin air. In the case of the baker, the Christian faith has existed for more than 2,000 years and today people are being punished for standing firm in beliefs nearly everyone knows stretches back two millennium and longer.

There is a second issue with these matters. If companies and people can legitimately pull out of doing business in NC because of their own objections, then why is it wrong for a baker to do the exact same thing when he/she is following thousands of years of faith based teachings?

Some today seem to despise the Establishment Clause because it allows others to live their lives according to their faith based conscience, which is amazing because the EC exists for that precise reason.
 
SeannyM said:
There is a big difference between a consumer choosing not to spend money at a location or a business choosing to set up shop in a different state and refusing to serve someone because of who they are.
Click to expand...
I am very familiar with the liberal arguments explaining why their hypocrisy on these issues is perfectly okay. For today’s liberals tolerance is a one-way street .
 
Thorolfr said:
Do you think that this principle you mentioned about the baker denying service based upon who they are is something that should be allowed in all circumstances? Would it be acceptable in your opinion for a baker who belonged to the KKK to deny service to a Jew or a black person because they don’t accept black people and Jews? Would it be OK for a Protestant to deny service to Catholics? And what about public servants? Would it be OK for a racist county clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because this county clerk believes that interracial marriage is wrong?
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any florisrs or bakers being sued for refusing to serve somebody because who or what they are . What there have seen are cases of of businesses refusing to involve themselves in events they disapprove of -exactly the same thing we see in with entertainers NBA and a plethora of other “tolerant” people are doing with North Carolina .

The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals will continually try to twist situations like this try and justify their hypocricy while conservatives recognize that these entertainers, etc. have a perfect right to refuse to participate in any event they are not comfortable with.
 
Thorolfr said:
Do you think that this principle you mentioned about the baker denying service based upon who they are is something that should be allowed in all circumstances? Would it be acceptable in your opinion for a baker who belonged to the KKK to deny service to a Jew or a black person because they don’t accept black people and Jews? Would it be OK for a Protestant to deny service to Catholics? And what about public servants? Would it be OK for a racist county clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple because this county clerk believes that interracial marriage is wrong?
Click to expand...
Another example of the difference between liberals and conservatives . Conservatives think those they disagree with them are wrong. Liberals label anyone who disagrees with are racist , homophobes, bigots etc. Thus instead of saying "I disagree with Kim Davis for denying marriage license to homosexual couples "they say “Kim Davis is a racist”
 
Thorolfr said:
You didn’t answer the question. What limits are there on who a baker can deny service to based on their own religious, political or other beliefs (in your opinion)?
Click to expand...
They can refuse service for any event they are not comfortable with-this would apply to atheists also. Although I disagree with those who are boycotting North Carolina I absolutely support their right to do so . Of course on the left dissent is not tolerated-those who disagree with their positions must be punished using the full force of law .
 
estesbob said:
They can refuse service for any event they are not comfortable with-this would apply to atheists also. Although I disagree with those who are boycotting North Carolina I absolutely support their right to do so . Of course on the left dissent is not tolerated-those who disagree with their positions must be punished using the full force of law .
Click to expand...
So, a restaurant can refuse service to an African American that wants to sit at the front counter.
 
Crossbones said:
So, a restaurant can refuse service to an African American that wants to sit at the front counter.
Click to expand...
Christianity views all people as equal–always has viewed it that way. Again, we are talking about protecting the rights to freedom of religion and the Constitution never says a word about our religion needing to be kept private. The state cannot create laws that infringe on the free expression of religion. If it could, then Trump’s insane call to lock out certain groups would be perfectly legal. People, including atheists and all other groups, need to protect these freedoms because they are part of the bedrock foundations that make this nation what it is. The fact that people of faith can make faith-based choices means that some people might be inconvenienced by those choices–that is part of our system.
 
irishpatrick said:
No–you (and soo many others) have it exactly reversed. The baker denies service based on who they are, not on who the consumer is as a person. In other words, the baker is following their conscience by refusing to participate in something they do not accept.

In the NC case, some people and businesses are choosing to do the same thing–they are refusing to conduct their business in NC because doing business there would conflict with who they are as people and businesses (or it would conflict with their personal conscience). There is not even a wafer of difference between the two scenarios, except in the case of the baker, we have forgotten that we are supposed to have complete freedom of religion an no laws should be passed restricting, reducing, or prohibiting that freedom.

As soon as people attacking religious freedoms have their freedoms threatened, they will finally understand what they are doing.
Click to expand...
The baker can also stop doing business in a state if they don’t like the laws of that state.
 
sallybutler said:
The baker can also stop doing business in a state if they don’t like the laws of that state.
Click to expand...
Of course, but why should they have to? We are supposed to be protected in the practicing and living out of our faith, with no laws created to prohibit the freedom expression of…
 
You all remember in the Bible when the host of the Inn refused to house the injured person because it was being paid for by a Samaritan.
 
estesbob said:
But not much. Such boycotts will have no impact whatsoever on 99.9% of the populace .I am sure legions of accountants will crank out mountains of numbers on how much money bigotry is costing NC Which will be greeted my most of the population with a large yawn
Click to expand...
My first thought about hearing that Boston, Bruce Springsteen, and Ringo Starr were boycotting NC, was “wow, those guys are still around?”. My second thought was, “I’m guessing ticket sales for their tours must not be doing very well and this is a great way to get the right people talking about us again”.
 
estesbob said:
It is a bit strange to see the Left suddenly supporting refusing to do business with somebody whose actions you find offensive You think they will now proppose this right be extended to photographers and bakers
Click to expand...
Wow, this is great. I never noticed that contradiction before.

This is about imposing ideology though, nothing to do with anybody’s rights. Why do the heathen rage…
 
ucfengr said:
My first thought about hearing that Boston, Bruce Springsteen, and Ringo Starr were boycotting NC, was “wow, those guys are still around?”. My second thought was, “I’m guessing ticket sales for their tours must not be doing very well and this is a great way to get the right people talking about us again”.
Click to expand...
Everyone is paying attention to the celebrities who are boycotting, but as the article I quoted earlier points out, it’s the thousands of average people who are or will be boycotting that concerns business owners:
While the celebrity response is drawing considerable attention,** the travel industry in each state is more concerned about lower-profile visitors: the everyday tourists who have already begun canceling trips or planning vacations elsewhere**.
Click to expand...
Both states have been hit by hotel cancellations from tourists who spend a combined tens of billions of dollars annually, and though the effect is difficult to quantify so early on, local hotels, tourist boards, industry associations and government officials fear that a boycott will continue to dampen business.
Click to expand...
 
estesbob said:
They can refuse service for any event they are not comfortable with-this would apply to atheists also. Although I disagree with those who are boycotting North Carolina I absolutely support their right to do so . Of course on the left dissent is not tolerated-those who disagree with their positions must be punished using the full force of law .
Click to expand...
The problem with refusal of service by a private business is the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. In Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that racial discrimination was a burden on interstate commerce, preventing private businesses from using race as a basis for denying service to African-Americans. Given that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses have been interpreted as also applying to LGBT people, it is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn laws that permit private business owners from denying services to LGBT individuals. Of course, it will be some time before the first wave of such laws is tested in the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Thorolfr said:
Everyone is paying attention to the celebrities who are boycotting, but as the article I quoted earlier points out, it’s the thousands of average people who will be boycotting that concerns business owners:
Click to expand...
Source?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top