SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Appeal - Gays Win Again!

[Asclepias]

So was Obama a Nazi, and a bigot just a few years ago ?

I never knew he was a Nazi or a bigot? Do you have a link where he admitted that?

Well I'm assuming you guys on the left would be consistent, and since today if anyone is against gay marriage you guys instantly call them names, so I'm just assuming you were calling Obama names too, right ?

You shouldn't assume consistency. Some people are not dead set in their ways as I have explained before. Who is "you guys"? Its one thing to say I am against gay marriage for whatever reason. That is a personal choice. Its quite another to get upset over it as if it affects your life and start trying to take away someone elses rights. That may be why you were called names. The POTUS never came at the issue from a hate filled perspective so why would I call him names?

 

[Katzndogz]

There is enough leeway in the law that no one has to perform personal services for gays if they don't want to.

 

[Asclepias]

So forcing someone to either a) violate their morals or b) go out of business is not riding roughshod over them? Please. And the question is if these laws are just, not if you HAVE to obey them.

And how is making someone go to another baker/photographer setting rules on how others live by? Evidently shagging someone of the same sex magically makes you able to dictate how others live.

No its not riding roughshod over them. No one is making them violate their morals. They can choose to close up shop and get another source of income. They are only being forced to comply with the law that does this equally to everyone else. The laws are just because they treat everyone the same.

You didn't realize you said "making". If their desire is to purchase the particular service that you offer to everyone else and you make them go elsewhere to get it then you just set a rule that is unfair to that person or group. They should not be forced to go somewhere else just because of your religious beliefs. Your religious belief does not trump their right to be treated equally. If you dont want to obey the laws then stop being a business owner and you wont have to deal with any perceived conflict. You can at that point avoid all the gay people you want without penalty.

That IS riding roughshod over them. You are basically saying they cannot make a living as they want to soley because of their moral convictions, convictions that are only an issue in a tiny number of situation.

What you are saying is still who you want to have sex with trumps a persons moral compass when it comes to doing business. Equality is what the government should practice, forcing some baker to go against their morals or close shop is fascist.

No it is not riding roughshod over them. Think of like this. 2 children playing together peacefully. One child decides to take away the others right to play with a certain toy because he feels God only wants kids with blue jeans to be able to play with the toy. The kid with the khaki shorts is being rode roughshod over because of what the kid in the jeans believes to be true. The teacher tells the boy with the jeans to either stop being a bully or cease playing with any of the toys. That kid is being penalized because he decided to break the rules the teacher has set forth for playing with others. Those rules don't care what the kid in the jeans thinks because he could be wrong for one and has no power or authority to enforce his beliefs on the other kid simply because he doesn't make the rules. He is only there to play and obey the rules.

 

[Katzndogz]

One child can always say "I'm not playing with you any more." Then he can walk away and leave the other child to play all alone.

 

[martybegan]

No its not riding roughshod over them. No one is making them violate their morals. They can choose to close up shop and get another source of income. They are only being forced to comply with the law that does this equally to everyone else. The laws are just because they treat everyone the same.

You didn't realize you said "making". If their desire is to purchase the particular service that you offer to everyone else and you make them go elsewhere to get it then you just set a rule that is unfair to that person or group. They should not be forced to go somewhere else just because of your religious beliefs. Your religious belief does not trump their right to be treated equally. If you dont want to obey the laws then stop being a business owner and you wont have to deal with any perceived conflict. You can at that point avoid all the gay people you want without penalty.

That IS riding roughshod over them. You are basically saying they cannot make a living as they want to soley because of their moral convictions, convictions that are only an issue in a tiny number of situation.

What you are saying is still who you want to have sex with trumps a persons moral compass when it comes to doing business. Equality is what the government should practice, forcing some baker to go against their morals or close shop is fascist.

No it is not riding roughshod over them. Think of like this. 2 children playing together peacefully. One child decides to take away the others right to play with a certain toy because he feels God only wants kids with blue jeans to be able to play with the toy. The kid with the khaki shorts is being rode roughshod over because of what the kid in the jeans believes to be true. The teacher tells the boy with the jeans to either stop being a bully or cease playing with any of the toys. That kid is being penalized because he decided to break the rules the teacher has set forth for playing with others. Those rules don't care what the kid in the jeans thinks because he could be wrong for one and has no power or authority to enforce his beliefs on the other kid simply because he doesn't make the rules. He is only there to play and obey the rules.

