Mormon Tabernacle Singer Quits Choir Over Trump Inauguration

[Robert]

I stand by the statement that respect is earned.  Period.
She resigned a volunteer position.  Period.  You can't fine someone for not performing in a performance that has not happened yet.
You cite freedom of religion, but neglect freedom of speach.
Your logic is as convoluted as a mobius strip.

I dont have to site freedom of speech since she is not fined and no penalty was assigned. But Where is the freedom of speech or the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion for the bakery, that was fined and lost their business and are still fighting legal battles. 

That was done in the name of liberalism.

What about decency and respect for the position of president and not making a defamatory Tweet?

So where is the balance in this? Where is your outcry?

OH,, come on, one with such high and lofty rights for everyone should be crying foul as loudly as the conservatives at this unjust government treatment, right?

[Fathertime]

(for the record, I took notice that Robert wasn't invited to party in Hell) I'm ok with that.  

Actually me too.  

All involved parties in agreement!  Woah!
I call no harm, no foul!

[Fathertime]

I stand by the statement that respect is earned.  Period.
She resigned a volunteer position.  Period.  You can't fine someone for not performing in a performance that has not happened yet.
You cite freedom of religion, but neglect freedom of speach.
Your logic is as convoluted as a mobius strip.

I dont have to site freedom of speech since she is not fined and no penalty was assigned. But Where is the freedom of speech or the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion for the bakery?

What about decency and respect for the position of president and not making a defamatory Tweet?

When donny stops making stupid tweets, he'll be one step closer to being a normal 10 year old child.  Position and person are two things.  One I have respect for, none for donny.

With freedom comes responsibility, and the need for reason and clear thought.  Freedom of speach stops at yelling fire.
Freedom of religion stops when the practice of your religion takes precedence over mine.

[Jess from VA]

To me the issue was her going public with her decision (like it was actually a newsworthy event, it wasn't, but MSM will eat that crap up and run with it all day, forever).  The decision was fine.  I don't agree with her reason, at all.  But I do agree with her right to make it.

Had I been in uniform and ordered to attend an event with the current POTUS so I had to stand behind him in some lame photo op, you can be certain I would not obey the order.  I'd do my best to come up with a good excuse other than my real reason (to avoid certain punishment), but under no circumstances would I appear (and punishment be cursed).  So I get where she is coming from.

I dislike the left and nearly everything they stand for, today (not 20 years ago).  Period.  The left dislikes me and the right.  I'm good with that.  They cannot convince me of anything they like, and I can't convince them of anything I like.  Arguing with liberals is like arguing with monkeys at the zoo, and a complete waste of time (and I suppose they feel the same).  We are committed enemies.  I'm good with that too.

Politicians who have to win elections have to seek a middle ground.  I don't.    

[Robert]

They did not want to bake a cake, it was their choice, they refused. Just as the chorus decided to not sing tell me the difference and why one should incur big fines and one should have nothing done to them.

That should be basic enough to get a straight answer.

I agree with Jess also in his statement.

[Fathertime]

To me the issue was her going public with her decision (like it was actually a newsworthy event, it wasn't, but MSM will eat that crap up and run with it all day, forever).  The decision was fine.  I don't agree with her reason, at all.  But I do agree with her right to make it.

Had I been in uniform and ordered to attend an event with the current POTUS so I had to stand behind him in some lame photo op.  You can be certain I would not obey the order.  I'd do my best to come up with a good excuse other than my real reason (to avoid certain punishment), but under no circumstances would I appear (and punishment be cursed).  So I get where she is coming from.

I dislike the left and nearly everything they stand for, today (not 20 years ago).  Period.  The left dislikes me and the right.  I'm good with that.  They cannot convince me of anything they like, and I can't convince them of anything I like.  We are committed enemies.  I'm good with that too.

Politicians who have to win elections have to seek a middle ground.  I don't.    

Interesting, Jess.
I submit that our thoughts on the matter are quite close.
You take a stand and are willing to take the consequences, that I can agree with.

Edited because of dumb auto-correct

[Oss]

IMHO the problem is that the Judicial Branch has this century continued the process of creating new classes of rights SCOTUS created a new form of discrimination !

The expression creating a loophole big enough to sail a battleship through is the one my constitutional law professor General Telford Taylor used.  He was one of the Nurenburg (sp?) prosecutors after WWII and a brilliant legal mind. I am a plodder but given enough time I get there. So this is my take

THE SCOTUS for better or worse decided Roe. That case remains now the law of the land 4 decades later.  SCOTUS also decided to settle the rights for couples cases by creating a zone to include same sex marriage in the set of marriages.

