• 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 hands narrow win to baker over gay couple dispute

veritas1 said:
That still leaves you trying to figure out what qualifies as truly impartial. The law, as designed, is hostile to Christians serious about their religion, so the law itself is what is at fault. Even had the Commission made no disparaging comments, this case would have still had the same merits.
Click to expand...

No it is no more hostile to Christians than laws that prevent women from being denied service if not accompanied by a man are hostile to certain Muslims.
 
FreeWits said:
If the Supreme Court did not rule against them, they ruled for them. The government is in the business of restricting rights. If they do not rule your right is restricted then you have the right.
Click to expand...

They didn't rule that the right was restricted or not restricted, as far as his right to refuse business on any given basis. They ruled that his right to a fair and unbiased hearing was violated.
 
veritas1 said:
That still leaves you trying to figure out what qualifies as truly impartial. The law, as designed, is hostile to Christians serious about their religion, so the law itself is what is at fault. Even had the Commission made no disparaging comments, this case would have still had the same merits.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Ultimately the religious aspect is moot. The law violates private property rights and freedom of association rights. One doesn't have to have a religious reason to want to not serve a specific group. As to the merits, the case decision would have had to have been challenged upon a basis other than the commission's remarks. So sadly, a lack of remarks would have changed the merits of the case before SCOTUS.
 
maquiscat said:
They didn't rule that the right was restricted or not restricted, as far as his right to refuse business on any given basis. They ruled that his right to a fair and unbiased hearing was violated.
Click to expand...

And therefore it's not restricted until ruled otherwise.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. why should we force businesses to be decent and fair with people?
Click to expand...

Is the government forcing business owners (or anyone else for that matter) to engage in something that goes against their conscience and/or their religious beliefs, what you deem to be "fair and decent"?

Whether you like it or not, tolerance is a 2 way street my friend.

What do you want to bet that if the demographics ever change in America where white Christians are a minority.. and they are being discriminated against by muslim/jewish/black/gay business owners... that white Christians will be singing a different tune on how wonderful and free.. discrimination is.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with and support anti-discrimination laws, but those laws simply didn't apply in this case. The baker didn't refuse service to a gay couple, he refused to create a custom cake celebrating an event that violates his religious beliefs. All decent, fair minded, and most importantly "tolerant" people would respect a person's beliefs even if they disagree with them, not selfishly try to destroy that persons life over something as frivolous as a damned cake.

The only discrimination that took place here, was the religious discrimination engaged in by the state of Colorado towards the baker... What saddens me is that it had to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court to correct the injustice.

.
 
Grim17 said:
You have contended that the Colorado commission's ruling against the baker was the correct decision, and that the baker engaged in discrimination based on sexual orientation. That being the case, why do you suppose that same commission ruled differently when a baker refused a Christians request to create a cake for a religious event?

You have stated firmly that the refusal to bake a cake for a same sex wedding constituted discrimination based on sexual orientation, so naturally you must also believe that the refusal to bake a cake for a Christian event constitutes religious based discrimination... Assuming of course politics plays no part in the opinions you've stated on this issue.

.
.
Click to expand...

AGENT J said:
1.) i dont contend that, thats what happened proven by law but thier conduct/execution null and voided it.
2.) you'll have to read what the commission says about it. dont know if im familiar with that case, why did they rule otherwise. I would guess its your basic description thats inaccurate of what actually happened but youll have to post more information and read to see why the commission made thier ruling, icant wait to read it. im not part of the commission lmao
3.) yes ive pointed out the fact whats ILLEGAL discrimination as the law outlines in jurisdictions that have extended AP/AD laws to sexual orientation.
4.) based on the info you provided NO, that would be retarded. why would i ever have that basic belief? there has to be discrimination first. There most certainly could be discrimination against me as a christian and against my Christianity but your statment of "refusal to bake a cake for A Christian event" alone isnt enough without more info.... why was there a refusal you dont even say. only a moron would just guess thats discrimination.
5.) once again i havent given you any of my opinions so any assumptions on your part are failures and par for the course for you.

now after you address all that

A.) im still waiting for you to list these BELIEFS you claimed i stated...please state them
B.) then after that youll need to provided more info for the other case you are talking about and read what the commission decided and present that also.
C.) lastly now you need to state what OPINIONS i posted you are taking about on this issue

thanks!
Click to expand...

crickets!!! good move!
 
roguenuke said:
No it is no more hostile to Christians than laws that prevent women from being denied service if not accompanied by a man are hostile to certain Muslims.
Click to expand...

That's gender discrimination against a woman, which the law was designed to prevent... This case wasn't a gay couple being denied service, it was a refusal by the baker to create something for an event that violates his religious beliefs. He didn't refuse to serve a person or persons, he refused service to an event.

Discrimination laws protect people, not the events or activities that may choose to engage in.

.
 
AGENT J said:
crickets!!! good move!
Click to expand...

I came to inescapable conclusion based on the previous thread discussing this issue with you months back, that your arguments aren't derived from seeking out the truth and determining fairness, but an ideologically based exercise in political gamesmanship... That hasn't changed so I'm not wasting my time.

The SCOTUS decision contains the truth and fairness that can't be found anywhere in your arguments.

Have fun.

.
 
Grim17 said:
1.) I came to inescapable conclusion based on the previous thread discussing this issue with you months back, that your arguments aren't derived from seeking out the truth and determining fairness, but an ideologically based exercise in political gamesmanship... That hasn't changed so I'm not wasting my time.

2.) The SCOTUS decision contains the truth and fairness that can't be found anywhere in your arguments.

3.) Have fun.

.
Click to expand...

1.) translation you are dodging, deflecting and running from my questions and you cant support your false claims with any facts, got it!
thats what I thought LMAO your false claims fail and get exposed again! next time post less lies and your posts wont get so badly exposed

2.) hey look ANOTHER false claim you cant support, where did i post anything in this thread that isn't against the scotus ruling? qoute it . . oh thats right you cant because i never did

3.) i always do exposing your flase claims and the things you cant back up, thanks!
 
Grim17 said:
That's gender discrimination against a woman, which the law was designed to prevent... This case wasn't a gay couple being denied service, it was a refusal by the baker to create something for an event that violates his religious beliefs. He didn't refuse to serve a person or persons, he refused service to an event.

Discrimination laws protect people, not the events or activities that may choose to engage in.

.
Click to expand...

It is the same laws covering both and the same reasoning being used to deny service to both. A same sex wedding is no different than an opposite sex wedding beyond the relative sexes of those involved. So therefore it is comparable to an interracial wedding, where the only difference is the relative races of those involved in the event. Any could be objected to based on religious beliefs.
 
FreeWits said:
And therefore it's not restricted until ruled otherwise.
Click to expand...
Unless the law itself is what was challenged, which it wasn't, then the restriction remains.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
maquiscat said:
Unless the law itself is what was challenged, which it wasn't, then the restriction remains.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There is no restriction unless the judicial branch rules that there is. Their job is to interpret the laws.
 
FreeWits said:
There is no restriction unless the judicial branch rules that there is. Their job is to interpret the laws.
Click to expand...
The restriction first occurs when the law is made. Unless and until the law itself is challenged, the restriction remains. The courts can only rule on a law if that law is challanged by one to whom it has been applied. The law itself was not challenged, but instead the manner by which the baker was judged by the commission. That is why the decision is so narrow. It only covers this particular judgement by the commission, not the law itself.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
It is the same laws covering both and the same reasoning being used to deny service to both. A same sex wedding is no different than an opposite sex wedding beyond the relative sexes of those involved. So therefore it is comparable to an interracial wedding, where the only difference is the relative races of those involved in the event. Any could be objected to based on religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Both are "religious objections" but they are not the same. One results in "I will not sever a woman", which is gender discrimination. While the other results in "I will gladly serve you anything we offer, but we do not offer custom wedding cakes for same sex marriages". In other words, that couple wanted something that wasn't on their menu.

If you can't see the difference between the 2, then something must be clouding your objectivity.

.
 
Grim17 said:
Both are "religious objections" but they are not the same. One results in "I will not sever a woman", which is gender discrimination. While the other results in "I will gladly serve you anything we offer, but we do not offer custom wedding cakes for same sex marriages". In other words, that couple wanted something that wasn't on their menu.

If you can't see the difference between the 2, then something must be clouding your objectivity.

.
Click to expand...

They were not asking for a custom cake that was any different than (to the baker's knowledge when he refused them service) that offered to an opposite sex couple. Only difference is the relative sexes of the couples. And the baker has no right to make such a discriminatory distinction.

Notice how you fail to address the mixed race couple and their wedding. Should the baker be allowed to discriminate there or is it only those who believe that same sex couple weddings are wrong that get that privilege?
 
roguenuke said:
They were not asking for a custom cake that was any different than (to the baker's knowledge when he refused them service) that offered to an opposite sex couple. Only difference is the relative sexes of the couples. And the baker has no right to make such a discriminatory distinction.

Notice how you fail to address the mixed race couple and their wedding. Should the baker be allowed to discriminate there or is it only those who believe that same sex couple weddings are wrong that get that privilege?
Click to expand...

Same sex marriage is against his religious beliefs, so he chooses not create cakes for them. As stupid as that is, they're his beliefs and should be respected.

The fact that that couple went to the state and actually tried to destroy the man and force him to have violate his religious beliefs in order to stay in business, is a shameful act of intolerance and hatred.

.
 
Grim17 said:
Same sex marriage is against his religious beliefs, so he chooses not create cakes for them. As stupid as that is, they're his beliefs and should be respected.

The fact that that couple went to the state and actually tried to destroy the man and force him to have violate his religious beliefs in order to stay in business, is a shameful act of intolerance and hatred.

.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "went to the state"? They lived there, in that town. No one forced him to refuse to provide service to them or the others he was found to have denied service to.

Additionally, again, you dodge. Should a baker who sees interracial marriages as against his religious beliefs be forced to create cakes for an interracial wedding?
 
maquiscat said:
The restriction first occurs when the law is made. Unless and until the law itself is challenged, the restriction remains. The courts can only rule on a law if that law is challanged by one to whom it has been applied. The law itself was not challenged, but instead the manner by which the baker was judged by the commission. That is why the decision is so narrow. It only covers this particular judgement by the commission, not the law itself.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Not true. The restriction does not come until the law is interpreted by the Judicial Branch, which then sets legal precedent.
 
FreeWits said:
Not true. The restriction does not come until the law is interpreted by the Judicial Branch, which then sets legal precedent.
Click to expand...
You are so clueless. There are way more laws that include restrictions that never even make it to the judicial system and are all fully enforcable. Judicial review is not part of the law making process. A law only is subject to judicial review when challenged.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
What do you mean "went to the state"? They lived there, in that town. No one forced him to refuse to provide service to them or the others he was found to have denied service to.

Additionally, again, you dodge. Should a baker who sees interracial marriages as against his religious beliefs be forced to create cakes for an interracial wedding?
Click to expand...

Let's change your question up a bit.

Should an atheist baker who is against interracial marriage just because he thinks it's wrong be forced to create cakes for interracial weddings?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
ludin said:
i was surprised at the 7-2 vote.
i was expecting another 5-4 split.
Click to expand...

It was 7-2 because of the scope of the ruling, and the specific way that the state was handling two similar cases with opposite messages.
 
maquiscat said:
Let's change your question up a bit.

Should an atheist baker who is against interracial marriage just because he thinks it's wrong be forced to create cakes for interracial weddings?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes. I don't care what the person's reasoning is. No one should be allowed to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a group of people, type of person/couple that they would not do for other people, type of person/couple.

Hehe, I will leave my answer, but just realized what you were doing. Thank you.
 
roguenuke said:
What do you mean "went to the state"? They lived there, in that town. No one forced him to refuse to provide service to them or the others he was found to have denied service to.

Additionally, again, you dodge. Should a baker who sees interracial marriages as against his religious beliefs be forced to create cakes for an interracial wedding?
Click to expand...

Of course not. No law should prohibit a man's labor on behalf of another, and none should mandate a man's labor on behalf of another.

That's called freedom.
 
maquiscat said:
Let's change your question up a bit.

Should an atheist baker who is against interracial marriage just because he thinks it's wrong be forced to create cakes for interracial weddings?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No. It matters not if the purpose is religious or secular, free choice to act on behalf (or not act) is a standard of liberty.
 
roguenuke said:
Yes. I don't care what the person's reasoning is. No one should be allowed to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a group of people, type of person/couple that they would not do for other people, type of person/couple.

Hehe, I will leave my answer, but just realized what you were doing. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Ironically, I am of the camp that legally a private business should be able to refuse for any reason. And then we should all have the right to call them out on it and not grace them with our money. My main point was that it doesn't have to be a religious reason.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom