CDZ Freedom of religion and speech vs discrimination of gays

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

I'm going to make a religion.

In this religion it is mandatory that all people kill all black people.

How's that going to fair in the Supreme Court.
In Employment Division v. Smith, a unanimous Supreme Court wisely and appropriately held that the courts must not be burdened with the impossible task of determining what religions were ‘real’ and what religions were ‘false’ for the purpose of Free Exercise Clause violation suits.

Consequently, citizens are expected to obey just and proper laws, and may not claim a ‘religious objection’ from doing so.

Which appears to have been ruled against by the SCOTUS

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The case pitted gay rights against religious liberty.
&&&&&&&&&&
The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Sessions said. "The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans

So now if i'm reading this ruling right, any Muslim biz owner can refuse Christian patrons, Jewish doctors can refuse Pally patients, and visa versa

Essentially the SCOTUS has taken >>>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ,and turned it into >>>Congress shall respect any law any whack job religmo creates


Demotivational-pictures-religion.jpg

~S~

As far as I can tell the Supreme Court didn't rule on religion, but on the bias of the state.

Well their ruling is in my link,allbeit somewhat long winded

That said, i don't believe Colo acknowldged gay marriage at the time, 12? 14?

Maybe that factors in, dunno


~S~
 
Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

I'm going to make a religion.

In this religion it is mandatory that all people kill all black people.

How's that going to fair in the Supreme Court.
In Employment Division v. Smith, a unanimous Supreme Court wisely and appropriately held that the courts must not be burdened with the impossible task of determining what religions were ‘real’ and what religions were ‘false’ for the purpose of Free Exercise Clause violation suits.

Consequently, citizens are expected to obey just and proper laws, and may not claim a ‘religious objection’ from doing so.

Which appears to have been ruled against by the SCOTUS

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The case pitted gay rights against religious liberty.
&&&&&&&&&&
The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Sessions said. "The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans

So now if i'm reading this ruling right, any Muslim biz owner can refuse Christian patrons, Jewish doctors can refuse Pally patients, and visa versa

Essentially the SCOTUS has taken >>>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ,and turned it into >>>Congress shall respect any law any whack job religmo creates


Demotivational-pictures-religion.jpg

~S~

As far as I can tell the Supreme Court didn't rule on religion, but on the bias of the state.

Well their ruling is in my link,allbeit somewhat long winded

That said, i don't believe Colo acknowldged gay marriage at the time, 12? 14?

Maybe that factors in, dunno


~S~

Well, the article says

A) "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds..."

"The vote was narrow not because of the number of justices for and against, but because of the slim precedent it sets."

B) "stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs."

C) "The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. "

So, C is what they ruled, that there was hostility towards religion from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

This seems like a mayor fob out. They're basically saying if you try and make a case because you don't like something, then you won't win.

So, if you got beaten up by a cop, and you didn't like cops, then it's justified for cops to beat you up. Well, not quite, but it's more or less like that.

Basically because the CCRC didn't like religion, they lost.

What the fuck? Forget whether the baker broke the law or not, no. It's about what the CCRC liked.

B) means the ruling doesn't mean anything beyond this case. It doesn't set precedent for religious people at all, merely it sets precedent for people trying to use the courts to try and change things, sort of. So in the future they'll just have to hide their hates.

A) just means that when they say it was narrow, they don't mean 7-2 was narrow.
 
I'm going to make a religion.

In this religion it is mandatory that all people kill all black people.

How's that going to fair in the Supreme Court.
In Employment Division v. Smith, a unanimous Supreme Court wisely and appropriately held that the courts must not be burdened with the impossible task of determining what religions were ‘real’ and what religions were ‘false’ for the purpose of Free Exercise Clause violation suits.

Consequently, citizens are expected to obey just and proper laws, and may not claim a ‘religious objection’ from doing so.

