"Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

[TurtleDude]

This isnt just about freedom of association, it is about preventing the dominant power structures based on race, sex, etc. from shutting everyone else out in order to maintain an underclass and enable every citizen to be able to participate in society. Without such protections, the dominant people in society will stick together to prevent others from participating. Just like i tell the white nationalist dickheads, this isnt just your playground now get over it.

Then an amendment should be crafted and enacted that gives the federal government that power

 

[Conaeolos]

Someone posted this on another forum: ""the Constitution and Supreme Court means we get a free ticket to discriminate against people we don't like (see: Masterpiece Cake shop case).

Do conservative Christians really believe that the phrase "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cake case both mean they have the right to discriminate against gays and other "people we don't like"?

Forget being a conservative Christian, your arguing for raw evil. There is a very big difference between kicking out a nice married couple from one's store and refusing to bake a custom cake for their wedding(where say a blank one is available). The government can most certainly protect against discrimination in a public space such as the store, as products are open to everyone because it does not infringe anyone rights to do so...in fact, only by protecting the couple does all people involved have true free expression. In the latter case, you very much have to force one party to actively participate in violating their free expression.

Discrimination against people isn't always an expression. I can, for example, choose to not work with women as free expression. My corporation, a legal protection granted by the state is a public domain and most certainly can not. A woman can seek a legal remedy for the latter not the former for good reason.

This case had one aim. To attack freedom of religion. People have the right to be discriminatory. Institutions of the state do not.

The Church is the true aim. And that where things get complicated and it matters the hierarchy of rights. Are religious free associations not subject to the government public domain? When it comes time for that fight, it will be interesting if the churches involved are voluntarily withholding on a personal level or institutionally trying to invoke internal authority.

 

[Keridan]

Can't help but wonder if we would still see such outrage if the cake store had refused to make a cake celebrating the anniversary of KKK

 

[bomberfox]

and I have a very strong understanding of the concept of a government limited to its enumerated powers. Contrary to some people, I do understand that the government has lots of powers that were never properly granted it. And those powers do have legal standing. However, that does not mean we cannot argue against the extra or unconstitutional powers the federal government granted itself during the FDR administration

Did i say you couldnt argue this? SCOTUS at the end of the day has the final say but your ability to argue something on this forum is not in question.

 

[bomberfox]

Can't help but wonder if we would still see such outrage if the cake store had refused to make a cake celebrating the anniversary of KKK

The KKK is a terrorist organization and always has been. It is not a protected class.

 

[Keridan]

The KKK is a terrorist organization and always has been. It is not a protected class.

Can't discriminate on basis of religion and very few KKK sects are officially terrorist organizations

 

[bomberfox]

Can't discriminate on basis of religion and very few KKK sects are officially terrorist organizations

They have always been terrorists. There is no klukker mother****er that is separate from that history.

 

[Keridan]

They have always been terrorists. There is no klukker mother****er that is separate from that history.

Trust that I would never defend a group grown on hatred, but I was talking technicalities here - I actually support equal treatment for gays pretty ardently - it's a contrast I was drawing

 

[ProgressPlease]

I think it's a shame that the baker refused to bake the couple a cake and I personally would not have made that choice.

My understanding of the ruling is that the Supreme Court really had no choice but to rule in the way they did based on the following:

The baker was not refusing to sell goods to this couple but he was refusing to create a special custom cake celebrating their wedding. The argument was that his forced creation of a custom cake would have infringed on his 1st amendment right to freedom of expression - and that this was akin to compelled speech. One has a right *not* to speak and the baker would have been forced to create a cake containing a message he did not agree with. A business such as a bank is not being compelled to speak or convey a personal message for a customer, when doing business. The argument is that there is a fundamental difference.

Part of the ruling also was addressing the court's concern over what they perceived as hostility, in the lower court, directed at the baker and his religious views. "Anti religious bias".
From the ruling:
"Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the state itself would not be a factor in the balance the state sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here.”

As to the court addressing whether a business can refuse to serve gay people they said this “must await further elaboration”.

 

[bomberfox]

Trust that I would never defend a group grown on hatred, but I was talking technicalities here - I actually support equal treatment for gays pretty ardently - it's a contrast I was drawing

Got ahead of myself there but hey. I wonder why the contrast was drawn legally.

 

[TurtleDude]

The KKK is a terrorist organization and always has been. It is not a protected class.

there is a strong argument gays shouldn't be either.

 

[Keridan]

Got ahead of myself there but hey. I wonder why the contrast was drawn legally.

SCOTUS has to uphold the technicalities - unfortunately homosexuality is not yet protected

 

[bomberfox]

there is a strong argument gays shouldn't be either.

I would say that if you are open in the public domain you should not be able to prevent others from participating in society by denying them the ability to buy your goods based on something that causes no harm. Klan members cause immense harm to people and threaten to on a daily basis so i dont think they apply.