By doing so they were able to shoe horn otherwise constitutionally protected first amendment conduct into a category of discriminatory conduct and thereby use the power to fine, to punish and even imprison.

This IMHO was something that under the 10th amendment belonged to the individual states. It may revert to that under the next incarnation of SCOTUS

My religion tells me that homosexuality is a sin, as is beatiality or worship of idols. I understand that Christians also are dealing with this in their own individual and denominational ways  I have friends and relatives who are gay and love them as sisters and brothers. I would not refuse them service accordingly as I try to live as Abraham in the bible - a time centuries before the 10 commandments

As a secular society the USA will continue to deal with these issues going forward.  I am uncomfortable that the choir person chose to make herself bigger that the inauguration but I understand her reasons.  I also understand why the baker felt compelled to refuse to bake the cake, or more accurately to sell the cake order to the gay couple.

Frankly if a gay couple wants to be in the same boat as married straight folks, then go to it. I would not have called it marriage I would have called it a secular union with the same rights and privileges but not a marriage.

Put a penis on a woman she is still a woman. She may believe she is a man, have totally clear conscience and thoughts but she is genetically a woman.  If a person wants to transgender the other way and have his penis turned into a vagina, again, that is his choice. It is not forced on anyone and that person probably has lots of issues going on without my or anyone's hatred.

I dont know the solution as long as SCOTUS says what it now says.

IN a perfect world, the baker should be able to say My religion will not allow me to sell a cake with a gay theme but I never bought the argument that the baker could refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple.

That is now impermissable hateful behavior like it or not. It is like saying colored use another entrance under present SCOTUS and as law abiding americans we can either obey or force the issue thru civil disobedience to the law and force a new SCOTUS to decide the issue down the road.

[Fathertime]

They did not want to bake a cake, it was their choice, they refused. Just as the chorus decided to not sing tell me the difference and why one should incur big fines and one should have nothing done to them.

That should be basic enough to get a straight answer.

I agree with Jess also in his statement.

Because one quit her position, on a volunteer basis.
The other wished to continue practicing discrimination.

Discrimination is bad.  Don't discriminate.

[The emperor has no clothes]

And if either of you think Hell will be a party

WHAT ? It's not going to be fun ? 

Meathead, brother, I guaran-daym-tee you, it's gonna be one sweet time.
(My wife, a Jew, just reminded me that they don't have hell.  It's a lookin better and better! )

Dang, I'm learning all kinds of stuff. Jews don't believe there is a Hell ?

[Valker]

Its such a shame, really, how this has all progressed to such a level.  Reading the comments on this thread show such a huge amount of contempt for a person, or people who have differing thoughts or ideals than others present or speaking out here.  There was a time during the founding of this great country were argument and debate was celebrated, even encouraged.  Those with the courage and backbone to do it stood up for what they believed in.  There were arguments, I'm sure over what was the right course but in the end, we honor those founding fathers who stood up and took a stand - not only emotionally but physically - for those principles they believed in.
Not so much today, it appears.
Your principles, your beliefs, your religion differs from mine, and so you must be wrong.   It has, somehow, become the sacred duty of opposers to convert the dissenters to their "mainstream" beliefs.  If logic fails to turn the tide then force becomes the select tool.  Attack, insult, repeat a party line over and over untill it becomes such a caphony of noise and sound that no other can be heard.  Follow others in the herd, insulting and condemming over and over.  Repeating past deeds (either real or imagined, mutually committed or alone by one party).
In the background, below the noise one thread continues.
You have no right to stand up for your beliefs, to vocalize them, to discuss them because.......
  (insert real or imagined transgression from the past here).
One can not have their "cake" and eat it also.  Because one person was prevented from selling a dumb cake does not prevent a second, unrelated, person for standing up for what they believe in. If you want to reconcile the two issues, you have two choices from what I can see:
1)  Continue to yammer on about how bad that person is, and bask in the glory of like minded people repeating back what you just said, but in slightly different words, learning and gaining nothing.
2)  Listen, no really listen, to an oppposing view.  I'm not saying that you have to change your frame of reference or point of view, but am suggesting that rather than dismissing out of hand the dialog you just take a second to listen ansd possibly learn something.

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

I don't think the anger and disgust is so much with these people and their decisions as much as with the double standard.

What double standard is that?

You really don't see the double standard so many members here have (plain as day) pointed out?

I believe I was asking Valker for a specific answer.

Others answered with my same examples. If you can't see the VIVIDLY DISPLAYED DOUBLE STANDARDS MENTIONED ALREADY, then you just refuse to see, not that you can't see.

[Fathertime]

And if either of you think Hell will be a party

WHAT ? It's not going to be fun ? 

Meathead, brother, I guaran-daym-tee you, it's gonna be one sweet time.
(My wife, a Jew, just reminded me that they don't have hell.  It's a lookin better and better! )

Dang, I'm learning all kinds of stuff. Jews don't believe there is a Hell ?

That's what she said.  Who am I to argue?

"In heaven there ain't no beer"...
-old German saying.

[Fathertime]

Its such a shame, really, how this has all progressed to such a level.  Reading the comments on this thread show such a huge amount of contempt for a person, or people who have differing thoughts or ideals than others present or speaking out here.  There was a time during the founding of this great country were argument and debate was celebrated, even encouraged.  Those with the courage and backbone to do it stood up for what they believed in.  There were arguments, I'm sure over what was the right course but in the end, we honor those founding fathers who stood up and took a stand - not only emotionally but physically - for those principles they believed in.
Not so much today, it appears.
Your principles, your beliefs, your religion differs from mine, and so you must be wrong.   It has, somehow, become the sacred duty of opposers to convert the dissenters to their "mainstream" beliefs.  If logic fails to turn the tide then force becomes the select tool.  Attack, insult, repeat a party line over and over untill it becomes such a caphony of noise and sound that no other can be heard.  Follow others in the herd, insulting and condemming over and over.  Repeating past deeds (either real or imagined, mutually committed or alone by one party).
In the background, below the noise one thread continues.
You have no right to stand up for your beliefs, to vocalize them, to discuss them because.......
  (insert real or imagined transgression from the past here).
One can not have their "cake" and eat it also.  Because one person was prevented from selling a dumb cake does not prevent a second, unrelated, person for standing up for what they believe in. If you want to reconcile the two issues, you have two choices from what I can see:
1)  Continue to yammer on about how bad that person is, and bask in the glory of like minded people repeating back what you just said, but in slightly different words, learning and gaining nothing.
2)  Listen, no really listen, to an oppposing view.  I'm not saying that you have to change your frame of reference or point of view, but am suggesting that rather than dismissing out of hand the dialog you just take a second to listen ansd possibly learn something.

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

I don't think the anger and disgust is so much with these people and their decisions as much as with the double standard.

What double standard is that?

You really don't see the double standard so many members here have (plain as day) pointed out?

I believe I was asking Valker for a specific answer.

Others answered with my same examples. If you can't see the VIVIDLY DISPLAYED DOUBLE STANDARDS MENTIONED ALREADY, then you just refuse to see, not that you can't see.

I CAN SEE THE VIVIDLY DISPLAYED DOUBLE STANDARDS MENTIONED ALREADY, thank you very much.  You might have observed that the discussion has moved on in your absence, perhaps you have not seen.
And, with my new glasses, I can read very well, TYVM.  I just don't agree with some of the opinions submitted in your absence.

[Robert]

The girl did not quit her position and she made a derogatory tweets, but, what about the chorus that gave the instructions and then would not play for Trump? That would fall under the same rules.

As for the bakery how are they not going to make a cake they object to? They simply refused to make a cake because of their beliefs and they were respectful also.

So are you saying that all these new stories of restaurants not serving Trump voters should be sued and fined? That sure sounds like discrimination doesn't it?

As for the potus he made these laws in view of his liberal agenda in a way to maneuver around the constitutionally guaranteed rights of Christians. These type of battles have already been won successfully by Christians. Obama  in his manipulations is neither fair or unbiased and some might say he is guilty of not doing his job which part of it was to defend the defense of marriage act. Again the lefts attack on the conservatives established rights.

[Fathertime]

The girl did not quit her position and she made a derogatory tweets, but, what about the chorus that gave the instructions and then would not play for Trump? That would fall under the same rules.

As for the bakery how are they not going to make a cake they object to? They did not call them names like the girl did Trump. They simply refused to make a cake because of their beliefs and they were respectful also. So are you saying that all these new stories of restaurants not serving Trump voters should be sued and fined? That sure sounds like discrimination doesn't it?

