Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (atheism, God)
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 gave my view...many times.
Both Buyers and Sellers in a private business freely choose who they will or won't do business with...for any reason whatsoever.
Either both parties are forced...or neither forced. Neither is best IMO...but one or the other. Not force one but not the other.
Equal Protection.
Part of the difference, not all, is that buyers are frequently the "little guy" and sellers have all the power--to advertise products incorrectly, to state warranties that they have no intention of honoring, to bamboozle buyers with--"this auto meets emissions standards," or offer adhesive contracts which the seller cannot alter.
SCOTUS has traditionally stood up for the little guy, but more recently has been decidedly pro-business. A 2013 Huffington Post article said this about SCOTUS:
"The researchers also found that five of the justices serving on the Roberts Court are among the top 10 most pro-business justices in the past 65 years. In fact, the two justices who were found to be most likely to vote in favor of businesses are Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only current justice among the 10 least favorable justices to business."
Just saying---people with power control the "others" in society in most cases. When is that a individual "buyer?" Most often in a business like the NCAA which recently stated its tournaments would not be played in states discriminating against the LGBTQ community.
Me and my ten dollar bill haven't much chance to prevent anyone from discriminating against me as an old person. So why wouldn't you want society's government to protect me? If we can discriminate for any reason why not make it possible for every profession to discriminate? Doctors are "paid." Should they turn down patients in an ER because "I won't treat a pornographer," it's my religious belief---even if you will die before getting to another hospital? Who has the power in that situation? Who protects li'l ole pornographers?
The disruption in society would be unfathomable. Instead, the government we elected and the processes by which we empower our government have deemed the current method as appropriate. It may change. Government processes defended racism for decades--then it changed as our moral compass grew. It may revert to horrible discrimination. Prior to WWII Germany was arguably the most gay friendly nation in the world. It housed the single library containing massive numbers of missives about gay life and psychological studies of gay people. It was one of the first buildings destroyed and books burned when Hitler came to power.
Your argument of letting sellers do as they wish reinforces how much of society tends to operate when uncontrolled---whoever has power can do whatever the hell they want!! And in a capitalist society that is sellers as opposed to buyers---with very few exceptions.
Most of Europe understands this. We do not.
And yes, I can still see John Birchers are alive and well.
GR, great Caesar's ghost, buddy! Pardon me for saying but you're like a dog with a bone on this issue! What on earth is wrong, are you upset that you can't tell non-Christians to get out of your pornography store?
P.s. You know I'm playin'.
No Sweetie...I sell to all kinds.
I don't like to see people make misguided statements like, "It wasn't fair before, but now it is...Hooray!"
How is it people can't see that all they did was create inequity?!
I explained...if the situation was the other way around, and Charlie Craig & Dave Mullins owned the bakery, and Jack Phillips came in to buy a cake, sat down with Charlie and went over all the details...then when Charlie said, "I'll get my spouse to write up your order and take deposit", and when Dave walked out...Jack Phillips (as a Buyer) said (just like he did as the owner of the bakery), "Oh, you are homosexuals? Sorry, I won't do business with people like you!"...totally refuse to buy the cake, and walk out of the shop. THAT would be completely legal!
The Buyer is allowed to discriminate against the Seller...but the Seller MUST oblige the Buyer or face criminal penalties.
How can anyone logically claim this law, "Prevents discrimination"?
It doesn't...it causes it.
Then we get those citing, "The Law". Just because the law now binds the Seller means nothing as to what is "just" or "fair". Those noting the law have a flawed argument. The law used to bind people to be enslaven to others...that didn't make it "right" just because it was the law. And this law isn't right either.
Part of the difference, not all, is that buyers are frequently the "little guy" and sellers have all the power--to advertise products incorrectly, to state warranties that they have no intention of honoring, to bamboozle buyers with--"this auto meets emissions standards," or offer adhesive contracts which the seller cannot alter.
SCOTUS has traditionally stood up for the little guy, but more recently has been decidedly pro-business. A 2013 Huffington Post article said this about SCOTUS:
"The researchers also found that five of the justices serving on the Roberts Court are among the top 10 most pro-business justices in the past 65 years. In fact, the two justices who were found to be most likely to vote in favor of businesses are Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the only current justice among the 10 least favorable justices to business."
Just saying---people with power control the "others" in society in most cases. When is that a individual "buyer?" Most often in a business like the NCAA which recently stated its tournaments would not be played in states discriminating against the LGBTQ community.
