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

[Immanuel]

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:

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.

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.​

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.


>>>>

Thank you for that interpretation. It makes sense... Sucks, but still makes sense.

Immie

 

[BDBoop]

"This is what homosexuals do best," Swansom stated on his program. "They will engage in their Pink Mafia, their effort to control and shut down business that do not cooperate with their agenda...I think you can attend a [gay] wedding if you hold up a sign that reads Leviticus 20:13 ... I guess it comes down to if you bake a cake for a homosexual wedding you could put Leviticus 20:13 on the cake."

Kevin Swanson, Right-Wing Pastor: Gay Couples Should Be Told To Die On Their Wedding Day

Gee, what a classy guy.

That jerk gives all Christians a bad name. I suppose some on here would probably agree with that jerk and think Jesus demands that type of behavior.

He's about as Christian as Westboro Baptist Church is.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Call me vindictive (I would say obstinate), but you would not want my services after you forced me to do something I did not want to do. It might be stupid and I might just get in trouble with the courts, but if I were the baker in this case about five minutes before the ceremony began, someone, most likely one of the participants in the ceremony would "accidentally" get knocked into the cake.

I can be pretty damned evil when forced to do something I don't want to do.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Holy crap.

Anyone follow the spectacular fail of the Windbag here?

Read back for some fun (for what he claimed and what I cited):

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7795335-post906.html

And then he links to the NM Photographer in that OP...which was what I cited!

Yikes, and as I suspected, yes, again, you were blown out of the water on that thread.

WorldWatcher did his normal ju jitsu and left you in the dust:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7745404-post134.html

World Watcher couldn't argue his way out of a kindergarten class full of deaf mutes.

To readers on this forum, and they count many, even those that disagree with him, World Watcher is one of the most polite, patient, thoughtful and thorough debaters here.

That you disparage with such infantile retorts as this only reinforces, for all to see, the caricature you have become, highlights the impotence of your argument, and shows how you treat people who have given you the utmost respect.

Which I, for one, cannot muster, nor do I think many here can.

I would like to quote the first sentence of this post for truth. WW was, and always is very thoughtful and polite in his posts. Just as he was in this discussion.

I disagree with QW in his statements about WW.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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.

To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:

1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?

2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?

3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?

4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?

Etc.​

In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?



[DISCLAIMER: I feel the laws should be repealed because they conflict with the property rights of the business owner. As such I can be consistent and say they should be repealed in general. My inquery is really: Should this exemption apply to all claims of "special privilege" for claims of a certain faith, or do you support the government then becoming involved with "well this claim of faith is valid, but this claim of faith is not."]

>>>>

A Christian should fix the black person's car in his shop as he would any other person. A Christian should not have to go to a cockfight to do roadside service on anybody's car regardless of the customer's color or creed or anywhere else the Christian does not choose to go.

A plumber should provide service at his place of business to a Jewish person as he would to any other person. A plumber should not have to go anywhere else he does not wish to go for any reason.

A cab driver who refuses to take dogs into his cab is on perfectly sound ground regardless of why he refuses to take dogs so long as he treats everybody the same. If he is allergic or knows his customers are allergic, he shouldn't have to provide a service that goes against his personal interests. He should otherwise accept fares from everybody, however, regardless of their color or creed or whatever; however, he should NOT be required to take ANYBODY into a neighborhood he knows to be dangerous.

The hotel owner should take all comers who have the money to rent a room unless it was somebody he had previously thrown out for bad behavior. But he should not have to send the hotel van to deliver or pick up people in a dangerous neighborhood or anywhere else that offends his personal convictions or sense of well being.

You see how that works? Yes, you treat all customers the same when they come to your place of business. That violates no unalienable right of the shop owner. But it is a much different thing when a person can be forced to provide services for anybody at the customer's place of business. That steps way over the line into violation of unalienable rights.

It seems to me that this is exactly what WW has been saying all along. He stated, "the law says..." And then in several posts gave a disclaimer stating that he felt these laws should be repealed. I don't understand why you seem to be attacking him on this issue.

Immie

 

[Mertex]

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.

Call me vindictive (I would say obstinate), but you would not want my services after you forced me to do something I did not want to do. It might be stupid and I might just get in trouble with the courts, but if I were the baker in this case about five minutes before the ceremony began, someone, most likely one of the participants in the ceremony would "accidentally" get knocked into the cake.

Well, if he is a Christian as he claims, and did something like that, I'm sure that God would not give him a gold star.

I can be pretty damned evil when forced to do something I don't want to do.

Immie

Unfortunately, there's a lot of people that are that way, hopefully they don't claim to be Christian.

 

[Mertex]

To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:

1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?

2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?

3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?

4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?

Etc.​

In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?



[DISCLAIMER: I feel the laws should be repealed because they conflict with the property rights of the business owner. As such I can be consistent and say they should be repealed in general. My inquery is really: Should this exemption apply to all claims of "special privilege" for claims of a certain faith, or do you support the government then becoming involved with "well this claim of faith is valid, but this claim of faith is not."]

>>>>

A Christian should fix the black person's car in his shop as he would any other person. A Christian should not have to go to a cockfight to do roadside service on anybody's car regardless of the customer's color or creed or anywhere else the Christian does not choose to go.

A plumber should provide service at his place of business to a Jewish person as he would to any other person. A plumber should not have to go anywhere else he does not wish to go for any reason.

A cab driver who refuses to take dogs into his cab is on perfectly sound ground regardless of why he refuses to take dogs so long as he treats everybody the same. If he is allergic or knows his customers are allergic, he shouldn't have to provide a service that goes against his personal interests. He should otherwise accept fares from everybody, however, regardless of their color or creed or whatever; however, he should NOT be required to take ANYBODY into a neighborhood he knows to be dangerous.

The hotel owner should take all comers who have the money to rent a room unless it was somebody he had previously thrown out for bad behavior. But he should not have to send the hotel van to deliver or pick up people in a dangerous neighborhood or anywhere else that offends his personal convictions or sense of well being.

You see how that works? Yes, you treat all customers the same when they come to your place of business. That violates no unalienable right of the shop owner. But it is a much different thing when a person can be forced to provide services for anybody at the customer's place of business. That steps way over the line into violation of unalienable rights.

It seems to me that this is exactly what WW has been saying all along. He stated, "the law says..." And then in several posts gave a disclaimer stating that he felt these laws should be repealed. I don't understand why you seem to be attacking him on this issue.

Immie

It seems that FF doesn't understand that the baker made the claim that they "didn't bake cake for homosexual/same-sex weddings". He definitely defined his reason, and that is what is against the law, to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Had nothing to do with having to deliver the cake. But as WW pointed out, if they are delivering cakes to heterosexual couples, then they are discriminating by making an exception.

Doesn't seem that hard to understand.

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Call me vindictive (I would say obstinate), but you would not want my services after you forced me to do something I did not want to do. It might be stupid and I might just get in trouble with the courts, but if I were the baker in this case about five minutes before the ceremony began, someone, most likely one of the participants in the ceremony would "accidentally" get knocked into the cake.

Well, if he is a Christian as he claims, and did something like that, I'm sure that God would not give him a gold star.

I can be pretty damned evil when forced to do something I don't want to do.

Immie

Unfortunately, there's a lot of people that are that way, hopefully they don't claim to be Christian.

Well, for the record, I have repeatedly stated, that I would have served this couple as I believe Jesus would as well. My statement is that if you force me to do something I don't want to do, that little devil on my shoulder is going to win out and I am going to do something I should not do. I am a sinner.

Now what would that "something" be? An example might be requiring me to participate in a KKK rally or maybe a satanic worship where a cat is sacrificed. Something like that would do it.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

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.

Call me vindictive (I would say obstinate), but you would not want my services after you forced me to do something I did not want to do. It might be stupid and I might just get in trouble with the courts, but if I were the baker in this case about five minutes before the ceremony began, someone, most likely one of the participants in the ceremony would "accidentally" get knocked into the cake.

Well, if he is a Christian as he claims, and did something like that, I'm sure that God would not give him a gold star.

I can be pretty damned evil when forced to do something I don't want to do.

Immie

Unfortunately, there's a lot of people that are that way, hopefully they don't claim to be Christian.

Seems to me, you have the mistaken impression that Christians are not sinful.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gays are not trying to force you to be gay, just to agree to be fair.
The teachings of your faith apply to you, and not for you to apply to others. If you think being homosexual is a sin, then don't be a homosexual, but discriminating against them because you think their lifestyle is a sin is not what Jesus taught. Jesus tells us to love our neighbor as yourself, so would you deny yourself what you want to deny them?

If it was about being fair they wouldn't be suing people for not photographing their weddings, nor would any gay person on the planet be threatening to sue churches for not letting them get marriaed there. Therefore, your argument is false, and you are full of shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The thing is this, when people invoke God or anything else to try and justify their position on what they believe in life, then it is up to the people who are in the direct line of fire of this invoking, to investigate their claims in which they make thus using God or anything else in ways that may not be accurate at all when they are doing so in this way, so it is always good to do ones homework on these people and their speaking's. The Bible in many cases may not even represent them as they had spoken or quoted it that way, so it is always best to check it out for one self in life.

Why are you the judge of other people's beliefs? Do I also get to delve into why you are telling me my beliefs don't meet an arbitrary standard? Is the Bible the only source of religious instruction on the planet? What are you going to do when you run into a Muslim who talks about something that is not in the Bible, tell them it doesn't count because the only book you ever heard of is the Bible?

What I notice is that people don't want to investigate what the belief is or what the bibles says accurately about things, and this in order to counter lies or reveal perpetrators if that is what they might find in those whom may be miss-using the Lords name or invoking it for their cause or reasons for their cause in certain ways, and I think that they don't because they want to use the ignorant persons words against the whole group somehow. Home work must be done against those for whom might make a ridiculous claim in which the Bible doesn't even back up, and then on top of that make it wrongfully without challenge of. They don't do their homework because they want to use it to tear down the entire belief system or group by way of even one individual doing wrong in the groups name, and for whom had then acted out vocally or in ways that could potentially give ammunition to those whom have an agenda against an entire group in which is their hopes to then try and wipe out a specific belief system in which they hate by putting certain people out in the spotlight, especially if the belief system they hate speaks against the very created cultures and/or actions in which should be spoken against righteously or by righteous people, if those cultures, trends or actions are harmful or hurtful to a belief system that does quite well without having to deal with problems that would therefore put the belief system in jeopardy or grave danger, and in which it could potentially do to it by allowing any and everyone into it (even ones enemy without knowledge of) if so be the case where this happens or has happened in the past.

What I know for a fact is that no one who has ever tried to tell me that I don't know what the Bible says knows what the Bible says. Want to prove me right once again?

Always remember the Trojan Horse story, and it will help always to understand the ways in which our enemies seek to infiltrate and destroy us and our belief systems.

The Trojan horse had nothing to do with the belief systems of anyone.

People miss-representing belief systems or cultures, and good things by high jacking them for their own twisted thinking coupled with their actions committed wrongfully upon, are coming in droves anymore in this nation, and so this places all good at risk, especially when we see also groups adapting or attaching themselves to other legitimate causes, and all in order to make their group or cause even more powerful when this happens. This then gives them more accessibility to areas in which they were never allowed to have access to before, other than by order of an ignorant out of touch government, and this because of their anti-beliefs in a system in which they desired to enter into, yet only wanted the access to it because their attempt is to destroy it once they are granted access to it. All systems should be on high alert in this nation and around the world now, because evil and bad are on the move as each line that had been established over the years are subject to now fall all because of.

Like you just misrepresented the Trojan Horse as an allegory for someone's beliefs?

Pathetic.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:

1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?

2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?

3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?

4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?

Etc.​

In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?



[DISCLAIMER: I feel the laws should be repealed because they conflict with the property rights of the business owner. As such I can be consistent and say they should be repealed in general. My inquery is really: Should this exemption apply to all claims of "special privilege" for claims of a certain faith, or do you support the government then becoming involved with "well this claim of faith is valid, but this claim of faith is not."]

>>>>

A Christian should fix the black person's car in his shop as he would any other person. A Christian should not have to go to a cockfight to do roadside service on anybody's car regardless of the customer's color or creed or anywhere else the Christian does not choose to go.

A plumber should provide service at his place of business to a Jewish person as he would to any other person. A plumber should not have to go anywhere else he does not wish to go for any reason.

A cab driver who refuses to take dogs into his cab is on perfectly sound ground regardless of why he refuses to take dogs so long as he treats everybody the same. If he is allergic or knows his customers are allergic, he shouldn't have to provide a service that goes against his personal interests. He should otherwise accept fares from everybody, however, regardless of their color or creed or whatever; however, he should NOT be required to take ANYBODY into a neighborhood he knows to be dangerous.

The hotel owner should take all comers who have the money to rent a room unless it was somebody he had previously thrown out for bad behavior. But he should not have to send the hotel van to deliver or pick up people in a dangerous neighborhood or anywhere else that offends his personal convictions or sense of well being.

You see how that works? Yes, you treat all customers the same when they come to your place of business. That violates no unalienable right of the shop owner. But it is a much different thing when a person can be forced to provide services for anybody at the customer's place of business. That steps way over the line into violation of unalienable rights.

It seems to me that this is exactly what WW has been saying all along. He stated, "the law says..." And then in several posts gave a disclaimer stating that he felt these laws should be repealed. I don't understand why you seem to be attacking him on this issue.

Immie

Because he keeps defending the law, and not defending his position. That makes his posts defense of the laws he claims to disagree with, and not a proper interpretation of the law in most cases.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A Christian should fix the black person's car in his shop as he would any other person. A Christian should not have to go to a cockfight to do roadside service on anybody's car regardless of the customer's color or creed or anywhere else the Christian does not choose to go.

A plumber should provide service at his place of business to a Jewish person as he would to any other person. A plumber should not have to go anywhere else he does not wish to go for any reason.

A cab driver who refuses to take dogs into his cab is on perfectly sound ground regardless of why he refuses to take dogs so long as he treats everybody the same. If he is allergic or knows his customers are allergic, he shouldn't have to provide a service that goes against his personal interests. He should otherwise accept fares from everybody, however, regardless of their color or creed or whatever; however, he should NOT be required to take ANYBODY into a neighborhood he knows to be dangerous.

The hotel owner should take all comers who have the money to rent a room unless it was somebody he had previously thrown out for bad behavior. But he should not have to send the hotel van to deliver or pick up people in a dangerous neighborhood or anywhere else that offends his personal convictions or sense of well being.

You see how that works? Yes, you treat all customers the same when they come to your place of business. That violates no unalienable right of the shop owner. But it is a much different thing when a person can be forced to provide services for anybody at the customer's place of business. That steps way over the line into violation of unalienable rights.

It seems to me that this is exactly what WW has been saying all along. He stated, "the law says..." And then in several posts gave a disclaimer stating that he felt these laws should be repealed. I don't understand why you seem to be attacking him on this issue.

Immie

It seems that FF doesn't understand that the baker made the claim that they "didn't bake cake for homosexual/same-sex weddings". He definitely defined his reason, and that is what is against the law, to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Had nothing to do with having to deliver the cake. But as WW pointed out, if they are delivering cakes to heterosexual couples, then they are discriminating by making an exception.

Doesn't seem that hard to understand.

It also doesn't seem hard to understand that bakers should be able to not take any business, for any reason.

 

[Immanuel]

A Christian should fix the black person's car in his shop as he would any other person. A Christian should not have to go to a cockfight to do roadside service on anybody's car regardless of the customer's color or creed or anywhere else the Christian does not choose to go.

A plumber should provide service at his place of business to a Jewish person as he would to any other person. A plumber should not have to go anywhere else he does not wish to go for any reason.

