CENTER STAGE

[ChrisL]

I agree that the claim was brought under the RFRA, but the RFRA did not reinvent the wheel. It reinstated strict scrutiny as a standard of review when applied to (federal) laws of general applicability that substantially burden the free exercise of religion. When considering a claim under RFRA, our federal courts still rely on Supreme Court cases concerning the First Amendment as authoritative precedents.

But in the end the mandate failed the strict scrutiny test required by the RFRA, otherwise it most likely would have been upheld. It's a damn shame that law doesn't apply to the States.

Although you probably know this, other people might not. Initially, the RFRA did apply to the states, but the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, some states have enacted their own religious freedom acts.

There are several other areas of the law where our courts apply the strict scrutiny standard. The majority opinion strayed off the path when discussing the "least restrictive means" portion of that standard. The justices suggested that one possible lesser means would be for the government (taxpayers) to pay for the thing that the complainant objects to paying. Was that just tongue-in-cheek talk? ... whatever ... given the identity of the justices who signed onto that suggestion, I'm a little suspicious about future possible applications ...

The Hobby Lobby majority's frankly dishonest portrayal of First Amendment's pre-Smith jurisprudence and its declaration that the RFRA invented a new standard for strict scrutiny in religious freedom cases has me puzzled. Anyone with a computer and rudimentary research skills can discover the fib.

The supremes have been inventing a lot of things lately, mostly expanding their own prower. I guess it all goes back to that living breathing theory, where the written word means nothing.

I think you might be referring to the Obergefell decision? If so, the Court didn't invent marriage, which is a contract that can only be entered, maintained, and dissolved in accordance with state law. The right to marry, which is a fundamental right protected as a liberty interest under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is subject to reasonable state regulations. For instance, states may legitimately determine the age of consent and prohibit marriages between closely related people.

When you have two groups of similarly situated people, and one group is allowed to exercise a fundamental right and another group is prohibited, then conflict arises. The institution of marriage confers many tangible and intangible protections and benefits upon marriage partners and their children. Members of the group who are denied the right are entitled to petition our courts for redress of their grievance and to seek equal protection under the law. There simply was no reason why same-sex couples should not be afforded the same (equal) rights as heterosexual couples. That's just a straight forward application of Constitutional Law 101, not an expansion of power.

All the Supreme Court justices, past and present, understand that our country did not stand frozen in time when the Constitution was written or when the civil war amendments were adopted. For instance, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court stated the following:

"In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."

I apologize for going off track, but I don't agree that our guiding constitutional principles and case law cannot be applied to new fact situations that are present today but were not present at an earlier time in our history.

As far as Obergefell goes, I disagreed with the decision because they are granting rights based on subjective circumstances such as actions and preferences. Gays were in no need of additional protections because all the rights of their gender were already available to them, there was no objective discrimination.

That said I was mostly referring to the ACA decision where the court decided explicit language used in various sections of the law to extend a series of carrots and sticks to the States was ambiguous and chose to become legislators in rewriting the law, a function they have no authority under the Constitution to do. They should have set aside the law and told the legislature to fix it or upheld it as written. Constitutionally there is no third choice.

So basically, you just want homosexuals to be "happy" with what YOU want them to have? Sorry buddy, they are tax paying American citizens. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about them. Like I've told you, you are free to discriminate and be a jerk in your personal life. When it comes to operating a business, you have to abide by the laws in your state. Discrimination is NOT a religious practice or custom. You people just make this stuff up because you are hateful human beings.

 

[boedicca]

Perhaps you missed this part in your link . . .

Update: In June 2004 the Supreme Court reversed the lower-court decision, ruling that Newdow did not have the legal standing to bring the case.

Last updated: 5 January 2008

Wrong.
They allowed the updated version.

Here's another..
I can give you more if you'd like.
Judges Ban Pledge of Allegiance From Schools Citing Under God - NYTimes.com

This is from 2002. the ruling was overturned in January 5, 2008. Lol.

So you see no hypocrisy in forcing a baker to sell a cake to a gay person because it's against his religious beliefs yet schools can opt out of the pledge?
Why not allow both to make their own decision?

