For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[ChrisL]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

The Court can protect everyone's rights but only if the Court is allowed to decide what is or isn't a right.

When the claim of a right to discriminate goes up against a claim of a right not to be discriminated against,

the decision has to be based on having decided which right is the legitimate right.

I think it is quite obvious that these people seem to think these laws were designed to "get them." In the mental health field, they have a term for this. It is called a "persecution complex."

 

[NYcarbineer]

You forgot to add that religious belief doesn't allow you to burn witches at the stake, since no one is suggesting otherwise, for paying taxes or burning witches, I am not really sure of your point. Other then maybe forced compliance.

The courts heard religious challenges to the tax laws multiple times.

Gosh darn it, here I thought you were talking about "people" paying taxes when you said "people to avoid paying taxes." My mistake, kinda like I thought "established by the states," meant established by the states.

Do we allow 'religious'people the legal right dodge tax laws?

No, why do you keep implying that we do?

He's trying to get a gotcha moment, and keeps swinging and missing.

Are religious beliefs sufficient to legally avoid paying taxes?

 

[ChrisL]

persecution complex
n
1. (Psychology) psychol an acute irrational fear that other people are plotting one's downfall and that they are responsible for one's failures

 

[PratchettFan]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

Well, I would agree that the portion of the court currently represented by Scalia is not what I would like (or perhaps you meant something else?), but they seem to be doing a pretty good job of protecting people's rights. Ultimately, the very fact of their existence, whether you agree with a given decision or not, protects everyone's rights.

 

[bodecea]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

How would a baker, florist or photographer know if someone was divorced, a virgin, if they lived with someone? Another epic fail because you didn't THINK before you spewed.

And what if they do know and proceed to work for them anyways.....?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

The Court can protect everyone's rights but only if the Court is allowed to decide what is or isn't a right.

When the claim of a right to discriminate goes up against a claim of a right not to be discriminated against,

the decision has to be based on having decided which right is the legitimate right.

I think it is quite obvious that these people seem to think these laws were designed to "get them." In the mental health field, they have a tem for this. It is called a "persecution complex."

Most of our laws are designed to 'get' people who do certain things.

 

[ChrisL]

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

The Court can protect everyone's rights but only if the Court is allowed to decide what is or isn't a right.

When the claim of a right to discriminate goes up against a claim of a right not to be discriminated against,

the decision has to be based on having decided which right is the legitimate right.

I think it is quite obvious that these people seem to think these laws were designed to "get them." In the mental health field, they have a tem for this. It is called a "persecution complex."

Most of our laws are designed to 'get' people who do certain things.

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business.

Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so.

Well, why stop there?

The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage.

Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners!

and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end.

Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding.

Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church.

So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

The validity of their belief is what they suddenly say it is? With no biblical basis? Ok.

Yes. That is exactly right. Welcome to freedom.

 

[martybegan]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

The Court can protect everyone's rights but only if the Court is allowed to decide what is or isn't a right.

When the claim of a right to discriminate goes up against a claim of a right not to be discriminated against,

the decision has to be based on having decided which right is the legitimate right.

Once the government decides it can force people to act over something this trivial, it will continue to do so, and sooner or later for YOU to do something you find objectionable.

At that point, the only thing I will say, is "serves you right"

 

[PratchettFan]

Arguing that PA laws are beneficial to society and religious beliefs are not a justification for violating such laws is an argument which might well get you somewhere. However, coupling that with vitriol showing contempt for anyone who does not agree with you pretty much nullifies it. The reality is that bigotry exists on both sides of any social issue, as you have shown us.

Yes, I have contempt for people who use bronze age superstitions to rationalize their bigotry.

I have even more contempt for people who don't even know what their superstitions are, but insist they do.

So really, all in or all out. If you want to claim the Bible as a source to rationalize your bigotry, you have to do EVERYTHING it says.

