Baker Who Won’t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order

[Seawytch]

What is your reason for not wanting to serve a Christian? His reason for not making a specific item for a specific event is clear, its based on the biblical prohibitions on homosexual relations.

Oh...so now I have to have a reason. I thought only the government couldn't refuse service in your perfect world?

It's against my religion. Christians are unbelievers in his divine noodly appendages. I shouldn't have to serve such heathens...but Federal law requires it.

He had a reason, why are you so afraid to state yours?

We know why, its because of bigotry and hate, all the things you claim YOU are against. Hypocrite.

I do and I stated it. Christians are unbelievers. Segregationists and anti miscegenationists had their reasons too. How come their reasons weren't good enough, but his are?

 

[Seawytch]

What is your reason for not wanting to serve a Christian? His reason for not making a specific item for a specific event is clear, its based on the biblical prohibitions on homosexual relations.

Oh...so now I have to have a reason. I thought only the government couldn't refuse service in your perfect world?

It's against my religion. Christians are unbelievers in his divine noodly appendages. I shouldn't have to serve such heathens...but Federal law requires it.

the answer is quite simple. If someone comes into your business and you don't want to serve them, for whatever reason, just say "sorry, I am totally booked up and cannot take your order, maybe Harry down the street can".

Why would anyone want to give their business to someone who does not want it?

But, we all know what this is really about, now don't we? Its about government mandated societal acceptance via force of law, rather than the will of the people and individual freedom.

In this city of New Orleans there are many bars and clubs that do not want to serve white people, or gays, or hispanics. Why isn't that their right? I don't want to go to them, why would any gay or hispanic want to go where they were not wanted?

this whole gay agenda is bullshit.

Good question. How come we have laws that require that I serve you regardless of your faith, color, country of origin, gender, disability, etc?

 

[Redfish]

Oh...so now I have to have a reason. I thought only the government couldn't refuse service in your perfect world?

It's against my religion. Christians are unbelievers in his divine noodly appendages. I shouldn't have to serve such heathens...but Federal law requires it.

He had a reason, why are you so afraid to state yours?

We know why, its because of bigotry and hate, all the things you claim YOU are against. Hypocrite.

I do and I stated it. Christians are unbelievers. Segregationists and anti miscegenationists had their reasons too. How come their reasons weren't good enough, but his are?

Mosques do not allow Christians to enter their doors. Should they be forced to?

 

[Redfish]

Oh...so now I have to have a reason. I thought only the government couldn't refuse service in your perfect world?

It's against my religion. Christians are unbelievers in his divine noodly appendages. I shouldn't have to serve such heathens...but Federal law requires it.

the answer is quite simple. If someone comes into your business and you don't want to serve them, for whatever reason, just say "sorry, I am totally booked up and cannot take your order, maybe Harry down the street can".

Why would anyone want to give their business to someone who does not want it?

But, we all know what this is really about, now don't we? Its about government mandated societal acceptance via force of law, rather than the will of the people and individual freedom.

In this city of New Orleans there are many bars and clubs that do not want to serve white people, or gays, or hispanics. Why isn't that their right? I don't want to go to them, why would any gay or hispanic want to go where they were not wanted?

this whole gay agenda is bullshit.

Good question. How come we have laws that require that I serve you regardless of your faith, color, country of origin, gender, disability, etc?

Because a majority of the people in this country do not approve of discrimination of any kind. But that is not what is being discussed.

Now, a question for you: Why would you want to do business with a homophobe?

 

[martybegan]

Oh...so now I have to have a reason. I thought only the government couldn't refuse service in your perfect world?

It's against my religion. Christians are unbelievers in his divine noodly appendages. I shouldn't have to serve such heathens...but Federal law requires it.

He had a reason, why are you so afraid to state yours?

We know why, its because of bigotry and hate, all the things you claim YOU are against. Hypocrite.

I do and I stated it. Christians are unbelievers. Segregationists and anti miscegenationists had their reasons too. How come their reasons weren't good enough, but his are?

Their reasons had no basis in scripture. His reasons do.

 

[Seawytch]

He had a reason, why are you so afraid to state yours?

We know why, its because of bigotry and hate, all the things you claim YOU are against. Hypocrite.

I do and I stated it. Christians are unbelievers. Segregationists and anti miscegenationists had their reasons too. How come their reasons weren't good enough, but his are?

Mosques do not allow Christians to enter their doors. Should they be forced to?

