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

[martybegan]

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?



>>>>

That's not proof. They could have rejected it due to wanting a better case, or due to the sheer number of cases in the docket. They may have seen applicable decisions in the lower courts that they wanted the case to go through, or a whole host of reasons.

They did not give ANY reason for denying it, so saying standing, application process or timing could NOT be the issue is just as bad as saying merit IS the cause of the denial.

 

[martybegan]

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".


>>>>

Its not about validity in the law, its about his reason being sincere, and Seawytch's reason being that she's an asshole.

Once PA laws are struck down, it's up to the individual to decide if a person's reasons are valid and appropriate, and then up to the individual to patronize said person's business.

 

[hazlnut]

All "Christians" need to be re-educated.

Their "Pastors" are basically misleading them -- teaching them to justify their own fears and insecurities (about sexual orientation) by using ONE FUCKING LINE taken wa-aaaay out of historical context from an archaic book of tribal law Leviticus.

The reference in Roman is not talking about Homosexuality but the temple priests forcing themselves on young boys.


These are the FACTS -- the only two references in the bible (a collection of writings by MEN) and neither is relevant or SHOULD BE RELEVANT to modern Christianity.

 

[martybegan]

All "Christians" need to be re-educated.

Their "Pastors" are basically misleading them -- teaching them to justify their own fears and insecurities (about sexual orientation) by using ONE FUCKING LINE taken wa-aaaay out of historical context from an archaic book of tribal law Leviticus.

The reference in Roman is not talking about Homosexuality but the temple priests forcing themselves on young boys.


These are the FACTS -- the only two references in the bible (a collection of writings by MEN) and neither is relevant or SHOULD BE RELEVANT to modern Christianity.

and that's not homosexuality how?

Welcome to the thread, and fuck you for lowering its average IQ by about 40 points.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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".


>>>>

Its not about validity in the law, its about his reason being sincere, and Seawytch's reason being that she's an asshole.

Once PA laws are struck down, it's up to the individual to decide if a person's reasons are valid and appropriate, and then up to the individual to patronize said person's business.

So you don't think that Seawytch should have the ability to serve or not serve Christians who wish to discriminate against her? Why is she not able to exercise the same standard? Customer walks in and can buy any pre-made item in the case, but if they want custom work shouldn't she be able to reject a customer if her sincerely held belief is that she shouldn't have to serve someone if they disapprove of her Civil Marriage?



>>>>

 

[martybegan]

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".


>>>>

Its not about validity in the law, its about his reason being sincere, and Seawytch's reason being that she's an asshole.

Once PA laws are struck down, it's up to the individual to decide if a person's reasons are valid and appropriate, and then up to the individual to patronize said person's business.

So you don't think that Seawytch should have the ability to serve or not serve Christians who wish to discriminate against her? Why is she not able to exercise the same standard? Customer walks in and can buy any pre-made item in the case, but if they want custom work shouldn't she be able to reject a customer if her sincerely held belief is that she shouldn't have to serve someone if they disapprove of her Civil Marriage?



>>>>

She should be able to, but as I said if we do repeal PA laws, you should be required to post who you are denying service to, under what conditions.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Couldn't queers just get their cakes somewhere else without the fascist charade....

Course they could

Couldn't them darkies just keep quit and eat in the back room instead of demanding to sit up at the counter, or just go somewhere else to eat?

Course they could have.......

Public businesses use public services, such is the law. Though what is termed "re-education" is actually explaining what PUBLIC means to this business, which no doubt wants police & fire protection, sanitary water, and all the other "goodies" the public provides. Gay citizens are taxed as part of the public, should gay Americans pay less taxes because of public businesses wherein they are refused service?

Let me see if I've got this straight. It used to be that businesses - I have no fucking clue what a "public business" is, but I assume it's your new PC-speak for "We allow you the privilege of working, peon" - paid taxes in order to provide themselves and the community with things like police, fire departments, etc. Now, if I'm understanding your warped worldview, individuals pay taxes in order to provide themselves with businesses staffed and run by government slaves who are gifted with the privilege of sharing in the police, fire department, etc. in exchange for completing courses in brainwashing and indoctrination in order to not offend their tax-paying masters in the general public. And, apparently, businesses don't pay any taxes?

Did I miss something?

 

[martybegan]

Couldn't them darkies just keep quit and eat in the back room instead of demanding to sit up at the counter, or just go somewhere else to eat?

Course they could have.......

Public businesses use public services, such is the law. Though what is termed "re-education" is actually explaining what PUBLIC means to this business, which no doubt wants police & fire protection, sanitary water, and all the other "goodies" the public provides. Gay citizens are taxed as part of the public, should gay Americans pay less taxes because of public businesses wherein they are refused service?

Let me see if I've got this straight. It used to be that businesses - I have no fucking clue what a "public business" is, but I assume it's your new PC-speak for "We allow you the privilege of working, peon" - paid taxes in order to provide themselves and the community with things like police, fire departments, etc. Now, if I'm understanding your warped worldview, individuals pay taxes in order to provide themselves with businesses staffed and run by government slaves who are gifted with the privilege of sharing in the police, fire department, etc. in exchange for completing courses in brainwashing and indoctrination in order to not offend their tax-paying masters in the general public. And, apparently, businesses don't pay any taxes?

Did I miss something?

Every rationalization they use leads to one conclusion, "I can use the government to force you to accept me"

 

[bendog]

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.

Basing a belief on scripture does not automatically somehow sanctify and take away any spite underlying it.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Basing a belief on scripture does not automatically somehow sanctify and take away any spite underlying it.

Is there any evidence of malice or spite in the case of the baker? Does not baking a cake lower itself to malice or spite automatically?

Sea's approach would be tit for tat, and against a group of people, not the people in question, thus fitting the accusation of spite.

 

[hazlnut]

Common mistranslations in English versions of the Bible:

There are two Hebrew words which are often associated with homosexual passages and which are often mistranslated in English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):

• "qadesh" means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.
  
  
• "to'ebah" means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew having a meal with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment, or having a tattoo is "to'ebah" today.

 

[Ibentoken]

Common mistranslations in English versions of the Bible:

There are two Hebrew words which are often associated with homosexual passages and which are often mistranslated in English versions of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):

• "qadesh" means a male prostitute who engaged in ritual sex in a Pagan temple. This was a common profession both in ancient Israel and in the surrounding countries. The word is often mistranslated simply as "sodomite" or "homosexual." (e.g. the King James Version of the Bible, Deuteronomy 23:17). The companion word quedeshaw means female temple prostitute. It is frequently mistranslated simply as "whore" or "prostitute." A qadesh and quedeshaw were not simply prostitutes. They had a specific role to play in the temple. They represented a God and Goddess, and engaged in sexual intercourse in that capacity with members of the temple.
  
  
• "to'ebah" means a condemned, foreign, Pagan, religious, cult practice, but often simply translated as "abomination." Eating food which contains both meat and dairy products is "to'ebah" A Jew having a meal with an Egyptian was "to'ebah." A Jew wearing a polyester-cotton garment, or having a tattoo is "to'ebah" today.

Who did that male prostitute have sex with males? Are you afraid to show the link?

 

[bodecea]

All "Christians" need to be re-educated.

Their "Pastors" are basically misleading them -- teaching them to justify their own fears and insecurities (about sexual orientation) by using ONE FUCKING LINE taken wa-aaaay out of historical context from an archaic book of tribal law Leviticus.

The reference in Roman is not talking about Homosexuality but the temple priests forcing themselves on young boys.


These are the FACTS -- the only two references in the bible (a collection of writings by MEN) and neither is relevant or SHOULD BE RELEVANT to modern Christianity.

Somethings never change, do they?

 

[dblack]

Couldn't them darkies just keep quit and eat in the back room instead of demanding to sit up at the counter, or just go somewhere else to eat?

Course they could have.......

Public businesses use public services, such is the law. Though what is termed "re-education" is actually explaining what PUBLIC means to this business, which no doubt wants police & fire protection, sanitary water, and all the other "goodies" the public provides. Gay citizens are taxed as part of the public, should gay Americans pay less taxes because of public businesses wherein they are refused service?

Let me see if I've got this straight. It used to be that businesses - I have no fucking clue what a "public business" is ...

It's a conceit ushered in by the Civil Rights Act that gives government the power to micromanage privately held businesses. They idea is that - as another poster put it - businesses operating in public do so "at the pleasure of the people" (ie the state).

... if I'm understanding your warped worldview, individuals pay taxes in order to provide themselves with businesses staffed and run by government slaves who are gifted with the privilege of sharing in the police, fire department, etc. in exchange for completing courses in brainwashing and indoctrination in order to not offend their tax-paying masters in the general public. And, apparently, businesses don't pay any taxes?

Did I miss something?

Sadly, that sorta sums it up.

 

[bendog]

Public businesses use public services, such is the law. Though what is termed "re-education" is actually explaining what PUBLIC means to this business, which no doubt wants police & fire protection, sanitary water, and all the other "goodies" the public provides. Gay citizens are taxed as part of the public, should gay Americans pay less taxes because of public businesses wherein they are refused service?

Let me see if I've got this straight. It used to be that businesses - I have no fucking clue what a "public business" is ...

