Christian Bake Shop Must Serve Gakes

[TemplarKormac]

First question, do you think that a business should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped?

Second question, do you think that if the owner of a business claims they have a religious belief that they shouldn't serve blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped that they should be granted a special exception?


>>>>

I notice you refused to answer the questions.



Maybe you should look up what "slippery slope fallacy" actually means before trying to use it.

Asking pointed questions to probe the consistancy of an individual position is not a "slippery slop fallacy".

Your lack of providing an answer is - well there is a technical term for it - a "dodge".



I didn't ask if it would be deterimental to a business. I asked if you supported a business being able to discriminate against blacks? Or if it made a difference if they discriminated against blacks and claimed a religious reason (not to be confused with a Biblical reason)?

However, by no means do homosexuals constitute a majority of the population.

Thank you for that statistical information, it doesn't have any relevance to the questions asked. But thank you anyway.

I am no fan of discrimination, I am however an advocate of religious freedom, and the right of a man to cede to his conscience.

Thank you for that information about whether you are a fan of discrimination or not, it's not relevant to the questions asked. But thank you anyway.

So let's try again.

Do you think it's OK to have laws against discrimination against blacks?

If so, do you support the law not being applied simply because a business claims a religious conviction as the basis for their discrimination?



>>>>

I gave you my answer. You are trying to entrap me in a fantastical scenario whereby the proprietor said establishment discriminates against blacks, Jews, Women, handicapped and Mexicans. By my own reasoning, denying Blacks, Women, and Hispanics alone would prevent this business from garnering any profit from such a philosophy. The business model would thereby be unfeasible.

This business in Colorado on the other hand, can derive profit from other demographics. You won't lose money by denying service to a rather miniscule portion of the population. You are implying that somehow he is willing to do the same to other demographics purely based on his religious beliefs. If he did, he would put himself out of business.

You are issuing red herrings of your own, on top of making wild assertions by stating he used religious belief as a basis for discrimination. He is practicing his faith as he knows it. So, who here gets the benefit of the doubt? Do gay rights trump religious rights? Apparently to you, and to those that interpret the law, they do. That is wrong. The man has a right to practice his faith, the homosexual couple has a right to seek services elsewhere.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hate to break the bad news, but that section of the Colorado State Constitution is not operative, it was struck as unconstitutional in the case of Romer v. Evan shortly after it was passed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Okay then... So the Supreme Court is thereby saying the voice of the people no longer holds weight. That section was implemented via referendum. By telling them that something they voted for is unconstitutional, you are denying them equal protection of the law, saying their opinions or what they voted for is no longer relevant in the eyes of the law. What is a greater injustice? Denying service because of religious belief, or telling the voters that their votes no longer hold weight?

And since you cited that particular case, I find this quote particularly interesting:

"A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

So, what of the man of faith? Is he now a stranger to the provision that permits him to freely exercise his faith? How can it be "equal protection" when you are asserting that one groups rights trumps another man's faith? How can you use the law to grant one group an advantage over the other? I admit I failed to do proper research on that provision, but that doesn't stop me from finding fault with the ruling or saying the same ruling goes the other way as well.

You are free of course to disagree with the ruling and find fault with it. That doesn't change the fact that the courts have never found that "freedom of religion" means that anyone can do anything in the name of religion and be exempt from generally applicable laws.

Justice Scalia (not one anyone would consider a Liberal judge) addressed this very issue in Employment Division v. Smith:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.​

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."​

>>>>

There's one big problem. You are criminalizing religious belief, by saying acting upon it can constitute a crime. You are thereby restricting ability to act upon faith. You are also saying that a man's religious beliefs are also thereby inconsequential as it pertains to the law.

How is it right to make a man a stranger to his own religious teachings? Is that right? Or fair? To make one man subservient to the law, and subsequently an alien to his own faith is reprehensible. Did not the Nazis do something similar to the Jews? Are you not denying a person his beliefs and opinions as well by doing such? I believe there is a colossal flaw in that line of reasoning.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I notice you refused to answer the questions.



Maybe you should look up what "slippery slope fallacy" actually means before trying to use it.

