For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[ChrisL]

Then don't go into the public accommodation business because, if you do, you will be expected to treat all of your customers the same, as you are not a religious institution.

So "think like I do" or else.

Nope, you just cannot openly discriminate when it comes to doing business with the public. When you open a business that serves the public, that is what is expected of you to do. Serve the public. The public includes all kinds of people that you might not like. Be prepared to serve them.

So basically opening a business = slavery. got it.

Ba-ha-ha!

It's what you are implying, even if you can't see it.

Persecution complex, like I said. Only you and the other hateful people feel it is a insult to them to have to treat human beings as human beings.

 

[martybegan]

Actually making crap up in the constitution is what YOUR side does. I merely read it as is, and a person has a right to free exercise of religion. That sets the bar to the point where the government has to prove it has a compelling interest in suspending, even partially, that right.

Where in the constitution does it state that the government can restrict your freedom of religion when it has a compelling interest to do so? Does that word, compelling, appear in the First Amendment?

It's precedent, and basic law that ones rights can be limited if actual harm is done to another party, or a person has been given due process. It's why you can't murder someone in the name of Allah, you can't own a firearm if you are a felon, and you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded location.

It's not your right to discriminate based upon your religious beliefs. You can practice your religion and hold your bigoted and disgusting beliefs that others are less than human and not deserving to be treated equally, but you are not entitled to put those views into action when running a business because it violates the law of fair business practice, anti discrimination laws and civil rights laws which were put into effect because of hateful people like you.

They were put into place because said hateful people (of which I am not, you keep forgetting that) used government to create systemic economic oppression, coupled with systemic political oppression, neither of which apply to a gay couple having to go to another baker to get a cake.

Sorry, but your posts belie your claims. You are a hateful bigot and you are angry that you cannot treat others as less than human beings while doing business. That is why these laws are necessary. Exactly because of people like yourself.

The gay couple does not have to go to another baker. They can go to any baker of their choice, and if they are denied service because they are gay, then that business is breaking the law and will be sued and perhaps put out of business. No, those laws are not going to be changed because you think it hurts you to not be able to discriminate . . . because it doesn't. It hurts the people you are discriminating against. Whether or not you think they are wimps because of that has nothing to do with fair business practices, following the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state in order to ensure the public has the same access to such businesses.

Wrong. Find anywhere in these posts where I have said I would discriminate. Again, supporting freedom means supporting people you disagree with.

 

[martybegan]

So "think like I do" or else.

Nope, you just cannot openly discriminate when it comes to doing business with the public. When you open a business that serves the public, that is what is expected of you to do. Serve the public. The public includes all kinds of people that you might not like. Be prepared to serve them.

So basically opening a business = slavery. got it.

Ba-ha-ha!

It's what you are implying, even if you can't see it.

Persecution complex, like I said. Only you and the other hateful people feel it is a insult to them to have to treat human beings as human beings.

Wrong. It appears I have expended your ability to reply rationally, and all you are left with is the false assumption I am bigoted, or even agree with the people I am trying to protect.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

What is non-trivial to you? Should a company be allowed to fire a man if they find out that he is married to another man because that would result in them providing spousal health insurance coverage as the result of a marriage they object to on religious grounds? How about a hospital denying access to a same sex spouse or considering that spouse's wishes because the hospital is religious based and refuses to recognize same sex marriage? Should a hotel be allowed to refuse to allow a gay couple to sleep in the same room? What about a banquet hall that refuses to allow a reception for a civil marriage? Being denied a cake is trivial. The principle, however, that a business can deny service to someone because they have a religious objection to the way gay people live their lives is not.

 

[martybegan]

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

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

No I don't. If a Christian went to have a cake baked, and the baker refused on religious grounds, the exact same thing is going to happen.

Not likely. But I'm sure if it did happen you would figure some way to let the baker weasel out of it, especially if they had political, social or moral leanings you agree with.

 

[paddymurphy]

Where in the constitution does it state that the government can restrict your freedom of religion when it has a compelling interest to do so? Does that word, compelling, appear in the First Amendment?

It's precedent, and basic law that ones rights can be limited if actual harm is done to another party, or a person has been given due process. It's why you can't murder someone in the name of Allah, you can't own a firearm if you are a felon, and you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded location.

It's not your right to discriminate based upon your religious beliefs. You can practice your religion and hold your bigoted and disgusting beliefs that others are less than human and not deserving to be treated equally, but you are not entitled to put those views into action when running a business because it violates the law of fair business practice, anti discrimination laws and civil rights laws which were put into effect because of hateful people like you.

They were put into place because said hateful people (of which I am not, you keep forgetting that) used government to create systemic economic oppression, coupled with systemic political oppression, neither of which apply to a gay couple having to go to another baker to get a cake.