A cab driver who refuses to take dogs into his cab is on perfectly sound ground regardless of why he refuses to take dogs so long as he treats everybody the same. If he is allergic or knows his customers are allergic, he shouldn't have to provide a service that goes against his personal interests. He should otherwise accept fares from everybody, however, regardless of their color or creed or whatever; however, he should NOT be required to take ANYBODY into a neighborhood he knows to be dangerous.

The hotel owner should take all comers who have the money to rent a room unless it was somebody he had previously thrown out for bad behavior. But he should not have to send the hotel van to deliver or pick up people in a dangerous neighborhood or anywhere else that offends his personal convictions or sense of well being.

You see how that works? Yes, you treat all customers the same when they come to your place of business. That violates no unalienable right of the shop owner. But it is a much different thing when a person can be forced to provide services for anybody at the customer's place of business. That steps way over the line into violation of unalienable rights.

It seems to me that this is exactly what WW has been saying all along. He stated, "the law says..." And then in several posts gave a disclaimer stating that he felt these laws should be repealed. I don't understand why you seem to be attacking him on this issue.

Immie

Because he keeps defending the law, and not defending his position. That makes his posts defense of the laws he claims to disagree with, and not a proper interpretation of the law in most cases.

Sorry, I completely disagree with you. He has stated what the law says and he has followed that up with statements that he disagrees with the law... and here is the real kicker, he has even stated why he disagrees with the law.

In this case, you are wrong.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It seems to me that this is exactly what WW has been saying all along. He stated, "the law says..." And then in several posts gave a disclaimer stating that he felt these laws should be repealed. I don't understand why you seem to be attacking him on this issue.

Immie

Because he keeps defending the law, and not defending his position. That makes his posts defense of the laws he claims to disagree with, and not a proper interpretation of the law in most cases.

Sorry, I completely disagree with you. He has stated what the law says and he has followed that up with statements that he disagrees with the law... and here is the real kicker, he has even stated why he disagrees with the law.

In this case, you are wrong.

Immie

I disagree with the law also, and understand it thoroughly, which is why I keep shoving the law down the throats of everybody that keeps telling me that it doesn't violate anyone's rights by existing. In fact, I am the person in this thread that brought up the law to prove that Seawytch doesn't know what she is talking about when she says churches cannot be sued. Yet, for some reason, the only people that have a problem with my posts are the idiots that think I oppose same sex marraige.

Disagree with the facts all you want, WW is defending the law.

 

[Foxfyre]

To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:

1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?

2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?

3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?

4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?

Etc.​

In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?



[DISCLAIMER: I feel the laws should be repealed because they conflict with the property rights of the business owner. As such I can be consistent and say they should be repealed in general. My inquery is really: Should this exemption apply to all claims of "special privilege" for claims of a certain faith, or do you support the government then becoming involved with "well this claim of faith is valid, but this claim of faith is not."]

>>>>

A Christian should fix the black person's car in his shop as he would any other person. A Christian should not have to go to a cockfight to do roadside service on anybody's car regardless of the customer's color or creed or anywhere else the Christian does not choose to go.

#1 - I didn't say the repair shop owner was a Christian.

#2 - It which religion the individual ascribes to important in determining whether they can refuse service or goods based on religious grounds?

#3 - The question was "Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?". If the repair shop owner offers services to customer's should the by able to claim a "special privilege" for a religious exemption for serving blacks?

#4 - If the auto shop provides road side repair can they say no in shop service for black and no road side service for blacks yet provide those services to whites?

#5 - The "Cockfighting" is a strawman not part of the question, it is an obvious throw in to deflect from the core question which has to do with declining service based on race and not based on illegal activity.



#1 - Again not the question.

#2 - If the plumber routinely applies serives in the homes of customers (as plumbers normally do), can the plumber refuse to provide those services based on the religion of the toilet's home owner.

#3 - You realize that people don't normally remove their toilets and bring them to the plumbers shop, right?



#1 - The Cab Driver example comes from a real world example where Muslim cab drivers were refusing to take customers with dogs or who were carrying alcohol because of religious objections. Their state objections was not that they were allergic to dogs or that they were afraid that other customers were allergic to dogs. Their stated objection was it violated their faith.

#2 - Again with the strawman about dangerous neighborhoods. That was not a condition of the question because it is irrelevant. If the fare is being refused because of danger in the destination, that is wholly different question. The cab drivers in the case stated it was about religious objections to the dogs or alcohol.

The hotel owner should take all comers who have the money to rent a room unless it was somebody he had previously thrown out for bad behavior. But he should not have to send the hotel van to deliver or pick up people in a dangerous neighborhood or anywhere else that offends his personal convictions or sense of well being.

#1 - Again with the strawman, it has nothing to do with pick-ups or delivery. It was about being required to rent the room based on strictly on country of origin.

You see how that works? Yes, you treat all customers the same when they come to your place of business. That violates no unalienable right of the shop owner. But it is a much different thing when a person can be forced to provide services for anybody at the customer's place of business. That steps way over the line into violation of unalienable rights.

#1 - In many of the replies above you use the word "should", which isn't the question. The question is, is it OK for the government allow "special priveleges" to anyone that claimes a religious belief about something, therefore they are exempt from the law. Such a religious exemption would apply to any "personally held religous belief". In other works anyone can be exempt from the laws for whatever reason really exists, they just have to claim a "special privilege" by claiming a religion based exclude. (Note: "religion based" does not equal Christian based.)

#2 - You may think that the location is a smart dodge, but legally it has no bearing. If the business offers services and those services are at another location, the business under the law cannot offer different services in a discriminatory manner when their business routinely provides services at other locations.



>>>>

I am not arguing for or against a law. I am arguing for a principle that the law SHOULD protect and defend whether it actually does or not. And I brought in the Christian component only because you did.

I don't take my moral values from the law. I will continue to express my convictions that the Founders intended that the law protect the unalienable rights of the people and reflect the society the people want rather than dictate what the people must be.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A Christian should fix the black person's car in his shop as he would any other person. A Christian should not have to go to a cockfight to do roadside service on anybody's car regardless of the customer's color or creed or anywhere else the Christian does not choose to go.

#1 - I didn't say the repair shop owner was a Christian.

#2 - It which religion the individual ascribes to important in determining whether they can refuse service or goods based on religious grounds?

#3 - The question was "Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?". If the repair shop owner offers services to customer's should the by able to claim a "special privilege" for a religious exemption for serving blacks?

#4 - If the auto shop provides road side repair can they say no in shop service for black and no road side service for blacks yet provide those services to whites?

#5 - The "Cockfighting" is a strawman not part of the question, it is an obvious throw in to deflect from the core question which has to do with declining service based on race and not based on illegal activity.



#1 - Again not the question.

#2 - If the plumber routinely applies serives in the homes of customers (as plumbers normally do), can the plumber refuse to provide those services based on the religion of the toilet's home owner.

#3 - You realize that people don't normally remove their toilets and bring them to the plumbers shop, right?



#1 - The Cab Driver example comes from a real world example where Muslim cab drivers were refusing to take customers with dogs or who were carrying alcohol because of religious objections. Their state objections was not that they were allergic to dogs or that they were afraid that other customers were allergic to dogs. Their stated objection was it violated their faith.

#2 - Again with the strawman about dangerous neighborhoods. That was not a condition of the question because it is irrelevant. If the fare is being refused because of danger in the destination, that is wholly different question. The cab drivers in the case stated it was about religious objections to the dogs or alcohol.



#1 - Again with the strawman, it has nothing to do with pick-ups or delivery. It was about being required to rent the room based on strictly on country of origin.

You see how that works? Yes, you treat all customers the same when they come to your place of business. That violates no unalienable right of the shop owner. But it is a much different thing when a person can be forced to provide services for anybody at the customer's place of business. That steps way over the line into violation of unalienable rights.