Asking pointed questions to probe the consistancy of an individual position is not a "slippery slop fallacy".

Your lack of providing an answer is - well there is a technical term for it - a "dodge".



I didn't ask if it would be deterimental to a business. I asked if you supported a business being able to discriminate against blacks? Or if it made a difference if they discriminated against blacks and claimed a religious reason (not to be confused with a Biblical reason)?



Thank you for that statistical information, it doesn't have any relevance to the questions asked. But thank you anyway.

I am no fan of discrimination, I am however an advocate of religious freedom, and the right of a man to cede to his conscience.

Thank you for that information about whether you are a fan of discrimination or not, it's not relevant to the questions asked. But thank you anyway.

So let's try again.

Do you think it's OK to have laws against discrimination against blacks?

If so, do you support the law not being applied simply because a business claims a religious conviction as the basis for their discrimination?



>>>>

I gave you my answer. You are trying to entrap me in a fantastical scenario whereby the proprietor said establishment discriminates against blacks, Jews, Women, handicapped and Mexicans. By my own reasoning, denying Blacks, Women, and Hispanics alone would prevent this business from garnering any profit from such a philosophy. The business model would thereby be unfeasible.

This business in Colorado on the other hand, can derive profit from other demographics. You won't lose money by denying service to a rather miniscule portion of the population. You are implying that somehow he is willing to do the same to other demographics purely based on his religious beliefs. If he did, he would put himself out of business.

You are issuing red herrings of your own, on top of making wild assertions by stating he used religious belief as a basis for discrimination. He is practicing his faith as he knows it. So, who here gets the benefit of the doubt? Do gay rights trump religious rights? Apparently to you, and to those that interpret the law, they do. That is wrong. The man has a right to practice his faith, the homosexual couple has a right to seek services elsewhere.

No, I was showing you a weakness in your reasoning. That moral convictions or religious beliefs when cited should be reason to allow special privileges to be exempt from the law.

In general most people support the idea that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on certain criteria. You are presenting though a position that those laws in general are valid, but if someone claims a religious reason - then in fact they should be granted special privileges based on a religious position to not have a law which is general in nature apply to them.

In other words, as an example. If the law says a business can't discriminate against gays. That's OK. But if a business claims the discrimination is based on a religious conviction - they are exempt.

So the same would apply. If the law says a business can't discriminate against blacks (or any other identified group). That's OK. But if a business claims the discrimination is based on a religious conviction - they are exempt.

**********************

That what the SCOTUS said when it pointed out in the Smith decision: "Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

If everyone can claim religious belief to be exempt from the law, then each person becomes a law until themselves.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay then... So the Supreme Court is thereby saying the voice of the people no longer holds weight. That section was implemented via referendum. By telling them that something they voted for is unconstitutional, you are denying them equal protection of the law, saying their opinions or what they voted for is no longer relevant in the eyes of the law. What is a greater injustice? Denying service because of religious belief, or telling the voters that their votes no longer hold weight?

And since you cited that particular case, I find this quote particularly interesting:

"A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

So, what of the man of faith? Is he now a stranger to the provision that permits him to freely exercise his faith? How can it be "equal protection" when you are asserting that one groups rights trumps another man's faith? How can you use the law to grant one group an advantage over the other? I admit I failed to do proper research on that provision, but that doesn't stop me from finding fault with the ruling or saying the same ruling goes the other way as well.

You are free of course to disagree with the ruling and find fault with it. That doesn't change the fact that the courts have never found that "freedom of religion" means that anyone can do anything in the name of religion and be exempt from generally applicable laws.

Justice Scalia (not one anyone would consider a Liberal judge) addressed this very issue in Employment Division v. Smith:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.​

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."​

>>>>

There's one big problem. You are criminalizing religious belief, by saying acting upon it can constitute a crime. You are thereby restricting ability to act upon faith. You are also saying that a man's religious beliefs are also thereby inconsequential as it pertains to the law.

How is it right to make a man a stranger to his own religious teachings? Is that right? Or fair? To make one man subservient to the law, and subsequently an alien to his faith is reprehensible. Did not the Nazis do something similar to the Jews? Are you not denying a person his beliefs and opinions as well by doing such? I believe there is a colossal flaw in that line of reasoning.

