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.
I don't have time to read through this whole thread, so maybe someone could explain. Does this ruling mean a doctor can refuse to treat someone who is gay based on their religious beliefs. What exactly does this mean.
Again don't believe some of you have a clue as to how federal courts and in particular SCOTUS operate.
There wasn't a "rock or hard place" decision to make here as the case was deeply flawed.
First thing SCOTUS will do is look for an "out", that is do the facts/case presented warrant their making any sort of ruling that either plaintiff or defendant wish.
Sit down and read transcripts of case and it becomes apparent that the Colorado commission was openly hostile and dismissive of the baker's valid religious objections. This was compounded by their continuing to run their mouths *On The Record* about how the baker could refuse to bake a cake with an anti-LGBT message, but not one the gays wanted.
This was a 7-2 decision because there really wasn't anything for the court to do here; the baker's constitutionally protected religious beliefs were attacked. That was end of story for the SCOTUS, they didn't need to go any further, nor did they. There was no reason for them to wade into deeper pools on such a flawed case.
Indeed Justice Kennedy made it clear that states have the right to protect LGBT rights in public accommodation. They just cannot run rough over sincere held religious beliefs.
I actually made that very point in an earlier post in the thread. Please read all my posts before making assumptions.
This particular case? Or the various ones out there since Obergefell v. Hodges?
The gist of most of these seems to hinge on determining when religious convictions allow individuals (or corporations for that matter) to excuse themselves from legal & ethical obligations that are binding on everyone else. When does a religious conviction put one above the law?
As for the baker guy in this particular case? What did Jesus say about such?
Note that religious officials are not required to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies.
Why is that a better question?
When does a religious conviction(s) allow individuals (or corporations for that matter) to excuse themselves from legal & ethical obligations that are binding on everyone else?
The particular case from OP doesn't touch this question, even tangentially.
It's where the religion actually stands on the issue, instead of opining on a theoretical response.
Quote:
When does a religious conviction(s) allow individuals (or corporations for that matter) to excuse themselves from legal & ethical obligations that are binding on everyone else?
Kennedy has been very clear on this in 2 different opinions, 25 years apart.
1993:
"...religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection."
"[The Hialeah ordinances, he wrote,] "were enacted by officials who did not understand, failed to perceive, or chose to ignore the fact that their official actions violated the nation’s essential commitment to religious freedom.”
2018:
"The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices"
Last edited by InformedConsent; 06-07-2018 at 05:38 AM..
I don't have time to read through this whole thread, so maybe someone could explain. Does this ruling mean a doctor can refuse to treat someone who is gay based on their religious beliefs. What exactly does this mean.
No, it does not. It means public officials need to take into account sincerely held religious beliefs when regulating anti-discrimination laws. There should be a world of difference in standards used when making judgements if it involves providing crucial services verus getting a cake made by a particular person.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Homosexuality is NOT a choice. Well except bisexuals and pansexuals who may choose to date a person of their same gender...
what if every gay is really a bisexual?
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.
