For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[teapartysamurai]

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

So after we get rid of the Supreme Court, how do you plan to strike down state laws that you believe violate the 1st amendment religious protections, or violate the 2nd amendment?

This is how liberal argue when they are losing.

They create false alternatives and straw men and expect you to fall for the premise of arguing from those false narratives.

Would you please show where I called for "getting rid" of the USSC.


When you do that, let me know.

And conservatives argue by claiming that the Supreme Court has been getting it wrong since 1803.

So you agree with:

Plessy vs. Fergusen (Separate but Equal) Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dred Scott vs. Sanford: (Blacks are not Citizens) Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944 (Right to Intern the Japanese) Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Or how about Bush v. Gore, that gets you libs's panties in such a bunch?

Aren't those decisions gone?

I thought you said the Supreme Court was the last word?

Um, no YOU guys said it was the last word.

I'm saying these are examples of why that's wrong.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've told you, you don't suffer harm. My not taking it causes you harm and that is my religious belief.

Nice try, but a bit of a stretch. Actually taking someone else's property without their permission has always been found to be a harmful act.

 

[teapartysamurai]

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

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

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

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

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

I cited the ******* case for you. What more does it take for you to understand that you are wrong? Oh, I know, you are smarter than the several dozen SC Justices who have ruled on these religious freedom cases over the last 150 years. They were all idiots and you are omniscient.

And I've cited cases that show that the court can be very, very wrong.

Plessy vs. Fergusen (Separate but Equal) Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dred Scott vs. Sanford: (Blacks are not Citizens) Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944 (Right to Intern the Japanese) Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Notice liberals won't address this because it shoots their idea the court can't be wrong, out of the water?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You misunderstand my comment. The Christian conservatives think these laws are designed to single them out and punish them for their religious beliefs.

And they are wrong.

I know that. These laws are in place to protect people from discriminatory business practices. ALL the people, even the Christians themselves. Only, some of them are too far gone to realize this.

"protecting" nothing but hurt feelings in this case, not actual harm.

You fainting flowers seem to be all big and tough when government does your dirty work, but being told "i'm sorry, we don't provide service X, please go to someone else" ZOMG, the vapors!!!!!

By that logic we should repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anything involving government should stay. Anything involving actual public accommodations should stay, but the law has to be tempered with respects to the rights of the people to associate with who they want to, and only when government has a clear compelling case to force them to do what it wants should government act.

The government has a compelling interest in protecting the citizenry from discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

“Discrimination” suggests that these vendors are being treated differently from other vendors, but that is not the case. If a state or municipality requires that public accommodations be provided equally regardless of sexual orientation, that applies equally to all businesses. There is not some perk or privilege that some businesses enjoy that these anti-gay vendors have been denied access to. Rather than being subjected to “discrimination, they are being held to the same consistent standard as everybody else. If it’s “on the menu” at a public business, all protected classes must have equal access to that accommodation.

Discrimination Is Okay If Other Businesses Can Provide The Service
One of the arguments that proponents of these laws have made is that it’s okay to let one religious business owner discriminate because there will be plenty of other businesses that don’t. Here’s the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro making this point:

This isn’t the Jim Crow South; there are plenty of wedding photographers — over 100 in Albuquerque — and bakeries who would be willing to do business regardless of sexual orientation, and no state is enforcing segregation laws. I bet plenty of Arizona businesses would and do see more customers if they advertised that they welcomed the LGBT community.

Shapiro isn’t wrong, but nondiscrimination protections aren’t just about access; they’re about basic equality. The injustice occurs in the moment when the refusal of service occurs. It’s a message to same-sex couples that they are less than — that they don’t deserve the same access to public goods as other newly forming families. Nondiscrimination protections literally mitigate harm by interrupting stigma. Other vendors can substitute the service, but they can’t undo the harm.

Moreover, Shapiro’s assumptions convey an urban bias. Attitudes toward LGBT people are dramatically improving, but in rural areas, there often aren’t other many options for services. When one Washington lawmaker was trying to legalize discrimination, one of his staffers told a constituent that if gay people in rural areas couldn’t find a grocery store that served them, they “can just grow their own food.” This is not a viable solution to guarantee equal access across society.



Dismantling The Religious Liberty Talking Points Used To Justify Anti-LGBT Discrimination ThinkProgress

Actually they have always been about access, their purpose is to facilitate commerce, not to make people not have their feelings hurt.

