Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-06-2015, 08:35 AM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,600,694 times
Reputation: 2576

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
To your question, not ever.

As far as your article, that may be the purest, most refined pile of B.S. ever posted to this board. Of course anyone who has been here for any length of time knows that is no small accomplishment. Congratulations on that, in any case.
really? no rep for you, ever again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-06-2015, 08:37 AM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,600,694 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No it isn't. Cite specifically where anyone has said that "Pence retracted the first Bill and reestablished that Bakers will provide wedding cakes for gay couples."
omg
Indiana lawmakers moving to 'fix' religious freedom law - CNN.com

EDIT:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/05/politi...lan/index.html

"Pence's decision to sign a follow-up bill -- which made clear the law couldn't be used to refuse services based on sexual orientation -- led to a "limited view" of religious freedom."

Last edited by Ellis Bell; 04-06-2015 at 08:45 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 08:42 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,059 posts, read 44,866,510 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
That doesn't mean Indiana law trumps SCOTUS and the First Amendment. All that means is that gays can go into a bakery, florist, etc. and be served off the shelf. That doesn't mean a (closely held) baker, florist, photograper, caterer, officiant, etc., has to enter into a contract to provide goods/services for a same sex marriage if it violates their religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 08:50 AM
 
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,600,694 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That doesn't mean Indiana law trumps SCOTUS and the First Amendment. All that means is that gays can go into a bakery, florist, etc. and be served off the shelf. That doesn't mean a (closely held) baker, florist, photograper, caterer, officiant, etc., has to enter into a contract to provide goods/services for a same sex marriage if it violates their religion.
You're right, there is always the court of appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court.

Lot's of $$$ for lawyers to make on the law suit.

If they were trying to stop the lawsuits, well they did a really, really bad job of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 08:53 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,059 posts, read 44,866,510 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell View Post
You're right, there is always the court of appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court.
Exactly. Let the gay wedding couples who feel they're wedding cake, wedding flower, wedding photography, and wedding pizza deprived take their case to court.

Until then, we have SCOTUS ruling for the First Amendment right of closely held business owners to exercise their religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 08:54 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,260 posts, read 14,214,925 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
That doesn't mean Indiana law trumps SCOTUS and the First Amendment. All that means is that gays can go into a bakery, florist, etc. and be served off the shelf. That doesn't mean a (closely held) baker, florist, photograper, caterer, officiant, etc., has to enter into a contract to provide goods/services for a same sex marriage if it violates their religion.
Seems that state judges disagree with your opinion.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f..._2013-0008.pdf

http://media.oregonlive.com/business...sweetcakes.pdf

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f...states_msj.pdf

But what do they know about the law?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 08:58 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,059 posts, read 44,866,510 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Seems that state judges disagree with your opinion.
SCOTUS doesn't. Get a case to SCOTUS, get a ruling that contradicts the HL ruling, and then I'll agree with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 09:08 AM
 
11,186 posts, read 6,510,171 times
Reputation: 4622
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
SCOTUS doesn't. Get a case to SCOTUS, get a ruling that contradicts the HL ruling, and then I'll agree with you.
I think there's a problem with your reasoning.

The federal RFRA applies only to federal laws, like the ACA. These florists, bakers, etc. can't use the federal RFRA because state laws, not federal, are the basis of ruling they must serve ssm under state anti-discrimination laws.

I think, not sure, the SC would be faced with a whole set of different issues than in the HL case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 09:11 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,059 posts, read 44,866,510 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
I think there's a problem with your reasoning.

The federal RFRA applies only to federal laws, like the ACA. These florists, bakers, etc. can't use the federal RFRA because state laws, not federal, are the basis of ruling they must serve ssm under state anti-discrimination laws.

I think, not sure, the SC would be faced with a whole set of different issues than in the HL case.
I've not yet seen a state RFRA law, including the Indiana amended law, that restricts First Amendment Freedom of Religion rights for closely held corporations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2015, 09:20 AM
 
13,425 posts, read 9,957,883 times
Reputation: 14358
Can someone explain what is the philosophical difference between making a lovely wedding cake yourself, as a baker, that a gay couple can buy off the shelf, as opposed to being asked to make one to order? If you've made both cakes, but one just has a purple flowers instead of the pink on the shelf, what the fig is the difference?

Why is one action participation and the other isn't? Sure ly if you don't want to "particpate" in a soirée that violates your religious convictions, you'd screen everyone who bought a cake, off the shelf or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:03 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top