It's a conceit ushered in by the Civil Rights Act that gives government the power to micromanage privately held businesses. They idea is that - as another poster put it - businesses operating in public do so "at the pleasure of the people" (ie the state).

... if I'm understanding your warped worldview, individuals pay taxes in order to provide themselves with businesses staffed and run by government slaves who are gifted with the privilege of sharing in the police, fire department, etc. in exchange for completing courses in brainwashing and indoctrination in order to not offend their tax-paying masters in the general public. And, apparently, businesses don't pay any taxes?

Did I miss something?

Sadly, that sorta sums it up.

True, but I'm not sure conceit is the right word. For JFK and Dirksen, seeing the beating of the freedom marchers made it a "moral" issue. They used that word. The imperative to end something that was truly evil, and could have no moral justification, made it morally acceptable to allow govt to move into private commercial activity. Maybe that was wrong. But, it was based on trying to do the moral thing.

The baker is discriminating and he's using God to justify it. Let's not make something noble of it. He's a little piss ant. Jesus ate and drank with whores and tax collectors. He was an itinerant preacher who depended on charity because he chose to be poor. He wasn't baking cakes for profit. But the baker is not evil. He's not wielding an axe handle in his restaurant.

There is an intolerance in the GLBT cry for equal rights. "Marriage" has religious and civil aspects. While the GLBT folks don't demand the baker's church marry them, they do require the baker to compromise his actions that he bases his religious beliefs upon. I can't identify any religion that does not in some way "justify" itself by saying the are the "way," or that they know some great truth unknown to others. By definition, religion becomes exclusive, which may be why organized religion if failing. But, then, should society have the power to force the baker to stop being a boor? Not, imo.

 

[Ibentoken]

I love it when leftist trash have a bible study. Very entertaining.

 

[BlindBoo]

Are you raping my human rights? Are you being a totalitarian?

If you're raping my human rights by forcing me to associate with someone I don't want to associate with, (for instance, forcing a woman to be attended by a male gynecologist instead of a female gynecologist of her choice) then you're a rapist of human rights.

If you don't like people seeing you as a raper of human rights, then don't rape people's human rights. Pretty simple, isn't it?

Here's the important thing - the victim of your attack doesn't care that you think you're doing something good by raping them of their human rights. Your good motivations don't wash away your totalitarian crimes.

No one is forcing you to open a business to serve the public. Your rape allegory denigrates victims of rape. The victims in this case are the customers, not the business owner.

When the person being punched in the face is telling you that they are the victim of an assault, it's asinine to declare that this person used his face to pummel the fists of the person who was striking him and it is he therefore who is the attacker and not the victim.

The business owner who doesn't want to associate with someone is being FORCED to associate against their will. By anyone's standards, even liberals, being forced to do something against your will is a harm.

The business owner is being sued because he discriminated against the gay couple in a state that considers them a protected minority. No punches were thrown and no one was being raped.

 

[Ibentoken]

No one is forcing you to open a business to serve the public. Your rape allegory denigrates victims of rape. The victims in this case are the customers, not the business owner.

When the person being punched in the face is telling you that they are the victim of an assault, it's asinine to declare that this person used his face to pummel the fists of the person who was striking him and it is he therefore who is the attacker and not the victim.

The business owner who doesn't want to associate with someone is being FORCED to associate against their will. By anyone's standards, even liberals, being forced to do something against your will is a harm.

The business owner is being sued because he discriminated against the gay couple in a state that considers them a protected minority. No punches were thrown and no one was being raped.

The law overreaches into the business owner's constitutional right. It should be challenged if it hasn't already.

 

[BlindBoo]

I wish I could buy some cakes from this business..

I like their style.

Baker Who Won?t Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings Appeals Mandatory Re-Education Order

The commission’s order requires Phillips to design wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies in violation of his beliefs, institute re-education classes for his staff on the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act and send quarterly “compliance” reports to the commission for two years.

::::::::::

This is the issue at the heart of the appeal: Phillips claims the government should not be forcing business owners to betray their consciences and convey what they do not believe. Even more importantly, he says, the government should not be in the business of “rehabilitating” consciences or “re-educating” its citizens to change their moral beliefs about the definition of marriage.

Just remember it was Obama and the democrats who brought us re-education camps. What next? Stalag 18?

I'm pretty sure it's the Colorado State law that applies here, not the anti-chryst, opps I mean Obama.......

 

[Ibentoken]

I wish I could buy some cakes from this business..

I like their style.

Just remember it was Obama and the democrats who brought us re-education camps. What next? Stalag 18?

I'm pretty sure it's the Colorado State law that applies here, not the anti-chryst, opps I mean Obama.......

You think all laws are just and should be obeyed?