If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Slyhunter]

The whole thing has went over your head obviously… It’s a Christian thing you may not understand.

And there's no need to understand. The whole point of religious freedom is that personal beliefs don't need to be justified to government, or anyone else. We should be free to hold those beliefs, and act on them, regardless of how nonsensical they might seem to others.

Yep, Christianity is a faith and is forced on nobody.
Unlike religion

You've got it backwards, Christianity is a religion.

Faith can exist with or without religion.

Na, religion is man-made…
Christianity is a faith, a faith thru grace alone....

Jesus needs to hurry up and get his ass back here because his followers are confused as hell.

Faith is belief in something for which there is an absence of proof, it doesn't require esoteric dogma, all sorts of convoluted rules and funny hats to exist.

.....and Christianity is "man-made" and it's a religion.
​

Religion is man made.
Christianity is Jesus made. Without Jesus there are no Christians.
Now if Jesus is just a man then you'd be right it's also man made.

 

[Silhouette]

Religion is man made.
Christianity is Jesus made. Without Jesus there are no Christians.
Now if Jesus is just a man then you'd be right it's also man made.

And not one word of what you just said affects the core of the Decision the USSC just handed down. You don't get to make that subjective call and force others to abdicate from it as a requirement to stay in the marketplace.

Tough break, that..

 

[bendog]

How about an absolute right to choose never to sell anything to a Christian who is buying?

That's what JC and the boys didn't get (-:

The Sup Ct held that under Colo's law a Christian baker doesn't have an absolute right to not bake a cake for a gay couple, but neither does the state have the power to order him to do so without "fairly" considering his religious beliefs in the matter. It held, that Colo's commission was "unfair." But the Sup Ct didn't offer much guidance in how this was all to be accommodated.

that isn't what they held at all. they held that the State official was mean and discriminated against the baker. Nothing about religion. that is why the scope was narrow. The lawyer stated she didn't need to go to freedom of religion.
Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

"Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.
"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."
"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow."

The opinion "may" mean that when a state's law creates a protected class, such as gays, and a sincere religious belief must be compromised in order to comply with the law, and there are many other providers of comparable services, then the law has to bend to allow for the religious belief.

All people are in protected classes. Read the laws sometime. All you need to have is a race, a gender, a national origin, an ethnic background, or any other unchangeable characteristic, except for religion, which is a characteristic that is a choice and that one can change. Bear in mind, though, that you have to prove that the bad thing that was done to you was done because you have this particular characteristic.

If a boss of race A fires an employee of race B, the employee has a case IF there is evidence that the boss said something like that he was "damned tired of all the B's around here," or there is evidence that the boss consistently rated the performance of B's below the A's, the employee has a case. If the employee was fired for poor performance, the employee has a problem.

Yes. Protected classes are often misconstrued as classes of people. They are not. They are specific kinds of bias that government has targeted for suppression. It's really not about protect minorities as much as controlling viewpoints that the government doesn't like,.

But public accommodation laws are created by majorities of voters. It occurs when the maj of a society determine that discrimination based on some reason or myth is unacceptable. From a libertarian view that is just wrong. From a practical view, it was the only way to get rid of Jim Crow. In between those two extremes, there is generally a tension between "civility" and allowing people to do what they want.

But in this case, the Sup Ct basically found a due process, rather than a protected class/equal protection issue. The Baker was simply denied a fair hearing, and due process will not allow a govt to do something when the "decider" is hostile to the citizen.

 

[Seawytch]

Jesus never said a word. He spoke very strongly against divorce. Have you ever seen a baker or a florist refuse to do a wedding because one of the couples was divorced? Me neither.

Lol
Jesus pro-gay?
Don’t think so...
Here’s what Jesus says about the gay lifestyle...
http://www.living-out.org/the-bible-and-ssa

I didn’t say he was pro gay. I said he never said a word about gays. He DID speak out quite strongly on divorce...which is how I know that these so called Christian bakers aren’t refusing to serve gays because of religion. It’s a lie (and lying is a sin)

The gay lifestyle is also a sin...
The Bible and Same-Sex Attraction | Living Out

Again, no shit, Red Rider. Are you stupid or just a Trump supporter?