Which appears to have been ruled against by the SCOTUS

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The case pitted gay rights against religious liberty.
&&&&&&&&&&
The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Sessions said. "The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans

So now if i'm reading this ruling right, any Muslim biz owner can refuse Christian patrons, Jewish doctors can refuse Pally patients, and visa versa

Essentially the SCOTUS has taken >>>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ,and turned it into >>>Congress shall respect any law any whack job religmo creates


Demotivational-pictures-religion.jpg

~S~

As far as I can tell the Supreme Court didn't rule on religion, but on the bias of the state.

Well their ruling is in my link,allbeit somewhat long winded

That said, i don't believe Colo acknowldged gay marriage at the time, 12? 14?

Maybe that factors in, dunno


~S~

Well, the article says

A) "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds..."

"The vote was narrow not because of the number of justices for and against, but because of the slim precedent it sets."

B) "stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs."

C) "The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. "

So, C is what they ruled, that there was hostility towards religion from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

This seems like a mayor fob out. They're basically saying if you try and make a case because you don't like something, then you won't win.

So, if you got beaten up by a cop, and you didn't like cops, then it's justified for cops to beat you up. Well, not quite, but it's more or less like that.

Basically because the CCRC didn't like religion, they lost.

What the fuck? Forget whether the baker broke the law or not, no. It's about what the CCRC liked.

B) means the ruling doesn't mean anything beyond this case. It doesn't set precedent for religious people at all, merely it sets precedent for people trying to use the courts to try and change things, sort of. So in the future they'll just have to hide their hates.

A) just means that when they say it was narrow, they don't mean 7-2 was narrow.

Here is the problem.
A reasonable customer would respect the Baker's religious convictions and just choose another Baker. An unreasonable left wing bigot customer would sue the Baker to try and destroy his business because he loathes Christians. It's not the customer who is being attacked, it's the Baker who is being attacked.
 
Here is the problem.
A reasonable customer would respect the Baker's religious convictions and just choose another Baker. An unreasonable left wing bigot customer would sue the Baker to try and destroy his business because he loathes Christians. It's not the customer who is being attacked, it's the Baker who is being attacked.

Conversely, any given butcher,baker,or candelstick maker could now (under this ruling) refuse patrons on the basis of religious belief

And while i sense the rabid right religmo's think this some sort of victory, it's really not when one consideres all the Islamics in sanctuary cities turning them away

Proof freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM it

~S~
 
In Employment Division v. Smith, a unanimous Supreme Court wisely and appropriately held that the courts must not be burdened with the impossible task of determining what religions were ‘real’ and what religions were ‘false’ for the purpose of Free Exercise Clause violation suits.

Consequently, citizens are expected to obey just and proper laws, and may not claim a ‘religious objection’ from doing so.

Which appears to have been ruled against by the SCOTUS

Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake

The case pitted gay rights against religious liberty.
&&&&&&&&&&
The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs," Sessions said. "The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom First Amendment rights of all Americans

So now if i'm reading this ruling right, any Muslim biz owner can refuse Christian patrons, Jewish doctors can refuse Pally patients, and visa versa

Essentially the SCOTUS has taken >>>>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ,and turned it into >>>Congress shall respect any law any whack job religmo creates


Demotivational-pictures-religion.jpg

~S~

As far as I can tell the Supreme Court didn't rule on religion, but on the bias of the state.

Well their ruling is in my link,allbeit somewhat long winded

That said, i don't believe Colo acknowldged gay marriage at the time, 12? 14?

Maybe that factors in, dunno


~S~

Well, the article says

A) "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds..."

"The vote was narrow not because of the number of justices for and against, but because of the slim precedent it sets."

B) "stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs."

C) "The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. "

So, C is what they ruled, that there was hostility towards religion from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

This seems like a mayor fob out. They're basically saying if you try and make a case because you don't like something, then you won't win.

So, if you got beaten up by a cop, and you didn't like cops, then it's justified for cops to beat you up. Well, not quite, but it's more or less like that.

Basically because the CCRC didn't like religion, they lost.

What the fuck? Forget whether the baker broke the law or not, no. It's about what the CCRC liked.

B) means the ruling doesn't mean anything beyond this case. It doesn't set precedent for religious people at all, merely it sets precedent for people trying to use the courts to try and change things, sort of. So in the future they'll just have to hide their hates.

