CDZ Freedom of religion and speech vs discrimination of gays

[task0778]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

 

[Darkwind]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

 

[OldLady]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

I agree with you that this is a thorny issue, a real duel between two basic fundamentals of American jurisprudence. I wouldn't want to have to make the SC's decision. Someone will lose. Hopefully the SC will keep avoiding it until society sorts out an acceptable compromise for both sides. I believe the gays deserve as much right to be treated equally as the baker does to freely practice his religion.

Where I have a question for you, is why you think the gay couple went looking for trouble? Just because there are other bakeries in the area? Did it occur to you that it may have just happened that they liked the look of the place or some of the cakes he had created that were (possibly) posted on line or in his window? Maybe it had easier parking or was close to the reception site or their home. Or someone had mentioned it as being a great bakery? They didn't record it or bring in friends as "witnesses." I think it is as likely that it was just one of those things that happened, and over the past few years while this made its way through the courts, it wouldn't surprise me if the gay couple have wished they had walked into a different bakery, too.

 

[OldLady]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?

 

[Darkwind]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?

If you can't work that out, I'm sorry.

 

[bodecea]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

Show us the "religion" where dogma states that someone can't bake a cake for a reception.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

Yes, explicitly affirmed and protected, along with freedom of speech. Very strongly implied, in that same First Amendment, are freedoms of association and conscience. The right of a baker to not be compelled to produce a cake that expresses support for a sick, homosexual mockery of wedding, which he finds to be irreconcilable with his moral standards, is quite clearly and redundantly protected by the First Amendment.

What you will not find, anywhere in the Constitution, is anything that either explicitly or implicitly supports the “right” of immoral sexual deviants to compel any decent person to any any way give support or approval for their perversions. It's just not in there.

Those on the left wrong are fond of making up bogus “Constitutional rights” that are nowhere mentioned or implied in the Constitution, while disparaging and denying rights which are explicitly affirmed or strongly implied in the Constitution.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

Show us the "religion" where dogma states that someone can't bake a cake for a reception.

see #8

 

[Mac1958]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

There will always be instances of dueling, competing, conflicting rights. I suspect the Founding Fathers knew this, and assumed we'd be able to work out such situations like adults, or at least hoped we would.

We appear to have lost that capacity. I'll bet the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate THAT.

I wish the baker had baked the damn cake. And then, when they refused, I wish the couple had just gone somewhere else. In both cases, the people involved were not willing to give an inch, to just let it go, to just live and let live.

We've become a terribly intolerant, narcissistic society, and we're creating our own problems.
.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Modern kershchins are trained at an early age that casting stones is not only ok but encouraged. They train like future pitchers in the Major Leagues to cast the first stone and every stone after. Because of course they don't REALLY have to follow any of that crap in the bible. Everyone is free to imagine in their own mind what THEIR own Jesus would do. Jesus was relative that way.

 

[OldLady]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?

If you can't work that out, I'm sorry.

It's not really upholding the importance of religious conscience, though, is it?

 

[bodecea]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

Show us the "religion" where dogma states that someone can't bake a cake for a reception.

see #8

Where's the dogma?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

Actually the issue has nothing to do with civil rights, nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty. Neither freedom of speech nor religious liberty are ‘compromised’ by public accommodations laws; indeed, the issue of speech doesn’t enter into the matter at all.

And the notion that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ‘persecuted’ Christians is a lie – as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the matter addressed only the procedural aspects of the case; Colorado public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation remain Constitutional, valid, and enforceable.

The problem therefore isn’t that this is a ‘thorny issue’ – the problem is this sort of ignorance of the law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

The early public accommodation laws addressed a very real and serious issue. Travel was made nearly impossible, in some parts of the country, for blacks, because they could not find restaurants, gas stations, motels, and other necessary facilities that were willing to do business with them. It's easy enough to image the harm; imagine being a traveler, far from home, in an unfamiliar place, your car is almost out of fuel, and you're hungry, and tired. There are gas stations nearby, but none of them will sell you any fuel. There are motels, but none will let you stay there. Restaurants, but none that will let you eat there.

