Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes, and you don't get to determine those of someone else.
And there are some, including some I worked with, who refuse to touch pork products. I, or another employee without such obligations, would handle the pork so as not to offend their religious obligation instead of, as you've worded, throwing a temper tantrum about what they felt compelled to do or not to do in service to their god.
If your religious obligations prohibit you from serving the freaking public equally, then here's an idea, don't work with the public. This guy wants his cake and to eat it too. (Pun maybe intended.)
And said people were adult enough to presumably choose a profession that would not include such things. Or spoke about it with management so as to not to deny service to customers of the public for their own quibbles, thereby inconveniencing the public. You know, being responsible for your own life and not interfering in other people's lives. That kind of thing.
As I said, you don't get to determine the religious obligations of others.
Speaking of tantrums and stamping one's feet.
No, we had to cover their duty to provide pork based products.
And if they were owners they could decide to not provide porcine products. Inconvenienced by someone's religious obligations in their own store? "Harden the 'F' up".
He would be discriminating against the intended recipients of the cake, then.
Even if he doesn't discriminate when selling part of his product line, he could still discriminate when selling a different part.
He's not. He has the right not to provide that service at all, which gives him a way out of having to provide it in a way that violates his conscience.
Wouldn't something like that normally be done through an RFQ anyway? Normally, for government procurement (major purchases, anyway), the state puts out a request for quotes or request for proposals and suppliers are invited to bid.
No. And that isn't really analogous, since the baker has chosen to make cakes for weddings.
The problem with this approach is that in many markets, the existence of a bigoted shop creates a barrier to entry for a non-bigoted shop: if a market can only sustain one wedding cake shop, then if a second shop were to open, neither shop would be sustainable until one or the other goes out of business; entrepreneurs looking for opportunities would recognize this and choose some other business type or some other location in a different market. Even if a bigoted wedding shop might lose some business because of their bigotry, market forces could still allow them to be the only game in town, just because they were there first.
Which religion is it that compels its adherents to bake cakes? I'm not familiar with it.
I haven't agreed with your claims about what I've posted or about the Ann Arbor domestic partner policy. Can you subtantiate that your claims about the Ann Arbor domestic partner policy are true?
A bill before Congress will make something I've said to be incorrect? What bill? How will it make what I've said to be erroneous?
Your sign and your question above was about carrying concealed weapons. Such a "right" would definitely be a new right, a right contrary to precedent.
How is baking and selling a wedding cake participating in the wedding any more than preparing a meal in a restaurant participation in the cutomer's meal?
No court has ever held that public accommodations laws should be restricted on such grounds.
How does that bill make something I said erroneous?
we shall see
See portion of your post highlighted above and the H.R bill .38 would make your statement false.
Read the bill. It doesn't create any right that accompanies a person in states that do not recognize that right.
Is this the NRA slippery slope argument? I wouldn't trust the NRA if I were you.
I didn't say it was. I proposed that the activity being religious could be understood to create a viable difference such that Piggie Park's ruling does not necessarily apply.
The provisioning of the celebratory cake could be considered participation.
That only half addresses my question. To the other part, have the courts ever stipulated that one can be legally compelled to provision or participate in religious activities?
Your problem lies in the statement " do not recognize that right" The right is the right to carry a concealed weapon.
Now let's take a look at the term "May Issue" and "Will Issue"
May Issue” States
Then make the argument. Show that it is a lucid proposal. Cite the case law from which to make that deduction.
On the basis of what holding would "the provisioning of the celebratory cake . . . be considered participation" in a religious exercise?
What would be your best guess in attempting to answer that question?
The first sentence of the text of the bill begins: “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof . . ." So, if that bill were to pass, a state that doesn't already have a law that does not recognize another state's CCW law can merely pass a law that refuses recognition of another state's CCW laws, and the "right" that you are referring to disappears in that state that does not recongize the other state's CCW law.
What is that?