If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Pop23]

So which sex?

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.


Keep asking the same question (or derivative thereof) and you get the same answer.


.>>>>

That's so contorted. No one who was involved in writing any law against sex discrimination meant that or even thought of it. You're parsing the words and making up a new meaning that was never intended. Sex discrimination means you're discriminating against a sex. He isn't. That ridiculous logic is exactly how the courts have fucked up justice in our legal system

They created a paradox.

Clearly sex is not what created the bias, yet they pretzel twist to make the claim.

If an opposite sex couple requested a same sex wedding cake? No go either.

And they obviously went to a baker that considered himself an ARTIST. Look at the damn name of the bakery.

MASTERPIECE

 

[Pop23]

That's so contorted. No one who was involved in writing any law against sex discrimination meant that or even thought of it. You're parsing the words and making up a new meaning that was never intended. Sex discrimination means you're discriminating against a sex. He isn't. That ridiculous logic is exactly how the courts have fucked up justice in our legal system

I totally agree on two things. It's purely an academic discussion that Pops injected into the thread because Mr. Phillips case did not hinge on sex discrimination. You should be chastising him for injecting an unrelated issue. Secondly, the courts apply the law. The law in question specifically says "groups" in it's text. The ridiculous thing is that the law should be repealed and rights of property and association restored to private business entities. If so, then the whole treating religious views as special rights exempting business owners from generally applicable Public Accommodation laws goes away because any owner can refuse service for any reason.

If the law has the word “groups” in it, the prosecution is OBLIGATED to prove he has a “Bias against a GROUP”

Again, what “group” of a protected class is that BIAS practiced against when his policy is APPLIED EQUALLY.

 

[Pop23]

That's so contorted. No one who was involved in writing any law against sex discrimination meant that or even thought of it. You're parsing the words and making up a new meaning that was never intended. Sex discrimination means you're discriminating against a sex. He isn't. That ridiculous logic is exactly how the courts have fucked up justice in our legal system

I totally agree on two things. It's purely an academic discussion that Pops injected into the thread because Mr. Phillips case did not hinge on sex discrimination. You should be chastising him for injecting an unrelated issue. Secondly, the courts apply the law. The law in question specifically says "groups" in it's text. The ridiculous thing is that the law should be repealed and rights of property and association restored to private business entities. If so, then the whole treating religious views as special rights exempting business owners from generally applicable Public Accommodation laws goes away because any owner can refuse service for any reason.

The reason I’m not being chastised is that I am making practical sense.

You have yet to define how someone, or a group is being discriminated against, when the service is not afforded TO ANYONE.

 

[Silhouette]

That's so contorted. No one who was involved in writing any law against sex discrimination meant that or even thought of it. You're parsing the words and making up a new meaning that was never intended. Sex discrimination means you're discriminating against a sex. He isn't. That ridiculous logic is exactly how the courts have fucked up justice in our legal system

I totally agree on two things. It's purely an academic discussion that Pops injected into the thread because Mr. Phillips case did not hinge on sex discrimination. You should be chastising him for injecting an unrelated issue. Secondly, the courts apply the law. The law in question specifically says "groups" in it's text. The ridiculous thing is that the law should be repealed and rights of property and association restored to private business entities. If so, then the whole treating religious views as special rights exempting business owners from generally applicable Public Accommodation laws goes away because any owner can refuse service for any reason.

If the law has the word “groups” in it, the prosecution is OBLIGATED to prove he has a “Bias against a GROUP”

Again, what “group” of a protected class is that BIAS practiced against when his policy is APPLIED EQUALLY.

Worldy, Pop is right here. Just give it up. The thing the baker objected to was condoning the act of two homosexuals (or just two male heteros) hijacking the sacred word "marriage" and trying to force him into hell for eternity for playing along.

The baker wasn't objecting to a group. Many times we hear that the merchant knows the gays previously and because they have to eat, get hardware, get their dry cleaning done etc. etc., there isn't a promotion of a lifestyle there because all humans have to do those things. In Jude 1 it says not to thrash the individual homosexual, but to reach out to the individual(s) "making a difference" in their sin. So merchants serve gays everyday in benign normal human scenarios. But when it comes to promoting the LIFESTYLE of homosexuality in general, ESPECIALLY using the special social icon vehicle of sacred marriage, Jude 1 is equally clear. It says if you do that, you go to the Pit of Fire forever. And it gave the warning reminding Christians SPECIFICALLY of the total destruction of Sodom "and other cities like it" that fail to heed the warning.

Pop is playing it safe here. He's asserting that just any bastardization of the word "marriage" would be objected to by a Christian. But the Christian can point directly to homosexuality as an exacerbating feature of his refusal in that Romans 1 and Jude 1 considers their bastardization a special case deserving of eternal soul death for playing along.

 

[kaz]

That's so contorted. No one who was involved in writing any law against sex discrimination meant that or even thought of it. You're parsing the words and making up a new meaning that was never intended. Sex discrimination means you're discriminating against a sex. He isn't. That ridiculous logic is exactly how the courts have fucked up justice in our legal system

I totally agree on two things. It's purely an academic discussion that Pops injected into the thread because Mr. Phillips case did not hinge on sex discrimination. You should be chastising him for injecting an unrelated issue. Secondly, the courts apply the law. The law in question specifically says "groups" in it's text. The ridiculous thing is that the law should be repealed and rights of property and association restored to private business entities. If so, then the whole treating religious views as special rights exempting business owners from generally applicable Public Accommodation laws goes away because any owner can refuse service for any reason.

As a libertarian, I obviously agree all public accommodation laws regarding private citizens and businesses should be repealed. Like all government fairness programs they achieve so little at such a great cost to our liberty. Businesses want customers. That's why leftists have to scour the country to find anyone willing to discriminate even in a contrived scenario. A rational person would go to any other baker who would want their business.

I don't know why I'd be chastising pop though for arguing that gay is protected by sex discrimination laws. He isn't doing that. And even if we allow the word parsing of sex discrimination and call a gay couple a group, your argument is still a fail.

The baker would gladly sell cakes to two men or two women who are buying a birthday cake, a Bat Mitzvah cake, a plain cake, a Mothers Day cake, a Thanksgiving cake. Clearly the sex of the two customers is not the determinant in the refusal to bake the cake. The use of the cake is the reason. And that aint sex discrimination, bro

 

[Silhouette]

As a libertarian, I obviously agree all public accommodation laws regarding private citizens and businesses should be repealed.

This won't happen. What will happen is a compromise. When it comes to lifestyles or ideologies, there can be no punishment with PA laws for passive refusal to serve. When it comes to race and gender, there will be punishment allowed because those things cannot ever be helped and are not part of any choosing process or behavior whatsoever.

That's how this all will render out. It's too bad the Court chickened out this time. But it may be wisdom instead of reluctance. They alluded as to how this is where this is all going and bought themselves some time to try to untangle the rat's nest that Obergefell created by judicially-legislating just one set (but not any others that must also qualify) of repugnant (have you seen pride parades anticipating children watching??) lifestyles as "specially deserving of exception from majority rule".... They did this in hubris and audacity, quoting Windsor as their justification for newly roping power to change marriage from a Bench in DC with five unelected lawyers, usurping the 300 million self-governing citizens on questions of lifestyles in all 50 states. And they did this with ZERO Constitutional justification for doing so....


Windsor averred no less than 56 times that the definition of marriage is up to the individual 50 states. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Hence the rat's nest the Court is taking time to try to unravel before the next unworkable challenge comes their way. How do you tell 300 million people of all sorts of ideologies "you have to promote just this one set of bizarre deviant lifestyles; and you have to do it standing back from the protection of children being roped into it, no matter what your convictions are, but other equally repugnant lifestyles you can feel free to discriminate against" How the **** are they going to write that up in an Opinion of the Court? Yeah, they need time.

Scalia didn't flip out over Obergefell and then "suddenly die" for no reason. He knew. He knew what a friggin train wreck that "voodoo" Decision was. It was such a miscarriage of due process and justice and such a brazen power grab outside Separation of Powers that Scalia just couldn't go on living. Like I said, I wonder if he left a note. Would be interesting to read it. He did leave his scathing rebuke of Obergefell though: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Dare I call Scalia's Dissent in Obergefell a suicide note?

