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

[Aberration]

Apples/Oranges.

He didn’t completely deny service.

And the fact is SCOTUS found Colorado violated his 1st Amendment rights and heavily discriminated against his tightly held religious beliefs.

 

[Lisa]

Apples/Oranges.

He didn’t completely deny service.

And the fact is SCOTUS found Colorado violated his 1st Amendment rights and heavily discriminated against his tightly held religious beliefs.

He did deny equal service because they were refused a wedding cake of the design that he has offered to others. Separate but almost equal doesn't meet the legal requirement of equal service. What is it about LGBT people that doesn't also apply to not treating black and interracial couples equally in a public business? Do you support a "whites-only" business if the owner claimed a sincere religious belief for being a racist bigot?

He has the right to make the business a private members-only business where he can pick and choose who his customers can be, but then he loses the sales of pastry items to customers who might just walk in off the street.

They SCOTUS diodnt rule on the large issue but only that the state board acted ion a biased manner.

 

[smallvoice]

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"?

It's all in perspective. What it means is that the bakery cannot be told what to do (from a moral standpoint). Discrimination has nothing to do with it.

 

[Lisa]

It's all in perspective. What it means is that the bakery cannot be told what to do (from a moral standpoint). Discrimination has nothing to do with it.

What does morality have to do wth baking a wedding cake for anyone?

 

[smallvoice]

What does morality have to do wth baking a wedding cake for anyone?

I have no idea. Why do gays want a wedding cake to get married? To have children?

Why should the baker have to bake it for them?

 

[Lisa]

I have no idea. Why do gays want a wedding cake to get married? To have children?

Why should the baker have to bake it for them?

A cake is not part of the ceremony. You do not have to prove that you have applied for a wedding license to buy a cake. It is a very simple exchange of money for goods and services that is the basis of a market economy.

He is required by law to bake it for them because he cannot refuse to do so if they have the money, just as racists cannot deny equal service to black and interracial customers because their racism might be linked to their religious beliefs.

 

[smallvoice]

A cake is not part of the ceremony. You do not have to prove that you have applied for a wedding license to buy a cake. It is a very simple exchange of money for goods and services that is the basis of a market economy.

He is required by law to bake it for them because he cannot refuse to do so if they have the money, just as racists cannot deny equal service to black and interracial customers because their racism might be linked to their religious beliefs.

No, he is required to bake for them because the government says so. Since the government didn't invest in his business, screw them.

 

[Lisa]

No, he is required to bake for them because the government says so. Since the government didn't invest in his business, screw them.

He agreed to obey all relevant laws applying to business when he signed and accepted his business license. A business owners' investors do not get to decide what laws you obey when you accept their money to buy a share of the business.

The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in Newman v. Piggy Park that an owner's religious views are not sufficient for denial of equal service in a public business. If he claims to be a Christian, Jesus told his followers not to act in this way. Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12.

Matt 7:12,

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. ... shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

 

[smallvoice]

He agreed to obey all relevant laws applying to business when he signed and accepted his business license. A business owners' investors do not get to decide what laws you obey when you accept their money to buy a share of the business.

The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in Newman v. Piggy Park that an owner's religious views are not sufficient for denial of equal service in a public business. If he claims to be a Christian, Jesus told his followers not to act in this way. Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12.

Matt 7:12,

And you display what is wrong with liberals. They "think" they know best. There is a change coming in your future: A serious Conservative tilt in the court system. This nonsense will end.

 

[Aberration]

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

He did deny equal service because they were refused a wedding cake of the design that he has offered to others. Separate but almost equal doesn't meet the legal requirement of equal service. What is it about LGBT people that doesn't also apply to not treating black and interracial couples equally in a public business? Do you support a "whites-only" business if the owner claimed a sincere religious belief for being a racist bigot?

He has the right to make the business a private members-only business where he can pick and choose who his customers can be, but then he loses the sales of pastry items to customers who might just walk in off the street.

They SCOTUS diodnt rule on the large issue but only that the state board acted ion a biased manner.

Who did this baker make a same sex wedding cake for? No one. And it wasn’t on the menu.

Whites only, again, is Apples/Oranges. He’s not denying service to homosexuals.

 

[Aberration]

A cake is not part of the ceremony. You do not have to prove that you have applied for a wedding license to buy a cake. It is a very simple exchange of money for goods and services that is the basis of a market economy.