I don't claim the Bible as a source of anything. I could not care less what the Bible says. We are discussing what you are saying, and what you are saying is pure bigotry. Why is your bigotry better than anyone else's bigotry?

When two claimed rights collide, one has to win one has to lose. There is no win win.

True. But that doesn't change what is or is not bigotry. As we have seen most recently, bigotry is not a useful argument in a court.

You're entitled to bigoted beliefs; you're not necessarily entitled to act on them.

You are correct that I am entitled to them, but I think you completely miss the point.

Out of curiosity.... would you consider what Joe has been writing to be bigoted?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Revenge is revenge, and you are out for it.

and as for you last statement, not your call to make, and not government's unless there is harm and a compelling interest.

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

Well, I would agree that the portion of the court currently represented by Scalia is not what I would like (or perhaps you meant something else?), but they seem to be doing a pretty good job of protecting people's rights. Ultimately, the very fact of their existence, whether you agree with a given decision or not, protects everyone's rights.

Yet, what did the Scalia of 1990 say in the religion/peyote case in 1990?

"They [those claiming the right to use peyote] assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires).

As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning.

It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business.

It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended."

Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Katzndogz]

Christians will just have to develop an underground network of services only available to Christians. The old Soviet Union had many such underground networks.

The provider will have an array of services publicly available, the public can make their choices from those.

 

[PratchettFan]

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

The Court can protect everyone's rights but only if the Court is allowed to decide what is or isn't a right.

When the claim of a right to discriminate goes up against a claim of a right not to be discriminated against,

the decision has to be based on having decided which right is the legitimate right.

I think it is quite obvious that these people seem to think these laws were designed to "get them." In the mental health field, they have a tem for this. It is called a "persecution complex."

Most of our laws are designed to 'get' people who do certain things.

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Arguing that PA laws are beneficial to society and religious beliefs are not a justification for violating such laws is an argument which might well get you somewhere. However, coupling that with vitriol showing contempt for anyone who does not agree with you pretty much nullifies it. The reality is that bigotry exists on both sides of any social issue, as you have shown us.

Yes, I have contempt for people who use bronze age superstitions to rationalize their bigotry.

I have even more contempt for people who don't even know what their superstitions are, but insist they do.

So really, all in or all out. If you want to claim the Bible as a source to rationalize your bigotry, you have to do EVERYTHING it says.

I don't claim the Bible as a source of anything. I could not care less what the Bible says. We are discussing what you are saying, and what you are saying is pure bigotry. Why is your bigotry better than anyone else's bigotry?

When two claimed rights collide, one has to win one has to lose. There is no win win.

In one case the losing side has hurt feelings and has to spend an hour or so finding another baker. In the other the losing side either has to go against their morals, or pay a fine or go out of business.

For a person with any sort of spine, only one side loses here, and it's not the side with the hurt feelings.

Exactly. If your morals prevent you from following the law, then don't go into business. You are FREE to open a business and operate it in accordance with the law. Don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you when you blatantly break the law.

That isn't freedom, and it's not a choice.

But of course, we are supposed to feel sorry for illegal immigrants who break the law, because of "the children".

 

[ChrisL]

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

The Court can protect everyone's rights but only if the Court is allowed to decide what is or isn't a right.

When the claim of a right to discriminate goes up against a claim of a right not to be discriminated against,

the decision has to be based on having decided which right is the legitimate right.

I think it is quite obvious that these people seem to think these laws were designed to "get them." In the mental health field, they have a tem for this. It is called a "persecution complex."

Most of our laws are designed to 'get' people who do certain things.

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

I know that. These laws are in place to protect people from discriminatory business practices. ALL the people, even the Christians themselves. Only, some of them are too far gone to realize this.

 

[martybegan]

The courts heard religious challenges to the tax laws multiple times.

Gosh darn it, here I thought you were talking about "people" paying taxes when you said "people to avoid paying taxes." My mistake, kinda like I thought "established by the states," meant established by the states.

Do we allow 'religious'people the legal right dodge tax laws?

