Colorado is after this guy.

[martybegan]

When they prosecute bigamy it;s usually because one spouse or both don't realize the other person is already married, making it a version of Fraud.

People can say they are married to as many people as they want, but they can only get one license.

Exactly my point. The government only recognizes one marriage license. The government is more important than the Mormon Sky Pixie, who says you can marry as many women as you want.

Government trumps God. See how simple that was.

Government says bake the fucking cake.

And by the logic of allowing SSM, why is the line drawn at stopping plural marriage?

Because we as a society have decided we don't want plural marriage.

Frankly, I have no issue with it.

A contracted service is not a Public Accomodation, on the PA point the guy is willing to sell point of sale items to anyone.

Sorry, the law doesn't agree with you...

Sorry, but the 1st amendment promises free exercise, so if the government wants to fix this, they have to use the least intrusive method possible, not "Bake or else"

Again, you have the right to grovel in front of an imaginary fairy in the sky, but if the law says you have to serve gays, you have to serve gays.

Let's go back. If an atheist said, "I don't want to serve gays because I think they're icky!" We would not have an argument here. We simply wouldn't.

But what you want is a carve out to say, "If I can rationalize my bigotry with religion, it becomes okay."

So again, why can't I cut out my enemies' hearts with an obsidian dagger if I can claim to be a worshiper of Quetzalcoatl?

Keep sucking that government dick Joe.

Sorry but the individual is always more important than the government

The law is being used wrongly and vindictively.

Freedom of Religion is part of our rights. your ilk try to get around that to get your fascist jollies

Wow, having to use murder as an example shows how shallow your argument is.

 

[JoeB131]

Keep sucking that government dick Joe.

Sorry but the individual is always more important than the government

I agree, but this isn't a government issue. It's a dispute between vendors and consumers... which should ALWAYS favor the consumer.

The law is being used wrongly and vindictively.

The law is being used perfectly fine... you homophobes just don't like gays having the same rights as minorities.

Freedom of Religion is part of our rights. your ilk try to get around that to get your fascist jollies

Again, you are more than free to grovel in front of your imaginary sky friend, all you want, all day. But when the rest of us agree on a law, you have to follow it.

Wow, having to use murder as an example shows how shallow your argument is.

Naw, shallow is claiming that you can disobey a law because your imaginary friend in the sky might do something to you..

Well, if I can't cut out the hearts of my enemies, then The Great Plumed Serpent God will cast me into the Rivers of Blood in Mictlan.

Yes, it sounds absurd, but no more absurd that God sending you to hell for not hating the gays sufficently.

 

[martybegan]

Keep sucking that government dick Joe.

Sorry but the individual is always more important than the government

I agree, but this isn't a government issue. It's a dispute between vendors and consumers... which should ALWAYS favor the consumer.

The law is being used wrongly and vindictively.

The law is being used perfectly fine... you homophobes just don't like gays having the same rights as minorities.

Freedom of Religion is part of our rights. your ilk try to get around that to get your fascist jollies

Again, you are more than free to grovel in front of your imaginary sky friend, all you want, all day. But when the rest of us agree on a law, you have to follow it.

Wow, having to use murder as an example shows how shallow your argument is.

Naw, shallow is claiming that you can disobey a law because your imaginary friend in the sky might do something to you..

Well, if I can't cut out the hearts of my enemies, then The Great Plumed Serpent God will cast me into the Rivers of Blood in Mictlan.

Yes, it sounds absurd, but no more absurd that God sending you to hell for not hating the gays sufficently.

Where in the constitution does it say the consumer always wins?

Wrong

The law is beholden to the Constitution, and the Constitution guarantees free exercise, regardless of what bigoted miserly twat like you wants.

No, your use of Murder as an example of being in the same ballpark as not wanting to bake a cake shows you have no other argument besides "I'm a miserable old man who hates religion and anyone who has beliefs others than me needs to be crushed"

 

[JoeB131]

Where in the constitution does it say the consumer always wins?

Again, guy, this was already litigated in teh Piggy Park decision. There really isn't a constitutional right to be a bigot.

The law is beholden to the Constitution, and the Constitution guarantees free exercise, regardless of what bigoted miserly twat like you wants.

Then why can't I start cutting out the hearts of my enemies?

No, your use of Murder as an example of being in the same ballpark as not wanting to bake a cake shows you have no other argument besides "I'm a miserable old man who hates religion and anyone who has beliefs others than me needs to be crushed"

that you are too dense to understand the argument isn't my problem

We both agree that "Freedom of Religion" should not be a license to break other laws. It's just a matter of where the line gets drawn. It's why I'm not going to murder some freaky Wiccan chick because the Bible says I shouldn't suffer a witch to live.