#1 - In many of the replies above you use the word "should", which isn't the question. The question is, is it OK for the government allow "special priveleges" to anyone that claimes a religious belief about something, therefore they are exempt from the law. Such a religious exemption would apply to any "personally held religous belief". In other works anyone can be exempt from the laws for whatever reason really exists, they just have to claim a "special privilege" by claiming a religion based exclude. (Note: "religion based" does not equal Christian based.)

#2 - You may think that the location is a smart dodge, but legally it has no bearing. If the business offers services and those services are at another location, the business under the law cannot offer different services in a discriminatory manner when their business routinely provides services at other locations.



>>>>

I am not arguing for or against a law. I am arguing for a principle that the law SHOULD protect and defend whether it actually does or not. And I brought in the Christian component only because you did.

#1 - Incorrect, no where in any of the examples (and since they have been quoted you will note that none have been changed) did I site "Christians", as a matter of fact I included "God (or Gods)" in most of the examples the exception being one specifically involving Muslims (where I used the singular God instead).

#2 - The only place in the post where it mentioned Christians was "In other words, does this "special privilege" only apply to Christians and their views of homosexuality, or can anyone just claim "it's my faith" and therefore be exempt from the law?" where I was asking if the same standard applied to non-Christian beliefs. (That standard being that all someone had to do was claim their individual faith barred something, and therefore they should receive the same special treatment under the law.


>>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

"This is what homosexuals do best," Swansom stated on his program. "They will engage in their Pink Mafia, their effort to control and shut down business that do not cooperate with their agenda...I think you can attend a [gay] wedding if you hold up a sign that reads Leviticus 20:13 ... I guess it comes down to if you bake a cake for a homosexual wedding you could put Leviticus 20:13 on the cake."

Kevin Swanson, Right-Wing Pastor: Gay Couples Should Be Told To Die On Their Wedding Day

Gee, what a classy guy.

Gee, not how good Christians act. I'll be the first one to tell you. So if you're thinking of judging us all based on people like that, you are sorely mistaken.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sorry, I completely disagree with you. He has stated what the law says and he has followed that up with statements that he disagrees with the law... and here is the real kicker, he has even stated why he disagrees with the law.

In this case, you are wrong.

Immie

Don't worry Immie, some people don't understand that you can discuss how a law functions, why a law was created, and the impact of such a law without agreeing that the law should be in place.

Some people are so wrapped up with justifying a religious exemption for the law they miss the larger issue. When the argument is, which some of the most ardent protesters here seem to be sayings, (and I paraphrase) "Public Accommodation laws are a good thing, except when it's my ox being gored, then it's an Evil thing." What they mean in general is that they support big government and it's justification for Public Accommodation laws, they just don't think their brand of discrimination should be covered by such laws. It relinquishes then the very principal that it is a function of government.

The true issue, IMHO, is that it is a private property issue and that private businesses in general should not be subject to such laws based on property ownership. There shouldn't be "special privileges" just for claims of a religious view. If such exemptions are granted then anyone can claim their personal religious views are such-n-such and be exempt from the law.


>>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

To explore your "special privileges" for actions done as a condition of faith:

1. Could a Auto Repair shop simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the cars of black people?

2. Could a Plumber simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't fix the toilet of Jewish people?

3. Could a Cab Driver simply claim - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God has spoken to him and says he shouldn't take a fare for a blind woman and her service dog because dogs are unclean?

4. Could a Hotel Owner refuse to rent a room - as a matter of their personal faith - that his God (or Gods) has spoken to him and says he shouldn't rent rooms to people from Ireland?

Etc.​

Since your post is extensive, I will break it down into parts. Beginning with this one.

That analogy is flawed. None of these people are being told to violate their religious convictions. So therefore, I feel they should be obligated to serve anyone and everyone willing to pay for their services. What you speak of is blatant discrimination with no basis in reality. The couple in this bakery were torn apart for denying service to people who would have had them bake a cake for and deliver it to a gay couple and their wedding. On its face, they were being asked to break all the teachings of their faith they held dear.