"Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

[weaver2]

Do guys have the right to force Christians to perform acts their religious beliefs proscribe? Works both ways.

When did baking a cake become a religious rite? So one baker acts like a jerk about gays and the whole legal system of the US has to make laws allowing this kind of assholery.

The question everybody should be asking is why are conservative Christians taking Mr. Masterpiece Cakes as a role model instead of Jesus, who worked with, helped and healed many undesirables, people of other religions, sinners, foreigners and the unclean.

WWJD? He would have baked the cake.

 

[Bullseye]

When did baking a cake become a religious rite? So one baker acts like a jerk about gays and the whole legal system of the US has to make laws allowing this kind of assholery.\

I thought I just explained that.

The question everybody should be asking is why are conservative Christians taking Mr. Masterpiece Cakes as a role model instead of Jesus, who worked with, helped and healed many undesirables, people of other religions, sinners, foreigners and the unclean.

WWJD? He would have baked the cake.

And you know that how? Are you saying gay couples wanting to get married are undesirables?

 

[Bullseye]

They are not part of celebrating it. They are selling a product and the customer is free to use it as they wish. The law guarantees getting a cake baked from a bakery open to the public.

I doubt they’ve given you permission to speak on their beliefs. The law ALSO guarantees the right to practice ones religion - That’s in the Constitution; I can’t find backing a cake anywhere.

 

[devildavid]

I doubt they’ve given you permission to speak on their beliefs. The law ALSO guarantees the right to practice ones religion - That’s in the Constitution; I can’t find backing a cake anywhere.

They already spoke for their beliefs. They are wrong to claim that baking a cake and selling it makes them complicit in the activity the cake will be used in. There is no morality test needed for buying a cake unless they run a private, members only business catering only to pure hearted believers who swear to use the cakes only as god approves.

 

[Bullseye]

They already spoke for their beliefs. They are wrong to claim that baking a cake and selling it makes them complicit in the activity the cake will be used in. There is no morality test needed for buying a cake unless they run a private, members only business catering only to pure hearted believers who swear to use the cakes only as god approves.

Not your call.

 

[weaver2]

Not your call.

When you set up shop in the public square you agree to sell your wares to everybody. You cannot refuse to sell to gays any more than you can refuse to sell to Blacks. The Soup Nazi is hilarious on Jerry Seinfeld's TV show; not so hilarious in real life. It is not the baker's call either.

 

[Bullseye]

When you set up shop in the public square you agree to sell your wares to everybody. You cannot refuse to sell to gays any more than you can refuse to sell to Blacks. The Soup Nazi is hilarious on Jerry Seinfeld's TV show; not so hilarious in real life. It is not the baker's call either.

So, I guess you’ve never seen “We reserve the right to refuse service” signs in Oregon. Figures.

 

[weaver2]

So, I guess you’ve never seen “We reserve the right to refuse service” signs in Oregon. Figures.

Depending on what state you live in the laws vary as to whom you can refuse service. Certainly service to destructive, threatening or disruptive customers can be refused.But service cannot be refused to protected classes: race, religion, color, gender sexual orientation, etc. Shopkeepers would be better off defining who they can refuse service to on their window card. As it is the cards are aggressive and appear to give shop keepers more power than they actually have. They seem to be mostly in the shops of conservative owners.

 

[Mircea]

Congress shall make no law .......... abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...........

How does this tell right-wing bigots....

They're bigots because the won't agree with you? That's cold.

.... that they have permission from the Constitution discriminate against gays, women, transgendered, minorities and those they consider Godless?

The inverse of Freedom of Association is Freedom from Association, just like the inverse of Freedom of Speech is no speech at all.

You cannot compel someone to engage in Free Speech against their will any more than you can compel someone to participate in something.

You can't be forced to go to church because you have Freedom from Association.

And your claim of inverse freedom meaning businesses can discriminate against people they don't like or don't belong to their religion or accept their beliefs and church schools can keep out minorities and still operate tax free is just wishful thinking.

