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

[Silhouette]

you are making my point. thanks

No I'm not, I countered your legal view.

you are citing societal taboos as the defense against polygamy and bigamy.

Actually I said quite the opposite: "Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization..."

Then went on to point out that SSCM changes nothing in regards to how marriage works when it extablishes a family relationship between two people and that there was a compelling government interest in how family law would function under an N:N relationship of males to females in a Civil Marriage.




You apparently ignored or didn't understand the thrust of the post.



>>>>

Why you guys arguing? You agree on the fundamentals - that government should decide who we can marry. You're just quibbling over details.

Here's a little detail to quibble over: In Windsor 2013, SCOTUS Found constitutionally that the realm of authority of who defines marriage IS the truest form of government there is; the People at the base vote in each sovereign state. It said that because gay marriage was new and weird, a wide swath of people needed to debate it and be able to weigh in on it. That was the method they Found was proper. They actually used the fact that the states are the "unquestioned authority" on this question to justify striking down part of DOMA.

On the one hand the cult of LGBT says that the fed has no business in marriage when it came to DOMA. Then when the Justices said "OK, well then we'll return that power to the state"...the cultees then scream "no no! It has to be federally decided who can marry!".

Back and forth back and forth. Always manipulating the "venue of convenience" on any given day.

Read DOMA if you want to find out which government decides if gay marriage is legal or not: federal or state. You may be surprised to find it's states. And within them, the broadest weigh-in from the discreet community. ie: referendum vote enjoys dominance.

But then again, why should that worry the cult of LGBT? So what if they have to go state by state and plead for gay marriage? They report that most Americans want gay marriage anyway. So I really don't understand what all these federal appeals and federal fuss is all about?

 

[kaz]

I'm not a liberal, but let me ask you. Was Heartland of Atlanta Motel required by Jim Crow to only rent rooms to white people?

Here is the decision which upheld Federal Public Accommodation laws -->> Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute



I've read it before and just scanned it again, can't find one word that indicates the owners were required by State law to limit their patronage to white people. Seems that if the law required them to that it would be mentioned in the factual history of the case.

Could you help us find it?



>>>>

I addressed that point in my quote that you included in your question.

Ummm - How does a baker violating Colordao law show that the Heartland of Atlanta Motel 50-years ago was required by Georgia State Law not to rent rooms to non-white people?

Common, you are claiming that the wide spread discrimination against coloreds was required by State law - where was the Heartland Motel required under the law to rent to whites only?



>>>>

Learn to read and think, what you just said is stupid. I can't even call it a strawman, it's not intellectually rational enough to be that.

 

[kaz]

I addressed that point in my quote that you included in your question.

Ummm - How does a baker violating Colordao law show that the Heartland of Atlanta Motel 50-years ago was required by Georgia State Law not to rent rooms to non-white people?

Common, you are claiming that the wide spread discrimination against coloreds was required by State law - where was the Heartland Motel required under the law to rent to whites only?



>>>>

I would note that one key difference here (and one that I brought up earlier but was not engaged on) is the simple fact that the cited case covered a discrimination that was massive, widespread and debilitating. The national law was conceived because no other reasonable approach was envisioned at that time. The nation was dealing with a very widespread belief that blacks were less than whites. This affected every faucet of their lives.

On the flipside, gays are ‘struggling’ with the dozen bakeries and photographers across the country that done want to take part in their weddings. The problem is not widespread, pervasive or limiting in any way shape or form. NONE of the gays in question were found lacking anything by this discrimination.

There is no need for such law in this case – society is taking care of the issue. As has already been pointed out, gays are socially accepted. The idea that we need to apply laws to limit the freedoms of 300 million Americans to achieve what a boycott would is absolutely asinine and the acceptance of it completely wrong. We do NOT need to create another protected class to address the tiny speck of people acting like fools.

I agree on gays, obviously, since I'm arguing the same thing. But what evidence do we have that discrimination by businesses regarding race is any more widespread?