 

[PratchettFan]

The Supreme Court already did:

"The first Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of free exercise was Reynolds v. U.S. (1878), in which the Court upheld a federal law banning polygamy over objections by Mormons who claimed that the practice was their religious duty. The Court in Reynolds distinguished between religious belief and religious conduct or action, stating that Congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.” Recognizing the religious defense, the Court said, would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” While the government could not punish citizens because of their religious beliefs, it could regulate religiously motivated conduct, provided that it had a rational basis for doing so. This “rational basis test” became the standard for determining whether a law that impinged on a religious practice violated the free-exercise clause. As that standard was easy for the government to satisfy, for almost a century the courts generally rejected religious-freedom claims against generally applicable laws."
Free-exercise clause overview First Amendment Center news commentary analysis on free speech press religion assembly petition

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court does not have the right to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution? Never mind looking. It says nothing like that. I would discuss Marbury v. Madison with you but you have never read it.

I never said the USSC does not have the right to review laws.

I said it does NOT say the USSC is the LAST WORD on those laws.

That came from Marbury vs. Madison.

It's clear you haven't read either document.

Actually, that is what it says. The Congress and the States can amend the Constitution, but the final say in issues arising under the Constitution rests with the federal courts and ultimately SCOTUS. That is what makes it a separate branch of the government.

 

[martybegan]

And they are wrong.

I know that. These laws are in place to protect people from discriminatory business practices. ALL the people, even the Christians themselves. Only, some of them are too far gone to realize this.

"protecting" nothing but hurt feelings in this case, not actual harm.

You fainting flowers seem to be all big and tough when government does your dirty work, but being told "i'm sorry, we don't provide service X, please go to someone else" ZOMG, the vapors!!!!!

By that logic we should repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anything involving government should stay. Anything involving actual public accommodations should stay, but the law has to be tempered with respects to the rights of the people to associate with who they want to, and only when government has a clear compelling case to force them to do what it wants should government act.

The government has a compelling interest in protecting the citizenry from discrimination.

Not if by doing so it has to force someone to go against their morals, when their action causes not actual harm.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't ask for the basis. I asked who gets to decide.

that's what courts are supposed to do, but the line is clear and pretty easy to see.

 

[teapartysamurai]

And they are wrong.

I know that. These laws are in place to protect people from discriminatory business practices. ALL the people, even the Christians themselves. Only, some of them are too far gone to realize this.

"protecting" nothing but hurt feelings in this case, not actual harm.

You fainting flowers seem to be all big and tough when government does your dirty work, but being told "i'm sorry, we don't provide service X, please go to someone else" ZOMG, the vapors!!!!!

By that logic we should repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anything involving government should stay. Anything involving actual public accommodations should stay, but the law has to be tempered with respects to the rights of the people to associate with who they want to, and only when government has a clear compelling case to force them to do what it wants should government act.

The government has a compelling interest in protecting the citizenry from discrimination.

Except Christians in violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[teapartysamurai]

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

I can also bring up the man BAD decisions by the court like Separate but Equal, that blacks aren't citizens, or how about Roe V. Wade.

Or Bush v. Gore, that liberals hate.

You can cite as many court cases as you want.

They don't take precedent over the 1st Amendment.

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court does not have the right to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution? Never mind looking. It says nothing like that. I would discuss Marbury v. Madison with you but you have never read it.

I never said the USSC does not have the right to review laws.

I said it does NOT say the USSC is the LAST WORD on those laws.

That came from Marbury vs. Madison.

It's clear you haven't read either document.

Actually, that is what it says. The Congress and the States can amend the Constitution, but the final say in issues arising under the Constitution rests with the federal courts and ultimately SCOTUS. That is what makes it a separate branch of the government.

If the USSC is the last word then it is NOT co-equal.

Then it has more power than Congress.

Not only does it make law by rulings such as gay marriage, but it can strike down other laws.

That's NOT co-equal.

 

[PratchettFan]

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

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

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

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

I didn't ask for the basis. I asked who gets to decide.

that's what courts are supposed to do, but the line is clear and pretty easy to see.

Well, they did decide. The state court decided on a state law. What is the problem?

 

[Silhouette]

I am just wondering how far you are willing to take your strict adherence to the Bible in doing your business. Okay. So you don't want to provide wedding services to gay folks because Leviticus 18:22 says so. Well, why stop there? The Bible also says that adultery and sex before marriage are wrong. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is very clear a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night shall be stoned. Admittedly, it might be a bit harsh to determine who is a virgin, but you could at least eliminate the 50% of women who live with their boyfriends before marriage. Okay, next up, we need to talk about what you are wearing, Girlfriend. Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman shall not wear clothing meant for a man. That means all you ladies who wear slacks and jeans and pantsuits! Clearly, a truly biblical business can't work for such sinners! ..and if that's too "Old Testament" for you, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:3 both state women should wear neither braids nor jewelry. so if they plan to wear any of that at their wedding, clearly it would offend your magic fairy in the sky to no end....Hey, and Heaven forbid that they be one of those "liberated" women who write their own vows at a wedding....Ephesians 5:22-24 says that they should totally submit to their husbands, and 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says they should keep their mouths shut in church....So really, now that you've eliminated about 99% of your potential customers, you can no doubt say that your objections to serving gays was really about the Bible... because you are also following all the other rules the bible sets down.

