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.
it's not surprising given how this administration is trampling on equal rights over the last year. Hopefully the Supreme Court will bring some sense to this just like they brought some sense to equal marriage.
Equal rights.
I do believe in Equal Marriage. I'm LGBT myself. What I don't believe in, is this crap.
If you're gay and want to be married go to a gay-friendly church (Unitarian or Episcopal maybe) or to a court, if you want a gay wedding cake go to someone who actually WANTS TO BAKE IT. Not rocket science. Simple, just don't be a jerk.
I do believe in Equal Marriage. I'm LGBT myself. What I don't believe in, is this crap.
If you're gay and want to be married go to a gay-friendly church (Unitarian or Episcopal maybe) or to a court, if you want a gay wedding cake go to someone who actually WANTS TO BAKE IT. Not rocket science. Simple, just don't be a jerk.
As a person who supports gay marriage (and adoptions by gay parents, which is off topic), I like your stance.
it's not surprising given how this administration is trampling on equal rights over the last year. Hopefully the Supreme Court will bring some sense to this just like they brought some sense to equal marriage.
And yet another contributor who hasn't read the US Constitution.
Constitutional Rights supercede any state/local law (Colorado state law, in this case). US Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Article VI.
See DC v. Heller. DC lost.
What needs to happen is US Congress needs to pass Federal legislation to add LGBT as a protected class under the Federal CRA. Currently, they are not. The Supremacy Clause elevates Federal law enacted via the Constitutionally prescribed process to the equivalency of Constitutional Rights. Despite several attempts, Congress has always declined to legislate LGBT as a Federally protected class, regardless of which party was in power. LGBT activists/advocates have really dropped the ball on pursuing Federal legislation, preferring instead to focus on subordinate state laws, instead. Who knows why...
No a womans clothing store need not sell mens clothing, but if it sold say mens jeans, but denied sale to men (because it was a womens clothing store) then it would be discriminatory. Why don't you get that, a Kosher Deli sells cheese, sells meat, but enforces it's religious dietary restrictions on everyone. The only thing stopping that slice of cheese going on the pastrami is religious doctrine (not even especially medically sound doctrine). This requires that all other faiths or lack thereof submit to Judaic doctrine in that store, and it's 100% legal. Now that's not that I think this should be fixed in law, if I want Swiss on Pastrami I don't go to a Kosher Deli.
I don't care about peoples religious beliefs and throwing fairy tales at me isn't helping your cause just because you love the biblical Prince Charming as a professed agnostic. That biblical Prince Charming in the unorthodox gospel of Thomas pushed another boy off the roof when he was a child, Charlie Manson does loaves and fishes on your local station at 9:00pm viewers. I'm a rational atheist. What I do care about is placing people into situations that they object to (for any reason) for the purposes of providing services to others. I wouldn't want to be in that position (being unable to refuse service, because the law demands I serve someone), nor would I want to put someone in that position (who will provide service only because they are unable by law to refuse service). Because ethically the legal coercion of others to provide services involuntarily is slavery, it doesn't matter the excuses used that it may be valid to force people, slavery is always without exception ethically wrong (and I'm almost never absolute in my positions).
Re: underlined: A bakery sells wedding cakes but enforces its alleged religious restrictions on everyone. The only thing stopping that wedding cake is religious doctrine.
Additionally, the proprietors of Kosher Delis have the courage of their convictions.
Leaving the rest of this post alone ~ my prerogative.
Re: underlined: A bakery sells wedding cakes but enforces its alleged religious restrictions on everyone. The only thing stopping that wedding cake is religious doctrine.
Additionally, the proprietors of Kosher Delis have the courage of their convictions.
Leaving the rest of this post alone ~ my prerogative.
It doesn't sell wedding cakes, it takes commissions for wedding cakes. A cake at a wedding is a wedding cake, they were not refused any off the shelf cake, but a commissioned cake, because even the original plaintiffs identify the cakes differently, they see an intrinsic difference, so what difference is it? Could it be artistic expression, if so that's protected by the 1st Amendment. Like a portrait artist may sell some non-portrait paintings, but is commissioned for portraits. You would never imagine a portrait artist being forced to paint subject material they object to, why force a wedding cake artist to do so?