Liberals point to Jim Crow, school segregation, military segregation and other policies that are ... wait for it ... government ...

 

[WorldWatcher]

I addressed that point in my quote that you included in your question.

Ummm - How does a baker violating Colordao law show that the Heartland of Atlanta Motel 50-years ago was required by Georgia State Law not to rent rooms to non-white people?

Common, you are claiming that the wide spread discrimination against coloreds was required by State law - where was the Heartland Motel required under the law to rent to whites only?



>>>>

Learn to read and think, what you just said is stupid. I can't even call it a strawman, it's not intellectually rational enough to be that.

I asked you to point out in the Heartland decision where the motel was required under Jim Crow laws to only rent to whites.

I gave you a link, why dodge and just not just answer the question?



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

The goal of any society should be the protection of the members of that society from danger from without and dangers of degradation from within.



But, I think you missed my legal point. If in fact gay marriage is allowed based on equal protection of a minority, then there is no defense to prevent the minority that believes in bigamy or polygamy from marrying. The exact same legal argument would apply to them. i.e. discrimination based on sexual orientation, or who they love.



Minimize this risk if you choose, but its real.

I can only hope so. I, personally, believe that government has no place in marriage anyway and should eliminate the entire concept. You can enter into contract with anyone that you please and those contracts can cover everything that marriage does (aside from government social engineering with giveaways) but leave marriage for religion where it belongs.

fine with me, but you will never get the gays to agree. They insist on calling their hookups marriages. They want the govt to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition rather than the aberation that it is.

Only because you insist on calling your "hookups" a civil marriage. If you called them civil unions, we'd be fine with that. Because you insist on forcing "societal acceptance" of your trysts through civil marriage, gays want to as well. Imagine that?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'd piss and crap in the cake batter.

Why am I not surprised?

If a retailer did that he would be put out of business and put in jail.

If a baker did that to me, likely I'd be in jail for assault too.

Jail is a good place for you. Forcing people to labor for you against their will is un-American. We got rid of slavery and we're not going to allow the democrats to reinstill it.

More drama than all of Castro Street, on a Saturday night, combined.

 

[bodecea]

I can only hope so. I, personally, believe that government has no place in marriage anyway and should eliminate the entire concept. You can enter into contract with anyone that you please and those contracts can cover everything that marriage does (aside from government social engineering with giveaways) but leave marriage for religion where it belongs.

fine with me, but you will never get the gays to agree. They insist on calling their hookups marriages. They want the govt to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition rather than the aberation that it is.

Only because you insist on calling your "hookups" a civil marriage. If you called them civil unions, we'd be fine with that. Because you insist on forcing "societal acceptance" of your trysts through civil marriage, gays want to as well. Imagine that?

With a 50%+ divorce rate, quickie marriages, and drive-thru wedding chapels....heteros OWN the word "hook-up" when it comes to marriage.

 

[kaz]

Virtually no one if anyone arguing the baker should not be forced to bake the cake is arguing that the gay photographer should be forced to work for the baker, and anyone who tried arguing that would be viewed the same as you arguing it's a legitimate use of government force to compel a citizen to bake a cake. This is a vacuous argument.

1. A baker to be allowed under the law to discriminate against a same-sex couples because of professed religious beliefs and provide them no service or only a sub-set of services offered to the general public and then...

2. Provide legal protections to that same baker when (s)he goes to a gay photographer and that photographer is barred by denying them service or only a sub-set of services based on the beliefs of that same baker.​

 

[BlindBoo]

I'd piss and crap in the cake batter.

Why am I not surprised?

If a retailer did that he would be put out of business and put in jail.

If a baker did that to me, likely I'd be in jail for assault too.

Jail is a good place for you. Forcing people to labor for you against their will is un-American. We got rid of slavery and we're not going to allow the democrats to reinstill it.

I have good lawyers, I'd get by with a temporarily insane plea.

