Page 83 of 123 FirstFirst ... 3373818283848593 ... LastLast
Results 821 to 830 of 1224

Thread: SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

  1. #821
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,889
    Amen (Given)
    1130
    Amen (Received)
    4170
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    While one can perhaps make that argument of some subsequent legislation, I don't see that as the case in that portion of the Civil Rights Act. Similar laws had been in place for a long time on the state level without anyone ever finding them unconstitutional; the only question was whether the federal government could enact such rules, which was justified under the Commerce Clause.
    How is forcing one man to serve another man Constitutional? Or forcing a man to violate his deeply held religions beliefs? Or ripping away the ideal of free association, just because a man hangs his shingle out? Where in our history were these things considered acceptable? Where is the previous case law? It undermines personal freedom at the most basic level.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  2. #822
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    42,646
    Amen (Given)
    9212
    Amen (Received)
    21105
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    There are many passages that have been used to justify anti-miscegenation laws,
    Give me 10.

    1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

  3. #823
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,320
    Amen (Given)
    155
    Amen (Received)
    459
    Quote Originally Posted by Terraceth View Post
    Except you're shifting things. You keep talking about how they "magically" turned private businesses into public accommodations, but public accommodations was really just a term of convenience for describing a particular type of business. It's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether any regulations placed on them are constitutional. Ultimately, it's a simple case of "businesses that fulfill X criteria are required to do Y" which is fairly standard for laws; the things that are put into X and Y can make something constitutional or unconstitutional, but simply saying that there's something in X turns private businesses into something else makes no sense. You're continually appealing to something that's thoroughly irrelevant rather than making your more substantive (although, in my view, still wrong) argument that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to enact Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States was therefore decided in error.
    It may be simply an term of convenience. But choice of terms can affect how people think about things. It perhaps makes the statute more palatable because it's thought that it's okay for governments to control "public" things. The average person might think a private individual has the right to withhold consent, but maybe not a "public accommodation", even though the latter is just a term of convenience that often refers to the former. The term may have been chosen strategically to have a certain effect on the hearer. Or perhaps it reveals a certain way of thinking of those who drafted the statute.

    Consider a statute that defines every sexually promiscuous person as a "public accommodation", and declares that every such person must submit to sex with anyone who asks. It may be the case that the term is applied as a mere term of convenience, and that only the "are required to do Y" part is objectionable. But it seems like there would be something objectionable in the term itself. It has a connotation, saying something about the person that isn't true. E.g. the term seems to (falsely) imply that the person, rather than having consented to a (perhaps large) number of particulars on a case-by-case basis, has consented to sex with everyone in general.

  4. Amen seer amen'd this post.
  5. #824
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,255
    Amen (Given)
    162
    Amen (Received)
    514
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    How is forcing one man to serve another man Constitutional?
    Is this an attempt to invoke the Thirteenth Amendment? From the viewpoint of textualism, originalism, or legislative intent I think that's a dead end, but as arguing as such would be lengthy, let's just stick with legal history. As noted, laws of the "restaurants/motels/etc. cannot refuse service to a customer on the basis of their race" variety were around on the state level long before the Civil Rights Act of 1967 was ever held, with no one (to my knowledge) ever finding them to be unconstitutional under anything, including the Thirteenth Amendment. Indeed, in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), which ironically struck down a law similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (although for reasons not applicable to said act), the following is stated in the opinion:

    "Innkeepers and public carriers, by the laws of all the States, so far as we are aware, are bound, to the extent of their facilities, to furnish proper accommodation to all unobjectionable persons who in good faith apply for them."

    This is stated approvingly, therefore giving implicit affirmation that such state laws are not in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment or any part of the constitution (though as this occurs in a discussion regarding the Thirteenth Amendment, there is especially no reason to not call out such laws as a violation if they were regarded as such). Even if we simply take the statement on its face, divorced from context, the fact that "all the States" were believed to have such laws indicates that they were not thought to be in contradiction to the Thirteenth Amendment, or any part of the constitution. Granted, said laws often didn't specify that one couldn't discriminate on the basis of race, which was not infrequently done, but the general requirement of serving qualified customers is there.

