SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[seer]

And, as for the violation of constitutional protections at Californian crisis pregnancy centres what about the constitutional protection of women legally wanting abortions?

How are the crisis pregnancy centers preventing anyone from getting an abortion?

[oxmixmudd]

Baking a cake is not conveying any message at all. It’s just doing what bakers do, i.e. bake cakes. And, as for the violation of constitutional protections at Californian crisis pregnancy centres what about the constitutional protection of women legally wanting abortions?

!You only convey your ignorance of the specifics of this shop's buisiness, the arts, and your own lack of empathy for those with deep religious faith when you make statements like this.

Jim

[seer]

!You only convey your ignorance of the specifics of this shop's buisiness, the arts, and your own lack of empathy for anyone not like you when you make statements like this.

Jim

It seems that the only rights Tass supports are those that don't include a religion.

[oxmixmudd]

... And, as for the violation of constitutional protections at Californian crisis pregnancy centres what about the constitutional protection of women legally wanting abortions?

Didn't mean to leave off the second half.

Again - there are two issues. (1) What a person can legally do, (2) What a person is legally required to do to support, aid, inform another person about what is available when what is available is a violation of their conscience.

You give no place to belief or conscience in those whose beliefs or conscience is not your own. Which is in reality quite intolerant and disrespectful of you.

The reality is, a religious organization or institution is not required to inform others as to what resources exist which will enable them to commit what they regard as sin. In fact, an organization such as a religiously run pregnancy life care exists for the sole purpose of helping a young girl in a difficult situation carry a baby to term so the baby lives and is not killed. So the mother does not have to deal with the guilt of having killed their baby, so the young mother feels she has an alternative to killing the baby. To require them to hand out information on how to kill the unborn baby is insane. That is 100% contrary to their purpose, conscience and beliefs.



Jim

[Teallaura]

I think that's a nonsensical argument Tea, a loophole you might say. Sometimes we have to use common sense, everything isn't spelled out for us in law, that's why we have the courts.

No, Jim, the basis for US law is the premise that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land - NOT the courts or Court. It's ultimately the Constitution that matters, not the courts. The courts do determine (or try to) what actually is or is not constitutional - and also whether or not it is or isn't within a given statute when the Constitutionality is not at issue. BUT that isn't what you just described - you are ascribing legislation - the Congressional power - to the judiciary - that is absolutely NOT the case.

This constitutional form is why we even discuss what is or is not constitutional - because the Constitution is the final arbiter of what is and is not legal in the US.

Courts and the Court do get it wrong - see Plessy v Ferguson, Dred Scott, and a host of other really STUPID decisions that have later been overturned.



Er, I'm gonna leave that up there but it occurs to me you might have been arguing about access v treatment. If so, you're just mistaken - that one's already been in the courts for ages and the courts do make the distinction between access and treatment as I described. Equality of access is what is guaranteed by the CRA, not equality of treatment. It's not mere semantics - there is a definite difference. The point is having access to service - not having to get exactly the same service.

[Teallaura]

No I don't agree, I think that's ridiculous. Opposing gay marriage does not define a person, so the gay baker would not be discriminating against the person, he would be refusing to engage in that persons hate speech against gay persons.

The Court just said you're wrong here - and (bearing in mind I only perused them) I saw nothing in the dissents that would agree with this logic either.

[Teallaura]

As far as I recall the SC ruled that Colorado acted with bias in its ruling against the baker, they never really ruled on the case itself. So, I don't know where you are getting the idea that Colorado was allowing gay bakers to discriminate, or that that had anything to do with the SC ruling.

Reading the decision, the Court specifically cited the Colorado Commission's decisions on gay bakers denying service to anti-gay marriage proponents which upheld those denials of service as a blatant double standard - which was why they lost on that point (FYI: three issues were in the decision and Colorado only lost on that one). So the Court DID rule on the point I was addressing - the necessity of even handed treatment such that if bakers can't deny on religious grounds, they can't deny on any other creedal grounds, either (yes, since this relates to speech either way creed, not orientation, is at issue - orientation wouldn't be grounds either but that would be a nonsensical way to argue it).