Guess what, if its the first kid's toy he should be able to do that. Considering there are other copies of the toy laying around, there really isn't an issue. in fact the 2nd kid can be seen as whiny little *****, because even though there are plenty of other toys just the same around, HE WANTS THAT ONE, and goes to the teacher. Now just because of who the 2nd kid is, he gets his way, and the first kid is now no longer able to play with ANY of the toys.

if the 2nd kid had gone and gotten another SAME toy, none of this would have happened.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, we are adults not children.

Two, Katzndogz's example is of private association.

Three, public accommodations require a certain level of business behavior.

 

[Spoonman]

It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.

In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
******* pricks.

i agree. the guy should just do the job and do a lousy job. oooooops sorry, i forgot to put film in the camera. hope you enjoyed your day

 

[Asclepias]

There is no "side" to it. Its a law that treats everyone the same. People voted and put others in office to make decisions for them. This is what they came up with. If this is not what you want, vote someone in that will make and enforce laws you enjoy. That is how the process works. What plan of action do you have that will satisfy everyone? My guess is that you don't because it is impossible. The problem is that your "religion" is not a valid argument. Who decides which religion is correct? You can believe whatever you want however you cannot practice it however you want without penalty if you transgress on the rights of others given to them by the government.

????

We could be getting close, A.

Do you realize that you sound like the same people being fought against?

BINGO! They are ALSO trying to get the law applied to themselves THE SAME.

And yes, what WOULD satisfy all people IS to have a neutral or agreed decision.

For example, if people have different favorite colors,
cannot agree to paint a house blue or red on the inside:
either paint separate houses, or paint separate rooms in the same house, or paint it neutral and have red or blue furniture to move around instead of walls that can't be.

You can also agree to call it an even trade.

What if in one situation, people recognize that the prochoice side of abortion is biased against prolife, because freedom of choice is more important than the ill consequences
that could otherwise be reduced or prevented by more careful regulations;
while in the health care policies, prochoice in paying for health care without restrictions
or mandates is biased against the right to health folks who want govt to pay for all of it.

So both sides could agree to separate which parts they agree to fund and follow together,
and make that part the public program, and which parts they don't agree on and keep that separate instead of fighting and discriminating against the other views.

A I still see people only defending their side over the other.

There is a DIFFERENCE between NOT being antigay and being progay.
There is a DIFFERENT between NOT being antichoice and being proabortion.

Instead of being neutral, which allows either pro or anti views (of life, choice, gay etc),

Where people "cross the line" and start discriminating is when they go BEYOND just being neutral and start pushing policies that favor their views and EXCLUDE or punish the other.

So that is equally discrimination by creed.

If people don't believe consensus is possible, then why not separate?
Couples separate all the time, and still raise their kids together and pay for their college.

If they can't agree on the rules to the house, why not separate and manage all the programs they want under separate roofs. The govt can be reserved for general issues all people agree on, and keep the rest in separate camps so resources aren't wasted fighting.

I get what you are saying. I think it would be great if people did not have to push agendas in order to protect their rights given to them by the government. What I believe the issue to be is that inherently people are never going to see eye to eye and they are rarely going to be unemotional about it. Typically the moment emotion comes into the picture rationality tends to leave in order to make room for it. Separation is not an option as we all have to share the space and resources. The only real option is getting everyone on the same page via social manipulation or brainwashing as I like to call it. When people understand the concept that despite what you may believe, people are social animals and function poorly as individuals then we would be on the way to scenario where everyone had their wants looked out for. If we were meant to be individuals we would not be tied to our instincts to do a lot of things as a group.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's quite simple. A gay couple walks into a bakery and orders a dozen cupcakes. They should be served like any other person walking into the bakery. A gay couple walks into a bakery and wants the baker to make a specialty cake, just for them. The baker should not have to comply with the order. Forcing the baker to comply is involuntary servitude.

 

[Asclepias]

One child can always say "I'm not playing with you any more." Then he can walk away and leave the other child to play all alone.

Why would he walk away from playing with the toy and let the other kid dictate what he plays with?

 

[martybegan]

It's quite simple. A gay couple walks into a bakery and orders a dozen cupcakes. They should be served like any other person walking into the bakery. A gay couple walks into a bakery and wants the baker to make a specialty cake, just for them. The baker should not have to comply with the order. Forcing the baker to comply is involuntary servitude.

That is a reasonable position, and is what was the intent of public accommodation laws. When you want someone to work an event for you is a different thing.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's amazing to me that anyone would force themselves on a business who doesn't want their business.

