And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments [W:744]

[mike2810]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Do you not believe that a supreme court ruling would apply to all states and even the small towns?

I live in a small town and had to call a guy from another state to pump my septic tank because the one guy in town that pumps tanks was booked solid. There are two bakeries within an hours drive from my house what if both of them refused me service, or the two grocery stores, or the one gas station or the one bank? If this baker can claim religious exemption from following the law what would stop small town bakeries from doing the same?

Of course the SC ruling would apply to all States, all towns.

I also live in a small town (about 15,000). There are many services not available.

Got to ask, are you saying a religious belief must be set aside to accommodate a lifestyle that goes against that belief?
Here is a thought. There is an option of not having a cake at the wedding.

 

[mike2810]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

That's not the point, constitutional rights are not determined by population.

It is a point. There are alternatives.

The SC has not ruled yet, have they?

So are you also saying the baker's religious rights don't count?

 

[CriticalThought]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

...the PC gaystopo

Exactly what were you hoping to accomplish by including this in your post?

 

[faithful_servant]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Now that is a master class in dishonest inversion of an issue.

Bigots refuse to bake a cake because gay people might eat it after a wedding, and the bigots are the victims. LOL!

So are you OK with forcing someone to violate their beliefs just because you disagree with them? Isn't this very concept what's at stake in this case - the protection of an individual's rights??

 

[Praxas]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

It is a point. There are alternatives.

The SC has not ruled yet, have they?

So are you also saying the baker's religious rights don't count?

I'm saying they are hiding behind their bigotry since they have sour grapes over gays having the right to marry. If my religion states that I cannot serve a black person, should I then be allowed not to all in the name of religion? What if my religion states I have the right to sacrifice animals in my place of work, will you defend that to? Something tells me you are only for protecting the bigoted rights of so called Christians. It is amazing these folks have no problem serving those that have been through divorce.

 

[JasperL]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

no it doesnt

You say it doesn't but why not? We KNOW religion WAS used to justify slavery and then Jim Crow. It's just historical fact. And anyone can spend 2 minutes on Google and find any number of religious justifications for discrimination against homosexuals.

Besides, the IMO ethically defensible opposition to "hate crime" laws is it requires prosecutors to effectively punish thought crimes. Why does it matter if that white guy (or black guy) beat up that other person because of racial animosity or just because he's a sociopathic POS? What's different here? If I'm gay, do I care if you turn me away because 'religion' or just bigotry?

it is give us an inch, and we will take a mile approach

it is the same damn argument the NRA uses to block any sensible gun regulation, because they think you guys are going to take it another, and then another step

people are allowed to have religious and MORAL convictions....and there is absolutely no way in hell to rid the world of all discrimination and bigotry

OK, but if I'm an employer and I have religious and MORAL convictions condemning homosexuality, why can't I fire anyone in my business when I find out he's a fag? Or married a black woman if I have a religious or MORAL belief that the races should not mix?

The problem here is the stakes are so low on the narrow question. Who cares if a baker decides to not bake WEDDING cakes, especially if there are 100 people who will do the job? It's ART!!

OK, fine, no big deal. But you're arguing principles here and those principles just have in my lifetime been used to justify what we now consider abhorrent racially discriminatory practices.

sensibly, we have passed laws to make sure that the essentials cant be denied....i agree wholeheartedly with those laws

But we've seen on this thread that the "essentials" is a pretty fluid concept. Is getting your car towed essential? If there are 10 hotels, and only 6 say "Whites only" what is the problem? If you're a black man or homosexual out for a business lunch, and go to a restaurant and get turned away, it's not an "essential" if you can find another restaurant to serve you and your client.

