Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    Nothing you said had anything to do with what I said.
    Once again and try to focus: “Democracy requires minority rights be protected equally as it does with majority rule.” This includes the rights of all citizens to equal service in a ‘Public Accommodation’ (including cake-shops) as per the Civil Rights Act.

    Except in those cases it would be a matter of discriminating against persons, and not a matter of free speech. Something everyone here except you agrees with, and I have a feeling you're just trying to act like a contrarian.
    Nonsense, it is the same argument. A cake shop proprietor who holds religion based views against mixed marriage or Jews, is having his “free speech” curtailed by being obliged to make a wedding cake for such people. Just as, according to you, being forced to make a cake for a gay couple is an offence against "free speech". It’s not.

    Regarding the masterpiece-cake-shop reference this is the link you should have been after, not the rambling off-topic op-ed piece you offered.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/u...ay-couple.html

    This ruling was focused on the individual facts of this particular case, so it doesn’t set much of a precedent for future similar cases. Justice Kennedy strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights. So despite losing in this particular instance, LGBT advocates have avoided a ruling that could set a bad national standard for LGBT rights nationwide.

    In short, it was a one-off ruling.

    The rest of your post is off topic.
    “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.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      ... more japper about civil rights ...
      That still has nothing to do with what I said. "Comfortable would have nothing to do with it. Free Speech shouldn't make you feel comfortable." which was in response to what you said "So you would be comfortable with a baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a mixed-race couple"

      Free Speech, and the right to it, is not about being comfortable. That was my point. That you're trying to segway that into some other stuff you wanna rant about, doesn't matter. You're responding to something other than what I wrote. Can you even recall this discussion past your latest post? I'm honestly concerned for you Tassman.

      Nonsense, it is the same argument.
      It isn't. If you refuse to serve a couple because that couple is mixed-race, that would of course be discriminating on account of race. They can be served a wedding cake, same as the gays can. However if it comes to a matter of making a custom cake. Vis-a-vis that gay baker who refused to bake a custom cake for the Christian, because of the message. Then that's a matter of free speech.

      This ruling was focused on the individual facts of this particular case, so it doesn’t set much of a precedent for future similar cases.
      You keep affirming this as if I've ever been in disagreement with it. I just told you in the last post that we agreed that no precedence was set. Are you alright Tassman? You don't seem to be aware of anything past a single post you've responded to.

      The rest of your post is off topic.
      It was perfectly on topic, in fact you asked for links, as you apparently don't recall. I'll provide them again for your benefit. Including the quotations from you I were responding to, and some context that might jog your memory about what made you write that.

      Originally posted by Tassman
      Originally posted by Leonhard
      This has already been tested by a Christian who asked a gay baker to decorate a cake with the message "Marriage is between one man and one woman". The baker refused on conscientious grounds. The court let the case go in the bakers favor.

      Just like they should. This is exactly what we Christian wants to see happen.
      I'm not familiar with this example. Links please!
      https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/o...ding-cake.html

      Source: NYTimes

      One might better appreciate Phillips’s position by considering a second case. In 2014, not long after the commission announced its Masterpiece decision, William Jack attempted to buy a cake at Azucar Bakery in Denver, Colo. Specifically, he requested a Bible-shaped cake decorated with an image of two grooms covered by a red X, plus the words “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22.” The owner, Marjorie Silva, refused to create such an image or message, which conflicts with her moral beliefs. She did, however, offer to sell him a Bible-shaped cake and provide an icing bag so that he could decorate it as he saw fit. The customer filed a complaint alleging religious discrimination, which is also prohibited by Colorado’s public accommodations law. But the commission disagreed, arguing that Silva’s refusal was based not on the customer’s religion, but on the cake’s particular message.[/b]

      © Copyright Original Source



      Originally posted by Tassman
      Originally posted by Leonhard
      They can buy that, figurines on the side, etc...
      Why should they have to accept anything less than full service from the cake-shop as heterosexual couples would expect and as is required by the Civil Rights Act?
      Why should a t-shirt company refuse to design a t-shirt logo for you? How discriminating! Except, they do have that freedom, and the LGBTQ at large (with whom its clear from this discussion you have zero contact with), also agrees that Christians shouldn't be forced to print Pride Parade t-shirts.

      There's practically a one to one corespondance between that case and the baker case.

      https://www.onenewsnow.com/culture/2...y-pride-shirts

      Source: One New Now

      "No one should be forced to do something against what they believe in,” proclaimed Diane DiGerloromo, one of the lesbian owners of BMP T-Shirts. “If we were approached by an organization, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, I highly doubt we would be doing business with them, and we would be very angry if we were forced to print anti-gay T-shirts."

      © Copyright Original Source

      Last edited by Leonhard; 08-08-2018, 04:35 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        Yep, that's good enough for the likes of them.
        Well, gee, Tass - if it's "JUST A CAKE", what's the big deal? I really wish you would make up your mind on this.

