Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

[Alfalfa]

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

"Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends."

The issue and the law has nothing to do with a customers right to choose who they buy from for any reason. It's about a private business with a business license serving the general public and who they can or cannot refuse service or products.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason.

A business refusing service or products due to verifiable safety reasons is legal so you're linking that with reasons which are patently against anti-discrimination laws as if they were the same is intellectually dishonest. But I bet it works in church...

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

Again, for about the tenth time, this issue isn't about someone holding a belief or conviction, it's about putting that belief or conviction into physical action using their business that serves the general public. If you are a racist you can express those racists beliefs, you can even go to rally's supporting those racists beliefs, both are covered under the 1st Amend. But if you go to the house of a black family and burn a cross on their lawn, that will breaking the law and you will most likely go to jail.

It boggles my mind how proponents of physical acts of hate and discrimination against a protected class are constantly misrepresented as violations of the 1st amend. Hold all the bigoted, racist, hateful thoughts you want, discuss them among your peers, but put them into action and you will go to jail or get sued.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They can claim anything they want, the problem would be they would have to prove that the business turned them down based on race and not as a political organization (which is not a protected class).

All the shop owner would have to do is start calling white clients to the stand and after the first dozen or so witness with the next 100-200 waiting in the wings to testify, the judge would probably make a summary judgement in the defendants favor.


>>>>

True, but all this bakery needs to do is prove that they have served gays and lesbians in the past and I would suspect that if they kept any kind of decent records, they could do so. According to the story, they did not refuse service to gays and lesbians, but they drew the line at same sex weddings, in fact, I believe I read in the Portland Times story I posted that they had served this same couple in the past. They simply drew the line at the wedding.

If that is true and they had served gays and lesbians in the past, they should not have anything to worry about.

Immie

Not true as a component of the law. The NM Law, which was the subject of the Photography case requires that the business not discriminate on the services offered based on sexual orientation. Not that they provide some services to everyone, but only a selected range of services to other - but the same services to each.

So let's compare using New Mexico's Supreme Court decision:

1) Cakes: If the bakery business is offering wedding cakes to heterosexual couples, but is refusing wedding cakes to homosexual couples - then the reason (even as stated by the bakery) for the denial was it was the sexual orientation of the participants. The bakery is not offering the same services based on sexual orientation. It's irrelevant that the bakery might sell them cupcakes for a birthday party or a pie for a retirement party. If the range of serivices is cupcakes, pies, birthday cakes and wedding cakes for heterosexuals but only cupcakes, pies, and birth day cakes for homosexuals - then the services are not the same.

2) KKK: If a Klan's man comes in an asks for a cake with KKK anti-black writing on it and the bakery says "I won't make the cake because you are white." Then the bakery is in violation of the law because their reason is based on race and they could bring dozens of white customers to testify and it would be irrelevant because they states the reason was race. If the Klansman could prove the baker said it was because they were white then legally they would loose the case. On the other hand if the bakery said they wouldn't make the cake because it was for a Klan rally, then the reason is not based on race, it's because of the Klan's political activities. Since political organizations are not protected under the NM Public Accommodation law they (the bakery) would win.​

3) Just using NM as the standard for the example because the Bakery case has not been adjudicated yet and so there isn't a ruling to which to refer. In the matter of the NM law we have a standard set by the NM Supreme Court.


>>>>

1) The services might not be the same, however, the law is flawed when it comes to an allowance of personal convictions. Lets imagine that the couple in that bakery had been homosexual (male male, female female--whichever), and lets also say that instead of a Christian based theme, they had gay pride regalia smattered all over their website and on the walls of their store. Now, a Christian couple walks in asking for a cake for a wedding, they then proceed to inform the Christian couple that they only serve homosexuals. Would the law still be allowing for their (the homosexuals) convictions? Apparently yes, since in this current political climate they are on the opposite side of the coin. And like it or not, there is an obvious indifference towards the religious in this country being exercised by our government. Given recent Supreme Court rulings, you cannot expect that law to be applied fairly. I favor its repeal for that reason.