but getting a cake baked, or a florist to cater a wedding is NOT essential

and the fundamental freedom to make stupid choices should be left up to the business

and let the free market decide if they make the right choices or not

Again, if you want to argue for a repeal of Title II of the CRA, that's fine. But the "stupid choices" under the principle you're advocating include a whole lot more than just cakes or photos or paintings. That right to make stupid choices justifies all manner of discrimination, including in the workplace, and for businesses that have nothing to do with cakes or photos, but ordinary stuff like serving lunch, working on your car, giving you a job, giving you a fair chance to succeed in that job.

trying to "force" everyone to agree to your POV with these cases in asinine to me....and is setting those against your side to dig in deeper

it took decades for inter racial marriage to become commonplace and accepted

the more you try to force a square peg into a round hole, the bigger the fight you are going to get

MOST people are accepting...and gays are having less and less issues each year....but these cases cause your cause to actually lose ground

i hope you guys realize that....

I agree with that, actually. I'd rather the gay couples have just gone somewhere else and used public pressure against the offending businesses. But this thread is about the legal issues, and the principles people are asserting to defend what they see as the proper outcome here. Maybe the court can carve out very narrow exceptions for artistic expression, and that will likely prove to be a big nothing in practice. But that is NOT what you're arguing for or what other people are arguing, which is a more general "right" to discriminate. IMO, if you believe we have a "right" to discriminate, then we have a right to discriminate for good reasons, bad reasons, when it matters, and when it does NOT matter, and against anyone for really any damn reason that comes to mind.

 

[Praxas]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

So are you OK with forcing someone to violate their beliefs just because you disagree with them? Isn't this very concept what's at stake in this case - the protection of an individual's rights??

Funny how these bakers ONLY had issue AFTER gay marriage was legalized. Did a new book from Jesus come out then?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Funny how these bakers ONLY had issue AFTER gay marriage was legalized. Did a new book from Jesus come out then?

Actually Gay marriage was not recognized in Colorado and the Hodges decision had not yet occurred when the masterpiece case began

 

[Harshaw]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Funny how these bakers ONLY had issue AFTER gay marriage was legalized. Did a new book from Jesus come out then?

Where do you get that?

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

WTH? Where? I see one reference to the Holocaust, and it was made by the person from the state of Colorado Civil Rights Commission. No where did it compare gay people to the Gestapo. Talk about hysterics :roll:


Edit: Oh, another poster said gaystopo. Where is his multiple Nazi references?

"And then they came for the bakers"?

You do realize that is a deliberate parallel to a very famous poem by a German Lutheran pastor by the name of Martin Niemoller referencing the Holocaust and the bit by bit slaughter of "undesirables" by the Nazis......right? Its directly implies that gay people who want to be treated like human beings are the same as the Nazis.

Then we have the "gaystopo" bull****, which is a direct reference to the Gestapo.

So yes, perhaps you should read more carefully before you leap to conclusions

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Where in the Constitution does it state that businesses MUST provide cake?

The Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps you've heard of it? It prohibits discrimination, and each state must provide equal protection under the law to all Americans.

Bigots tried this crap during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. It didn't work then, and despite the shrieks of "gaystopo" its not going to work now.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

The Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps you've heard of it? It prohibits discrimination, and each state must provide equal protection under the law to all Americans.

Bigots tried this crap during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. It didn't work then, and despite the shrieks of "gaystopo" its not going to work now.

The 14th amendment provides equal protection “under law” not under private policy. And it’s not an end run around the first amendment

 

[wolfsgirl]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

States aren't required to enforce Federal law.

This case is about a state law. If the court rules that the law is unconstitutional then that would make others states laws unconstitutional too.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Guess Gays got the Stockholm syndrome.

Guess you managed to still be both dead wrong and expose yourself. Nice job promoting victim culture buddy.

 

[apdst]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

This case is about a state law. If the court rules that the law is unconstitutional then that would make others states laws unconstitutional too.

No, states donxt have to enforce Federal law. The sanctuary cities are proof of that.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Of course the SC ruling would apply to all States, all towns.

I also live in a small town (about 15,000). There are many services not available.

Got to ask, are you saying a religious belief must be set aside to accommodate a lifestyle that goes against that belief?
Here is a thought. There is an option of not having a cake at the wedding.

If a religion believes that Christians lifestyles are against their beliefs can they refuse service to Christians? Not under current anti-discrimination laws. Can a person cite their religious belief to refuse service to blacks? Not under current anti-discrimination laws. Can a person cite religious beliefs to deny service to women? Not under current anti-discrimination laws.

Here's a thought if Phillips can claim religious belief makes him immune to generally applicable law what's to stop anyone from doing so in regards to any law?

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities. We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Apparently you and Praxas both believe every religion is exactly the same and treat everything the same

They dont

Divorce is not allowed in some, and just another part of life in others

And as far as believing Asians are an abomination, i think you are just trying to throw strawmen out there....but for ****s and grins, if you open a flower shop, and your religion somehow thinks white people are voodoo and cant be tolerated, then by all means dont do business with white people

i dont care....i dont think you will stay in business long....but you are free to run the business the way you want to

religious freedom doesnt mean people dont have the right to not be stupid....i am sure some of you already believe religious people are STUPID

so go to another bakery, or another flower shop, or another chapel....someone out there is ready willing and able to take your money

stop trying to force your views on everyone else....

Change the word ‘white people’ to ‘black people’ and see if your reasoning holds up.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

In what way do you think the baker didn't "abide by the Constitution of the United States"?

It doesn't appear that you actually understand much about this case.

14th Amendment buddy. Everyone is given equal protection under the law, and despite the efforts of bigots both during the 1960s and today, it also applies to the common citizen. You having hatred for someone because of their sexuality does not justify treating them as subhuman.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

If you ever get around to actually reading the US Constitution, you might come to see how absurd your comment really is.

But I wouldn't bet on the if or the might in this case.

14th Amendment buddy.

But I forgot.....bigots hate the 14th Amendment.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

No, states donxt have to enforce Federal law. The sanctuary cities are proof of that.

Then why are the feds even hearing the case? It is about a state law. If the state doesn't have to heed the court why bother?

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

The 14th amendment provides equal protection “under law” not under private policy. And it’s not an end run around the first amendment

Gee bud, is it legal to discriminate against Americans on the basis of sexuality? The 1st Amendment does not allow people to treat others as subhuman, despite what was tried in the 1960s.

The law also applies to private citizens, whether they believe it or not.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

No, states donxt have to enforce Federal law. The sanctuary cities are proof of that.

Actually, its rather clear that states do have to enforce federal policy. The states' love of ****ting all over the constitution does not protect them from it.

 

[Harshaw]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

14th Amendment buddy. Everyone is given equal protection under the law, and despite the efforts of bigots both during the 1960s and today, it also applies to the common citizen. You having hatred for someone because of their sexuality does not justify treating them as subhuman.

The 14th Amendment only applies to what the government does. This is the most basic stuff there is when it comes to law.

 

[Tigerace117]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

The 14th Amendment only applies to what the government does. This is the most basic stuff there is when it comes to law.

No, buddy, the 14th Amendment also applies to the practices of the states and private citizens as well. We've already been over that ground decades ago in the 1960s, when the states and private citizens were desperate to try and preserve Jim Crow. It didn't work for them. Guess why?

 

[MrWonka]

Re: And then they came for the bakers; Colorado Cake Oral Arguments Encouraging

Have you considered the possibility that you are the last person to understand how bad SCOTUS has been in recent decades?

Right.... Hundreds of judges and legal professionals for decades have all been wrong, but you know the truth. Nothing says delusional like believing yourself to be more qualified to do a job than the majority of people who've spent their entire lives doing that job.

I suppose you're a better mechanic than the majority of mechanics too right? A better dentist than the majority of Dentists? A better pilot than the majority of pilots? A better chef than the majority of chefs? A better quarterback than the majority of NFL quarterbacks?