        Gays surely don't expect to be treated as equally as "normal" people.
        They are being treated exactly the same as any other "normal" people who would come in and ask for a same-sex wedding cake. He doesn't do those. They can buy anything else in the store, or order any of the other custom cakes the guy does, and they'd be treated the same as everybody else.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
          Except? So you believe in the following statement "everyone agrees with or is comfortable with considering homosexuality a sin?" That's pretty much the only way your sentence can make sense as a retort to rogue06.
          Sarcasm Leonard, sarcasm! Of course I don't agree with that.
          You honestly believe that most people consider homosexuality a sin, or that if they do that its on a level where they don't want to support it? You really think that's reality in the US?
          Again, no I don't. My point was that apparently rogue believes that though there is no need to protect what everyone agrees with or is comfortable with, there is a need to protect what christians believe, and to protect them from what they are uncomfortable with.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Well, gee, Tass - if it's "JUST A CAKE", what's the big deal? I really wish you would make up your mind on this.



            They are being treated exactly the same as any other "normal" people who would come in and ask for a same-sex wedding cake. He doesn't do those. They can buy anything else in the store, or order any of the other custom cakes the guy does, and they'd be treated the same as everybody else.
            So then, if the christian baker doesn't believe in interacial marriage, intereligious marriage, or whatever he believes, would you make the same argument, i.e. that he is free to discriminate?
            Last edited by JimL; 08-08-2018, 09:00 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              Sorry...but I have already lost all respect for you....


              You had some to begin with?

              When my (now 21 year old) granddaughter was little, she LOVED Blue's Clues, and I watched it with her frequently just to watch her watching it. It's the old saying, "If I knew grandkids would be so much fun, I would have had them first!"
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Sarcasm Leonard, sarcasm!
                I guess, but I still don't see how it makes sense.

                My point was that apparently rogue believes that though there is no need to protect what everyone agrees with or is comfortable with, there is a need to protect what christians believe, and to protect them from what they are uncomfortable with.
                There is a need to protect Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jewish Communities, etc... all of these groups have religious beliefs and practices. They have a full right to express them in society.

                I also believe strongly that people shouldn't be forced to act against their conscience. This is allowed in Denmark for instance in the case of doctors who have to suggest abortion, even if they're against it. They are permitted to simply refer the person to someone else. This is what some of these Christian bakers, and the muslim bakers have done.

                There is no shortage of bakers who'll make a rainbow coloured cake with two same sex figurines on top and write any sort of congratulatory message. This has nothing to do with homosexual partners not having access to something like this. The cases and a lot of them were aggressively sought out, by gay people phoning up bakers they suspected were Christians. And have done the same with photographers and florists too.

                It has nothing to do with fairness or equality, because gay bakers have gotten away with denying requests from Christians 'based on the message', as I linked to to Tassman.

                It has everything to do with there being quite a few people in the LGBTQ community, not all, and I suspect not even the majority, who are bigoted towards Christians. They spot a chance to use the legal recognition of homosexual unions, as a billy club to hit Christians over the head with. I don't believe they should get it.

                In this matter I prefer freedom.

                You have a right not to express yourself JimL. If you run an ad company that designs logos, you're free to deny commissions based on the nature of the design. If you're a painter, likewise. If you're a novelist, you're free to deny commissions based on the nature of the work. No one can force you write a murder mystery. Same if you're an architect, you're free to refuse to design a church or a mosque. If you print t-shirts, you're free to deny printing t-shirts, merely based on the contents of the message of those t-shirts. If you run a website hosting service, you're free to deny providing hosting to various websites of various types. If you run a payment website like Paypal, or Verotel, or E-pay, etc... you're free to deny providing payment transfers depending on the platform's content.

                In none of these cases has this anything to do with protecting Paypal from pornography. Or protecting an atheist architect from religion. Or protecting a rape-victim novelist from writing a rape victim novel. It has everything to do with their freedom of speech.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  So then, if the christian baker doesn't believe in interacial marriage, intereligious marriage, or whatever he believes, would you make the same argument, i.e. that he is free to discriminate?
                  Of course. You think that's a huge gotcha? The guy is an anti-miscegenationist, let him be ridiculed in the media and lose business. However, as we said, he should still be willing to sell them a standard wedding cake, similar to what he's sold others, and sell the implements for decorating it on the side, just like the gay baker offered the Christian.

                  Comment


                  • As I have stated, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the CRA. Any case law on discrimination is based on other statutes, especially state statutes which do sometimes protect sexual orientation. Occasionally I know lawyers sometimes make "creative" arguments about "sex" in statutes like the CRA, but the CRA does not actively mention sexual orientation.

                    "Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
                    "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
                    Katniss Everdeen


                    Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      Of course. You think that's a huge gotcha? The guy is an anti-miscegenationist, let him be ridiculed in the media and lose business. However, as we said, he should still be willing to sell them a standard wedding cake, similar to what he's sold others, and sell the implements for decorating it on the side, just like the gay baker offered the Christian.
                      Yes, I think that is a big gotcha, because, no matter how you personally feel, we have laws against that sort of thing here in the U.S. According to your perspective, any business can discriminate against any individual based on their personal biases.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by thewriteranon View Post
                        As I have stated, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the CRA. Any case law on discrimination is based on other statutes, especially state statutes which do sometimes protect sexual orientation. Occasionally I know lawyers sometimes make "creative" arguments about "sex" in statutes like the CRA, but the CRA does not actively mention sexual orientation.
                        Sex and therefore sexual orientation is infered to be protected in the CRA irrespective of the DOJ's recent declaration to the contrary. It will probably have to be decided by a Supreme Court decision or an act of Congress making it explicit to the proponents of discrimination.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Sex and therefore sexual orientation is infered to be protected in the CRA irrespective of the DOJ's recent declaration to the contrary. It will probably have to be decided by a Supreme Court decision or an act of Congress making it explicit to the proponents of discrimination.
                          This is what I meant by creative lawyering. As written, sexual orientation is not protected and there is not uniformly authoritative case law on the matter, so unless you personally are litigating it, it is what it is.

                          "Fire is catching. If we burn, you burn with us!"
                          "I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay here and cause all kinds of trouble."
                          Katniss Everdeen


                          Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                            Yes, I think that is a big gotcha, because, no matter how you personally feel, we have laws against that sort of thing here in the U.S. According to your perspective, any business can discriminate against any individual based on their personal biases.
                            We're coming back to something I do have sympathy with JimL. The Civil Rights Acts, which by the way don't cover sexual orientation, but lets leave that be, was meant for ensuring that black people, women, etc... could have equal opportunity in employment and service.

                            Your argument, and the argument of others has been that making and decorating a cake is not a custom message, but just a service. You don't believe a custom cake is art. Its just shake and bake more or less. I believe that's not fully decided yet. But I do have sympathy for the task at hand of the Supreme Court who at one hand have to respect the religious freedom of people, and on the other hand have to protect the right for service. The decision they make should preferably try to preserve as much of both as possible.

                            I'd say a ruling that allows a baker to serve a standard wedding cake, one he has in a catalogue, to all and reserve rights of refusal for custom works, to be entirely adequate. This would hurt no one.

                            I mean it really wouldn't JimL. No one would get hurt. There is no lack of wedding cakes at gay weddings, and I don't imagine there ever would be in the future. Neither in mixed marriages, or marriage for divorcees, or polyamorous unions, or whatever. People at restaurants would still be served food, as long as the items were on the menu. Caterings would still serve equally, as long as they had catalogues to choose from.

                            And I agree with those in the LGBTQ, and I know several, who would be just fine with that arrangement. I would be as well. It would be a compromise, and while I can't be sure I think its where the Supreme Court is heading in terms of decisions.

                            It would be a compromise decision. It would have required the Colorado baker to have baked at least a normal wedding cake, and sold the implements on the side. Just like the Gay baker did. The cases are practically equivalent, except the gay baker discriminated against a protected group, and the Colorado baker didn't. Only special pleading separates the two. The gay baker defended that she would have served, and did serve, many other cakes to Christians. The Colorado baker said and had done the same towards homosexuals. I agree with the decision in the gay baker case, and I hope the Supreme Court in the US makes a decision that allows a freedom like that to be applied more universally.

                            The only people a decision like that would anger are people like you who want to see Christians punished for having beliefs, and saying things you don't like. But then its what we've said. This is not about fairness, or civil rights, its just about hurting Christians. Have fun seeking out the Hasidic Jewish Bakers, the Muslim Halal Bakers, etc... Oh wait, you aren't.
                            Last edited by Leonhard; 08-08-2018, 10:21 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              You had some to begin with?
                              Actually, if truth be told, I have a fair amount of respect for you. I don't agree with many of your political views, and I certainly don't share your religious views, but I generally have the impression of a good person.

                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              When my (now 21 year old) granddaughter was little, she LOVED Blue's Clues, and I watched it with her frequently just to watch her watching it. It's the old saying, "If I knew grandkids would be so much fun, I would have had them first!"
                              I can wait for my grand kids. Ideally, they will come AFTER my children move out!
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Actually, if truth be told, I have a fair amount of respect for you. I don't agree with many of your political views, and I certainly don't share your religious views, but I generally have the impression of a good person.
                                Backatcha

                                I can wait for my grand kids. Ideally, they will come AFTER my children move out!
                                Again, the wise old Jewish Rabbi: "Life begins when the kids move out and the dog dies".
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                285 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X