Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (fanatics, demon)
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.
I don't know what religion your grandparents followed, but the scriptures lay out what animals are clean and unclean. This is a pretty universal "law" in the monotheistic religions, and even though people are more liberal these days, the dietary laws are to be followed forever. I would argue that anyone keeping a kosher home should not be raising pigs, because God deemed that animal unclean. But your grandparents are free to practice their religion as they please...which is what the Constitution protects.
No, I think people in general do not know how discrimination works. As I said, the 14th amendment was passed after the Civil War to protect newly freed slaves. This is not something I'm making up. This is historical fact. It just so happens that when black people sue and win cases citing 14th amendment protections, other minority groups benefit. But those laws were not created for them. I am really only familiar with select Supreme Court cases dealing with African-Americans, but I Googled Lily Ledbetter to see what the Supreme Court ruled on. It looks like the Supreme Court did not consider equal protection in her case (I am not a lawyer, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong). If I am reading correctly, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of her case. If that is true, it makes sense, because she is a white woman. The "equal protection" clause was not created with white women in mind...even though they are the greatest beneficiaries of "affirmative action". Ask any lawyer how easy it is to prove discrimination in the courts. So I don't think it is a case of "religious people" not understanding discrimination. Americans in general lack an understanding of how the court system works (myself included).
Kosher is Jewish dietary laws which prohibit the eating of pork. Where in the Bible does it prohibit the mere touching of pigs or pork?
That's a lousy example. No one is saying that man who sells chicken and beef has to add a totally different product to their meat case.
But, even as a gay person, I will say that this case is not as simple as most people try to make it out to be. Personally, I think he should have to sell wedding cakes to anyone who wants to buy one. And the reason I believe that is that I assume he had to have a business license to set up shop in that community. I assume he benefits from the public sidewalk in front of his store and the public highway in front of his store...which all citizens paid taxes to pay for. On the other hand, I don't think he should have to decorate cakes in any way demanded, UNLESS he advertises that he decorates cake "to suit any occasion"...and I have seen such advertisements in bakery shops. Of course, I also think the patrons have every right to go online and publish reviews of the business...to tell their story, as long as it's truthful.
The decoration rather than the cake is the sticking -point of course. And 'for any occasion' doesn't have to be said any more than 'so long at its' legal'. And 'provided that it doesn't offend my religious dogma', is where it has gone off the rails.
I wonder now whether the couple would even want a victory where their cake is decorated in simmering resentment. But it's about yet another attempt to put religious opinion above secular law.
Kosher is Jewish dietary laws which prohibit the eating of pork. Where in the Bible does it prohibit the mere touching of pigs or pork?
It says you aren't to touch their carcasses. But you are right, it doesn't explicitly say you can't touch them period. But I know some people take a "hard line" on this rule. All I'm saying is, who are we to tell someone how to practice their religion if they aren't harming anyone in tangible ways? The only thing hurt by a business refusing to sell a product to them is the ego. Unless that business is the only game in town (in which case I'd say you have a stronger claim of discrimination), you can, and in my opinion should, take your business elsewhere. But this couple filing suit against this baker is harming him tangibly. It's how he earns his living.
How can you determine what's wrong according to someone else's religion? This is the crux of the issue. The couple feeling they can dictate what's "right" in a religion they don't necessarily follow. You cannot dictate the terms of someone's religion.
No one was trying to say what is right or wrong in a religion in spite of the obviously trumped up indignation that violates much more basic tenets of that religion. What was being determined is what is lawful in the general society. If your religion requires you to contravene civil law get out of the business (or more reasonably out of that stupid religion).
Chum, a person who isn't really harming a couple by stealing their car (they can go and buy one elsewhere) is having his livelihood affected by the law stopping him doing it. That it's religion here rather than personal disapproval is irrelevant.
There are dozens of examples of people with a Christian agenda discriminating against gays either passively as in refusing a service provided to anyone else, because his religion is against it, to aggressive entering a gay -run cafe and distributing anti -gay leaflets. The message is the same "To hell with man -made law'.
It says you aren't to touch their carcasses. But you are right, it doesn't explicitly say you can't touch them period. But I know some people take a "hard line" on this rule. All I'm saying is, who are we to tell someone how to practice their religion if they aren't harming anyone in tangible ways? The only thing hurt by a business refusing to sell a product to them is the ego. Unless that business is the only game in town (in which case I'd say you have a stronger claim of discrimination), you can, and in my opinion should, take your business elsewhere. But this couple filing suit against this baker is harming him tangibly. It's how he earns his living.
So you think wanting to be treated just like other people is just that person's ego, that they do not deserve to be? Considering your stated background are you not placing your religious beliefs way above civil or human rights?
It's not an issue of the baker not being able to make wedding cakes "for certain people". The baker believes that it is against his religion to support same-sex marriage. The issues isn't, "I don't like gay people; I am going to refuse to bake cakes for gay people." The issue is that the specific occasion he was asked to make a cake for was against his beliefs. And he shouldn't have to be asked to violate his religious beliefs to earn a living. Now if the baker refused to bake, let's say, a graduation cake for the couple's child (if they even have one), then I'd be more inclined to think that he is being discriminatory. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that court cases rely on evidence. There is plenty of evidence concerning ALL religions that a reasonable person should be able to determine if someone is legitimately citing a religious exemption or just using religion as a cover for hateful behavior.
Your thinking on this is as muddy as your thinking on the 14th Amenement. Saying you don't support an activity of a particular protected class and refusing to do what your business would normally do if it were NOT for that protected class IS discriminating against that class. It is reminiscent of the blatantly trumped up rationale of the demagogues who thought up the "religious freedom" argument.
Is he doesn't sell pork to anyone he cannot be forced to sell pork to you. You cannot go into the local bank and demand a tuna sandwich and a beer however that same bank cannot refuse to serve a customer if she is black for being black.
IIRC my grandparents raised pigs on their farm but kept a kosher home. There are No laws that require a business owner to carry certain items in his store. But anything he sells in that store must be available to anyone who has the legal right to do so, if they have the funds and have not, as a person, violated policies. Obviously if the store demands customers to wear shirts and shoes being gay does not mean you don't have to wear shoes.
I find it both interesting and frustrating at how hard it appears for some religious people to understand what discrimination is and how anti discrimination laws work. Obviously if you went to a a Jewish butcher and ordered a cake for a gay wedding he could refuse as he doesn't sell wedding cakes. Or these Christian bakers could refuse to supply Ham's for the gay weddings.
If pork was unlawful wouldn't you be buying it from a criminal?
When you drill it down to the bone, I don't think the baker was discriminating at all. He set a policy in his store that applied to ALL customers. The policy is he doesn't do gay weddings. Period. So if straight people came in asking for a cake for a gay wedding, he would have refused as well. See. It has nothing to do with the individuals so you can't claim personal discrimination.
I should. This is not about personal feelings, let alone religious sensibilities. It is about upholding a legal precedent, whether based on an old one for some other situation or a new one for new (discriminatory) situations. As it happens regulations about passengers on stagecoaches applies as well to passengers on aircraft, and regulations about the rights of one group apply as well to another so a new law didn't have to be made.
In any case, arguing legal principles on this forum is pointless. It's in the court where the decision will be (after appeal against a crab ruling) made.
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.
I'm going in circles now.