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.
Actually, Justice Kennedy disagreed with you. He found it quite troubling that people would simply cast aside religious freedoms the way you suggest. 6 of the other 8 justices also agreed with him.
Strange, I never suggested casting aside religious freedoms.
The law should not apply towards discriminating against activities or unique requests. This had nothing to do with the individuals which is what discrimination law is about. The only discrimination is against an immoral ceremony.
What are you waffling about? The law applies to any discrimination considered illegal under the law, no matter in what context or whether to individuals, groups or even in the abstract (hate speech). What you think should or should not apply is irrelevant. The Law decides, not you, or me. Immoral ceremony? What galaxy are you inhabiting, Jeff? Oh I get it. The baker discriminating against a same sex marriage which he thinks is immoral.
Well the law says that is not valid, religious convictions do not trump the law (as has been a precedent for some time -even those charming Amish have to comply with road laws - His reasons for discriminating are not valid in law - unless the ruling gets overturned. I don't deny it's a contentious one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Would a Jewish or African-American bake shop be required to supply a cake to a White supremacist group? The stubborn refusal from the pro-gay side to acknowledge that this is a very gray murky issue only shows me a bias against Christians. Forcing business owners to do something against their will is not the answer either. Yet you are advocating for punishing people who just want to live a moral life and not get involved with gay marriage. I'm sure Mr. Phillips will not want to bake cakes for incest unions in the future when that becomes the next big social acceptance.
Jeff, we done the Swastika cake before Nazi groups are not protected by anti discrimination laws. Refusing to bake a cake with Nazi symbolds on would not stand up in court. A Nazi -supporting baker refusing to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding with Jewish symbols on would find himself in court.
Do you find fault with that? If not then the only reason you find fault with the gay cake ruling is that you support illegal discrimination against gay marriage, at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
Again...no one is asking to discriminate. And honestly? We don't care about what "side of history" you want to suggest we're on. Our nation allows us freedom of religion. To suggest that our religion is simply something that doesn't matter is what Justice Kennedy actually had the issue with.
My understanding is that this baker had served them before. He didn't care how they lived. He just didn't want to be forced to make a cake for that event, which he was morally opposed to. This has nothing to do with discrimination against a person.
The law says it was. Your views do not count, nor mine.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-08-2018 at 08:17 AM..
Actually, Justice Kennedy disagreed with you. He found it quite troubling that people would simply cast aside religious freedoms the way you suggest. 6 of the other 8 justices also agreed with him.
I suppose somebody can't clarify what this is all about? I would bet 2 cents on BF making a straight point rather than quitemining if not misrepresenting something to try to make a case.
Ah I see why this has cropped up again. The ruling has gone the other way. The decision was narrow and it seems does NOT overturn the law, and I don't see that it supported the lawyer's argument that decorating a cake is like a work of art and that makes it above the law (unless it offends religious sensibilities of course, like Life of Brian, or the Satanic verses) but rather didn't like the apparent hostility displayed toward's the baker's Christianity, which strikes me as irrelevant to the decision, and while some finger -wagging about displaying antipathy towards a religion, might be in order, that should not be the basis of the ruling.
At the same time, Justice Kennedy strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights.
“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,” he wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
This shows this was a one -off and does not overturn the law, and it looks like they are expecting an appeal and this decision looks pretty unsafe to me. Don't celebrate a win for Christian -based anti gay discrimination just yet.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-08-2018 at 08:34 AM..
Would a Jewish or African-American bake shop be required to supply a cake to a White supremacist group? The stubborn refusal from the pro-gay side to acknowledge that this is a very gray murky issue only shows me a bias against Christians. Forcing business owners to do something against their will is not the answer either. Yet you are advocating for punishing people who just want to live a moral life and not get involved with gay marriage. I'm sure Mr. Phillips will not want to bake cakes for incest unions in the future when that becomes the next big social acceptance.
So white supremists is now a protected group? If a white supremists came into a bakery run by a Jew or a black he should be able to buy a wedding cake. If a white supremists or a gay couple come into a bakery and wish for something that the baker does not supply for anyone or for wording that is derogatory or inflammatory then no the baker does not have to.
But a cake is not gay and is it not the sex act and not the committed union of homosexuals that is considered immoral? So shouldn't it be landlords and hotel managers that can discriminate 4ather than a baker? Should a baker get to decide if a marriage between two Down Syndrome adults is immoral and refuse to sell a cake? Or people of different religions or no religions at all?
Do you think the entire civil rights actions were wrong because if a business did not want to serve blacks that was fine? But you have also backed public offices on government payroll to refuse service to gays. Why not teachers refusing to allow a gay or lesbian student in the classroom?
If a business can discriminate against whoever they want then scrap the anti discrimination laws. Not only gays, but people of colour, women, folks of other religions, atheists and the disabled will be at the whim of a business owner. And it's always the owner, never his workers. Yes if you are white, straight, Christian and not disabled you will be first class citizen but all others can be discriminated against just like in your beloved past.
You still haven't answered who gets to decide whom or what they can consider immoral in a transaction. Or who gets to decide what is a luxury.
What are you waffling about? The law applies to any discrimination considered illegal under the law, no matter in what context or whether to individuals, groups or even in the abstract (hate speech). What you think should or should not apply is irrelevant. The Law decides, not you, or me. Immoral ceremony? What galaxy are you inhabiting, Jeff? Oh I get it. The baker discriminating against a same sex marriage which he thinks is immoral.
Oh I get it, so the law can just decide to punish Christians, but not equally apply to other groups. If you are going to put down a law then it must be applied equally and fairly. Which means that the gay coffee shop owner who kicked out Christians can be sued. And the LAW also says you can't discriminate against religion either so let's stop pretending that gays are the only social class out there to protect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Well the law says that is not valid, religious convictions do not trump the law (as has been a precedent for some time -even those charming Amish have to comply with road laws - His reasons for discriminating are not valid in law - unless the ruling gets overturned. I don't deny it's a contentious one.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and that the government can not create laws that prevent us from following our faith. It's up to the courts to determine how broad that freedom should reach. It's pretty obvious that if following your religion causes harm and danger to people like not obeying traffic laws then exceptions should be made. No harm came to the gay couple other than they were mad because someone dare not not accept their sinful lifestyle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Jeff, we done the Swastika cake before Nazi groups are not protected by anti discrimination laws. Refusing to bake a cake with Nazi symbolds on would not stand up in court. A Nazi -supporting baker refusing to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding with Jewish symbols on would find himself in court.
And we will do it over and over again because that is the LAMEST copout. We are discussing the principles of the matter. So what if it Nazi groups are not protected? The point is that no business should be forced to do something they find offensive. Let's try this one. If I'm a dog loving pet shop owner, and a customer comes in telling me he wants to buy some dogs to slaughter and eat them (perfectly legal in the US) then I should have ever right to refuse the sale. With your logic, all the government has to do with a stroke of a pen is decide this group of people should protected. Boom, now you have to service their every demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Do you find fault with that? If not then the only reason you find fault with the gay cake ruling is that you support illegal discrimination against gay marriage, at least.
The law says it was. Your views do not count, nor mine.
The law also says we have religious freedom, something atheists would love to destroy. My disgust for atheists grows and grows.
The law also says we have religious freedom, something atheists would love to destroy. My disgust for atheists grows and grows.
If religious freedom was destroyed, atheism would also be under threat, as atheists would not be free to NOT believe. You are disgusted because you can not grasp such simple concepts?
Oh, wait, you are disgusted because we will not allow you to be a bigot.
If religious freedom was destroyed, atheism would also be under threat, as atheists would not be free to NOT believe. You are disgusted because you can not grasp such simple concepts?
Think about that one. It is indeed a slippery slope. In time they'll come for the atheists, as well.
In America, we are still free, but freedom is being restricted more and more every day.
Refusing to bake a cake with Nazi symbolds on would not stand up in court. A Nazi -supporting baker refusing to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding with Jewish symbols on would find himself in court.
Do you find fault with that? If not then the only reason you find fault with the gay cake ruling is that you support illegal discrimination against gay marriage, at least.
Bridal salons and bakeries are not driven by the same market structure as hotels and other public accomodations; it would be hard to think of any other business function -- save those geared to children -- driven by the foibles of an increasingly fickle and impressionable public.
Accordingly, transactions arising within this sector should be driven, first and foremost, by mutual respect for the values of customer and entrepreneur alike -- and not by the whims of a particular societal advocacy seeking to impose their beliefs on the entire market via overuse of the monopoly on coercion granted to the public sector.
Quote:
The law says it was. Your views do not count, nor mine.
The law should recognize that everyone's views count -- but not to a point where they can be imposed on all of us in the case of what is essentially a private matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Jeff, we done the Swastika cake before Nazi groups are not protected by anti discrimination laws.
So in other words, only the Certifiably Politically Correct Left-of-Center Elite should be allowed to determine what is, or is not "hate"; The most militant LGBT advocates are to have their say, but Fundamentalist Evangelicals (whom I find every bit as self-righteous, authoritarian, and objectionable), are not.
So please tell us, Mr/Ms TRRANSPONDER, who appointed you and your clique as sole judge, jury, and court of final appeal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Do you think so? Then, if we do get a secular society with freedom for all religions and none rather than just for One, then we shall have to maintain vigilance against "They" (whoever They are) seeking abolish that freedom. It won't be the atheists. Once you have seen that a secular society for all is also, thus, in your interests, you might stop fighting us for the right to force your values on everyone else and help in maintaining rights for all.
We have been slowly, but steadily, moving toward the goal of a fully open-and-secular society/marketplace since the first stirrings of what has come to be called the Enlightenment; this does not imply, however, that the views of a particular component of an open, and secular society (I. E; either sexual-minority OR "New Puritan" militants should be sanctioned -- and written into the law of the land.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 06-08-2018 at 10:13 AM..
Oh I get it, so the law can just decide to punish Christians, but not equally apply to other groups. If you are going to put down a law then it must be applied equally and fairly. Which means that the gay coffee shop owner who kicked out Christians can be sued. And the LAW also says you can't discriminate against religion either so let's stop pretending that gays are the only social class out there to protect.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and that the government can not create laws that prevent us from following our faith. It's up to the courts to determine how broad that freedom should reach. It's pretty obvious that if following your religion causes harm and danger to people like not obeying traffic laws then exceptions should be made. No harm came to the gay couple other than they were mad because someone dare not not accept their sinful lifestyle.
And we will do it over and over again because that is the LAMEST copout. We are discussing the principles of the matter. So what if it Nazi groups are not protected? The point is that no business should be forced to do something they find offensive. Let's try this one. If I'm a dog loving pet shop owner, and a customer comes in telling me he wants to buy some dogs to slaughter and eat them (perfectly legal in the US) then I should have ever right to refuse the sale. With your logic, all the government has to do with a stroke of a pen is decide this group of people should protected. Boom, now you have to service their every demand.
The law also says we have religious freedom, something atheists would love to destroy. My disgust for atheists grows and grows.
You are letting that disgust warp your sense of logic and justice. You know that minorities (and animals are protected by law) except minorities like racists and like, who do NOT have the right to insist that people accede to their demands.
The Christians had the right to take the Gay cafe owner to court, but they didn't as they were in the wrong (you and I will recall that it looked like a set -up agent provocateur job, like the ranting atheist video, but it didn't go their way). Nobody is denying the right swing you religious arm, but that right ends where the gay nose begins.
You may detest us as much as you like. It's all good as one day you will realise that your loathing is because you can't bear it that Christianity cannot do whatever it likes. And you will what religion has made you into.
Bridal salons and bakeries are not driven by the same market structure as hotels and other public services; it would be hard to think of any other business function -- save those geared to children -- driven by the foibles of an increasingly fickle and impressionable public.
Accordingly, transactions arising within this sector should be driven, first and foremost, by mutual respect for the values of customer and entrepreneur alike -- and not by the whims of a particular societal advocacy seeking to impose their beliefs on the entire market via overuse of the monopoly on coercion granted to the public sector.
The law should recognize that everyone's views count -- but not to a point where they can be imposed on all of us in the case of what is essentially a private matter.
Again I have to say that, while you are thinking along the right lines - it is for the Law to decide what is permissible or not, not you, not me and not Jerry Falwell.
I don't think that the kind of business makes any difference - taxi, hotel, marriage registry or bakery, not whether the boss is doing it or his employees. If it does make a difference, the law will decide and that will be a precedent.
The Colorado decision may stand, but I don't think it will as it appears to be based on a point irrelevant to the case.
Quote:
So in other words, only the Certifiably Politically Correct Left-of-Center Elite should be allowed to determine what is, or is not "hate"; The most militant LGBT advocates are to have their say, but Fundamentalist Evangelicals (whom I find every bit as self-righteous, authoritarian, and objectionable), are not.
So please tell us, Mr/Ms TRRANSPONDER, who appointed you and your clique as sole judge, jury, and court of final appeal?
Nobody, and I don't claim to be anything of the kind. Nor are you and apparently you do, and your Ilk, as you presume to say the ruling is wrong. I don't. I say it is for them to decide, just as if the ruling went the other way, I'd accept that was the Law. I just see this latest finding for the Baker being wide open to challenge, and the Justice recognised that it didn't upset the precedent but was a particular decision on a particular circumstance (being hostile to Christianity) which is a valid point, but Not the basis for a court decision. But that Is just the way i see it, and I leave it to the appeal - if there is one.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-08-2018 at 10:08 AM..
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.
Nazi groups are not protected by anti discrimination laws. Refusing to bake a cake with Nazi symbolds on would not stand up in court. A Nazi -supporting baker refusing to bake a cake for a Jewish wedding with Jewish symbols on would find himself in court.