"infiltration"

No evidence has been presented....just more Putin hysteria. Yes...blah blah blah....government of the US is evil....blah blah blah....I read it in the communist newspaper....blah blah blah....

If only you were so concerned about all the children you violate with your hatred on a daily basis...

Less than 5% of the delivery company's revenue came from alcohol or tobacco. Title VII says that accommodation should be made unless it's an undue burden on the employer. Clearly it wasn't. But let's not let the facts of the case get in the way of your whine-parade about Muslims being a 'protected class'.

"so you support a Christian's right to refuse to perform duties on a job that violate their religion?"

If to provide accommodation wouldn't result in an undue burden on the employer, then yes. That's the law.

"Such as, for example, a magistrate refusing to perform a gay mariage ceremony that violated his religious belief?"

That's not remotely the same kind of case.

kinda sounds exactly the same to me... if it didn't provide undue burden on the government to have a different magistrate do the ceremony.... what's the difference?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's all stupid. Fire them all.

Provide an example of a 'magistrate' refusing to officiate a gay wedding and being fired for it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/04/AR2010120403720.html

Yeah the communist Washington Post. Like I said, Krellin just ignores anything that doesn't fit his Christian oppression/Muslim protection narrative.

I've looked and the closest thing to Krellin's hypothetical I can find is a judge being reprimanded for publicly talking about how he would not officiate same-sex weddings. They reprimanded him because it gave the appearance of partiality with judicial proceedings (e.g. divorce proceedings, family court matters). Judges in states with civil rights protection for gay people do not have to officiate any wedding, let alone gay weddings, so long as they can get a replacement.

So much for Christian oppression. Moving on.

"kinda sounds exactly the same to me."

Of course it's pretty much exactly the same -- the Putin doesn't see it as reasonably the same is because Putin, as do so many, have an irrational hatred for Christianity, which is exactly my point.

It kind of hillarious that Putin played dance monkey for me so well here in demonstrated his rabid anti-Christian bias. Honestly, it worked up much better than I had hoped for.

**

It a fucking disgusting bit of bigotry in this country that Muslims have to go through the shit they go through to build a mosque --- for the record. Most Muslims, as with most Christians, go about their life living it, and their religion is not the driving force in every thought an action - despite assertions by some that every Muslim is a crazed wanna-be terrorist. Most Muslim's a decent loving people that I have met (Detroit metro area -- lots and lots of Muslims...) It's time to leave the Muslims alone...and let them build their Mosques AND let them practice their religion in the work place....just like Christian's should be able to exercise theirs...by NOT doing actions that violate their belief.

YJ - I revise my comments - I agree, fire them all. Don't take a job if you refuse to perform all the duties, or have not made accommodations PRIOR to being hired to not do a particular task.

Fuck yeah, YJ is a free market guy after all!

@ Putin33

"It'd [sic] despicable that millions have to suffer through your social darwinian nightmare just because of your adoration for a piece of paper written by extremely fallible 18th century men."

Why does anyone have to suffer? I'm not advocating anarchy. I'm just saying that state and local governments can more effectively administer aid to those who may need it, if that state or local government decides to do so. There is no legal reason for my federal tax dollars to buy food stamps or healthcare for the impoverished.

My federal tax dollars, with very few exceptions, shouldn't pay for anything except for a modest military and the post office.

...and the federal highway transportation system as well as aspects of the Federal Aviation Administration's responsibilities (like air traffic control).

@krellin exactly! Do these people think there are no consequences to being a backwards thinking fundie jerkoff idiot? Of course there are. Carry out your duties or find a different job.

I wouldn't call myself a super big free-market guy either. It just seems pretty ridiculous.

A religious pacifist should not become a police officer.

A religious vegan should not work in a slaughterhouse.

A religious muslim should not work where he has to contact alcohol

A homophobic Christian scum sucking fuckstain should not work where he might have to make a cake that offends his delicate beliefs.

You seem to have your jimmies quite rustled YJ...

The thing that annoys me is how religious people are always trying to impose their irrational beliefs on others. If you belief that a fairy called Allah says you can't drink alcohol then fine, don't drink it. That doesn't mean you have to refuse to transport it. If you belief a flying monkey called God says you can't engage in homosexuality, then fine, don't engage in it. That doesn't mean you have to refuse to bake a cake for someone that does.

Everyone can believe whatever stupid unsubstantiated fairy tales they like. Quit bothering people that don't have the same irrational beliefs with you bullshit though, because as soon as you start doing that you are well beyond your right to freedom of religion in my opinion.

But YJ, it isn't about people who merely work in a bakery or photography studio, or print shop. These are the owners who have every right to say "your money is no good here" provided they do it consistently and don't provide an essential service (cakes, pictures, and t-shirts are *not* essential).

