• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court tosses ruling against bakers who refused cake for gay couple

dixon01767 said:
Nope, just highlighting the absurdity of your argument.
Click to expand...

So new business regulation laws don't and shouldn't apply to people who had a business before the new regulation?

Don't they have to renew their license periodically, and reaffirm they will comply with the current laws as part of that?

I don't really see this as a compelling argument that makes it OK for them to disregard the law.
 
WillyPete said:
Not sure how I'm bugging you so much. I don't mean "faithful folk" as a pejorative, and my harshest phrase in our conversation so far was "religious bigots," which I only intended as a subgroup of religious folks. There are plenty of non-bigoted people of faith, in spite of the darker chapters of religious history.

There's also plenty of religious based bigotry to be found. I think our bakers are likely an example.

Does bigotry somehow deserve a pass because it was inspired by religion? I don't see why.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, I'm not bugged by anything someone posts here - people are entitled to their views, whether I agree with them or not. You've posted nothing in response to my comments that I would take personally, since I'm not religious and all your language that I find contemptuous is language related to those who are religious.

To me, this is a matter of perception - you perceive the reaction of the bakers as being bigoted, I don't - I perceive your characterization of the bakers as bigoted, you don't. All the more reason why religion and free speech are areas where the government shouldn't tread, such as they attempted to do in this matter.
 
Carjosse said:
Your religion is only your personal business, it should not come into the public sphere or affect others, which this does. Quebec has a principle that if you provide a good or service to the general public you cannot discriminate based on a protected class like race or sexual orientation. I agree with that, if you are serving the public, you need to serve the public, they chose to serve the general public.
Click to expand...

Sorry we have a constitution here that disagrees with you.
 
Carjosse said:
If they offer the creation of wedding cakes to the general public then they have no excuse for discrimination. There is no difference between a wedding cake and a gay wedding cake.
Click to expand...

actually there is. you cannot force them to support something that they do not believe in. they do not support gay marriage and forcing them to do so
is a violation of their religious beliefs.

it is also a violation of their 1st amendment right to speech and artistic design.

we already had a case on this. the lower courts are refusing to follow the SCOTUS ruling which is why this
ruling against them was thrown out.
 
ludin said:
actually there is. you cannot force them to support something that they do not believe in. they do not support gay marriage and forcing them to do so
is a violation of their religious beliefs.

it is also a violation of their 1st amendment right to speech and artistic design.

we already had a case on this. the lower courts are refusing to follow the SCOTUS ruling which is why this
ruling against them was thrown out.
Click to expand...

If bigotry is something their God demands from them, that proves their God to be an imaginary manifestation of petty, ignorant, human hatred, nothing more. No higher intelligence would desire to be worshiped by Republican imbesiles.

I wonder if the SCOTUS and repubs have any clue about the way they are making their Jebus obsolete and little more than the weird little logo used to sell toxic christianity to morons. Jesus is now the Pilsbury Doughboy of hate. They might as well show a hooded figure on the cross. It's more accurate.
 
D_NATURED said:
If bigotry is something their God demands from them, that proves their God to be an imaginary manifestation of petty, ignorant, human hatred, nothing more. No higher intelligence would desire to be worshiped by Republican imbesiles.
Click to expand...

Religious bigotry is bigotry as well so if you are so against bigotry why do you support religious bigotry?
hmmm? Actually God calls us to love. that doesn't mean that people have to support everything that someone
else agrees with or does. nor is it bigotry to not want to participate in such activities.

also people need to learn definition of words. The definition of bigotry:
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

so what you are displaying is bigotry. why are you so bigoted when you are supposed to be against it?

I wonder if the SCOTUS and repubs have any clue about the way they are making their Jebus obsolete and little more than the weird little logo used to sell toxic christianity to morons. Jesus is now the Pilsbury Doughboy of hate. They might as well show a hooded figure on the cross. It's more accurate.
Click to expand...

Not really but do you believe people should be force to participate in things that they do not believe in?
be careful how you answer this question because it is going bite you one way or the other.

again displaying bigotry is a bit hypocritical.
 
WillyPete said:
Your example is far more extreme than anything I've heard about this case.
Click to expand...

Eh, I think it's just that you find it more evocative (and it is evocative).

The point is that I think you were running with an incorrect definition: it wasn't service being refused, but a particular message.