As for the potus he made these laws in view of his liberal agenda in a way to maneuver around the constitutionally guaranteed rights of Christians. These type of battles have already been won successfully by Christians. Obama  in his manipulations is neither fair or unbiased and some might say he is guilty of not doing his job which part of it was to defend the defense of marriage act. Again the lefts attack on the conservatives established rights.

Dude!
Words almost escape me.
1)  POTUS makes NO laws.  He just, can't.  How did you miss this basic point in civics class?  Congress sends the bill to the POTUS who then signs the bill into law.  Or not.  POTUS does not MAKE the law.
2)  There is no such thing as a guaranteed right of Christians.  My wife, the Jew, kind of takes exception to that.  There is, however, a right to freedom of religion.
3)  The CHOIR singer did indeed quit her VOLUNTEER position.  Perhaps your thinking of the Rocketts?  If so, please refer to this threads title.
4)  How do you figure the POTUS  HAS to defend the defense of marriage act, or any other act for that matter?
5)  Nasty tweets?  Oh my.  As was mentioned at the start of this thread, public figures need to expect and tolerate less than ideal public opinion and mean words.  Never forget, POTUS works for us, not the other way around as donny appears to think.

[Rams]

Freedom of religion stops when the practice of your religion takes precedence over mine.

Please advise or enlighten me as to how the baker's religion and practice took precedence over the two "people" who wanted to buy a wedding cake?  

It's not like they couldn't have gotten that cake in a hundred different places but, they demanded one from this specific bakery.    Personally, I think it's bullshit but, I'm willing to read your opinion.

But, I would offer this up for discussion also:
Hawaiian cafe backs down over ban on Trump voters
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/30/hawaiian-cafe-backs-down-over-ban-on-trump-voters.html

Personally, I think this Hawaiian Café owner has every right to serve whomever he wants to serve.   I don't have to spend my hard earned cash there and, I'll bet that, should he have continued with his ban of Trump supporters, he'd have been out of business before long.    Tell me the difference between that Café owner prior to his reversal and the bakery owner.  

Edited: To be perfectly clear, I am not a Trump fan, just couldn't stand the thought of what and where Clinton wanted to do to us.   I'm one of those that thought Clinton should be in jail.    
Just didn't have any other choice than Trump.  

[Rams]

Bump hoping for a response...............   

[The emperor has no clothes]

This explains it pretty simply.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-is-discrimination.html
To sum it up. The bakery was in violation because they discriminated based on sexual orientation. The choir member violated nobody's rights under the law.

[Robert]

Executive Order 13672, signed by U.S. President Barack Obama on July 21, 2014, amended two earlier executive orders to extend protection against discrimination in hiring and employment to additional classes. It prohibited discrimination in the civilian federal workforce on the basis of gender identity and in hiring by federal contractors on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, also EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246

So dont say the Potus does not make laws, in fact Obama has been challenged on some of his executive orders and lost more than any other president. Obama is also unprecedented in trampling over religious freedoms for the gay community. Transforming the very fabric that the US was built on.

In Oss's post he had it correctly stated what was happening to religious freedoms in the US.

                       This case is in court now and I have copied and pasted a

                                  https://firstliberty.org/cases/kleins/

Filed on April 25, 2016, First Liberty and Gray’s appellate brief argues that Commissioner Avakian and the State of Oregon violated the Kleins’ rights to free speech, religious freedom, and due process. The brief states:

    One of America’s founding principles is that state action “compel[ling] a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors” is “tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (June 12, 1779). It is at least as tyrannical to compel people to use their time and talent to speak, or to carry, contribute to, or affiliate with others’ expressions to which they do not ascribe and to which their religion forbids them from adhering.

 The appellate brief argues further:

    The Commissioner’s statements…reveal that before the Kleins had any opportunity to create a factual record or argue their view of the law, the Commissioner had already decided that the Kleins had denied service to the Complainants, that the denial violated ORS 659A.403, that it was not protected by either the Oregon or United States constitutions, and that no exemption should be granted.

“In America, you’re protected by the Constitution and you’re also innocent until proven guilty,” said Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty Institute. “Commissioner Brad Avakian decided the Kleins were guilty before he even heard their case. This is an egregious violation of the Kleins’ rights to due process. We hope the Oregon Court of Appeals will remedy this by reversing or dismissing the government’s case against the Kleins.”