 

[kaz]

As a libertarian, I obviously agree all public accommodation laws regarding private citizens and businesses should be repealed.

This won't happen. What will happen is a compromise. When it comes to lifestyles or ideologies, there can be no punishment with PA laws for passive refusal to serve. When it comes to race and gender, there will be punishment allowed because those things cannot ever be helped and are not part of any choosing process or behavior whatsoever.

That's how this all will render out. It's too bad the Court chickened out this time. But it may be wisdom instead of reluctance. They alluded as to how this is where this is all going and bought themselves some time to try to untangle the rat's nest that Obergefell created by judicially-legislating just one set (but not any others that must also qualify) of repugnant (have you seen pride parades anticipating children watching??) lifestyles as "specially deserving of exception from majority rule"....while in hubris quoting Windsor as their justification.

Windsor averred no less than 56 times that the definition of marriage is up to the individual 50 states. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

I didn't say PA laws against private businesses would go away, I said they should.

Look at this contrived scenario. a gay couple go into a shop and want the business to actively write a message for a gay couple. And look how incredibly difficult it was to find a baker who wouldn't do it. They scoured far and deep to find one. If they'd just wanted to buy a cake, he'd have sold it knowing they were gay. So to get him to discriminate, they had to make him write a pro-gay message on it.

Discrimination against any of those groups happen so incredibly seldom and the solution was incredibly simple. Go to another of the dozens of bakers in the area. Even the Montgomery bus system opposed the laws in the 50s South that made their best customers sit in the back or stand.

And the price is incredibly high. Government abuses every power it gets. Because of those laws, the government can investigate, fine, scrutinize businesses and they end up as court cases clogging the system. The laws are abusive and solve almost nothing.

I said as a libertarian, I oppose PA laws. I should say because of things like abusive government abuse such as PA laws, I'm a libertarian

 

[Silhouette]

As a libertarian, I obviously agree all public accommodation laws regarding private citizens and businesses should be repealed.

This won't happen. What will happen is a compromise. When it comes to lifestyles or ideologies, there can be no punishment with PA laws for passive refusal to serve. When it comes to race and gender, there will be punishment allowed because those things cannot ever be helped and are not part of any choosing process or behavior whatsoever.

That's how this all will render out. It's too bad the Court chickened out this time. But it may be wisdom instead of reluctance. They alluded as to how this is where this is all going and bought themselves some time to try to untangle the rat's nest that Obergefell created by judicially-legislating just one set (but not any others that must also qualify) of repugnant (have you seen pride parades anticipating children watching??) lifestyles as "specially deserving of exception from majority rule"....while in hubris quoting Windsor as their justification.

Windsor averred no less than 56 times that the definition of marriage is up to the individual 50 states. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

I didn't say PA laws against private businesses would go away, I said they should.

Look at this contrived scenario. a gay couple go into a shop and want the business to actively write a message for a gay couple. And look how incredibly difficult it was to find a baker who wouldn't do it. They scoured far and deep to find one. If they'd just wanted to buy a cake, he'd have sold it knowing they were gay. So to get him to discriminate, they had to make him write a pro-gay message on it.

Discrimination against any of those groups happen so incredibly seldom and the solution was incredibly simple. Go to another of the dozens of bakers in the area. Even the Montgomery bus system opposed the laws in the 50s South that made their best customers sit in the back or stand.

And the price is incredibly high. Government abuses every power it gets. Because of those laws, the government can investigate, fine, scrutinize businesses and they end up as court cases clogging the system. The laws are abusive and solve almost nothing.

I said as a libertarian, I oppose PA laws. I should say because of things like abusive government abuse such as PA laws, I'm a libertarian

But in all that you're sidestepping the distinction between being forced to accommodate ideologies and lifestyles (behavioral, chosen) vs race and gender (immutable, innate, non-behavioral). This distinction may not be made by you, but the Court will have to make it sooner or later. If you were talking about a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a hetero couple just because they were black, you KNOW the USSC Decision would've been entirely different.