2) In this instance, I cannot say that this would be entirely applicable to this case. Due to established precedent on race relations, and for reasons I advocate wholly, it is unwise to discriminate based on race. Not only that, the Klansman will have over a half a century's worth of legal precedent to throw at the black bakery. The case in 1) isn't so cut an dry, I'm afraid. Personal convictions based on one's faith is a far different thing than convictions based on hatred and propaganda. One is clearly wrong whereas the other has a legitimate and Constitutional reason for his.

3) There is no doubt the NM ruling set precedent (for which I agree). But one critical matter is ignored by those advocating punishment of this Christian couple: Constitutional freedom. According to the oft cited First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a person has the right to freely express himself, as well as freely practice whatever faith he believes in without any interference from the Governmental body. Given what is said in the Supremacy Clause, such rights trump any state law which may conflict with the person's First Amendment rights When I hear the term "freely" I assume that there are no limits, no strings attached. Given that, I assume that when I hear "free exercise of religion" I assume it to mean that a man of faith can freely reject things that fly in the face of his religious teachings, which should also then apply to this bakery's right to reject making products for or selling products to people who espouse ideals that violate their convictions based on such religious teachings. The biggest problem I have, is that a faith based couple has no ability to stand up for their convictions without being torn down or brought to their knees by their own government, who claims to espouse upholding the people's constitutional rights.

 

[Katzndogz]

The standard set by the NM court is just and reasonable. It allows vendors to deny services to same sex couples while offering those services, privately, to anyone else. This should become the law of the land.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason.

1) A business refusing service or products due to verifiable safety reasons is legal so you're linking that with reasons which are patently against anti-discrimination laws as if they were the same is intellectually dishonest. But I bet it works in church...

2) It boggles my mind how proponents of physical acts of hate and discrimination against a protected class are constantly misrepresented as violations of the 1st amend. Hold all the bigoted, racist, hateful thoughts you want, discuss them among your peers, but put them into action and you will go to jail or get sued.

1) Such thinking is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. Such stalwart thinking is flawed. They call it "freedom of religion" for a good reason. If a person does not want to violate their religious convictions, that should wholly be their right to. On the flip side yes, a gay couple has the same right not to expose themselves to ideals which conflict with their own. That is the essence of the matter.

2) It boggles my mind how proponents of equality and tolerance are the very perpetrators of inequality and intolerance towards other belief sets. Violating someone's right to freely practice their faith, with no constraints bound on them by law is not a misrepresentation of the First Amendment. It is spelled out in clear lettering: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." Any law made thereafter such as public accommodation law (simply based on sexual orientation or religion) would be in direct conflict, since as you saw here, it prevents a person from upholding their own religious convictions or personally held beliefs.

 

[Alfalfa]

And the bottom line remains the same. We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.

To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil. And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If the be race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.

>>>>

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason.

1) A business refusing service or products due to verifiable safety reasons is legal so you're linking that with reasons which are patently against anti-discrimination laws as if they were the same is intellectually dishonest. But I bet it works in church...

2) It boggles my mind how proponents of physical acts of hate and discrimination against a protected class are constantly misrepresented as violations of the 1st amend. Hold all the bigoted, racist, hateful thoughts you want, discuss them among your peers, but put them into action and you will go to jail or get sued.

1) Such thinking is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. Such stalwart thinking is flawed. They call it "freedom of religion" for a good reason. If a person does not want to violate their religious convictions, that should wholly be their right to. On the flip side yes, a gay couple has the same right not to expose themselves to ideals which conflict with their own. That is the essence of the matter.

2) It boggles my mind how proponents of equality and tolerance are the very perpetrators of inequality and intolerance towards other belief sets. Violating someone's right to freely practice their faith, with no constraints bound on them by law is not a misrepresentation of the First Amendment. It is spelled out in clear lettering: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." Any law made thereafter such as public accommodation law (simply based on sexual orientation or religion) would be in direct conflict, since as you saw here, it prevents a person from upholding their own religious convictions or personally held beliefs.

Citing the 1st Amend as an excuse for the religious and religious institutions violating the law is the height of ignorance and desperation.

 

[Foxfyre]

The standard set by the NM court is just and reasonable. It allows vendors to deny services to same sex couples while offering those services, privately, to anyone else. This should become the law of the land.

