Bakers fined for not working homosexual "wedding" continue fighting for their freedoms

[Pop23]

Sorry you can't see the difference between an act and a belief.

What's the difference when it comes to discrimination? If two men walk into a business and are perceived to be gay, what act have they committed? Walking into an establishment together?

See, you don't actually have to be in the group being discriminated against, you only have to be perceived to be.

What sexual orientation were these two men being discriminated on. Name it. What is the test?

What religion really are the couple refusing to bake a cake on "religious grounds" Name it. What is the test?

I could give an objective test if you'd like.

Starting with affiliation. Babtismal certificate and so on.

What documentation of the sexual orientation of the couple?

 

[Pop23]

Sorry you can't see the difference between an act and a belief.

What's the difference when it comes to discrimination? If two men walk into a business and are perceived to be gay, what act have they committed? Walking into an establishment together?

See, you don't actually have to be in the group being discriminated against, you only have to be perceived to be.

What sexual orientation were these two men being discriminated on. Name it. What is the test?

What religion really are the couple refusing to bake a cake on "religious grounds" Name it. What is the test?

I'm starting to think Pops wants gays to fuck in front of him to prove they're gay. That'd be a problem for the gays that are virgin, but whatever...

So only a homosexual can be part of homosexual sex acts? I wonder what a raped prisoner would say about being called homo because he was raped?

You delusion gets more bizarre as time goes on.

Delusional people will do extraordinary things to support their delusions.

Would you not agree?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The constitution is the only test required for religion. It is an historically tested belief. How is this in any way the same as what could actually be a delusion or obsessive compulsive disorder?

And I can't prove a black man is a black man using an objective test?

You can't be serious?

Perfectly serious.

You claimed their was an objective test for all characteristics listed in Title II (of the 1964 Civil Rights Act).

So what is the objective test for religious beliefs?


I can prove a black man is a black man. (1) visual examination - the person on the left is white, the person on the left is black. (2) DNA testing which is an objective test.

>>>>

Religion is a founding principle of the United States constitution.

Where is sexual orientation?

Oh, snap

The Constitution does not prevent religious discrimination by non-government entities (i.e. businesses) against another non-government entity, Title II of the 1964 Civil Right Act and State Public Accommodation laws do that.

But your deflection and inability to define the objective test for religion that you said exists in Title II is there for the board to see. Oh, snap.




A claim of religion didn't prevent Piggie Park Enterprises from being found in violation of Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights act even though they claimed it was their religious view that they shouldn't serve black people.

Oh, snap.


>>>>>

Sorry you can't see the difference between an act and a belief.

I understand the difference quite well.


Act = Piggie Park Enterprise refusing to service black people because they were black. An act of discrimination.

Belief = The owners of Piggie Park Enterprise held religious beliefs that they should serve blacks the same as whites. A religious belief.



You claimed there are objective standards for all classes listed in Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. So what is the objective test that would prove that the owners beliefs were not their individual religious beliefs?



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I could give an objective test if you'd like.

Starting with affiliation.

Nope sorry.

One does not have to go a Church, Mosque, Synagogue, or Temple or temple to hold a belief. That is an act, not a belief. There are a couple of a-holes in our Church that go every Sunday, but their not very Christian. Then their is - well I'll call her Ms. Jane - she's a little old lady works part-time in the office and does data entry. Goes to the break room to each her lunch every day and reads her Bible. I asked her one day what Church she went to and she said - and I paraphrase because it was a long time ago - "Don't go to no Church, it's just me and Jesus."

Babtismal certificate and so on.

Nope that's an act.

Mine is from when I was about 3 months old. I didn't have religious beliefs then.



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

I could give an objective test if you'd like.

Starting with affiliation.

Nope sorry.

One does not have to go a Church, Mosque, Synagogue, or Temple or temple to hold a belief. That is an act, not a belief. There are a couple of a-holes in our Church that go every Sunday, but their not very Christian. Then their is - well I'll call her Ms. Jane - she's a little old lady works part-time in the office and does data entry. Goes to the break room to each her lunch every day and reads her Bible. I asked her one day what Church she went to and she said - and I paraphrase because it was a long time ago - "Don't go to no Church, it's just me and Jesus."

Babtismal certificate and so on.

Nope that's an act.

Mine is from when I was about 3 months old. I didn't have religious beliefs then.



>>>>

True, one doesn't have to, but most claiming a religious belief do. So we have kind of a problem, don't we.