Sorry, but your posts belie your claims. You are a hateful bigot and you are angry that you cannot treat others as less than human beings while doing business. That is why these laws are necessary. Exactly because of people like yourself.

The gay couple does not have to go to another baker. They can go to any baker of their choice, and if they are denied service because they are gay, then that business is breaking the law and will be sued and perhaps put out of business. No, those laws are not going to be changed because you think it hurts you to not be able to discriminate . . . because it doesn't. It hurts the people you are discriminating against. Whether or not you think they are wimps because of that has nothing to do with fair business practices, following the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state in order to ensure the public has the same access to such businesses.

Wrong. Find anywhere in these posts where I have said I would discriminate. Again, supporting freedom means supporting people you disagree with.

Right. You don't want to discriminate; you just want others to have the freedom to.

 

[Silhouette]

Persecution complex, like I said. Only you and the other hateful people feel it is a insult to them to have to treat human beings as human beings.

Are you a graphic artist Chris? Let's suppose you are. I know a couple of Christians who want you to print the exact wording of Jude 1 and Romans 1 for a busy interstate billboard. And if you refuse, they will sue you for infringing on their 1st Amendment civil rights.

So, get busy. You've got some printing to do. Make the parts about the pit of fire for anyone who participates in favoring the spread of homosexuality in a culture in extra large font. They want that by the end of this month, so get crackin'...

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

So, that would apply equally to a bakery that refused a cake for an interracial couple? Or a couple where a Catholic baker knows that one of couple was married in the Catholic Church, is divorced but never had the marriage annulled? Tell, me what kind of discrimination would be barred regardless of a claim of religious exemption?

 

[ChrisL]

Persecution complex, like I said. Only you and the other hateful people feel it is a insult to them to have to treat human beings as human beings.

Are you a graphic artist Chris? Let's suppose you are. I know a couple of Christians who want you to print the exact wording of Jude 1 and Romans 1 for a busy interstate billboard. And if you refuse, they will sue you for infringing on their 1st Amendment civil rights.

So, get busy. You've got some printing to do. Make the parts about anyone who participates in favoring the spread of homosexuality in a culture in extra large font. They want that by the end of this month, so get crackin'...

If I opened a printing business, I would expect to have all kinds of customers. If I had a rule, it would apply to all people equally. That is not discriminating.

 

[martybegan]

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

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

What is non-trivial to you? Should a company be allowed to fire a man if they find out that he is married to another man because that would result in them providing spousal health insurance coverage as the result of a marriage they object to on religious grounds? How about a hospital denying access to a same sex spouse or considering that spouse's wishes because the hospital is religious based and refuses to recognize same sex marriage? Should a hotel be allowed to refuse to allow a gay couple to sleep in the same room? What about a banquet hall that refuses to allow a reception for a civil marriage? Being denied a cake is trivial. The principle, however, that a business can deny service to someone because they have a religious objection to the way gay people live their lives is not.

Employment law is something else, and the line there has to be drawn only around if the sexuality of the person is in conflict with the job to be done.

Hospitals deal with time and life sensitive issues, government has a compelling reason to force them to act equally.

Hotels should be required to provide rooms equally, however they should be able to choose events they wish to host.

Banquet halls should be allowed to choose the events they wish to hold

It's actually easy to figure out which ones result in actual harm, and which ones only result in people feeling sad that people don't agree with their lifestyle.

 

[ChrisL]

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

No I don't. If a Christian went to have a cake baked, and the baker refused on religious grounds, the exact same thing is going to happen.

Not likely. But I'm sure if it did happen you would figure some way to let the baker weasel out of it, especially if they had political, social or moral leanings you agree with.

No I wouldn't I see all people as equal human beings.

 

[martybegan]

Persecution complex, like I said. Only you and the other hateful people feel it is a insult to them to have to treat human beings as human beings.

Are you a graphic artist Chris? Let's suppose you are. I know a couple of Christians who want you to print the exact wording of Jude 1 and Romans 1 for a busy interstate billboard. And if you refuse, they will sue you for infringing on their 1st Amendment civil rights.

So, get busy. You've got some printing to do. Make the parts about anyone who participates in favoring the spread of homosexuality in a culture in extra large font. They want that by the end of this month, so get crackin'...

If I opened a printing business, I would expect to have all kinds of customers. If I had a rule, it would apply to all people equally. That is not discriminating.

Nice dodge, transparent as hell, but a nice attempt.

 

[paddymurphy]

“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.

So, which restaurant do you work at as a cook? I would like to avoid having a meal there.

 

[martybegan]

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

No I don't. If a Christian went to have a cake baked, and the baker refused on religious grounds, the exact same thing is going to happen.

Not likely. But I'm sure if it did happen you would figure some way to let the baker weasel out of it, especially if they had political, social or moral leanings you agree with.

No I wouldn't I see all people as equal human beings.

Bullshit.

