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.
Forcing someone to violate their religious belief in order to pursue their livelihood and creative expression IS specifically targeting the central element of their religious freedom. And state law CANNOT do so: Supremacy Clause.
Read the earlier Scalia decision again. It can and will and it is virtually certain that a majority of the court will agree.
More recent case, from a lower Federal Court: Merced v. Kasson
The government cannot substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion without advancing a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means.
Incidentally, that was the same reasoning stated in the Hobby Lobby ruling. Hobby Lobby won.
Location: Born & Raised DC > Carolinas > Seattle > Denver
9,338 posts, read 7,109,569 times
Reputation: 9487
Though I personally feel that it's wrong (and rude) to deny business to somebody due to religious/sexual preference differences. However, constitutionally, I believe a private business has that right. I disagree with the idea of discrimination personally, but legally I guess I can understand the decision.
Though I personally feel that it's wrong (and rude) to deny business to somebody due to religious/sexual preference differences. However, constitutionally, I believe a private business has that right. I disagree with the idea of discrimination personally, but legally I guess I can understand the decision.
It just feels like a slippery slope to me.
The First Amendment is not a "slippery slope." Believing it is, is how we lose our Constitutional Rights.
Until today you did not answer my question, if the lgbt class is not a class recognized in federal law, how the supreme court may have judged Obergefell v. Hodges in your favor?and Lawrence v. Texas, and United States v. Windsor, and romer v. evans?
Until today you did not answer my question, if the lgbt class is not a class recognized in federal law, how the supreme court may have judged Obergefell v. Hodges in your favor?and Lawrence v. Texas, and United States v. Windsor, and romer v. evans?
Same sex marriage (sexual relationship, etc.) is an act taken by two consenting parties. Therefore, since there is no conflict between the parties involved in the same sex marriage (in other words, neither is being forced to take such action), there is no compelling reason for government to prohibit same sex marriage or same sex sexual relationships.
The problem with the baker vs Colorado case is that there IS a conflict between the baker and the same sex couple and subsequently, the state forced the baker to either violate his First Amendment Rights or give up pursuit of his livelihood and creative expression. That's clearly unConstitutional.
Forcing someone to violate their religious belief in order to pursue their livelihood and creative expression IS specifically targeting the central element of their religious freedom. And state law CANNOT do so: Supremacy Clause.
How is baking a cake violating their religious belief?
Could that same baker refuse to bake a cake for a Jewish couple?
How is baking a cake violating their religious belief?
Creating a custom-order wedding cake for a same sex marriage violates his religious belief and he will not creatively express himself that way. He has that Right: First Amendment.
The baker offered to sell the same sex couple other baked goods, and they had in fact bought baked goods in the bakery on several ocassions.
This isn't a case of discrimination against anyone. It's a case of not wanting to be forced to create something that endorses an act which violates one's religious belief.
This is much the same reason why federal taxpayer money cannot be used to fund abortions. The government cannot force taxpayers to fund abortion if it violates their religious belief. That doesn't mean such taxpayers are discriminating against women.
How is baking a cake violating their religious belief?
Could that same baker refuse to bake a cake for a Jewish couple?
You're diminishing the actual demand. This wasn't just any cake or a tray of muffins. It was to be a custom wedding cake that may contain considerable artistic effort and investment.
To say the two are the same is like comparing a house decorator and a fine artist and saying they do the same job, because they paint stuff. Are you telling me that Andy Warhol or Roy Lichtenstein and Joe (of Joe's painting, decorating and custom cabinetry) do the same task?
What is the celebration or occasion of the Jewish Couples event? The defendant didn't refuse the customers because they were homosexuals (they had been previous customers), but because the event his product would be used for was a SSM that he has moral objection to. Without knowing the event its hard to compare, if the Jewish couple were hosting a Grand Symposium of the North East and Mid West Chapters of the KKK should he have the right to refuse?
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.