It doesn't sell wedding cakes, it takes commissions for wedding cakes. A cake at a wedding is a wedding cake, they were not refused any off the shelf cake, but a commissioned cake, because even the original plaintiffs identify the cakes differently, they see an intrinsic difference, so what difference is it? Could it be artistic expression, if so that's protected by the 1st Amendment. Like a portrait artist may sell some non-portrait paintings, but is commissioned for portraits. You would never imagine a portrait artist being forced to paint subject material they object to, why force a wedding cake artist to do so?
So a chef can refuse service to blacks if he or she has a "religious" belief that supports his refusal? Or an artist who does portraits could refuse to paint a portrait of Jews because they are Jewish? Seems like a slippery slope.
Yes Kosher Deli's are permitted, even though they are technically discriminatory. Just because you discriminate against everyone not of your religion, does not make you non-discriminatory, just promiscuous with your discrimination, as a Christian could I get a pastrami and swiss? No, as a Scientologist could I get a pastrami and swiss? No, as a Church of the flying Spaghetti Monster follower, could I get a pastrami and swiss? No. Why not? The deli sells pastrami, it sells cheese.
Nothing stopping businesses who religiously identify, to include some indications as to what religion they identify with. Though I would object to forcing those businesses to have to indicate their religious affiliation. Last time people were forced to identify their religious affiliation it involved yellow Stars of David and didn't end well.
I don't know who you think is forcing who to do what? I'm forcing no one to do anything, someone who wants cheese on a pastrami can go to a non-Kosher Deli. It's actually the "against" side of the bakers case that are for forcing the Kosher Deli to serve the cheese on pastrami.
A Kosher deli is not discriminatory. Nor are a Chinese restaurant, Christian bookstore, or Wiccan Jewelry and Supply store.
The baker's case is more analogous to a Kosher bakery that routinely prepares custom wedding cakes, but refuses to make them for anyone who isn't Jewish. Or a Christian bookstore that only will sell books to Christians. As a potential customer, neither I nor anyone else should expect to find certain items in a religiously-identified business. otoh, I can't be denied based on my religion any product the business does sell. Besides, not all Christians or Jews have religious objections to ssm.
This case is nothing like cheese and pastrami in a Kosher deli.
Last edited by jazzarama; 12-12-2017 at 09:01 AM..
Yes Kosher Deli's are permitted, even though they are technically discriminatory. Just because you discriminate against everyone not of your religion, does not make you non-discriminatory, just promiscuous with your discrimination, as a Christian could I get a pastrami and swiss? No, as a Scientologist could I get a pastrami and swiss? No, as a Church of the flying Spaghetti Monster follower, could I get a pastrami and swiss? No. Why not? The deli sells pastrami, it sells cheese.
Nothing stopping businesses who religiously identify, to include some indications as to what religion they identify with. Though I would object to forcing those businesses to have to indicate their religious affiliation. Last time people were forced to identify their religious affiliation it involved yellow Stars of David and didn't end well.
I don't know who you think is forcing who to do what? I'm forcing no one to do anything, someone who wants cheese on a pastrami can go to a non-Kosher Deli. It's actually the "against" side of the bakers case that are for forcing the Kosher Deli to serve the cheese on pastrami.
No. Kosher delis don't have to offer anything that is non-kosher according to Jewish dietary law. However, they must and do sell their wares to anyone on a non-discriminatory basis.
So I'm non-Jewish but patronize 2nd Avenue Deli, which keeps kosher. They're happy to sell and serve me what they offer. They aren't obligated to make me a ham sandwich.
A Colorado baker who won a partial victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple went on trial Monday in yet another lawsuit, this one involving a birthday cake for a transgender woman.
Autumn Scardina attempted to order the birthday cake on the same day in 2017 that the high court announced it would hear baker Jack Phillips’ appeal in the wedding cake case. Scardina, an attorney, requested a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside in honor of her gender transition.
Her lawsuit is the latest in a series of cases around the U.S. that pit the rights of LGBTQ people against merchants' religious objections, an issue that remains unsettled by the nation's top court.
On Monday, during a virtual trial being conducted by a state judge in Denver, Scardina said Phillips had maintained that, as a Christian, he opposed making the gay couple’s wedding cake because it involved a religious ceremony but would sell any other type of product.
She said she called Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop to place the order after hearing about the court's announcement because she wanted to find out if he really meant it.
When her lawyer Paula Greisen asked whether the call was a “setup,” she said it was not.
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.
