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.
The only precedent I saw was that public commissions cannot be openly hostile to business owners, that's it. This really should have been solved locally using some commons sense. The supreme court wanted no part in addressing free speech or religion and we should not expect these cases to get to this level. People need to get along and be reasonable and that goes for both sides in this discussion.
I'm going to have to disagree that it needs to be solved on a local level. The reason being that it is discrimination even if you cite religious conviction for your reasoning. Both opinions cited that the baker shouldn't have discriminated against the homosexuals and even Justice Kennedy stated they should have put a sign up front. Which IMHO, just begs a gotcha situation like the Muslim deli incidents. A true decision and not a botched punt like this was a mistake and lead to only more of these Christian business owners to think they can deny customers whom they disagree with air lifestyle, even through protective classes.
The Court of Public Opinion will eventually rule whether this bakery stays in business or closes. Can Customers discriminate against him based on his religion views? Guess.
Wrong. This is anything but about a business owner. This decision, narrow as it is, is one about bias, discrimination, even edging around the subject of freedom of speech. When Justice Kennedy writes,
Quote:
To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical — something insubstantial and even insincere.
,
then it is clear that one person's right(s) cannot be infringed upon, disregarded, in pursuit of upholding another's right(s). Otherwise, we are in agreement.
It is on society to exercise some commonsense, to stop fighting for ultimate victory. A pure right or wrong position does not exist. We have many immature persons in our society, who can only be ok with themselves, are only comforted, only secure, by being right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
The only precedent I saw was that public commissions cannot be openly hostile to business owners, that's it. This really should have been solved locally using some commons sense. The supreme court wanted no part in addressing free speech or religion and we should not expect these cases to get to this level. People need to get along and be reasonable and that goes for both sides in this discussion.
Kennedy reasoned that Phillips, in refusing to create a same-sex wedding cake, had good reason to believe he was within his rights. State law at the time allowed merchants some latitude to decline specific messages, such as those demeaning gay people and gay marriages.
The government cannot impose regulations hostile to citizens' religious beliefs, the ruling said.
That is what broad discrimination laws do however. While they may be intended to protect one group, they walk all over another group. This leads to issues like this commission feeling like they can bully the unprotected group. There needs to be some compromise and perhaps have discrimination laws be rewritten in such a way that people like this baker should not be forced to use his talents for every event, even for protected groups. It is a sensible compromise and compromise is what is needed, not bullying and hostility.
It's too bad the Gods can't fight back in Court; fr'instance by suing for defamation of character, libel, or slandering their reputation, et cetera.
Gods have as much right to file lawsuits as anyone else. Several lawsuits have been filed against God and won, Betty Penrose won $100k damages for a lightening strike, after God failed to show for the trial summary judgement was issued, I presume that God is in contempt for failure to pay, Eric Chambers had quite a time in trying to sue God, that was dismissed and appealed and wound up dismissed and vacated.
That said one may presume that as God has not filed a lawsuit, either they do not exist, do not recognize the authority of the courts, have other means to deal with disputes, or do not dispute the claims and statements made about them.
The media assumed the judges would vote down party lines, and they are still playing that narrative.
There's another narrative who could had entered in scene and opened a pandora box of unintended consequences then some judges of the Supreme Court tried to avoid.
That is what broad discrimination laws do however. While they may be intended to protect one group, they walk all over another group. This leads to issues like this commission feeling like they can bully the unprotected group. There needs to be some compromise and perhaps have discrimination laws be rewritten in such a way that people like this baker should not be forced to use his talents for every event, even for protected groups. It is a sensible compromise and compromise is what is needed, not bullying and hostility.
The issue seemingly wasn't that the laws trample over another group (in this case a religious belief) was more so on how exactly the commission went about it and their biased comments. In the past people used religious arguments to support slavery and Jim Crow laws. That said, as it stands right now religious organizations can discriminate based on convictions as per the Civil Rights law, NOT small business owners who have deepmy held religious beliefs. This baker was not a religious organization, just a business owner with religious convictions.
The problem is there is no compromise that will work. If it was only about the money, the baker would have accepted the money from the gay couple who were getting married. It wasn't and based on religious conviction. Either side will get if not feel as though their rights got trampled on in this (and other) cases. If you think a compromise could work, try one because none will satisfy both parties enough.
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.