Are you confused about the difference between places of business and places of worship? Really?

 

[Seawytch]

the answer is quite simple. If someone comes into your business and you don't want to serve them, for whatever reason, just say "sorry, I am totally booked up and cannot take your order, maybe Harry down the street can".

Why would anyone want to give their business to someone who does not want it?

But, we all know what this is really about, now don't we? Its about government mandated societal acceptance via force of law, rather than the will of the people and individual freedom.

In this city of New Orleans there are many bars and clubs that do not want to serve white people, or gays, or hispanics. Why isn't that their right? I don't want to go to them, why would any gay or hispanic want to go where they were not wanted?

this whole gay agenda is bullshit.

Good question. How come we have laws that require that I serve you regardless of your faith, color, country of origin, gender, disability, etc?

Because a majority of the people in this country do not approve of discrimination of any kind. But that is not what is being discussed.

Now, a question for you: Why would you want to do business with a homophobe?

And in some localities, a majority of the people decided that they don't approve of discrimination of any kind to include gays.

Why are there laws requiring I serve someone I don't want to if they don't have to frequent MY establishment if I'm a "Chritianphobe"?

 

[Seawytch]

He had a reason, why are you so afraid to state yours?

We know why, its because of bigotry and hate, all the things you claim YOU are against. Hypocrite.

I do and I stated it. Christians are unbelievers. Segregationists and anti miscegenationists had their reasons too. How come their reasons weren't good enough, but his are?

Their reasons had no basis in scripture. His reasons do.

Wrong. The segregationists and anti miscegenationists had a basis in scripture too. Why does the anti gay scripture trump the racist scripture?

 

[Wake]

Until I can refuse to serve a Christian (Federal law prohibits it), he shouldn't be able to refuse to serve me.

This sounds like a valid point.

Whatever the decisions, it should be fair game for all.

Well ain't we a bitter old twat.

Marty, would you please share more of your thoughts on Seawytch's point above? I'm not sure what position to take on this issue, and I would appreciate it if both of you helped me to understand the sides a little better.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Basically when Certiorari is denied by the SC, they don't give a reason. Unless you have some in at the court my explanation is just as valid as yours.

I didn't give any reasons, I talked about process.


One - the court rejected the case. That's what I said.

Two - State supreme court cases can be appealed to the SCOTUS without going through lower Federal courts. That's what I said.


>>>>

From your post:

This was the process in the Elane Photography case, it went through the lower State Courts and the New Mexico Supreme Court, the NMSC decision was then appealed the the SCOTUS who rejected it on the merits - not on procedure.

You said plainly here they rejected it on merits, how are you sure of that?

It wasn't rejected because it hadn't gone through lower federal courts, as you claimed. Appeals from State Supreme Court Cases account for about 1/3 of appeals (as previously linked).

The Court rejected the appeal because it didn't have merit, if it had merit then they would have accepted the appeal for review. Since there was nothing wrong with the process (i.e. the appellant had standing, the case was submitted in a timely fashion, and the court had proper jurisdiction) then the vote was a rejection of the case itself.

(Now the court could choose to take another case in the future, without question. However the fact remains that the structure of the Elane Photography case (New Mexico) and the Masterpiece Cakes case (Colorado) and the SCOTUS declined to entertain an appeal.)



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Until I can refuse to serve a Christian (Federal law prohibits it), he shouldn't be able to refuse to serve me.

This sounds like a valid point.

Whatever the decisions, it should be fair game for all.

Well ain't we a bitter old twat.

Marty, would you please share more of your thoughts on Seawytch's point above? I'm not sure what position to take on this issue, and I would appreciate it if both of you helped me to understand the sides a little better.

I would like to see an end to public accommodation laws entirely when it comes to non essential services. Until then, I do not see public accommodation covering services for things such as weddings, services that are not unique, and if denied do not cause any harm to those denied the service.

 

[martybegan]

I didn't give any reasons, I talked about process.


One - the court rejected the case. That's what I said.

Two - State supreme court cases can be appealed to the SCOTUS without going through lower Federal courts. That's what I said.


>>>>

From your post:

This was the process in the Elane Photography case, it went through the lower State Courts and the New Mexico Supreme Court, the NMSC decision was then appealed the the SCOTUS who rejected it on the merits - not on procedure.

You said plainly here they rejected it on merits, how are you sure of that?

It wasn't rejected because it hadn't gone through lower federal courts, as you claimed. Appeals from State Supreme Court Cases account for about 1/3 of appeals (as previously linked).

The Court rejected the appeal because it didn't have merit, if it had merit then they would have accepted the appeal for review. Since there was nothing wrong with the process (i.e. the appellant had standing, the case was submitted in a timely fashion, and the court had proper jurisdiction) then the vote was a rejection of the case itself.

(Now the court could choose to take another case in the future, without question. However the fact remains that the structure of the Elane Photography case (New Mexico) and the Masterpiece Cakes case (Colorado) and the SCOTUS declined to entertain an appeal.)



>>>>

In your opinion, nothing more. Is there a statement from the court saying it was rejected on merit?

 

[martybegan]

I do and I stated it. Christians are unbelievers. Segregationists and anti miscegenationists had their reasons too. How come their reasons weren't good enough, but his are?

Their reasons had no basis in scripture. His reasons do.

Wrong. The segregationists and anti miscegenationists had a basis in scripture too. Why does the anti gay scripture trump the racist scripture?

Show me the racist scripture in the bible.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Their reasons had no basis in scripture. His reasons do.

I thought you were for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business so they could refuse any customer for any reason (as am I)?


Are you now saying that refusal has to be based scripture?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

In your opinion, nothing more. Is there a statement from the court saying it was rejected on merit?

Of course it's my opinion - duh.

6 of 9 Justices voted against accepting the case - i.e. they rejected it.


Can you show in deficiency in standing, application process, timing?



>>>>

 

[Jackson]

Until I can refuse to serve a Christian (Federal law prohibits it), he shouldn't be able to refuse to serve me.

This sounds like a valid point.

Whatever the decisions, it should be fair game for all.

Well ain't we a bitter old twat.

Marty, would you please share more of your thoughts on Seawytch's point above? I'm not sure what position to take on this issue, and I would appreciate it if both of you helped me to understand the sides a little better.

Wake, I commend you for rising above marty's useless choice of verbage and asking for both sides to explain their points of perspective more. You are an open minded individual.

 

[martybegan]

Their reasons had no basis in scripture. His reasons do.

I thought you were for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business so they could refuse any customer for any reason (as am I)?


Are you now saying that refusal has to be based scripture?


>>>>

Nope, what I am pointing out is reasoning based on scripture in the case of the baker and the photographer, as opposed to Seawytch's reasoning on denying services to Christians, which would be based on spite.

If public accommodation laws were removed, the reasoning wouldn't be a matter of law, but I'm sure it would be a reason to patronize/not patronize a business.

As an example, would I patronize a shop that does not provide cakes for gay weddings due to religious convictions? Yes. Would I patronize a shop that does not provide cakes for gay weddings due to "I HATZ THE QUEERSZ THEY SHOULD DIE DIE DIE"? Most definitely not.

 

[martybegan]

In your opinion, nothing more. Is there a statement from the court saying it was rejected on merit?

Of course it's my opinion - duh.

6 of 9 Justices voted against accepting the case - i.e. they rejected it.


Can you show in deficiency in standing, application process, timing?



>>>>

Can you show proof they rejected it on the merits?

 

[WorldWatcher]

In your opinion, nothing more. Is there a statement from the court saying it was rejected on merit?

Of course it's my opinion - duh.

6 of 9 Justices voted against accepting the case - i.e. they rejected it.


Can you show in deficiency in standing, application process, timing?



>>>>

Can you show proof they rejected it on the merits?

See above.

Can you show an deficiency in standing, application process, or timing?



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Their reasons had no basis in scripture. His reasons do.

I thought you were for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private business so they could refuse any customer for any reason (as am I)?


Are you now saying that refusal has to be based scripture?


>>>>

Nope, what I am pointing out is reasoning based on scripture in the case of the baker and the photographer, as opposed to Seawytch's reasoning on denying services to Christians, which would be based on spite.

If public accommodation laws were removed, the reasoning wouldn't be a matter of law, but I'm sure it would be a reason to patronize/not patronize a business.

As an example, would I patronize a shop that does not provide cakes for gay weddings due to religious convictions? Yes. Would I patronize a shop that does not provide cakes for gay weddings due to "I HATZ THE QUEERSZ THEY SHOULD DIE DIE DIE"? Most definitely not.

What difference does the reasoning behind the desire to select or reject customers being based on scripture have to do with it then?

The reason doesn't matter. Seawytch is making you look hypocritical by stating (and I paraphrase) because "his reasons are valid" and "yours are not".


>>>>