No, I don't see any similarity between those two scenarios either. Your argument doesn't really make sense to me.

The state has laws, that's why they cannot make their own decisions. You have to follow the laws in your state or you're going to get sued and perhaps put out of business. I really don't agree with putting them out of business, but they can't really complain when they agreed to these laws at the time of applying for their business permit in that particular state.

So you can force a business owner to go against his religious beliefs yet schools can pick and choose if they want t say the pledge?
Thats clearly hypocrisy.
I'm not religious in the least so I dont really have a beef with schools giving students the option of saying the pledge.
But if you're going to do that why doesnt the business owner have any options?

C'mon, haven't you figure it out yet?

- The Progs can ignore whatever rules or laws they don't like.

- The rest of us don't have any protection under the law for things which offend the Prog Group Think, even if those things are actually protected by The Constitution.

 

[ChrisL]

Perhaps you missed this part in your link . . .

Update: In June 2004 the Supreme Court reversed the lower-court decision, ruling that Newdow did not have the legal standing to bring the case.

Last updated: 5 January 2008

Wrong.
They allowed the updated version.

Here's another..
I can give you more if you'd like.
Judges Ban Pledge of Allegiance From Schools Citing Under God - NYTimes.com

This is from 2002. the ruling was overturned in January 5, 2008. Lol.

So you see no hypocrisy in forcing a baker to sell a cake to a gay person because it's against his religious beliefs yet schools can opt out of the pledge?
Why not allow both to make their own decision?

No, I don't see any similarity between those two scenarios either. Your argument doesn't really make sense to me.

The state has laws, that's why they cannot make their own decisions. You have to follow the laws in your state or you're going to get sued and perhaps put out of business. I really don't agree with putting them out of business, but they can't really complain when they agreed to these laws at the time of applying for their business permit in that particular state.

So you can force a business owner to go against his religious beliefs yet schools can pick and choose if they want t say the pledge?
Thats clearly hypocrisy.
I'm not religious in the least so I dont really have a beef with schools giving students the option of saying the pledge.
But if you're going to do that why doesnt the business owner have any options?

Because a school is NOT a business. It is a school.

 

[OKTexas]

I read the entire file. It did not change my mind except to say, in this case I believe the fine is too small. I hope other businesses learn from this experience and people will finally see that they are not better than others.

That's a nice sentiment, Jackson ... but that's all it is. If you read the administrative law decision in the "Sweetcakes by Melissa" case, then you would know that the commission did not impose a fine (which is a penalty). It awarded damages to the victims of discrimination to compensate them for their injury. What exactly do you hope other businesses learn from this case? Everyone is presumed to know the law and the consequences of their conduct. Why do you think Melissa Klein and her hubby believed that they were entitled to open a business, but not follow the laws that apply to all other businesses?

What damages, getting their feeling hurt, as I understand it they wound up getting a cake for free. Again where are the damages, they lost no money, no property, they weren't physically harmed.

Now people will wise up, they will get the information on the bride and groom, get the date, check their calendar and say I'm sorry I'm all booked up during that time, or we're going to be on vacation at that time. Done and done.

Thank you for your response. Under Oregon law, victims are entitled to damages for emotional suffering.

I don't agree that lying and breaking the law are wise things.

Well look at it this way, a little white lie to save someone from emotional suffering. I'm sure you never ever did that.

Intentionally and knowingly breaking the law and lying about it to prevent discovery and legal consequences does not fall within the definition of "little white lie."

Of course it does if you're trying to protect someones feelings, you know that dreaded emotional distress. Of course the the gays could give a crap about a religious persons emotional distress.

 

[ChrisL]

I have no pity for you so-called "Christians." None. I think anyone who would behave this way towards other people is an arse. That's just my opinion.

 

[ChrisL]

That's a nice sentiment, Jackson ... but that's all it is. If you read the administrative law decision in the "Sweetcakes by Melissa" case, then you would know that the commission did not impose a fine (which is a penalty). It awarded damages to the victims of discrimination to compensate them for their injury. What exactly do you hope other businesses learn from this case? Everyone is presumed to know the law and the consequences of their conduct. Why do you think Melissa Klein and her hubby believed that they were entitled to open a business, but not follow the laws that apply to all other businesses?