The point of the OP is to get Christians to start citing the Old Testament, which is merely a reference but not a set of edicts. The New Testament of course are the teachings of Jesus Christ. That's what Christians base their faith & decisions on. Notice the OP in the quote above made no mention of the New Testament's mortal sins described in Jude 1 or Romans 1.

This is a prelude of what's to come in Court. They literally will be debating the Bible. The cult of LGBT will say "you're honors, should we start stoning people for taking the Lord's name in vain?". (The Courtroom snickers)..."so then..your honors, how seriously can we take these claims of Jude 1 or Romans 1? How silly!". (omitting that Jesus said "he who is without sin cast the first stone" )

[and therefore the entire teachings of Jesus Christ, including the ones forbidding the aid of spreading homosexuality as a cult/social movement will all be thrown in the waste bin].

 

[martybegan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of religion is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have the right to not be offended, or insulted, or hurt emotionally. Those are not real harms.

Lol, so if the bakers are offended or insulted or hurt emotionally because the laws regarding business requires them to refrain from discriminating against homosexuals,

they shouldn't mistake that for their rights being violated?

lol

They are actually being forced to act against their will, there is actual harm, either by complying or not complying, one is an affront to their morals, the other is economic. On the other hand the gay couple, once they get another cake are no worse for the wear, unless they are weaklings and their feelings are hurt, with no actual harm.

 

[PratchettFan]

They establish First Amendment precedent, dumbass. The Supreme Court determines when a law violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not absolute. It would not protect a radical Muslim who killed his daughter because she abandoned her faith because he did so based on his view of his religious obligation.

No, the USSC doesn't, according to the Constitution.

That was Madison vs. Marbury and the USSC just did a power grab in claiming that last word on the Constitution for themselves.

Another example of bad law by passed by an out of control USSC.

It should have been resisted a lontg time ago.

Where in the constitution does it say that the Supreme Court does not have the right to review laws to determine if they violate the constitution? Never mind looking. It says nothing like that. I would discuss Marbury v. Madison with you but you have never read it.

I never said the USSC does not have the right to review laws.

I said it does NOT say the USSC is the LAST WORD on those laws.

That came from Marbury vs. Madison.

It's clear you haven't read either document.

Actually, that is what it says. The Congress and the States can amend the Constitution, but the final say in issues arising under the Constitution rests with the federal courts and ultimately SCOTUS. That is what makes it a separate branch of the government.

If the USSC is the last word then it is NOT co-equal.

Then it has more power than Congress.

Not only does it make law by rulings such as gay marriage, but it can strike down other laws.

That's NOT co-equal.

Yes, it is. As I said, the Congress and the States can amend the Constitution. SCOTUS can't do that and the President can't do that. It really is an elegant system.

 

[ChrisL]

“Discrimination” suggests that these vendors are being treated differently from other vendors, but that is not the case. If a state or municipality requires that public accommodations be provided equally regardless of sexual orientation, that applies equally to all businesses. There is not some perk or privilege that some businesses enjoy that these anti-gay vendors have been denied access to. Rather than being subjected to “discrimination, they are being held to the same consistent standard as everybody else. If it’s “on the menu” at a public business, all protected classes must have equal access to that accommodation.

Discrimination Is Okay If Other Businesses Can Provide The Service
One of the arguments that proponents of these laws have made is that it’s okay to let one religious business owner discriminate because there will be plenty of other businesses that don’t. Here’s the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro making this point:

This isn’t the Jim Crow South; there are plenty of wedding photographers — over 100 in Albuquerque — and bakeries who would be willing to do business regardless of sexual orientation, and no state is enforcing segregation laws. I bet plenty of Arizona businesses would and do see more customers if they advertised that they welcomed the LGBT community.

Shapiro isn’t wrong, but nondiscrimination protections aren’t just about access; they’re about basic equality. The injustice occurs in the moment when the refusal of service occurs. It’s a message to same-sex couples that they are less than — that they don’t deserve the same access to public goods as other newly forming families. Nondiscrimination protections literally mitigate harm by interrupting stigma. Other vendors can substitute the service, but they can’t undo the harm.

Moreover, Shapiro’s assumptions convey an urban bias. Attitudes toward LGBT people are dramatically improving, but in rural areas, there often aren’t other many options for services. When one Washington lawmaker was trying to legalize discrimination, one of his staffers told a constituent that if gay people in rural areas couldn’t find a grocery store that served them, they “can just grow their own food.” This is not a viable solution to guarantee equal access across society.



Dismantling The Religious Liberty Talking Points Used To Justify Anti-LGBT Discrimination ThinkProgress

Actually they have always been about access, their purpose is to facilitate commerce, not to make people not have their feelings hurt.

That applies to you too. If serving gay people or treating everyone equally when doing business hurts you, too bad.

 

[ChrisL]

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of religion is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have the right to not be offended, or insulted, or hurt emotionally. Those are not real harms.

Lol, so if the bakers are offended or insulted or hurt emotionally because the laws regarding business requires them to refrain from discriminating against homosexuals,

they shouldn't mistake that for their rights being violated?

lol

They are actually being forced to act against their will, there is actual harm, either by complying or not complying, one is an affront to their morals, the other is economic. On the other hand the gay couple, once they get another cake are no worse for the wear, unless they are weaklings and their feelings are hurt, with no actual harm.

Doesn't matter if you think they're weaklings. You don't have the right to discriminate against customers when you open a business to serve the public because you agree to these regulations when you open your business.

 

[ChrisL]

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom of religion is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have the right to not be offended, or insulted, or hurt emotionally. Those are not real harms.

Lol, so if the bakers are offended or insulted or hurt emotionally because the laws regarding business requires them to refrain from discriminating against homosexuals,

they shouldn't mistake that for their rights being violated?

lol

They are actually being forced to act against their will, there is actual harm, either by complying or not complying, one is an affront to their morals, the other is economic. On the other hand the gay couple, once they get another cake are no worse for the wear, unless they are weaklings and their feelings are hurt, with no actual harm.

No, you aren't forced to do anything. You just aren't allowed to discriminate between customers.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

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

I didn't ask for the basis. I asked who gets to decide.

that's what courts are supposed to do, but the line is clear and pretty easy to see.

Well, they did decide. The state court decided on a state law. What is the problem?

Law is wrong, court is wrong.

 

[Katzndogz]

“Discrimination” suggests that these vendors are being treated differently from other vendors, but that is not the case. If a state or municipality requires that public accommodations be provided equally regardless of sexual orientation, that applies equally to all businesses. There is not some perk or privilege that some businesses enjoy that these anti-gay vendors have been denied access to. Rather than being subjected to “discrimination, they are being held to the same consistent standard as everybody else. If it’s “on the menu” at a public business, all protected classes must have equal access to that accommodation.

Discrimination Is Okay If Other Businesses Can Provide The Service
One of the arguments that proponents of these laws have made is that it’s okay to let one religious business owner discriminate because there will be plenty of other businesses that don’t. Here’s the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro making this point:

This isn’t the Jim Crow South; there are plenty of wedding photographers — over 100 in Albuquerque — and bakeries who would be willing to do business regardless of sexual orientation, and no state is enforcing segregation laws. I bet plenty of Arizona businesses would and do see more customers if they advertised that they welcomed the LGBT community.

Shapiro isn’t wrong, but nondiscrimination protections aren’t just about access; they’re about basic equality. The injustice occurs in the moment when the refusal of service occurs. It’s a message to same-sex couples that they are less than — that they don’t deserve the same access to public goods as other newly forming families. Nondiscrimination protections literally mitigate harm by interrupting stigma. Other vendors can substitute the service, but they can’t undo the harm.

Moreover, Shapiro’s assumptions convey an urban bias. Attitudes toward LGBT people are dramatically improving, but in rural areas, there often aren’t other many options for services. When one Washington lawmaker was trying to legalize discrimination, one of his staffers told a constituent that if gay people in rural areas couldn’t find a grocery store that served them, they “can just grow their own food.” This is not a viable solution to guarantee equal access across society.



Dismantling The Religious Liberty Talking Points Used To Justify Anti-LGBT Discrimination ThinkProgress

Actually they have always been about access, their purpose is to facilitate commerce, not to make people not have their feelings hurt.

That applies to you too. If serving gay people or treating everyone equally when doing business hurts you, too bad.

That would be true ONLY if gays were being denied service. They have never been denied service. They have been denied personal service and the special talent of the provider. It's no different than going into a restaurant and demanding the cook give you a blow job after hours because he's given blow jobs to other customers.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

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

Freedom of religion is not limited to religious institutions.

You do not have the right to not be offended, or insulted, or hurt emotionally. Those are not real harms.

Lol, so if the bakers are offended or insulted or hurt emotionally because the laws regarding business requires them to refrain from discriminating against homosexuals,

they shouldn't mistake that for their rights being violated?

lol

They are actually being forced to act against their will, there is actual harm, either by complying or not complying, one is an affront to their morals, the other is economic. On the other hand the gay couple, once they get another cake are no worse for the wear, unless they are weaklings and their feelings are hurt, with no actual harm.

Doesn't matter if you think they're weaklings. You don't have the right to discriminate against customers when you open a business to serve the public because you agree to these regulations when you open your business.

The laws are based on facilitating commerce and protecting economic opportunity, not to salve hurt feelings, which was the only thing injured in this case.