• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay Wedding Cake Issue Revisited In Denver . . . Only Now It's Websites - Not Cakes

Grizzly Adams said:
Pretend it isn't. Is the fact that this guy films straight sex enough to compel him to film gay sex?

If not, why not?
Click to expand...
If George Lucas refuses to film a black or gay or Jewish or female actor... is that discrimination? Yes.

If George Lucas refuses to film a Romantic Comedy... is that discrimination against that screenwriter? No.
 
Bodi said:
If George Lucas refuses to film a black or gay or Jewish or female actor... is that discrimination? Yes.

If George Lucas refuses to film a Romantic Comedy... is that discrimination against that screenwriter? No.
Click to expand...
This is not an answer to the question you quoted.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So you just know people are bigoted without hearing them say so how?

Disagree bigotry is strictly speech.
Click to expand...

Yes, by how they treat others not like them. Bigotry is not just words, it manifests itself in behavior. So disagree with facts and reality all you like, since you enjoy being wrong.
 
weaver2 said:
Sorry not getting into this one.
Click to expand...
It's okay. I wouldn't want to claim the videographer must film the gayness or try to draw a line between this hypothetical and the thread topic, either.

Really seems like an impossible task.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
It's okay. I wouldn't want to claim the videographer must film the gayness or try to draw a line between this hypothetical and the thread topic, either.

Really seems like an impossible task.
Click to expand...
Sorry, this time of year doesn't leave enough time for hypotheticals and assholes.
 
Rawley said:
And somehow these newspapers and other people will be forced to carry the proselytizing? How does that work?

Again ???? folks are free to proselytizing until they are blue in the face. I don't see your point.
Click to expand...
One issue I can see in the future if the SC decides in Ms Smith's favor is public school teaching of science, Engish Lit. art, music, sex-ed and possibly history.
 
weaver2 said:
Sorry, this time of year doesn't leave enough time for hypotheticals and assholes.
Click to expand...
Wow. Just had to dial it right up to 11, didja?
 
It seems like most of the bigots have meandered off... probably saw their sister heading into the double wide...
 
weaver2 said:
One issue I can see in the future if the SC decides in Ms Smith's favor is public school teaching of science, Engish Lit. art, music, sex-ed and possibly history.
Click to expand...

How?

Your references are in relation to government speech where the facts of this case involve purely private speech, whose private speech is it, and what impact a public accommodation law has in relation to private speech.

You’ve done nothing more than present a slippery slope whose slope isn’t parallel to the facts of the case.
 
weaver2 said:
The Colorado law was not found to be unconstitutional by the SC. In fact Colorado is enforcing the law right now. Mr. Phillips of Masterpiece Cakes is not allowed to design and sell custom wedding cakes. He has found a sneaky way to get around this law and still discriminate but his web site says he is no longer taking orders for custom wedding cakes.
Click to expand...

No.

“Mr. Phillips of Masterpiece Cakes is not allowed to design and sell custom wedding cakes,” is false. Mr. Phillips is in fact “allowed to do so.”

Mr. Phillips prevailed before SCOTUS because, inter alia, the animus, hostility exhibited towards his religious beliefs that motivated his conduct and the discriminatory application of the state law to him in relation to other bakers who refused to bake a cake.

Mr. Phillips’ triumph was a homing beacon for potential customers intentionally seeking to make a cake expressing a message, whether symbolic or written, conflicting with his religious beliefs. The transgender court fight likely ripped him off.

So, rather than expend money and time fighting court battle after court battle, he ceased making custom cakes/wedding cakes instead.
 
Hari Seldon said:
I think if it involves individual work or expression there can be exceptions but I see your point. Should a Jewish lawyer be forced to take a Nazi client? Should a kosher deli be forced to sell the same Nazi a corned beef on rye with mustard? Should a gay owned graphic designer be forced to design anti LGTBQ pamphlets for the local church?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct, the conduct at issue here is payment to create a message/to engage in speech and a public accommodation law asserted to compel such speech.

Hence, selling “corned beef or rye with mustard” is excluded as such conduct isn’t speech in such contexts, all else being equal.

A Jewish lawyer isn’t legally required to “take a Nazi client” where they refuse to do so based on the ideological belief of the Nazi and public accommodation laws do not protect ideology/political beliefs. (Many public accommodation laws do not so protect). Otherwise, such a lawyer may not be required if they could not zealously represent the client.