Well I guess we've reached the point where Godwin's Law applies.

Good night, I'm off to bed.

>>>>

 

[BDBoop]

Gakes, gay cakes.

Judge orders bakeshop to serve same-sex customers after owner REFUSED to make rainbow wedding cake for gay couple | Mail Online

I am amazed to live in a country where a judge can order a business to make a cake for a gay couple, which is optional, but cannot order government to follow the Constitution which is a contractual agreement.

With cases like this, or the AZ immigration bill, it seems people have "no problem" enforcing Constitutional principles for one party's sake at the expense of the equal rights of the other.

But when it comes to the other way, then all this justification comes up as to why the group is 'wrong' that is seeking equal Constitutional protections.

Just insanity. Don't know whether to laugh at how utterly ridiculous this is getting, or go cry with Victoria Jackson and others who weep for America.

I'm glad I have a sense of humor, but this really is horrible; and I am starting to feel bad for laughing at how truly sad the shape of our country is in.

I feel bad for both sides of these conflicts, and don't feel this is helping solve the issues by adding more injuries. People really deserve support to resolve differences directly, and keep all this nonsense we don't agree on OUT of government. The reason we can't resolve them is that they involve religious beliefs, so those will not change. Technically govt is not supposed to impose or establish one view over another, so this is not govt jurisdiction but belongs to the people to settle among ourselves and quit backlogging govt with the mess!

So sad. I have strong sympathies for all people who are NOT helped by these dilemma, where govt should NOT be abused to force one way or another, but to protect interests equally.
If anything, judges should order the people to resolve their conflicts and keep them OUT of courts and avoid public expense for their personal or religious conflicts that don't belong there.

No, it’s not ‘insanity,’ you simply don’t understand.

The issue concerns a Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating in the context of public accommodations. The judge is appropriately enforcing the laws of his state.

The state law also comports with Federal Constitutional case law, as the judge correctly noted in his opinion, where one’s religious beliefs cannot be used to excuse him when he violates a just law, and where forbidding discrimination concerning public accommodations is consistent with Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

It would have been an act of malfeasance on the part of the judge to rule otherwise.

The resolution to this is for business owners to conduct themselves professionally, and serve paying customers in a fair and consistent manner, as responsible business owners, and as responsible members of their communities.

Thank you. I do believe I'll just go with the legalities thereof, and ignore all the faith and screaming.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are free of course to disagree with the ruling and find fault with it. That doesn't change the fact that the courts have never found that "freedom of religion" means that anyone can do anything in the name of religion and be exempt from generally applicable laws.

Justice Scalia (not one anyone would consider a Liberal judge) addressed this very issue in Employment Division v. Smith:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.​

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."​

>>>>

There's one big problem. You are criminalizing religious belief, by saying acting upon it can constitute a crime. You are thereby restricting ability to act upon faith. You are also saying that a man's religious beliefs are also thereby inconsequential as it pertains to the law.

How is it right to make a man a stranger to his own religious teachings? Is that right? Or fair? To make one man subservient to the law, and subsequently an alien to his faith is reprehensible. Did not the Nazis do something similar to the Jews? Are you not denying a person his beliefs and opinions as well by doing such? I believe there is a colossal flaw in that line of reasoning.

Well I guess we've reached the point where Godwin's Law applies.

Good night, I'm off to bed.

>>>>

The Nazis made Jews aliens to their own beliefs, and made the practice or the very belief of their faith illegal. Invoking Godwin's law is a cheap way for you to exit the argument without having to answer the charges.

Really?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I notice you refused to answer the questions.



Maybe you should look up what "slippery slope fallacy" actually means before trying to use it.

Asking pointed questions to probe the consistancy of an individual position is not a "slippery slop fallacy".

Your lack of providing an answer is - well there is a technical term for it - a "dodge".



I didn't ask if it would be deterimental to a business. I asked if you supported a business being able to discriminate against blacks? Or if it made a difference if they discriminated against blacks and claimed a religious reason (not to be confused with a Biblical reason)?



Thank you for that statistical information, it doesn't have any relevance to the questions asked. But thank you anyway.



Thank you for that information about whether you are a fan of discrimination or not, it's not relevant to the questions asked. But thank you anyway.

So let's try again.

Do you think it's OK to have laws against discrimination against blacks?

If so, do you support the law not being applied simply because a business claims a religious conviction as the basis for their discrimination?



>>>>

I gave you my answer. You are trying to entrap me in a fantastical scenario whereby the proprietor said establishment discriminates against blacks, Jews, Women, handicapped and Mexicans. By my own reasoning, denying Blacks, Women, and Hispanics alone would prevent this business from garnering any profit from such a philosophy. The business model would thereby be unfeasible.

This business in Colorado on the other hand, can derive profit from other demographics. You won't lose money by denying service to a rather miniscule portion of the population. You are implying that somehow he is willing to do the same to other demographics purely based on his religious beliefs. If he did, he would put himself out of business.

You are issuing red herrings of your own, on top of making wild assertions by stating he used religious belief as a basis for discrimination. He is practicing his faith as he knows it. So, who here gets the benefit of the doubt? Do gay rights trump religious rights? Apparently to you, and to those that interpret the law, they do. That is wrong. The man has a right to practice his faith, the homosexual couple has a right to seek services elsewhere.

No, I was showing you a weakness in your reasoning. That moral convictions or religious beliefs when cited should be reason to allow special privileges to be exempt from the law.

In general most people support the idea that businesses shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on certain criteria. You are presenting though a position that those laws in general are valid, but if someone claims a religious reason - then in fact they should be granted special privileges based on a religious position to not have a law which is general in nature apply to them.

In other words, as an example. If the law says a business can't discriminate against gays. That's OK. But if a business claims the discrimination is based on a religious conviction - they are exempt.

So the same would apply. If the law says a business can't discriminate against blacks (or any other identified group). That's OK. But if a business claims the discrimination is based on a religious conviction - they are exempt.

**********************

That what the SCOTUS said when it pointed out in the Smith decision: "Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

If everyone can claim religious belief to be exempt from the law, then each person becomes a law until themselves.


>>>>

Gay rights trump religious rights, in other words. Though the law is legally valid, it can and will interfere with religious opinion and practice. So by that line of reasoning, a religious man must sacrifice his beliefs and the pertinent practices in order to be an entrepreneur. What? Is that not discrimination too? Isn't it a bit much to tell a man when and where he can practice his faith?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hate to break the bad news, but that section of the Colorado State Constitution is not operative, it was struck as unconstitutional in the case of Romer v. Evan shortly after it was passed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Okay then... So the Supreme Court is thereby saying the voice of the people no longer holds weight. That section was implemented via referendum. By telling them that something they voted for is unconstitutional, you are denying them equal protection of the law, saying their opinions or what they voted for is no longer relevant in the eyes of the law. What is a greater injustice? Denying service because of religious belief, or telling the voters that their votes no longer hold weight?

And since you cited that particular case, I find this quote particularly interesting:

"A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

So, what of the man of faith? Is he now a stranger to the provision that permits him to freely exercise his faith? How can it be "equal protection" when you are asserting that one groups rights trumps another man's faith? How can you use the law to grant one group an advantage over the other? I admit I failed to do proper research on that provision, but that doesn't stop me from finding fault with the ruling or saying the same ruling goes the other way as well.

You are free of course to disagree with the ruling and find fault with it. That doesn't change the fact that the courts have never found that "freedom of religion" means that anyone can do anything in the name of religion and be exempt from generally applicable laws.

Justice Scalia (not one anyone would consider a Liberal judge) addressed this very issue in Employment Division v. Smith:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.​

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."​

>>>>

No, they usually go out of their way to find another reason to rule that way, like freedom of speech in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance, even though it is required by law, applies to everyone equally, and places a burden on some people's expression thereof.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh yeah, what Quantum Windbag cites here is a 1943 case presented by the Jehovah's Witnesses in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, which overturned their earlier ruling in Minersville School District v. Gobitis 310 U.S. 586 (1940) also presented by the Jehovah's Witnesses, it said in a 6-3 ruling that a student should not be required to say the pledge if it violates his right to free speech. The Jehovah's Witnesses say swearing fealty to symbols is a religious affront. The court agreed with the Jehovah's Witnesses to this extent. This can be seen as the court making an exception for a person of faith when his faith conflicts with the law.