I'm no lawyer, so we'll see how it plays out, but AFAIK they refused service immediately upon hearing it was for a same-sex wedding, which seems to violate the public accommodation law.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't, but, as pointed out to you, they tried to offer the couple a plain cake instead, and the couple insisted on the message. They didn't refuse to serve gays, and, in fact, had served that couple before with no issue; they merely could not, in good conscience, take part in celebrating their wedding.

Furthermore, public accommodation laws were put in place to deal with systematic discrimination that denied entire industry/services to entire groups of people. That is obviously not the case here. The idea that there is a one for one comparison between blacks not being able to stay in hotels and a gay couple having to go with their second choice of baker is, I think, untenable.

My sticking point is that they agreed to abide by these rules when they opened a business to the public. There are numerous options to avoid this law applying to their business. There's no reason I see why they should get a pass.
Click to expand...

Sure, and the more you (generically 'you'; the left) try to bully Christians to adopt your morality in the public square, the more likely it becomes that Trump wins a second term. Incidents like Memories Pizza were huge for him last time around.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
WillyPete said:
That rationalization didn't help in state court last time around. Maybe it will this time?

Seems thin to me. They probably wouldn't serve Bigfoot, either.
Click to expand...
State Court was found to be operating under anti-Christian Animus, IIRC, so, I'm not sure that the fact that they didn't accept the argument is a mark against it.

The point remains valid: this isn't a question of discrimination, but of compelled speech.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
No, it wouldn't, but, as pointed out to you, they tried to offer the couple a plain cake instead, and the couple insisted on the message. They didn't refuse to serve gays, and, in fact, had served that couple before with no issue; they merely could not, in good conscience, take part in celebrating their wedding.

Furthermore, public accommodation laws were put in place to deal with systematic discrimination that denied entire industry/services to entire groups of people. That is obviously not the case here. The idea that there is a one for one comparison between blacks not being able to stay in hotels and a gay couple having to go with their second choice of baker is, I think, untenable.
Click to expand...

I'm not the making that comparison, though. My position is much simpler, and it is that a business needs to comply with the law. If the law hadn't been enforced when black folks were being oppressed, it would still be going on. Just because oppression of homosexuals may seem less odious to you or me doesn't make it so. I don't have a problem if they want to change the law, they are welcome to fight it out in court, but they don't get to ignore it while it's on the books. They don't get to talk themselves out of the consequences.

Sure, and the more you (generically 'you'; the left) try to bully Christians to adopt your morality in the public square, the more likely it becomes that Trump wins a second term. Incidents like Memories Pizza were huge for him last time around.
Click to expand...

They don't have to do anything except abide by the law. If they can't they have no place running a business open to the public in that area. It's not forcing belief or bullying to set standards for businesses.

Goodness knows a second Trump term is going to be "our" fault one way or another.
 
WillyPete said:
The counter view is that when you offer custom cake services to the public, public accommodation law applies.

And who is supposed to complain, if not the couple that was slighted?

The state is only insisting they abide by the laws that apply to their business. If they aren't compatible with their beliefs that's fine, they just can't run a business in that area, or they can restructure a bit so the law doesn't apply to them.

They do not get to ignore the law.

So far, the courts have supported that position. Time will tell if they can turn it around, but I'm guessing they get their fine reduced or removed, at most.
Click to expand...

State law does not supersede the US Constitution. No business can be forced to provide a service, law or no law. That is called "involuntary servitude" and specifically prohibited under the Thirteenth Amendment. The State of Oregon violated the constitutionally protected rights of the baker, exactly like the State of Colorado, and that is why the Supreme Court referred it back to the lower court.
 
cpwill said:
State Court was found to be operating under anti-Christian Animus, IIRC, so, I'm not sure that the fact that they didn't accept the argument is a mark against it.

The point remains valid: this isn't a question of discrimination, but of compelled speech.
Click to expand...

Time will tell. Shame on the state court people for their behavior, and for allowing it to extend this dispute.

I don't know of any reason to expect a different result the next go round, unless the animus extended to just making things up.
 
Glitch said:
State law does not supersede the US Constitution. No business can be forced to provide a service, law or no law. That is called "involuntary servitude" and specifically prohibited under the Thirteenth Amendment. The State of Oregon violated the constitutionally protected rights of the baker, exactly like the State of Colorado, and that is why the Supreme Court referred it back to the lower court.
Click to expand...

