"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[martybegan]

I understand the legislation.

the text:

any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap, provided that the physical or mental handicap is unrelated to a person's ability to acquire or rent and maintain particular real property or housing accommodation;

Good, then you realize it's not the "judges currently" doing anyting. It's the way that that laws are written.

OK.

The question is if a contracted photographer is a public accommodation.

Under current law, yes they are. They operate as a business and offer goods and services to the public.

Plus, the government should not be able to force a person to either go out of business or accommodate people anyway.

Our personal opinion of what the law should be does not necessarily reflect the way the laws are.



>>>>

I think i now understand why the SC ignored this. The people have to go through the federal court system to determine if the NM law violates constitutional protections.

And yes, the law is the law, what doesn't end is my ability to say its idiotic, these people's right to try to overturn it, their further right to ignore it and make the state do something about it, and in the end, the eventual end game of any dispute, revolution. (yes, i know revolution is hyperbole).

 

[Silhouette]

Should a muslim baker be required to bake a cake with the image of a gay wedding on top?

Forget christianity. Let's talk islam on this one..

 

[Unkotare]

Should a muslim baker be required to bake a cake with the image of a gay wedding on top?

Forget christianity. Let's talk islam on this one..

If you're here to change the subject, then maybe you want to explain why Tokyo is still not "abandoned" idiot.

 

[Silhouette]

I repeat [before megatroll chimed in]:

Should a muslim baker be required to bake a cake with the image of a gay wedding on top?

Forget christianity. Let's talk islam on this one..

 

[bendog]

I repeat [before megatroll chimed in]:

Should a muslim baker be required to bake a cake with the image of a gay wedding on top?

Forget christianity. Let's talk islam on this one..

Fair question. Personally, I don't approve of laws forcing individuals in commerce to open public accommodation to anyone when doing so would require they do something they consider immoral, regardless of how stupid obnoxious bigoted and down right azzhole minded the individual is.

But, since the sup ct has said it's legal to do so, and if a state has a law that encompases glbt folks into people who can force public accomodations serve them .. yes, to answer.

 

[Silhouette]

Fair question. Personally, I don't approve of laws forcing individuals in commerce to open public accommodation to anyone when doing so would require they do something they consider immoral, regardless of how stupid obnoxious bigoted and down right azzhole minded the individual is.

But, since the sup ct has said it's legal to do so, and if a state has a law that encompases glbt folks into people who can force public accomodations serve them .. yes, to answer.

The important question in this debate is to distill down whether or not LGBT constitutes behavioral compulsions or an actual genetic state. Because if you don't distill that down a future attorney will to argue [successfully via precedent] that his clients' behavioral compulsions also need special priveleges and protections.

That may sound benign at first glance. But realize that the base of all democratic law and rule is the majority deciding which behaviors are acceptable and which aren't to receive protection and promotion. You're actually talking about opening the barn door to the dissolving of the penal and civil code system. You can't arbitrarily discriminate one set of compulsive or other behaviors as superior to others... once behaviors have been concreted as "equal to state of being" in law..

When forcing an islamic baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding, you're really forcing him to enable a behavior that his religion forbids him to promote under penalty of eternal damnation. How can one behavior not sanctified in religion be superior to another behavior that is?

What we're actually talking here is enshrining one man's behavior to force the abandoment of another man's 1st Amendment rights. That's grounds for a suppression of constitutional rights lawsuit on behalf of the islamic baker against the gay couple. It would force the gay couple back on their heel to prove that their behavior was an innate state of being and not picked up along the way; like so many gay men for example present with a clear history of same-gendered child sexual abuse/imprinting..

 

[KevinWestern]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

I'm a stringent supporter of gay marriage, however I don't think it was right to fire the guy.

However, public opinion is a thing that companies need to be cognizant of, and if a figurehead is doing something that may generate negative opinion I suppose a company needs to protect itself - whether or not the public opinion is in "the right".

I mean, if a bartender in wrigleyville was publicly known to support the white sox (which is in it of itself not a "bad" thing), I think the owner aught to have the ability to terminate him if business suffers as a result - right?

Public opinion is just public opinion, and companies are bound to conform to it.

Funny, did you give the baker that refused to bake a dick that same lattitide?

Well, technically if we're going the public opinion route that example wouldn't apply.

Although I'm not against including sexual preference w/race, sex, age, as something you shouldn't be able to discriminate against, I tended to side with the baker (and also the photographer) if you're referring to those two cases that came up a month or so ago. I think the people suing them were not being very good neighbors. Sort of mean-spirited.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I repeat [before megatroll chimed in]:

Should a muslim baker be required to bake a cake with the image of a gay wedding on top?