In issuing his majority opinion, Justice Jackson stated:

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

That completely dismantled Frankfurter's majority opinion in the Gobitis case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hate to break the bad news, but that section of the Colorado State Constitution is not operative, it was struck as unconstitutional in the case of Romer v. Evan shortly after it was passed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

Okay then... So the Supreme Court is thereby saying the voice of the people no longer holds weight. That section was implemented via referendum. By telling them that something they voted for is unconstitutional, you are denying them equal protection of the law, saying their opinions or what they voted for is no longer relevant in the eyes of the law. What is a greater injustice? Denying service because of religious belief, or telling the voters that their votes no longer hold weight?

And since you cited that particular case, I find this quote particularly interesting:

"A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

So, what of the man of faith? Is he now a stranger to the provision that permits him to freely exercise his faith? How can it be "equal protection" when you are asserting that one groups rights trumps another man's faith? How can you use the law to grant one group an advantage over the other? I admit I failed to do proper research on that provision, but that doesn't stop me from finding fault with the ruling or saying the same ruling goes the other way as well.

You are free of course to disagree with the ruling and find fault with it. That doesn't change the fact that the courts have never found that "freedom of religion" means that anyone can do anything in the name of religion and be exempt from generally applicable laws.

Justice Scalia (not one anyone would consider a Liberal judge) addressed this very issue in Employment Division v. Smith:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.​

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."​

>>>>

You are wrong in stating that the law does not make any exceptions for religious beliefs, as I cite legal precedent from two Supreme Court cases:

1. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)

This ruling was responsible for the Sherbert Test, which tests whether or not governmental policy runs afoul of the Free Exercise Clause of the first Amendment. The Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision reversed the Commission and the lower courts, finding that denying Sherbert's [unemployment] claim was an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of her [Adell Sherbert's] religion.

The Sherbert Test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual's right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. The test is as follows:

For the individual, the court must determine

whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove

that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest," and
that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

2. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

Here the court held that the Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because it required attendance past the eighth grade and interfered with the right of Amish parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In both cases, exceptions were made for the religious beliefs of the claimant. So saying the law doesn't allow for it is false. Justice Antonin Scalia failed to mention or acknowledge that Gobitis had been overturned in 1943 by the Barnette case! So for him to cite the Gobitis case as precedent was/is judicially irresponsible. So on that note, I would deem Colorado's public accommodation law to be unconstitutional, because as you can very well see in the case of Jack Phillips, the bakery in Oregon, and the Photographer in New Mexico; it sets an undue burden on the ability of these people to freely practice their faith and serve the public interest at the same time. Such public accommodation can be seen as prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Brash as it may sound, it is itself, sound.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In fact, Justice Robert H. Jackson so effectively dismantled Justice Felix Frankfurter's argument that it sent Frankfurter into a rage, as it showed in his dissenting opinion. He took it so personally that he wrote while referencing his Jewish roots that:

One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution.

I am curious as to why Scalia would cite a defunct case and a debunked argument to support his vote in Romer v. Evans.

 

[Tank]

How about a Jewish bakery having to make a cake to celebrate Hitlers birthday

 

[ScienceRocks]

Gays aren't harming anyone. It is money sweeties...That is the name of the game

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay then... So the Supreme Court is thereby saying the voice of the people no longer holds weight. That section was implemented via referendum. By telling them that something they voted for is unconstitutional, you are denying them equal protection of the law, saying their opinions or what they voted for is no longer relevant in the eyes of the law. What is a greater injustice? Denying service because of religious belief, or telling the voters that their votes no longer hold weight?

And since you cited that particular case, I find this quote particularly interesting:

"A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws."

So, what of the man of faith? Is he now a stranger to the provision that permits him to freely exercise his faith? How can it be "equal protection" when you are asserting that one groups rights trumps another man's faith? How can you use the law to grant one group an advantage over the other? I admit I failed to do proper research on that provision, but that doesn't stop me from finding fault with the ruling or saying the same ruling goes the other way as well.

You are free of course to disagree with the ruling and find fault with it. That doesn't change the fact that the courts have never found that "freedom of religion" means that anyone can do anything in the name of religion and be exempt from generally applicable laws.

Justice Scalia (not one anyone would consider a Liberal judge) addressed this very issue in Employment Division v. Smith:

"Our decisions reveal that the latter reading is the correct one. We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.​

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."​

>>>>

You are wrong in stating that the law does not make any exceptions for religious beliefs,

Psst - I never said that. What I said is that religious beliefs do not automatically exempt one from the law.

Of course there are cases where laws have been found unconstitutional based on overly restrictive results to a religious beliefs. Not the point. Some claim that religious beliefs **AUTOMATICALLY** provide an exception to complying with secular law. That is not the case.

And as you pointed out, part of the Sherbert Test is to examine if there is a compelling government interest (which there as government routinely regulate commerce within the scope of their jurisdiction) and is the conduct a burden on those beliefs. Baking a cake for a bakery is not a burden on their beliefs as it routine action already performed.

Ya never now, these cases may eventually reach the Supreme Court and they may indicate that religius reasons can be an exception to Public Accommodation laws. In which case businesses will be able to discriminate against blacks, asians, Jews, Muslims, the elderly, women, the old, and the handicapped - all they would have to do is claim religious beliefs.


>>>>

 

[Nosmo King]

Forced is the correct word. They were forced to provide a service and a product to someone they did not wish to serve or produce for.

A capitalist system does not work under the premise that people are forced to work for people they don't want to work for. Quite the opposite.

A bakery/catering business is essentially a matter of contracts...the baker contracts with the buyers. They tell him what they want, he tells them if he'll make it, and if he makes it, for how much.

It isn't a matter of someone marching up and telling the baker "You'll make this for me."

They were not forced to be in the cake making business. It is the business owners job and duty to know the regulations and laws that govern what their business is obligated to follow. When they obtain a business license they have access to all those rules and laws. They make an agreement with the state, sometimes the county and sometimes the town to follow those regulations and laws. The key point is that by obtaining the license they agree to follow the laws. They do not have the right to arbitrarily alter the agreement they made with the licensing authority(s). If they don't like the rules and laws they have three choices, follow them even though they don't like them, ignore the rules and laws they don't like and suffer the consequences if and when caught, or, don't enter into the business to start with.

Again, you have confused capitalism with communism.

See in a capitalist society, there is an agreement between two parties...one party agrees to create something or provide something, and the other party agrees to purchase it. If one party determines the price is not to their liking, or the product is not to their liking, then they have the option of NOT PURCHASING it. If the producer is not willing to produce/serve the customer, they have the option of not taking their money.

In this way, a diverse marketplace is created, where people can obtain speciality items or refuse to commerce with producers they aren't interested in or don't like.


In a communist society, the state forces people to produce whatever they tell them to, and to dispose of it as they are told to. Generally, this consists of creating food that is then taken from them, and then they starve...but communists like this system and so the world has learned to accept the fact that they will always be extremely short, rickety and underweight, with short life spans.

In this case, the state is insisting that the producer create a product he doesn't want to create for a customer he has no interest in contracting with.

That's not capitalism. Sorry. If you like that ^ system, you should move to N.Korea. They're flourishing under it, there.

You're confusing Capitalism with Segregation.

You are basically rolling back Civil Rights legislation. You're making it legal to discriminate, to create second class citizens, in essence, you're calling for a new Jim Crow society.

And they say Conservatives aren't the haters! What better shining example that this argument right here?

In this way, a diverse marketplace is created, where people can obtain speciality items or refuse to commerce with producers they aren't interested in or don't like.

That does not create a 'diverse marketplace'! That creates a divided society ruled by hate.

 

[Katzndogz]

No one discriminated against gays, not even the baker.

 

[Katzndogz]

Public Accommodation laws do no such thing.

If a Muslim business didn't sell halal compliant foods as part of their business model, they would not be required to start providing such foods because a customer ordered it.