In this case the lesbian couple had zero respect for the photographers religious beliefs, and instead of simply going elsewhere they chose to force themselves on the photographer.
******* pricks.

i agree. the guy should just do the job and do a lousy job. oooooops sorry, i forgot to put film in the camera. hope you enjoyed your day

Doing a lousy job open the photographer up to a lawsuit anyway. Do a good job, but ruin the day, it's really not hard to destroy an event. I've done it many times.

 

[Asclepias]

That IS riding roughshod over them. You are basically saying they cannot make a living as they want to soley because of their moral convictions, convictions that are only an issue in a tiny number of situation.

What you are saying is still who you want to have sex with trumps a persons moral compass when it comes to doing business. Equality is what the government should practice, forcing some baker to go against their morals or close shop is fascist.

No it is not riding roughshod over them. Think of like this. 2 children playing together peacefully. One child decides to take away the others right to play with a certain toy because he feels God only wants kids with blue jeans to be able to play with the toy. The kid with the khaki shorts is being rode roughshod over because of what the kid in the jeans believes to be true. The teacher tells the boy with the jeans to either stop being a bully or cease playing with any of the toys. That kid is being penalized because he decided to break the rules the teacher has set forth for playing with others. Those rules don't care what the kid in the jeans thinks because he could be wrong for one and has no power or authority to enforce his beliefs on the other kid simply because he doesn't make the rules. He is only there to play and obey the rules.

Guess what, if its the first kid's toy he should be able to do that. Considering there are other copies of the toy laying around, there really isn't an issue. in fact the 2nd kid can be seen as whiny little *****, because even though there are plenty of other toys just the same around, HE WANTS THAT ONE, and goes to the teacher. Now just because of who the 2nd kid is, he gets his way, and the first kid is now no longer able to play with ANY of the toys.

if the 2nd kid had gone and gotten another SAME toy, none of this would have happened.

I didnt specify that it was the first kids toy but lets go with it. If it is the first kids toy the teacher still makes the rules. If the rule is that the kid in the jeans will share the toy with everyone equally the kid has to comply or not bring the toy to school at all. The second kid has a right to be a whiny little ***** if thats what you want to call it. The second kid has a right to that specific toy under the rules set forth by the teacher. Why would he be forced to go to another site when the rules say he doesn't have to be inconvenienced by someone that doesn't make the rules?

 

[Asclepias]

It's quite simple. A gay couple walks into a bakery and orders a dozen cupcakes. They should be served like any other person walking into the bakery. A gay couple walks into a bakery and wants the baker to make a specialty cake, just for them. The baker should not have to comply with the order. Forcing the baker to comply is involuntary servitude.

As long as that baker does not do other specialty cakes I would agree. What he does in private is his business.

 

[martybegan]

It's quite simple. A gay couple walks into a bakery and orders a dozen cupcakes. They should be served like any other person walking into the bakery. A gay couple walks into a bakery and wants the baker to make a specialty cake, just for them. The baker should not have to comply with the order. Forcing the baker to comply is involuntary servitude.

As long as that baker does not do other specialty cakes I would agree. What he does in private is his business.

That's still wrong. You are again forcing him to compromise his morals for the sake of his livelyhood.

 

[martybegan]

No it is not riding roughshod over them. Think of like this. 2 children playing together peacefully. One child decides to take away the others right to play with a certain toy because he feels God only wants kids with blue jeans to be able to play with the toy. The kid with the khaki shorts is being rode roughshod over because of what the kid in the jeans believes to be true. The teacher tells the boy with the jeans to either stop being a bully or cease playing with any of the toys. That kid is being penalized because he decided to break the rules the teacher has set forth for playing with others. Those rules don't care what the kid in the jeans thinks because he could be wrong for one and has no power or authority to enforce his beliefs on the other kid simply because he doesn't make the rules. He is only there to play and obey the rules.

Guess what, if its the first kid's toy he should be able to do that. Considering there are other copies of the toy laying around, there really isn't an issue. in fact the 2nd kid can be seen as whiny little *****, because even though there are plenty of other toys just the same around, HE WANTS THAT ONE, and goes to the teacher. Now just because of who the 2nd kid is, he gets his way, and the first kid is now no longer able to play with ANY of the toys.

if the 2nd kid had gone and gotten another SAME toy, none of this would have happened.