FYI: If the Court found the way you are arguing, Jewish bakers couldn't deny swastika cupcakes to skinheads either. NO creed or protected class (race, gender et al) would be able to refuse service on the grounds of conscience or sensibility. That's not just me - that's how most of the decision and concurrences read.

[Teallaura]

Just an FYI since the case was mentioned. Abortion clinics are legally required to provide information about alternatives (adoption, keeping the child, resources) whereas the Court found that California could not make the same requirement of crisis pregnancy centers. At first glance, it appears a double standard - which was what California argued. BUT there's a huge difference - a client walks out of a crisis pregnancy centers with the full ability to change her mind; an abortion is permanent and cannot be undone. The issue with abortion centers is INFORMED CONSENT to a medical procedure - that issue is not present at all with a crisis pregnancy center since delivery does not occur onsite.

[NorrinRadd]

Just an FYI since the case was mentioned. Abortion clinics are legally required to provide information about alternatives (adoption, keeping the child, resources) whereas the Court found that California could not make the same requirement of crisis pregnancy centers. At first glance, it appears a double standard - which was what California argued. BUT there's a huge difference - a client walks out of a crisis pregnancy centers with the full ability to change her mind; an abortion is permanent and cannot be undone. The issue with abortion centers is INFORMED CONSENT to a medical procedure - that issue is not present at all with a crisis pregnancy center since delivery does not occur onsite.

About the "double-standard" aspect -- If "abortion clinics" were opposed to providing info about alternatives, it would show that that side is really not about "choice," but only about aborting. If that is not the case -- if they really are about "choice" -- it is not a double standard, because it is a comparison of apples and oranges; one side is (supposedly) about "choosing," while the other is strictly about preserving life.

[Tassman]

Didn't mean to leave off the second half.

Again - there are two issues. (1) What a person can legally do, (2) What a person is legally required to do to support, aid, inform another person about what is available when what is available is a violation of their conscience.

You give no place to belief or conscience in those whose beliefs or conscience is not your own. Which is in reality quite intolerant and disrespectful of you.

The reality is, a religious organization or institution is not required to inform others as to what resources exist which will enable them to commit what they regard as sin.

Look to yourself. What some people regard as a “sin” is their business and not to be imposed upon those who think differently. You attack me for not giving a “place to belief or conscience in those whose beliefs or conscience is not your own” but you are doing precisely that.

In fact, an organization such as a religiously run pregnancy life care exists for the sole purpose of helping a young girl in a difficult situation carry a baby to term so the baby lives and is not killed. So the mother does not have to deal with the guilt of having killed their baby, so the young mother feels she has an alternative to killing the baby. To require them to hand out information on how to kill the unborn baby is insane. That is 100% contrary to their purpose, conscience and beliefs

Nonsense! As usual you are claiming special privileges for the beliefs and rights of Evangelicals, whilst completely disregarding the beliefs and rights of those who disagree with you. The demonstrable fact is that many (in fact the majority) think differently to you in good conscience and, warrant non-judgemental assistance.

[oxmixmudd]

Look to yourself. What some people regard as a “sin” is their business and not to be imposed upon those who think differently. You attack me for not giving a “place to belief or conscience in those whose beliefs or conscience is not your own” but you are doing precisely that.

What you fail to comprehend is that I'm not demanding someone else live according to my personal standard of what is sin in specific(but that is something you do rather frequently). What I'm demanding is the right of a person of a particular (legitimate) religious faith to live THEIR OWN lives according to THEIR OWN standard of what is sin. Over and over again you demand others abandon their own morals to service your own. Yet you are blind to the blatant hypocrisy and intolerance of that position! When you demand a person who believes abortion is murder to give to someone information on how to commit that murder, you demand they abandon their moral beliefs for the sake of your own. You demand that from their perspective, they 'aid and abet' a murder. And your complete lack of empathy will cause you to not even so much as pause to think about what it is you are demanding!