So, in a way, the Court already made the distinction. And the cult of LGBT knows it. This is why this thread started out in the dungeon of "Breaking News" for so long before finally, reluctantly, the lefty moderators put it out where the public would view and debate it's inner essences.

 

[kaz]

As a libertarian, I obviously agree all public accommodation laws regarding private citizens and businesses should be repealed.

This won't happen. What will happen is a compromise. When it comes to lifestyles or ideologies, there can be no punishment with PA laws for passive refusal to serve. When it comes to race and gender, there will be punishment allowed because those things cannot ever be helped and are not part of any choosing process or behavior whatsoever.

That's how this all will render out. It's too bad the Court chickened out this time. But it may be wisdom instead of reluctance. They alluded as to how this is where this is all going and bought themselves some time to try to untangle the rat's nest that Obergefell created by judicially-legislating just one set (but not any others that must also qualify) of repugnant (have you seen pride parades anticipating children watching??) lifestyles as "specially deserving of exception from majority rule"....while in hubris quoting Windsor as their justification.

Windsor averred no less than 56 times that the definition of marriage is up to the individual 50 states. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

I didn't say PA laws against private businesses would go away, I said they should.

Look at this contrived scenario. a gay couple go into a shop and want the business to actively write a message for a gay couple. And look how incredibly difficult it was to find a baker who wouldn't do it. They scoured far and deep to find one. If they'd just wanted to buy a cake, he'd have sold it knowing they were gay. So to get him to discriminate, they had to make him write a pro-gay message on it.

Discrimination against any of those groups happen so incredibly seldom and the solution was incredibly simple. Go to another of the dozens of bakers in the area. Even the Montgomery bus system opposed the laws in the 50s South that made their best customers sit in the back or stand.

And the price is incredibly high. Government abuses every power it gets. Because of those laws, the government can investigate, fine, scrutinize businesses and they end up as court cases clogging the system. The laws are abusive and solve almost nothing.

I said as a libertarian, I oppose PA laws. I should say because of things like abusive government abuse such as PA laws, I'm a libertarian

But in all that you're sidestepping the distinction between being forced to accommodate ideologies and lifestyles (behavioral, chosen) vs race and gender (immutable, innate, non-behavioral). This distinction may not be made by you, but the Court will have to make it sooner or later. If you were talking about a baker refusing to bake a wedding cake for a hetero couple just because they were black, you KNOW the USSC Decision would've been entirely different.

So, in a way, the Court already made the distinction. And the cult of LGBT knows it. This is why this thread started out in the dungeon of "Breaking News" for so long before finally, reluctantly, the lefty moderators put it out where the public would view and debate it's inner essences.

Since I oppose all PA laws for private businesses, why would I need to draw that distinction?

 

[buttercup]

Agreed. The presence of a victim is fundamentally different than anything that consenting adults chose to do only to themselves.

Gays don't have a "right" to government validation or perks. They do have a right to be left alone if they're not harming anyone

Like the other guy earlier, you completely missed the point. Maybe you didn't read the entire discussion, which goes back for a number of pages.

 

[kaz]

Agreed. The presence of a victim is fundamentally different than anything that consenting adults chose to do only to themselves.

Gays don't have a "right" to government validation or perks. They do have a right to be left alone if they're not harming anyone

Like the other guy earlier, you completely missed the point. Maybe you didn't read the entire discussion, which goes back for a number of pages.

I addressed the post I responded to that you deleted from the quote

 

[WorldWatcher]

As a libertarian, I obviously agree all public accommodation laws regarding private citizens and businesses should be repealed. Like all government fairness programs they achieve so little at such a great cost to our liberty. Businesses want customers. That's why leftists have to scour the country to find anyone willing to discriminate even in a contrived scenario. A rational person would go to any other baker who would want their business.

We agree on the first point. The problem is the law remains in effect.

I don't know why I'd be chastising pop though for arguing that gay is protected by sex discrimination laws. He isn't doing that. And even if we allow the word parsing of sex discrimination and call a gay couple a group, your argument is still a fail.

Which isn't what he said. He said that because Mr. Phillips wouldn't sell to a same sex couple who were heterosexual, that relieved him of the sexual orientation provision of the law. I'm simply pointing out that the sex of the customers also is covered under the law.

The baker would gladly sell cakes to two men or two women who are buying a birthday cake, a Bat Mitzvah cake, a plain cake, a Mothers Day cake, a Thanksgiving cake.

Irrelevant, as the law clearly states "full and equal" access to "goods and services" is the standard, not a subset of goods and services based on the sexual orienation or sex of the customer.

Clearly the sex of the two customers is not the determinant in the refusal to bake the cake. The use of the cake is the reason. And that aint sex discrimination, bro

Clearly the fact that he makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers. That is his behavior and what he stated in court documents. Behavior is different then motivation behind the behavior.

That clearly is refusing customers based on their sex, bro


.>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since I oppose all PA laws for private businesses, why would I need to draw that distinction?

Which is the point authoritarian's the LIKE PA laws as long as it isn't their ox being gored frequently ignore. If PA laws are repealed, the there are no special rights needed for a religious person to discriminate against homosexuals and we don't end up with unequal treatment under the law for a religious shop owner vs. a gay shop owner. A situation where a religious shop owner can discriminate against a gay because of their religious views, but a gay shop owner can't discriminate against a customer because of the religious views of the customer.


.>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Which isn't what he said. He said that because Mr. Phillips wouldn't sell to a same sex couple who were heterosexual, that relieved him of the sexual orientation provision of the law. I'm simply pointing out that the sex of the customers also is covered under the law.

Nice stab at what Hively v Ivy Tech 2016 called "bootstrapping" a "legal argument" of sexual behaviors onto actual immutable innate gender. Your going to find that the Courts are not going to allow that reach.

Have fun trying for now though. We all know that LGBTQ etc. etc. are lifestyles, some even changing back and forth as their whim dictates.

Men and women marrying is the ACT of a man marrying a woman; that wasn't an innate condition. They weren't born married to each other. Men "marrying" men is the ACT of a man "marrying" a man. They weren't born married to each other. A person can object to that action. They have no problem with the gender; just how the genders are arranging (verb, not a noun) themselves in marriage.

BTW, unlike Pop here, I believe that in Obergefell the Court meant throughout and was specific to interweave the words "same sex", "homosexual" and "gays and lesbians' together in nearly every paragraph to emphasize and underline what they meant clearly by "same sex". So, give it a read and get back to us. They interchange those words so often that towards the end it is clear they intended to blend them all as one. So for the purposes of Obergefell, "same sex marriage" is one and the same as "gay marriage"

 

[Pop23]

As a libertarian, I obviously agree all public accommodation laws regarding private citizens and businesses should be repealed. Like all government fairness programs they achieve so little at such a great cost to our liberty. Businesses want customers. That's why leftists have to scour the country to find anyone willing to discriminate even in a contrived scenario. A rational person would go to any other baker who would want their business.

We agree on the first point. The problem is the law remains in effect.

I don't know why I'd be chastising pop though for arguing that gay is protected by sex discrimination laws. He isn't doing that. And even if we allow the word parsing of sex discrimination and call a gay couple a group, your argument is still a fail.

Which isn't what he said. He said that because Mr. Phillips wouldn't sell to a same sex couple who were heterosexual, that relieved him of the sexual orientation provision of the law. I'm simply pointing out that the sex of the customers also is covered under the law.

The baker would gladly sell cakes to two men or two women who are buying a birthday cake, a Bat Mitzvah cake, a plain cake, a Mothers Day cake, a Thanksgiving cake.

Irrelevant, as the law clearly states "full and equal" access to "goods and services" is the standard, not a subset of goods and services based on the sexual orienation or sex of the customer.

Clearly the sex of the two customers is not the determinant in the refusal to bake the cake. The use of the cake is the reason. And that aint sex discrimination, bro

Clearly the fact that he makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers. That is his behavior and what he stated in court documents. Behavior is different then motivation behind the behavior.