I would add that New Mexico is also a very blue state when it comes to the state government and a great many of the people. We are LOADED with the most extreme leftwing types here though we are also predominantly Roman Catholic which, though many Catholics are leftists, does tend to temper the hard core leftists emphasis here somewhat.

But injustices can be handled morally and ethically if our intention is not to destroy and coerce people, but simply to get a point across.

One time years ago in a Texas panhandle small town where we lived at the time, we had just sat down in one of the two restaurants in town. A well dressed young black man came in to get some lunch and the proprietor denied him service and he left. My husband and I rather vocally announced that we had changed our mind and would instead patronize the other restaurant down the street. Most of the other customers followed us out the door. The restaurant owner got the message and he never ran off another minority person.

THAT was a morally ethical way to handle a situation. Had we organized a picket and tried to damage the business, however, we would have been as wrong as the restaurant owner.

And yes. I will continue to use the word EVIL again and again and again. Those who demand that their own views be allowed with impunity, but who will not allow others their views and would presume to bludgeon them into submission are evil.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If the be race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.

>>>>

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

1) A business refusing service or products due to verifiable safety reasons is legal so you're linking that with reasons which are patently against anti-discrimination laws as if they were the same is intellectually dishonest. But I bet it works in church...

2) It boggles my mind how proponents of physical acts of hate and discrimination against a protected class are constantly misrepresented as violations of the 1st amend. Hold all the bigoted, racist, hateful thoughts you want, discuss them among your peers, but put them into action and you will go to jail or get sued.

1) Such thinking is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. Such stalwart thinking is flawed. They call it "freedom of religion" for a good reason. If a person does not want to violate their religious convictions, that should wholly be their right to. On the flip side yes, a gay couple has the same right not to expose themselves to ideals which conflict with their own. That is the essence of the matter.

2) It boggles my mind how proponents of equality and tolerance are the very perpetrators of inequality and intolerance towards other belief sets. Violating someone's right to freely practice their faith, with no constraints bound on them by law is not a misrepresentation of the First Amendment. It is spelled out in clear lettering: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." Any law made thereafter such as public accommodation law (simply based on sexual orientation or religion) would be in direct conflict, since as you saw here, it prevents a person from upholding their own religious convictions or personally held beliefs.

Citing the 1st Amend as an excuse for the religious and religious institutions violating the law is the height of ignorance and desperation.

Calling me ignorant and desperate is a sign you have no real argument as to why you should prevent a man or woman from upholding their religious convictions. You cannot for the life of you name one single solitary reason why. If you work on the aspect of tolerance and equality as you claim, you would not deny that one critical fact. Pure and simple. Why enact such a colossal double standard when it comes equality and tolerance? Do you think people of faith should or would completely and utterly subject themselves to your wills? In my book, that is not liberty, but tyranny. You would make law to prevent bigotry and intolerance, but in the face of that law you would practice it yourselves. Indeed, it is truly mind boggling to me as to what you think equality and tolerance are.

 

[WorldWatcher]

True, but all this bakery needs to do is prove that they have served gays and lesbians in the past and I would suspect that if they kept any kind of decent records, they could do so. According to the story, they did not refuse service to gays and lesbians, but they drew the line at same sex weddings, in fact, I believe I read in the Portland Times story I posted that they had served this same couple in the past. They simply drew the line at the wedding.

If that is true and they had served gays and lesbians in the past, they should not have anything to worry about.

Immie

Not true as a component of the law. The NM Law, which was the subject of the Photography case requires that the business not discriminate on the services offered based on sexual orientation. Not that they provide some services to everyone, but only a selected range of services to other - but the same services to each.

So let's compare using New Mexico's Supreme Court decision:

1) Cakes: If the bakery business is offering wedding cakes to heterosexual couples, but is refusing wedding cakes to homosexual couples - then the reason (even as stated by the bakery) for the denial was it was the sexual orientation of the participants. The bakery is not offering the same services based on sexual orientation. It's irrelevant that the bakery might sell them cupcakes for a birthday party or a pie for a retirement party. If the range of serivices is cupcakes, pies, birthday cakes and wedding cakes for heterosexuals but only cupcakes, pies, and birth day cakes for homosexuals - then the services are not the same.

2) KKK: If a Klan's man comes in an asks for a cake with KKK anti-black writing on it and the bakery says "I won't make the cake because you are white." Then the bakery is in violation of the law because their reason is based on race and they could bring dozens of white customers to testify and it would be irrelevant because they states the reason was race. If the Klansman could prove the baker said it was because they were white then legally they would loose the case. On the other hand if the bakery said they wouldn't make the cake because it was for a Klan rally, then the reason is not based on race, it's because of the Klan's political activities. Since political organizations are not protected under the NM Public Accommodation law they (the bakery) would win.​

3) Just using NM as the standard for the example because the Bakery case has not been adjudicated yet and so there isn't a ruling to which to refer. In the matter of the NM law we have a standard set by the NM Supreme Court.


>>>>

1) The services might not be the same, however, the law is flawed when it comes to an allowance of personal convictions. Lets imagine that the couple in that bakery had been homosexual (male male, female female--whichever), and lets also say that instead of a Christian based theme, they had gay pride regalia smattered all over their website and on the walls of their store. Now, a Christian couple walks in asking for a cake for a wedding, they then proceed to inform the Christian couple that they only serve homosexuals. Would the law still be allowing for their (the homosexuals) convictions? Apparently yes, since in this current political climate they are on the opposite side of the coin. And like it or not, there is an obvious indifference towards the religious in this country being exercised by our government. Given recent Supreme Court rulings, you cannot expect that law to be applied fairly. I favor its repeal for that reason.

No it would not.

If the homosexual business owner denied a Christian couple a wedding cake, they also would be in violation of the law and the Christians could file a complaint with the State EEOC.

2) In this instance, I cannot say that this would be entirely applicable to this case. Due to established precedent on race relations, and for reasons I advocate wholly, it is unwise to discriminate based on race. Not only that, the Klansman will have over a half a century's worth of legal precedent to throw at the black bakery. The case in 1) isn't so cut an dry, I'm afraid. Personal convictions based on one's faith is a far different thing than convictions based on hatred and propaganda. One is clearly wrong whereas the other has a legitimate and Constitutional reason for his.

Please cite the legal precedence that applies in Oregon or New Mexico or the Federal Legal precedence that requires shop owners to service political organizations.

As mentioned above, if the shop owners tells the KKK that they won't sell them something because they are white, then the shop owner is in violation of the law - however the shop owner is wholly within the law to disallow the sales based on a political organization. (As previously mentioned the California Supreme Court has expanded that states Unhur Act to encompass all forms of discrimination, but that is not a standard applicable to other states or nationally.)

3) Even though the NM ruling set precedent, one critical matter is ignored: Constitutional freedom. According to the oft cited First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a person has the right to freely express himself, as well as freely practice whatever faith he believes in without any interference from the Governmental body. Given what is said in the Supremacy Clause, such rights trump any state law which may conflict with the person's First Amendment rights When I hear the term "freely" I assume that there are no limits, no strings attached. Given that, I assume that when I hear "free exercise of religion" I assume it to mean that a man of faith can freely reject things that fly in the face of his religious teachings, which should also then apply to this bakery's right to reject making products for or selling products to people who espouse ideals that violate their convictions based on such religious teachings. The biggest problem I have, is that a faith based couple has no ability to stand up for their convictions without being torn down or brought to their knees by their own government, who claims to espouse upholding the people's constitutional rights.

#1 - They are free to exercise their religion. Under the laws in Oregon, they are not free to conduct discriminatory business practices when the run a business classified as a Public Accommodation. If their religion bars them from performing certain actions because of their faith, they are free not to offer those services. However when they do offer those services they must be prepared to provide them equally to all members of the Public for which there are legal protections.

#2 - They are also free, under the law as explained by the NM Supreme Court, to exercise free speech and plaster their business with their religious viewpoint. However under the law they are not allowed to have their business function in a discriminatory manner.


Public Accommodation laws in general should be repealed because they infringe on the property rights of the private business owner. There does not need to be "special privileges" based on religion not available to other private businesses.