The reason we have laws like this is to protect people from being pushed to essentially second class citizen status.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would say that if you are open in the public domain you should not be able to prevent others from participating in society by denying them the ability to buy your goods based on something that causes no harm. Klan members cause immense harm to people and threaten to on a daily basis so i dont think they apply.

The reason we have laws like this is to protect people from being pushed to essentially second class citizen status.

there are good faith arguments on both sides as to gays. You are correct, scum like the klan are not protected and anyone who discriminates against them is well within their legal and moral rights to do so

 

[Individual]

They only lost because of they lower courts treatment of the Bakery, not for being refused a cake.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

They were NOT refused a cake, they were refused customization services in producing a cake which conflicted with the religious beliefs of the baker, "although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store."

 

[weaver2]

it (laws preventing discrimination in the public sphere) shouldn't be the law. the federal government is acting in an area it was never properly given the power to operate

The Preamble, dismissed by most as a few grand sounding opening words, is actually the most powerful statement of the Constitution. It states the duties of our government. The rest of the Constitution is a description of how the government will carry out its duties. The Constitution clearly gives the government the power to prevent discrimination in the public sphere. It's right there in the enumerated powers.

PREAMBLE
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

ARTICLE I
SECTION 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Congress shall have the power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress is clearly acting in an area it was properly given the power in which to operate.

 

[weaver2]

They were NOT refused a cake, they were refused customization services in producing a cake which conflicted with the religious beliefs of the baker, "although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store."

Actually the wedding cakes were not customized. The baker had a picture book of standard wedding cakes that he made and the clients chose from. They were posted on the internet.

It is simply not possible for cake to conflict with religious beliefs. Cake is not political or religious. The baking and icing of a cake is not a religious ritual. The cake may go to a festival which conflicts with the baker's religion. But it is the festival that is a problem not the cake

 

[Individual]

Actually the wedding cakes were not customized. The baker had a picture book of standard wedding cakes that he made and the clients chose from. They were posted on the internet.

It is simply not possible for cake to conflict with religious beliefs. Cake is not political or religious. The baking and icing of a cake is not a religious ritual. The cake may go to a festival which conflicts with the baker's religion. But it is the festival that is a problem not the cake

So why did they not simply choose one of those cakes?

 

[weaver2]

So why did they not simply choose one of those cakes?

They may have, but the baker refused to bake any wedding cake for a gay wedding.

 

[Glitch]

and hopefully that sort of nonsense will be struck down as being beyond legitimate government powers

The Supreme Court did indeed side in favor of the baker with a 7-2 decision. They held that the State of Colorado had violated the baker's Free Exercise clause. In essence the Supreme Court accused the State of Colorado of religious persecution.

For the reasons just described, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.

Source:
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)

 

[Glitch]

So far it hasn't been struck down and the prognosis is not good for the future return of discrimination by sanctimonious. But you still have the freedom to hope that someday you can reinstall bigotry in the marketplace.

Actually, it has been struck down with a 7-2 decision. More than a year ago.

 

[Glitch]

Conservatives passed Jim Crow laws. Southern Democrats are not the same as liberals of today.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

We know that is a deliberate lie.

 

[Glitch]

Freedom of speech is a right for individual people. America recognizes the rights of people living within its boarders. That was unique when the bill of rights and constitution were written.

It still is unique 230 years later. In the UK they arrest on average 9 people every day for what they post online. The US is the only nation on the planet that acknowledges the individual rights of its citizens and has enacted laws to protect those individual rights.

 

[Glitch]

Can't discriminate on basis of religion and very few KKK sects are officially terrorist organizations

The Kluh Klux Klan Act of 1871, (enacted into law by only Republicans, with every Democrat in Congress voting against it), effectively declared the KKK a terrorist organization using today's terminology. The law was designed to eliminate extralegal violence and protect the civil and political rights of 4 million freed slaves.

 

[gdgyva]

I think it's a shame that the baker refused to bake the couple a cake and I personally would not have made that choice.

My understanding of the ruling is that the Supreme Court really had no choice but to rule in the way they did based on the following:

The baker was not refusing to sell goods to this couple but he was refusing to create a special custom cake celebrating their wedding. The argument was that his forced creation of a custom cake would have infringed on his 1st amendment right to freedom of expression - and that this was akin to compelled speech. One has a right *not* to speak and the baker would have been forced to create a cake containing a message he did not agree with. A business such as a bank is not being compelled to speak or convey a personal message for a customer, when doing business. The argument is that there is a fundamental difference.

Part of the ruling also was addressing the court's concern over what they perceived as hostility, in the lower court, directed at the baker and his religious views. "Anti religious bias".
From the ruling:
"Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the state itself would not be a factor in the balance the state sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here.”

As to the court addressing whether a business can refuse to serve gay people they said this “must await further elaboration”.

my interpretatation of their ruling

businesses cannot discriminate as the law has been EXCEPT when the act or service is out of the regular daily business, and is considered a "special order"

ie....the baker can turn down making a special cake, but they can buy any cake in the display
ie....a florist can turn down a gay wedding, but must sell all flowers in shop

that is the way i read it, but i could well be wrong....

your take?