Where a Jewish attorney can zealously defend a “Nazi client,” so long as the attorney isn’t engaged in speech defending or proselytizing Nazism to which the attorney would object, then state and maybe public accommodation laws are applicable where ideology/political speech is protected.

The gay graphic designer should not, in my estimation, be compelled to create the referenced message and/or be compelled to speak in the context.
 
weaver2 said:
They will be able to attach "explanations" to news articles, opinion pieces, other people's advertising. Right now religious advertising is usually only found on religious sites. If Ms. Smith wins the suit to "explain" her reasons for discrimination on a public sales site it opens to others the opportunity to "explain" thier religious beliefs and call it freedom of speech. It's a way to flood the market with proselytizing.
Click to expand...

How is this doomsday slippery slope plausible in your mind?
 
weaver2 said:
Well the thing is Jewish lawyers, Kosher delis and gay graphics designers have taken on such clients. The question of refusing clinets and calling it religious freedom is actually pretty new. We haven't seen much of that kind of discrimination since the Jim Crow laws and the Green Book. If serving unappealing clients was acceptable in the past why should we be accepting of the right wing religious types that seem to think we should go back to discriminating.
Click to expand...

Except, as in the facts of this case, “religious freedom” isn’t the merely the issue, but whether there is speech, and is the speech compelled by a public accommodation law are involved.

SCOTUS in 1992 was unequivocal, public accommodation as cannot compel speech of any public accommodation. Now, this broad pronouncement by SCOTUS left unresolved a plethora of unanswered queries and issues, which have manifested precipitously in the courts over the last 5 years.
 
Hari Seldon said:
I was looking at my emails, how about an AIRBNB or motel? DO they have the right to exclude based on race or sex?
Click to expand...

Where a public accommodation law protects those classes of people, no. But again, the discrimination is based upon the status, the characteristic, of the person which is protected, as opposed to “exclude” upon the basis of a constitutionally recognized and therefore protected right, such as speech.
 
NotreDame said:
No.

“Mr. Phillips of Masterpiece Cakes is not allowed to design and sell custom wedding cakes,” is false. Mr. Phillips is in fact “allowed to do so.”

Mr. Phillips prevailed before SCOTUS because, inter alia, the animus, hostility exhibited towards his religious beliefs that motivated his conduct and the discriminatory application of the state law to him in relation to other bakers who refused to bake a cake.

Mr. Phillips’ triumph was a homing beacon for potential customers intentionally seeking to make a cake expressing a message, whether symbolic or written, conflicting with his religious beliefs. The transgender court fight likely ripped him off.

So, rather than expend money and time fighting court battle after court battle, he ceased making custom cakes/wedding cakes instead.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand the above. My point is that the SC decision was not a "win" for conservative Christians as they often claim. The SC did not overturn Colorado's non-discrimination law. It is still illegal to discriminate. If one is in business you sell to everyone. Given that, Mr. Phillips has quit making custom wedding cakes.
 
NotreDame said:
How?

Your references are in relation to government speech where the facts of this case involve purely private speech, whose private speech is it, and what impact a public accommodation law has in relation to private speech.

You’ve done nothing more than present a slippery slope whose slope isn’t parallel to the facts of the case.
Click to expand...
I agree, my thinking on this case is not well organized or logical. I'm not a constitutional lawyer but one thing I do know when the ADF decides to defend a religious conservative at the Supreme Court level winning means evangelicals and Catholics will gain a major benefit or protection.

Ms Smith is asking the SC to give her a right to legally discriminate and permission to bring her religion into the public market place without discrimination against herself. What are the possibilities for using this decision to exended discrimination and proselytizing? Dobbs returned to the states the right to legalize or ban abortions, but it also gives the states the right to punish women for going out of state for abortion, for buying chemical abortion pills from out of state, denying morning after pills, forcing the birth of a rapists child and so on.
 
weaver2 said:
I agree, my thinking on this case is not well organized or logical. I'm not a constitutional lawyer but one thing I do know when the ADF decides to defend a religious conservative at the Supreme Court level winning means evangelicals and Catholics will gain a major benefit or protection.