What damages, getting their feeling hurt, as I understand it they wound up getting a cake for free. Again where are the damages, they lost no money, no property, they weren't physically harmed.

Now people will wise up, they will get the information on the bride and groom, get the date, check their calendar and say I'm sorry I'm all booked up during that time, or we're going to be on vacation at that time. Done and done.

Thank you for your response. Under Oregon law, victims are entitled to damages for emotional suffering.

I don't agree that lying and breaking the law are wise things.

Well look at it this way, a little white lie to save someone from emotional suffering. I'm sure you never ever did that.

Intentionally and knowingly breaking the law and lying about it to prevent discovery and legal consequences does not fall within the definition of "little white lie."

Of course it does if you're trying to protect someones feelings, you know that dreaded emotional distress. Of course the the gays could give a crap about a religious persons emotional distress.

Pointless drivel. Gay business owners cannot discriminate against heterosexuals either. The law is applied equally. You can bitch, moan and complain all day long though. Obviously, it makes you people happy.

 

[Debra K]

Hello Darkwind. Why are you saying anti-discrimination laws are "bad laws"? The people of Oregon elect representatives to their state legislature. The elected state representatives enact laws. One of those laws was a prohibition of discrimination in public accommodations. Why doesn't that reflect the values of the people?

Legislators often don't reflect the values of the people but they do have the option of tossing them out of office. The problem that you and many have is that for whatever reason you cannot distinguish between individuals and relationships. Relationships aren't people. It would be different if they said to get out, they don't serve homosexuals (which I think should still be their right in a free society) and one that celebrates the relationship. It's the old making Jews bake Muslim cakes analogy.

There just isn't the same level of desire to be hip and cutting edge to try to force it upon them. Most Muslims probably don't want Jews to bake their cakes. Gays seem to seek out those that have a problem with homosexual relationships.

Under the state anti-discrimination law, victims of discrimination are allowed to file a complaint with a state commission. Melissa Klein and her husband were given notice and an opportunity to be heard. A hearing was held and the Kleins were represented by an attorney. I don't see any "abuse" in this situation. The commission entered an order and the Kleins were given notice of their rights to appeal the commission's order to the state court. I don't see anything here that was "created out of fantasy". Perhaps you could elaborate.

Since it's legal it's OK. Unless you disagree with the law, then it must be overturned. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

Anti-discrimination laws have been codified for years and years and years. I don't see any outcry from the people to their elected representatives to repeal those laws or threats that they'll be thrown out of office if they don't repeal those laws.

Please read Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

Individuals vs. relationships ... hair-splitting.

This case linked above also addresses the hair-splitting argument, with citations to authority, and found it to be without any merit. Business proprietors claim they are not discriminating against the person on the basis of sexual orientation and claim they just don't bake cakes for same-sex marriages / commitment ceremonies, etc., but only gay people enter same-sex marriages. The argument is disingenuous, has been used in many forms, and has been rejected over and over again. Please, read the case linked above ... it cites to many other authoritative cases.

You are the one who concluded that the case was all about abuse and fantasy, and the burden is on you to present the facts and law to support your conclusion. I don't see abuse and fantasy. I see a duly enacted law that is being enforced.

 

[ChrisL]

Hello Darkwind. Why are you saying anti-discrimination laws are "bad laws"? The people of Oregon elect representatives to their state legislature. The elected state representatives enact laws. One of those laws was a prohibition of discrimination in public accommodations. Why doesn't that reflect the values of the people?

Legislators often don't reflect the values of the people but they do have the option of tossing them out of office. The problem that you and many have is that for whatever reason you cannot distinguish between individuals and relationships. Relationships aren't people. It would be different if they said to get out, they don't serve homosexuals (which I think should still be their right in a free society) and one that celebrates the relationship. It's the old making Jews bake Muslim cakes analogy.

There just isn't the same level of desire to be hip and cutting edge to try to force it upon them. Most Muslims probably don't want Jews to bake their cakes. Gays seem to seek out those that have a problem with homosexual relationships.