He is required by law to bake it for them because he cannot refuse to do so if they have the money, just as racists cannot deny equal service to black and interracial customers because their racism might be linked to their religious beliefs.

A cake is most certainly a central aspect of every wedding. It’s always a big deal. And who makes it is a big deal.

He’s not required by law. No court has said so.

 

[AGENT J]

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"?

Couple things

1.) this isnt about conservative Christians, millions of conservative Christians see the store owner for the bigot he factually is
2.) anybody that thinks thats what Scotus ruled is a complete retard and has no understanding of the law and or rights
3.) in that area it is still 100% illegal to discriminate against sexual orientation. The owner did not win the case, the case wasnt even ruled on based on the owner's complaints . .

what DID actually happened is that colorado was found guilty of not following its own rules and protocols and practicing due diligence to effectively and objectively vet the case and thats what they got their hand smacked for and rightfully so. THier RUSH to judgment is what was ruled on, NOT illegal discrimination.

 

[Lisa]

A cake is most certainly a central aspect of every wedding. It’s always a big deal. And who makes it is a big deal.

He’s not required by law. No court has said so.

He is required by the Colorado equal service statute to serve LGBT people equally.

In Colorado, it has been illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in employment, housing, public accommodations, education, and credit since the category "sexual orientation" was added to the state's Public Accommodations Law in 2008

 

[AGENT J]

I personally would have thought Freedom of association would have given that right. Why should one be forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with? I never understood why someone would want to do business with someone that would discriminate against them in the first place.

in American ZERO people are forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with based on discrimination laws so there's no worries on that front.

 

[Nap]

in American ZERO people are forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with based on discrimination laws so there's no worries on that front.

So if I wanted to open up a flower shop and put a sign out front that I wanted no part of selling my wares to go to a gay wedding, I won't be shut down or sued into financial ruin?

 

[maxparrish]

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"?

I won't speak for conservative Christians, but this conservative agnostic (me) believes the first amendment no only provides Christians the freedom to not associate with whomever they wish to, but the identical freedom is also provided to non-Christians, gays, midgets, Muslims, prostitutes, photographers, bakers and every other person regardless of creed, color, or occupation.

"Discrimination" is a right to reciprocal free choice. The Jewish physician has a right to not provide medical services to a Nazi, just as the Nazi doctor has the right to not treat a Jew.

So yes, everyone has a right to "choose" association based on who they like or dislike.

 

[AGENT J]

So if I wanted to open up a flower shop and put a sign out front that I wanted no part of selling my wares to go to a gay wedding, I won't be shut down or sued into financial ruin?

???none of that changes the fact ZERO people are forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with based on discrimination laws so there's no worries on that front.

BUT lets go through it, it will be fun destroying!


so i understand . . I want to get YOUR scenario right

you choose to open up a shop
you choose to put up a sign that says no wedding cakes for gays, is that correct?

and you want to know if you will be shut down or sued? so i need more info

shutdown by who, for what, based on what authority?
sued by who and for what?


opcorn2:

 

[Nap]

???none of that changes the fact ZERO people are forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with based on discrimination laws so there's no worries on that front.

BUT lets go through it, it will be fun destroying!


so i understand . . I want to get YOUR scenario right

you choose to open up a shop
you choose to put up a sign that says no wedding cakes for gays, is that correct?

and you want to know if you will be shut down or sued? so i need more info

shutdown by who, for what, based on what authority?
sued by who and for what?


opcorn2:

Let's keep it simple:

Is it legal for someone to open a flower shop and decide to not serve homosexuals?

 

[AGENT J]

1.) I won't speak for conservative Christians, but this conservative agnostic (me) believes the first amendment no only provides Christians the freedom to not associate with whomever they wish to, but the identical freedom is also provided to non-Christians, gays, midgets, Muslims, prostitutes, photographers, bakers and every other person regardless of creed, color, or occupation.

2.) "Discrimination" is a right to reciprocal free choice.

3.) The Jewish physician has a right to not provide medical services to a Nazi, just as the Nazi doctor has the right to not treat a Jew.
4.)So yes, everyone has a right to "choose" association based on who they like or dislike.

1.) your choice is fully protected

now if you CHOOSE to participate in a business that has a licenses/contract you agreed to and it is regulated by laws ad rules of public access and then you CHOOSE to break those laws and rules thats your fault and your fault alone

like you said nobody gets special treatment, my Christian faith does NOT make me above the law and rules.
It doesn't allow me to illegally discriminate and violate the rights of others.
I have to play by the same rules as everybody

. .if living in civil society with rules, laws, rights are a problem for me thats my problem to deal with . . i could simply also CHOOSE not to break the law, rules and violate somebody's rights and NOT open a business agree to its licenses/
contract that i know are going to bother me. Im free to choose a different business or a private one. VERY simple solution.

2.) nobody has the right to illegal discriminate
3.) also factually false no such right exists they would be breaking the law. The simple solution is to not be a doctor offering public access medical services.
4.) now that is correct hence my simple solutions already offered above but if you CHOOSE to play in the punlic access arena then you are CHOOSING to play by the same rules as everybody nobody gets special treatment

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Let's keep it simple:
2.) Is it legal for someone to open a flower shop and decide to not serve homosexuals?

1.) BOOOM!!! that's what I thought a complete dodge! so delicious!!!
2.) if you make the CHOICE to break the LAW that is illegal by definition and that would be your CHOICE, not force
. . who forced you to open up a public access business? nobody that was a choice
. . who forced you to then ignore the rules, laws and contracts associated with that agreement? nobody that was a choice
. . who then forced you to break the law and or violate the rights of others? nobody that was a choice
. . why didnt you choose to open up a different type of business with rules more suited to bigotry instead of choosing to break laws, rules, contracts and or violate the rights of others?

Fact remains:
in American ZERO people are forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with based on discrimination laws so there's no worries on that front.

 

[Lisa]

Let's keep it simple:

Is it legal for someone to open a flower shop and decide to not serve homosexuals?

The spirit of the law per the public accommodation protections says that the answer is no they do not have the right to deny equal service. The letter of the law is undecided but the judicial leaning on the subject is hinting that they do not. There is no legal precedent saying that discrimination is a legal right of a business based on the owner's religious beliefs.

 

[Nap]

1.) BOOOM!!! that's what I thought a complete dodge! so delicious!!!
2.) if you make the CHOICE to break the LAW that is illegal by definition and that would be your CHOICE, not force
. . who forced you to open up a public access business? nobody that was a choice
. . who forced you to then ignore the rules, laws and contracts associated with that agreement? nobody that was a choice
. . who then forced you to break the law and or violate the rights of others? nobody that was a choice
. . why didnt you choose to open up a different type of business with rules more suited to bigotry instead of choosing to break laws, rules, contracts and or violate the rights of others?

Fact remains:
in American ZERO people are forced to do business with someone they do not wish to be associated with based on discrimination laws so there's no worries on that front.

The Law itself is force, there is no choice as you must comply or face the consequences of your actions. Must of us are not wealthy enough that obeying the law is a matter of choice.

 

[Nap]

The spirit of the law per the public accommodation protections says that the answer is no they do not have the right to deny equal service. The letter of the law is undecided but the judicial leaning on the subject is hinting that they do not. There is no legal precedent saying that discrimination is a legal right of a business based on the owner's religious beliefs.

I disagree with public accommodation protections as I believe people should have the freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Lisa]

I disagree with public accommodation protections as I believe people should have the freedom to do what they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Since when are equal rights for others not a core idea of the US Constitution? Equal protection in public business is among those fundamental ideas. Customers arent asking to be liked but only to be treated equally? I thought that this issue was settled before I was born 50+ years ago.

Do you want to return to "whites-only" businesses or "Christian-only" businesses in the US? If people are so bigoted that they cant treat others as equals for 12 hours a day then maybe running a business is not something that they should do.

Where in the Bible did Jesus tell his followers to act in this manner if you want to claim it is a religious belief?

Do you also want to bring back slavery or would you prefer tpo rename it somthing thast is more suitable for republicansd and supposed libertarians?

 

[Lisa]

The Law itself is force, there is no choice as you must comply or face the consequences of your actions. Must of us are not wealthy enough that obeying the law is a matter of choice.

So you oppose the constitution and would prefer mob rule?

This is where libertarianism takes an intellectual face plant. They want the rule of law enforced and the US Constitution obeyed, but just not for them.