Ms Smith is asking the SC to give her a right to legally discriminate and permission to bring her religion into the public market place without discrimination against herself. What are the possibilities for using this decision to exended discrimination and proselytizing? Dobbs returned to the states the right to legalize or ban abortions, but it also gives the states the right to punish women for going out of state for abortion, for buying chemical abortion pills from out of state, denying morning after pills, forcing the birth of a rapists child and so on.
Click to expand...
From the Pew Research Institute:
Evangelicals see excluding religion and God from public schools as "infringing on their First Amendmant right to free exercise of religion"
www.pewresearch.org

Religion in the Public Schools

More than 55 years after the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling striking down school-sponsored prayer, Americans continue to fight over the place of
www.pewresearch.org www.pewresearch.org

How will a decision for Ms Snith in the 303 Creative vs Elenis case change the ban on prayer in school.
 
NotreDame said:
No.

“Mr. Phillips of Masterpiece Cakes is not allowed to design and sell custom wedding cakes,” is false. Mr. Phillips is in fact “allowed to do so.”

Mr. Phillips prevailed before SCOTUS because, inter alia, the animus, hostility exhibited towards his religious beliefs that motivated his conduct and the discriminatory application of the state law to him in relation to other bakers who refused to bake a cake.

Mr. Phillips’ triumph was a homing beacon for potential customers intentionally seeking to make a cake expressing a message, whether symbolic or written, conflicting with his religious beliefs. The transgender court fight likely ripped him off.

So, rather than expend money and time fighting court battle after court battle, he ceased making custom cakes/wedding cakes instead.
Click to expand...
What, in particular, are those religious beliefs based on? That it's wrong for people who love each other to marry, if they are of the same sex but if they don't marry, they are sinning by having sexual relations outside of marriage? All of these cases brought by "Christians" who believe they are being forced to go against their religious beliefs are cases on marriage between people of the same sex. I don't get it.

In Washington state, there are two cases that I know of that don't make sense. In the first one, a gay man was a teacher in a Catholic school. He lived with his partner and the principal knew it. But, when he got married to his partner, he was fired. The other case involved a florist who had created bouquets in the past for one or both of the gay men who then decided to marry. The florist even called them friends and knew they were gay before they started planning their wedding. The florist evidently had no problem with providing flowers to them while they were not married. Did these people think that they were living celibate lives until they married? Of course not.

So, what's the issue? That's it is sinful to provide a commercial service to gay people who marry but not sinful to provide that same service (or accept their premarital sexual relationship) as o.k? I just don't get it. Can someone explain it to me?
 
dockside said:
So, what's the issue? That's it is sinful to provide a commercial service to gay people who marry but not sinful to provide that same service (or accept their premarital sexual relationship) as o.k? I just don't get it. Can someone explain it to me?
Click to expand...
I can't.
 
dockside said:
What, in particular, are those religious beliefs based on? That it's wrong for people who love each other to marry, if they are of the same sex but if they don't marry, they are sinning by having sexual relations outside of marriage? All of these cases brought by "Christians" who believe they are being forced to go against their religious beliefs are cases on marriage between people of the same sex. I don't get it.

In Washington state, there are two cases that I know of that don't make sense. In the first one, a gay man was a teacher in a Catholic school. He lived with his partner and the principal knew it. But, when he got married to his partner, he was fired. The other case involved a florist who had created bouquets in the past for one or both of the gay men who then decided to marry. The florist even called them friends and knew they were gay before they started planning their wedding. The florist evidently had no problem with providing flowers to them while they were not married. Did these people think that they were living celibate lives until they married? Of course not.

So, what's the issue? That's it is sinful to provide a commercial service to gay people who marry but not sinful to provide that same service (or accept their premarital sexual relationship) as o.k? I just don't get it. Can someone explain it to me?
Click to expand...

What, in particular, are those religious beliefs based on?
Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter. Neither myself, you, the courts, or anyone can dictate what is or isn’t a religious belief for people.
 
dockside said:
In Washington state, there are two cases that I know of that don't make sense. In the first one, a gay man was a teacher in a Catholic school. He lived with his partner and the principal knew it. But, when he got married to his partner, he was fired. The other case involved a florist who had created bouquets in the past for one or both of the gay men who then decided to marry. The florist even called them friends and knew they were gay before they started planning their wedding. The florist evidently had no problem with providing flowers to them while they were not married. Did these people think that they were living celibate lives until they married? Of course not.

So, what's the issue? That's it is sinful to provide a commercial service to gay people who marry but not sinful to provide that same service (or accept their premarital sexual relationship) as o.k? I just don't get it. Can someone explain it to me?
Click to expand...

That you do not “get it” is irrelevant. Yes, maybe to you this isn’t sensible, but that is simply not a rebuke or refutation of the legal arguments or the religious beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom