This was what I meant when addressing OU women hosting first round.

[scrybe]

You are right. If you are a private organization (church, club, or whatever) you are free to serve who you want within that private organization. But once you are serving the public you cannot discriminate.

Look guys, my point has nothing to do with whether a business should be required to serve the public. Of course they should. But serving someone breakfast or selling them goods and services (clothing, shoes, insurance policies) is not the same thing as the example I cited above. Those of us who are in business sell and provide services to people every day without having an inkling of their sexual preference. And even if we did know their preference, it wouldn't matter one way or the other to most of us.

It's an entirely different ballgame, however, when a business owner feels he is being compelled to actually become a participant in something that goes against his religious convictions. Folks who believe that same sex marriage is contrary to their principals should – in my opinion – not be forced or coerced into doing something that could be justifiably be seen as an implicit celebration of that event.

Anyhow, I strongly believe this board should be limited to discussions of basketball in general, and Sooner basketball in particular. I apologize for letting myself be drawn into this argument. I am no activist regarding this issue, so I am now respectfully bowing out of the discussion.

 

[womenssports]

The laws are there. But, when it comes to any form of civil liberties, the resistance to change has been such that we have to fight every battle individually. Somehow, the fourteenth amendment just didn't seem to apply to women.

Often, the cases are deliberately kept from coming before the court because the court doesn't want to rule. A ruling may result in chaos. As often as we tried to get the draft declared unconstitutional, we never got the draft before the court. We got individual pieces of the draft, like the discrimination of one vs another, or who might be eligible for the draft. But, the draft, itself, never got a ruling. I don't think we have ever been able to get an undeclared war before the court for the same reason. The result would be chaos, or so some believe.

But, cases of rights suffer the same plight. It is difficult to get a direct ruling, and it seems that one victory never is applicable to another form of bigotry.

I think we are saying the same thing with different terminology. States can make laws that extend people's rights. Restricting people's rights is where
we have trouble and then if there is the money and the energy, it gets to a federal circuit court and they may give a ruling based on federal law and thus there is some law that has been interpreted and held to be the law in that circuit and sometimes it finally gets to the Supreme Court and they rule on it and we have established law throughout the country.
We had a case from Oklahoma which reached the 10th circuit court of appeals last fall and it ruled in favor of gay and lesbian marriage. It was appealed to the Supreme Ct by the st of ok and the S.Ct would not hear it so when that came down Ok. had gay and lesbian marriage. We actually wanted them to hear it. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear several cases from different states and I believe there will be a 5 to 4 ruling in favor of gay and lesbian marriage But WHO really knows? And that is marriage, not just general protected rights such as employment, service in a restaurant, etc.

 

[coach007]

Why is it that everyone wants to oppose a law that protects those of faith but refuse to accept any forceful or cohersive attempts by LGBT individuals on Christians, when they knowingly are only doing so to creat a stir in the media. I believe it is the right of any individual who has a business to determine whom they will serve. If that business survives then those who support it are the reason, if it does not than there is not enough support ant the business will close. Why do we have to get lawyers, media, and judges involved in these cases. Why must these individuals be deemed completely unfair or hateful because their belief/faith does not support such behavior. These are not hate crimes, they are not bigotry crimes, they are faith based and do nothing but ask those that want things these peoples faith does not believe in forced down their throats. If you do not like beer should the law allow someone to force it down your throat. Please people take a step back and see what you do not like and where you would fall if the shoe were on the other foot. NO one is bashing LGBT people they are just standing on Biblical principals and their faith. Remember Jesus was murdered for His Faith and He did nothing wrong. Look now and see those in these cases are trying to put Christians behind bars, make them keep their Faith in their homes and deny their teachings. All this while the LGBT community pushes their agenda with opposition. They are destroying family values, taking down the institution of marriage, and anything else that is Christ/God like. To what end? America is the most diverse country in the world but so was Sosom and Gomorrah. Where did it get t hem?

 

[sybarite]

Why is it that everyone wants to oppose a law that protects those of faith but refuse to accept any forceful or cohersive attempts by LGBT individuals on Christians, when they knowingly are only doing so to creat a stir in the media. I believe it is the right of any individual who has a business to determine whom they will serve. If that business survives then those who support it are the reason, if it does not than there is not enough support ant the business will close. Why do we have to get lawyers, media, and judges involved in these cases. Why must these individuals be deemed completely unfair or hateful because their belief/faith does not support such behavior. These are not hate crimes, they are not bigotry crimes, they are faith based and do nothing but ask those that want things these peoples faith does not believe in forced down their throats. If you do not like beer should the law allow someone to force it down your throat. Please people take a step back and see what you do not like and where you would fall if the shoe were on the other foot. NO one is bashing LGBT people they are just standing on Biblical principals and their faith. Remember Jesus was murdered for His Faith and He did nothing wrong. Look now and see those in these cases are trying to put Christians behind bars, make them keep their Faith in their homes and deny their teachings. All this while the LGBT community pushes their agenda with opposition. They are destroying family values, taking down the institution of marriage, and anything else that is Christ/God like. To what end? America is the most diverse country in the world but so was Sosom and Gomorrah. Where did it get t hem?

The sentence that I have highlighted is simply not the case. I think they have used the interstate commerce clause to state that you must serve anyone.

All rights have limitations. Your faith may deem that you should not serve in the military. Unless your religion has met the criteria for exclusion, you will be drafted, and you will serve, regardless of your faith. You may reject medical treatment, but the courts are beginning to rule that you cannot deny treatment to your child. Your faith may accept bigamy, but the laws of all states now exclude it. There are numerous limitations on faith. The courts have ruled that your beliefs cannot deny service to others.

 

[tooney]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/in...-owner’s-anti-gay-remarks-to-media/ar-AAakqnD

 

[brokebacksooner]

Fear of the legislation being declared unconstitutional doesn't seem to faze these people.

There is a segment of our country that wants to challenge the constitutionality of everything. If the Supremes say the color white in unconstitutional; then these folks draft a law to change "white" to "ivory". I'm not sure if they are just stubborn or if they think if they clog the system with enough junk that eventually something will get through.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Restaurant owners do not refuse to serve lunch to anyone on the basis of race, gender, sexual preference, etc. I don't believe you could site one case in which that has occurred in the U.S. in the last quarter century or longer. Anyone who would do so would be guilty of gross and outright discrimination, which is illegal in our nation in the 21st Century.

But if someone is in the catering business and chooses not to cater the wedding of a same sex couple because of his sincerely held religious convictions, why shouldn't he be allowed to politely decline without fear of being labeled a "hater"? Do we not still live in America, where the rights that our forefathers fought and died for are supposed to be protected?

As I stated in my previous post, I'm respectful of the rights of every American. I would not knowingly mistreat any individual: straight, gay or transgender. But do we really want to trample on the rights of those Americans whose sincerely held religious convictions preclude them from surrendering every principal they hold dear? To force a Christian baker to provide a wedding cake adorned with two figures of the same sex would be shameful in a nation where religious liberty is guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution.

Absolutely right! People who live by their faith have rights too.

 

[MsProudSooner]

Absolutely right! People who live by their faith have rights too.

I would want some truth in advertising so i would know what businesses to support and which ones to ignore.

 

[womenssports]

I would want some truth in advertising so i would know what businesses to support and which ones to ignore.

+1

 

[SoonerNorm]

I would want some truth in advertising so i would know what businesses to support and which ones to ignore.

Are you saying that you want to know every religious belief of every business owner in America so that you can make sure you can pick the ones you agree with?

The government tried to tell David Green of Hobby Lobby that his religious beliefs didn't matter either. We know how that turned out.

 

[MsProudSooner]

Are you saying that you want to know every religious belief of every business owner in America so that you can make sure you can pick the ones you agree with?

The government tried to tell David Green of Hobby Lobby that his religious beliefs didn't matter either. We know how that turned out.

And because I know Hobby Lobby wants to impose the religious beliefs of their CEO on their employees who might not have the same beliefs, I choose to never spend any money there.

To put it another way, I want to do business only with people and businesses who don't discriminate against anyone, for any reason.

 

[SoonerNorm]

And because I know Hobby Lobby wants to impose the religious beliefs of their CEO on their employees who might not have the same beliefs, I choose to never spend any money there.

To put it another way, I want to do business only with people and businesses who don't discriminate against anyone, for any reason.

Hobby Lobby doesn't discriminate against any employee. Each one still has more than 10 birth control methods covered by Hobby Lobby. I would think at least one of those methods should be satisfactory. If not, the employees are free to pay for any other method available.

It's very possible your doctor will not perform abortions because of religious beliefs. Have you asked?

 

[MsProudSooner]

Hobby Lobby doesn't discriminate against any employee. Each one still has more than 10 birth control methods covered by Hobby Lobby. I would think at least one of those methods should be satisfactory. If not, the employees are free to pay for any other method available.

It's very possible your doctor will not perform abortions because of religious beliefs. Have you asked?

Since I'm 68, it's not an issue. but if it were an issue, I might change doctors.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Since I'm 68, it's not an issue. but if it were an issue, I might change doctors.

It seems that you are saying it is perfectly okay if you refuse to do business with those whose beliefs differ from yours but you don't think they should.

 

[sybarite]

Norm, you are injecting beliefs into constitutionality, which have little to do with beliefs. It is interesting that one of the first cancellations was a convention for the Disciples of Christ who regarded the law as unchristian. But, that doesn't address constitutionality either. You are totally entitled to your beliefs, within the confines of your home. As soon as you establish an enterprise governed by interstate commerce, you have brought yourself under the umbrella of the constitution. Historically, with other topics, the courts have interpreted that your beliefs are limited by the rights of others. Eventually, Hobby Lobby will also discover this.

 

[womenssports]

Norm, you are injecting beliefs into constitutionality, which have little to do with beliefs. It is interesting that one of the first cancellations was a convention for the Disciples of Christ who regarded the law as unchristian. But, that doesn't address constitutionality either. You are totally entitled to your beliefs, within the confines of your home. As soon as you establish an enterprise governed by interstate commerce, you have brought yourself under the umbrella of the constitution. Historically, with other topics, the courts have interpreted that your beliefs are limited by the rights of others. Eventually, Hobby Lobby will also discover this.

well said

 

[giraffespots]

Since I'm 68, it's not an issue. but if it were an issue, I might change doctors.

