SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Appeal - Gays Win Again!

[DigitalDrifter]

There is a muslim bakery in Westwood. I stopped by there when my dog was being groomed since it's only two blocks away. Their policy is what you see is what you can buy. They sell cakes for same sex weddings if the customer orders a particular size cake. They will make the cake. What it's used for is none of their business. If you want a decorated cake, they will put a frosting flower on it. You pick up your cake and go about your business. There is no catalogue of themes, no wedding toppers. not even a couple of wedding bells. They can come up with some pretty elaborate cakes as they did for my friend's wedding. It's just not on the "menu". No wedding toppers, no bride and groom, groom and groom, bride and bride. You can get your own on line, or go to a bakery in West Hollywood that will accommodate same sex weddings.

That reminds me, the day a Muslim baker, or Muslim photographer, or Muslim whatever refuses to work a gay wedding, is the day the libs back off completely.
It's only the self-hate of their own culture that is the target.

 

[eflatminor]

Respectfully disagree. Governments have always dictated markets in one way or another.

Yes they have. And how has the worked out?



I'm not fooled. I've studied economic history. I know the damage central planner meddling in markets have brought onto the people.



Well said comrade...



Wow. You're quite the sheeple there.

It's worked out beautifully for me and lots of other people I know. They create a game. Make up rules. If you play by those rules you get wealthy. Matter of fact it works every single time.




You have to be or otherwise you would not have said this. You dont understand the rules of economics then. Sounds like you studied the wrong thing.

Well said comrade...

Let me know when you can find one that someone (like the government) cant take away from you.

Wow. You're quite the sheeple there.

No just a law abiding citizen.

We're born with rights that the government can only take away with due process. You miss the entire point of the American experiment. Get thee to a library.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You guys and the slippery slope. At some point your surveyor skills should kick in and make you realize that you are the only people sliding backwards.

True.

The slippery slope fallacy is the last refuge of social conservatives who have no valid legal argument in favor of discriminating against gay Americans.

One, I'm NOT a social conservative. I have no problem with working a gay wedding.

Two, this is not about discriminating against anyone. It's about the right to conduct one's affairs without the government meddlers dictating the terms.

I don't think a Muslim baker should be forced to bake a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it and I don't think a Christian should be forced to attend a gay wedding. I prefer free markets and free minds. Attempting to pick and choose who gets what treatment and which group of people is protected and which is not is the very definition of a slippery slope. You saying it isn't doesn't make it so.

That works great...except when it doesn't. Which is always.

Can you think of any circumstances where allowing a service provider to refuse service based on his or her personal preference could result in a situation that is undesirable?

Please, try.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They are looking for Validation where none Exists Naturally...

They will NEVER be Happy, no matter how many Laws are passed, how many Rights of others are Infringed to try to please them...

You will Recited like Gospel that you LOVE that they are Gay and that day, the will still not have the Validation they so Desperately Need.

Because they are Inherently Invalid.



peace...

People who think like you are dying off. In the not too distant future, it is you who will feel the need to seek validation. And of course, we will give it to you.

Whenever you come to your senses, just let us know.

And people in the next couple of generations will be saying that about you too, so remember that when they are wishing for you to die off as well.

People are products of their enviroment, and just a few years ago it was the norm for the majority to be in favor of traditional marriage. Even your president was opposed to gay marriage. Now suddenly thanks to people like you, if you dare to believe in traditional marriage only, you're branded a nazi, or some other despicable term.

Despite a dramatic shift in the overall view of gay marriage, you're not going to get a wholesale change overnight, so I would suggest you be patient, unless you plan on calling for us all to be burned at the stake.

Same-sex couples do believe in traditional marriage: a union of two equal partners, same- or opposite-sex.

Same-sex couples seek only to enter into marriage contracts they’re eligible to participate in; marriage unaltered, unchanged, and not ‘redefined,’ in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The aberration, therefore, is the states that refuse to acknowledge the right of same-sex couples to marry, in violation of the Constitution, where those who advocate denying same-sex couples their civil liberties do so motivated solely out of animus toward gay Americans.

 

[Howey]

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.

In this case the business had zero respect for the public. They should have put up signs announcing they hate gay people. If they want to run a straight club they are more than welcome. However, since this is a business that caters to the public and not just those in their church group they have to accommodate everyone.

I agree with you in saying that there is no way someone is getting my money if they hate/dislike me. On the other hand it is funny they lost and will have to either remove their religious beliefs from their business and treat everyone equally. (Weird that religious beliefs and equality are at odds in that sentence.)

I know how many want to blame the gay couple.....is there evidence that they KNEW prior to going to this business that they were going to refuse to serve them?

This is what's amusing. The photographer? The cake guy? Both knew the customers were gay and chose to discriminate.

But how can conservative businesses do this?

Have prospective customers sign an affidavit saying they're not gay?

Face it. You really, really don't know 99% of people out there you deal with on a daily basis are gay or not. Not all gays fit your biased stereotype of being swishing sissies.

Get over it.

 

[Asclepias]

At some point your surveyor skills should kick in and make you realize that you are the only people sliding backwards as your personal freedoms are being eroded.

You left out a few words.

You seem to live a life of fear and scarcity. What personal freedoms are being eroded?

When the government tells a person who owns their own business how to run it....that's erosion of freedom. Just because it furthers your cause doesn't negate the outcome.
It isn't fear it's being concerned, it's just living long enough to see the changes.
It isn't about agreeing with this particular business or not....it's his business bottom line.

Want another example? About obummercare? It could have been resolved without the intrusion of every American in this country......but our government didn't want that.
Obviously, your a big government sort of person. Lots of countries with big government and less freedoms.

The government telling you how to run your business within the confines of law is not an erosion of freedoms. You cant be a business without the government letting you. Its not a right to run your business however you see fit. Have you ever owned a business? You have to follow some rules set in place by.....you guessed it. The government.

I dont see what you are concerned about. How is making more money a major concern and not a bonus to the bottom line?

 

[Iceweasel]

same-sex couples do believe in traditional marriage: A union of two equal partners, same- or opposite-sex.

lol.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes they have. And how has the worked out?



I'm not fooled. I've studied economic history. I know the damage central planner meddling in markets have brought onto the people.



Well said comrade...



Wow. You're quite the sheeple there.

It's worked out beautifully for me and lots of other people I know. They create a game. Make up rules. If you play by those rules you get wealthy. Matter of fact it works every single time.




You have to be or otherwise you would not have said this. You dont understand the rules of economics then. Sounds like you studied the wrong thing.



Let me know when you can find one that someone (like the government) cant take away from you.

Wow. You're quite the sheeple there.

No just a law abiding citizen.

We're born with rights that the government can only take away with due process. You miss the entire point of the American experiment. Get thee to a library.

What right are you born with the government did not give you? I think you should follow your own advice and hit that library with some gusto and commitment.

 

[eflatminor]

Nicely done.

[MENTION=30139]eflatminor[/MENTION]

Please. Don't ask for yet ANOTHER reply. You are wrong on this one.

Man up.

Not my examples.

My examples:

But race is...as is color. The KKK is a race-based advocacy group. The Black owned caterer therefore cannot refuse to provide his service to the KKK meeting because he has a problem with white race advocacy groups. Same goes for the Black seamstress refusing to hem the white robe.

Religion is too. Therefore, the Christian can sick the government on the Jewish baker for refusing to make a Jesus-on-the-cross cake. The Muslim baker cannot refuse on religious grounds to bake the cake with a picture of Mohammed on it.

Age is also. So, if the Senior Center prefers not to offer their rec room to teenagers, they're out of luck. If a 60 year old man wants to join the Boys Scouts, what's to stop him now?

KKK argument was raised and dismissed by the court. If the black seamstress refused service because they are white - the complaint would be valid.

Or if he refused because they are White race advocacy group. I say that's wrong.

If the black seamstress refused service because of the political advocay - the case would be dismissed.

Agreed. Political groups are not protected...yet. Further demonstrating my point that to pick and choose which group gets protection and which does not is a slippery slope.

All the black seamstress would have to do is line up to testify all her white customers they she did provide service, which would show the failed logic of the position.

Does matter how many White customer she has. If she dares utter the truth, that she doesn't want to work a garment worn by a white supremacist group, she's out of luck. I say that's a shame.

If the Jewish baker doesn't provide "Jesus on cross" cakes to anyone, then they can refuse them to a Christian.

One for the courts to determine. If the Jewish baker regularly provides cakes with other religious icons (David, Moses, etc) but refuses the Christians request for a cross...he may be out of luck.

If the Jewish baker says he doesn't do Christian themes...he DEFINITELY out of luck. Religion is a protected class.

If the Muslim baker doesn't provide "Mohammad" cakes to anyone, then they can refuse them to a anyone.