Look at it this way. The dreaded Gays can still be discriminated against in most of the states. I know progress/change is scary for people like you but it doesn't take a weatherman to........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7qQ6_RV4VQ]Bob Dylan The Times They Are A Changin' 1964 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[WorldWatcher]

Virtually no one if anyone arguing the baker should not be forced to bake the cake is arguing that the gay photographer should be forced to work for the baker, and anyone who tried arguing that would be viewed the same as you arguing it's a legitimate use of government force to compel a citizen to bake a cake. This is a vacuous argument.

1. A baker to be allowed under the law to discriminate against a same-sex couples because of professed religious beliefs and provide them no service or only a sub-set of services offered to the general public and then...

2. Provide legal protections to that same baker when (s)he goes to a gay photographer and that photographer is barred by denying them service or only a sub-set of services based on the beliefs of that same baker.​

Really you should try that again in English...

But if I got it correctly...


So we agree, Public Accommodation laws should be repealed right?

That if the baker can refuse to serve gays because they are gay that gays can refuse Christians because of their specific religious stance?

That one can discriminate but the other can't (under the law), is readily apparent unequal treatment under the law.



The remedy then is:

(a) require each to provide equal service to the other, or

(b) neither is required to provide service to the other.​

As it is now one gets to discriminate but the other is barred.

>>>>

 

[dblack]

Virtually no one if anyone arguing the baker should not be forced to bake the cake is arguing that the gay photographer should be forced to work for the baker, and anyone who tried arguing that would be viewed the same as you arguing it's a legitimate use of government force to compel a citizen to bake a cake. This is a vacuous argument.

1. A baker to be allowed under the law to discriminate against a same-sex couples because of professed religious beliefs and provide them no service or only a sub-set of services offered to the general public and then...

2. Provide legal protections to that same baker when (s)he goes to a gay photographer and that photographer is barred by denying them service or only a sub-set of services based on the beliefs of that same baker.​

But religion does enjoy the special protection many here are unwilling to grant sexual orientation. It would be illegal, and I suspect we would see lawsuits, if a photographer (regardless of whether they are gay or not) refused to photograph weddings for fundamentalists because of their religion. All the gays want is to get in on the same action.

It think either everyone should be on the list, or no one should. Since it would be patently insane to outlaw all discrimination, the only choice that makes sense to me is repeal, or better yet, strike down, the PA laws.

 

[dblack]

Virtually no one if anyone arguing the baker should not be forced to bake the cake is arguing that the gay photographer should be forced to work for the baker, and anyone who tried arguing that would be viewed the same as you arguing it's a legitimate use of government force to compel a citizen to bake a cake. This is a vacuous argument.

1. A baker to be allowed under the law to discriminate against a same-sex couples because of professed religious beliefs and provide them no service or only a sub-set of services offered to the general public and then...

2. Provide legal protections to that same baker when (s)he goes to a gay photographer and that photographer is barred by denying them service or only a sub-set of services based on the beliefs of that same baker.​

Really you should try that again in English...

But if I got it correctly...


So we agree, Public Accommodation laws should be repealed right?

That if the baker can refuse to serve gays because they are gay that gays can refuse Christians because of their specific religious stance?

That one can discriminate but the other can't (under the law), is readily apparent unequal treatment under the law.



The remedy then is:

(a) require each to provide equal service to the other, or

(b) neither is required to provide service to the other.​

As it is now one gets to discriminate but the other is barred.

>>>>

Open "a" only adds one more to the privileged list. Everyone else is still out of the loop.

 

[Ibentoken]

I don't recognise queers as a special elite sect worthy of denying an American citizen their constitutional rights of religious freedom and labor.

 

[bodecea]

I don't recognise queers as a special elite sect worthy of denying an American citizen their constitutional rights of religious freedom and labor.

That's ok.....you can feel that way all you want.

 

[Ibentoken]

I don't recognise queers as a special elite sect worthy of denying an American citizen their constitutional rights of religious freedom and labor.

That's ok.....you can feel that way all you want.

It's not a feeling. I will not submit.

 

[bodecea]

I don't recognise queers as a special elite sect worthy of denying an American citizen their constitutional rights of religious freedom and labor.

That's ok.....you can feel that way all you want.

It's not a feeling. I will not submit.

That's fine...no one will make you have or go to a gay marriage. I won't even invite you to our anniversary party next year.

 

[kaz]

Virtually no one if anyone arguing the baker should not be forced to bake the cake is arguing that the gay photographer should be forced to work for the baker, and anyone who tried arguing that would be viewed the same as you arguing it's a legitimate use of government force to compel a citizen to bake a cake. This is a vacuous argument.

1. A baker to be allowed under the law to discriminate against a same-sex couples because of professed religious beliefs and provide them no service or only a sub-set of services offered to the general public and then...

2. Provide legal protections to that same baker when (s)he goes to a gay photographer and that photographer is barred by denying them service or only a sub-set of services based on the beliefs of that same baker.​

Really you should try that again in English...

But if I got it correctly...


So we agree, Public Accommodation laws should be repealed right?

That if the baker can refuse to serve gays because they are gay that gays can refuse Christians because of their specific religious stance?

That one can discriminate but the other can't (under the law), is readily apparent unequal treatment under the law.



The remedy then is:

(a) require each to provide equal service to the other, or

(b) neither is required to provide service to the other.​

As it is now one gets to discriminate but the other is barred.

>>>>

We agree that all public accommodation laws should be repealed. We do not agree that until they are then we should add more legislation which is unnecessary and therefore simply an excuse for government to exert power. Why would I possibly agree that more unnecessary government legislation is good? Why would you think that?

Seawytch wants it for validation. She obviously has no problem getting a cake baked. She is just saying if they have it, she wants it too.

The true oppressed minority in this country are achievers who fund the government and provide the jobs. If you want to make a difference, focus on that real problem, not contrived ones.

 

[Silhouette]

That's ok.....you can feel that way all you want.

It's not a feeling. I will not submit.

That's fine...no one will make you have or go to a gay marriage. I won't even invite you to our anniversary party next year.

Nor will they make him make a gay wedding cake or photo a gay wedding.

You will see. The SCOTUS will rule soon enough Hobby-Lobby style...

 

[Ibentoken]

That's ok.....you can feel that way all you want.

It's not a feeling. I will not submit.

That's fine...no one will make you have or go to a gay marriage. I won't even invite you to our anniversary party next year.

I'm not gonna be forced to labor for a queer and attend an indoctrination class by the state. Did you ever read "1984" by George Orwell?

 

[kaz]

Virtually no one if anyone arguing the baker should not be forced to bake the cake is arguing that the gay photographer should be forced to work for the baker, and anyone who tried arguing that would be viewed the same as you arguing it's a legitimate use of government force to compel a citizen to bake a cake. This is a vacuous argument.

1. A baker to be allowed under the law to discriminate against a same-sex couples because of professed religious beliefs and provide them no service or only a sub-set of services offered to the general public and then...

2. Provide legal protections to that same baker when (s)he goes to a gay photographer and that photographer is barred by denying them service or only a sub-set of services based on the beliefs of that same baker.​

But religion does enjoy the special protection many here are unwilling to grant sexual orientation. It would be illegal, and I suspect we would see lawsuits, if a photographer (regardless of whether they are gay or not) refused to photograph weddings for fundamentalists because of their religion. All the gays want is to get in on the same action.

It think either everyone should be on the list, or no one should. Since it would be patently insane to outlaw all discrimination, the only choice that makes sense to me is repeal, or better yet, strike down, the PA laws.

So you think society acts in favor of fundamentalists and against gays?



Government forcing any citizen to do anything for another citizen is an abomination, a flagrant abuse of power. Doing it for one even if it is done for another is a case of two wrongs don't make a right. I can't believe a libertarian would think that it would.