Under the state anti-discrimination law, victims of discrimination are allowed to file a complaint with a state commission. Melissa Klein and her husband were given notice and an opportunity to be heard. A hearing was held and the Kleins were represented by an attorney. I don't see any "abuse" in this situation. The commission entered an order and the Kleins were given notice of their rights to appeal the commission's order to the state court. I don't see anything here that was "created out of fantasy". Perhaps you could elaborate.

Since it's legal it's OK. Unless you disagree with the law, then it must be overturned. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

Anti-discrimination laws have been codified for years and years and years. I don't see any outcry from the people to their elected representatives to repeal those laws or threats that they'll be thrown out of office if they don't repeal those laws.

Please read Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

Individuals vs. relationships ... hair-splitting.

This case linked above also addresses the hair-splitting argument, with citations to authority, and found it to be without any merit. Business proprietors claim they are not discriminating against the person on the basis of sexual orientation and claim they just don't bake cakes for same-sex marriages / commitment ceremonies, etc., but only gay people enter same-sex marriages. The argument is disingenuous, has been used in many forms, and has been rejected over and over again. Please, read the case linked above ... it cites to many other authoritative cases.

You are the one who concluded that the case was all about abuse and fantasy, and the burden is on you to present the facts and law to support your conclusion. I don't see abuse and fantasy. I see a duly enacted law that is being enforced.

Welcome Debra. I'm really glad you've joined this site. Your posts have been great and informative and make a ton of sense to me. Also, you seem to have a lot more patience than I have. Maybe they will listen to you.

 

[Debra K]

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

Not everyone in life is willing to roll over for tyranny. Hard to believe huh?

And that was what the gay civil rights movement was all about ... tyranny of the majority and oppression of the gays ... and little by little ... just like other groups of people in our nation's history have done ... progress was made toward equality.

No doubt white people were just as distressed as you are now when black children were allowed to enter their white-only schools, restaurants, etc., but that was not tyranny then and including same-sex couples within mainstream society is not tyranny now.

 

[Debra K]

Hello Darkwind. Why are you saying anti-discrimination laws are "bad laws"? The people of Oregon elect representatives to their state legislature. The elected state representatives enact laws. One of those laws was a prohibition of discrimination in public accommodations. Why doesn't that reflect the values of the people?

Legislators often don't reflect the values of the people but they do have the option of tossing them out of office. The problem that you and many have is that for whatever reason you cannot distinguish between individuals and relationships. Relationships aren't people. It would be different if they said to get out, they don't serve homosexuals (which I think should still be their right in a free society) and one that celebrates the relationship. It's the old making Jews bake Muslim cakes analogy.

There just isn't the same level of desire to be hip and cutting edge to try to force it upon them. Most Muslims probably don't want Jews to bake their cakes. Gays seem to seek out those that have a problem with homosexual relationships.

Under the state anti-discrimination law, victims of discrimination are allowed to file a complaint with a state commission. Melissa Klein and her husband were given notice and an opportunity to be heard. A hearing was held and the Kleins were represented by an attorney. I don't see any "abuse" in this situation. The commission entered an order and the Kleins were given notice of their rights to appeal the commission's order to the state court. I don't see anything here that was "created out of fantasy". Perhaps you could elaborate.

Since it's legal it's OK. Unless you disagree with the law, then it must be overturned. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

Anti-discrimination laws have been codified for years and years and years. I don't see any outcry from the people to their elected representatives to repeal those laws or threats that they'll be thrown out of office if they don't repeal those laws.

Please read Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

Individuals vs. relationships ... hair-splitting.

This case linked above also addresses the hair-splitting argument, with citations to authority, and found it to be without any merit. Business proprietors claim they are not discriminating against the person on the basis of sexual orientation and claim they just don't bake cakes for same-sex marriages / commitment ceremonies, etc., but only gay people enter same-sex marriages. The argument is disingenuous, has been used in many forms, and has been rejected over and over again. Please, read the case linked above ... it cites to many other authoritative cases.

You are the one who concluded that the case was all about abuse and fantasy, and the burden is on you to present the facts and law to support your conclusion. I don't see abuse and fantasy. I see a duly enacted law that is being enforced.

Welcome Debra. I'm really glad you've joined this site. Your posts have been great and informative and make a ton of sense to me. Also, you seem to have a lot more patience than I have. Maybe they will listen to you.

Thank you, ChrisL. I'm happy so many people are joining the discussion. I have many friends and relatives who lean to the very right and I love them very much! Good, good, people ... but I do what I can to coax them into the center.

 

[OKTexas]

But in the end the mandate failed the strict scrutiny test required by the RFRA, otherwise it most likely would have been upheld. It's a damn shame that law doesn't apply to the States.

Although you probably know this, other people might not. Initially, the RFRA did apply to the states, but the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, some states have enacted their own religious freedom acts.

There are several other areas of the law where our courts apply the strict scrutiny standard. The majority opinion strayed off the path when discussing the "least restrictive means" portion of that standard. The justices suggested that one possible lesser means would be for the government (taxpayers) to pay for the thing that the complainant objects to paying. Was that just tongue-in-cheek talk? ... whatever ... given the identity of the justices who signed onto that suggestion, I'm a little suspicious about future possible applications ...

The Hobby Lobby majority's frankly dishonest portrayal of First Amendment's pre-Smith jurisprudence and its declaration that the RFRA invented a new standard for strict scrutiny in religious freedom cases has me puzzled. Anyone with a computer and rudimentary research skills can discover the fib.

The supremes have been inventing a lot of things lately, mostly expanding their own prower. I guess it all goes back to that living breathing theory, where the written word means nothing.

I think you might be referring to the Obergefell decision? If so, the Court didn't invent marriage, which is a contract that can only be entered, maintained, and dissolved in accordance with state law. The right to marry, which is a fundamental right protected as a liberty interest under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is subject to reasonable state regulations. For instance, states may legitimately determine the age of consent and prohibit marriages between closely related people.

When you have two groups of similarly situated people, and one group is allowed to exercise a fundamental right and another group is prohibited, then conflict arises. The institution of marriage confers many tangible and intangible protections and benefits upon marriage partners and their children. Members of the group who are denied the right are entitled to petition our courts for redress of their grievance and to seek equal protection under the law. There simply was no reason why same-sex couples should not be afforded the same (equal) rights as heterosexual couples. That's just a straight forward application of Constitutional Law 101, not an expansion of power.

All the Supreme Court justices, past and present, understand that our country did not stand frozen in time when the Constitution was written or when the civil war amendments were adopted. For instance, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court stated the following:

"In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."

I apologize for going off track, but I don't agree that our guiding constitutional principles and case law cannot be applied to new fact situations that are present today but were not present at an earlier time in our history.

As far as Obergefell goes, I disagreed with the decision because they are granting rights based on subjective circumstances such as actions and preferences. Gays were in no need of additional protections because all the rights of their gender were already available to them, there was no objective discrimination.

That said I was mostly referring to the ACA decision where the court decided explicit language used in various sections of the law to extend a series of carrots and sticks to the States was ambiguous and chose to become legislators in rewriting the law, a function they have no authority under the Constitution to do. They should have set aside the law and told the legislature to fix it or upheld it as written. Constitutionally there is no third choice.

So basically, you just want homosexuals to be "happy" with what YOU want them to have? Sorry buddy, they are tax paying American citizens. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about them. Like I've told you, you are free to discriminate and be a jerk in your personal life. When it comes to operating a business, you have to abide by the laws in your state. Discrimination is NOT a religious practice or custom. You people just make this stuff up because you are hateful human beings.

Fuck off maggot, I've never discriminated against anyone including gays when I had my business. Of course they never tried to force me to participate in their lifestyle activities, if they had I might of had a problem with that, not because of what they are but because I don't like being forced to do anything.

Now tell me where I got it wrong, did or did they not have every protection afforded to every other person of their gender?

 

[Iceweasel]

Hello Darkwind. Why are you saying anti-discrimination laws are "bad laws"? The people of Oregon elect representatives to their state legislature. The elected state representatives enact laws. One of those laws was a prohibition of discrimination in public accommodations. Why doesn't that reflect the values of the people?

Legislators often don't reflect the values of the people but they do have the option of tossing them out of office. The problem that you and many have is that for whatever reason you cannot distinguish between individuals and relationships. Relationships aren't people. It would be different if they said to get out, they don't serve homosexuals (which I think should still be their right in a free society) and one that celebrates the relationship. It's the old making Jews bake Muslim cakes analogy.

There just isn't the same level of desire to be hip and cutting edge to try to force it upon them. Most Muslims probably don't want Jews to bake their cakes. Gays seem to seek out those that have a problem with homosexual relationships.

Under the state anti-discrimination law, victims of discrimination are allowed to file a complaint with a state commission. Melissa Klein and her husband were given notice and an opportunity to be heard. A hearing was held and the Kleins were represented by an attorney. I don't see any "abuse" in this situation. The commission entered an order and the Kleins were given notice of their rights to appeal the commission's order to the state court. I don't see anything here that was "created out of fantasy". Perhaps you could elaborate.

Since it's legal it's OK. Unless you disagree with the law, then it must be overturned. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

Anti-discrimination laws have been codified for years and years and years. I don't see any outcry from the people to their elected representatives to repeal those laws or threats that they'll be thrown out of office if they don't repeal those laws.

Please read Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

Individuals vs. relationships ... hair-splitting.

This case linked above also addresses the hair-splitting argument, with citations to authority, and found it to be without any merit. Business proprietors claim they are not discriminating against the person on the basis of sexual orientation and claim they just don't bake cakes for same-sex marriages / commitment ceremonies, etc., but only gay people enter same-sex marriages. The argument is disingenuous, has been used in many forms, and has been rejected over and over again. Please, read the case linked above ... it cites to many other authoritative cases.

You are the one who concluded that the case was all about abuse and fantasy, and the burden is on you to present the facts and law to support your conclusion. I don't see abuse and fantasy. I see a duly enacted law that is being enforced.

You are seriously missing the point. There are cities and states with accomodations that include sexual orientation exactly because it isn't a Constitutional matter. There would be none if it was a right.

No, individuals are not relationships. That isn't hair splitting because you say so. Nor are you representing the other side very well. It isn't the individual they oppose. In FACT, many served gay customers but the problem was when they were asked to do something for the wedding.

I'm not interested in any god damn case law, we are in front of the Supreme Court, we are on a message board and I said what I said and you obfuscate and redirect rather than offer a explanation on why your morality should trump all others.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

Not everyone in life is willing to roll over for tyranny. Hard to believe huh?

And that was what the gay civil rights movement was all about ... tyranny of the majority and oppression of the gays ... and little by little ... just like other groups of people in our nation's history have done ... progress was made toward equality.

No doubt white people were just as distressed as you are now when black children were allowed to enter their white-only schools, restaurants, etc., but that was not tyranny then and including same-sex couples within mainstream society is not tyranny now.

Wrong. They were treated equally, and even lifted up in popular culture. The MAJORITY IN MOST STATES did not want to redefine their marriage laws to include same sex couples. Overthrowing the majority is tyranny, not the other way around. You don't get to redefine words to suit your agenda.

 

[Debra K]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

HereWeGoAgain:

Here is an excerpt from a similar case in Colorado, Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

They can go somewhere else and I'm tired of the double standards.

Was this guy free to go to a rap concert?
Bystanders laugh at man beaten to a pulp in chilling video New York Post

This is apples and oranges.

How can you demand the right to state-sanctioned discrimination against same-sex couples in public accommodations and justify that demand by referring to an awful criminal incident where a white man was beaten by black men?

I don't understand the connection you're trying to make or how the issue of "double standards" somehow applies. Please elaborate.

 

[Debra K]

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

Not everyone in life is willing to roll over for tyranny. Hard to believe huh?

Since when is not discriminating against others, tyranny? I thought the Republican party was not known to run on emotions, but instead value our laws and the Constitution. Was I wrong?

Very wrong. As I said before if a bakery refused to make a cake celebrating a guy and his four sluts he was boning he could use the same argument you do.

"Guys who bone sluts" are not a protected class of people. Try another argument.

 

[Debra K]

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

HereWeGoAgain:

Here is an excerpt from a similar case in Colorado, Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

They can go somewhere else and I'm tired of the double standards.

