• 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!

Phoenix artists don't have to make LGBTQ wedding invitations, Arizona Supreme Court rules

Visbek said:
You're welcome to disagree, but you'd be wrong.

I know this sounds like totally crazy, but civil rights commissions and prosecutors and judges aren't stupid. They know that if someone refuses to provide a service because it's a same-sex event, then it's an act of discrimination. They have little tolerance for loopholes.

Even religion isn't a sufficient excuse. Lots of segregationists insisted that "separation of the races" had a religious justification.

So the only valid exception is a claim that the government is compelling a business to make an expression. E.g. the government cannot force Masterpiece Cakeshop to put a sign in its window saying "Masterpiece Cakeshop loves gays." Nor can a customer force Masterpiece Cakeshop to make a cake that says "Masterpiece Cakeshop loves gays." It can, however, compel another bakery that offers custom cakes to the public to make a cake that says "Masterpiece Cakeshop loves gays," because that other bakery is not the one making the expression, it's merely acting as a scribe.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that also.
 
danielpalos said:
Our First Amendment is a defense for the customer not the baker in public accommodation.
Click to expand...

dixon01767 said:
Couldn't be further from the truth in that it protects the baker and the customer equally AND it protects them both from the government, not each other.
Click to expand...

danielpalos said:
Why do you believe that?
Click to expand...

I can read the words. "Congress shall make no law....". Nothing about cake bakers anywhere in there. 1st Amendment protects people from the government not each other.

danielpalos said:
The judicial power of the United States resides with the judicial branch.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant to our discussion here, but no doubt that's why you want to go there.

danielpalos said:
Since both are protected equally and the baker is operating on a for-profit basis in public accommodation, it should be for the Sake of Art not the subjective value of morals.
Click to expand...

Earlier you were claiming that they were required to operate for the sake of another dollar, which would preclude doing so for the sake of art. .
 
Visbek said:
Legally, no.

Let's say the gay couple have a personal assistant, who is straight. They send the assistant to order the cake. The baker sees that the cake order reads "Congratulations, Adam and Steve" and refuses the order specifically because it's a same-sex wedding. The baker is still discriminating against the customer, even though the PA is straight.
Click to expand...

They are discriminating against the straight guy because of what he is ordering and not because of his sexual orientation. Same as when they turn down the gay couple. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation. This reminds me of a change to a company dress code requiring the waistline of pants to be worn above the ass cheeks as opposed to half way down or below. Several black employees believed it was discrimination against the black employees because it was only several black employees who of late had trouble keeping their pants up. The company isn't discriminating against blacks as they would be equally opposed to whites doing the same.
 
dixon01767 said:
I can read the words. "Congress shall make no law....". Nothing about cake bakers anywhere in there. 1st Amendment protects people from the government not each other.



Irrelevant to our discussion here, but no doubt that's why you want to go there.



Earlier you were claiming that they were required to operate for the sake of another dollar, which would preclude doing so for the sake of art. .
Click to expand...

It is the profit motive that matters. Practice which enables Perfection for the Sake of Art.
 
dixon01767 said:
They are discriminating against the straight guy because of what he is ordering and not because of his sexual orientation. Same as when they turn down the gay couple. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
Lol

"We don't discriminate against same-sex marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. It's because... uh... because... Dammit, I'll think of something. Gimme a minute."


This reminds me of a change to a company dress code requiring the waistline of pants to be worn above the ass cheeks as opposed to half way down or below. Several black employees believed it was discrimination against the black employees because it was only several black employees who of late had trouble keeping their pants up. The company isn't discriminating against blacks as they would be equally opposed to whites doing the same.
Click to expand...
Actually, that can be an example of discrimination. It all depends on how the policy was actually enacted and applied.

One example is that in my city, a new bar publicly posted its dress code. No jeans, sneakers, sweats, oversized jewelry and chains, headphones and so on. Although a good argument can be made that the code was targeting blacks, it is legal -- but only if it is applied consistently, regardless of the race of the patrons.

In contrast, let's say that one night, the bouncers stop being consistent about the policy; and start allowing white women wearing sweatpants to enter, while barring black men wearing button-down shirts and slacks, and proclaim the black mens' attire is against the dress code. Obviously, that's evidence that the bar is discriminating against blacks.

Or, let's say that the dress code says nothing about t-shirts, and the bouncer tells a group of black women wearing t0shirts trying to enter "no t-shirts." That type of arbitrary change, which just happens to be when a group of black women try to enter, can also be evidence of discrimination.

Anti-discrimination laws stipulate that codes and rules can't be created in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and they need to be applied consistently. When that happens, it's usually because someone is making up or changing a rule on the spot to try and cover up discrimination.
 
Visbek said:
Lol

"We don't discriminate against same-sex marriage on the basis of sexual orientation. It's because... uh... because... Dammit, I'll think of something. Gimme a minute."
Click to expand...

?????Their bible limits mariage to men and women, regardless of their sexual orientation. NOT to exclude gays but instead to include all those wth the potential of procreation.
 
dixon01767 said:
?????Their bible limits mariage to men and women, regardless of their sexual orientation. NOT to exclude gays but instead to include all those wth the potential of procreation.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how you feel about "same-sex marriage", have you ever thought what the reaction of the vast majority of those who oppose it would be IF the laws were to be changed to eliminate BOTH "same-sex marriage" AND "divorce" (both any future ones and nullifying any past ones)? After all, the same textual reference that they claim SUPPORTS banning "same-sex marriage" also SUPPORTS banning "divorce".

We'll leave the question of whether or not Mr. Trump would actually sign such legislation TOTALLY out of the discussion.
 
danielpalos said:
We have a First Amendment.
Click to expand...

So what?

Please refer me to the section of "The Bible" (_[fill in name of Christian sub-set]_ version) that approves of same-sex marriages.

Please refer me to the section of "The Torah" (_[fill in name of Jewish sub-set]_ version) that approves of same-sex marriages.

Please refer me to the section of "The Qu'ran" (_[fill in name of Islamic sub-set]_ version) that approves of same-sex marriages.

Please refer me to the section of "_[insert name of "Holy Book" not yet referred to_" (_[fill in name of appropriate religion not yet referred to sub-set]_ version) that approves of same-sex marriages.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
So what?

Please refer me to the section of "The Bible" (_[fill in name of Christian sub-set]_ version) that approves of same-sex marriages.

Please refer me to the section of "The Torah" (_[fill in name of Jewish sub-set]_ version) that approves of same-sex marriages.

Please refer me to the section of "The Qu'ran" (_[fill in name of Islamic sub-set]_ version) that approves of same-sex marriages.

Please refer me to the section of "_[insert name of "Holy Book" not yet referred to_" (_[fill in name of appropriate religion not yet referred to sub-set]_ version) that approves of same-sex marriages.
Click to expand...

Why should I care what Religious books say in our secular and temporal Constitutional Republic and with our First Amendment?
 
danielpalos said:
We have a First Amendment.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment doesn't permit you to use your religious beliefs as a weapon to deny equal rights to others. Serving others as equals in a public business doesn't require that you not worship or that you believe or not believe in God as you see fit to do. Your religious rights are the right to worship and the right to believe or not to believe in god. Your religious rights are not the right to force others to obey your beliefs or to force others to take part in your beliefs or to have their secular rights limited by the bigotry that you are trying to hide in the bible.

James Madison was adamant about this idea,
Madison considered the bill a “dangerous abuse of power”; he reasoned that if the government could establish Christianity over other religions, then it would also have the power to elevate one Christian group over another. Madison believed that religion was a matter of individual conscience and that giving legislators control over religious belief would inevitably lead to violation of other basic rights:
Click to expand...

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established
Click to expand...

Jesus wasn't a bigot.
Luke 6:31 New International Version (NIV)

31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Click to expand...

Matthew 7:12 New International Version (NIV)

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lisa said:
The First Amendment doesn't permit you to use your religious beliefs as a weapon to deny equal rights to others. Serving others as equals in a public business doesn't require that you not worship or that you believe or not believe in God as you see fit to do. Your religious rights are the right to worship and the right to believe or not to believe in god. Your religious rights are not the right to force others to obey your r be,l.ifs or to force others to take part in your beliefs or to have their secular rights limited by the bigotry that you are trying to hide in the bible.

James Madison was adamant about this idea,




Jesus wasnt a bigot.
Click to expand...

should we inform bakers?
 
danielpalos said:
should we inform bakers?
Click to expand...

It will get there when the SCOTUS actually rules on this issue instead of kicking it down the road as they did a few years ago.
 
danielpalos said:
Why should I care what Religious books say in our secular and temporal Constitutional Republic and with our First Amendment?
Click to expand...

Possibly because you cited a "religious book" in support of your position - or have you forgotten that already?

PS - Underlying this entire thread is the question of "same-sex marriage" and "religious opposition" to them to the degree that services can be refused "on religious grounds". Or have you forgotten that, too?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Possibly because you cited a "religious book" in support of your position - or have you forgotten that already?

PS - Underlying this entire thread is the question of "same-sex marriage" and "religious opposition" to them to the degree that services can be refused "on religious grounds". Or have you forgotten that, too?
Click to expand...

The point is, if a Baker is allegedly that Religious they would be making Augustinian, Benedictine, or Carmelite bread on a not for the profit of lucre basis.
 
danielpalos said:
The point is, if a Baker is allegedly that Religious they would be making Augustinian, Benedictine, or Carmelite bread on a not for the profit of lucre basis.
Click to expand...

Simply put - "That's utter hogwash and utterly meaningless to boot.".
 
danielpalos said:
Why are "Mormons getting the shaft"? Polygamy, so every woman can marry a nice guy!
Click to expand...

While I have enjoyed bantering with you, I do hope that you will excuse me if I don't bother to respond to your tripe in the future.

Have a nice millenium.
 
danielpalos said:
Why are "Mormons getting the shaft"? Polygamy, so every woman can marry a nice guy!
Click to expand...

Marriage was long decided as only being between 2 people and the state. Polygamy was based before Utah could become a state in the Reynolds v. US decision. People can take part in a religious ceremony for polygasmyous marriages but those extra spouses are not recognized by the state in the same way that civil commitment ceremonies among LGBT people before the Obergfell decision are also not recognized by the state as a legally valid marriage.

{{meta.fullTitle}}
 
Lisa said:
Marriage was long decided as only being between 2 people and the state. Polygamy was based before Utah could become a state in the Reynolds v. US decision. People can take part in a religious ceremony for polygasmyous marriages but those extra spouses are not recognized by the state in the same way that civil commitment ceremonies among LGBT people before the Obergfell decision are also not recognized by the state as a legally valid marriage.

{{meta.fullTitle}}
Click to expand...

The point is, the State cannot regulate marriage based upon any specific religious belief. Merely enacting bigamy laws is "a form of religious test".
 
danielpalos said:
The point is, the State cannot regulate marriage based upon any specific religious belief. Merely enacting bigamy laws is "a form of religious test".
Click to expand...

Marriage is not religious because non-religious people are not prohibited from marrying. It would be a violation of the Establishment Clause for the state to mandate any sort of relgious belief or religious sect as part of marriage

The religious equivalent action is matrimony and that is independent of the state.
 
marke said:
Homosexuals need to learn not to mess with the Christian beliefs of Christians. We have religious freedoms in this country which do not allow homosexuals to crush Christian beliefs in the name of discrimination.
Click to expand...

Your religious beliefs are not permitted or recognized as a valid reason to discriminate against customers in a public business. That precedent is very clear. The bigoted owner of Piggie Park BBQ also claimed that his conservative Christian religious beliefs were a valid reason to deny equal service to black or interracial people. The SCOTUS voted no in a unanimous decision. Newman v. Piggie Park.

What was the Piggie Park case about? Following the passage of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, it became illegal to discriminate based on race, ethnicity and other characteristics in employment, housing, and public accommodations such as restaurants. The owner of Piggie Park, a chain of barbeque restaurants in South Carolina, refused service to several patrons because they were Black. In addition to claiming that the restaurant chain was not a place of public accommodation, and thus not covered by the Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the restaurant chain also argued that the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on discrimination based on race violated the owner’s freedom of religion, because his “religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever.”2The U.S. Supreme Court resoundingly and swiftly rejected this claim in a ruling issued 50 years ago in March 1968. How is the Masterpiece Cakeshop case similar
Click to expand...

That racist bigoted BBQ joint owner attended the same Christian sects as the homophobic baker.

Where in the Bible did Jesus teach bigotry or discrimination?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom