Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Wedding Cake Case (flag, India, employment)
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.
Of course, it isn't. You can "think" whatever you want. But the FACT remains that nothing in the US Constitution or Federal Law prohibits the baker from declining to create a custom-ordered wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
If you cannot comprehend that, it's no one's fault but your own.
There's nothing in the Constitution or Federal law prohibiting the baker from turning his store into an xxx bookstore or from selling liquor or setting up an outdoor seating area. So what. You're barking up the wrong tree with the protected class and Supremacy clause arguments. State laws can go beyond federal law in who's covered by anti-discrimination laws, just as they can establish a higher minimum wage.
The 1st Amendment speech and religion clauses, and the principles of the government needing a compelling reason to restrict free exercise and using the least restrictive means are the sensible arguments.
There's nothing in the Constitution or Federal law prohibiting the baker from turning his store into an xxx bookstore or from selling liquor or setting up an outdoor seating area. So what. You're barking up the wrong tree with the protected class and Supremacy clause arguments. State laws can go beyond federal law in who's covered by anti-discrimination laws, just as they can establish a higher minimum wage.
No, they can't if/when they infringe on Constitutional Rights and Federal Law and challenged as such, which is exactly what has happened.
Quote:
The 1st Amendment speech and religion clauses, and the principles of the government needing a compelling reason to restrict free exercise and using the least restrictive means are the sensible arguments.
In this case, as in the HL case, the least restrictive means is to acquire the desired product from another source. As that can easily be done, the Colorado same sex couple has no case.
No, they can't if/when they infringe on Constitutional Rights and Federal Law and challenged as such, which is exactly what has happened.
In this case, as in the HL case, the least restrictive means is to acquire the desired product from another source. As that can easily be done, the Colorado same sex couple has no case.
You're wrong about the Colorado statute infringing on Federal law, but you took a position and you're stickin' to it. You're right about this being a constitutional issue and the importance of Hobby Lobby.
If you were to say something upsetting to me, that is harm.
Should the government take action against you for it?
Okay. So here we finally establish that upsetting someone = harm.
As for legal action, even hate speech is covered under freedom of speech, but I wasn't talking about harm that comes from someone simply insulting someone else, though that isn't cool either if born from racism or sexism or any of those sorts of isms. In those cases, the words may very likely lead to actions that are against the law, but not necessarily...
Okay. So here we finally establish that upsetting someone = harm.
As for legal action, even hate speech is covered under freedom of speech, but I wasn't talking about harm that comes from someone simply insulting someone else, though that isn't cool either if born from racism or sexism or any of those sorts of isms. In those cases, the words may very likely lead to actions that are against the law, but not necessarily...
Not every word that is spoken or written is covered under freedom of speech. An example would be yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire or threatening the president with assassination.
Oh, so government should be unlimited in its scope as long as most citizens agree?
That didn't work out to well for the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals in Germany about seven decades ago.
The great thing about the vision of the founders is a government that protects the individual from the government.
Not a very sound argument you are trying to make here, although it is true that any government can potentially do something that "doesn't work out too well" for people. You might as well argue against medical attention, because any doctor can decide to kill you if they like.
The reason we have "checks and balances" is to keep things from going "unlimited."
Again, I think you have it upside-down. Our founding fathers essentially founded our government, to function in a manner that serves "we the people," and even though that hasn't always worked out so well here in America (let alone Germany), the concept of a government to serve in these regards is a good one, an essential one actually, or again good luck with the anarchy if that is as you prefer.
Well, should the government be allowed to bar random citizens from entering city hall? No? Well, I guess you shouldn't be allowed to bar random people from entering your home since you can't seem to understand the difference between government and private individuals.
Answer to that first question is yes, not no. Hello?
Take my example a married same sex couple running a local repro studio. WBC (Westboro Baptists) asks them to print their Anti-LGBT propaganda. Can they refuse? If so then why can't a religious couple running a small business refuse service for a group they feel is objectionable to their values?
Couple ways I can think to answer this question, which is a good/tough one. My compliments...
First; anyone can refuse to do anything, and of course this is often what people do. Whether or not someone decides to take legal action against another party for such refusal, introduces the question to our legal system as to whether someone has acted in contradiction to our rights under the constitution. If WBC were to take such legal action against that gay couple, I don't think they would prevail.
Part of the legal argument (though I'm no legal expert) would be that the gay couple is not turning away the business because of a prejudice against churches, or Westboro Baptists. Prejudice or discrimination in this regard is not the case.
If, for example, you come into my print shop and ask me to print 1,000 posters of some disgusting lewd act between you and a farm animal, I could refuse and be within my constitutional rights to do so if I am not mistaken (unless you maybe filed a legal suit claiming I was prejudiced against farm animals).
A religious couple who runs a funeral parlor, however, yet refuses to provide funeral services for a gay person, because "doing so is objectionable to their values," is to be refusing service to an entire group of people who have values different from theirs. That's prejudice and/or discrimination as a result of race, religion, sex, and/or sexual persuasion, all of which could be argued represent something "objectionable to their values." I think the gay person has a legal case against this funeral parlor that can and should be won.
A fine line to draw, no question, but I think the line is drawn when people single out another group of people in such a discriminating manner, regardless their "values" that cause them to do so. This is the line we have little option but to let our legal system define as best it can. Why we have this case that is the title of this thread...
This case, for one, and the similar cases against florists, photographers, caterers, etc., who, due to their religion, decline to provide services for same sex weddings even though they provide other professional services, in general, to same sex couples.
In "this case," again, I am not discriminating against anyone!
Say for example I have a business taking passport pictures for people. I would not turn away any of these religious people you are saying I am discriminating against! That I have an opinion about when, where or how people should serve others and/or not discriminate, or agree as the court has done in the past and into the future with regard to protection of our civil rights, all of us, does NOT mean I am discriminating against them/anyone!
You realize that since Religion actually IS a Federally Protected Class, you just committed the offense of hate speech, no?
Observe ridiculous going to the absurd...
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.