Nonsense! As usual you are claiming special privileges for the beliefs and rights of Evangelicals, whilst completely disregarding the beliefs and rights of those who disagree with you. The demonstrable fact is that many (in fact the majority) think differently to you in good conscience and, warrant non-judgemental assistance.

No I'm not. The 'special privileges' you keep clamoring about are a REQUIREMENT of the constitution.

"The government shall make no low RESTRICTING the free exercise thereof".

If you force someone to do something AGAINST their religious beliefs, you are RESTRICTING the free exercise thereof. Therefore any law that FORCES a person to violate their religious beliefs is RESTRICTING the free exercise thereof. You and those like you regard that as an unnecessary burden, but only because you simply do not comprehend what our constitution says, what it demands in terms of creating an environment where people are free to live according to any religion that chose to follow. That same freedom is what allows you to be an atheist with no repercussions, but because of your lack of comprehension of the responsibility that freedom requires of you, you are willing to demand that same freedom not be extended to those who do not hold your particular persuasion.

The constitution literally demands that no such law even be created (shall make no law ...). However, one common way or relaxing that is to create the law, but then grant the EXCEPTION for those whose free EXERCISE of religion is violated by it. These 'special privileges' as you call them are therefore a REQUIREMENT of the constitution. However, you could avoid the problem altogether if you and people like you would stop making laws that by their very nature create a constitutional demand for an exception for people of religious faith!

[Teallaura]

About the "double-standard" aspect -- If "abortion clinics" were opposed to providing info about alternatives, it would show that that side is really not about "choice," but only about aborting. If that is not the case -- if they really are about "choice" -- it is not a double standard, because it is a comparison of apples and oranges; one side is (supposedly) about "choosing," while the other is strictly about preserving life.

I concede for the most part with the caveat that that logic isn't the logic involved in the actual law.

[seer]

Look to yourself. What some people regard as a “sin” is their business and not to be imposed upon those who think differently. You attack me for not giving a “place to belief or conscience in those whose beliefs or conscience is not your own” but you are doing precisely that.

Again Tass, how are the crisis pregnancy centers preventing anyone from getting an abortion? Why should the state force them to made abortion referrals?

[mossrose]

Nonsense! As usual you are claiming special privileges for the beliefs and rights of Evangelicals, whilst completely disregarding the beliefs and rights of those who disagree with you. The demonstrable fact is that many (in fact the majority) think differently to you in good conscience and, warrant non-judgemental assistance.

A woman wanting an abortion has lots of choice regarding places she can go to get one. Just as a homosexual has lots of choice regarding places to go to get a cake.

Why force those who disagree with those things to change for the sake of cultural expediency?

Of course I know your answer. "Because! Their rights supercede the rights of Christians in every area!"

Pure bull poop.

[seer]

I'm sure the ACLU will be all over this...

A Republican congressional candidate who’s a self-described “adamant supporter” of President Donald Trump said a country club canceled her fundraiser due to her “political views.”

Lena Epstein — who’s running for the Michigan’s 11th congressional district which will be open after GOP Rep. Dave Trott’s retirement— said in a statement that the board of directors of Franklin Hills Country Club nixed the event scheduled for Wednesday after it had been planned for over a month.

Epstein also said her family has been members of the club “for generations” and that she had been “fully compliant with Franklin Hills rules” in connection with the fundraiser.

“That’s why it was so unsettling to hear by those who cancelled the event, the decision was made because they disagreed with my political views,” Epstein’s statement continued. “I have no qualms in admitting I was an adamant supporter of Donald Trump in 2016. I did everything I could to help elect him, and give him the opportunity to go to Washington, D.C., to drain the swamp and implement his America First policies.


“Today, I still strongly support our President, and couldn’t be more proud that he is keeping his campaign promises. Although I’ve never been bashful about my support of President Trump, I have never shamed others for disagreeing with me.”

A double standard?

Epstein also said that one month ago the club hosted a fundraiser for Suneel Gupta — the Democrat also running for the 11th congressional district seat. He’s the brother of CNN’s Sanjay Gupta, she added.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/0...olitical-views