Most vs. None

Have you come up with that objective test yet ( it's ok if it's just for most )


Oh, a baptismal certificate DOCUMENTS the religious act, but not an act itself.

 

[WorldWatcher]

True, one doesn't have to, but most claiming a religious belief do. So we have kind of a problem, don't we.

I don't have a problem at all since I haven't claimed that all classes in either Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or Oregon State Law (the subject of this tread) have objective tests, nor that those bringing a case must meet these (theoretical) tests you say exist.

You claimed there is an objective test for someones religious beliefs (stating all protected classes in Title II have an objective test). You are the one with a problem. You have been unable to provide the objective test for religion. Religious beliefs are a personal belief, an individual does not have to confirm to a major religious organization for their individual beliefs to be religious.


So, what is the objective test that could have been applied to the owners of Piggie Park Enterprises that claimed his religious beliefs exempted him from Title II and therefore he didn't have to server negro's in his establishment?


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

And you cast a wide blanket because it suits you, and because it's easier to call people who disagree with you names than actually accept their position and the validity of it.

It's lazyness, nothing more or less.

And yes, how YOU treat the constitution, if you support a position, you own it.

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

My blanket is pretty narrow actually. If you want to discriminate against people because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, you're a bigot. There are varying degrees but still bigotry.

The position I support is as long as the law requires me to serve the Christian bigot, he should have to serve me.

Again, what are you serving? In all of these cases it wasn't about the person being gay, it was about the product or service being for a gay wedding.

In your transactions, do you know automatically what the person you are serving is?

It doesn't matter what when it comes to the law.

You are dodging the question, and it does matter considering my opinion on the subject, nevermind what the law currently is.

Again, you argue the how and not the why. Hell you won't even go into details on the how.

Wrong. Your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the law. The law requires I serve the Christian bigot in all 50 states, he only has to serve me in half.

Then tell me if the service or product you provide is point of sale or contracted, or is a time sensitive or necessary service. It is intrinsic to the conversation, because my views change based on those parameters.

 

[martybegan]

That pesky "free exercise thing" you like to ignore has an issue with it.

He can freely excercise it. His business cannot.

When the Bakery gets up off it's foundation and shows up at Church, then I will believe an inanimate object can have a religion.

Meanwhile, if Mr. Wifebeater feels so strongly about the gheys, he's got a solution. Go out, get an honest job and stop fucking up your wife's business when you aren't slapping her around like Jesus said.

Plessy was settled law as well. I guess that makes Citizen's United settled law as well, right?

More arguing the how instead of the why from people who don't want to argue the why, because it makes them look like fascist asshats.

The problem is, guy, you haven't made a compelling reason why Mr. Wifebeater should be able to discriminate. There was a compelling reason to overturn Plessey- it was clearly unconstitutional.

Requiring people to obey laws, even laws that violate their belief in Magic Sky Pixies, is perfectly constitutional, and should be. Otherwise, you could have a situation where a religion could practice human sacrifice and get around the murder laws.

And you haven't made any argument that they should be forced to perform a service they don't want beyond "I hate their guts and make stuff up about them" and "the gay couple's hurt feelings are more important that the bakers hurt feelings, because reason #1"

And your last point is argumentum ad absurdum, and notes instances of actual harm, not butthurt.

 

[martybegan]

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

From my perspective, this issue is less about the law than it is about culture.

The law is the law. The PA laws say they must provide their service as dictated, period. The only way that changes is if the law is changed. And that's the end of that story.

The law, however, does not come into effect unless and until it is leveraged. The offended party has a couple of choices when they are told that someone will not bake a cake for them because they are gay: They can (1) decide that they wouldn't want to do business with someone like that anyway and go somewhere else, or they can (2) decide to leverage the PA law and punish those people for their beliefs. Nothing happens until that specific decision is made.

Right now, we're in a period when some people are very punitive and are more than happy to punish others for their beliefs. That may change with time - hopefully - but not any time soon. Until then, the law is the law.
.

People have a duty to challenge laws they think are unjust, and others who agree said laws are unjust have a duty to support those people.

 

[Seawytch]

My blanket is pretty narrow actually. If you want to discriminate against people because of their race, religion or sexual orientation, you're a bigot. There are varying degrees but still bigotry.

The position I support is as long as the law requires me to serve the Christian bigot, he should have to serve me.

Again, what are you serving? In all of these cases it wasn't about the person being gay, it was about the product or service being for a gay wedding.

In your transactions, do you know automatically what the person you are serving is?

It doesn't matter what when it comes to the law.

You are dodging the question, and it does matter considering my opinion on the subject, nevermind what the law currently is.

Again, you argue the how and not the why. Hell you won't even go into details on the how.

Wrong. Your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the law. The law requires I serve the Christian bigot in all 50 states, he only has to serve me in half.

Then tell me if the service or product you provide is point of sale or contracted, or is a time sensitive or necessary service. It is intrinsic to the conversation, because my views change based on those parameters.

Your opinion means nothing when it comes to the law. The law requires that I serve the bigoted Christian in all 50 states regardless of the type of business I'm in.

 

[martybegan]

Again, what are you serving? In all of these cases it wasn't about the person being gay, it was about the product or service being for a gay wedding.

In your transactions, do you know automatically what the person you are serving is?

It doesn't matter what when it comes to the law.

You are dodging the question, and it does matter considering my opinion on the subject, nevermind what the law currently is.

Again, you argue the how and not the why. Hell you won't even go into details on the how.

Wrong. Your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to the law. The law requires I serve the Christian bigot in all 50 states, he only has to serve me in half.

Then tell me if the service or product you provide is point of sale or contracted, or is a time sensitive or necessary service. It is intrinsic to the conversation, because my views change based on those parameters.

Your opinion means nothing when it comes to the law. The law requires that I serve the bigoted Christian in all 50 states regardless of the type of business I'm in.

If you aren't going to respond, then stop doing the "I post the same thing over and over again so I get the last word" thing.

I cannot answer you if you don't provide proper details. Again arguing the how and not the why.

 

[Mac1958]

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

From my perspective, this issue is less about the law than it is about culture.

The law is the law. The PA laws say they must provide their service as dictated, period. The only way that changes is if the law is changed. And that's the end of that story.

The law, however, does not come into effect unless and until it is leveraged. The offended party has a couple of choices when they are told that someone will not bake a cake for them because they are gay: They can (1) decide that they wouldn't want to do business with someone like that anyway and go somewhere else, or they can (2) decide to leverage the PA law and punish those people for their beliefs. Nothing happens until that specific decision is made.

Right now, we're in a period when some people are very punitive and are more than happy to punish others for their beliefs. That may change with time - hopefully - but not any time soon. Until then, the law is the law.
.

People have a duty to challenge laws they think are unjust, and others who agree said laws are unjust have a duty to support those people.

Sure. But the bottom line is that the law is the law until and unless it is changed.

I see this from the cultural perspective - the law is simply the centerpiece of the issue. It's the behaviors in leveraging the law that interest me.
.

 

[martybegan]

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

From my perspective, this issue is less about the law than it is about culture.

The law is the law. The PA laws say they must provide their service as dictated, period. The only way that changes is if the law is changed. And that's the end of that story.

The law, however, does not come into effect unless and until it is leveraged. The offended party has a couple of choices when they are told that someone will not bake a cake for them because they are gay: They can (1) decide that they wouldn't want to do business with someone like that anyway and go somewhere else, or they can (2) decide to leverage the PA law and punish those people for their beliefs. Nothing happens until that specific decision is made.

Right now, we're in a period when some people are very punitive and are more than happy to punish others for their beliefs. That may change with time - hopefully - but not any time soon. Until then, the law is the law.
.

People have a duty to challenge laws they think are unjust, and others who agree said laws are unjust have a duty to support those people.

Sure. But the bottom line is that the law is the law until and unless it is changed.

I see this from the cultural perspective - the law is simply the centerpiece of the issue. It's the behaviors in leveraging the law that interest me.
.

I would agree that culture does play a part in it, and there is a certain degree of vindictiveness as well as profit seeking in using government to gun for people you don't like. Especially when the fine/levy goes to the supposed victim.

 

[Mac1958]

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

From my perspective, this issue is less about the law than it is about culture.

The law is the law. The PA laws say they must provide their service as dictated, period. The only way that changes is if the law is changed. And that's the end of that story.

The law, however, does not come into effect unless and until it is leveraged. The offended party has a couple of choices when they are told that someone will not bake a cake for them because they are gay: They can (1) decide that they wouldn't want to do business with someone like that anyway and go somewhere else, or they can (2) decide to leverage the PA law and punish those people for their beliefs. Nothing happens until that specific decision is made.