And the same applies to your statement Oscar.

Let me ask this question. Say I own a recording studio dedicated to uplifting Christian music. I don't allow non-Christian bands to record there, period. Now along comes "Fags in Drag" and they want to record a demo tape. Should I be forced to let them use my property and equipment? Now, if I allowed thrash metal bands whose every 3rd word is fuck, then yes. I have clearly show a tolerance for things outside the realm of Christianity. But if I held to a strict code, them I am consistently applying those standards no matter what the offense to my views is.

Yeah, I realize that's what you meant Draugnar. I don't agree though. Firstly, I think it's rather essential that people can go and shop for stuff without being bothered by bigots. Secondly, I don't think ownership in itself should give people the right to be a dick. If you own a house and don't want to invite gays for dinner, then sure no problem, be a dick. If you own a shop that you open up to all kinds of strangers, then no, I don't think ownership justifies that you single out gays.

Reread my post. If the shop caters to a certain clientele and you consistently apply the standard, then you aren't open to strangers per se.

That said, I think those shops should be required to somehow indicate that aspect. Living Bread Bakers; Make Joyful Noise Studios, Glory of God Revealed Photography. These should be kist as protected as a private home.

All I was saying is that ownership in itself is not sufficient to judge individual cases, you have to consider the circumstances and weigh the interests of the people involved. It's not a black and white issue as some people seem to think. I'm okay with an all Christian recording studio that refuses to record for Fags and Drags. The difference with a bakery is that in songs political and religious views can be quite explicitly expressed and so freedom of speech and religion comes into play. Plus the product of recording studios is usually shipped with a mention of the recording studio on the product.

You can't seriously argue that freedom of speech or religion has much to do with baking a wedding cake. Certainly not to the extent where it justifies bothering other people with religious bigotry. It's not like the baker is asked to prominently display gay wedding cakes, or advertisements for them, in their shop, or that they allow gays to have sex on their counter. Just that they bake the cake as they would do for anyone else having a festive occasion.

"The difference with a bakery is that in songs political and religious views can be quite explicitly expressed and so freedom of speech and religion comes into play. Plus the product of recording studios is usually shipped with a mention of the recording studio on the product.

You can't seriously argue that freedom of speech or religion has much to do with baking a wedding cake. Certainly not to the extent where it justifies bothering other people with religious bigotry."

The religious belief is literally that gays aren't allowed to get married. How does that not extend to baking the wedding cake? Draugnar's example is the exact same on this line of argument.

How is it your business what people use the cake for? You sell cakes to all who want cakes, period. Oppose gay marriage? Then put up signs all over your store to that effect. But if you run a public accommodations enterprise you have to *follow the law* as it pertains to public accommodations enterprises.

I can't believe we have to have the segregation debate in 2014, though. Libertarians are really living in a time capsule.

I love how the left is increasingly unable to coherently use or define the phrase "impose their beliefs on others." Traditionally, and rationally, the phrase would mean controlling or compelling behavior of another based on one's own belief. But we get this gem from Oscar:

"The thing that annoys me is how religious people are always trying to impose their irrational beliefs on others. If you belief that a fairy called Allah says you can't drink alcohol then fine, don't drink it. That doesn't mean you have to refuse to transport it."

"Refus[ing] to transport it" is not "imposing your beliefs on others." MAKING somebody transport it is imposing your beliefs on others. Refusing to transport it is merely imposing your beliefs on yourself.

Still waiting for your defense of the Arizona segregation bill, Semck.

You're forcing others to accommodate your religious beliefs. You're imposing burdens on others because of your religion.

I do love how the right all of a sudden cares about inconveniencing religious minorities. When did that begin? Certainly didn't care when you're forcing public spaces to be covered in Nativity Scenes or the Ten Commandments to be posted on judicial buildings.

"Still waiting for your defense of the Arizona segregation bill, Semck."

You mean for my post on the interpretation thread? Fair. I'll try to get to that later this evening.

@ your latest post,

It's not about inconveniencing them, Putin. It's about forcing somebody to do something that is against their religious conscience. That you would use the word "inconvenience" about that shows how thoroughly you fail to appreciate any of the points that drove religious liberty in the first place.

So I don't consider your points to be analogous. If you're looking for inconsistencies from the right on religion, look for something like the brouhaha about the Muslim center in Manhattan a few years ago.

And why is using public money to have public displays of religion in my name not qualify? It's against my 'religious conscience'. It's also against my 'religious conscience' to have public events I'm compelled to attend replete with vile Christian prayers.

The right has never appreciated religious liberty and whenever they shout about liberty it always means that they're ability to impose themselves on others is being thwarted.