Now the Left is trying to force that Baker to make a transgender cake.

[Dogmaphobe]

Yet the 10 commandments are mostly about what you "can't" do.

Irrelevant.

My suggestion to you would be to get an education, child.

You support forced speech. That places you as an enemy of those who support freedom of belief.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Irrelevant.

My suggestion to you would be to get an education, child.

You support forced speech. That places you as an enemy of those who support freedom of belief.

He's probably a tranny

 

[Canon Shooter]

There are bible verses on the Supreme Court building.

So what?

 

[struth]

You can't force a person to drive. But if he chooses to, there are thousands of rules he has to follow.

Capiche?

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

agreed, we aren't talking about driving....likewise on any work, if they decide to do it, they have to follow the rules.

If the baker decided to bake this cake, i am sure he'd have all sort of rules and specs...he decided not to, you can't force him

 

[struth]

A lawyer is the first to know he can be sued for discrimination for refusing a client based on a protected status.

And a lawyer selected under the 6th amendment can't refuse, except for a substantial legal basis.

A lawyer knows he can refuse services to anyone based on any reason. A law firm isn't a public accomdation therefore the Civil Rights Act doesn't apply to them

A lawyer can refuse for any reason. A lawyer doesn't have to accept appointment of a case by the Court.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

He's probably a tranny

I was going to say that this is a clear case of tyranny of the majority, but it is actually tranny of the minority - and a tiny one at that.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I was going to say that this is a clear case of tyranny of the majority, but it is actually tranny of the minority - and a tiny one at that.

Meh just another annoying left loon

 

[dblack]

You confuse communist soviet union, which the state would pick a persons career, and force them to work at that job.

Here we are free to choose whatever job or career we want. But knowing that we have to follow the requirements of that job or career,

That sounds like an exaggeration to me. From what I've read, it wasn't so much that they forced people to work. I'm sure that some of that went on, but they controlled things more broadly by dictating the "requirements" for a given career.

 

[dblack]

I sometimes wonder if these grossly hypocritical issues aren't deliberately promoted by party leadership as a kind of gaslighting. By forcing the party faithful to defend ideas or policies that directly contradict previous (or even current) policies, they force them to abandon principles in general. All that's left for them to lean on is their party.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That's not a religious argument.

It is if that's his religious beliefs.

Good grief, want a fag cake or tranny cake? Find someone who's willing to do it and stop forcing people. It's tiresome, you little loons are annoying

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's not a religious argument.

The fuck it isn't.

If someone's religious beliefs tells them that homosexuality is a sin (or anything else which goes against their beliefs), and uses that basis as the reason to not provide a service, how would it not be a religious argument?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Why can't these bakery places just make blank cakes and then let the customers do the rest later on with whatever they choose to purchase like what I believe to be done at a build a bear workshop?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Am I the only person on this planet who has never been to one of them places?

 

[dblack]

The fuck it isn't.

If someone's religious beliefs tells them that homosexuality is a sin (or anything else which goes against their beliefs), and uses that basis as the reason to not provide a service, how would it not be a religious argument?

I realize various courts have interpreted it such, but I don't think the First was meant to exempt people from laws that contradict with their religious beliefs. It was meant to prevent government from "regulating“ religion.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I realize various courts have interpreted it such, but I don't think the First was meant to exempt people from laws that contradict with their religious beliefs. It was meant to prevent government from "regulating“ religion.

So, just so I understand, you don't believe that someone should A) be able to practice their religion as they see fit and B) be free from being compelled to act in ways which are counter to their beliefs? How would that not be "regulating" someone's religious beliefs?

In the case of a gay couple and a baker, if the government steps in to compel the baker to serve the gay couple, what they've effectively done is nullify the religious beliefs of the baker.

Frankly, I think that's far worse than having government establishing a religion.

And, for perspective, I'm probably the least religious guy in any room I walk into...

 

[dblack]

So, just so I understand, you don't believe that someone should A) be able to practice their religion as they see fit and B) be free from being compelled to act in ways which are counter to their beliefs? How would that not be "regulating" someone's religious beliefs?