 

[ChrisL]

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

What is non-trivial to you? Should a company be allowed to fire a man if they find out that he is married to another man because that would result in them providing spousal health insurance coverage as the result of a marriage they object to on religious grounds? How about a hospital denying access to a same sex spouse or considering that spouse's wishes because the hospital is religious based and refuses to recognize same sex marriage? Should a hotel be allowed to refuse to allow a gay couple to sleep in the same room? What about a banquet hall that refuses to allow a reception for a civil marriage? Being denied a cake is trivial. The principle, however, that a business can deny service to someone because they have a religious objection to the way gay people live their lives is not.

Employment law is something else, and the line there has to be drawn only around if the sexuality of the person is in conflict with the job to be done.

Hospitals deal with time and life sensitive issues, government has a compelling reason to force them to act equally.

Hotels should be required to provide rooms equally, however they should be able to choose events they wish to host.

Banquet halls should be allowed to choose the events they wish to hold

It's actually easy to figure out which ones result in actual harm, and which ones only result in people feeling sad that people don't agree with their lifestyle.

All business which are not religious institutions have to follow the same laws. You are not being singled out.

 

[Silhouette]

If I opened a printing business, I would expect to have all kinds of customers. If I had a rule, it would apply to all people equally. That is not discriminating.

So then you believe and would support as a matter of law, language in any Court Ruling on this topic when it makes it to SCOTUS in the next year or two, that gay graphic artists would have to be forced to print "homosexuality is an abomination and a mortal sin, forbidden by the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament" for a busy highway billboard, or they could be fined or gagged, or sued into the poorhouse by Christians?

OK, anyone else agree with Chris?

 

[teapartysamurai]

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.

Dred Scott was overturned by the Post Civil War Amendments. Plessy was overruled by a subsequent Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. Korematsu has not been addressed again.

And they were all BAD DECISIONS by a court YOU CLAIM has the last word on the law.

So, that sort of torpedoes your argument.

 

[ChrisL]

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

No I don't. If a Christian went to have a cake baked, and the baker refused on religious grounds, the exact same thing is going to happen.

Not likely. But I'm sure if it did happen you would figure some way to let the baker weasel out of it, especially if they had political, social or moral leanings you agree with.

No I wouldn't I see all people as equal human beings.

Bullshit.

I see all people as equal human beings. I don't discriminate. I know gay people, Christian people, black people. If I opened a business, I wouldn't discriminate against any of them.

You are just projecting and think everyone else must be hateful as you are. That's just not the case.

 

[paddymurphy]

Well, Bigoted bakers has a $135,000 fine that says otherwise.

enforced by a bigoted bureaucrat. It's going to be appealed, and hopefully will be a case that shows that PA Laws have to take Religious accommodation into account.

Already have case law that addresses that. Even comes out of Oregon. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH FindLaw States that where there is a law of general application, a person seeking exemption from that law cannot simply state that they object to the law on religious grounds. From the opinion, "The protection that the First Amendment provides to "`legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion,'" see Hobbie, 480 U.S., at 142 (quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972)) (emphasis added), does not extend to conduct that a State has validly proscribed. [485 U.S. 660, 672] - See more at: EMPLOYMENT DIVISION v. SMITH FindLaw I highlighted to important part of this passage. The state can validly proscribe discrimination against gay people and claim that such laws violate the free exercise of religion fail. Before you cite to the RFRA, that only applies to federal legislation. A state would have to pass its own RFRA to restore the previous test for religious freedom, and Oregon has not.

Blah, blah blah, lawyers being oppressive, blah blah blah.

Yeah, I guess to a simple minded asshole like you the supreme law of the land does come across as blah, blah, blah.

As opposed to the simple minded, totalitarian "the law is the law" way of thinking? And lets be honest, your respect for the law evaporates in a second when it's against something YOU like.

No, actually, I have respect for the rule of law even when I disagree with the ruling. That is the difference between you and I. I understand that we are a nation of laws and that the laws should be enforced. I have faith that even when there are incorrect decisions, they will eventually be overruled. That is the history of this nation. There is nothing totalitarian about the rule of law. Totalitarian's ignore the law and demand that their wishes be obeyed regardless of the law.

 

[ChrisL]

If I opened a printing business, I would expect to have all kinds of customers. If I had a rule, it would apply to all people equally. That is not discriminating.

So then you believe and would support as a matter of law, language in any Court Ruling on this topic when it makes it to SCOTUS in the next year or two, that gay graphic artists would have to be forced to print "homosexuality is an abomination and a mortal sin, forbidden by the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament" for a busy highway billboard, or they could be fined or gagged, or sued into the poorhouse by Christians?

OK, anyone else agree with Chris?

Nope, I would have a rule that I don't print hate speech, regardless of the belief of the customer. That would equally apply to everyone. No discrimination.