Winning! Supreme Court Tosses Ruling Against Christian Bakers Who Refused Cake For Gay Couple

[dblack]

It's hypocritical because you're supporting PA laws, which violate the rights of business people to say "no", but you're arguing for an exemption if it's for religious reasons. ie "It's different when we do it".

I reluctantly support PA laws not because I think they are good things all the time but because letting businesses
simply ignore such laws takes us back inevitably to Jim Crow era practices.

How so? Jim Crow was the practice of using laws to force discrimination. It was, frankly, based on the same conception of the role of government as PA laws - namely that government is there to tell us how to live (who to associate with, what opinions to have, etc...). PA laws are actually just the flip side of Jim Crow. Both are wrong for the same reasons.

If I'm wearing a hat with a flag on it I don't want to be turned away by some leftist ass just because he can.

So what? I don't want to be turned down by the hot girl I asked out. Should I push for legislation past that prevents it, that forces her to go out with me?

I love libertarians but ...

Republicans have been spinning this horseshit since Reagan. Republicans only agree with libertarians when they're not in office. Or if they're at a party and don't want to admit they're a Republican.

As far as exemptions only for rare religious reasons we have this thing called the Constitution which protects
the right to practice one's religion. What can I say?

The First Amendment isn't supposed to grant special treatment for religions. It's supposed to do the opposite. It's supposed to protect them from special treatment, and protect all of us from government control of religion.

Perhaps not devious so much as contentious and argumentative (such as comments about "whining"
which aren't really accurate as much as pejorative).

That's because I think you're wrong. You basically agree with the Democrats regarding the role of government. You just want your guys pulling the levers.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

How so? Jim Crow was the practice of using laws to force discrimination. It was, frankly, based on the same conception of the role of government as PA laws - namely that government is there to tell us how to live (who to associate with, what opinions to have, etc...). PA laws are actually just the flip side of Jim Crow. Both are wrong for the same reasons.

I'm not using the term Jim Crow literally but figuratively.....the idea that you can serve or deny service to anyone you like for any reason.

That's a great thing as a business owner. Not so great if you live in a small town with only one store and the owner hates your guts because your respective daughters have come to blows more than once (an actual case I'm familiar with). Then what?

Just leave town, which is always the libertarian answer when it comes to employment or any other problem? Just go somewhere else, do something else, find some other thing.
Not always or often possible or feasible and who says the next small town will have a job for you or a place to live anyway?
Not a libertarian's problem and luckily their philosophy trumps your petty personal problems in any event.

In any event if you are a Jew, a Mexican, a white person, an Asian or an anything else Public Accommodation laws serve a very useful purpose whether they suit your "I should be able to do whatever I feel like doing" philosophy or not.
Your idea is very satisfying when you're the guy in charge. Not so much in a civil society where all sorts of people are trying to find a way to coexist.

So what? I don't want to be turned down by the hot girl I asked out. Should I try to get legislation past that prevents it?

I sincerely doubt legislation will fix your social problems.

Republicans have been spinning this horseshit since Reagan. Republicans only agree with libertarians when they're not in office. Or if they're at a party and don't want to admit they're a Republican.

Like it or not libertarians are idealists to an unreasonable extreme. They used to be called
"isolationists" in the early 20th century and not many were buying their product even then.
Things have changed very little and libertarians have a rabid but unreasonable base from which to spout their views.

The First Amendment isn't supposed to grant special treatment for religions. It's supposed to do the opposite. It's supposed to protect them from special treatment, and protect all of us from government control of religion.

"Special treatment" like being able to refuse work that you think all business owners should have the right to claim?
But I guess somehow you also believe the religious should NOT have rights, purely on the grounds that they are believers in something you don't seem comfortable with or seem to share? Is that right?
I don't see any other reason to single out religious freedom as an unreasonable thing.

It's no more unreasonable than freedom of speech or thought or personal expression.

Don't forget we are talking about something as petty and frivolous as a cake
and the fact is freedom of religion is an extremely basic right and people around the world seek to have it in their lives.
It is not an unimportant thing to so many. Ask the people in places like China, N. Korea, Iran, India, Nigeria, etc.
if their wish to be free to worship as they will is a minor or silly inconsequential thing.

That's because I think you're wrong. You basically agree with the Democrats regarding the role of government. You just want your guys pulling the levers.

Actually when it comes to the basic right of freedom of religion I think it's YOU who are in agreement with the democrats.
They don't seem to think much of it either.

