- Joined
- Jun 19, 2013
- Messages
- 10,699
- Reaction score
- 11,533
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
But there is no religious ground or any other basis for the refusal other than their skin color. The baker in this case has a legitimate religious basis.
Nope. The baker would be happy to sell any cakes to anybody gay or straight, just not a gay theme wedding cake which he wanted no part of due to religious ground.
Incorrect. He wouldn't sell any cake to any customer. He would sell wedding cakes to straight couples only. Wedding cakes are a subset of "Any" cake.
>>>>
That's what we're talking about, a friggin cake. Then go to another store and get a generic friggin wedding cakes and stop clogging up the court with frivolous lawsuit already.
But you are demanding him to create something with his bare hands that will be used for something he is morally against. From the rulings coming from different parts of the country forcing cake decorators, florists and photographers, all artists, will be forced to produce anything a person off the street demands of them. Say a couple wants a photographer to take pictures of their wedding. The photographer is a Christian and the couple is holding their wedding ceremony at the First Church of Satan. According to your thinking, he should be forced to take the pictures because the photographer does wedding ceremonies. Or say a Jewish catering service who specializes in kosher food is asked to prepare the chicken and fish dishes for a wedding and finds out that there will be other caterers there preparing shrimp cocktails, bacon wrapped fillet mignons and pork chops in the same kitchen. According to you he has no right to refuse his services to those who ask them of him because that would be discrimination. A Muslim florist, who covers her head out of modesty, wears dresses that completely cover her legs and arms is asked to do the flowers for a wedding. The theme of the wedding is Adam and Eve. She is asked to provide decorative fig leaves as the attire for the bride and groom to wear during the ceremony which she finds offensive and according to you she has no right to deny this request. An atheist goes into a print shop run by take your pick (Hindu, Muslim, Jew or Christian) wanting fliers printed that are titled "God is Dead". According to you, this printer is not allowed to deny his service and must print the fliers and the printer is forced to sign his name to the work through his company name misrepresenting and violating his belief system. In other words what you are claiming it is perfectly alright for a person to be forced to violate their conscience, THEIR VERY BEING, in the name of so called discrimination. In other words you see people not being allowed to live their moral conscience if they have a public business. Unbelievable.Its a friggin cake....no one was asking him to attend the wedding....geeeessh!
I see what you mean regarding my take on discriminating the baker's religion, sorry was in hurry trying to do several chores at one time.
I should say violating his religious belief through the judicial power. I think it's totalitarian tactics for the judicial branch to force a private business owner to cater to an event that runs contra to one's religious principle.
The baker was NOT discriminating the gay customers. He just just refused to be a part of the event. Event is not a person.
With regards to female bodies, as a professional photographer or artist I would serve the ladies, gay or straight, no difference. Just no men, gay or straight. Can the court force me to do otherwise?
I think I need to take a break and get busy with my other chores.
Please quote me from the Bible regarding your claim.
If it was a frivolous lawsuit, the case would have been dismissed. Since the couple won the case, it is a priori evidence that the case wasn't frivolous.
BTW - it wasn't a "lawsuit", the couple did not file in Civil Court. They logged a complaint with Colorado equivalent of the EEOC.
>>>>
Actually you do. So why say that?
Like I said, there is no legitimate basis for that. So why are you beating a dead horse?
That certainly is the law. Not exactly just since one has no right to another's property or labor, but laws don't always have to be just.
Wedding cake is certainly a subset of Cake....you do know what cake is, yes?
Many people seem to not realize that what they think the law should be and what in reality the law is are two different things.
I discuss what the law is. Would it surprise you to learn I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws on the basis that the usurp the property rights of the owner? Public Accommodation laws should be repealed in their entirety as they apply to customer service for private business.
However I don't support "special privileges" for someone to be able to claim a religious exemption to the law which narrowly targets only homosexuals. Public Accommodation laws are general in nature and apply equally to all.
Justice Scalia points out in Emloyment Division v. Smith:
"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
You can not legislate racism or bigotry toward certain groups away. People will always have a belief or an opinion that others may find bigoted. That's life. But when you have discrimination laws that recognize only one group's so called rights while denying another their rights protected under the Constitution then you have bad law.Are the moral convictions of a racist who wants to discriminate against black people be held as less valid than the moral convictions of someone that wants to discriminate against gays as long as they claim it's because of their personal religious beliefs?
Are they? Curves allows only women, but because men are not protected class it's OK. I'm really fine with it in general, but it's not an equal application of government force.
You can not legislate racism or bigotry toward certain groups away. People will always have a belief or an opinion that others may find bigoted. That's life. But when you have discrimination laws that recognize only one group's so called rights while denying another their rights protected under the Constitution then you have bad law.
When a Public Accommodation law includes "Sex" men are included. Male is one of the two sexes ya know.
>>>>
The baker did not discriminate against gays as a class nor the other needs of the gay couples who complained.And here I thought we were getting close.
The basis for the discrimination was a product normally provided which was denied based on the sexual orientation of the customer.
Here is the law again: "(2) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or,..."
Providing some goods to straight couples and refusing those same services to gay couples is not "full and equal" conduct of the business.
>>>>
The baker did not discriminate against gays as a class nor the other needs of the gay couples who complained.
He was willing to bake any gay customers, including the gay couples in question, any cakes beside the gay wedding cake which violates his religious belief.
There are businesses that truly discriminate customers based on sex or marital status. For instance, the ladies' night in bars and night clubs which some state supreme courts have upheld. How about singles' night and singles' events? And then there are also swimming pool facility that offers swimming hours for muslim women only or gyms that cater only to women or obese people.
The baker did not discriminate against gays as a class nor the other needs of the gay couples who complained.
He was willing to bake any gay customers, including the gay couples in question, any cakes beside the gay wedding cake which violates his religious belief. There are many gay customers who are single and never intend to get married. So, with regards to all non-marrying gay customers, tell me where is the discrimination due to sexual orientation?
There are businesses that truly discriminate customers based on sex or marital status. For instance, the ladies' night in bars and night clubs which some state supreme courts have upheld. How about singles' night and singles' events? And then there are also swimming pool facility that offers swimming hours for muslim women only or gyms that cater only to women or obese people.
Gays wanting wedding cake for their weddings do not represent the whole class.Sure he did.
Exactly, because of their sexual orientation he denied them the "full and equal" treatment of the business.
That is the very definition of discrimination under the law. That's why the judge found the baker in violation.
Report them to the appropriate authorities.
But I can tell you what, I've been to ladies nights at bars, they can be wild. BTW - I'm a guy.
>>>>
Gays wanting wedding cake for their weddings do not represent the whole class.
So people are entitled to the property and labor of others is what you're saying.
But you are demanding him to create something with his bare hands that will be used for something he is morally against. From the rulings coming from different parts of the country forcing cake decorators, florists and photographers, all artists, will be forced to produce anything a person off the street demands of them. Say a couple wants a photographer to take pictures of their wedding. The photographer is a Christian and the couple is holding their wedding ceremony at the First Church of Satan. According to your thinking, he should be forced to take the pictures because the photographer does wedding ceremonies. Or say a Jewish catering service who specializes in kosher food is asked to prepare the chicken and fish dishes for a wedding and finds out that there will be other caterers there preparing shrimp cocktails, bacon wrapped fillet mignons and pork chops in the same kitchen. According to you he has no right to refuse his services to those who ask them of him because that would be discrimination. A Muslim florist, who covers her head out of modesty, wears dresses that completely cover her legs and arms is asked to do the flowers for a wedding. The theme of the wedding is Adam and Eve. She is asked to provide decorative fig leaves as the attire for the bride and groom to wear during the ceremony which she finds offensive and according to you she has no right to deny this request. An atheist goes into a print shop run by take your pick (Hindu, Muslim, Jew or Christian) wanting fliers printed that are titled "God is Dead". According to you, this printer is not allowed to deny his service and must print the fliers and the printer is forced to sign his name to the work through his company name misrepresenting and violating his belief system. In other words what you are claiming it is perfectly alright for a person to be forced to violate their conscience, THEIR VERY BEING, in the name of so called discrimination. In other words you see people not being allowed to live their moral conscience if they have a public business. Unbelievable.
never said it did another strawman and lie destroyed by facts, if you disagree simply quote me saying that
nothing has changed the point that your statement was factually wrong
let me know when you have anything that changes this fact
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?