Meanwhile, back in Kansas...

[FBM]

Now we're referencing the the First Amendment, eh?

[Seth]

...a law is being passed to allow discrimination on religious grounds.

Good, because religious freedom trumps the desire of gays to be served.

The 14th amendment in principle and subsequent US supreme court decisions in particular differ on that opinion.

Things change. The 14th Amendment only applies to governments and government employees in the official performance of their duties, not to private individuals.

Public servants are governed by an entirely different set of rules regarding discrimination, particularly religious discrimination, in the performance of their official duties. The law addresses ONLY private interactions in commerce.

Did you read even the opening paragraph of the bill? It states that no individual shall be required to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender. Further down it is made explicit that individuals working as public servants are included for the purposes of that bill, for it states that if an individual employed by a governmental entity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service the shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be done without undue hardship to the employer. Yeah, and I wonder how difficult it would be for a government agency to successfully claim undue hardship in a society that has elected a bunch of legislators who would come up with such a discriminatory bill in the first place.

Well, any provision that purports to permit a government employee to discriminate during the official performance of his or her duties based on protected class is unconstitutional on its face and won't survive the first court challenge so it's a nullity, I'm referring to private conduct.

Some people don't like gays. That's their right. It's also their right to refuse to associate with them, just like Jews have the right to refuse to associate with Neo-Nazis. Get over it.

[Seth]

Now we're referencing the the First Amendment, eh?

Of course. It's relevant to this discussion.

[FBM]

Now we're referencing the the First Amendment, eh?

Of course. It's relevant to this discussion.

It's not an issue of relevance. Your claim when I referenced the Constitution was that it was fallacious to do so. How do you escape that same accusation here?

[pErvinalia]

Hence why I said it was bad. Great "civilisation" you've got there..

edit: this was in reference to something or other. I didn't realise there was another page of posts in between this and the post I was responding to..

[rainbow]

Now we're referencing the the First Amendment, eh?

Of course. It's relevant to this discussion.

...but then in Kansas it is illegal to shoot rabbits from a boat.

[Hermit]

Now we're referencing the the First Amendment, eh?

Of course. It's relevant to this discussion.

This is getting absurd. Now we have two pairs of constitutional amendments. One is relevant to discussions because Seth managed to interpret it in a way that would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general. The other is irrelevant because he can't find a way to interpret it in such a way that it would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general.

[Seth]

Now we're referencing the the First Amendment, eh?

Of course. It's relevant to this discussion.

It's not an issue of relevance. Your claim when I referenced the Constitution was that it was fallacious to do so. How do you escape that same accusation here?

Because it's relevant and not fallacious.

[Seth]

Now we're referencing the the First Amendment, eh?

Of course. It's relevant to this discussion.

This is getting absurd. Now we have two pairs of constitutional amendments. One is relevant to discussions because Seth managed to interpret it in a way that would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general. The other is irrelevant because he can't find a way to interpret it in such a way that it would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general.

No, it's irrelevant because it's not relevant to the discussion in progress which directly involves the right to religious freedom that is protected by the First Amendment.

[Hermit]

Now we're referencing the the First Amendment, eh?

Of course. It's relevant to this discussion.

This is getting absurd. Now we have two pairs of constitutional amendments. One is relevant to discussions because Seth managed to interpret it in a way that would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general. The other is irrelevant because he can't find a way to interpret it in such a way that it would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general.

No, it's irrelevant because it's not relevant to the discussion in progress which directly involves the right to religious freedom that is protected by the First Amendment.

Thank you for confirming what I said, which is: "This is getting absurd. Now we have two pairs of constitutional amendments. One is relevant to discussions because Seth managed to interpret it in a way that would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general. The other is irrelevant because he can't find a way to interpret it in such a way that it would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general."

[FBM]

Now we're referencing the the First Amendment, eh?

Of course. It's relevant to this discussion.

It's not an issue of relevance. Your claim when I referenced the Constitution was that it was fallacious to do so. How do you escape that same accusation here?

Because it's relevant and not fallacious.

Then your claims that my argument was fallacious is wrong. It's the same argument, just different parts of the Constitution.

[Seth]

Now we're referencing the the First Amendment, eh?

Of course. It's relevant to this discussion.

This is getting absurd. Now we have two pairs of constitutional amendments. One is relevant to discussions because Seth managed to interpret it in a way that would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general. The other is irrelevant because he can't find a way to interpret it in such a way that it would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general.

No, it's irrelevant because it's not relevant to the discussion in progress which directly involves the right to religious freedom that is protected by the First Amendment.