Forget christianity. Let's talk islam on this one..

Fair question. Personally, I don't approve of laws forcing individuals in commerce to open public accommodation to anyone when doing so would require they do something they consider immoral, regardless of how stupid obnoxious bigoted and down right azzhole minded the individual is.

But, since the sup ct has said it's legal to do so, and if a state has a law that encompases glbt folks into people who can force public accomodations serve them .. yes, to answer.

Yep, that about sums it up.

If a Muslim baker is open to the public and offers wedding cases are part of their business they couldn't deny them because someone is Asian, they can't deny them because they are Jewish, and in some States (about 20) they can't deny a couple of they are same-sex.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Yep, that about sums it up.

If a Muslim baker is open to the public and offers wedding cases are part of their business they couldn't deny them because someone is Asian, they can't deny them because they are Jewish, and in some States (about 20) they can't deny a couple of they are same-sex.

No. Here's the legal argument why not:

The important question in this debate is to distill down whether or not LGBT constitutes behavioral compulsions or an actual genetic state. Because if you don't distill that down a future attorney will to argue [successfully via precedent] that his clients' behavioral compulsions also need special priveleges and protections.

That may sound benign at first glance. But realize that the base of all democratic law and rule is the majority deciding which behaviors are acceptable and which aren't to receive protection and promotion. You're actually talking about opening the barn door to the dissolving of the penal and civil code system. You can't arbitrarily discriminate one set of compulsive or other behaviors as superior to others... once behaviors have been concreted as "equal to state of being" in law..

When forcing an islamic baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding, you're really forcing him to enable a behavior that his religion forbids him to promote under penalty of eternal damnation. How can one behavior not sanctified in religion be superior to another behavior that is?

What we're actually talking here is enshrining one man's behavior to force the abandoment of another man's 1st Amendment rights. That's grounds for a suppression of constitutional rights lawsuit on behalf of the islamic baker against the gay couple. It would force the gay couple back on their heel to prove that their behavior was an innate state of being and not picked up along the way; like so many gay men for example present with a clear history of same-gendered child sexual abuse/imprinting..

 

[GISMYS]

i repeat [before megatroll chimed in]:

fair question. Personally, i don't approve of laws forcing individuals in commerce to open public accommodation to anyone when doing so would require they do something they consider immoral, regardless of how stupid obnoxious bigoted and down right azzhole minded the individual is.

But, since the sup ct has said it's legal to do so, and if a state has a law that encompases glbt folks into people who can force public accomodations serve them .. Yes, to answer.

yep, that about sums it up.

If a muslim baker is open to the public and offers wedding cases are part of their business they couldn't deny them because someone is asian, they can't deny them because they are jewish, and in some states (about 20) they can't deny a couple of they are same-sex.



>>>>

oh!!! But they do!!!

 

[KevinWestern]

Yep, that about sums it up.

If a Muslim baker is open to the public and offers wedding cases are part of their business they couldn't deny them because someone is Asian, they can't deny them because they are Jewish, and in some States (about 20) they can't deny a couple of they are same-sex.

This is more of an observation than anything, but I feel like we're in the middle of bizarro-world as a country, worrying about defending businesses' right to refuse to service to customers during a time of great recession and unemployment.

Shouldn't businesses be grateful for each and every peaceful, law abiding customer they can get right now?

I mean, I get the arguments (on both sides) - but really? Is this the thing we need to be worrying about right now?

lol.

 

[GISMYS]

THERE is far more than money in life,there is RIGHT and WRONG,GOOD and EVIL. DO NOT SEEL YOUR SOUL FOR $$$

 

[Silhouette]

This is more of an observation than anything, but I feel like we're in the middle of bizarro-world as a country, worrying about defending businesses' right to refuse to service to customers during a time of great recession and unemployment.

Shouldn't businesses be grateful for each and every peaceful, law abiding customer they can get right now?

I mean, I get the arguments (on both sides) - but really? Is this the thing we need to be worrying about right now?

lol.

Ah, Sil makes a poignant point and Keven Western jumps in to divert. GISMSY jumps in to bleed out another page so hopefully other posters won't catch what I just said...and to divert also..

What would be truly bizarro Kevin would be setting a precedent in law that a secular deviant sexual behavior has the right to suppress the religious convictions of a devout muslim. That a compulsive moral degenerate has a legal green light to suppress a muslim's first Amendment right to abide by the edicts of his faith. If gay is a behavior we are talking about a VERY significant legal premise..

 

[KevinWestern]

THERE is far more than money in life,there is RIGHT and WRONG,GOOD and EVIL. DO NOT SEEL YOUR SOUL FOR $$$

How about we convince our Republican and Democratic Representatives to do this first? Maybe that's something you and I could probably agree on.

 

[bendog]

Fair question. Personally, I don't approve of laws forcing individuals in commerce to open public accommodation to anyone when doing so would require they do something they consider immoral, regardless of how stupid obnoxious bigoted and down right azzhole minded the individual is.

But, since the sup ct has said it's legal to do so, and if a state has a law that encompases glbt folks into people who can force public accomodations serve them .. yes, to answer.

The important question in this debate is to distill down whether or not LGBT constitutes behavioral compulsions or an actual genetic state. Because if you don't distill that down a future attorney will to argue [successfully via precedent] that his clients' behavioral compulsions also need special priveleges and protections.

That may sound benign at first glance. But realize that the base of all democratic law and rule is the majority deciding which behaviors are acceptable and which aren't to receive protection and promotion. You're actually talking about opening the barn door to the dissolving of the penal and civil code system. You can't arbitrarily discriminate one set of compulsive or other behaviors as superior to others... once behaviors have been concreted as "equal to state of being" in law..

When forcing an islamic baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding, you're really forcing him to enable a behavior that his religion forbids him to promote under penalty of eternal damnation. How can one behavior not sanctified in religion be superior to another behavior that is?

What we're actually talking here is enshrining one man's behavior to force the abandoment of another man's 1st Amendment rights. That's grounds for a suppression of constitutional rights lawsuit on behalf of the islamic baker against the gay couple. It would force the gay couple back on their heel to prove that their behavior was an innate state of being and not picked up along the way; like so many gay men for example present with a clear history of same-gendered child sexual abuse/imprinting..

Well, that's not a fair comment. First of all, you hide like a scoundrel behind the nature nurture thing with the tired old dead horse "well, gays don't have to be gays, maybe." Even if that had any scientific validity, and it does not because it's immaterial as to why an individual enjoys greater sexuality with a same sex partner, it would still be tripe. The muslim baker may not approve of alcohol, but he's baking cakes for couples with champagne toasts or he's gonna go out of biz and broke. That, is you're elevating one "sin" over another. And, your sin is irrelevant to me, anyway.

Second, there is no first amend SPEECH consideration in commerce beyond advertising. The baker has a first amendment contract right. However, the sup ct has said that right does not extend to overrule a law forcing one in commerce to offer public accommodation to all. If you want to relitigate civil rights ... good luck cause you're gonna lose. Roberts ain't going there. Furthermore, the mulsim baker has a choice. He can simply pay the fine or whatever and not bake the cake. He's not going to forced to convert under torture.

Lastly, this is simply too crazy to bother with, sorry.

It would force the gay couple back on their heel to prove that their behavior was an innate state of being and not picked up along the way; like so many gay men for example present with a clear history of same-gendered child sexual abuse/imprinting.

It doesn't fcking matter how somebody turned out gay, or why some white woman fell in love with a black man. It happens in nature.

 

[KevinWestern]

This is more of an observation than anything, but I feel like we're in the middle of bizarro-world as a country, worrying about defending businesses' right to refuse to service to customers during a time of great recession and unemployment.

Shouldn't businesses be grateful for each and every peaceful, law abiding customer they can get right now?

I mean, I get the arguments (on both sides) - but really? Is this the thing we need to be worrying about right now?

lol.

Ah, Sil makes a poignant point and Keven Western jumps in to divert. GISMSY jumps in to bleed out another page so hopefully other posters won't catch what I just said...and to divert also..

What would be truly bizarro Kevin would be setting a precedent in law that a secular deviant sexual behavior has the right to suppress the religious convictions of a devout muslim. That a compulsive moral degenerate has a legal green light to suppress a muslim's first Amendment right to abide by the edicts of his faith.

I'm just saying it's odd that the focus of conversation has been how we should find legal ways for businesses not to serve their paying customers in a time of recession. That's all.

 

[Silhouette]

[Well, that's not a fair comment. First of all, you hide like a scoundrel behind the nature nurture thing with the tired old dead horse "well, gays don't have to be gays, maybe." Even if that had any scientific validity, and it does not because it's immaterial as to why an individual enjoys greater sexuality with a same sex partner, it would still be tripe. The muslim baker may not approve of alcohol, but he's baking cakes for couples with champagne toasts or he's gonna go out of biz and broke. That, is you're elevating one "sin" over another. And, your sin is irrelevant to me, anyway.

Second, there is no first amend SPEECH consideration in commerce beyond advertising. The baker has a first amendment contract right. However, the sup ct has said that right does not extend to overrule a law forcing one in commerce to offer public accommodation to all. If you want to relitigate civil rights ... good luck cause you're gonna lose. Roberts ain't going there. Furthermore, the mulsim baker has a choice. He can simply pay the fine or whatever and not bake the cake. He's not going to forced to convert under torture.

Lastly, this is simply too crazy to bother with, sorry.

It would force the gay couple back on their heel to prove that their behavior was an innate state of being and not picked up along the way; like so many gay men for example present with a clear history of same-gendered child sexual abuse/imprinting.

It doesn't fcking matter how somebody turned out gay, or why some white woman fell in love with a black man. It happens in nature.

You leave the baker alone to his 1st Amendment rights and if he wants to go out of business by lack of patronage, then that's his affair. Otherwise you don't have a secular behavior forcing a religious one to bow down to him and abandon his first amendment rights as a matter of law.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The only thing his study showed was that intact families are superior to broken ones.

Ursine mammals evacuate in sylvan environments too.

does a bear shit in the woods......gay homes are broken homes by definition....

You obviously don't know what the definition of broken is. An intact home is one in which both parents are present in the home. This would be my family. Now, every single one of my kid's friends? Broken home...parents living separately and the kids having to divide their time between them. Know what ALL the studies show? The intact home is best, the gender of the parents irrelevant.

'intact' my ass...two 'moms' doesn't cut it....despite your pathetic gay arguments...

it's been borne out that children growing up without a father creates problems....

so you fit right in with your broken-home neighbors....

the commie liberal 'sexual revolution' is destroying the moral fabric and the family unit which are the basis for a strong society and country.....

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I repeat [before megatroll chimed in]:

Fair question. Personally, I don't approve of laws forcing individuals in commerce to open public accommodation to anyone when doing so would require they do something they consider immoral, regardless of how stupid obnoxious bigoted and down right azzhole minded the individual is.

But, since the sup ct has said it's legal to do so, and if a state has a law that encompases glbt folks into people who can force public accomodations serve them .. yes, to answer.

Yep, that about sums it up.

If a Muslim baker is open to the public and offers wedding cases are part of their business they couldn't deny them because someone is Asian, they can't deny them because they are Jewish, and in some States (about 20) they can't deny a couple of they are same-sex.



>>>>

if any baker opens his store to the public and offers his wares anybody should be able to buy them....that does not include forcing the baker to bake a cake he does not normally bake....otherwise you are inhibiting his freedom to sell what he wants to sell...

where is all this idiocy heading to anyway.....? one-size-fits-all government-approved wedding cakes...?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Fair question. Personally, I don't approve of laws forcing individuals in commerce to open public accommodation to anyone when doing so would require they do something they consider immoral, regardless of how stupid obnoxious bigoted and down right azzhole minded the individual is.

But, since the sup ct has said it's legal to do so, and if a state has a law that encompases glbt folks into people who can force public accomodations serve them .. yes, to answer.

Yep, that about sums it up.

If a Muslim baker is open to the public and offers wedding cases are part of their business they couldn't deny them because someone is Asian, they can't deny them because they are Jewish, and in some States (about 20) they can't deny a couple of they are same-sex.



>>>>

if any baker opens his store to the public and offers his wares anybody should be able to buy them....that does not include forcing the baker to bake a cake he does not normally bake....otherwise you are inhibiting his freedom to sell what he wants to sell...

where is this heading to.....? one-size-fits-all government-approved wedding cakes...?

IIRC, the premise of the question contained the condition that the Muslim baker routinely supplied wedding cakes. As a cake, that is something normally offered.

Now if the Muslim baker did not offer wedding cakes than that is a completely different issue. For example if a Muslim restauranteur did not offer pork products on the menu, then it doesn't matter who walks in and orders pork products, the owner isn't required to supply them since they are not on the menu. On the other hand if the Muslim restauranteur offer pork products then they can't refuse to sell them to Christians, Asians, Germans, Jews, Women, or (in some state) a lesbian.

Since the Muslim baker does offer wedding cakes, they are "on the menu". The Muslim baker though is free to remove wedding cakes from the menu for all customers.

>>>>