A) just means that when they say it was narrow, they don't mean 7-2 was narrow.

Here is the problem.
A reasonable customer would respect the Baker's religious convictions and just choose another Baker. An unreasonable left wing bigot customer would sue the Baker to try and destroy his business because he loathes Christians. It's not the customer who is being attacked, it's the Baker who is being attacked.

Or, a person who signs a deal with the state to do business should be honorable enough to abide by the deal they signed.
 
Conversely, any given butcher,baker,or candelstick maker could now (under this ruling) refuse patrons on the basis of religious belief

And while i sense the rabid right religmo's think this some sort of victory, it's really not when one consideres all the Islamics in sanctuary cities turning them away

Proof freedom OF religion does not mean freedom FROM it

~S~

False. That's not what this ruling did.

The SCOTUS did not rule on whether religious beliefs exempt one from generally applicable laws. The SCOTUS on reversed the lower court on the narrow issue of the Commission being openly hostile to religious beliefs. The specifically said that religious exemption to generally applicable laws would have to be addressed in a future case. (One not tainted by the hostility of the Commission.)


.>>>>
 
I sense a fine line here watcher

this came down to religious beliefs vs. gay rights

gay rights lost

~S~
 
I sense a fine line here watcher

this came down to religious beliefs vs. gay rights

gay rights lost

~S~

Not a fine line at all. The SCOTUS punted on the main question delivering a very narrow ruling on the hostile comments of the Commission tainting the process.

They did not invalidate the Colorado PA law, it is still in effect.


>>>>
 
The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

And if the Baker had refused to bake a cake for a mixed race couple? Or for a Jewish couple?

Should they have just looked for another bakery?


Yes.
Then the 2aguy Bakery and Sweet Shop Company is in for some rough times, because that's flat-out illegal, and will get you arrested, sued, and closed down.
 
The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.
I agree with you that this is a thorny issue, a real duel between two basic fundamentals of American jurisprudence. I wouldn't want to have to make the SC's decision. Someone will lose. Hopefully the SC will keep avoiding it until society sorts out an acceptable compromise for both sides. I believe the gays deserve as much right to be treated equally as the baker does to freely practice his religion.

Where I have a question for you, is why you think the gay couple went looking for trouble? Just because there are other bakeries in the area? Did it occur to you that it may have just happened that they liked the look of the place or some of the cakes he had created that were (possibly) posted on line or in his window? Maybe it had easier parking or was close to the reception site or their home. Or someone had mentioned it as being a great bakery? They didn't record it or bring in friends as "witnesses." I think it is as likely that it was just one of those things that happened, and over the past few years while this made its way through the courts, it wouldn't surprise me if the gay couple have wished they had walked into a different bakery, too.

There are coincidences in life, to be sure. BUT - it stretches credulity a little bit to believe that these guys just happened to walk into the one bakery in the area that is run by a Christian who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. There are literally dozens of other bakeries in the area, none of which seem to have a problem baking the cake. I cannot believe that the gay community in that area does not know about Phillips (the Christian baker). Wouldn't you think the gay couple would avoid such a person for a wedding cake of all things. You're celebrating a wedding, for God's sake; do you want to stir up trouble on that occasion of all times to do something political? And the gay couple did not have to make a federal case out of it, there were other avenues; boycotts and protests, and the like for starters. I am just not believing it was all an unfortunate coincidence. Frankly, I doubt very much that the gay couple is one bit sorry, I think they contrived the whole thing in advance to strike a blow for gay rights.
The "There are plenty of others, go to one of those" argument is just as pointless now as it was in the 1950s, when black people had their choice of plenty of other diners at which to get lunch.

There is a difference between no service at all cuz you're black, and no wedding cake for a same-sex marriage based on religious convictions but I'll serve you anything else.
 
There is a difference between no service at all cuz you're black, and no wedding cake for a same-sex marriage based on religious convictions but I'll serve you anything else.


Just to point out. The Colorado law specifies "full and equal" access to "good and services" not full access for some groups and a subset for other groups.

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition


.>>>>
 
There is a difference between no service at all cuz you're black, and no wedding cake for a same-sex marriage based on religious convictions but I'll serve you anything else.


Just to point out. The Colorado law specifies "full and equal" access to "good and services" not full access for some groups and a subset for other groups.

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition


.>>>>

It may be that "full and equal" access may have to be qualified somewhat if the SCOTUS rules that 1st amendment rights are somewhat unnecessarily diminished. I don't know, we'll see what happens down the road when another case is considered. Hence the impetus for this thread: how do you balance someone's right to "full and equal" access with someone else's rights religion and speech?
 
I say that my right to freedom of religion should end when it projects onto someone else, in this case causing them to suffer discrimination.
 
The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.
I agree with you that this is a thorny issue, a real duel between two basic fundamentals of American jurisprudence. I wouldn't want to have to make the SC's decision. Someone will lose. Hopefully the SC will keep avoiding it until society sorts out an acceptable compromise for both sides. I believe the gays deserve as much right to be treated equally as the baker does to freely practice his religion.

Where I have a question for you, is why you think the gay couple went looking for trouble? Just because there are other bakeries in the area? Did it occur to you that it may have just happened that they liked the look of the place or some of the cakes he had created that were (possibly) posted on line or in his window? Maybe it had easier parking or was close to the reception site or their home. Or someone had mentioned it as being a great bakery? They didn't record it or bring in friends as "witnesses." I think it is as likely that it was just one of those things that happened, and over the past few years while this made its way through the courts, it wouldn't surprise me if the gay couple have wished they had walked into a different bakery, too.

There are coincidences in life, to be sure. BUT - it stretches credulity a little bit to believe that these guys just happened to walk into the one bakery in the area that is run by a Christian who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. There are literally dozens of other bakeries in the area, none of which seem to have a problem baking the cake. I cannot believe that the gay community in that area does not know about Phillips (the Christian baker). Wouldn't you think the gay couple would avoid such a person for a wedding cake of all things. You're celebrating a wedding, for God's sake; do you want to stir up trouble on that occasion of all times to do something political? And the gay couple did not have to make a federal case out of it, there were other avenues; boycotts and protests, and the like for starters. I am just not believing it was all an unfortunate coincidence. Frankly, I doubt very much that the gay couple is one bit sorry, I think they contrived the whole thing in advance to strike a blow for gay rights.
The "There are plenty of others, go to one of those" argument is just as pointless now as it was in the 1950s, when black people had their choice of plenty of other diners at which to get lunch.

There is a difference between no service at all cuz you're black, and no wedding cake for a same-sex marriage based on religious convictions but I'll serve you anything else.

I think what is happening is we are confusing freedom of individuals and religion and freedom of a corporation. I assume this bakery is a corporation and could be corrected.

Now what happens is big government gives a corporation life and the people who created the corporation get an extra level of big government protection from the financial risks involved in business. Its big government but necessary to keep our economy growing on a pace with England's China's, you name it.

So the corporation and its religious hypocrite owners are benefiting from the taxes paid by gays, blacks, christians, germans (and who would admit to being german after last century!), you name it. Americans pay taxes, the business benefits from the taxes and the business should have to serve Americans.

On the extreme end, me and my hospital company, we don't like say Italians because they sided with the germans. We have to serve them. With smaller businesses you can get away with more but the smaller business still has the same rights and obligations. They are not better than my big business.

If this was a fellow making cakes out of his house for fun could some gay guy go in and force him to put two grooms on a cake? No, I'd string up the gay guy for trespassing.

And yes, I do say I am right and judges are wrong sometimes. gasp. I suspect most of you all have done the same in the past.
 
It may be that "full and equal" access may have to be qualified somewhat if the SCOTUS rules that 1st amendment rights are somewhat unnecessarily diminished. I don't know, we'll see what happens down the road when another case is considered. Hence the impetus for this thread: how do you balance someone's right to "full and equal" access with someone else's rights religion and speech?

#1 Just pointing out what the text of the law says.

#2 Respectfully, I don't need to balance anything. My opinion is that PA laws as applied to private businesses should be repealed and Christians owners allowed to discriminate against gays. KKK owners to discriminate against blacks. Muslim owners to discriminate against Jews, dogs owners, and alcohol carriers. Redneck owners to discriminate against Mexicans. By recognizing rights of property and association then religion and free speech are moot points since any private shop owner can refuse service for any reason. Currently we have an inherent inequality in the law is the Christian baker wants to discriminate against gays for his religious beliefs and be exempt from the law, but a gay shop owner would not be able to discriminate against him for his religious beliefs.

(PA laws should only apply to government entities and limit their ability to spend taxpayer money by restricting contracts with and the purchase of goods and services from private businesses which use discriminatory business models.)


.>>>>
 
I say that my right to freedom of religion should end when it projects onto someone else, in this case causing them to suffer discrimination.

And you are entitled to that opinion. Not everybody agrees with you though, especially if you initiate the discrimination by deliberately seeking out somebody with religious views that do not accept your lifestyle or decisions, thereby creating a conflict that could have easily be avoided.
 
The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.
I agree with you that this is a thorny issue, a real duel between two basic fundamentals of American jurisprudence. I wouldn't want to have to make the SC's decision. Someone will lose. Hopefully the SC will keep avoiding it until society sorts out an acceptable compromise for both sides. I believe the gays deserve as much right to be treated equally as the baker does to freely practice his religion.

Where I have a question for you, is why you think the gay couple went looking for trouble? Just because there are other bakeries in the area? Did it occur to you that it may have just happened that they liked the look of the place or some of the cakes he had created that were (possibly) posted on line or in his window? Maybe it had easier parking or was close to the reception site or their home. Or someone had mentioned it as being a great bakery? They didn't record it or bring in friends as "witnesses." I think it is as likely that it was just one of those things that happened, and over the past few years while this made its way through the courts, it wouldn't surprise me if the gay couple have wished they had walked into a different bakery, too.

There are coincidences in life, to be sure. BUT - it stretches credulity a little bit to believe that these guys just happened to walk into the one bakery in the area that is run by a Christian who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. There are literally dozens of other bakeries in the area, none of which seem to have a problem baking the cake. I cannot believe that the gay community in that area does not know about Phillips (the Christian baker). Wouldn't you think the gay couple would avoid such a person for a wedding cake of all things. You're celebrating a wedding, for God's sake; do you want to stir up trouble on that occasion of all times to do something political? And the gay couple did not have to make a federal case out of it, there were other avenues; boycotts and protests, and the like for starters. I am just not believing it was all an unfortunate coincidence. Frankly, I doubt very much that the gay couple is one bit sorry, I think they contrived the whole thing in advance to strike a blow for gay rights.
The "There are plenty of others, go to one of those" argument is just as pointless now as it was in the 1950s, when black people had their choice of plenty of other diners at which to get lunch.

There is a difference between no service at all cuz you're black, and no wedding cake for a same-sex marriage based on religious convictions but I'll serve you anything else.

Well then is the KKK a religion then?

https://www.quora.com/If-the-KKK-wa...-should-the-owner-be-forced-to-make-that-cake

If the KKK walks into a black-owned bakery and orders a cake with a black man hanging from a tree, should the owner be forced to make that cake?

~S~
 
The KKK is not a religion, don't be ridiculous.

And I do not believe any bakery should be forced make a cake that has a lynched black man on it. To me this goes to what is protected speech and what isn't. IOW, there should be certain limits on "full and equal access" to all goods and services. Public Accommodation laws should have their boundaries just like most every other law. But that's just my opinion, others may feel differently.
 
Or, a person who signs a deal with the state to do business should be honorable enough to abide by the deal they signed.

I think you go to far in assigning the state authority to determine who may or may not run a business, and what conditions a state may impose as a condition for being allowed to run a business.

Sure, a state may impose reasonable conditions and regulations, to insure that a business is run safely and honestly; but a line is crossed, which never ought to be allowed to even be approached, when a state demands that one be compelled to waive one's Constitutional right as a condition of being allowed to run a business.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top