Yes, being gay is a "sin", but it is no more a sin than divorce...and yet no baker or florist has ever refused to bake a cake for someone remarrying. That tells the people who aren't stupid that it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with hating gays.

No one is ordering an divorce cake... dip shit

So you are stupid. Formerly married (now divorced) people get remarried all the time. That's enough to know it's not about religion and all about hating gays.

And, yes, people are are ordering divorce cakes

24 Hilarious Divorce Cakes That Are Even Better Than Wedding Cakes

 

[Silhouette]

But public accommodation laws are created by majorities of voters. It occurs when the maj of a society determine that discrimination based on some reason or myth is unacceptable.

The Court said quite succinctly that a state (even 100% of all its voters) still cannot make a subjective approval/disapproval of a person's core value system as a matter of enforceable law. You just called Christianity a "myth". Buttsex "as love" is also a myth. How does that feel? Like the return volley? You see, we're on equal ground as the Court said.

We have the Constitution for precisely for protection from the mob-rule "state deviant sex cult" unofficial/official religion. You might want to brush up on how the US Constitution works. The Court just gave you a short primer this week.

 

[bendog]

But public accommodation laws are created by majorities of voters. It occurs when the maj of a society determine that discrimination based on some reason or myth is unacceptable.

The Court said quite succinctly that a state (even 100% of all its voters) still cannot make a subjective approval/disapproval of a person's core value system as a matter of enforceable law. You just called Christianity a "myth". Buttsex "as love" is also a myth. How does that feel? Like the return volley? You see, we're on equal ground as the Court said.

We have the Constitution for precisely for protection from the mob-rule "state deviant sex cult" unofficial/official religion. You might want to brush up on how the US Constitution works. The Court just gave you a short primer this week.

The opinion expressly said that it was not impermissible in all instances for a state to require the baker to compromise his religious beliefs

"
might 3 Cite as: 584 U. S. ____ (2018)


Opinion of the Court

The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might

have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question ofwhen the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility onthe part of the State itself would not be a factor in thebalance the State sought to reach. That requirement,however, was not met here. When

It's on page 3 of the opinion.

 

[Lakhota]

What goes around comes around.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What goes around comes around.

And, those who will not sell, will lose because someone else will sell. Competition is the balance.

They are only hurting themselves. Let them be ignorant bigots. The tolerant will thrive.

 

[dblack]

That's what JC and the boys didn't get (-:

The Sup Ct held that under Colo's law a Christian baker doesn't have an absolute right to not bake a cake for a gay couple, but neither does the state have the power to order him to do so without "fairly" considering his religious beliefs in the matter. It held, that Colo's commission was "unfair." But the Sup Ct didn't offer much guidance in how this was all to be accommodated.

that isn't what they held at all. they held that the State official was mean and discriminated against the baker. Nothing about religion. that is why the scope was narrow. The lawyer stated she didn't need to go to freedom of religion.
Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

"Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.
"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."
"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow."

The opinion "may" mean that when a state's law creates a protected class, such as gays, and a sincere religious belief must be compromised in order to comply with the law, and there are many other providers of comparable services, then the law has to bend to allow for the religious belief.

All people are in protected classes. Read the laws sometime. All you need to have is a race, a gender, a national origin, an ethnic background, or any other unchangeable characteristic, except for religion, which is a characteristic that is a choice and that one can change. Bear in mind, though, that you have to prove that the bad thing that was done to you was done because you have this particular characteristic.

If a boss of race A fires an employee of race B, the employee has a case IF there is evidence that the boss said something like that he was "damned tired of all the B's around here," or there is evidence that the boss consistently rated the performance of B's below the A's, the employee has a case. If the employee was fired for poor performance, the employee has a problem.

Yes. Protected classes are often misconstrued as classes of people. They are not. They are specific kinds of bias that government has targeted for suppression. It's really not about protect minorities as much as controlling viewpoints that the government doesn't like,.

But public accommodation laws are created by majorities of voters.

Majority rule doesn't trump individual rights. That's really the point of "rights" in the first place: basic freedoms that can't be violate by government, regardless of the will of the majority.

From a practical view, it was the only way to get rid of Jim Crow.