That clearly is refusing customers based on their sex, bro


.>>>>

Here we go again.

He would not even produce a same sex wedding cake for an opposite sex couple.

Here’s your problem, and it’s actually quite simple. There is no such thing in the law known as Gay Marriage. There is such a thing as Same Sex Marriage. And if he produces for one group, the PA states he must for all, unless that production violates a constitutionally protected right. He produced for no group, treating all groups EQUALLY.

 

[Silhouette]

Here we go again.

He would not even produce a same sex wedding cake for an opposite sex couple.

Here’s your problem, and it’s actually quite simple. There is no such thing in the law known as Gay Marriage. There is such a thing as Same Sex Marriage. And if he produces for one group, the PA states he must for all, unless that production violates a constitutionally protected right. He produced for no group, treating all groups EQUALLY.

Pop, read my last post. There actually is such a thing in USSC case law known as "gay marriage". It's Obergefell. Go read the Opinion all the way through and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[Pop23]

Which isn't what he said. He said that because Mr. Phillips wouldn't sell to a same sex couple who were heterosexual, that relieved him of the sexual orientation provision of the law. I'm simply pointing out that the sex of the customers also is covered under the law.

Nice stab at what Hively v Ivy Tech 2016 called "bootstrapping" a "legal argument" of sexual behaviors onto actual immutable innate gender. Your going to find that the Courts are not going to allow that reach.

Have fun trying for now though. We all know that LGBTQ etc. etc. are lifestyles, some even changing back and forth as their whim dictates.

Men and women marrying is the ACT of a man marrying a woman; that wasn't an innate condition. They weren't born married to each other. Men "marrying" men is the ACT of a man "marrying" a man. They weren't born married to each other. A person can object to that action. They have no problem with the gender; just how the genders are arranging (verb, not a noun) themselves in marriage.

BTW, unlike Pop here, I believe that in Obergefell the Court meant throughout and was specific to interweave the words "same sex", "homosexual" and "gays and lesbians' together in nearly every paragraph to emphasize and underline what they meant clearly by "same sex". So, give it a read and get back to us. They interchange those words so often that towards the end it is clear they intended to blend them all as one. So for the purposes of Obergefell, "same sex marriage" is one and the same as "gay marriage"

Doesn’t really matter though, if it is as you say, then we have even more evidence that this is simply A NEW MARKET THAT THE BAKER SIMPLY DOES NOT SUPPLY PRODUCT FOR

 

[Pop23]

Here we go again.

He would not even produce a same sex wedding cake for an opposite sex couple.

Here’s your problem, and it’s actually quite simple. There is no such thing in the law known as Gay Marriage. There is such a thing as Same Sex Marriage. And if he produces for one group, the PA states he must for all, unless that production violates a constitutionally protected right. He produced for no group, treating all groups EQUALLY.

Pop, read my last post. There actually is such a thing in USSC case law known as "gay marriage". It's Obergefell. Go read the Opinion all the way through and you'll see what I'm talking about.

If so, it would clearly be discrimination against heterosexuals. Violating the constitution.

Hmmmmmm

Nope, the link is to the requirements in Colorado to get a marriage license. No sexuality requirement

Colorado Marriage Licenses » Requirements » Process » Law » CO

I didn’t think there could be.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Here we go again.

He would not even produce a same sex wedding cake for an opposite sex couple.

Here’s your problem, and it’s actually quite simple. There is no such thing in the law known as Gay Marriage. There is such a thing as Same Sex Marriage. And if he produces for one group, the PA states he must for all, unless that production violates a constitutionally protected right. He produced for no group, treating all groups EQUALLY.

He did produce wedding cakes. He said so in court documents.

Same sex couples had been getting married in religious services since the 1960's and legal SSCM starting in 2004 in MA where the couple was to be married. The occasion of denial was in 2012 so while Colorado may have not have recognized the civil marriage it was still a legal civil marriage under MA law where they were to be wed.

.>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Just not "gay" wedding cakes worldy. It is a new market and one his faith won't allow him to participate in.