Was this guy free to go to a rap concert?
Bystanders laugh at man beaten to a pulp in chilling video New York Post

That has absolutely nothing to do with a discrimination case....absolutely nothing.

That wasnt discrimination?
Seems to me that was way worse than having to find a different baker.

If the black people were proprietors of a business and the white man walked into their business and they refused to offer their goods or services to him because of his race, then that would be discrimination in violation of the public accommodations anti-discrimination law.

What you're describing, however, is a criminal offense. And if the offense was perpetrated upon the victim because of his race, it might also be a hate crime subjecting the perpetrators to enhanced criminal penalties.

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

Not everyone in life is willing to roll over for tyranny. Hard to believe huh?

Since when is not discriminating against others, tyranny? I thought the Republican party was not known to run on emotions, but instead value our laws and the Constitution. Was I wrong?

Very wrong. As I said before if a bakery refused to make a cake celebrating a guy and his four sluts he was boning he could use the same argument you do.

"Guys who bone sluts" are not a protected class of people. Try another argument.

LOL. Dismiss it if you can't deal with it huh? The POINT is that there's no argument gays can make that he can't. You cower behind the laws you agree with and reject the possibility of any laws changing to accomodate things you don't like. That's the definition of hypocrisy.

 

[Debra K]

HereWeGoAgain:

Here is an excerpt from a similar case in Colorado, Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

They can go somewhere else and I'm tired of the double standards.

Was this guy free to go to a rap concert?
Bystanders laugh at man beaten to a pulp in chilling video New York Post

That has absolutely nothing to do with a discrimination case....absolutely nothing.

That wasnt discrimination?
Seems to me that was way worse than having to find a different baker.

We are discussing discrimination and business law, not random acts of violence. Holy cow.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter what the venue.

I can agree with the sentiment, but do not understand its relationship to the discussion. Where are the double standards?

In both cases there are civil or criminal consequences for the perpetrators of the misconduct.

Is it possible you are saying the people in the same-sex relationship who were refused services should feel lucky they weren't beaten instead? Where are you going with this? Please use reason and logic and the rule of law. Thank you.

 

[Debra K]

So is everyone else, who's driving on the roads that lead to your business. If you want to practice your religion instead of serving the public, you should open a church.

So you're anti religion? Freedom of religion,not freedom from it.

HereWeGoAgain. I think our public schools are remiss in turning young people out into the world with low information about how our government works. Surely, however, you must have recited the Pledge from time to time ... and "liberty and justice for all" is not a meaningless phrase. We are a nation of ordered liberty with an established system for redress of grievances. Religious liberty is not a license to ignore or violate laws of general application. The law does not reach your religious beliefs ... but it can and does reach your actions.

When I was reciting that pledge America was a better place.
And as I'm sure you know the pledge has been dropped..or should I say banned,in a lot of schools these days.
I find it rather hypocritical for you to use it as an example.

I don't know if "America was a better place" when you were reciting the pledge. Perhaps you could elaborate, give us a frame of time in our history for consideration, and enumerate the ways America was better. As of right now, however, you have stated a conclusion without any supporting facts or premises upon which to induce such a thing.

I also don't know of any schools where the pledge has been banned. I know there was a person named Newdow who spearheaded attempts to have "under God" removed from the pledge and all of his attempts proved unsuccessful ... as far as I know. If you have information to the contrary, proving that a lot of schools have banned the pledge, please share.

A show of indignation simply evades the points raised about our nation's system of government.

The fact that schools have banned the pledge is common knowledge.
If you dont know these basic facts about the attack on American values I see no reason to continue this discussion since you appear to be arguing from a position of ignorance.
Which is difficult to argue against because you have no past reference to make judgments about the severity of these attacks.
It's easy to take one incident and say it's no big deal,but when added to the whole it paints a much different picture.
snopes.com Pledge of Allegiance Ruling

It isn't "common knowledge" if your statement isn't true. The link you provided for Snopes says the same thing that I said ... that Newdow was unsuccessful. Snopes reported: "Update: In June 2004 the Supreme Court reversed the lower-court decision, ruling that Newdow did not have the legal standing to bring the case."