    Perhaps there is some court decision indicating otherwise, in either the Supreme Court or some notable lower court, but if so I haven't run across it.

    Or forcing a man to violate his deeply held religions beliefs?
    What deeply held religious beliefs were at stake in Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States?

    Or ripping away the ideal of free association, just because a man hangs his shingle out?
    Not a right explicitly given in the Constitution, and instead has largely been inferred through the First Amendment via its protection of speech and assembly. The requirement of a motel to serve people regardless of their race is not a violation of either.

    Where in our history were these things considered acceptable?
    The entire history, actually, as I have shown. Even more so prior to the Civil War, when slavery (actual slavery) was around.

    Where is the previous case law?
    If you read the opinion in Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States, the previous case law is laid out quite clearly.

  6. #825
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,210
    Amen (Given)
    2238
    Amen (Received)
    1542
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    I know that homosexuality is clearly defined as sin in scripture as we recently discussed, where exactly is the law of God against interracial marriage?
    The demonstrable fact is that, unlike Evangelicals, there are many Christians who give a different (more contextual) interpretation of the Pauline passages on homosexuality and regard it as a normal and acceptable variation of human sexuality.

    Similarly, prior to 1967, anti-miscegenation laws were claimed to be bible-based and were part of American law for several centuries. No doubt, if the cake shop situation occurred back then, the baker could also cite free exercise of religion and "deeply held beliefs" for refusing to make a wedding cake for a racially mixed marriage. Would he be right to do so?

    Whether these interpretations of scripture are right or wrong in Christian eyes is not my problem, especially when Christians themselves can’t agree on them.

    Because it violates the Baker's free exercise of religion. You know, the Constitution thing.
    The baker is free to exercise his religion, he is not free to violate the freedoms of other citizens in doing so. All citizens have equal rights under the Constitution.
    Last edited by Tassman; 07-11-2018 at 05:44 AM.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  7. #826
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,639
    Amen (Given)
    874
    Amen (Received)
    2589
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Give me 10.
    Ooooh a morning Bible challenge? I'm up for it.

    Or is that 'drop and give me 10'

    From our perspective anti-miscegationist Christians 'read the Bible like the devil does' (as my grandfather would put it), but these are the kinds of verses typically used. Their application today are rather dodgy, none of these tribes exist in any recognisable form now, and I think at best you can wring a warning out of them against marrying a person of a foreign religion. Also lets not forget that Moses was in a mixed marriage and God wasn't exactly pleased when Aaron and Miriam criticised that marriage.

    Genesis 9:25: "Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers."

    Genesis 9:26: "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant."

    Genesis 24:2-3: "Put your hand under my thigh, that I may make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell"

    Genesis 28:1: "So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him. Then he commanded him: “Do not marry a Canaanite woman."

    Exodus 34:12: "Take care, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you go, lest it become a snare in your midst."

    Deurotonomy 7:2-3: "You shall make no covenant with them and show no mercy to them. 3 You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,"

    We see a case of a man about to marry a woman who worships Baal, and she is executed at which point God lifts a plague from the Hebrews.

    Numbers 25:5-8 "So Moses said to IsraelÂ’s judges, 'Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.' Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8 and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the womanÂ’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped;"

    In Joshua we get a warning for Israel not to intermarry other tribes around them, with God warning Israel that he won't deliver them from their enemies if they do so.

    Joshua 23:12-13 "But if you turn away and ally yourselves with the survivors of these nations that remain among you and if you intermarry with them and associate with them, then you may be sure that the Lord your God will no longer drive out these nations before you."

    And similarly in Judges

    Judges 3:6-7: "The Israelites lived among the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. They took their daughters in marriage and gave their own daughters to their sons, and served their gods."

    In both of these cases its very obvious to me, and I imagine to everyone here, and almost any sane Christian save for a few weirdo fringe groups that this was about Israel avoiding syncretism, and mixing of faiths.

    Much more scarcely do you get quotes from the New Testament but there are a few instances of warnings against marrying into groups with foreign faiths. Again its a stretch to apply, and you have have ignore very explicit texts in other letters, but hey there's a reason anti-miscegenation fell out of favor among Christians.

    2 Corinthians 6: 14: "do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers."


    Sorry for not being around so much these days. I've got a full-time job and I'm busy. Also posting here late at night was doing a number on my sleep.
    Last edited by Leonhard; 07-11-2018 at 07:45 AM.

  8. #827
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,639
    Amen (Given)
    874
    Amen (Received)
    2589
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    The demonstrable fact is that, unlike Evangelicals, there are many Christians who give a different (more contextual) interpretation of the Pauline passages on homosexuality and regard it as a normal and acceptable variation of human sexuality.
    No one on this forum would want it more to be true than for homosexuality to be even only merely frowned upon in the Bible, but it is very explicit. There's just no way of approaching the Bible humbly from my perspective, actually trying to understand it from its own setting, and come away believing that homosexuality is approved.

    At best you can make a case that men can be very intimate friends when you read about David and Jonathan, but even if those verses on their own were highly ambiguous, when put together in context with the rest of the Bible...

    Similarly, prior to 1967, anti-miscegenation laws were claimed to be bible-based and were part of American law for several centuries.
    Anything can be 'bible-based' if someone quotes texts in their favour. However the anti-miscegenation Christians had to stretch their readings quite a bit. And mistakes don't become right just for being popular, or for being old.

    Whether these interpretations of scripture are right or wrong in Christian eyes is not my problem, especially when Christians themselves can’t agree on them.
    Its possible to find racists today. No problem. But the majority of Christians certainly don't hold that view. A uniform view is not essential. If that was the case we could dismiss the feminists for not being able to agree on almost anything.

    The baker is free to exercise his religion, he is not free to violate the freedoms of other citizens in doing so.
    No freedom was violated.

  9. Amen Cow Poke, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  10. #828
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,889
    Amen (Given)
    1130
    Amen (Received)
    4170
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    Ooooh a morning Bible challenge? I'm up for it.

    Or is that 'drop and give me 10'

    From our perspective anti-miscegationist Christians 'read the Bible like the devil does' (as my grandfather would put it), but these are the kinds of verses typically used. Their application today are rather dodgy, none of these tribes exist in any recognisable form now, and I think at best you can wring a warning out of them against marrying a person of a foreign religion. Also lets not forget that Moses was in a mixed marriage and God wasn't exactly pleased when Aaron and Miriam criticised that marriage.
    Good to see you again Leonhard, and you are correct these are not prohibitions against interracial marriage, but against marrying an idol worshiper.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  11. Amen Cow Poke, RumTumTugger amen'd this post.
  12. #829
    Professor Cerebrum123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,155
    Amen (Given)
    17078
    Amen (Received)
    3374
    Leonhard.

  13. #830
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    20,889
    Amen (Given)
    1130
    Amen (Received)
    4170
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    The demonstrable fact is that, unlike Evangelicals, there are many Christians who give a different (more contextual) interpretation of the Pauline passages on homosexuality and regard it as a normal and acceptable variation of human sexuality.
    Tass, I recently quote all the texts, and I have no idea what you mean by more contextual, I am reading them in context. They can not get the idea that homosexuality is normal and acceptable from Scripture - period. Again, they are not interpreting the texts, they, in the end, reject the texts. Believe me I know, I spent two years in a liberal Church discussing these very issues.


    The baker is free to exercise his religion, he is not free to violate the freedoms of other citizens in doing so. All citizens have equal rights under the Constitution.
    What are you taking about? I do not violate another man's freedom by not baking him a cake - that is just stupid. But he violates mine if he forces me by law to bake that cake.
    Last edited by seer; 07-11-2018 at 12:23 PM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  14. Amen RumTumTugger amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •