For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[PratchettFan]

And they are wrong.

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

No, they are not. They are being punished for violating a law. You have already agreed that such laws are valid, you just don't think it should go as far as this particular one goes. Unless the courts indicate that such laws violate the Constitution, then people violate them at their own peril. They are not being singled out because of their beliefs, they are being treated exactly as everyone else is being treated.

They are violating the law due to their religious beliefs, and thus being punished for them. You can't separate the two of them. And being singled out or not is meaningless. The law is being used to punish their religious beliefs.

Their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. They are not being punished for their beliefs. They can believe whatever they like. They are being punished for violating the law.

If I believe God wants us to share all property communally, does that exempt me from car theft laws if I drive off with your car?

They are violating the law because of their beliefs. and in your 2nd example, again, there is an actual harm involved, which negates the protections found under the 1st amendment.

As I said, their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. And I am not harming you, I am helping you to understand that all property is a cage and doing you nothing but good. Why would you persecute me?

No, that argument just doesn't stand. I am pretty sure which way a good portion of SCOTUS would want to go on this, but the potential flood gate it would open is significant. My guess is they will refuse to hear the case - though I would really like them to.

 

[ChrisL]

Also, a bakery is just a regular business. It is not recognized as a "religious institution." Therefore, you are required to follow the laws and you are not exempt.

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

 

[Katzndogz]

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

Of course they can. They just have to be better at it.

 

[martybegan]

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

No, if you are not a religious institution, your religious beliefs are not a good enough reason to discriminate against the public, any portion of the public. You are not being treated any differently from any other business. Get it? Probably not.

Again, why does going into business mean you lose your rights as an american without a compelling government interest?

 

[ChrisL]

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

Of course they can. They just have to be better at it.

Oh yes, they can, just not openly like the dolts who owned this bakery. Lol.

 

[martybegan]

Religious freedom is not limited to religious institutions.

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

 

[ChrisL]

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

No, if you are not a religious institution, your religious beliefs are not a good enough reason to discriminate against the public, any portion of the public. You are not being treated any differently from any other business. Get it? Probably not.

Again, why does going into business mean you lose your rights as an american without a compelling government interest?

You aren't losing any rights. You have to follow the state's rules like everyone else. There is no "right' to discriminate against people when operating a business in this particular state.

 

[PratchettFan]

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

No, if you are not a religious institution, your religious beliefs are not a good enough reason to discriminate against the public, any portion of the public. You are not being treated any differently from any other business. Get it? Probably not.

Again, why does going into business mean you lose your rights as an american without a compelling government interest?

Who gets to decide what is or is not a compelling interest

 

[ChrisL]

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

I think you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here incessantly whining about it. It's really quite pathetic.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

You have the test backwards. The Supreme Court specifically held that the compelling governmental interest test does not apply to laws, like the Oregon law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court wrote:

"The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e.g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

… The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 888-89 (citations omitted).

"The Supreme Court has been closely divided on this issue. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, the Court greatly narrowed a 35-year-old constitutional doctrine that had required a government entity to prove that it had a “compelling interest” whenever a generally applicable law was found to infringe on a claimant’s religious beliefs or practices. Under current constitutional law as explained in Smith, a government burden on a religious belief or practice requires little justification as long as the law in question is determined to be generally applicable and does not target a specific religion or religious practice."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

So, the burden is on those challenging a law of general application to prove how it creates a burden on a specific religious belief or practice.

 

[martybegan]

So the bakers are not being punished for their religious beliefs, or more accurately, exercising said religious beliefs?

No, they are not. They are being punished for violating a law. You have already agreed that such laws are valid, you just don't think it should go as far as this particular one goes. Unless the courts indicate that such laws violate the Constitution, then people violate them at their own peril. They are not being singled out because of their beliefs, they are being treated exactly as everyone else is being treated.

They are violating the law due to their religious beliefs, and thus being punished for them. You can't separate the two of them. And being singled out or not is meaningless. The law is being used to punish their religious beliefs.

Their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. They are not being punished for their beliefs. They can believe whatever they like. They are being punished for violating the law.

If I believe God wants us to share all property communally, does that exempt me from car theft laws if I drive off with your car?

They are violating the law because of their beliefs. and in your 2nd example, again, there is an actual harm involved, which negates the protections found under the 1st amendment.

As I said, their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. And I am not harming you, I am helping you to understand that all property is a cage and doing you nothing but good. Why would you persecute me?

No, that argument just doesn't stand. I am pretty sure which way a good portion of SCOTUS would want to go on this, but the potential flood gate it would open is significant. My guess is they will refuse to hear the case - though I would really like them to.

If you take my car, I suffer harm. If my feelings are hurt but I still get the product I want with minimal additional effort, I am not harmed, or at least harmed much much less than someone facing a "bake or go away" choice that is an affront to their personal moral code.

 

[Seawytch]

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

No, if you are not a religious institution, your religious beliefs are not a good enough reason to discriminate against the public, any portion of the public. You are not being treated any differently from any other business. Get it? Probably not.

Again, why does going into business mean you lose your rights as an american without a compelling government interest?

Who gets to decide what is or is not a compelling interest

And beyond that, it would be terribly unfair to the bigot providing a service of a "compelling interest". I'm a bigot grocer that doesn't want those F word for gay men in my store...how come the baker across the street gets to kick out the queers and I don't?

 

[martybegan]

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

I think you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here incessantly whining about it. It's really quite pathetic.

You just can't grasp the concept of defending others even if you don't agree with them. It's actually kind of sad.

 

[martybegan]

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

No, if you are not a religious institution, your religious beliefs are not a good enough reason to discriminate against the public, any portion of the public. You are not being treated any differently from any other business. Get it? Probably not.

Again, why does going into business mean you lose your rights as an american without a compelling government interest?

Who gets to decide what is or is not a compelling interest

And beyond that, it would be terribly unfair to the bigot providing a service of a "compelling interest". I'm a bigot grocer that doesn't want those F word for gay men in my store...how come the baker across the street gets to kick out the queers and I don't?

Necessity and timeliness. Plus point of sale and a contracted service are two different things.

 

[martybegan]

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

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

You have the test backwards. The Supreme Court specifically held that the compelling governmental interest test does not apply to laws, like the Oregon law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court wrote:

"The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e.g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

… The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 888-89 (citations omitted).

"The Supreme Court has been closely divided on this issue. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, the Court greatly narrowed a 35-year-old constitutional doctrine that had required a government entity to prove that it had a “compelling interest” whenever a generally applicable law was found to infringe on a claimant’s religious beliefs or practices. Under current constitutional law as explained in Smith, a government burden on a religious belief or practice requires little justification as long as the law in question is determined to be generally applicable and does not target a specific religion or religious practice."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

So, the burden is on those challenging a law of general application to prove how it creates a burden on a specific religious belief or practice.

Once again running to 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to do your oppression for you.

 

[ChrisL]

No, they are not. They are being punished for violating a law. You have already agreed that such laws are valid, you just don't think it should go as far as this particular one goes. Unless the courts indicate that such laws violate the Constitution, then people violate them at their own peril. They are not being singled out because of their beliefs, they are being treated exactly as everyone else is being treated.

They are violating the law due to their religious beliefs, and thus being punished for them. You can't separate the two of them. And being singled out or not is meaningless. The law is being used to punish their religious beliefs.

Their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. They are not being punished for their beliefs. They can believe whatever they like. They are being punished for violating the law.

If I believe God wants us to share all property communally, does that exempt me from car theft laws if I drive off with your car?

They are violating the law because of their beliefs. and in your 2nd example, again, there is an actual harm involved, which negates the protections found under the 1st amendment.

As I said, their reason for violating the law is irrelevant. And I am not harming you, I am helping you to understand that all property is a cage and doing you nothing but good. Why would you persecute me?

No, that argument just doesn't stand. I am pretty sure which way a good portion of SCOTUS would want to go on this, but the potential flood gate it would open is significant. My guess is they will refuse to hear the case - though I would really like them to.

If you take my car, I suffer harm. If my feelings are hurt but I still get the product I want with minimal additional effort, I am not harmed, or at least harmed much much less than someone facing a "bake or go away" choice that is an affront to their personal moral code.

Doesn't matter. Businesses are not allowed to openly discriminate against the public unless they are classified as a religious institution, and bakeries are not religious institutions in any sense of the word. If you can't operate your business in accordance with your state laws, then don't open a business. Simple and does not violate any of your rights.

In fact, you, as a business owner, discriminating against certain sectors of the public does in fact violate THEIR rights regardless of your personal beliefs. You see how that works?

 

[ChrisL]

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

I think you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here incessantly whining about it. It's really quite pathetic.

You just can't grasp the concept of defending others even if you don't agree with them. It's actually kind of sad.

No, you don't understand freedom of religion at all.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

Already have case law that addresses that. Even comes out of Oregon. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH FindLaw States that where there is a law of general application, a person seeking exemption from that law cannot simply state that they object to the law on religious grounds. From the opinion, "The protection that the First Amendment provides to "`legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion,'" see Hobbie, 480 U.S., at 142 (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972)) (emphasis added), does not extend to conduct that a State has validly proscribed. [485 U.S. 660, 672] - See more at: EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH FindLaw I highlighted to important part of this passage. The state can validly proscribe discrimination against gay people and claim that such laws violate the free exercise of religion fail. Before you cite to the RFRA, that only applies to federal legislation. A state would have to pass its own RFRA to restore the previous test for religious freedom, and Oregon has not.

 

[paddymurphy]

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

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

You have the test backwards. The Supreme Court specifically held that the compelling governmental interest test does not apply to laws, like the Oregon law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court wrote:

"The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e.g., Palmore v. Sidoti, or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e.g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields -- equality of treatment, and an unrestricted flow of contending speech -- are constitutional norms; what it would produce here -- a private right to ignore generally applicable laws -- is a constitutional anomaly.

… The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind -- ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 888-89 (citations omitted).

"The Supreme Court has been closely divided on this issue. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, the Court greatly narrowed a 35-year-old constitutional doctrine that had required a government entity to prove that it had a “compelling interest” whenever a generally applicable law was found to infringe on a claimant’s religious beliefs or practices. Under current constitutional law as explained in Smith, a government burden on a religious belief or practice requires little justification as long as the law in question is determined to be generally applicable and does not target a specific religion or religious practice."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

So, the burden is on those challenging a law of general application to prove how it creates a burden on a specific religious belief or practice.

Once again running to 5 of 9 unelected lawyers to do your oppression for you.

That opinion, dipshit, was by the conservative justices. The liberals dissented and wanted greater protection for religious practices. And if you do not like the idea of a Supreme Court, move to some nation where there is no constitution or amend ours to eliminate one of the branches.

 

[paddymurphy]

Good geebus, one has to wonder how much longer this whining is going to continue.

Getting tired of just saying the same thing over and over

"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"
"It's the law, fuh fuh fuh"

You are an oppressive broken record.

Oh, so now I'm oppressing you? Too funny. You just don't like the truth. Sorry about that. Perhaps you should talk to someone about this problem.

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.