On the other hand if a Muslim business DID offer non-halal foods as part of their business model, then they could not refuse to sell something they offered to a customer based on the criteria outlined in Colorado Revised Statutes 24-34-601(2).

The baker in question advertized and routinely supplied as a core function of their business wedding cakes, therefore under Colorado law they cannot discriminated based on various criteria (including sexual orientation) by not selling to a customer because of that critiera.

**************************

Public Accommodations laws have never required a business to sell goods or services they don't already provide to the general public, they only require that goods and services already offered be provided in a non-discriminatory fashion.

What is so hard about that concept that people don't get, resulting in fanciful red-herrings that have nothing to do with what the law actually does?


>>>>

And you missed the entire point of my post. It would be unwise of me to further explain it. In both cases you are forcing someone to act against their faith, statutes be damned. One other thing, you must learn to differentiate between theory and actualization. I did not make such an assertion.

What is so hard about people making allowances for a person's faith? Is it necessary that they have to tout the law over the religious beliefs of someone else? Worship the laws of man over the laws of God, in essence.

First question, do you think that a business should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped?

Second question, do you think that if the owner of a business claims they have a religious belief that they shouldn't serve blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped that they should be granted a special exception?


>>>>

If a business said "We do not serve blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women or the handicapped that individual would not be able to purchase anything from that business. Blacks couldn't sit at the lunch counter, remember, they couldn't be served at all.

In this case the homosexual is not complaining that he was denied service. He was certainly able to get service at any time. What he was denied was a specific service from a particular person. He was denied a rainbow wedding cake.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And you missed the entire point of my post. It would be unwise of me to further explain it. In both cases you are forcing someone to act against their faith, statutes be damned. One other thing, you must learn to differentiate between theory and actualization. I did not make such an assertion.

What is so hard about people making allowances for a person's faith? Is it necessary that they have to tout the law over the religious beliefs of someone else? Worship the laws of man over the laws of God, in essence.

First question, do you think that a business should be allowed to discriminate against blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped?

Second question, do you think that if the owner of a business claims they have a religious belief that they shouldn't serve blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women, handicapped that they should be granted a special exception?


>>>>

If a business said "We do not serve blacks, Jews, Mexicans, women or the handicapped that individual would not be able to purchase anything from that business. Blacks couldn't sit at the lunch counter, remember, they couldn't be served at all.

Not in many cases, in many cases there were segregated areas in the same business.

In this case the homosexual is not complaining that he was denied service. He was certainly able to get service at any time. What he was denied was a specific service from a particular person. He was denied a rainbow wedding cake.

Where do you get this "rainbow" bullshit, there was never any discussion of cake decorations as the baker refused the sale from the get-go.


>>>>

 

[Nosmo King]

No one discriminated against gays, not even the baker.

I know that the baker is using a flimsy excuse that it would be sinful for him to deal with homosexuals and you agree with that slender reed. But in fact, when the baker refused his services due to either his "religious beliefs" (which is a total crock) or what is the truth on the face of it. that his lost customers are homosexuals, he discriminated. And discrimination is against the law.

 

[Dragonlady]

They wanted a specific baker to make them a specific cake. Not even one from a catalogue of cakes but a specifically designed wedding cake just for them. Requiring the baker to exercise this level of participation is wrong. Just wrong and very near slavery. Forcing one man to labor, against his will, in service to another is a travesty.

Your arguments in this thread are bullshit. There is no sin in baking a wedding cake for a gay couple. None. This is just a made up excuse for discrimination, even if you do believe that gay sex is a sin. Baking a cake is not participating in gay sex.

In my reading of scripture, it is the baker who is sinning here. He is judging his customers which the Bible specifically says not to do. The Bible also says to love the sinners, but not the sin. The Bible is also pretty clear that one should follow the laws of the land and again, this man failed to do so. At every turn, this so-called Christian has behaved in a manner which goes against everything that Jesus preached.

So don't try to hand me this bullshit that the baker was just being a good Christian. He was being self-righteous, prideful, judgemental and behaving illegally. He was not treating others in the manner he would wish to be treated. There was nothing Christian in his behaviour at all.