Okay. We we both agree to there being a line. My position, that line should be drawn to protect gay people because frankly, the Zombie-worshipers have gotten away with oppressing them for so long.

 

[martybegan]

Where in the constitution does it say the consumer always wins?

Again, guy, this was already litigated in teh Piggy Park decision. There really isn't a constitutional right to be a bigot.

The law is beholden to the Constitution, and the Constitution guarantees free exercise, regardless of what bigoted miserly twat like you wants.

Then why can't I start cutting out the hearts of my enemies?

No, your use of Murder as an example of being in the same ballpark as not wanting to bake a cake shows you have no other argument besides "I'm a miserable old man who hates religion and anyone who has beliefs others than me needs to be crushed"

that you are too dense to understand the argument isn't my problem

We both agree that "Freedom of Religion" should not be a license to break other laws. It's just a matter of where the line gets drawn. It's why I'm not going to murder some freaky Wiccan chick because the Bible says I shouldn't suffer a witch to live.

Okay. We we both agree to there being a line. My position, that line should be drawn to protect gay people because frankly, the Zombie-worshipers have gotten away with oppressing them for so long.

Free exercise, Free speech. there is actually a right to be a bigot. You can't punish thoughtcrime, not matter how much you want to.

that involves the murder of someone else. Please stop trying to equate murder with not wanting to bake a cake.

Freedom of religion means some laws shouldn't be applied in certain ways, thus negating the need to "break" them.

 

[dblack]

Free exercise, Free speech. there is actually a right to be a bigot. You can't punish thoughtcrime, not matter how much you want to.

Yup.

Freedom of religion means some laws shouldn't be applied in certain ways, thus negating the need to "break" them.

Freedom of religion means that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't meant that people can claim exemptions to laws they don't like (for religious reasons or otherwise). You had it right in the first part of your post - PA laws violate free speech.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Freedom of religion means some laws shouldn't be applied in certain ways, thus negating the need to "break" them.

Freedom of religion means that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't meant that people can claim exemptions to laws they don't like (for religious reasons or otherwise).

It certainly puts the burden on government, in wanting to enact and enforce a law that conflicts with anyone's freedom of religion, to demonstrate a very clear and compelling need for such a law. The burden is on government to prove that a violation of someone's religious freedom is justified and necessary,and not on the one who wished to exercise his religious freedom to prove a need to be allowed to do so.

That's what the strict scrutiny principle is about.

You had it right in the first part of your post - PA laws violate free speech.

No, not really. What they do clearly violate is freedom of association which, while not explicitly enumerated, is very strongly implied in the First Amendment. When such laws are applied to compel one to engage in or support activity that one finds to be immoral, then it also violates freedom of conscience (also implied, but not explicitly stated) and, if the moral objection is based on religious beliefs, then it violates freedom of religion.

Of course, you're arguing with someone who doesn't even believe in freedom of thought (“There really isn't a constitutional right to be a bigot.”), much less those freedoms derived therefrom which are implied or stated in the First Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

Free exercise, Free speech. there is actually a right to be a bigot. You can't punish thoughtcrime, not matter how much you want to.

No, but you can punish when that thought translates into violating a law.

that involves the murder of someone else. Please stop trying to equate murder with not wanting to bake a cake.

Kind of the same thing. You let them claim an exemption from the law, you pretty much get people hanging gays in the street next... which HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Freedom of religion means some laws shouldn't be applied in certain ways, thus negating the need to "break" them.

I agree. You murder someone because you hate them.. You go to jail.
You murder someone to please Yahweh or Quetzalcoatl, you STILL go to jail.

You refuse to bake a wedding cake because you hate queers, you pay a fine.
You refuse to bake a wedding cake because Yahweh Hates Queers, you STILL pay a fine.

The laws are applied equally and fairly.

Freedom of religion means that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't meant that people can claim exemptions to laws they don't like (for religious reasons or otherwise). You had it right in the first part of your post - PA laws violate free speech.

So does arresting someone for yelling fire in a crowded theater...

The baker can hate gays all day, but he still has to give them the same quality of service they give straight folks. Don't like it, find something else to do for a living.

It certainly puts the burden on government, in wanting to enact and enforce a law that conflicts with anyone's freedom of religion, to demonstrate a very clear and compelling need for such a law. The burden is on government to prove that a violation of someone's religious freedom is justified and necessary,and not on the one who wished to exercise his religious freedom to prove a need to be allowed to do so.

Not at all. When your fucked up cult wanted to get Utah into the Union, they were told that bigamy is against the law. And guess what happened... your "Prophet" had a come to Jesus moment and God totally told him that Polygamy was wrong, regardless of Joseph Smith's 34 wives or Brigham Youngs 63 wives...

