AZ Supreme Court, Gay wedding invitation decision

[ludin]

People who would force them to do this aren't really freedom loving Americans.

these people are confused about a lot of things.

 

[AGENT J]

Are we back to toilet humor again?

Thats what I thought, you got nothing. Always funny when somebody dishonest posts instantly fail lol

 

[AGENT J]

these people are confused about a lot of things.

you mean like the false claim this has to do with an event of the false claim people want to force their service . . I agree

both of those are factually false claims you posted that people exposed.

 

[lwf]

Wedding cakes are always a custom order so he cannot claim that LGBT customers must pick a stock cake from the cooler while he makes custom wedding cakes for heteros.

I understand where you're coming from, but one gets into dangerous territory here. Ignoring the obvious fact that the example I postulate here isn't even remotely in the same ball park as a gay couple ordering a custom wedding cake, consider a Jewish artist who accepts commissions. Is she required to paint a swastika for a Neo-Nazi if he is willing to pay her fee?

Regardless of how you or I might feel about Neo-Nazis, the only relevant facts to consider here: It is not against the law to be a Neo-Nazi, and she is running a business. Should it be against the law for this artist to refuse to create Nazi literature?

I say no. She can't refuse to sell him one of her already completed pieces marked for sale at the sale price, regardless of how she thinks he is going to use it. She can't kick him out of her store as long as he is following her rules. But neither can she be compelled by the government to create from scratch something that deeply offends her. Whether you or I are also offended or not is beside the point.

By this reasoning, while I heartily disagree with any artist's decision to refuse to create a custom piece of art for homosexual people due to personal bias, I cannot bring myself to agree with the government compelling him to do so.

 

[ludin]

The SCOTUS did not rule on the large issue of whether he had the right to deny service. That issue was kicked down the ruling for a ruling in the future. The court only ruled on a small issue of whether he was treated fairly by the Colorado State commission. They ruled that he didn't because the state commission called him a religious bigot. Colorado has an LGBT protection law that is still in effect and Jack Phillips has to obey it, so he cannot refuse to serve LGBT customers as equals.

Wedding cakes are always a custom order so he cannot claim that LGBT customers must pick a stock cake from the cooler while he makes custom wedding cakes for heteros.

The fact is that he won his case.
What he can do is choose not to participate in their event.

businesses discriminate against events all the time.
as an artist he is free to choose what message he supports or not supports as a free speech issue.

forcing him to create a cake an endorse a message he does not agree with is a violation of his 1st amendment rights.
he isn't refusing them service.

you don't get it either not that i expect you would.

custom cakes fall under artistic licensing.

 

[ludin]

I understand where you're coming from, but one gets into dangerous territory here. Ignoring the obvious fact that the example I postulate here isn't even remotely in the same ball park as a gay couple ordering a custom wedding cake, consider a Jewish artist who accepts commissions. Is she required to paint a swastika for a Neo-Nazi if he is willing to pay her fee?

Regardless of how you or I might feel about Neo-Nazis, the only relevant facts to consider here: It is not against the law to be a Neo-Nazi, and she is running a business. Should it be against the law for this artist to refuse to create Nazi literature?

I say no. She can't refuse to sell him one of her already completed pieces marked for sale at the sale price, regardless of how she thinks he is going to use it. She can't kick him out of her store as long as he is following her rules. But neither can she be compelled by the government to create from scratch something that deeply offends her. Whether you or I are also offended or not is beside the point.

By this reasoning, while I heartily disagree with any artist's decision to refuse to create a custom piece of art for homosexual people due to personal bias, I cannot bring myself to agree with the government compelling him to do so.

you are one of the few people that understand the argument and argued it perfectly.
i agree 100%. let the public decide whether or not he stays in business.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)The fact is that he won his case.
2.) What he can do is choose not to participate in their event.
3.) businesses discriminate against events all the time.
4.) as an artist he is free to choose what message he supports or not supports as a free speech issue.
5.) forcing him to create a cake an endorse a message he does not agree with is a violation of his 1st amendment rights.
6.) he isn't refusing them service.
7.) you don't get it either not that i expect you would.
8.) custom cakes fall under artistic licensing.

1.) nope not a fact hence why it is still illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation there ooooops, another lie bites the dust
2.) there was no event in question so thats meaningless to the topic, a wedding cake isnt an event.
3.) see #2 that claim already failed
4.) as long as he doesnt violate the law or peoples rights
5.) good thing that factually didnt happen
6.) he factually refused them service again no matter how many times you state this lie it will never be true. If you or anybody disagree prove otherwise . . you cant and you will just run from the request again like always lol
7.) yet somehow your posts are losing to hers . . odd
8.) meaningless to the actual topic and discussion

well that was fun, your lies failed again would you like to try some more?

 

[BrotherFease]

Matthew 19:4 – 6

He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate

Where is the word marriage in there?

 

[Lisa]

that is up to the person making the cake or invitation. hence artistic license.

Her religious views do not give her permission to take a Sharpie though the rules that every other business is required to obey when they choose to operate a business that is open to the public. actually it wasn't but it proved you wrong. What is offensive cannot be subjective to the person when our laws are based on it. there must be a rational objective standard of what is offensive in business if that level gives the owner the right to ignore the law and deny service.

No one says that they had to take their company benefits. so your example falls on its face.

I doubt that you can repeat this claim with a straight face. Why would a rational person work a crappy retail job and then choose to refuse the benefits that come with it?

See the first amendment. you need to understand the fact that your beliefs end at the tip of your nose where the rights of others begin.
other people are not required to obey and live their lives by your myths.

Our religious beliefs are far from unlimited. They only include the right to believe or not to believe in god/s and the right to worship. They do not include forcing others to take part in or for others to obey them. Her religious beliefs are not an exemption from the law nor does she get to filer the law thought her beliefs to decide what level they will be obeyed.

For most people there is no amnesia. Simply because i do not believe the same things as someone else or agree with them does not mean that i have to treat them badly.

You cannot claim to be a chritian and then refuse to obey his red letter teachings and instead obey Jewish law that did not apply to Christians. You are cheery picking the Bibles 1200 pages for ideas that you can use to support your bigotry and then claiming that the religious protections means that you cannot be forced to do otherwise. p[eople who do this are religious frauds and hypocrites. You do not obey all of Levistic but instead, only the parts that support your previously held bigotry.

First off he is talking to the pharasee's they was not devote christians. they were the jewish priests. yes they were acting hypocritical.
kinda like people that claim to be open minded but only if people agree with them.

You just described these religious bigots because they are Pharisees.

a member of an ancient Jewish sect, distinguished by strict observance of the traditional and written law, and commonly held to have pretensions to superior sanctity.
a self-righteous person; a hypocrite.

I will not tolerate bigotry and discrimination in a public business. You can wear your Klan sheet at home but when you choose to open a business then you must follow all of the laws.

 

[Lisa]

The fact is that he won his case.
What he can do is choose not to participate in their event.

businesses discriminate against events all the time.
as an artist he is free to choose what message he supports or not supports as a free speech issue.

forcing him to create a cake an endorse a message he does not agree with is a violation of his 1st amendment rights.
he isn't refusing them service.

you don't get it either not that I expect you would.

custom cakes fall under artistic licensing.

Jack Phillips didn't win the case because the core issue wasn't decided by the SCOTUS. Why do you need to lie? The SCOTUS only ruled against the Colorado state commission and said that they were not fair with him. The court did not rule on whether jack Phillips could refuse to serve LGBT customers. If you bothered to read Kennedy's majority opinion you would know this. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph in his decision. if they would have ruled on that part of the case the decision likely would have been against Jack Phillips.

He is not endorsing anything except high cholesterol and there is no artistic license. The cake was designed by the couple and there is no proof that there is anything offensive on it. That artistic claim was tried in the Newman v. Piggie Part BBQ because that racist bigot also tried to claim that he was a BBQ artist and that he food was covered under the First Amendment as art. he also tried the religious angle. The SCOTUS said nope in a 9-0 decision against him.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia.

 

[ludin]

Her religious views do not give her permission to take a Sharpie though the rules that every other business is required to obey when they choose to operate a business that is open to the public. actually it wasn't but it proved you wrong. What is offensive cannot be subjective to the person when our laws are based on it. there must be a rational objective standard of what is offensive in business if that level gives the owner the right to ignore the law and deny service.

Actually it does. actually it is subjective to the person. no there isn't an objective standard. hence artistic license.

I doubt that you can repeat this claim with a straight face. Why would a rational person work a crappy retail job and then choose to refuse the benefits that come with it?

I can and i will. Nothing forced them to agree to the benefits. they could have gone outside and found other insurance. If they accept the companies benefits then they
accept the benefits provided.

Our religious beliefs are far from unlimited. They only include the right to believe or not to believe in god/s and the right to worship. They do not include forcing others to take part in or for others to obey them. Her religious beliefs are not an exemption from the law nor does she get to filer the law thought her beliefs to decide what level they will be obeyed.

Good thing no one is doing that.

You cannot claim to be a chritian and then refuse to obey his red letter teachings and instead obey Jewish law that did not apply to Christians. You are cheery picking the Bibles 1200 pages for ideas that you can use to support your bigotry and then claiming that the religious protections means that you cannot be forced to do otherwise. p[eople who do this are religious frauds and hypocrites. You do not obey all of Levistic but instead, only the parts that support your previously held bigotry.