I didnt specify that it was the first kids toy but lets go with it. If it is the first kids toy the teacher still makes the rules. If the rule is that the kid in the jeans will share the toy with everyone equally the kid has to comply or not bring the toy to school at all. The second kid has a right to be a whiny little ***** if thats what you want to call it. The second kid has a right to that specific toy under the rules set forth by the teacher. Why would he be forced to go to another site when the rules say he doesn't have to be inconvenienced by someone that doesn't make the rules?

The 2nd kid has no right to be a whiny *****, its just that as a progressive you identify with the whiny ***** who isn't getting his way, and since you see yourself as the victim, you feel perfectly OK with screwing over the 1st kid (THE MAN) to get your own selfish goals realized.

 

[Asclepias]

It's quite simple. A gay couple walks into a bakery and orders a dozen cupcakes. They should be served like any other person walking into the bakery. A gay couple walks into a bakery and wants the baker to make a specialty cake, just for them. The baker should not have to comply with the order. Forcing the baker to comply is involuntary servitude.

As long as that baker does not do other specialty cakes I would agree. What he does in private is his business.

That's still wrong. You are again forcing him to compromise his morals for the sake of his livelyhood.

Its neither wrong nor right. Its the rules of business that you agree to when you open a business. You can either have your morals or your business but you cant have both. If you truly have a moral issue it should be with starting a business that is open to the public. The fact you have to play by the rules is not an issue of morality.

 

[Asclepias]

Guess what, if its the first kid's toy he should be able to do that. Considering there are other copies of the toy laying around, there really isn't an issue. in fact the 2nd kid can be seen as whiny little *****, because even though there are plenty of other toys just the same around, HE WANTS THAT ONE, and goes to the teacher. Now just because of who the 2nd kid is, he gets his way, and the first kid is now no longer able to play with ANY of the toys.

if the 2nd kid had gone and gotten another SAME toy, none of this would have happened.

I didnt specify that it was the first kids toy but lets go with it. If it is the first kids toy the teacher still makes the rules. If the rule is that the kid in the jeans will share the toy with everyone equally the kid has to comply or not bring the toy to school at all. The second kid has a right to be a whiny little ***** if thats what you want to call it. The second kid has a right to that specific toy under the rules set forth by the teacher. Why would he be forced to go to another site when the rules say he doesn't have to be inconvenienced by someone that doesn't make the rules?

The 2nd kid has no right to be a whiny *****, its just that as a progressive you identify with the whiny ***** who isn't getting his way, and since you see yourself as the victim, you feel perfectly OK with screwing over the 1st kid (THE MAN) to get your own selfish goals realized.

But the second kid does have a right to be a whiny *****. The teacher says so and makes the rules of conduct not the kid with a religious stick up his ass. Your lapse into personally attacking me verifies you see the truth in what I am saying and it angers you. It will be ok. As long as you play by the rules you can think what you want to. Otherwise you and your type will be penalized. Life is good.

 

[martybegan]

I didnt specify that it was the first kids toy but lets go with it. If it is the first kids toy the teacher still makes the rules. If the rule is that the kid in the jeans will share the toy with everyone equally the kid has to comply or not bring the toy to school at all. The second kid has a right to be a whiny little ***** if thats what you want to call it. The second kid has a right to that specific toy under the rules set forth by the teacher. Why would he be forced to go to another site when the rules say he doesn't have to be inconvenienced by someone that doesn't make the rules?

The 2nd kid has no right to be a whiny *****, its just that as a progressive you identify with the whiny ***** who isn't getting his way, and since you see yourself as the victim, you feel perfectly OK with screwing over the 1st kid (THE MAN) to get your own selfish goals realized.

But the second kid does have a right to be a whiny *****. The teacher says so and makes the rules of conduct not the kid with a religious stick up his ass. Your lapse into personally attacking me verifies you see the truth in what I am saying and it angers you. It will be ok. As long as you play by the rules you can think what you want to. Otherwise you and your type will be penalized. Life is good.

The teacher shouldn't have the right to say so. it violates work rules (the constitution).

and yes, people who want to force their way of life on me piss me off, especially when it is over a minor inconvenience, or a few minutes of hurt feelings. People like you are pussies, nothing but.

 

[martybegan]

As long as that baker does not do other specialty cakes I would agree. What he does in private is his business.

That's still wrong. You are again forcing him to compromise his morals for the sake of his livelyhood.

Its neither wrong nor right. Its the rules of business that you agree to when you open a business. You can either have your morals or your business but you cant have both. If you truly have a moral issue it should be with starting a business that is open to the public. The fact you have to play by the rules is not an issue of morality.

You shouldn't have to make that choice, especially to please self centered pricks such as you and your ilk.