Before hearing the Kleins’ case, however, Commissioner Avakian made multiple public comments on Facebook and in media interviews, saying that the Kleins “disobey[ed]” the law and needed rehabilitation. According to First Liberty attorneys, Commissioner Avakian’s comments indicate that he had already judged the Kleins guilty of violating the law.

                                                          end cut and paste

                        The above case is indeed a great example of what we have been going back and forth about.

In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to
                                           
                                           rather than on individual merit.

                                         As defined in Websters dictionary.

The law as its defined in Meatheads post actually is discriminatory since it elevates one class of people above another based on certain broad sometimes unnecessary criteria and affords them special consideration that most dont have.

Did you get that Individual merit in the Websters definition?

By removing special protections under Obamas laws and going back to simpler definitions we see a difference.

The chours has no merit to judge Trump the way they did

But the Bible says homosexuality is wrong which is Gods judgement not the bake shop people.

So while both had a action of outward discrimination one did it on unjustified personal judgement the other because of Gods judgement.

One did it out of misinformation and personal bias with malice and one did it to follow the Creator without malice

 Some could say that discrimination is discrimination no matter where or how it occurs. The fact that the government is not enforcing and standing up for our constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms against discrimination is based on the current potus views so he is in fact writing law by lack of enforcement, executive orders under cutting religious freedom in favor of sexual preference laws.

 I guess this is why the left wants Obama in so badly and Trump not to come in. Because he will allow religious freedom to take top place and not sexual orientation so that all discrimination will be on a level playing field and we will get back some of the rights that Obama has taken away in transforming the US into his utopia rather than having it consistent with founding principles.

Obama and you fathertime have made the burden of protecting religious freedoms the responsibility of the people involved by assuming a personal, financial and  burden that was never supposed to be by going to court to protect what was guaranteed us. Rather than the other way around, its a fundamental shift in the way the courts and individual freedoms operate. They have made it easy for sexual orientation to be guaranteed freedoms not afforded to them originally.

Today you still have the home court advantage but in 17 more days thing will shift and we will have the home court back.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Executive Order 13672, signed by U.S. President Barack Obama on July 21, 2014, amended two earlier executive orders to extend protection against discrimination in hiring and employment to additional classes. It prohibited discrimination in the civilian federal workforce on the basis of gender identity and in hiring by federal contractors on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, also EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246

So dont say the Potus does not make laws, in fact Obama has been challenged on some of his executive orders and lost more than any other president. Obama is also unprecedented in trampling over religious freedoms for the gay community. Transforming the very fabric that the US was built on.

In Oss's post he had it correctly stated what was happening to religious freedoms in the US.

                       This case is in court now and I have copied and pasted a

                                  https://firstliberty.org/cases/kleins/

Filed on April 25, 2016, First Liberty and Gray’s appellate brief argues that Commissioner Avakian and the State of Oregon violated the Kleins’ rights to free speech, religious freedom, and due process. The brief states:

    One of America’s founding principles is that state action “compel[ling] a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors” is “tyrannical.” Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (June 12, 1779). It is at least as tyrannical to compel people to use their time and talent to speak, or to carry, contribute to, or affiliate with others’ expressions to which they do not ascribe and to which their religion forbids them from adhering.

 The appellate brief argues further:

    The Commissioner’s statements…reveal that before the Kleins had any opportunity to create a factual record or argue their view of the law, the Commissioner had already decided that the Kleins had denied service to the Complainants, that the denial violated ORS 659A.403, that it was not protected by either the Oregon or United States constitutions, and that no exemption should be granted.

“In America, you’re protected by the Constitution and you’re also innocent until proven guilty,” said Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty Institute. “Commissioner Brad Avakian decided the Kleins were guilty before he even heard their case. This is an egregious violation of the Kleins’ rights to due process. We hope the Oregon Court of Appeals will remedy this by reversing or dismissing the government’s case against the Kleins.”

Before hearing the Kleins’ case, however, Commissioner Avakian made multiple public comments on Facebook and in media interviews, saying that the Kleins “disobey[ed]” the law and needed rehabilitation. According to First Liberty attorneys, Commissioner Avakian’s comments indicate that he had already judged the Kleins guilty of violating the law.

                                                          end cut and paste

                        The above case is indeed a great example of what we have been going back and forth about.

In human social affairs, discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to
                                           
                                           rather than on individual merit.

                                         As defined in Websters dictionary.

Did you get that Individual merit?

The chours has no merit to judge Trump the way they did

But the Bible says homosexuality is wrong which is Gods judgement not the bake shop people.

So while both had a action of outward discrimination one did it on unjustified personal judgement the other because of Gods judgement.

One did it out of misinformation and personal bias with malice and one did it to follow the Creator without malice

 Some could say that discrimination is discrimination no matter where or how it occurs. The fact that the government is not enforcing and standing up for our constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms against discrimination is based on the current potus views so he is in fact writing law by lack of enforcement, executive orders under cutting religious freedom in favor of sexual preference laws.

 I guess this is why the left wants Obama in so badly and Trump not to come in. Because he will allow religious freedom to take top place and not sexual orientation so that all discrimination will be on a level playing field and we will get back some of the rights that Obama has taken away in transforming the US into his utopia rather than having it consistent with founding principles.

Here is a listing of sins that are in the Bible. I don't claim to be knowledgeable about it. But if we were to uphold what you believe to be your religious rights, it doesn't look like anyone would be able to buy a cake. Or are you just wanting to pick and choose the sins that you want ?

http://www.amazingbible.org/Documents/Bible_Studies/Sin_list_part_6.htm

[Fathertime]

Bump hoping for a response...............   

Bump.......Still have to work.

[Robert]

http://www.amazingbible.org/Documents/Bible_Studies/Sin_list_part_6.htm

I guess you didn't see that marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman. That they were created this way.

[Rams]

This explains it pretty simply.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-is-discrimination.html
To sum it up. The bakery was in violation because they discriminated based on sexual orientation. The choir member violated nobody's rights under the law.

Well, no kidding......

My point was that the law you so easily pull up is a violation of personal rights in my opinion.     Hopefully, we'll get that changed someday.   That's not saying I give a rat's ass either way about a persons sexual orientation, but I do care a lot about my right to serve whom I want based on my own personal standards.    No different than the bakery, café or who I transport for.

If Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Ladin came to where you work, would you serve either of them?    Just an example, I don't know how you feel about either of those individuals.

[The emperor has no clothes]

http://www.amazingbible.org/Documents/Bible_Studies/Sin_list_part_6.htm

I guess you didn't see that marriage is supposed to be between one man and one woman. That they were created this way.

Yes, I got that. It says many things are wrong. It seems you want to pick which ones should be applied.

[The emperor has no clothes]

This explains it pretty simply.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-is-discrimination.html
To sum it up. The bakery was in violation because they discriminated based on sexual orientation. The choir member violated nobody's rights under the law.

Well, no kidding......

My point was that the law you so easily pull up is a violation of personal rights in my opinion.     Hopefully, we'll get that changed someday.   That's not saying I give a rat's ass either way about a persons sexual orientation, but I do care a lot about my right to serve whom I want based on my own personal standards.    No different than the bakery, café or who I transport for.

If Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Ladin came to where you work, would you serve either of them?    Just an example, I don't know how you feel about either of those individuals.

Ron, there is a big difference between discriminating against a race, group, etc. versus an individual. If we are being serious here, I would not only not serve those 2 individuals I would do my damnedest to kill them.

[Rams]

This explains it pretty simply.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-is-discrimination.html
To sum it up. The bakery was in violation because they discriminated based on sexual orientation. The choir member violated nobody's rights under the law.

Well, no kidding......

My point was that the law you so easily pull up is a violation of personal rights in my opinion.     Hopefully, we'll get that changed someday.   That's not saying I give a rat's ass either way about a persons sexual orientation, but I do care a lot about my right to serve whom I want based on my own personal standards.    No different than the bakery, café or who I transport for.

If Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Ladin came to where you work, would you serve either of them?    Just an example, I don't know how you feel about either of those individuals.

Ron, there is a big difference between discriminating against a race, group, etc. versus an individual. If we are being serious here, I would not only not serve those 2 individuals I would do my damnedest to kill them.

Then Sir, you are guilty of discrimination.

This, I agree with: 

The law as its defined in Meatheads post actually is discriminatory since it elevates one class of people above another based on certain broad sometimes unnecessary criteria and affords them special consideration that most dont have.

[The emperor has no clothes]

This explains it pretty simply.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-is-discrimination.html
To sum it up. The bakery was in violation because they discriminated based on sexual orientation. The choir member violated nobody's rights under the law.

Well, no kidding......

My point was that the law you so easily pull up is a violation of personal rights in my opinion.     Hopefully, we'll get that changed someday.   That's not saying I give a rat's ass either way about a persons sexual orientation, but I do care a lot about my right to serve whom I want based on my own personal standards.    No different than the bakery, café or who I transport for.

If Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Ladin came to where you work, would you serve either of them?    Just an example, I don't know how you feel about either of those individuals.

Ron, there is a big difference between discriminating against a race, group, etc. versus an individual. If we are being serious here, I would not only not serve those 2 individuals I would do my damnedest to kill them.

Then Sir, you are guilty of discrimination.

This, I agree with:  

The law as its defined in Meatheads post actually is discriminatory since it elevates one class of people above another based on certain broad sometimes unnecessary criteria and affords them special consideration that most dont have.

We are all guilty of some form of discrimination. The issue here is it against the law.
How does that law elevate one class over another ? It appears to me to make everyone equal.

[Robert]

We are all guilty of some form of discrimination. The issue here is it against the law.
How does that law elevate one class over another ? It appears to me to make everyone equal.

If everyone is equal then why do we need the law to tell us certain people are not equal and give them special rights?

[The emperor has no clothes]

We are all guilty of some form of discrimination. The issue here is it against the law.
How does that law elevate one class over another ? It appears to me to make everyone equal.

If everyone is equal then why do we need the law to tell us certain people are not equal?

Uh....because people have discriminated against in the past. You do acknowledge Blacks, Women, old people, etc. have been discriminated against in the past ?

[Rams]

This explains it pretty simply.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-is-discrimination.html
To sum it up. The bakery was in violation because they discriminated based on sexual orientation. The choir member violated nobody's rights under the law.

Well, no kidding......

My point was that the law you so easily pull up is a violation of personal rights in my opinion.     Hopefully, we'll get that changed someday.   That's not saying I give a rat's ass either way about a persons sexual orientation, but I do care a lot about my right to serve whom I want based on my own personal standards.    No different than the bakery, café or who I transport for.

If Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Ladin came to where you work, would you serve either of them?    Just an example, I don't know how you feel about either of those individuals.

Ron, there is a big difference between discriminating against a race, group, etc. versus an individual. If we are being serious here, I would not only not serve those 2 individuals I would do my damnedest to kill them.

Then Sir, you are guilty of discrimination.

This, I agree with:  

The law as its defined in Meatheads post actually is discriminatory since it elevates one class of people above another based on certain broad sometimes unnecessary criteria and affords them special consideration that most dont have.

We are all guilty of some form of discrimination. The issue here is it against the law.
How does that law elevate one class over another ? It appears to me to make everyone equal.

Obviously, this depends on the individual's perspective but, IMHO the law is wrong and should be reversed.   It removes my and your right to serve whom we wish to serve at our establishments.     

I remember being told as a child that my rights stop where your rights begin.   Being forced to serve a certain person or group due to my beliefs goes against my rights.   SCOTUS, stepped on all of our rights when, they gave some Special Rights.    You're right, discrimination is part of who and what we are.   SCOTUS nor any other earthly entity is going to change that.   

If, I felt strongly enough about transporting HDs and refused to transport them, that would be discrimination of a group of people and could be challenged in court.    My point is, if we're all equal, no one should have special rights.

[Robert]

The point could also be made that the laws we have were adequate and we don't need to elevate the privileges of any groups over another. This could especially apply to gender.

Any elevation in rights gives an unfair advantage to them in inflicting their rights on to someone who may not be in that class. If the elevated class cries foul then the law steps in and the one without elevated rites has to loose time, money, and life in the defense of their rights.

Case in point the bakery owner.

Or another in that Obama linked people on drugs to the American with disabilities act that allows them to build half way houses anywhere they want with no consideration for local laws, ordinances, people and have the weight of the federal government to support their claims. Even insurance companies have to pay thousands of dollars a week just to keep these people in these facilities. We pay for this under Obama care.

School admissions or job hiring has to fill quotas leaving out some very qualified people for lesser candidates all based on one criteria or another.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The point could also be made that the laws we have were adequate and we don't need to elevate the privileges of any groups over another. This could especially apply to gender.

Please explain how any gender has been given "elevated privileges" over others ?

[The emperor has no clothes]

This explains it pretty simply.
http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/what-is-discrimination.html
To sum it up. The bakery was in violation because they discriminated based on sexual orientation. The choir member violated nobody's rights under the law.

Well, no kidding......

My point was that the law you so easily pull up is a violation of personal rights in my opinion.     Hopefully, we'll get that changed someday.   That's not saying I give a rat's ass either way about a persons sexual orientation, but I do care a lot about my right to serve whom I want based on my own personal standards.    No different than the bakery, café or who I transport for.

If Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Ladin came to where you work, would you serve either of them?    Just an example, I don't know how you feel about either of those individuals.

Ron, there is a big difference between discriminating against a race, group, etc. versus an individual. If we are being serious here, I would not only not serve those 2 individuals I would do my damnedest to kill them.

Then Sir, you are guilty of discrimination.

This, I agree with:  

The law as its defined in Meatheads post actually is discriminatory since it elevates one class of people above another based on certain broad sometimes unnecessary criteria and affords them special consideration that most dont have.

We are all guilty of some form of discrimination. The issue here is it against the law.
How does that law elevate one class over another ? It appears to me to make everyone equal.

Obviously, this depends on the individual's perspective but, IMHO the law is wrong and should be reversed.   It removes my and your right to serve whom we wish to serve at our establishments.     

I remember being told as a child that my rights stop where your rights begin.   Being forced to serve a certain person or group due to my beliefs goes against my rights.   SCOTUS, stepped on all of our rights when, they gave some Special Rights.    You're right, discrimination is part of who and what we are.   SCOTUS nor any other earthly entity is going to change that.   

If, I felt strongly enough about transporting HDs and refused to transport them, that would be discrimination of a group of people and could be challenged in court.    My point is, if we're all equal, no one should have special rights.

I fail to see how Harley Owners would fall into any of the categories of race, religion, age, sexual orientation ?

[Serk]

Anti-discrimination laws forcing one to do business under circumstances they do not wish to violate the non-aggression principal.

I am against slavery in all it's forms, no matter how well intended they may be.

[Gavin_Sons]

If someone tells me they have never discriminated id say you're a liar.

[Robert]

The point could also be made that the laws we have were adequate and we don't need to elevate the privileges of any groups over another. This could especially apply to gender.

Please explain how any gender has been given "elevated privileges" over others ?

I did, the bakery. Gender orientation was taken above religious freedom.

[Oss]

Inequity in scholarship awards ( I had to score almost 40 points higher than a person in the community in the Bronx I moved from just a few years earlier just to get that regents scholarship of 300 bux a year)

Federal laws giving women owned business an advantage

Small business initiatives (I happen to like those)

Giving veterans extra points on civil service exams for placement
(I really like those as they reward those who have given to their country)

There is a subtle distinction being overlooked here.  If a person just orders a cake, its just a cake. It was saying I want a cake for this purpose that triggered the denial of service

I can order the chemicals to make fertilizer. But we all recognize why we need to keep a jihadist from doing so. Or do I need to spell it out for some?  If a person is buying a product needed for the practice of their religion such as a sabbath candle or my priest friend needs wafers for communion, a store owner can simply not stock the item but cant refuse to sell the item in stock

The law has blurred that line

Senior citizen programs to pay less in property taxes

Affirmative action (quotas suck)

Mayors who insist the work force of the municipality reflect the % of folks who live in the area without regard to skills

Thats just my short list

[The emperor has no clothes]

The point could also be made that the laws we have were adequate and we don't need to elevate the privileges of any groups over another. This could especially apply to gender.

Please explain how any gender has been given "elevated privileges" over others ?

I did, the bakery. Gender orientation was taken above religious freedom.

Wrong. Gender and sexual orientation are 2 separate things.

[Gavin_Sons]

The point could also be made that the laws we have were adequate and we don't need to elevate the privileges of any groups over another. This could especially apply to gender.

Please explain how any gender has been given "elevated privileges" over others ?

I did, the bakery. Gender orientation was taken above religious freedom.

Wrong. Gender and sexual orientation are 2 separate things.

Not so much anymore. Gender plays a huge part on sexual orientation, people are even changing their gender to better fit their sexual orientation.

[Robert]

Wrong. Gender and sexual orientation are 2 separate things.

If your going to get technical then one was oriented correctly the other was not so it went both ways. So I am correct unless you want to say that preference or a decision has something to do with it.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Wrong. Gender and sexual orientation are 2 separate things.

If your going to get technical then one was the oriented correctly the other was not so it went both ways. So I am correct unless you want to say that preference or a decision has something to do with it.

Gender discrimination is when women or men are denied equal rights. Sexual orientation discrimination is when gays, lesbians, and even heterosexuals are denied equal rights. See the difference ?