SCOTUS won’t hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense eemergency contra[W;261]

Mr Person said:

Your argument is nonsense because it treats two completely different things as if they are the same thing. Reread point #3.

1. Although sexual orientation isn't a protected class under the federal constitution, it is under quite a lot of different state constitutions, state laws, local statutes. When a cake maker refuses to serve on a the basis of the customer's sexual orientation, which is exactly what's going on when they won't make a cake for gay people to eat after a wedding, they are discriminating on the basis of that customer's status as a member of a protected class. In contrast, persons wanting cakes that say "god hates fags" are not a protected class. The former is unlawful in many circumstances, the latter isn't, and your personal opinion about what the law should be is irrelevant.

2. Freedom of speech =/= freedom of religious exercise. You can't just mix and match because they happen to be in the same Amendment. They are different rights with different treatments in law.

3. The refusal to bake a cake that says "god hates fags" is based on the message on the cake. Because the cake baker isn't government, their refusal to bake the cake doesn't violate anyone's "right to free speech"; only a "state actor" can violate a person's right to free speech.

4. The bakers falsely claiming religious freedom do so on a series of fabrications: (a) that the cake is used in a religious ceremony. It's not. It's eaten after dinner at a non-religious reception. (b) that even if the cake were eaten before the altar, that would force the bakers to participate in the wedding. It doesn't. The shoes worn by the gay couple have not forced the shoe manufacturer to participate either. Similarly, neither are chair manufacturers, fork makers, amp producers, or the people who constructed the building in which the ceremony is held.

5. Your second mini-paragraph isn't an argument based on logic. It's based on personal opinion. You say you think discriminating on the basis of race is bad but discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is not. Therefore, you think one should be an exception to your personal opinion that businesses should be able to refuse service for any reason and the other is not. That's not a ****ing argument. That's just you saying things you think. Which is nice and all, but it doesn't make my post wrong, which is how you tried to use it.

6. Because of all this, the statement "If a business has no say, then it should be NO say." is legally and logically incoherent. You said it and you think it. But it has no basis in law or logic.



Your counter-argument is no argument at all. My points stand.

Click to expand...

mac6375 said:

Ah, again you show the ignorance of many. A wedding, is a celebration of a relationship. To many, it is only appropriate and acceptable as 1 man and 1 woman, and even providing a cake for it is violating Gods stance. Those who want the cake, have plenty of other options. Moreover, I'm curious when someone will sue a Muslim baker, because they aren't baking gay cakes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

VanceMack said:

Of course there is. Its firmly rooted in the first amendment. A pharmacy that holds religious opposition to abortion should not be forced to participate in abortions. The state law allows that where medications arent available a pharmacy must make referral. Justice Alito has pointed out that the pharmacy in question has ALWAYS dont that and no individual EVER has been denied access to an abortion because they choose to not stock and participate in abortions.

Click to expand...

Mr Person said:

Your argument is nonsense because it treats two completely different things as if they are the same thing. Reread point #3.

1. Although sexual orientation isn't a protected class under the federal constitution, it is under quite a lot of different state constitutions, state laws, local statutes. When a cake maker refuses to serve on a the basis of the customer's sexual orientation, which is exactly what's going on when they won't make a cake for gay people to eat after a wedding, they are discriminating on the basis of that customer's status as a member of a protected class. In contrast, persons wanting cakes that say "god hates fags" are not a protected class. The former is unlawful in many circumstances, the latter isn't, and your personal opinion about what the law should be is irrelevant.

2. Freedom of speech =/= freedom of religious exercise. You can't just mix and match because they happen to be in the same Amendment. They are different rights with different treatments in law.

3. The refusal to bake a cake that says "god hates fags" is based on the message on the cake. Because the cake baker isn't government, their refusal to bake the cake doesn't violate anyone's "right to free speech"; only a "state actor" can violate a person's right to free speech.

4. The bakers falsely claiming religious freedom do so on a series of fabrications: (a) that the cake is used in a religious ceremony. It's not. It's eaten after dinner at a non-religious reception. (b) that even if the cake were eaten before the altar, that would force the bakers to participate in the wedding. It doesn't. The shoes worn by the gay couple have not forced the shoe manufacturer to participate either. Similarly, neither are chair manufacturers, fork makers, amp producers, or the people who constructed the building in which the ceremony is held.

5. Your second mini-paragraph isn't an argument based on logic. It's based on personal opinion. You say you think discriminating on the basis of race is bad but discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is not. Therefore, you think one should be an exception to your personal opinion that businesses should be able to refuse service for any reason and the other is not. That's not a ****ing argument. That's just you saying things you think. Which is nice and all, but it doesn't make my post wrong, which is how you tried to use it.

6. Because of all this, the statement "If a business has no say, then it should be NO say." is legally and logically incoherent. You said it and you think it. But it has no basis in law or logic.



Your counter-argument is no argument at all. My points stand.

Click to expand...

mac6375 said:

Ah, again you show the ignorance of many. A wedding, is a celebration of a relationship. To many, it is only appropriate and acceptable as 1 man and 1 woman, and even providing a cake for it is violating Gods stance. Those who want the cake, have plenty of other options. Moreover, I'm curious when someone will sue a Muslim baker, because they aren't baking gay cakes.

Click to expand...