Ahh, but are you on birth control?




I am strictly a middle of the road person. The further you go left or right, the harder it is to see the other side. There has to be a way that lgbt rights are protected while Christian rights are also protected. Because they really are the same rights: human rights.

In this case, and in many cases, semantics are getting in the way. First let me state: I do not agree with the shop owner in Indiana. That said, I do believe that a business owner should be able to decide who to do business with.

LET ME BE CLEAR. I am not talking about "serving the public". If you have a restaurant, you have chosen to "serve the public"...ALL the public...without discrimination. If you cannot do that, then you need to close your business. Period.

IMO, this case is about entering into a business contract. The restaurant owner, in a side avenue of his primary business, does not want to enter into a contract for religious reasons. He should have that right.

In the same vein, anyone should be able to not frequent that restaurant, in its primary avenue of food service, based on any convictions he/she has or based on the religious convictions of that restaurant.

Should a gay business owner have the right to refuse to enter into a business contract with someone who is against them?

It works both ways. And there are consequences for all our decisions...from who to do business with to how to fill out an NCAA tournament bracket. If I have a choice to make, I usually make it based upon my personal beliefs and the short and long term ramifications of either choice.

 

[SoonerNorm]

Ahh, but are you on birth control?




I am strictly a middle of the road person. The further you go left or right, the harder it is to see the other side. There has to be a way that lgbt rights are protected while Christian rights are also protected. Because they really are the same rights: human rights.

In this case, and in many cases, semantics are getting in the way. First let me state: I do not agree with the shop owner in Indiana. That said, I do believe that a business owner should be able to decide who to do business with.

LET ME BE CLEAR. I am not talking about "serving the public". If you have a restaurant, you have chosen to "serve the public"...ALL the public...without discrimination. If you cannot do that, then you need to close your business. Period.

IMO, this case is about entering into a business contract. The restaurant owner, in a side avenue of his primary business, does not want to enter into a contract for religious reasons. He should have that right.

In the same vein, anyone should be able to not frequent that restaurant, in its primary avenue of food service, based on any convictions he/she has or based on the religious convictions of that restaurant.

Should a gay business owner have the right to refuse to enter into a business contract with someone who is against them?

It works both ways. And there are consequences for all our decisions...from who to do business with to how to fill out an NCAA tournament bracket. If I have a choice to make, I usually make it based upon my personal beliefs and the short and long term ramifications of either choice.

The strange thing about the Indiana situation is, the pizza owner has never refused service to anyone. It is very doubtful he would ever be asked to cater a wedding for gays or straights in the future as pizza doesn't seem to be the popular choice at those kind of events. This all started from a hypothetical question. It really is bizarre how the store owner had to close his business because of threats and bogus orders placed after the report became known.

Just as the Supreme Court agreed with Hobby Lobby, if a case like this is ever taken to the Supreme Court on religious beliefs, the store owner would likely win because individuals have the right to run their businesses based upon their religious beliefs just like closely held "for profit" corporations do.

 

[MsProudSooner]

The strange thing about the Indiana situation is, the pizza owner has never refused service to anyone. It is very doubtful he would ever be asked to cater a wedding for gays or straights in the future as pizza doesn't seem to be the popular choice at those kind of events. This all started from a hypothetical question. It really is bizarre how the store owner had to close his business because of threats and bogus orders placed after the report became known.

Just as the Supreme Court agreed with Hobby Lobby, if a case like this is ever taken to the Supreme Court on religious beliefs, the store owner would likely win because individuals have the right to run their businesses based upon their religious beliefs just like closely held "for profit" corporations do.

Maybe, but the State of Indiana is learning there is also a 'court of public opinion' and they are losing that battle badly.

 

[scrybe]

It seems that you are saying it is perfectly okay if you refuse to do business with those whose beliefs differ from yours but you don't think they should.

Thank you for that, Norm. I stated earlier that I was done with this thread, but your statement really gets to the heart of this argument, and I felt compelled to respond.

You've exposed, in one sentence, a huge truth behind many of these mindless attacks on people of faith. The vast majority of Americans (and this includes men, women, blacks and whites) ARE NOT BIGOTS and do not "go after" or discriminate in any way against those who do not share their principles or beliefs. Christians, as a rule, are kind and accepting of others, even if they don't always accept the lifestyle choices of every individual. But people of faith (and others who hold to many of the same traditional values) have grown weary of being labeled as haters, anti-woman, racists and homophobes for simply refusing to abandon their principles and join the celebration of certain lifestyles.

Meanwhile, the very loud and nasty members of the vocal minority who like to call themselves "progressive" are, in reality, nothing more than fascists. Encouraged (supported) by the mainstream media, these people continue their endless attacks and rants against anyone who stands in the way of the real agenda of hate and bigotry. It makes me very sad to see my country being destroyed by these zealots.