Right now, we're in a period when some people are very punitive and are more than happy to punish others for their beliefs. That may change with time - hopefully - but not any time soon. Until then, the law is the law.
.

People have a duty to challenge laws they think are unjust, and others who agree said laws are unjust have a duty to support those people.

Sure. But the bottom line is that the law is the law until and unless it is changed.

I see this from the cultural perspective - the law is simply the centerpiece of the issue. It's the behaviors in leveraging the law that interest me.
.

I would agree that culture does play a part in it, and there is a certain degree of vindictiveness as well as profit seeking in using government to gun for people you don't like. Especially when the fine/levy goes to the supposed victim.

Yes, precisely, that's my point. People are CHOOSING to leverage the law. They don't have to.
.

 

[Seawytch]

And PA laws that have gone before were actual public accommodations, not "if money changes hands it's a PA"

From my perspective, this issue is less about the law than it is about culture.

The law is the law. The PA laws say they must provide their service as dictated, period. The only way that changes is if the law is changed. And that's the end of that story.

The law, however, does not come into effect unless and until it is leveraged. The offended party has a couple of choices when they are told that someone will not bake a cake for them because they are gay: They can (1) decide that they wouldn't want to do business with someone like that anyway and go somewhere else, or they can (2) decide to leverage the PA law and punish those people for their beliefs. Nothing happens until that specific decision is made.

Right now, we're in a period when some people are very punitive and are more than happy to punish others for their beliefs. That may change with time - hopefully - but not any time soon. Until then, the law is the law.
.

People have a duty to challenge laws they think are unjust, and others who agree said laws are unjust have a duty to support those people.

Sure. But the bottom line is that the law is the law until and unless it is changed.

I see this from the cultural perspective - the law is simply the centerpiece of the issue. It's the behaviors in leveraging the law that interest me.
.

I would agree that culture does play a part in it, and there is a certain degree of vindictiveness as well as profit seeking in using government to gun for people you don't like. Especially when the fine/levy goes to the supposed victim.

Yes, precisely, that's my point. People are CHOOSING to leverage the law. They don't have to.
.

Right...the problem is people applying the law as it was intended, not the people breaking the law. People are CHOOSING to break the law and they get caught. Oh the horrors.

 

[Silhouette]

Right...the problem is people applying the law as it was intended, not the people breaking the law. People are CHOOSING to break the law and they get caught. Oh the horrors.

You mean like if a Jew gets caught not baking a "nazi-pride" cake for a nazi customer that walked in? Or if a gay graphic designer refuses to print a giant highway billboard sign that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

"Pride" events are legal for different ideologies if they gather peacefully. Billboard about religious slogans are legal. And except for Obergefell's many fatal legal flaws, prominent of which is its premise (just destroyed by the 7th circuit recently) "homosexual behaviors = race" (Not), gay marriage is...I guess? "legal"? But should a Christian have to bake a cake for a "marriage" that promises the children "sorry, no mommy for you!" or "sorry, no daddy for you!" for life?

Behaviors and ideologies. Who has to do what? And when? And why? Maybe we should consult things like the 1st Amendment, the 14th Amendment, the 1964 Civil Rights Act & the Infancy Doctrine..New York vs Ferber; the 10th Amendment concerning who has the proper authority on marriages involving neither a mother or a father?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You mean like if a Jew gets caught not baking a "nazi-pride" cake for a nazi customer that walked in? Or if a gay graphic designer refuses to print a giant highway billboard sign that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

Doubt it as Nazi's are not characteristic listed in the law.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

You mean like if a Jew gets caught not baking a "nazi-pride" cake for a nazi customer that walked in? Or if a gay graphic designer refuses to print a giant highway billboard sign that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

Doubt it as Nazi's are not characteristic listed in the law.


>>>>

Neither is "gay". Not one thing about it in the Constitution which makes it legally dominant to religion.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You mean like if a Jew gets caught not baking a "nazi-pride" cake for a nazi customer that walked in? Or if a gay graphic designer refuses to print a giant highway billboard sign that says "homosexuality is a sin unto God"?

Doubt it as Nazi's are not characteristic listed in the law.


>>>>

Neither is "gay". Not one thing about it in the Constitution which makes it legally dominant to religion.

Sexual orientation is specifically mentioned in the law which is the subject of this tread, the Oregon State Public Accommodation Law under which Melissa and Aaron Klein were fined for discriminatory business practices.

I said "in the law", I didn't say "in the Constitution".


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

You should specify which law is dominant.