Same thing here. You let these churches know that homophobia is completely verboten, guess what, the leaders of these Churches will have a talk with God and find God is totally cool now with the gays and he'll be throwing a killer Oscar party next year.

No, not really. What they do clearly violate is freedom of association which, while not explicitly enumerated, is very strongly implied in the First Amendment. When such laws are applied to compel one to engage in or support activity that one finds to be immoral, then it also violates freedom of conscience (also implied, but not explicitly stated) and, if the moral objection is based on religious beliefs, then it violates freedom of religion.

Okay, couple of problems with this argument. You've just argued that the oppression that members of your cult faced throughout the 19th century was okay, because, hey, "Freedom of religion/Association". Do you not see how PA laws don't only protect the gays, they protect religious minorities like you?

So what do you do when some future Evangelical Government, after they've oppressed the darkies and the queers, decide Mormons are next on their hit list?

 

[martybegan]

Free exercise, Free speech. there is actually a right to be a bigot. You can't punish thoughtcrime, not matter how much you want to.

Yup.

Freedom of religion means some laws shouldn't be applied in certain ways, thus negating the need to "break" them.

Freedom of religion means that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't meant that people can claim exemptions to laws they don't like (for religious reasons or otherwise). You had it right in the first part of your post - PA laws violate free speech.

What freedom of religion means is what the SC said in the baker case, any application of a law like this needs to take 1st amendment considerations into account.

That means they just can't automatically decide on the side of commerce, and if they need to create a remedy, it means using the least intrusive means possible.

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of religion means some laws shouldn't be applied in certain ways, thus negating the need to "break" them.

Freedom of religion means that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't meant that people can claim exemptions to laws they don't like (for religious reasons or otherwise).

It certainly puts the burden on government, in wanting to enact and enforce a law that conflicts with anyone's freedom of religion, to demonstrate a very clear and compelling need for such a law. The burden is on government to prove that a violation of someone's religious freedom is justified and necessary,and not on the one who wished to exercise his religious freedom to prove a need to be allowed to do so.

That's what the strict scrutiny principle is about.

You had it right in the first part of your post - PA laws violate free speech.

No, not really. What they do clearly violate is freedom of association which, while not explicitly enumerated, is very strongly implied in the First Amendment. When such laws are applied to compel one to engage in or support activity that one finds to be immoral, then it also violates freedom of conscience (also implied, but not explicitly stated) and, if the moral objection is based on religious beliefs, then it violates freedom of religion.

Of course, you're arguing with someone who doesn't even believe in freedom of thought (“There really isn't a constitutional right to be a bigot.”), much less those freedoms derived therefrom which are implied or stated in the First Amendment.

Exactly.

The issue becomes at what point does the refusal to engage in commerce become a greater burden to one side on another.

In the case of point of sale items, or time sensitive items, or necessitates, I can see the pendulum swinging to the side of free commerce.

When it comes to contracted, non timely, and non nessasary goods or services, the pendulum swings to the side of freedoms, either religious, speech or association.

 

[martybegan]

Free exercise, Free speech. there is actually a right to be a bigot. You can't punish thoughtcrime, not matter how much you want to.

No, but you can punish when that thought translates into violating a law.

that involves the murder of someone else. Please stop trying to equate murder with not wanting to bake a cake.

Kind of the same thing. You let them claim an exemption from the law, you pretty much get people hanging gays in the street next... which HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

Freedom of religion means some laws shouldn't be applied in certain ways, thus negating the need to "break" them.

I agree. You murder someone because you hate them.. You go to jail.
You murder someone to please Yahweh or Quetzalcoatl, you STILL go to jail.

You refuse to bake a wedding cake because you hate queers, you pay a fine.
You refuse to bake a wedding cake because Yahweh Hates Queers, you STILL pay a fine.

The laws are applied equally and fairly.

Freedom of religion means that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't meant that people can claim exemptions to laws they don't like (for religious reasons or otherwise). You had it right in the first part of your post - PA laws violate free speech.

So does arresting someone for yelling fire in a crowded theater...

The baker can hate gays all day, but he still has to give them the same quality of service they give straight folks. Don't like it, find something else to do for a living.

It certainly puts the burden on government, in wanting to enact and enforce a law that conflicts with anyone's freedom of religion, to demonstrate a very clear and compelling need for such a law. The burden is on government to prove that a violation of someone's religious freedom is justified and necessary,and not on the one who wished to exercise his religious freedom to prove a need to be allowed to do so.

