Indiana Gov. signs "religious freedom" bill into law

Another hypothetical: Somebody comes into my bakery and asks me to bake a cake that pays homage to the Klan. Not wanting to deal with litigation, I tell the Klansman, "OK. I'll provide the service you want. That'll be $4,324,145.23. It's a special order." Could this work?

 

What rights do white Christian men have that anyone else here (legally) doesn't have?

The "alternative" you seem to be proposing is to take some rights away from others because some with the same rights still aren't getting the outcomes they want. Outcomes have nothing to do with actual rights.

 

When do we get to start doing this to the gays?

ISIS throws man off tower block for 'being gay' then stone him when he SURVIVED the fall | Daily Mail Online

 

Islamophobe.

 

If they cannot marry the consenting adult of their choice, they do not. If they are denied services simply because they are different, they do not.

 

Rights are things that do not take a second party to complete. Marriage does. Thus, marriage isn't a "right." Marriage has never been defined as a "right" in any legal document in this country or in any other country.

Now I will agree that marriage is a rite. Maybe you have the two words confused.

Marriage is also an "institution." But it's not a right. And forcing someone to bake you a cake or take your picture is also not a right. Again, both of those require a second party.

You have to get a license to get married, just like you have to get a license to drive. Is driving a right? No. It's a privilege granted by the government as long as you meet certain criteria. Same with marriage.

 

Then how can there be a right to life when it takes a second party, as personhood proponents consider it to be, to give birth?

 

Wow, did you dislocate your shoulder with that reach?

Marriage is a legal right in this country, Tony. Your assertion otherwise does not hold up. Though to play along with your attempt at a dodge, it is also bigotry to deny people the same privileges just because they are different.

It is okay to admit that you support bigotry when there is a basis in the Bible for it. You are absolutely welcome to your beliefs.

Again, it has been explained to you that denying people services is just segregation all over again. I know you don't like that comparison, but that doesn't make it any less appropriate. You simply care about equal rights and privileges for some minorities, but not all.

When you call marriage an institution, I assume you are talking about respecting the tradition involved. Thing is, the traditions have changed dramatically over the years, and marriage was not invented by Christians or Jews.

 

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled at least a dozen times that marriage is a fundamental human right.

 

From the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (1967):

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights ... Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' ... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law."

This case is particularly interesting to this discussion since one of the bases for upholding Virginia's law prohibiting interracial marriage was this sincerely held religious belief, as explained by the trial court judge in his opinion:

"Almighty God created the races ... and he placed them on separate continents ... The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

 

That is one smrt judge.

 

Good luck to the CEOs who are making plans to relocate to Utopia. I'll be most interested to see where it is.