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

And the bottom line remains the same. We are not free if we are forced to go where we do not want to go, to serve those we do not wish to serve, and if we can be destroyed for holding convictions and beliefs that others do not share.

To destroy somebody purely because he or she holds a belief or conviction that others do not share is evil. And it should be a HUGE civil rights violation when it happens.

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If the be race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.

>>>>

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

You've accused people of "destroying" this baker a dozen times. Where do you get off accusing good Christians of destroying this baker simply because they don't want to buy from the bigot. What the hell? Did god make you judge and jury to make these judgements? Since when is picketing and choosing who you want to buy from based on evil bigoted acts some sort of evil bigoted act? WTH?

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree which is why I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws. Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he felt the provisions intruded into the lives of private persons to do or not do business with whom the please.

I'm not saying there should be "special privileges" for people to discriminate based on a "religion" claim - Public Accommodation laws should be repealed and private businesses allowed to refuse customers for whatever reason they choose. If the be race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc - then so be it. Public Accommodation law should only apply to government entities.

Will there be some discrimination? Yep, but that is the price of a smaller government and maximum liberty. Will we ever return to the days of old with widespread institutionalized discrimination in the private sector and even by government? Nope.

>>>>

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

You've accused people of "destroying" this baker a dozen times. Where do get off accusing good Christians of destroying this baker simply because they don't want to buy from the bigot. What the hell?

And once again you are incapable of honestly representing the point another member has made.

I have no problem with anybody choosing who he or she will patronize. I have been consistently and 100% clear about that.

I have a HUGE problem with anybody trying to force others into not patronizing a business or attempting to destroy somebody purely because the owners hold a belief or conviction that a bigot does not share. It is evil.

 

[paperview]

To repeat:

Let's hear from that gay-loving liberal, Anthony Scalia, on if you are allowed to break a law because: First Amendment!

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.

And, also (quoting Justice Frankfurter):


Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

And, also, too:


Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."

And, finally:


It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs.

Don't like it? CHANGE the Public Accommodation Laws.

 

[Alfalfa]

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

1) Such thinking is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. Such stalwart thinking is flawed. They call it "freedom of religion" for a good reason. If a person does not want to violate their religious convictions, that should wholly be their right to. On the flip side yes, a gay couple has the same right not to expose themselves to ideals which conflict with their own. That is the essence of the matter.

2) It boggles my mind how proponents of equality and tolerance are the very perpetrators of inequality and intolerance towards other belief sets. Violating someone's right to freely practice their faith, with no constraints bound on them by law is not a misrepresentation of the First Amendment. It is spelled out in clear lettering: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." Any law made thereafter such as public accommodation law (simply based on sexual orientation or religion) would be in direct conflict, since as you saw here, it prevents a person from upholding their own religious convictions or personally held beliefs.

Citing the 1st Amend as an excuse for the religious and religious institutions violating the law is the height of ignorance and desperation.

Calling me ignorant and desperate is a sign you have no real argument as to why you should prevent a man or woman from upholding their religious convictions. You cannot for the life of you name one single solitary reason why. If you work on the aspect of tolerance and equality as you claim, you would not deny that one critical fact. Pure and simple. Why enact such a colossal double standard when it comes equality and tolerance? Do you think people of faith should or would completely and utterly subject themselves to your wills? In my book, that is not liberty, but tyranny. You would make law to prevent bigotry and intolerance, but in the face of that law you would practice it yourselves. Indeed, it is truly mind boggling to me as to what you think equality and tolerance are.

Because it's against the law?

There is no double standard, if the same gay couple were to refuse service in their business to the same xtian couple due to them being christian OR straight, they would be subject to the same laws and civil actions.

This is so funny. Xtians who are being bigoted, hateful and legally discriminatory in the conduct of their business actually believe they are the ones being harassed, intimidated and discriminated against...heheh.

It's called cognitive dissonance and it's rife among the saved and devout.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are some of us who believe we must be a people governed by laws, but we are painfully aware that there are just laws and unjust or just ill advised or otherwise bad law. And the people have every right to petition to have a bad law repealed or changed.

But there are some of us who hold the conviction of our beliefs apart from the law and apart from anything the courts or anybody else dictate. We do not form our beliefs and convictions based on what the law is. We would choose to base the law on what our beliefs and convictions are.

 

[RKMBrown]

Calling me ignorant and desperate is a sign you have no real argument as to why you should prevent a man or woman from upholding their religious convictions. You cannot for the life of you name one single solitary reason why. If you work on the aspect of tolerance and equality as you claim, you would not deny that one critical fact. Pure and simple. Why enact such a colossal double standard when it comes equality and tolerance? Do you think people of faith should or would completely and utterly subject themselves to your wills? In my book, that is not liberty, but tyranny. You would make law to prevent bigotry and intolerance, but in the face of that law you would practice it yourselves. Indeed, it is truly mind boggling to me as to what you think equality and tolerance are.

The ignorance you are displaying is beyond pale.

Refusing to serve people based on religious conviction is your right. However, you give up that right when you open a business that serves the public. For example, it's against the law to refuse to serve a citizen based on sexual orientation, race, etc. in a public bakery.

Tolerance goes both ways. However, picketing someone because of the bigoted acts that person performed while harming others is not the same as, harming others based on your belief that god is telling you to harm them. You don't get to punch someone in the face then cry and scream like a little girl when they decide to defend themselves and punch you back. You want the ability to urinate on gays and force them to shut up and take their punishment like good little gays. That's pretty sad.

 

[RKMBrown]

If somebody is so bigoted they won't serve somebody at a lunch counter or sell them a dozen doughnuts, that person isn't going to get much business from anybody other than other bigots and there won't be enough of them to make the business really profitable.

The war against slavery, segregation, and discrimination has been fought and won though, and it is high time we stop fighting it. Until we do, and allow skin color etc. to be of no more consequence than eye color or hair color, racism will continue to be exploited and pepetuated by all sorts of opportunists.

Those businesses who cheerfully and competently serve the public they have will thrive. Those who don't won't.

Who I choose to do business with is my business. And I will choose the friendly shop owner who serves me and my friends with a smile over the shop that would exclude some of my friends.

But nobody should ever be forced or expected to go to a location he or she does not feel comfortable or does not wish to go whether it is because he or she fears for personal safety or because it includes an activity or emphasis that the person simply cannot condone or for any other reason. It does not matter what it is because we all have unalienable right to our own beliefs and convictions and, yes, we all have an unalienable right to our prejudices and biases.

To destroy somebody purely because they hold a belief or conviction you do not share is unAmerican and bigoted and evil. And none of us should ever condone that.

You've accused people of "destroying" this baker a dozen times. Where do get off accusing good Christians of destroying this baker simply because they don't want to buy from the bigot. What the hell?

And once again you are incapable of honestly representing the point another member has made.

I have no problem with anybody choosing who he or she will patronize. I have been consistently and 100% clear about that.

I have a HUGE problem with anybody trying to force others into not patronizing a business or attempting to destroy somebody purely because the owners hold a belief or conviction that a bigot does not share. It is evil.

Who? Who did this evil destruction thing that you keep accusing people of? Who is this anybody? Who are you accusing? Why are you making this statement again and again and again? What attempt to destroy? Did they bomb him? What are you talking about?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not true as a component of the law. The NM Law, which was the subject of the Photography case requires that the business not discriminate on the services offered based on sexual orientation. Not that they provide some services to everyone, but only a selected range of services to other - but the same services to each.

So let's compare using New Mexico's Supreme Court decision:

1) Cakes: If the bakery business is offering wedding cakes to heterosexual couples, but is refusing wedding cakes to homosexual couples - then the reason (even as stated by the bakery) for the denial was it was the sexual orientation of the participants. The bakery is not offering the same services based on sexual orientation. It's irrelevant that the bakery might sell them cupcakes for a birthday party or a pie for a retirement party. If the range of serivices is cupcakes, pies, birthday cakes and wedding cakes for heterosexuals but only cupcakes, pies, and birth day cakes for homosexuals - then the services are not the same.

2) KKK: If a Klan's man comes in an asks for a cake with KKK anti-black writing on it and the bakery says "I won't make the cake because you are white." Then the bakery is in violation of the law because their reason is based on race and they could bring dozens of white customers to testify and it would be irrelevant because they states the reason was race. If the Klansman could prove the baker said it was because they were white then legally they would loose the case. On the other hand if the bakery said they wouldn't make the cake because it was for a Klan rally, then the reason is not based on race, it's because of the Klan's political activities. Since political organizations are not protected under the NM Public Accommodation law they (the bakery) would win.​

3) Just using NM as the standard for the example because the Bakery case has not been adjudicated yet and so there isn't a ruling to which to refer. In the matter of the NM law we have a standard set by the NM Supreme Court.


>>>>

1) The services might not be the same, however, the law is flawed when it comes to an allowance of personal convictions. Lets imagine that the couple in that bakery had been homosexual (male male, female female--whichever), and lets also say that instead of a Christian based theme, they had gay pride regalia smattered all over their website and on the walls of their store. Now, a Christian couple walks in asking for a cake for a wedding, they then proceed to inform the Christian couple that they only serve homosexuals. Would the law still be allowing for their (the homosexuals) convictions? Apparently yes, since in this current political climate they are on the opposite side of the coin. And like it or not, there is an obvious indifference towards the religious in this country being exercised by our government. Given recent Supreme Court rulings, you cannot expect that law to be applied fairly. I favor its repeal for that reason.

No it would not.

1) If the homosexual business owner denied a Christian couple a wedding cake, they also would be in violation of the law and the Christians could file a complaint with the State EEOC.

2) In this instance, I cannot say that this would be entirely applicable to this case. Due to established precedent on race relations, and for reasons I advocate wholly, it is unwise to discriminate based on race. Not only that, the Klansman will have over a half a century's worth of legal precedent to throw at the black bakery. The case in 1) isn't so cut an dry, I'm afraid. Personal convictions based on one's faith is a far different thing than convictions based on hatred and propaganda. One is clearly wrong whereas the other has a legitimate and Constitutional reason for his.

Please cite the legal precedence that applies in Oregon or New Mexico or the Federal Legal precedence that requires shop owners to service political organizations.

As mentioned above, if the shop owners tells the KKK that they won't sell them something because they are white, then the shop owner is in violation of the law - however the shop owner is wholly within the law to disallow the sales based on a political organization. (As previously mentioned the California Supreme Court has expanded that states Unhur Act to encompass all forms of discrimination, but that is not a standard applicable to other states or nationally.)

3) Even though the NM ruling set precedent, one critical matter is ignored: Constitutional freedom. According to the oft cited First Amendment to the United States Constitution, a person has the right to freely express himself, as well as freely practice whatever faith he believes in without any interference from the Governmental body. Given what is said in the Supremacy Clause, such rights trump any state law which may conflict with the person's First Amendment rights When I hear the term "freely" I assume that there are no limits, no strings attached. Given that, I assume that when I hear "free exercise of religion" I assume it to mean that a man of faith can freely reject things that fly in the face of his religious teachings, which should also then apply to this bakery's right to reject making products for or selling products to people who espouse ideals that violate their convictions based on such religious teachings. The biggest problem I have, is that a faith based couple has no ability to stand up for their convictions without being torn down or brought to their knees by their own government, who claims to espouse upholding the people's constitutional rights.

#1 - They are free to exercise their religion. Under the laws in Oregon, they are not free to conduct discriminatory business practices when the run a business classified as a Public Accommodation. If their religion bars them from performing certain actions because of their faith, they are free not to offer those services. However when they do offer those services they must be prepared to provide them equally to all members of the Public for which there are legal protections.

#2 - They are also free, under the law as explained by the NM Supreme Court, to exercise free speech and plaster their business with their religious viewpoint. However under the law they are not allowed to have their business function in a discriminatory manner.


Public Accommodation laws in general should be repealed because they infringe on the property rights of the private business owner. There does not need to be "special privileges" based on religion not available to other private businesses.


>>>>

So basically, the government says if you or I start a business, you or I are no longer allowed to uphold our religious convictions OR control our property in which we please. I don't call it discrimination, I call that religious devotion. It is something this nation as a whole lacks, a sense of devotion not only to a faith but to a cause in unity. When I state legal precedent, I did not imply service to political organizations, but legal precedents regarding race and obligations set forthwith. I believe there was a misunderstanding.

Why shouldn't there be an allowance based on faith? A person's religious (or otherwise) conviction is the very core of their psyche. To ask them to ignore it is akin to harming them physically. If a person is truly free to exercise their religion, then as a rule they should be allowed to do so whenever and wherever it pleases them. But as it stands, I only see this working one way and one way only.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You've accused people of "destroying" this baker a dozen times. Where do get off accusing good Christians of destroying this baker simply because they don't want to buy from the bigot. What the hell?

And once again you are incapable of honestly representing the point another member has made.

I have no problem with anybody choosing who he or she will patronize. I have been consistently and 100% clear about that.

I have a HUGE problem with anybody trying to force others into not patronizing a business or attempting to destroy somebody purely because the owners hold a belief or conviction that a bigot does not share. It is evil.

Who? Who did this evil thing that you keep accusing people of? Who is this anybody? Who are you accusing? Why are you making this statement again and again and again?

Don't feign ignorance. A plethora of gay activist groups and militant gay rights groups badgered their vendors into breaking contracts with them. This in turn dealt a severe if not fatal blow to their revenues as a business. It is an underhanded tactic but an effective one. This, all for standing up for their own convictions. It is an utterly tyrannical tactic, such tyranny is what our founders fought to smite from history once and for all.

 

[RKMBrown]

There are some of us who believe we must be a people governed by laws, but we are painfully aware that there are just laws and unjust or just ill advised or otherwise bad law. And the people have every right to petition to have a bad law repealed or changed.

But there are some of us who hold the conviction of our beliefs apart from the law and apart from anything the courts or anybody else dictate. We do not form our beliefs and convictions based on what the law is. We would choose to base the law on what our beliefs and convictions are.

Translation: You would make it legal to starve gays out of christian hovels by refusing to sell them goods and services. Is that your idea of a good law? To repeal our civil rights laws?

 

[RKMBrown]

And once again you are incapable of honestly representing the point another member has made.

I have no problem with anybody choosing who he or she will patronize. I have been consistently and 100% clear about that.

I have a HUGE problem with anybody trying to force others into not patronizing a business or attempting to destroy somebody purely because the owners hold a belief or conviction that a bigot does not share. It is evil.

Who? Who did this evil thing that you keep accusing people of? Who is this anybody? Who are you accusing? Why are you making this statement again and again and again?

Don't feign ignorance. A plethora of gay activist groups and militant gay rights groups badgered their vendors into breaking contracts with them. This in turn dealt a severe if not fatal blow to their revenues as a business. It is an underhanded tactic but an effective one. This, all for standing up for their own convictions. It is an utterly tyrannical tactic, such tyranny is what our founders fought to smite from history once and for all.

Yeah and the KKK, skin heads, and Nazi's are christian groups too, right? Name these skin head gay groups that are leading the gay community revolution against Christians

Show me the "evidence" that all gays are a member of some radical group of domestic terrorists.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are some of us who believe we must be a people governed by laws, but we are painfully aware that there are just laws and unjust or just ill advised or otherwise bad law. And the people have every right to petition to have a bad law repealed or changed.

But there are some of us who hold the conviction of our beliefs apart from the law and apart from anything the courts or anybody else dictate. We do not form our beliefs and convictions based on what the law is. We would choose to base the law on what our beliefs and convictions are.

Translation: You would make it legal to starve gays out of christian hovels by refusing to sell them goods and services. Is that your idea of a good law? To repeal our civil rights laws?

That comment is purely asinine and unintelligent on top of being not well thought out. Is base and puerile. Your ignorance of Christians is showing. We won't go as far as to "starve gay people out of Christian hovels." How do you put one foot in front of the other making such radical assumptions about Christians in particular? What secular organizations specialize in feeding the hungry and clothing the needy? As far as I can see from my vantage point, I see a lot of religious organizations exercising more tolerance for gay people that gay people are of Christians. But what I hear from you is that we would willfully kill someone because of our stalwart devotion to our beliefs.

Should we just repeal the First Amendment? Is that your ideal of good law?