Perhaps the phrase "private enterprise" is lost upon you.

Rightwing bigots badly misinterpreted the court ruling. They think they won the right for business and schools to refuse entry or service to minorities.

Minorities of what?

 

[weaver2]

They're bigots because the won't agree with you? That's cold.



The inverse of Freedom of Association is Freedom from Association, just like the inverse of Freedom of Speech is no speech at all.

You cannot compel someone to engage in Free Speech against their will any more than you can compel someone to participate in something.

You can't be forced to go to church because you have Freedom from Association.



Perhaps the phrase "private enterprise" is lost upon you.



Minorities of what?

I didn't write the passage quoted in the OP. I asked whether the conservative Christians were correct or not to believe the SC gave them a license to discriminate. Many believe that the baker in Colorado won his case and is legally allowed to refuse wedding cakes to gay couples.

Being a private enterprise or a church does not give you immunity from the law. If a private corporation cannot refuse to hire gays or Latinos or the disabled (for jobs the could do). Th law applies to private business. The law applied to the cake baker in Colorado, the hair salon in Oregon, or the restaurant in Maine. They may not refuse to serve protected minorities. The wedding cake baker shut down his wedding cake business rather than comply with the law. Cutting off your nose to spite your face has never been a good business policy.

 

[Randomutation]

I didn't write the passage quoted in the OP. I asked whether the conservative Christians were correct or not to believe the SC gave them a license to discriminate. Many believe that the baker in Colorado won his case and is legally allowed to refuse wedding cakes to gay couples.

It did not give anyone any kind of "license to discriminate."
Quite the contrary, it was a ruling AGAINST discrimination.
In particular, it was a ruling against the blatant discrimination that the State of Colorado was guilty of.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Someone posted this on another forum: ""the Constitution and Supreme Court means we get a free ticket to discriminate against people we don't like (see: Masterpiece Cake shop case).

Do conservative Christians really believe that the phrase "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cake case both mean they have the right to discriminate against gays and other "people we don't like"?

Every single person who hasn’t engaged in Sodomy with members of the same sex HAS in fact discriminated against “gays” and no law presently exists that can allow them to compel you to do so. So there is legal discrimination against homosexuals.

Now that we’ve established a moral right to discriminate we can only argue limits. It’s pretty clear the constitution does grant the right of free exercise of religion.

 

[weaver2]

............. Now that we’ve established a moral right to discriminate we can only argue limits. It’s pretty clear the constitution does grant the right of free exercise of religion.

The personal papers of the founding fathers, most of whom had lived through religious wars that disrupted countries and killed many never expressed the idea that one religious sect could discriminate against people their God said were immoral. They wrote the Constitution to enshrine religious tolerance in the public square not discrimination. Refusing to serve or sell based on religion was not what they had in mind.

 

[LittleNipper]

Someone posted this on another forum: ""the Constitution and Supreme Court means we get a free ticket to discriminate against people we don't like (see: Masterpiece Cake shop case).

Do conservative Christians really believe that the phrase "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cake case both mean they have the right to discriminate against gays and other "people we don't like"?

So, you throw a party at your home ------- can anybody come or are you selective.

 

[LittleNipper]

The personal papers of the founding fathers, most of whom had lived through religious wars that disrupted countries and killed many never expressed the idea that one religious sect could discriminate against people their God said were immoral. They wrote the Constitution to enshrine religious tolerance in the public square not discrimination. Refusing to serve or sell based on religion was not what they had in mind.

I can honestly say, that the Founding Fathers would have cared less regarding to whom any citizen sold or didn't sell their wares to --- caring more about unrepresented governmental taxation. And to this end they threw privately owned produce into Boston Bay. In this case no one was able to make a purchase of that import. Who doesn't have discriminating taste? I certainly love tea more than beer. I wish they threw beer in the harbor ---- but that would have been asking a lot...

 

[Patriotic Voter]

You don't understand the concept. You have the freedom to do anything you want, unless a valid law prevents it. It's not the other way around.

Valid laws exist to prevent it. You can't be a former DOJ lawyer and deny that obvious fact.

 

[TurtleDude]

Valid laws exist to prevent it. You can't be a former DOJ lawyer and deny that obvious fact.

your argument makes no sense-I was making a general comment. and you apparently missed that

that post of mine was over 20 months old BTW

 

[Lisa]

So, you throw a party at your home ------- can anybody come or are you selective.

How does a party in your home have anything to do with a business that is required by law to serve all of the public? You don't seem to understand what the public accommodation protections are. Bigots shouldn't operate business that are open to the public.

 

[danielpalos]

Every single person who hasn’t engaged in Sodomy with members of the same sex HAS in fact discriminated against “gays” and no law presently exists that can allow them to compel you to do so. So there is legal discrimination against homosexuals.

Now that we’ve established a moral right to discriminate we can only argue limits. It’s pretty clear the constitution does grant the right of free exercise of religion.

That is not the point. Bakers are not religious authorities but part of the Laity and should be getting laid instead of trying to force their morality unto others. The customers also have a First Amendment.

 

[LittleNipper]

How does a party in your home have anything to do with a business that is required by law to serve all of the public? You don't seem to understand what the public accommodation protections are. Bigots shouldn't operate business that are open to the public.

If I have a store, I don't want people coming into my emporium who wish to steal from me. And if I want to be closed on Sundays for religious reasons, I don't appreciate those who want to sue me to make me remain open...

 

[Lisa]

If I have a store, I don't want people coming into my emporium who wish to steal from me. And if I want to be closed on Sundays for religious reasons, I don't appreciate those who want to sue me to make me remain open...

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

You can close whenever you want. Re Hobby Lobby and Chik-Fil-A.

You do have to serve everyone who walks in the store regardless of your religious beliefs.

 

[LittleNipper]

That is not the point. Bakers are not religious authorities but part of the Laity and should be getting laid instead of trying to force their morality unto others. The customers also have a First Amendment.

They (supposed Christian Bakers) are not forcing their morals on anyone. Those that would bend THEM (supposed Christian Bakers) to comply to their demands are the ones imposing their "ethics" and in their "morality". I cannot insist you go to my church. You should not insist what style or type of product I may or may not offer to the public and how.

 

[danielpalos]

They (supposed Christian Bakers) are not forcing their morals on anyone. Those that would bend THEM (supposed Christian Bakers) to comply to their demands are the ones imposing their "ethics" and in their "morality". I cannot insist you go to my church. You should not insist what style or type of product I may or may not offer to the public and how.

lol. Your analogy is false. Bakers bake. They are not Augustinian, Benedictine, or Carmelite bakers; just Laity bakers who should be more concerned about making a profit since they operate on a for-profit basis (for Lucre) not a not-for-profit basis for the sake of morals. Those bakers are simply being frivolous and wasting the Court's resources.

 

[LittleNipper]

lol. Your analogy is false. Bakers bake. They are not Augustinian, Benedictine, or Carmelite bakers; just Laity bakers who should be more concerned about making a profit since they operate on a for-profit basis (for Lucre) not a not-for-profit basis for the sake of morals. Those bakers are simply being frivolous and wasting the Court's resources.

If all you want is a cake that is fine. If you wish a cake that somehow celebrates gayness, go to a baker of like mind. Traditional bakers will give traditional old-time wedding cakes and that is all one should expect... The gay couple and not the baker is being frivolous.

 

[danielpalos]

If all you want is a cake that is fine. If you wish a cake that somehow celebrates gayness, go to a baker of like mind. Traditional bakers will give traditional old-time wedding cakes and that is all one should expect... The gay couple and not the baker is being frivolous.

I agree to disagree. The bakers did not advertise, "Christian Bake shop" on their storefront. And, they are incorporated on a for-profit basis which means they must seek a profit not their alleged morality in public venues. They are selling Cakes not morals. Nobody cares about the alleged morals of vendors only their products, as typical consumers.