Certainly not as much as they think of a gay wedding cake and their ability to compel forced labor on the behalf of the protected gays class.

 

[dblack]

How so? Jim Crow was the practice of using laws to force discrimination. It was, frankly, based on the same conception of the role of government as PA laws - namely that government is there to tell us how to live (who to associate with, what opinions to have, etc...). PA laws are actually just the flip side of Jim Crow. Both are wrong for the same reasons.

I'm not using the term Jim Crow literally but figuratively.....the idea that you can serve or deny service to anyone you like for any reason.

That's not what Jim Crow refers to. Jim Crow wasn't the freedom to deny service - it was a mandate from government to deny service. That's an important distinction.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

That's not what Jim Crow refers to. Jim Crow wasn't the freedom to deny service - it was a mandate from government to deny service. That's an important distinction.

It was both. As I said, I use the term figuratively. Certainly in that era not every state by any means demanded segregated service. Only in the deep south was that policy formalized in law. Yet in border states and some areas service was denied
to non whites or certainly discouraged.

I don't think the exact definition of Jim Crow is an important matter, in any case.

 

[Seawytch]

Great summation of the issues. So what amI supposed to see?

I pulled it out for you. You cut it out of the reply. Here it is again:

The question presented is: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.​

That is what the baker sought but did not get.

It ruled in his favor. That is a real answer that you obviously would like to ignore.

Awwww, look who is shifting the goal posts. Yes, the baker won a narrow decision that pertained ONLY to him and his case. That was NOT the result they were seaking. This was:

The question presented is: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
​

But they did not get that outcome, the outcome they sought. Again, they went in going for the big prize money and went home with a year supply of Ramen. Go ahead and celebrate the Ramen, but it was not the prize that was sought.

Yes. Thank you for asking. I did. US Navy. Medical support overseas during Vietnam war era, for all that matters. Thanks for your service...too bad you are such a moron.

And thank you for yours. Were you drafted? Vietnam explains your deeply homophobic attitude...you're old.

If you read my posts, which you don't, you see I have no problem with Public Accommodation laws in general. Only when they are applied indiscriminately and in a doctrinaire manner that run over the rights of other people.

No shit, bigot, you only have problems with the gay ones. You're just like the baker. It's not about "freedom" or "deeply held religious beliefs", it's about hating gays. You just openly admitted to what I've been saying this whole time. You already said that if the situation with the anti gay bakers was exactly the same, but involved an interracial couple, you would side with the interracial couple not the baker.

That's bullshit and because I side with the Supreme Court in this case and believe they have gotten things right is no reason at all to play the homophobe card. But what else have you got?
Nothing!

No, that's true shit. If the situation were exactly the same and the baker told an interracial couple that he could not bake a cake for them because his religion says mixing races is a "sin", you would side with the baker or the couple?

 

[Seawytch]

PA laws are not stupidity. You can argue for or against their merits but they aren't coming from a bad or stupid place.

They're coming from a fundamentally authoritarian place, from people who are convinced the know better, people convinced they are justified in forcing their values in others with government.

Do away with them and we find out quickly why they're needed.

I believe we'd discover that they aren't needed, that it's ok for people to be bigots (and suffer the social consequences of their stupidity). There's no need to legislate on the matter.

And I guarantee you that if you get rid of them, some gas station or grocery store won't serve the Muslim family in town or a hotel won't let them stay and we're back where we started.

How so? We started with slavery. Then Jim Crow laws. If either of those "come back", I'll be fighting them even harder than PA laws.

But telling people who they have to serve? Who they have to hire? Who they have associate with? That violates rights so basic, the founders saw no reason to mention them in the Constitution (with the exception of the Ninth Amendment, but apparently we've decided to ignore that one). You just can't control society that way with laws. And it's an abuse of government's authority to try. Government is supposed to serve the people, not tell them how to live.

How so? The same way we got PA laws in the first place. I know you think the free market will take care of people that want to discriminate, but that's pretty naive.

I'm not saying the market will punish everyone you think deserves it. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. I'm just saying that if society wants to censure them, that's the way to do it. Using laws, and a coercive state mechanism to punish them, isn't justified. It's an overreach of government.

And that's why we have PA laws, because the market can't be trusted to police itself as it has shown time and time again.

 

[dblack]

I'm not saying the market will punish everyone you think deserves it. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. I'm just saying that if society wants to censure them, that's the way to do it. Using laws, and a coercive state mechanism to punish them, isn't justified. It's an overreach of government.

And that's why we have PA laws, because the market can't be trusted to police itself as it has shown time and time again.

Using laws, and a coercive state mechanism to punish them, isn't justified. It's an overreach of government.

I guess our difference in opinion starts with the premise. You assume government is obligated to do something about discrimination. And I don't. In fact, I think it's an abuse of government to exert that kind of control over society. People have a right to their irrational biases, and they have a right to act on them. It honestly seems kind of crazy to that such a thing is in question.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I pulled it out for you. You cut it out of the reply. Here it is again:

The question presented is: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
That is what the baker sought but did not get.

The court ruled in his favor. What part of this do you not understand? Obviously Phillips could not be compelled by law to
violate his own Christian values. Obviously he did seek relief from the court and he did get it.

Awwww, look who is shifting the goal posts. Yes, the baker won a narrow decision that pertained ONLY to him and his case. That was NOT the result they were seaking. This was:

The question presented is: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
But they did not get that outcome, the outcome they sought. Again, they went in going for the big prize money and went home with a year supply of Ramen. Go ahead and celebrate the Ramen, but it was not the prize that was sought.

Talk about moving the goal posts...that's you. "The question presented is: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment."

You ask the question, can Phillips be compelled to labor against his will by the state in violation of the First Amendment?
The question is answered, no he cannot!
Then you veer off course claiming this only applies to Phillips and to no one else should they find themselves in similar circumstances. Bullshit!

It's a legal principle, asshole involving the Constitution itself! How in the world can this decision only apply to this Phillips guy and no one else? Use your fucking retrograde brain, you moron!

Obviously the Supreme Court has already negated that pile of crap by sending the Klein case back to the lower Oregon courts to get things right, in light of the Phillips decision. The case wasn't sent back for redress because the court found
nothing wrong with the way the Kleins were persecuted.
Honestly you are so fucking stupid and hopeless.

And thank you for yours. Were you drafted? Vietnam explains your deeply homophobic attitude...you're old.

Yes, I was drafted. And I've already made several comments in support of gays that demonstrate you are a babbling
ideologue who only sees what you want to see I feel no need to waste my time defending myself to an ass clown.
It would be pointless....like your posts.

No shit, bigot, you only have problems with the gay ones. You're just like the baker. It's not about "freedom" or "deeply held religious beliefs", it's about hating gays. You just openly admitted to what I've been saying this whole time. You already said that if the situation with the anti gay bakers was exactly the same, but involved an interracial couple, you would side with the interracial couple not the baker.

I actually have NOT said that. How diseased is your mind, exactly? Very very diseased it seems.
I've said if a black baker was asked to make a cake celebrating the Klan he would have every right to refuse the request.
You're a fucking disgraceful liar as I've said before.

No, that's true shit. If the situation were exactly the same and the baker told an interracial couple that he could not bake a cake for them because his religion says mixing races is a "sin", you would side with the baker or the couple?

How many times would you like me to deal with your ignorant bullshit? The bible does not justify racism as I've said over and over again. Using religion to justify racism is pointless because it, religion, does no such thing.
Are there any stronger words than stop your fucking demented trolling that might reach you? You are a fucking ignorant train wreck.

 

[dblack]

I don't think the exact definition of Jim Crow is an important matter, in any case.

I just want to understand what you mean by your claim that getting rid of PA laws was cause us to revert to "Jim Crow practices". Are you suggesting that repealing PA laws would invite laws that discriminate against minorities? Or are you just saying that PA laws would allow businesses to discriminate (obviously)?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I just want to understand what you mean by your claim that getting rid of PA laws was cause us to revert to "Jim Crow practices". Are you suggesting that repealing PA laws would invite laws that discriminate against minorities? Or are you just saying that PA laws would allow businesses to discriminate (obviously)?

I'm not saying doing away with all PA laws will guarantee society will revert to a Jim Crow mindset. It's not 1960 anymore.
I'm saying it will invite business owners already likely to discriminate based on a number of subsets (religion, race, ethnicity, political orientation,etc.) to bring back a sort of Jim Crow-esque shadow over the country that will be hard to get out from under.

I understand and agree that business owners don't need the government looking over their shoulders and breathing down their necks. I really detest these shysters that make a living going around the country suing business owners because they haven't crossed every single T and dotted every single I with regard to the jungle of handicap accessibility laws.

I'm saying that of the two evils, businesses being run by politicians and public accommodation laws, I would come down reluctantly in favor of PA laws.

 

[bodecea]

So you support people making up "deeply held religious beliefs" to get around the business laws they were supposed to follow by getting a business license.

It’s called “the Supremacy Clause” sweetie. The U.S. Constitution trumps the “business license”. Deal with it.

Interesting...perhaps a Supreme Court case can be made for that.....oops, there already has been. And the Supreme Court upheld PA laws.

 

[bodecea]

Gays and lesbians are perfectly capable of reproducing

So explain it to us. The board is dying to hear this one.

When two lesbians rub their vaginas together, how exactly does fertilization take place? Which dyke carries the sperm necessary for fertilization?

And when a queer sticks his penis up the butt of another queer, how exactly does fertilization and gestation take place? Which queen carries an egg in his anus? And where does that queer carry the baby?!?

Seawytch yet again illustrating why Dumbocrats are the party of rejecting science. First “Global Warming” and now “men can have menstrual cycles and give birth”.

Funny how you think that gays are infertile. If needed there are ways to reproduce. Even the most common way that many heteros do...by cheating on their spouse/SO.

 

[dblack]

I'm saying that of the two evils, businesses being run by politicians and public accommodation laws, I would come down reluctantly in favor of PA laws.

I don't understand. Why would you presume we must choose between those two options? As far as I see it, PA laws are "businesses being run by politicians".

 

[dblack]

So you support people making up "deeply held religious beliefs" to get around the business laws they were supposed to follow by getting a business license.

It’s called “the Supremacy Clause” sweetie. The U.S. Constitution trumps the “business license”. Deal with it.

Interesting...perhaps a Supreme Court case can be made for that.....oops, there already has been. And the Supreme Court upheld PA laws.

Yep. The Court was wrong.

 

[OldLady]

Sooner or later, one might think that the SCOTUS will have to face the issue of competing Rights: religious liberty vs LGBT discrimination. I think they'll basically require the states to treat each side in a just and impartial manner. Failure to do so will result in overturning the conviction, but I also think the SCOTUS does not want to judge the merits of each case, which run into the hundreds or even thousands as one side or the other attempts to use the courts as a weapon against the other.

Sooner or later, one might think that the SCOTUS will have to face the issue of competing Rights: religious liberty vs LGBT discrimination
The justices on the SCOTUS are thanking their lucky stars that they can pick and choose the cases they take.
Who would want to rule on that issue? As bad as an abortion ruling, which you will notice they are managing to avoid as well.

 

[Seawytch]

I pulled it out for you. You cut it out of the reply. Here it is again:

The question presented is: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
That is what the baker sought but did not get.

The court ruled in his favor. What part of this do you not understand? Obviously Phillips could not be compelled by law to
violate his own Christian values. Obviously he did seek relief from the court and he did get it.

He did not get what he was seeking. He got a consolation prize, leaving the entire question still open. He and every other person who provides public accommodations and services still have to bake cakes for gay weddings and if they refuse it will still go to court.

Talk about moving the goal posts...that's you. "The question presented is: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment."

You ask the question, can Phillips be compelled to labor against his will by the state in violation of the First Amendment?
The question is answered, no he cannot!
Then you veer off course claiming this only applies to Phillips and to no one else should they find themselves in similar circumstances. Bullshit!

No, moron, the question WAS NOT ANSWERED. How do you still not understand that?

It's a legal principle, asshole involving the Constitution itself! How in the world can this decision only apply to this Phillips guy and no one else? Use your fucking retrograde brain, you moron!

OMG, you still haven't read the ruling. after pages and pages. Unbelievable.

LGBTQ advocates worried that if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phillips, it could give businesses a “license to discriminate” — because, in effect, any business could cite its religious beliefs to discriminate against LGBTQ people. That would open a hole in laws that ban anti-LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace, housing, public accommodations (which include businesses open to the public, like Phillips’s), and schools.

If that proved true, it’d be a huge blow to LGBTQ advocates. It’s already the case that most states and the federal government do not explicitly ban anti-LGBTQ discrimination in these settings. So if the Supreme Court weakened the existing laws further, it’d make a national landscape that’s already unfriendly to LGBTQ people even worse.

The Supreme Court, however, by and large avoided these issues. Instead of looking at the broader debate, the Court focused on the facts of how Masterpiece Cakeshop was treated by the Colorado government and particularly by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
​

Why you shouldn’t freak out about the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling

Obviously the Supreme Court has already negated that pile of crap by sending the Klein case back to the lower Oregon courts to get things right, in light of the Phillips decision. The case wasn't sent back for redress because the court found
nothing wrong with the way the Kleins were persecuted.
Honestly you are so fucking stupid and hopeless.

They PUNTED. The Oregon court isn't going to change their decision. Unlike the Colorado case, there was no perceived animus towards a religion. They sent it back because they weren't ready to overturn decades of precedent. You still cannot discriminate against gays and lesbians anywhere they are protected by PA laws.

The SCOTUS isn't going to be able to punt the next time.

Yes, I was drafted. And I've already made several comments in support of gays that demonstrate you are a babbling
ideologue who only sees what you want to see I feel no need to waste my time defending myself to an ass clown.
It would be pointless....like your posts.

No you haven't. People that support gays don't use words like "homo" or "sodomites". You can try to lie to yourself, but we all see your homophobia.

I actually have NOT said that. How diseased is your mind, exactly? Very very diseased it seems.
I've said if a black baker was asked to make a cake celebrating the Klan he would have every right to refuse the request.
You're a fucking disgraceful liar as I've said before.

You just changed the scenario. Try again.

An interracial couple walks into a bakery to buy a wedding cake. The baker says "my religion says that your relationship is a sin and I cannot bake a wedding cake for you. Here have some cookies". Do you side with the baker or the couple?

How many times would you like me to deal with your ignorant bullshit? The bible does not justify racism as I've said over and over again. Using religion to justify racism is pointless because it, religion, does no such thing.
Are there any stronger words than stop your fucking demented trolling that might reach you? You are a fucking ignorant train wreck.

How many times do I have to tell you it doesn't matter what YOU think the bible says about it, it's what THEY think the bible says about it and they believe the bible justifies their racism just as much as you think it justifies your homophobia.

Is Segregation Scriptural? A Radio Address from Bob Jones on Easter of 1960

 

[task0778]

Sooner or later, one might think that the SCOTUS will have to face the issue of competing Rights: religious liberty vs LGBT discrimination. I think they'll basically require the states to treat each side in a just and impartial manner. Failure to do so will result in overturning the conviction, but I also think the SCOTUS does not want to judge the merits of each case, which run into the hundreds or even thousands as one side or the other attempts to use the courts as a weapon against the other.

Sooner or later, one might think that the SCOTUS will have to face the issue of competing Rights: religious liberty vs LGBT discrimination
The justices on the SCOTUS are thanking their lucky stars that they can pick and choose the cases they take.
Who would want to rule on that issue? As bad as an abortion ruling, which you will notice they are managing to avoid as well.

So far, their stance has been that a state cannot show bias or favoritism to either side, and IMHO that is the correct ruling. But what'll they do when a case arises where no obvious bias exists, or at least no evidence to support such a contention. Will they look to see if the state has an exemption to their public accommodation laws, such as if there are other businesses that can provide the goods/services, thus mitigating the harm to the LGBT person(s)? What if the business offers its basic goods and services to all EXCEPT for what might be called special services that require artistry or the like? IOW, I'll bake you the basic cake but you design it and deliver it to the wedding.

To me, when you've got 2 competing Rights, if there is no other way to decide the issue then maybe it comes down to who is harmed the most. And the standing for religious freedom is very solid, it is after all in the 1st Amendment. OTOH, for example you can't be asking for the Right to discriminate against black people or Jewish people based on your religion. To me, the LGBT discrimination side is trying to use the law as a weapon to promote their cause, as righteous as it might be. And that ain't right in my book.

 

[P@triot]

Procreation does not require intercourse.

It does in the natural realm, sweetie. And that's what we were talking about. That homosexuality is an anomaly of nature.

 

[P@triot]

Tell.me something, why could you not simply say "when gays have sex"?

Normally, I would. But since you refuse to accept science (and reality), it required a little something extra to drive home the point. Homosexuals cannot procreate. Only an asshole would attempt to dispute that.

 

[P@triot]

Funny how you think that gays are infertile.

They aren't "infertile". They are incompatible. There's a difference. Homosexuals cannot reproduce. One lesbian cannot get another lesbian pregnant. One gay cannot get another gay pregnant. It's just a fact. Stop with your nonsense already.