If you can support your statement, you should do so. You're the one who made the claim that the pledge has been banned in a lot of schools. Therefore, you have the burden of proof. I shouldn't have to engage in a time-consuming search in what may very well be a futile attempt to verify your claim. You shouldn't accuse me of ignorance because I have not located something that might not exist.

Mere attempts by atheists through established legal channels to challenge the reference to God in the pledge does not constitute a severe attack. Our system of justice encourages people to bring their grievances through the proper channels ... maybe they will succeed and maybe they won't.

 

[ChrisL]

Although you probably know this, other people might not. Initially, the RFRA did apply to the states, but the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, some states have enacted their own religious freedom acts.

There are several other areas of the law where our courts apply the strict scrutiny standard. The majority opinion strayed off the path when discussing the "least restrictive means" portion of that standard. The justices suggested that one possible lesser means would be for the government (taxpayers) to pay for the thing that the complainant objects to paying. Was that just tongue-in-cheek talk? ... whatever ... given the identity of the justices who signed onto that suggestion, I'm a little suspicious about future possible applications ...

The Hobby Lobby majority's frankly dishonest portrayal of First Amendment's pre-Smith jurisprudence and its declaration that the RFRA invented a new standard for strict scrutiny in religious freedom cases has me puzzled. Anyone with a computer and rudimentary research skills can discover the fib.

The supremes have been inventing a lot of things lately, mostly expanding their own prower. I guess it all goes back to that living breathing theory, where the written word means nothing.

I think you might be referring to the Obergefell decision? If so, the Court didn't invent marriage, which is a contract that can only be entered, maintained, and dissolved in accordance with state law. The right to marry, which is a fundamental right protected as a liberty interest under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is subject to reasonable state regulations. For instance, states may legitimately determine the age of consent and prohibit marriages between closely related people.

When you have two groups of similarly situated people, and one group is allowed to exercise a fundamental right and another group is prohibited, then conflict arises. The institution of marriage confers many tangible and intangible protections and benefits upon marriage partners and their children. Members of the group who are denied the right are entitled to petition our courts for redress of their grievance and to seek equal protection under the law. There simply was no reason why same-sex couples should not be afforded the same (equal) rights as heterosexual couples. That's just a straight forward application of Constitutional Law 101, not an expansion of power.

All the Supreme Court justices, past and present, understand that our country did not stand frozen in time when the Constitution was written or when the civil war amendments were adopted. For instance, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court stated the following:

"In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."

I apologize for going off track, but I don't agree that our guiding constitutional principles and case law cannot be applied to new fact situations that are present today but were not present at an earlier time in our history.

As far as Obergefell goes, I disagreed with the decision because they are granting rights based on subjective circumstances such as actions and preferences. Gays were in no need of additional protections because all the rights of their gender were already available to them, there was no objective discrimination.

That said I was mostly referring to the ACA decision where the court decided explicit language used in various sections of the law to extend a series of carrots and sticks to the States was ambiguous and chose to become legislators in rewriting the law, a function they have no authority under the Constitution to do. They should have set aside the law and told the legislature to fix it or upheld it as written. Constitutionally there is no third choice.

So basically, you just want homosexuals to be "happy" with what YOU want them to have? Sorry buddy, they are tax paying American citizens. It doesn't matter how you "feel" about them. Like I've told you, you are free to discriminate and be a jerk in your personal life. When it comes to operating a business, you have to abide by the laws in your state. Discrimination is NOT a religious practice or custom. You people just make this stuff up because you are hateful human beings.

Fuck off maggot, I've never discriminated against anyone including gays when I had my business. Of course they never tried to force me to participate in their lifestyle activities, if they had I might of had a problem with that, not because of what they are but because I don't like being forced to do anything.

Now tell me where I got it wrong, did or did they not have every protection afforded to every other person of their gender?

Given your complete lack of understanding of the laws regarding business, I don't believe that you ever owned a business. You are much too ignorant.

All I can say about your tantrums is boo-effing-hoo. You sound like a toddler, seriously. Why don't you go stomp you feet and throw yourself on the floor too?

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, you dummy. Get a grip on yourself. If your religion prevents you from following the law, then you don't have a "right" to open a business and disobey the laws in your state. The states make the rules regarding business practice, not you.