Nope. Jim Crow wasn't personal bias. It was government bias in the form of laws that were applied unequally. It's the inability of most voters to understand that distinction that is at the heart of this issue. Equal rights means we're all equal under the law. It doesn't mean that everyone is treated equally by everyone else.

 

[jillian]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

and what are there more of? and who has the power structure?

insane.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

and what are there more of? and who has the power structure?

insane.

Women outnumber men.

What are you saying, Jill?



(btw, luv ya, Jill. I just like messing with you.)

 

[bendog]

that isn't what they held at all. they held that the State official was mean and discriminated against the baker. Nothing about religion. that is why the scope was narrow. The lawyer stated she didn't need to go to freedom of religion.
Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case - CNNPolitics

"Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.
"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."
"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow."

The opinion "may" mean that when a state's law creates a protected class, such as gays, and a sincere religious belief must be compromised in order to comply with the law, and there are many other providers of comparable services, then the law has to bend to allow for the religious belief.

All people are in protected classes. Read the laws sometime. All you need to have is a race, a gender, a national origin, an ethnic background, or any other unchangeable characteristic, except for religion, which is a characteristic that is a choice and that one can change. Bear in mind, though, that you have to prove that the bad thing that was done to you was done because you have this particular characteristic.

If a boss of race A fires an employee of race B, the employee has a case IF there is evidence that the boss said something like that he was "damned tired of all the B's around here," or there is evidence that the boss consistently rated the performance of B's below the A's, the employee has a case. If the employee was fired for poor performance, the employee has a problem.

Yes. Protected classes are often misconstrued as classes of people. They are not. They are specific kinds of bias that government has targeted for suppression. It's really not about protect minorities as much as controlling viewpoints that the government doesn't like,.

But public accommodation laws are created by majorities of voters.

Majority rule doesn't trump individual rights. That's really the point of "rights" in the first place: basic freedoms that can't be violate by government, regardless of the will of the majority.

From a practical view, it was the only way to get rid of Jim Crow.

Nope. Jim Crow wasn't personal bias. It was government bias in the form of laws that were applied unequally. It's the inability of most voters to understand that distinction that is at the heart of this issue. Equal rights means we're all equal under the law. It doesn't mean that everyone is treated equally by everyone else.

PA of the civil rights laws prohibited people like Lester Maddox from refusing to serve chicken to blacks in his personal restaurant. You are simply not informed as to the civil rights laws. Equal protection was an issue in voting. Equal protection involves how govt treats people. That is of no issue to the PA ascpects of civil rights legislation.

Goldwater sincerely believed PA was unconstitutional because it compelled a person to act in a certain way with his private property. If you are a libertarian, that is the issue. Personally, I think Goldwater was right as a matter of ideal, but not of practical reality.

 

[Slyhunter]

What goes around comes around.

But requires everything he sells to have the rainbow mark showing you approve of his sex life.

 

[koshergrl]

True, all sin is viewed the same by God... He cannot tolerate it

Then why doesn't he just ban it?

That is the purpose of the Bible.... easy as that

Hmmm... if that's the case, do you want to be the one to break the bad news to the almighty or should I?

… the "sin banning" device needs to be redesigned 'cause it doesn't work worth a damn.

It works wonderfully.

Then how come there is still sin in the world?

It doesn't work if you don't adhere to it, however.

If it's voluntary it's not a ban, it's a suggestion.

One would think that an all knowing, all powerful divine being that created the Universe would be able to manage abolishing something that "he cannot tolerate" so that it could no longer exist.

"Well, of course. I am the Supreme Being, I'm not entirely dim... " --- The Supreme Being, Time Bandits

His intent is to abolish it, don't worry.

 

[Rustic]

What goes around comes around.

Not one of those you posted are Christian... they are religious cults...

 

[dblack]

From a practical view, it was the only way to get rid of Jim Crow.

Nope. Jim Crow wasn't personal bias. It was government bias in the form of laws that were applied unequally. It's the inability of most voters to understand that distinction that is at the heart of this issue. Equal rights means we're all equal under the law. It doesn't mean that everyone is treated equally by everyone else.

PA of the civil rights laws prohibited people like Lester Maddox from refusing to serve chicken to blacks in his personal restaurant. You are simply not informed as to the civil rights laws. Equal protection was an issue in voting. Equal protection involves how govt treats people. That is of no issue to the PA ascpects of civil rights legislation.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. You claimed PA laws were necessary to rid of Jim Crow, but that's not the case. PA laws attempt to limit discrimination by businesses and individuals, not government. Jim Crow was legal discrimination, imposed by the state.

 

[Lysistrata]

Can't agree with everything. A woman gets pregnant as a result of intercourse with a male. The sperm that penetrates the egg that she is carrying, which contains only X chromosomes, offers up either another X chrome, making the future child develop as a female, or a Y chromosome, making the future child to be a male. But the bible says that the woman in this case will be "unclean" for 33 days if the child to whom she gives birth is a male, and 66 days if the child to whom she gives birth is female. What is the basis for this?And please ask yourself why a person should be considered "unclean" for bearing a child, when this is the smooth operation of the human reproductive process. Every person who has ever walked this earth is a result of this process, you and I included.

Maybe they were talking about "lochia"? Have you ever had a baby? You sure don't feel very "clean", I can tell you that much!

Yes, but why is it in the bible? The bible talks about this as a religious thing, like don't report to religious services, not as an expression of how the new mother is feeling. Moreover, why would it be based on the sex of the child to which the woman has given birth when the effort is the same? Please explain that. The idea of being "clean" after giving birth implies some sort of spiritual problem with the act of giving birth, which apparently is something dirty, and some idea that the Supreme Being has a problem with this process, which has been created by him/her/itself in the first place. The idea that a person might need to recover strength and stamina after such a physical ordeal is completely separate.

Because that is how people were back then in ancient times when the Bible was written. They were superstitious and didn't have a good understanding of the natural occurrences behind certain events and occurrences. I would think that everyone would be aware of this.

Then why are you trying to return us all to the days of superstition? I must make it perfectly clear that I find the ideas that the bible is inerrant and infallible to be totally ridiculous. One gets from a several-thousands-year old tribal society what one gets from a such a society so long ago. I note that these requirements portrayed the new mother as someone dirty, and more dirty when she gave birth to a child of one sex than she would be if she had given birth to a child of the other sex, and not that society should give her some space to recover.

There are plenty of things in the Bible that are based on just plain old common sense.

So you are going to take offense to something written in a book thousands of years ago? Who cares?

It is not a book. It is a compendium of writings by unknown authors.

I only care because of those morons who are seeking to have us all, in 21st century U.S.A. , adhere to what appeared to be "common sense" to people in the middle east a few thousands of years ago, as if the experience of humanity in the thousands of years in between didn't teach us anything about "common sense." Remember that most all of this that comes down to us about "common sense" comes from an elite group of males who were privileged enough to be literate and able to write down their views for posterity. Where are the views of women kept illiterate and others kept illiterate as to what "common sense" might suggest? They may have carried a pregnancy and given birth with all of the pain and struggling that this human process entails. But they had no avenue to communicate their basic thoughts.

If the crap being bandied about was legitimate, it would contain the opinions of the entire human experience.

Moreover, when all of this history was taking place in the Middle East and the dregs of the Roman empire, millions of people were living all over the place: China, India, Africa, the yet to be "discovered" places in the western hemisphere, the islands in the Pacific.

Didn't your Supreme Being care enough to send somebody to them?

 

[Seawytch]

There is nothing in the SC ruling that says businesses can now discriminate against whomever, whenever they want to. It says that the Christian man's beliefs should be taken into consideration TOO.

Right. I really didn't intend for this to be discussion of the ruling, but more the overall way we handle civil rights law. Picking and choosing which biases are allowed, and which aren't, is not a proper use of government, in my opinion.

It’s not picking “winners and losers”. What these laws do is protect minorities from discrimination by the majority.

 

[imawhosure]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

I would never ask a gay baker to make a wedding cake for me, yuck! So he doesn't have to make that choice. And if he said I am GAY, and I refuse to make your cake, I would proclaim, "thank you very much," lololol!

 

[Lysistrata]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

I would never ask a gay baker to make a wedding cake for me, yuck! So he doesn't have to make that choice. And if he said I am GAY, and I refuse to make your cake, I would proclaim, "thank you very much," lololol!

This couple only went to this bimbo's bakery because he advertised himself openly, and I checked his website.