Me and my ten dollar bill haven't much chance to prevent anyone from discriminating against me as an old person. So why wouldn't you want society's government to protect me? If we can discriminate for any reason why not make it possible for every profession to discriminate? Doctors are "paid." Should they turn down patients in an ER because "I won't treat a pornographer," it's my religious belief---even if you will die before getting to another hospital? Who has the power in that situation? Who protects li'l ole pornographers?
The disruption in society would be unfathomable. Instead, the government we elected and the processes by which we empower our government have deemed the current method as appropriate. It may change. Government processes defended racism for decades--then it changed as our moral compass grew. It may revert to horrible discrimination. Prior to WWII Germany was arguably the most gay friendly nation in the world. It housed the single library containing massive numbers of missives about gay life and psychological studies of gay people. It was one of the first buildings destroyed and books burned when Hitler came to power.
Your argument of letting sellers do as they wish reinforces how much of society tends to operate when uncontrolled---whoever has power can do whatever the hell they want!! And in a capitalist society that is sellers as opposed to buyers---with very few exceptions.
Most of Europe understands this. We do not.
And yes, I can still see John Birchers are alive and well.
Using a doctor or hospital as an example is a strawman. Most laws have "exceptions and qualifiers".
Heck...you can even kill sombody, in a self-defense situation.
"Necessities" such as health care and housing would be reasonable exceptions.
Also...claims of gross discrimination in my scenario is not reasonable. As it is...people, as Buyers, can boycott any business based upon prejudice...but you very seldom see that. Why would people then become that way as Sellers?
What is with this assumption that people are so horrible? I guess I just have more faith in my fellow man...by belief and experience.
If free choice to do business didn't work because everyone is supposedly so prejudice...commerce wouldn't be possible as it is now.
Businesses "buy" on a wholesale, not a retail, level.
A business like that small bakery is SO difficult...of those started, MOST will not exist in 5 years. For "startups" (new ventures) over 90% fail.
....
Oh, so you are saying that only small bakers should be allowed to ignore their massive and purposeful involvement with governemnt help in order that the people can follow their "legal" religious conscious, small cults and unaccepted denominations be damned.
If this baker is doing so badly, how can he refuse a customer?
Oh, so you are saying that only small bakers should be allowed to ignore their massive and purposeful involvement with governemnt help in order that the people can follow their "legal" religious conscious, small cults and unaccepted denominations be damned.
If this baker is doing so badly, how can he refuse a customer?
FACT: MAJORITY of small businesses do not make it 5 years. Of "start ups" (new ventures), 90% fail.
Small business ownership is VERY risky and difficult...MOST do not succeed longterm, even with best efforts...and lose their investment in money and time.
I never got any tax incentives for any of the businesses I bought or started...very few do, besides in the rare and few "enterprise zones".
Federal and State infrastructure and services (roads & bridges, police, utilities, etc) serve the business and consumer alike.
Your assessment of my argument is indicative of comprehension issues...or intentionally skewed due to disagreement.
You keep assessing just one party to the equation and how they should be regulated. I've NEVER done that...I always assess both at once.
No matter what the business...there is only ONE constant to have a transaction...there must be both a Buyer and Seller.
Any law needs to bind both equally to comport with a provision of "equal protection".
You can't be determined to be fair if you create laws binding just one party to a standard that the other is not bound to.
We now have a system whereby the Buyer can legally discriminate against the Seller, and refuse to transact business with the Seller strictly on the basis of bias & prejudice...but the Seller is denied that exact same freedom.
THAT is not "equal protection".
BOTH bound, or BOTH free...that is the only fair way.
So his religious freedom to refuse to participate in the celebration of an event that he considers morally wrong is overruled by this completely made-up freedom to a cake.
Appreciate the irony of religious leaders complaining that other people's beliefs are made up.
It's never been about you, or any person except the baker--who has a moral and religious right to not participate in an immoral activity if his convictions prevent him.
I've asked before - do you have any examples of businesses using this excuse for anything other than their discrimination against gay customers? Seems like if this were actually a thing that Christians would be refusing service left and right. Are they, or is this just a transparent attempt to discriminate against a certain minority they find icky?
Ten years ago, people would have probably laughed at the notion of putting a Christian in jail for not issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
Christians are jailed every day for breaking the law. Robert Dear, the Bundys, and Hastert comes to mind.
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.
Pardon me for saying but you're like a dog with a bone on this issue! What on earth is wrong, are you upset that you can't tell non-Christians to get out of your pornography store? 