You are just making up stuff now. no i didn't pick and choose anything. The only person showing bigotry here is you at this point.

You just described these religious bigots because they are Pharisees.

Not all. choosing not to participate in what you believe does not make someone a bigot.
the only person showing any bigotry is you. why are you being a reigious bigot?

not a very sound platform to make an argument.

I will not tolerate bigotry and discrimination in a public business. You can wear your Klan sheet at home but when you choose to open a business then you must follow all of the laws.

They are and the only person being bigoted here is you.
they are choosing not to participate in an event that they do not believe in which is 100% constitutional
and businesses do it all the time.

 

[ludin]

Jack Phillips didn't win the case because the core issue wasn't decided by the SCOTUS. Why do you need to lie? The SCOTUS only ruled against the Colorado state commission and said that they were not fair with him. The court did not rule on whether jack Phillips could refuse to serve LGBT customers. If you bothered to read Kennedy's majority opinion you would know this. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph in his decision. if they would have ruled on that part of the case the decision likely would have been against Jack Phillips.

I read the opinion he won. why because you can't discriminate against religious people no matter how much you want the government to do so.
The fact is artistic license and the fact he doesn't have to participates in events has already been ruled on multiple times.

He is not endorsing anything except high cholesterol and there is no artistic license. The cake was designed by the couple and there is no proof that there is anything offensive on it. That artistic claim was tried in the Newman v. Piggie Part BBQ because that racist bigot also tried to claim that he was a BBQ artist and that he food was covered under the First Amendment as art. he also tried the religious angle. The SCOTUS said nope in a 9-0 decision against him.

.

a custom wedding cake is very much an artistic license. it takes days and many hours to make one.
He found it a message that he could not support. you don't get to determine what someone finds offensive or a message
that they don't want to support.

There is nothing artistic in BBQ. i can see why they lost.

 

[Aberration]

Nonsense. Does OSHA force labor?

If OSHA says someone can’t do business unless they make a gay wedding cake, then yes.

 

[Lisa]

I read the opinion he won. why because you can't discriminate against religious people no matter how much you want the government to do so.
The fact is artistic license and the fact he doesn't have to participates in events has already been ruled on multiple times.



a custom wedding cake is very much an artistic license. it takes days and many hours to make one.
He found it a message that he could not support. you don't get to determine what someone finds offensive or a message
that they don't want to support.

There is nothing artistic in BBQ. i can see why they lost.

Where is that in Kennedy's majority decision?

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission:: 584 U.S. ___ (2018) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

What message was on the cake that he found to be offensive? What was the religion of the couple in question?

 

[ocean515]

The interesting thing about this case, is that nobody asked or even tried to force these women to make a gay wedding invitation. They just "feared they would be put in jail" for not making a gay wedding invitation if asked.

The more I think about issues like this, the more I wonder why these businesses just don't advertise that they are Christian business and do not serve the general public. If businesses like this business operated like that, I am certain gay people wouldn't even bother with them, which both sides would probably prefer.



I have never understood how refusing to do business with a gay person is a Christian teaching. As for free speech, I understand the concept of compelled speech. I support these women and this decision as far as them being forced to create art they don't want, or convey a message which they do not want to convey. I agree this could potentially strengthen free speech for others, as the article points out. I am just not sure it's a Christian teaching to target one group of people committing a sin, and living in sin. All Abrahamic religions recognize homosexuality is a sin, but it seems only American Christians are focusing on LGBT people like this.

There is a very high probability these women would be asked to create a wedding invitation involving a child out of wedlock. This legal case was only based on LGBT people, however.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled two business owners did not have to make invitations for a same-sex wedding - CNN

What do you mean when you say a Christian Business should let the people know they don't serve the general public?

Shouldn't you be saying they should advertise they don't serve a small minority of the general public?

 

[Aberration]

Most gay people consider people like this bigots.

So?

I am pretty sure most LGTB would prefer doing business with people who supported their rights.

If that were true there would be no lawsuits against these businesses.

These people may say that would make invitations for a gay man’s birthday, but I highly doubt the average gay male would be interested in hiring them when he could go elsewhere. They are not serving all the public, all the time.

If the gay people could go elsewhere there would be no lawsuits against these businesses. They are in fact serving the public all the time. For instance. The baker would make a same sex wedding cake for anyone, including gay couples. But would not make a same sex wedding cake even for straight couples. Equal treatment for everyone.

 

[Aberration]

Discrimination based on your religious beliefs in a public business has never been one of your freedoms.

I must have missed the “public business” exclusion in the 1st Amendment. When did that get Amended?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ludin]

Where is that in Kennedy's majority decision?

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission :: 584 U.S. ___ (2018) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

you posted it yourself. you can't discriminate against religious people no matter how much you want the government to do so.
he won.

as for artistic licensing.
This Court Ruling Shows Why States Can’t Control Artistic Expression

Minnesota claimed that it could control their artistic expression by forcing them, and other creative professionals, to produce custom work promoting same-sex marriages in addition to traditional marriages. State officials said this is what state non-discrimination law required.

Because the First Amendment allows the Larsens to choose when to speak and what to say, we reverse the dismissal of two of their claims and remand with instructions to consider whether they are entitled to a preliminary injunction.

 

[Aberration]

No one should be imprisoned for exercising free speech. They should, however, not be allowed to run a business that serves the public if they refuse to serve certain American citizens based solely on their race, creed, or sexual orientation.

No one refused to serve anyone based on their sexual preference.

 

[Aberration]

I don’t care if you call it bigoted, it’s not illegal to not engage with a business because of their views on your rights. Call it bigoted all you want. It’s still constitutionally protected free speech. Nobody needing an invitation has to buy from them, and only them.

Freedom of association and freedom of religion are constitutionally protected... in the same Amendment as free speech. [emoji849]

 

[SheWolf]

no i understood it and then tore it to shreds. maybe if you were more consistent on what your argument actually was then it would be fine.
the issue is that they do not have to label themselves or declare their business anything.

which you said they should do.
the only thing their lawsuit did was ensure that people didn't go to jail over their free speech.
the court saw that the state law did in fact punish people for their free speech and that it was unconstitutional.

so i am not sure why you are against the ruling.

I never said I was against the ruling. I said I agreed with the court on compelled speech

 

[roguenuke]

That's exactly what's happening. You don't see these assholes going after Muslim owned businesses.

Video puts Muslim bakeries, florists in gay-rights spotlight - Washington Times

Shown to be a fraud. Won't show what he asked or what was actually said in the refusal. Edited. In fact, as someone else pointed out, there is no indication that the bakeries asked would make a wedding cake for anyone let ome some asshole with a camera.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[weaver2]

you don't seem to know what the definition of bigotry is. there are christian churches out there that still uphold the definition of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman that is not being bigoted. if you consider it bigoted then you are being just as bigoted as you claim that they are. yea i don't know too many church's that state what you think they state.

Trust me I know bigotry when I see it. And, yes the mission statement of Evangelicals is pretty clear that what they want is a theocracy. Other conservative religious organizations have expressed a desire for a theocracy

“Government is a gift from God for the common good. Good governance creates the conditions in which human beings fulfill their responsibilities as God’s image bearers and as stewards of God’s creation.” (Mission statement of the National Association of Evangelicals)

"God has ordained all social institutions, including the government, for the benefit of mankind and as a reflection of His divine nature. The Supreme Court's imposition of the doctrine of separation of church and state distorts the Founding Father's recognition of our unequivocally Christian nation and the protection of religious freedom for all faiths. (“Focus on the Family”position statement on Church and State)

"Human government was instituted by God to protect our unalienable rights from our own selfish tendencies. ……. Government has its role, and it should allow other God-ordained institutions the freedom to perform their roles as well. (Statement on the role of government from:All About GOD Ministries, Inc)

What is described above is not a representative democracy.

Business's discriminate against events all the time. what you are describing are not artistic impressions. artistic impressions can discriminate against messages that they do not support.
see first amendment rulings. if they went in to buy a cake and were told no i would fully support any discrimination law suit against them. custom artistic expressions are a different story.

Businesses do not discriminate all the time. They don't discriminate most of the time. They don't discriminate some of the time. In fact most businesses are not so psychotic that they feel they have to know all about their customers sexual lives. If they did they would run afoul of state and local nondiscriminatory laws. If a baker is in business in a public store selling his artistic expression to the public he cannot then say oops sorry I only sell my artistic expression to people that don't commit sodomy. Saying it is artistic expression doesn't permit him to discriminate.

actually he still sells cakes in this store you don't know what you are talking about and he won his case by the way.

He no longer sells wedding cakes in his store and you did not read the text of the SC decision

yep they are. you can't force a business to do events.

When did a wedding cake become an event?

 

[roguenuke]

It's targeting if they only go after Christian owned businesses.

Prove that they knew the people were Christian and against gay marriage to that point to refuse service.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

Where is the word marriage in there?

The word in Hebrew means to co-habitate, to leave your mother and your father... In Hebrew they don’t just name things. Like a tree. In English none of the letters have any meaning. In Hebrew each letter has a meaning and the word develops as a function of the definition of the archetypes used. The “definition” is actually the sentence in Genesis and the word came to describe that event.