Hmm... apparently I wasn't clear. I'm saying that the religious freedom angle is a weak argument. Religious freedom doesn't mean you get to ignore laws that contradict with your religion. If your religion believes in murdering non- believers, for example, that doesn't mean that laws against murder violate your First Amendment rights. The First is there to stop government from writing laws targeting religions. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

In the case of a gay couple and a baker, if the government steps in to compel the baker to serve the gay couple, what they've effectively done is nullify the religious beliefs of the baker.

They nullified the baker's conscience and self-determination. But not because of his religion. The state decided that certain types of discrimination are illegal. The baker doesn't just get to skip that law because religion.

To be clear, I think these kinds of anti-discrimination laws are ridiculous, counter-productive and blatantly unconstitutional. The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. It's just not a valid freedom of religion issue.

Having said that, I DO think it's a First Amendment issue. But it's a freedom of speech issue. In general, anti-discrimination laws can be evaded by simply hiding your reasons for bias. By keeping your mouth shut. The crime is when you make your reasons obvious, when they are reasons that the state doesn't approve of (racism, sexism, etc ...). The baker could have easily avoided all this by making up some excuse for not serving the gay wedding. But he stood by his convictions and expressed them. THAT's why he was targeted. These laws are about suppressing ideas.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Hmm... apparently I wasn't clear. I'm saying that the religious freedom angle is a weak argument.

No, it's really not...

Religious freedom doesn't mean you get to ignore laws that contradict with your religion.

Super.
What law says a baker has to bake a cake for a gay couple if it goes against his religious beliefs? Remember, the baker in question ultimately won that battle...

If your religion believes in murdering non- believers, for example, that doesn't mean that laws against murder violate your First Amendment rights. The First is there to stop government from writing laws targeting religions. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Well, the fact that you had to go to the extreme of "murder" tells me that you either don't have an argument or that you're intentionally being obtuse.

They nullified the baker's conscience and self-determination. But not because of his religion. The state decided that certain types of discrimination are illegal. The baker doesn't just get to skip that law because religion.

Well, perhaps you could explain how it is he won the case against the gay couple who wanted a wedding cake?

To be clear, I think these kinds of anti-discrimination laws are ridiculous, counter-productive and blatantly unconstitutional. The baker should be able to refuse service to anyone, for any reason. It's just not a valid freedom of religion issue.

It is...

Having said that, I DO think it's a First Amendment issue. But it's a freedom of speech issue. In general, anti-discrimination laws can be evaded by simply hiding your reasons for bias. By keeping your mouth shut. The crime is when you make your reasons obvious, when they are reasons that the state doesn't approve of (racism, sexism, etc ...). The baker could have easily avoided all this by making up some excuse for not serving the gay wedding. But he stood by his convictions and expressed them. THAT's why he was targeted. These laws are about suppressing ideas.

Okay...

 

[dblack]

What law says a baker has to bake a cake for a gay couple if it goes against his religious beliefs? Remember, the baker in question ultimately won that battle...

Yep. For the wrong reasons. As I said, I recognize that numerous courts have promoted the attitude that the First affords special perks to religion. I don't agree.

Well, the fact that you had to go to the extreme of "murder" tells me that you either don't have an argument or that you're intentionally being obtuse.

That fact that you dodge the hypothetical on such grounds, rather than address the point made, tells me that you're quite the chickenshit. With no real confidence in your "convictions".

How about a direct fucking question. Think you can do that? If my religion says murder is cool, does the First Amendment let me skip out on murder laws?

Hopefully you're answer is, "Of course not." But why not?

Well, perhaps you could explain how it is he won the case against the gay couple who wanted a wedding cake?

Because judges are now strictly partisan appointments. And partisans are the stupidist, most cowardly people on the planet.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Again where is it in the Bible? Where does it violate what Jesus commanded?


I respect the 1st A argument, just looking to where it would violate a religion.

There's a lawsuit in Indiana by Satanists challenging abortion laws. Where's that in the Bible

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I doubt it is. But they are Satanists yes, not Christians.

We're taking religion in general. Do Muslims have the right to oppose...say serving homosexuals?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No.

Of course they do. It's against their religion. Same as a satanist could refuse to bake a Christian themed cake

Get past religion only means Christian