Not at all. When your fucked up cult wanted to get Utah into the Union, they were told that bigamy is against the law. And guess what happened... your "Prophet" had a come to Jesus moment and God totally told him that Polygamy was wrong, regardless of Joseph Smith's 34 wives or Brigham Youngs 63 wives...

Same thing here. You let these churches know that homophobia is completely verboten, guess what, the leaders of these Churches will have a talk with God and find God is totally cool now with the gays and he'll be throwing a killer Oscar party next year.

No, not really. What they do clearly violate is freedom of association which, while not explicitly enumerated, is very strongly implied in the First Amendment. When such laws are applied to compel one to engage in or support activity that one finds to be immoral, then it also violates freedom of conscience (also implied, but not explicitly stated) and, if the moral objection is based on religious beliefs, then it violates freedom of religion.

Okay, couple of problems with this argument. You've just argued that the oppression that members of your cult faced throughout the 19th century was okay, because, hey, "Freedom of religion/Association". Do you not see how PA laws don't only protect the gays, they protect religious minorities like you?

So what do you do when some future Evangelical Government, after they've oppressed the darkies and the queers, decide Mormons are next on their hit list?

More senseless equating of murder with not baking a cake. The point is the law shouldn't be applied in the situation noted.

Again, free exercise is a listed right. Murder is not a listed right.

Getting the cake you want is not a listed right. Being free of hurt feeewings is not a listed right.

 

[JoeB131]

More senseless equating of murder with not baking a cake. The point is the law shouldn't be applied in the situation noted.

Again, free exercise is a listed right. Murder is not a listed right.

Getting the cake you want is not a listed right. Being free of hurt feeewings is not a listed right.

Applying the law in this case is just fine.

The constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

[dblack]

More senseless equating of murder with not baking a cake. The point is the law shouldn't be applied in the situation noted.

Again, free exercise is a listed right. Murder is not a listed right.

Getting the cake you want is not a listed right. Being free of hurt feeewings is not a listed right.

Applying the law in this case is just fine.

The constitution is not a suicide pact.

Neither is legislation. It is often wrong, and should be changed when it is.

 

[martybegan]

More senseless equating of murder with not baking a cake. The point is the law shouldn't be applied in the situation noted.

Again, free exercise is a listed right. Murder is not a listed right.

Getting the cake you want is not a listed right. Being free of hurt feeewings is not a listed right.

Applying the law in this case is just fine.

The constitution is not a suicide pact.

What is so suicidal about a baker not wanting to bake a cake?

The law in this case isn't about harm, it's about butt hurt, and government should not be in the business of taking sides when it comes to butt hurt.

 

[JoeB131]

What is so suicidal about a baker not wanting to bake a cake?

The law in this case isn't about harm, it's about butt hurt, and government should not be in the business of taking sides when it comes to butt hurt.

But the government does that all the time, usually to keep the butthurt from escalating into something more serious. Your dog's shitting on the neighbors lawn, the government will come over and cite you. Your blighted house making the neighborhood look bad? The government will write up a violation I know that you have the Liber-Retard-ian view that this is government overstepping its bounds, but mostly, it prevents bigger problems, like someone coming over and starting a fight over dog shit.

So in an anarchist world, the Baker doesn't bake his cake and bunch of queens come over and burn down his place. Let's all agree that that's bad.

You want the government to protect the baker but not the customers.

I want it to protect both.

 

[dblack]

The law in this case isn't about harm, it's about butt hurt, and government should not be in the business of taking sides when it comes to butt hurt.

Exactly. No one's rights are being violated when a bakery won't bake them a cake.

 

[JoeB131]

Exactly. No one's rights are being violated when a bakery won't bake them a cake.

And nobody's rights are being violated when you are being held to the business promises you make.

This is simply a contract dispute, which was settled in favor of the customer.

 

[dblack]

And nobody's rights are being violated when you are being held to the business promises you make.

No promises were made. That's just a rationalization.

 

[JoeB131]

No promises were made. That's just a rationalization.

Sign on your shop says, "We do Wedding Cakes". I take the time out of my business schedule to go down to your shop, we set down dates and contracts, and then you do backsies when you find out it's two dudes?

Sorry, man, that's exactly what you did. You made a business promise. You didn't keep up your end.

 

[dblack]

No promises were made. That's just a rationalization.

Sign on your shop says, "We do Wedding Cakes". I take the time out of my business schedule to go down to your shop, we set down dates and contracts, and then you do backsies when you find out it's two dudes?

Sorry, man, that's exactly what you did. You made a business promise. You didn't keep up your end.

Me? You're confused again. We're talking about the homophobic baker.

And the baker never promised anything. If he could put up a sign saying "We don't do gay weddings", I'm sure he would. Forced behaviour is not a "promise". Your argument is circular. Take a hike.