Thank you for confirming what I said, which is: "This is getting absurd. Now we have two pairs of constitutional amendments. One is relevant to discussions because Seth managed to interpret it in a way that would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general. The other is irrelevant because he can't find a way to interpret it in such a way that it would suit his assertions in particular or his ideology in general."

Sorry, the facts remain the same, it's your ability to understand them that's in error.

[piscator]

But it does here, so fuck off. Discrimination is a civil right protected by the 1st Amendment. Only government is required to treat all citizens equally, not private individuals, who are free to pick and choose who they will and will not associate with.

Masturbatory fantasy fallacy. Licensed businesses are subject to state/Federal regulation and cannot lawfully discriminate on several bases wrt employment opportunity and customers.

I also think you're shell-gaming the concepts of discrimination and association for onanistic purposes. Get off my leg.

[Seth]

But it does here, so fuck off. Discrimination is a civil right protected by the 1st Amendment. Only government is required to treat all citizens equally, not private individuals, who are free to pick and choose who they will and will not associate with.

Masturbatory fantasy fallacy. Licensed businesses are subject to state/Federal regulation and cannot lawfully discriminate on several bases wrt employment opportunity and customers.

I also think you're shell-gaming the concepts of discrimination and association for onanistic purposes. Get off my leg.

Well, that's exactly the point at issue, whether the federal government has the power to force people into association with others against their will in commerce where the individual's religious beliefs forbid such associations. Arizona has just passed a similar law out of the legislature and it's headed for the Governor's desk.

Discrimination and association are inextricably intertwined because the latter necessarily includes the former. One chooses with whom one will associate, and with whom one will not associate, and refusing to associate with one person or group is "discriminating" between that group and another. If you wish to use "discrimination" as a pejorative in this context, you have to modify it with "pernicious" to make sense. It's Orwellian doublespeak to try to redefine the word "discrimination" only as a pejorative that relates to irrational bigotry against one group or another. We all "discriminate" and we do it all the time based on many different personal criteria from race to body odor, and with certain narrow exceptions discrimination is in fact a civil right protected by the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court has said as much on more than one occasion.

While the suppression of discriminatory behavior in commerce may be justifiable under some circumstances and as applied to some groups, such as by reason of race, it's debatable whether or not Congress has the power to enforce anti-discrimination laws where those laws conflict with the free exercise of religion.

Because anti-discrimination laws are regulations inferior to the Constitution they must give way and submit to the more important rights of individuals enumerated in the Constitution, which specifically includes the right of freedom of association and the right of freedom of religious practice. It doesn't matter how you feel about the propriety of religious individuals discriminating against gays, they have the right to do so and in order for the Congress (or anyone else) to infringe on that right the Congress must have the requisite "compelling need" to so regulate and it must make law that passes all of the strict scrutiny and establishment clause restrictions on its actions.

While freeing blacks from the onerous burdens of rampant, long-standing, pervasive racial discrimination regarding their ability to exercise their First Amendment right to travel interstate and receive common services enroute, it's debatable whether a gay couple denied a wedding cake by a single baker rises to the level of a pernicious and ubiquitous class-based discrimination that has a substantial burden on public peace and order.

Not all discriminatory conduct is equal, you see, and the government is compelled to respect and protect the rights of those who discriminate for religious reasons because their right to discriminate outweighs any potential harm to those discriminated against.

Whether you like it or not, that's how this issue will be evaluated by the courts.

A good many people say Congress has no such power because it is explicitly prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion. And nowhere in the 1st Amendment is that free exercise restricted to private individuals, which makes the whole Commerce Clause rationalization of Congressional regulation of freedom of association and freedom of religion anything but a slam-dunk for gays.

As I said before, for better or worse, the religious freedom rights of the individual, whether involved in interstate commerce or not outweigh the desire of a gay couple to have a caked baked by a baker who refuses to do so for religious reasons. His rights should and must prevail.

[FBM]

...
Whether you like it or not, that's how this issue will be evaluated by the courts.

A good many people say Congress has no such power because it is explicitly prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion. And nowhere in the 1st Amendment is that free exercise restricted to private individuals, which makes the whole Commerce Clause rationalization of Congressional regulation of freedom of association and freedom of religion anything but a slam-dunk for gays.

As I said before, for better or worse, the religious freedom rights of the individual, whether involved in interstate commerce or not outweigh the desire of a gay couple to have a caked baked by a baker who refuses to do so for religious reasons. His rights should and must prevail.

Fallacious appeal to common practice.