Again, depends on why they refuse and if they've offered religious themes to others.

If the Senior Citizen Center is open to the public and falls under Public Accommodation laws - they cannot refuse to access to teenagers.

Too bad. I think they should be able to. But then, I maintain a respect for the idea of private property rights.

The Boys Scouts are a private organization with membership, therefore they do not fall under Public Accommodation laws. Private membership based clubs (in pretty much every state that I can think of) are exempt.

You are right. Mea culpa.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You open a business that solicits from the public means you cannot refuse to provide service based on your personal and religious feelings.

Sure Jake, but if I own that business, I should be able to dictate what clientele I allow to do business in my establishment. Same concept as owning a home, you don't allow people in whom you don't want to be in there. So simple it's painful.

it is simple so simple as to be painful. It's also against the law. If you want to build your business, advertise away. Take out full page advertisements if you wish. Just don't advertise everything. Advertise child photography, pet photography, studio head shots, just don't advertise weddings. This doesn't preclude a photographer from doing wedding photography. It precludes someone from coming in later and saying "They advertised wedding photography to the public and denied me that service based on sexual orientation."

Just so.

 

[bianco]

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.

All they've done is set gay rights back 20 years, and likely made a whole lot of people hate anything to do with gay rights.

Your post, in particular the last two words, about says it all.


The US Supreme court could now, to many people, look like a wimp/scaredy-cat/chicken.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sure Jake, but if I own that business, I should be able to dictate what clientele I allow to do business in my establishment. Same concept as owning a home, you don't allow people in whom you don't want to be in there. So simple it's painful.

Not if it violates public accommodation laws. Owning a house is not the same as owning a business.

How to get around it? Don't advertise publicly, do business by private appointments. I know several property managers who do exactly that.

You paid for both with your own money did you not? Should you not have free control over it? For most businesses, not advertising is a surefire way to lose business, Jake. Most of these people don't have a choice. We live in an advertising culture now.

And all customers should be treated equally. That's the law. If libertarians were socially liberated and conservative on government taxation, I would consider voting for such candidates.

 

[Meister]

You seem to live a life of fear and scarcity. What personal freedoms are being eroded?

When the government tells a person who owns their own business how to run it....that's erosion of freedom. Just because it furthers your cause doesn't negate the outcome.
It isn't fear it's being concerned, it's just living long enough to see the changes.
It isn't about agreeing with this particular business or not....it's his business bottom line.

Want another example? About obummercare? It could have been resolved without the intrusion of every American in this country......but our government didn't want that.
Obviously, your a big government sort of person. Lots of countries with big government and less freedoms.

The government telling you how to run your business within the confines of law is not an erosion of freedoms. You cant be a business without the government letting you. Its not a right to run your business however you see fit. Have you ever owned a business? You have to follow some rules set in place by.....you guessed it. The government.

I dont see what you are concerned about. How is making more money a major concern and not a bonus to the bottom line?

The laws just keep mounting to running a business, but thanks for making my point about eroding freedoms and big government.
A person's personal choice???????
You're not a conservative so you wouldn't understand my concern.

 

[eflatminor]

True.

The slippery slope fallacy is the last refuge of social conservatives who have no valid legal argument in favor of discriminating against gay Americans.

One, I'm NOT a social conservative. I have no problem with working a gay wedding.

Two, this is not about discriminating against anyone. It's about the right to conduct one's affairs without the government meddlers dictating the terms.

I don't think a Muslim baker should be forced to bake a cake with a picture of Mohammed on it and I don't think a Christian should be forced to attend a gay wedding. I prefer free markets and free minds. Attempting to pick and choose who gets what treatment and which group of people is protected and which is not is the very definition of a slippery slope. You saying it isn't doesn't make it so.

That works great...except when it doesn't. Which is always.

Can you think of any circumstances where allowing a service providers to refuse service based on his or her personal preference could result in a situation that is undesirable?

Please, try.

"Undesirable" determined by whom? I say private property rights are at the heart of a capitalist and free society. This has consequences, which some of us many not like, but I accept those consequences in the name of freedom.

If a business wanted to exclude a group based on race or sex, I'd be the first one out there boycotting, picking or otherwise attempting to get them to change or force them out of business. That does not mean I think the power of government should be levied. I do not.

 

[Asclepias]

When the government tells a person who owns their own business how to run it....that's erosion of freedom. Just because it furthers your cause doesn't negate the outcome.
It isn't fear it's being concerned, it's just living long enough to see the changes.
It isn't about agreeing with this particular business or not....it's his business bottom line.

Want another example? About obummercare? It could have been resolved without the intrusion of every American in this country......but our government didn't want that.
Obviously, your a big government sort of person. Lots of countries with big government and less freedoms.

The government telling you how to run your business within the confines of law is not an erosion of freedoms. You cant be a business without the government letting you. Its not a right to run your business however you see fit. Have you ever owned a business? You have to follow some rules set in place by.....you guessed it. The government.

I dont see what you are concerned about. How is making more money a major concern and not a bonus to the bottom line?

The laws just keep mounting to running a business, but thanks for making my point about eroding freedoms and big government.
A person's personal choice???????
You're not a conservative so you wouldn't understand my concern.

Well what do you intend to do about it? You have 2 choices. Vote for laws that allow you to discriminate or cease owning a business. I dont think your concern has anything to do with you being a conservative. It has more to do with you being backwards in your thinking.

 

[bianco]

What famous motto is written on the front of the US Supreme Court Building

What famous motto is written on the front of the US Supreme Court Building?

In: US Supreme Court [Edit categories]
Answer:Equal Justice Under Law

___________________________________________________

What equal justice under law did the Christian photographers get?
Answer; none...couldn't even get a hearing.

So, what's the use even having the Supreme Court?
Answer; none.
Best to just close it down and turn it into a tourist attraction...a symbol of the past.

 

[Meister]

The government telling you how to run your business within the confines of law is not an erosion of freedoms. You cant be a business without the government letting you. Its not a right to run your business however you see fit. Have you ever owned a business? You have to follow some rules set in place by.....you guessed it. The government.

I dont see what you are concerned about. How is making more money a major concern and not a bonus to the bottom line?

The laws just keep mounting to running a business, but thanks for making my point about eroding freedoms and big government.
A person's personal choice???????
You're not a conservative so you wouldn't understand my concern.

Well what do you intend to do about it? You have 2 choices. Vote for laws that allow you to discriminate or cease owning a business. I dont think your concern has anything to do with you being a conservative. It has more to do with you being backwards in your thinking.

See it is a conservative thing that you just wouldn't understand. Don't try, you just wouldn't be able to grasp it.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Is the problem that the photographer didn't offer to substitute something else?

For example, if someone came to me to ask me to tailor a MAN'S suit, I would say no, I am not qualified. But I can sew you a woman's vest and skirt, because I am experienced in that.
So I am not refusing someone based on GENDER, but cannot deliver the service they ask which is different between a man and a woman's clothes.

To someone who doesn't see there is a difference, that sewing is sewing,
is that why they took it to be about them personally?

Could this be corrected by offering services that the person can provide professionally?

What if a photographer says no I cannot go and shoot your wedding because I would not do a good job with that. I would feel uncomfortable and out of place, and make your guests feel uneasy, which is the opposite of what a good photographer is supposed to do.

However, I could take photos in the studio of individual or couple portraits, or with your pet. I could take photos of your family if they come in for a group photo.

So the photographer is still offering to serve the person, but may not be able to serve the purpose they were looking for.

Is that where this case and others went wrong?

Why aren't people making a distinction between not providing *THAT service,* vs. refusing the PERSON because of orientation.

If you asked me to tutor you on a paper about your beliefs in Japanese Buddhism as opposed to American Buddhism or Christianity, I might refuse the topic if I am not qualified or "don't feel comfortable" with that subject. That doesn't mean I am discriminating against you by religion or denomination, it is based on what I can do or cannot do with equal professional standards.

What went wrong in these cases to make it where the discrimination was against the person for orientation, and wasn't about declining one service where something else could be offered instead?

Can't this be corrected without suing, fining or harassing each other?

 

[Asclepias]

What famous motto is written on the front of the US Supreme Court Building

What famous motto is written on the front of the US Supreme Court Building?

In: US Supreme Court [Edit categories]
Answer:Equal Justice Under Law ]/b]

___________________________________________________

What equal justice under law did the Christian photographers get?
Answer; none...couldn't even get a hearing.

So, what's the use even having the Supreme Court?
Answer; none.
Best to just close it down and turn it into a tourist attraction...a symbol of the past.

News flash. Its always been like that. You can only get as much justice as you can afford or someone has to do it for free.

 

[bianco]

Would Muslim photographers have gotten a hearing at the US Supreme Court?