Then why hasn't public accommodation law been struck down previously by SCOTUS as unconstitutional? It's not a new idea.

By your logic, it's just as unconstitutional to prohibit discrimination against women, or black folk, or the handicapped, and yet those laws have been on the books for decades in many places.

For example: Why would a business go to the expense of outfitting their store with handicap ramps, wheelchair accessible restrooms, and such if they could just decide not to serve them instead?
 
WillyPete said:
Then why hasn't public accommodation law been struck down previously by SCOTUS as unconstitutional? It's not a new idea.

By your logic, it's just as unconstitutional to prohibit discrimination against women, or black folk, or the handicapped, and yet those laws have been on the books for decades in many places.

For example: Why would a business go to the expense of outfitting their store with handicap ramps, wheelchair accessible restrooms, and such if they could just decide not to serve them instead?
Click to expand...

Because it is not necessary. Nobody is fining businesses for not providing a service, and businesses continue to refuse service to those they find objectionable. Which is why you continue to see "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs hanging in plain sight in many businesses. This case was not about discrimination. This case was about religious persecution by the State.

You are under the bizarre impression that businesses are slaves to your every whim. You couldn't be more mistaken. A business license does not give you any authority over that business, nor can the government compel a business to provide a service if the business chooses otherwise. State laws do not supersede the US Constitution, no matter how much you desire slaves.
 
Glitch said:
Because it is not necessary. Nobody is fining businesses for not providing a service, and businesses continue to refuse service to those they find objectionable. Which is why you continue to see "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs hanging in plain sight in many businesses. This case was not about discrimination. This case was about religious persecution by the State.
Click to expand...

So we only just noticed these laws exist, they were developed for no reason, and no one has previously invoked them?

Ok, go with that.


You are under the bizarre impression that businesses are slaves to your every whim. You couldn't be more mistaken. A business license does not give you any authority over that business, nor can the government compel a business to provide a service if the business chooses otherwise. State laws do not supersede the US Constitution, no matter how much you desire slaves.
Click to expand...

Your fixation on slavery is the most interesting thing about your posts so far.
 
WillyPete said:
Your fixation on slavery is the most interesting thing about your posts so far.
Click to expand...
I'm not the one demanding businesses serve your every whim. You clearly have forgotten that other people have rights as well. It is not all about you.
 
Glitch said:
I'm not the one demanding businesses serve your every whim. You clearly have forgotten that other people have rights as well. It is not all about you.
Click to expand...

So what do you make of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin?

Has our entire nation been enslaved since that time?

We need to get the word to the people, Glitch!
 
WillyPete said:
So what do you make of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin?

Has our entire nation been enslaved since that time?

We need to get the word to the people, Glitch!
Click to expand...

Not even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows you to violate the constitutionally protected rights of others. It is obviously beyond your ability to grasp that the individual rights of the people supersede statute law, regardless whether it is State or federal. So there is no point continuing this thread since you are incapable of comprehending simple realty.
 
WillyPete said:
So new business regulation laws don't and shouldn't apply to people who had a business before the new regulation?
Click to expand...

Nope, just highlighting the absurdity of your argument.
 
jmotivator said:
That's true, but since I would have to throw that cake out because I can't trust it and buy a second cake from someone who wanted to bake the cake, who am I hurting really?
Click to expand...

You'd hurt the people who want to force everyone to acknowledge gay couples..
 
SLC said:
I suppose the baker would refuse to bake a cake with a X Rated message on it also.
Click to expand...

And if it was a heterosexual who wanted a heterosexual X rated message, no one would bat an eye. If it was a homosexual who wanted a homosexual X rated message, it would be presumed that it was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and refusal would cost the baker $135,000.
 
WillyPete said:
So what do you make of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin?
Click to expand...

To quote the civil rights act regarding public accomodation ".......without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." "sex" isn't in there. Thats what they want to add in with the Democrats recently proposed "Equality act".
Not that they have any concern for discrimination on the basis of sex, but instead because they are concerned with discrimination against gays or transgendered, or transvestites. But of course, they couldnt give elevated rights to a guy in a dress that women in a dress dont get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom