• 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

Fred C Dobbs II said:
In fact you have no idea what I'd 'be fine with' and your religious thoughts and feelings can remain private.
Click to expand...

Oh, but I do. Your inability to discuss the subject and instead revert to my "religious thoughts and feelings" is pretty much par for the course and duly noted.
 
Grim17 said:
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your overview of the situation.

In both this case and the case involving the Colorado baker, nobody was mistreated, discriminated against or treated like second class citizens. This was simply a moral/religious objection to same sex marriages, and whether you agree with those beliefs or not, they have every right to both hold such beliefs, and to choose not to labor on behalf of them. As I've stated, I think both the printer and the baker's actions were stupid, but stupid or not, they should not be forced to create something for an activity they religiously and morally object to.

Look, I've had a hand full of live-in girlfriends in my lifetime and if some baker wouldn't create a cake to celebrate my 2 year anniversary of "living in sin" based on some religious objection, after I stopped laughing, I'd simply find another baker. Heck, I might even have a few select words for the guy, but I sure hell wouldn't take steps to either legally force his compliance or financially punish him. People believe what they believe and even if I don't agree with them, I respect their right to have those beliefs. Like I've said so many times, tolerance is a two way street.
Click to expand...

No need to be sorry. When a vendor who operates in the public sphere refuses service to a customer because he doesn't like gay people, then that fits the definition of discrimination. I also find it rather unseemly that you would try to equate a refusal of your service for a celebration of your heterosexual union (which doesn't happen in any real sense; hence, your reversion to finding another baker) with refusals of service to homosexual couples who have to deal, sometimes often, with people who claim that gay people can't participate in secular society because someone thinks their god hates gay people.

The gay couple in this scenario are not trying to change anyone's beliefs. Disagreement with homosexuality is a personal problem and a mental health issue. The gay couple simply want to receive the same benefits of service that straight people have.

I am ashamed to acknowledge that in the year 2020 people are using the same beat up arguments against gay people that failed against interracial couples. We don't have to tolerate discrimination. If you can't serve the public, don't open a public business. Easy peasy.
 
Diesel said:
No need to be sorry. When a vendor who operates in the public sphere refuses service to a customer because he doesn't like gay people, then that fits the definition of discrimination.
Click to expand...

Try making your point based on facts, not baseless assumptions. In neither case, was any evidence presented showing that they didn't like gay people, or any instance in the past where they refused to serve anyone based on their sexual orientation.

Assumptions aren't evidence... No evidence, no facts.


I also find it rather unseemly that you would try to equate a refusal of your service for a celebration of your heterosexual union (which doesn't happen in any real sense; hence, your reversion to finding another baker) with refusals of service to homosexual couples who have to deal, sometimes often, with people who claim that gay people can't participate in secular society because someone thinks their god hates gay people.
Click to expand...

Gay or straight makes no difference. A religious objection to an event celebrating shacking up with a woman, or celebrating a same sex wedding, are still considered sins to many Christians. As long as they don't treat me like a fricken leper or give me a bunch of crap about living with a woman out of wedlock, I don't have a problem with them refusing to create a damned cake for me. Especially if they are respectful and don't kick me out of their establishment.


The gay couple in this scenario are not trying to change anyone's beliefs. Disagreement with homosexuality is a personal problem and a mental health issue. The gay couple simply want to receive the same benefits of service that straight people have.
Click to expand...

Nobody is preventing, or trying to prevent, the couple from getting married. This is just a few businesses that don't want to provide services for an event that violates the tenets of their religion.

It isn't rocket science and it damned sure isn't discrimination.

EDIT: I also wanted to point out that I don't have a dog in this fight. I've looked at this thing objectively and I've not shown any animosity toward either side.... but I noticed that you have expressed anger and a clear dislike toward religion and those who embrace it. Personally, that's what I find unseemly.
 
Last edited:
Grim17 said:
Try making your point based on facts, not baseless assumptions. In neither case, was any evidence presented showing that they didn't like gay people, or any instance in the past where they refused to serve anyone based on their sexual orientation.

Assumptions aren't evidence... No evidence, no facts.




Gay or straight makes no difference. A religious objection to an event celebrating shacking up with a woman, or celebrating a same sex wedding, are still considered sins to many Christians. As long as they don't treat me like a fricken leper or give me a bunch of crap about living with a woman out of wedlock, I don't have a problem with them refusing to create a damned cake for me. Especially if they are respectful and don't kick me out of their establishment.




Nobody is preventing, or trying to prevent, the couple from getting married. This is just a few businesses that don't want to provide services for an event that violates the tenets of their religion.

It isn't rocket science and it damned sure isn't discrimination.

EDIT: I also wanted to point out that I don't have a dog in this fight. I've looked at this thing objectively and I've not shown any animosity toward either side.... but I noticed that you have expressed anger and a clear dislike toward religion and those who embrace it. Personally, that's what I find unseemly.
Click to expand...

Oh. Then we have no basis for a productive discussion. People who don't serve gay people because they're gay are assholes. I won't give any quarter to sloppy excuses whether you present them or the asshole invitation non-makers present them. Discrimination is a form of dislike. You can try to rationalize until you run out of breath, but it's just not a thing that good people do to other people, gay or otherwise.

No one asked the stationery makers to attend or support an event. They have to follow public accommodation laws. They can't because they don't like gay people or gay "events". No problem. They simply need to pick a different job and stop trying to make gay people's lives worse. That's probably what their god wants, but people like that are probably beyond help already.

Your perception of my opinion as "expressed anger and a clear dislike toward religion" is utterly, confoundingly stupid. No one's religious beliefs are any of my business. Nor is my sexuality any religious person's business. Pick a job you can do and stop bitching when people insist that they be treated the way the law demands that you treat them.
 
Diesel said:
Oh, but I do. Your inability to discuss the subject and instead revert to my "religious thoughts and feelings" is pretty much par for the course and duly noted.
Click to expand...
Your 'religious thoughts and feelings still remain posted.

" I'm sure you'd be just fine with some fundamentalist exempting himself from health regulations because his god whispered to him that refrigeration and hand washing are sins, but that's why we have a secular government: to keep the psychos in their demented homes and out of my way to live a free and harmless life".

They certainly aren't mine.
 
Diesel said:
Oh. Then we have no basis for a productive discussion. People who don't serve gay people because they're gay are assholes. I won't give any quarter to sloppy excuses whether you present them or the asshole invitation non-makers present them. Discrimination is a form of dislike. You can try to rationalize until you run out of breath, but it's just not a thing that good people do to other people, gay or otherwise.
Click to expand...

I agree with the part in bold, but neither the printer or the baker refused service to those people because they were gay. They refused to use their talents to serve an event that they had religious objections to. They didn't refuse to serve a gay person, they refused to provide services for a same sex wedding.

No one asked the stationery makers to attend or support an event. They have to follow public accommodation laws.
Click to expand...

If you read what those laws say, you'll find that they protect individuals from being discriminated against, not the events, gatherings or social functions they may choose to participate in. Just because a person is gay, doesn't mean everything they choose to do or be involved in must be accepted and catered to.

Do you want to live in a world where a Jew must service a neo-Nazi gathering, or a black person must provide their services for a KKK rally? I know I sure don't want to live in such a world.

They can't because they don't like gay people or gay "events". No problem. They simply need to pick a different job and stop trying to make gay people's lives worse. That's probably what their god wants, but people like that are probably beyond help already.
Click to expand...

There you go again, showing your distain for people of faith. I hate to break it to you, but your obvious hatred does nothing but lower your credibility and diminish the validity of your arguments.

Your perception of my opinion as "expressed anger and a clear dislike toward religion" is utterly, confoundingly stupid.
Click to expand...

LOL... See above.

Pick a job you can do and stop bitching when people insist that they be treated the way the law demands that you treat them.
Click to expand...

Both have picked their jobs and again I suggest you read the law a little more carefully.

Based on your arguments, you would also insist that a black baker create a custom cake for a KKK gathering that a white person ordered... How can you take such a position?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
So you are telling me that it would be "unChristian" for any "Christian" to condemn anyone for doing anything that "The Bible" says should not be done, are you?
Click to expand...

Yep. Precisely the opposite of what you allege.

TU Curmudgeon said:
Wouldn't that mean that the bakers were breaching the tenets of Christianity by failing to bake the cake because they believed that the people who wanted it were doing something that "The Bible" said they ought not do?
Click to expand...

Nope, as long as they don't include a condemnation of the customer. Bible doesn't say anything about cake.
 
Grim17 said:
I agree with the part in bold, but neither the printer or the baker refused service to those people because they were gay. They refused to use their talents to serve an event that they had religious objections to. They didn't refuse to serve a gay person, they refused to provide services for a same sex wedding.
Click to expand...

That's one of the problems with all these public accommodation laws. When the customer is a minority, its always just presumed that the refusal is based upon animus towards that minority. When the customer is in the majority, it is never presumed and requires overwhelming evidence to establish.
 
dixon01767 said:
That's one of the problems with all these public accommodation laws. When the customer is a minority, its always just presumed that the refusal is based upon animus towards that minority. When the customer is in the majority, it is never presumed and requires overwhelming evidence to establish.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the simple solution be to require any business to PUBLICLY (and by that I mean on the outside of their premises) post a COMPLETE LIST of those things that they will not do (in the normal course of whatever business they operate [by which, to give an extreme example, shoe stores would NOT have to list the fact that they do not do brain surgery), and then not require them to "perform any service" that they have PUBLICLY announced that they would not perform?

Of course, if a business happened to miss listing a service that its owners didn't want to perform, it would then have to perform that service UNTIL the business had UPDATED it list of "Services We Don't Provide".
 
dixon01767 said:
That's an old 1968 decision. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
is more relevant and on point. The cake baker won.
Click to expand...
The baker didn't win.

The SCOTUS didn't rule on whether the baker had the right to refuse service because of his religious bigotry. They only ruled on whether the state of colorado was disrespectful to the baker when they called a religious bigot. They kicked the larger issue down the road but they left a very strong message at the very last paragrapgh of the ruling about how they would rule of that issue was the question.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Wouldn't the simple solution be to require any business to PUBLICLY (and by that I mean on the outside of their premises) post a COMPLETE LIST of those things that they will not do (in the normal course of whatever business they operate [by which, to give an extreme example, shoe stores would NOT have to list the fact that they do not do brain surgery), and then not require them to "perform any service" that they have PUBLICLY announced that they would not perform?

Of course, if a business happened to miss listing a service that its owners didn't want to perform, it would then have to perform that service UNTIL the business had UPDATED it list of "Services We Don't Provide".
Click to expand...

Seems the more appropriate solution would be to not make assumptions contradicted by the evidence
 
Lisa said:
The baker didn't win.
Click to expand...

Of course he did.

"Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. ."

"Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."

That would be the commission that fined him for not providing the cake.
 
Last edited:
dixon01767 said:
Of course he did.

"Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. ."

That would be the commission that fined him for not providing the cake.




The SCOTUS didn't rule on whether the baker had the right to refuse service because of his religious bigotry. They only ruled on whether the state of colorado was disrespectful to the baker when they called a religious bigot. They kicked the larger issue down the road but they left a very strong message at the very last paragraph of the ruling about how they would rule of that issue was the question.
Click to expand...


No, he didn't win.

This is from the ABA, so are you going to say that the American Bar Association doesn't understand the ruling?
But that was exactly the issue in Masterpiece Cakeshop: Is a business’s freedom to choose its customers more important than the government interest in stopping sexual orientation discrimination?

The Supreme Court did not answer this question, but instead decided the case on narrower grounds by concluding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission expressed impermissible hostility to religion. But with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, it is likely that there are five votes in the future to allow businesses to discriminate. This would open a potentially broad exception to federal, state, and local civil rights laws.
Click to expand...

Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.
Click to expand...

This is the last paragraph pf the ruling that I was referring to. They would not have ruled for the baker's right to discriminate.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who handed down the 7-2 ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, was explicit about this. As he wrote in the decision’s most important paragraph:

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.
Click to expand...
 
Lisa said:
No, he didn't win.

This is from the ABA, so are you going to say that the American Bar Association doesn't understand the ruling?
:
Click to expand...

Evidently you are not comprehending what the ABA is saying. He won. The ABA is a liberal cesspool. They don't like the ruling.
 
dixon01767 said:
Evidently you are not comprehending what the ABA is saying. He won. The ABA is a liberal cesspool. They don't like the ruling.
Click to expand...
Im tired of your lies.

The SCOTUS didn't rule on the issue of his ability to deny service because of his beliefs if you can read. The court only ruled on a very minor issue of how the state of colorado referred to his religious beliefs him in a hearing.

Why would Justice Kennedy insert that final paragraph into the ruling if the SCOTUS ruled on the issue of his right to deny service based on his religious bigotry?
 
Lisa said:
A cake isn't religious and his beliefs aren't an issue when he bakes a cake for a customer.
Click to expand...

They are an issue when a customer asks him to design and create a cake specifically to celebrate an event that violates his religious beliefs. This wasn't a case where a customer who was openly gay walked into his shop and said "I see you make German chocolate cakes... I'd like to order one." and the baker said "I'm sorry, you'll have to find another bakery." That in my opinion is refusing service to an individual based on their sexual orientation and would make for a very strong case against him if taken to court.

What you and others seem to be overlooking is the fact that at least one of them had been a customer of that shop for 10 years, and never once in all that time had they ever been refused service or treated poorly. In fact, there were never any reported instances of that bakery refusing service to any protected individual since it's inception. To me, that says that the customer being gay was not the basis for his refusal... aka, no discrimination based on sexual orientation.

.
 
Grim17 said:
They are an issue when a customer asks him to design and create a cake specifically to celebrate an event that violates his religious beliefs. This wasn't a case where a customer who was openly gay walked into his shop and said "I see you make German chocolate cakes... I'd like to order one." and the baker said "I'm sorry, you'll have to find another bakery." That in my opinion is refusing service to an individual based on their sexual orientation and would make for a very strong case against him if taken to court.

What you and others seem to be overlooking is the fact that at least one of them had been a customer of that shop for 10 years, and never once in all that time had they ever been refused service or treated poorly. In fact, there were never any reported instances of that bakery refusing service to any protected individual since it's inception. To me, that says that the customer being gay was not the basis for his refusal... aka, no discrimination based on sexual orientation.

.
Click to expand...

His beliefs are not an issue since a commercial Baker has no authority to consecrate any cake on a for-profit basis. It is just a work of Art in the form of a Cake.
 
Grim17 said:
They are an issue when a customer asks him to design and create a cake specifically to celebrate an event that violates his religious beliefs. This wasn't a case where a customer who was openly gay walked into his shop and said "I see you make German chocolate cakes... I'd like to order one." and the baker said "I'm sorry, you'll have to find another bakery." That in my opinion is refusing service to an individual based on their sexual orientation and would make for a very strong case against him if taken to court.

What you and others seem to be overlooking is the fact that at least one of them had been a customer of that shop for 10 years, and never once in all that time had they ever been refused service or treated poorly. In fact, there were never any reported instances of that bakery refusing service to any protected individual since it's inception. To me, that says that the customer being gay was not the basis for his refusal... aka, no discrimination based on sexual orientation.

.
Click to expand...

A cake is not religious and he is not being asked to endorse their relationship or the wedding. He is baking a cake for a customer.
 
Lisa said:
A cake is not religious and he is not being asked to endorse their relationship or the wedding. He is baking a cake for a customer.
Click to expand...
And he is willing to bake cakes for all his customers. Nothing has changed.
 
Lisa said:
A cake is not religious and he is not being asked to endorse their relationship or the wedding. He is baking a cake for a customer.
Click to expand...

No, he was asked to both design and create a custom cake for a same sex wedding. Who entered the shop and ordered it (aka the customer) is irrelevant. He didn't refuse to provide his services based on the customer, he refused to provide his services based on the event he was asked to customize it for.

I take it that you would also support a black baker being hauled into court and charged with discrimination for refusing a white customer's request to create a custom cake for a KKK gathering?

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom