Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Supreme Court does not trump the Constitution. It interprets the Constitution.
SCOTUS interpretations change all the time. SCOTUS once declared the income tax to be a violation of the Constitution.
Did you not have any civics or American government classes?
I just don't get this nonsense idea that any branch of the Government trumps the Constitution.
You're quibbling with the word 'trumps,' when you know the point is that the SC can rule the Constitution means anything. We all can agree the court has reversed decisions though the language remained the same. You can call that an interpretation or re-interpretation. In fact, you spend a lot of time arguing that the court has 'trumped' what you believe the Constitution clearly intends.
The Supreme Court does not trump the Constitution. It interprets the Constitution.
SCOTUS interpretations change all the time. SCOTUS once declared the income tax to be a violation of the Constitution.
Did you not have any civics or American government classes?
I just don't get this nonsense idea that any branch of the Government trumps the Constitution.
The Constitution is a bunch of words written on a piece of parchment.
It has no meaning at all until interpreted.
And while you are free to state opinions as you want, your personal opinion matters not one whit.
The Supreme Court does the legal interpreting, not you.
Take any issue you wish, and there will be qualified Constitutional lawyers on both sides. And after they present their opinions, SCOTUS decides what the interpretation actually is.
I don't think they were homophobic. They apparently had served many couples/persons known to them to be gay on previous instances.
They had, instead, a religious belief that contradicted the idea of same sex marriage.
I support SSM. But, I do not believe that people who oppose SSM are necessarily homophobic.
You're right, homophobic was a poor word choice. I should have said "a$$holes towards gay people". We don't know if they were homophobic, we do know how they acted towards gay people. If you had a daughter and I opted to disrespect her wedding, I'm sure you would immediately find that made me an Ahole. If they don't like same sex marriage, they shouldn't have one. They bake a cake, that is it. They were not invited to the ceremony, they were invited to due their job.
They have a religious right to not be gay married, they don't have a religious right to crap on another persons wedding.
Last edited by lurtsman; 10-04-2015 at 07:31 AM..
Reason: typo
They wanted a wedding cake for a same sex marriage. The bakers are religiously opposed to same sex marriage.
But, the bakers did not try to prevent the couple from having a same sex marriage. They merely declined to provide a cake for the wedding celebration.
I think its very important to balance competing and sometimes contradictory rights. I think its great to protect the right of persons to marry someone of the same sex. I do not think it a horrible travesty if someone who opposes SSM on religious grounds declines to provide a cake.
Balance.
They (the lesbian couple) said that they wanted a cake for their same sex marriage.
The design may or may not be important. I don't know. I did use as examples hypotheticals where the white supremacist wanted a cake with certain wording (as well as the other examples). But, what if the white supremacists merely told the black proprietor that he wanted the cake for a big KKK rally. Should we force the black proprietor to provide the cake for this purpose?
I admit that this does indeed change the fact pattern, and in a significant way, too.
But, I still have to go back to the supreme law of the US, the Constitution, which states clearly that Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]; or abridging the freedom of speech... and wonder if we are not in fact violating those very words?
Remember, this really is no surprise. Several of the SCOTUS justices predicted that this very type of issue would be contested.
I dislike religion. I support same sex marriage. But, I also, and firstly, support the clear reading of the Constitution.
Its an interesting issue, for sure.
By your definition, the bakers could refuse to make me a birthday cake because it would be a "Jewish" birthday cake. I assume that they look at Jews with as much or greater disdain as the GBLTQ community as the couple might have been Christian and I never will be.
You're right, homophobic was a poor word choice. I should have said "a$$holes towards gay people". We don't know if they were homophobic, we do know how they acted towards gay people. If you had a daughter and I opted to disrespect her wedding, I'm sure you would immediately find that made me an Ahole. If they don't like same sex marriage, they shouldn't have one. They bake a cake, that is it. They were not invited to the ceremony, they were invited to due their job.
They have a religious right to not be gay married, they don't have a religious right to crap on another persons wedding.
Refusing to bake a cake for a wedding because you have a religious objection isn't 'crapping on someone's wedding'. That's nonsense.
And this couple provided other services to gay people, before this objection, with no issues and in a friendly and courteous manner.
You're right, homophobic was a poor word choice. I should have said "a$$holes towards gay people". We don't know if they were homophobic, we do know how they acted towards gay people. If you had a daughter and I opted to disrespect her wedding, I'm sure you would immediately find that made me an Ahole. If they don't like same sex marriage, they shouldn't have one. They bake a cake, that is it. They were not invited to the ceremony, they were invited to due their job.
They have a religious right to not be gay married, they don't have a religious right to crap on another persons wedding.
such a simple and straightforward concept...... one has to wonder what all the kicking and screaming is about and where it is coming from.....
Am I posting to a wall? Are you reading anything I have posted?
Of course no right is absolute.
But, when we limit a right that is secured to us by the Constitution because our exercise thereof conflicts with an other person's legitimate right, we need to BALANCE these competing rights, and if the Government will limit one party's right, it needs to show a COMPELLING INTEREST in needing to enforce such limit.
Come on. I've already addressed this issue.
And again, the supreme court has ruled on anti-discrimination laws v first amendment rights, and ruled in favor of anti-discrimination laws since the 70s. I would assume that they felt that there was COMPELLING INTEREST to keep them in place.
Its actually a lot more than that, in the ruling comments that they made on television and other mediums were basically cited as being made in violation of Oregon law. Its like saying "you can talk about anything you want, but not this." Basically they were prevented from discussing the incident as well as their own personal beliefs. As the business is no longer open publicly, their should be no reason for them to be further censored.
Statements that they made about "continuing to fight" and challenge the decision were also cited as being in violation. Its a clever way to shut people up and then shrug and say "But youre free to talk about anything you like."
I just see a lot of murky territory where you can vastly restrict what someone is allowed to say, where they are allowed to say it...etc. In my opinion the administrative judge went quite a bit out of bounds in trying to control what these people could say.
I dont think these people went about things the right way, I think they made a mountain out of a molehill but I also cant justify the state's tactics and an absurdly punitive fine that was handed out.
Definition of a 'gag order' from Law.com:
gag order
n. a judge's order prohibiting the attorneys and the parties to a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking to the media or the public about the case. The supposed intent is to prevent prejudice due to pre-trial publicity which would influence potential jurors. A gag order has the secondary purpose of preventing the lawyers from trying the case in the press and on television, and thus creating a public mood (which could get ugly) in favor of one party or the other.
What Avakian wrote does not fit the definition.
"To cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued, or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement, or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges, of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied to or that any discrimination will be made against any person an account of sexual orientation." http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
