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.
He refused them ANY wedding cake. The decorations were never discussed. That is according to the baker in court documents. IS he not telling the truth about decorations?
Just to inform you 501(c)(3) corps are a lot more than just religious organizations, and not registering as a tax exempt organization in no way legally reduces any claim that a set of beliefs is a religion, just ask Tom Cruise what his religion is, Scientology is not a 501(c) corp, but is legally considered a religion (though of dubious note).
He didn't refuse them any wedding cake they were offered any cake they wanted off the shelf. He refused to take the commission of a custom decorated wedding cake for their SSM, because he claims it violates his religious principles. That's direct from the original plaintiffs, are they lying?
The issue is that (and why Colorado urged the SCOTUS to reject the case) should the SCOTUS find for the defendant, then religious objections will be permissible as reason to discriminate. As you have already been informed, almost anything can be considered a religion (even the fiction of L Ron Hubbard), thus it could undercut severely Civil Rights protections.
So to you, the white owner of a commercial swimming pool should have the freedom to ban blacks from swimming in it. If blacks don't like it, then they should build their own swimming pool and ban whites.
Would the swimming pool be a product for use, or a service provided.
Don't ask the lifeguards for CPR, as that service may be denied.
Bob Jones? You don't know who Bob Jones is? The man was a prominent evangelist that started one of the countries Christian colleges.
That's the problem with using "religious belief" to trump law. Anyone can claim anything is a "religious belief". Unless we want the courts deciding what is and what isn't a religious belief, maybe the laws should apply to everyone regardless of religious belief.
Where in Christianity (the Bible) does it say that the color of your skin is a sin?
Except when they don't as shown in the multiple cases I have provided in this thread.
Other times they do, when the Justices actually abide by the Constitution which they've sworn to do when taking the Bench, such as DC's loss in DC v. Heller.
That's exactly WHY we need more Constitutionalist Justices. Perhaps you're OK with it, but I certainly am NOT willing to have my Constitutional Rights eroded any further than they already are.
If gay weddings are against the baker's religious beliefs, why would he allow any cake he made to be used as a wedding cake at a gay wedding?
Why would he sell baked goods to a married gay couple at all? Yet he did/does. That's what you all are not getting. He's not anti-gay. He just declines to create work to be used specifically as a part of a same sex wedding ceremony/celebration, citing both Constitutional Rights: exercise of religion and free speech (which includes artistic expression).
It sounds like he would sell any premade goods in his store to anyone for any occasion. He is not being compelled to make anything, it is already made.
He would not take orders to make anything specifically for same sex wedding events. The refusal to make cupcakes for a same sex commitment ceremony would be consistent with his beliefs.
He would make custom products for other occasions for gay people with exceptions like Halloween themes and a few other things which he never makes.
He just doesn't want to be forced to create his goods for same sex weddings. It is the event, not the people.
Exactly, and the Justices' questioning have already winnowed that distinction: it's the act NOT the identity to which the baker has First Amendment objections.
No it doesn't. You just have no idea about how statutory protected classes work, which is why your posts on this topic are so woefully misinformed and nonsensical.
LGBT is not a federal legislated protected class. Constitutional Rights supercede state/local law. That's all you need to know.
LGBT activists/advocates dropped the ball by not getting federal legislation passed adding LGBT to the CRA, but that was THEIR choice. Now they have to live with the consequences.
Bob Jones? You don't know who Bob Jones is? The man was a prominent evangelist that started one of the countries Christian colleges.
That's the problem with using "religious belief" to trump law. Anyone can claim anything is a "religious belief". Unless we want the courts deciding what is and what isn't a religious belief, maybe the laws should apply to everyone regardless of religious belief.
The courts, IRS, EEOC, etc. have been deciding what religion is for decades. Nothing new.
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.
