Everyone will.
How does that serve secular puritanism?
I’ve already answered this. Society
Majority rule?
Its all there is the constitution. We as a society makes laws that we all have to live by. Some of which we like, some of which we don’t.
So lets burn our Constitution and BoR’s.
The party whose rights are impacted the least should, and usually do lose.
Little Sisters of the poor won over Obamacare. Conscientious objectors in WW2 won over the govt, Indian Tribes doing drugs lost.
First, one must understand the difference between a " Right " and a personal choice. Rights are protected under our Constitution, personal choices… not so much. A person has a Right to their religious beliefs, conditional upon the life and property of others. A person does not have a Right to a wedding cake.
Not exactly what I had in mind
The Bill of Rights are laws.
What right do they have to his cake?
That’s what I see too.
Where did you get that I said they have a right to his cake?
I dont like PA laws at all and would like to see them all rescinded.
I thought the discussion of this thread was what to do when two “rights” are diametrically opposed, and only one can be upheld at the expense of the other.
Not on private property it doesn’t.
Life, liberty, property. The three basic rights. PA laws stomp on the last one.
Context. That’s what they claim, that they have a right to it.
Is it two rights? Do the two need to be on relatively the same level to diametrically opposed?
Society was more than willing to beat our ancestors in the street and lynch them at the first opportunity.
Sorry but when it comes to the rights of the individual society doesn’t get a say. Society is the mob.
Did the homosexuals show the baker the same respect for his religious beliefs they demand for their sexual orientation?
No they dont have to be on the same level, I am getting at when one side is the winner and the other is a looser, what does the court do?
When one guy has a right to freedom of religion and the free exercise there of, but it interferes with another’s right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what should the court do? If a couple has a child and believes in faith healing only and no blood transfusions, and their 15 year old child gets hit by a car and needs a blood transfusion to survive, whose rights should be enforced or upheld? In this instance, I think the kid should get the blood even though the parents faith and free exercise there of is being diminished. On the other hand, if parents want to have their kid baptized at 3 months old, or circumcised, I dont want the state to come in and say that is child abuse.
Right of liberty and pursuit of happiness?
The court should fall on the side of the Constitution. Always.
Did the homosexuals who walked on to his property treat him with the same respect for his religious beliefs they demanded for their sexual orientation.
Is this question important?