No, why do you keep implying that we do?

He's trying to get a gotcha moment, and keeps swinging and missing.

Are religious beliefs sufficient to legally avoid paying taxes?

No, because as I said, actual harm, and a compelling government and societal interest.

 

[PratchettFan]

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

I really would like to see this in front of SCOTUS. I'm not at all sure which way it would go.

With the Court we have now (or god forbid the one we get if Hillary wins?)

Who knows? My expectations of a Court that protects everyone's rights, not just special people's rights are at an all time low.

Well, I would agree that the portion of the court currently represented by Scalia is not what I would like (or perhaps you meant something else?), but they seem to be doing a pretty good job of protecting people's rights. Ultimately, the very fact of their existence, whether you agree with a given decision or not, protects everyone's rights.

Yet, what did the Scalia of 1990 say in the religion/peyote case in 1990?

"They [those claiming the right to use peyote] assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires).

As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning.

It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business.

It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended."

Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Yes. He will have quite a time reconciling that, won't he? It should be interesting.

 

[martybegan]

The Court can protect everyone's rights but only if the Court is allowed to decide what is or isn't a right.

When the claim of a right to discriminate goes up against a claim of a right not to be discriminated against,

the decision has to be based on having decided which right is the legitimate right.

I think it is quite obvious that these people seem to think these laws were designed to "get them." In the mental health field, they have a tem for this. It is called a "persecution complex."

Most of our laws are designed to 'get' people who do certain things.

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

I know that. These laws are in place to protect people from discriminatory business practices. ALL the people, even the Christians themselves. Only, some of them are too far gone to realize this.

"protecting" nothing but hurt feelings in this case, not actual harm.

You fainting flowers seem to be all big and tough when government does your dirty work, but being told "i'm sorry, we don't provide service X, please go to someone else" ZOMG, the vapors!!!!!

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, I have contempt for people who use bronze age superstitions to rationalize their bigotry.

I have even more contempt for people who don't even know what their superstitions are, but insist they do.

So really, all in or all out. If you want to claim the Bible as a source to rationalize your bigotry, you have to do EVERYTHING it says.

I don't claim the Bible as a source of anything. I could not care less what the Bible says. We are discussing what you are saying, and what you are saying is pure bigotry. Why is your bigotry better than anyone else's bigotry?

When two claimed rights collide, one has to win one has to lose. There is no win win.

In one case the losing side has hurt feelings and has to spend an hour or so finding another baker. In the other the losing side either has to go against their morals, or pay a fine or go out of business.

For a person with any sort of spine, only one side loses here, and it's not the side with the hurt feelings.

Exactly. If your morals prevent you from following the law, then don't go into business. You are FREE to open a business and operate it in accordance with the law. Don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you when you blatantly break the law.

That isn't freedom, and it's not a choice.

But of course, we are supposed to feel sorry for illegal immigrants who break the law, because of "the children".

It is a choice. If you cannot comply with the law, then don't open a business. The state has every right to set rules and regulations with regard to how businesses operate in their district.

Illegal immigrants have nothing to do with this topic. Lol. And here you expect people to feel sorry for you because you can't be an open bigot when doing business? Laughable.

 

[ChrisL]

I think it is quite obvious that these people seem to think these laws were designed to "get them." In the mental health field, they have a tem for this. It is called a "persecution complex."

Most of our laws are designed to 'get' people who do certain things.

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

I know that. These laws are in place to protect people from discriminatory business practices. ALL the people, even the Christians themselves. Only, some of them are too far gone to realize this.

"protecting" nothing but hurt feelings in this case, not actual harm.

You fainting flowers seem to be all big and tough when government does your dirty work, but being told "i'm sorry, we don't provide service X, please go to someone else" ZOMG, the vapors!!!!!

Sorry, that's the law. If you open a public accommodation business, be prepared to serve the public, that includes blacks, gays, women, Muslims and other people you might not like.