That's a serious enough issue to justify government stepping in and telling these facilities that they can't refuse to do business with you, just because of the color of your skin, or any other criteria that do not relate to the transactions that they might want to decline.


Recent conflicts over “civil rights” and “discrimination” are not at all comparable.

First, nobody is going to be harmed by being denied access to a homosexual mockery of a wedding cake, the way one would be harmed by being denied access to food, lodging, fuel,and other genuine necessities.

Second, homosexuality truly is evil and immoral, and decent people absolutely have a right not to be compelled to give approval or support for it. That doesn't necessarily mean that I approve of refusing to provide basic, generic goods and services to someone, just because they are homosexual; but if a homosexual demands goods or services that specifically celebrate his perversion, then, no, nobody ought to be compelled to provide that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?

Because a business owner’s conscience is not ‘violated’ by obeying a just and proper law; he might subjectively and incorrectly believe that’s the case, but as a fact of law it is not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Because a business owner’s conscience is not ‘violated’ by obeying a just and proper law; he might subjectively and incorrectly believe that’s the case, but as a fact of law it is not.

A truly just and proper law would not compel a business owner to violate his conscience.

Denying that a business owner's conscience is violated when he is compelled by law to support something that he knows to be immoral, doesn't make it so.

 

[Pellinore]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

Yes, explicitly affirmed and protected, along with freedom of speech. Very strongly implied, in that same First Amendment, are freedoms of association and conscience. The right of a baker to not be compelled to produce a cake that expresses support for a sick, homosexual mockery of wedding, which he finds to be irreconcilable with his moral standards, is quite clearly and redundantly protected by the First Amendment.

What you will not find, anywhere in the Constitution, is anything that either explicitly or implicitly supports the “right” of immoral sexual deviants to compel any decent person to any any way give support or approval for their perversions. It's just not in there.

Those on the left wrong are fond of making up bogus “Constitutional rights” that are nowhere mentioned or implied in the Constitution, while disparaging and denying rights which are explicitly affirmed or strongly implied in the Constitution.

And yet the courts have upheld consistently that someone can't claim their own rights in order to allow them to commit a crime towards someone else; freedom of speech, for example, can't excuse libel, and freedom of religion can't excuse human sacrifice. Colorado has laws prohibiting housing and job discrimination based on sexual preference, but not service specifically. Maybe this will lead to one being passed, maybe even on the Federal level. Wouldn't that be great?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

Yes, explicitly affirmed and protected, along with freedom of speech. Very strongly implied, in that same First Amendment, are freedoms of association and conscience. The right of a baker to not be compelled to produce a cake that expresses support for a sick, homosexual mockery of wedding, which he finds to be irreconcilable with his moral standards, is quite clearly and redundantly protected by the First Amendment.

What you will not find, anywhere in the Constitution, is anything that either explicitly or implicitly supports the “right” of immoral sexual deviants to compel any decent person to any any way give support or approval for their perversions. It's just not in there.

Those on the left wrong are fond of making up bogus “Constitutional rights” that are nowhere mentioned or implied in the Constitution, while disparaging and denying rights which are explicitly affirmed or strongly implied in the Constitution.

And yet the courts have upheld consistently that someone can't claim their own rights in order to allow them to commit a crime towards someone else; freedom of speech, for example, can't excuse libel, and freedom of religion can't excuse human sacrifice. Colorado has laws prohibiting housing and job discrimination based on sexual preference, but not service specifically. Maybe this will lead to one being passed, maybe even on the Federal level. Wouldn't that be great?

Forcing people to do something against their religion is the crime.
We know that the Left Wingers loath Christians. What would they do next? People have to draw a line.

 

[OldLady]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

Actually the issue has nothing to do with civil rights, nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, in no way ‘violating’ religious liberty. Neither freedom of speech nor religious liberty are ‘compromised’ by public accommodations laws; indeed, the issue of speech doesn’t enter into the matter at all.

And the notion that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ‘persecuted’ Christians is a lie – as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.

The recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the matter addressed only the procedural aspects of the case; Colorado public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation remain Constitutional, valid, and enforceable.

The problem therefore isn’t that this is a ‘thorny issue’ – the problem is this sort of ignorance of the law.

If it weren't a thorny issue, why did the SC avoid it?