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

[Noodlegawd]

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"?

Do you think a Gay baker should be required to provide a cake with Leviticus 20:13 written on it, for a Jewish religious celebration?

 

[danielpalos]

Do you think a Gay baker should be required to provide a cake with Leviticus 20:13 written on it, for a Jewish religious celebration?

It should merely depend on the faith of the Person and the proof of that faith in the organization of their business. For-profit status means the bottom line is the most important consideration not morals in public accommodation.

 

[Noodlegawd]

For-profit status means the bottom line is the most important consideration not morals in public accommodation.

Says who?

 

[danielpalos]

Says who?

Because it is a simple and fact based reason and distinction not any practice of the abomination of hypocrisy with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

For Profit means lucre over morals in public accommodation Because our First Amendment and State equivalents apply.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Because it is a simple and fact based reason and distinction not any practice of the abomination of hypocrisy with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

For Profit means lucre over morals in public accommodation Because our First Amendment and State equivalents apply.

That's complete nonsense. The balance between profit and morals is completely subjective, and practically every business makes decisions every day about where it wants to be on that scale. To suggest that prioritizing profit over morals in formulating our public access policies is downright reprehensible.

 

[danielpalos]

That's complete nonsense. The balance between profit and morals is completely subjective, and practically every business makes decisions every day about where it wants to be on that scale. To suggest that prioritizing profit over morals in formulating our public access policies is downright reprehensible.

Thank you for point that out. The subjective value of morals is private not public in public accommodation. We have our First Amendment and State equivalents.

If you want to be able to discriminate in public accommodation, you must do it on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over-Morals basis.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Thank you for point that out. The subjective value of morals is private not public in public accommodation. We have our First Amendment and State equivalents.

If you want to be able to discriminate in public accommodation, you must do it on a not-for-the-profit-of-Lucre-over-Morals basis.

The First Amendment does not apply to private businesses. It only limits what the government can do.

 

[danielpalos]

The First Amendment does not apply to private businesses. It only limits what the government can do.

It limits the defendant's rights in this case since it was in Public Accommodation. Both parties have recourse to the rights afforded. The defendant agreed to "abide by the rules of public accommodation" on a "for profit basis".

A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws

 

[joko104]

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"?

:2bigcry: Give it up. You lost.

Yes, I think most people understand the intense hatred of Christians within the Democratic Party. Christians are the fascist Democratic Party's Jews to be exterminated.

 

[Lisa]

:2bigcry: Give it up. You lost.

Yes, I think most people understand the intense hatred of Christians within the Democratic Party. Christians are the fascist Democratic Party's Jews to be exterminated.

Nobody is persecuting Christians in the DNC. Obeying the strict separation of church and state isn't persecution.

More than 65% of Democrats are Christian. The First Amendment's Free Exercise clause protects your right to believe and pray as you wish.

 

[Glitch]

Nobody is persecuting Christians in the DNC. Obeying the strict separation of church and state isn't persecution.

More than 65% of Democrats are Christian. The First Amendment's Free Exercise clause protects your right to believe and pray as you wish.

That is a deliberate lie. Colorado Democrats went out of their way to demean, ridicule, and persecute Mr. Phillips religious beliefs. Comparing Christianity to supporting slavery and the holocaust. Democrats have a deep-seated hatred for all Christians, and this case demonstrates that fact. Democrats used the power of the State to persecute Mr. Phillips religious beliefs, so sayeth the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision.

 

[Lisa]

That is a deliberate lie. Colorado Democrats went out of their way to demean, ridicule, and persecute Mr. Phillips's religious beliefs. Comparing Christianity to supporting slavery and the holocaust. Democrats have a deep-seated hatred for all Christians, and this case demonstrates that fact. Democrats used the power of the State to persecute Mr. Phillips's religious beliefs, so sayeth the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision.

His religious beliefs are not immune to the free speech of anyone. That is not persecution.

Being forced to serve all people that enter his store is no more persecution that forcing the owner of Piggie Park bbq to serve black and interracial s customers after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that contained the pubic accommodation protections that put an end to whites only businesses. Was he also persecuted because he said that his religious beliefs opposed race mixing? His religious rights, like those of everyone else, are limited to the right to believe or not to believe as he chooses and the right to worship. A business owner in the US has never had the right to assert their religious beliefs as a defense for denying equal service to others, as Phillips claims that he has.

The SCOTUS decsion wasn't about his actions but only limited to what the State of Colorado said. if it was about his actions it would have gone the other way, accordding to the majoirty opinion of Justice Kennedy. Read the last paragrapgh of that decsion for proof.

There is no legal precedent that says that persons' religious beliefs exempt them from obeying secular law, which would be necessary for what you are saying to happen. That action would create a de facto theocracy if a business owner or private person only had to claim a religious belief to exempt them from the law. That would apply to all religious beliefs equally and not just conservative Christians, so be careful what you wish for.


Christianity was used to defend slavery and the Holocaust.

If Democrats hate Christians then why is 60%-/+ of the DNC Christian?

 

[Aberration]

He didn’t refuse service though. He refused making a product he did not offer.

 

[Lisa]

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"?

Discrimination in a public business has never been a religious right. Our religious rights are the right to believe or not to believe and the right to worship as we choose without interference from the state. Discirnastion is not part of a person's worship activities and forcing them to treat others equally in a business that they chose to operate does not change their right to believe or not to believe in the god of their choice.

The SCOTUS did not rule on that issue in the Masterpiece Cake Shop decision because they only ruled on a very minor point and kicked the rest of the issue down the road. The legal precedent is clear that discrimination based on the business owners' religious beliefs is not permitted. That was the basis of the Newman v. Piggie Park BBQ where the owner of the BBQ joined that claimed that his Southern Baptist beliefs forbid him from serving black and interracial couples equally, despite the Public Accommodation protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The SCOTUS disagreed and ruled against him in a 9-0 decision. Justice Kenndy left a very strong hint in Masterpiece' that if the SCOTUS was to rule on that issue it would have ruled against the baker.

 

[Lisa]

He didn’t refuse service though. He refused making a product he did not offer.

He did refuse them service and he did offer custom wedding cakes, so your claim is not true on both counts.

 

[Aberration]

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

He did refuse them service and he did offer custom wedding cakes, so your claim is not true on both counts.

He did not refuse service. He did refuse a custom cake. That custom cake was what he didn’t offer. So my claim is true exactly as stated.

 

[Lisa]

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

He did not refuse service. He did refuse a custom cake. That custom cake was what he didn’t offer. So my claim is true exactly as stated.

If he offers custom cakes to others then he must offer them equally to anyone who asks. Doing otherwise is discrimination. All wedding cakes are custom because there is no such thing as a stock wedding cake. A wedding cake, even a plain one is 3-4 hours work, so you don't have them sitting in the case because they have a edible life about 12 hours. You would be tossing out $120+ a day in ingredients and labor.

What is so offensive about making a wedding cake for a LGBT couple? They aren't asking for his approval and there are nothing religious about a cake. Its 5+ pounds of butter, flour sugar, milk, and eggs, plus a few minor ingredients. He is not invited to the wedding and he likely doesn't even deliver it to the reception site.

 

[Aberration]

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

If he offers custom cakes to others then he must offer them equally to anyone who asks. Doing otherwise is discrimination. All wedding cakes are custom because there is no such thing as a stock wedding cake. A wedding cake, even a plain one is 3-4 hours work, so you don't have them sitting in the case because they have a edible life about 12 hours. You would be tossing out $120+ a day in ingredients and labor.

What is so offensive about making a wedding cake for a LGBT couple? They aren't asking for his approval and there are nothing religious about a cake. Its 5+ pounds of butter, flour sugar, milk, and eggs, plus a few minor ingredients. He is not invited to the wedding and he likely doesn't even deliver it to the reception site.

He did offer customs cakes to them. Just not the custom one they wanted. No one has a right to demand someone make any custom cake they want simply because custom cakes are offered.

It doesn’t matter what is so offensive. It only matters that it is. It doesn’t matter how trivial you think the labor or cost of product is.

This isn’t like it’s the only grocery store in town not willing to sell them food.

 

[Lisa]

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

He did offer customs cakes to them. Just not the custom one they wanted. No one has a right to demand someone make any custom cake they want simply because custom cakes are offered.

It doesn’t matter what is so offensive. It only matters that it is. It doesn’t matter how trivial you think the labor or cost of product is.

This isn’t like it’s the only grocery store in town not willing to sell them food.

What custom cake did they want that was offensive? They do have the right to demand equal service, so unless you can put forth proof that what they were asking for it offensive to the majority he was discriminating against them because of his conservative religious beliefs. The design of the cake was never discussed because he refused them service as soon as he learned they were an LGBT couple seeking a wedding cake.

The idea that LGBT people should go elsewhere because there are other bakeries where they are more welcome is no different than having businesses that refused service to black and interracial customers.

What is determined to be offensive does matter greatly because if you are permitted to determine what is offensive outside of any community standard then you have just created a loophole to discriminate. You just have to claim that anything you don't like and anyone who you disagree with is offensive or obscene.

 

[Aberration]

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

What custom cake did they want that was offensive? They do have the right to demand equal service, so unless you can put forth proof that what they were asking for it offensive to the majority he was discriminating against them because of his conservative religious beliefs. The design of the cake was never discussed because he refused them service as soon as he learned they were an LGBT couple seeking a wedding cake.

The idea that LGBT people should go elsewhere because there are other bakeries where they are more welcome is no different than having businesses that refused service to black and interracial customers.

What is determined to be offensive does matter greatly because if you are permitted to determine what is offensive outside of any community standard then you have just created a loophole to discriminate. You just have to claim that anything you don't like and anyone who you disagree with is offensive or obscene.

You can try to nit pick all the details you want. Have fun.

No one should be forced to labor to support a message they don’t agree with. Except for maybe criminals.

 

[Lisa]

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

You can try to nit pick all the details you want. Have fun.

No one should be forced to labor to support a message they don’t agree with. Except for maybe criminals.

He is being paid his price for the labor, so it isn't forced labor.

There is no message in a wedding cake. He is making a cake that the customer ordered. He doesn't get to decide what the customers can order because of his religious beliefs. He is putting far more emotional baggage into this situation. It is a very simple transaction. He bakes the cake that they want and they pay him the price that he quotes. Nobody is saying that he must like the customer or the design of their cake. He isn't the cake fashion police and they don't want his approval or to be his friend. He is only expected to be a mature adult and do the job that he is being paid to the best of his ability.

BTW, Why didn't you answer my question about the supposed stock wedding cake or how their requested design was offensive, or did you cede those fallacious claims?

 

[Aberration]

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

He is being paid his price for the labor, so it isn't forced labor.

There is no message in a wedding cake. He is making a cake that the customer ordered. He doesn't get to decide what the customers can order because of his religious beliefs. He is putting far more emotional baggage into this situation. It is a very simple transaction. He bakes the cake that they want and they pay him the price that he quotes. Nobody is saying that he must like the customer or the design of their cake. He isn't the cake fashion police and they don't want his approval or to be his friend. He is only expected to be a mature adult and do the job that he is being paid to the best of his ability.

BTW, Why didn't you answer my question about the supposed stock wedding cake or how their requested design was offensive, or did you cede those fallacious claims?

It doesn’t matter that he is being paid. The transaction is not voluntary.

Apparently he does get to decide. Or has he made the cake?

 

[Lisa]

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

It doesn’t matter that he is being paid. The transaction is not voluntary.

Apparently he does get to decide. Or has he made the cake?

His religious beliefs do not permit him to ignore the Public Accommodation protections in the Civil Rights Act or a Colorado state law that protects the rights of LGBT in equal service.

 

[Aberration]

1st Amendment > Act

 

[Lisa]

1st Amendment > Act

Tell that to Maurice Bessigner who claimed that his conservative religious beliefs were a reason to deny black and interracial people equal service in his BBQ joint in a test case of the Public Accommodation Act. The SCOTUS disagreed in a 9-0 decision in Newman v. Piggie Park.

Our religious rights are the right to believe or not to believe and the right to worship as you wish. Discrimination is not one of our rights and never have been.