Colorado baker told to bake that cake

[dblack]

... because businesses aren't people.

You keep repeating this. But it's kind of a nonsensical thing to say. I guess, depending on the terms you're equivocating on, you could say a "business" has no rights. Kind of like a building, or a car, has no rights. But we're talking about people, and they do have rights. They don't forfeit those rights simply because they're doing business.

No, you are children who've gotten a bank account from the Koch Brother sugar daddies, which is the only reason anyone has to take you seriously.

Well shit, I guess I'm not a "libertarian" - certainly not by your bizarre and incoherent conception of the term. Too bad. A bank account from the Koch bros would be sweet!

 

[Captain Caveman]

There is no such thing as a "faggot cake", just cake.

Faggot is simply a disparaging term for male homosexual. But you are half right, I doubled checked the link in the op and it's about a transgender and not a male homosexual.

So the problem is, someone born under the rules of nature has a mental discrepancy with their physical self. So they don't respect the body they were born with, yet you and them expect me and everyone to respect them. Well, that's not gonna happen is it !!! Why idiots conform to their wacky ideas is beyond belief, the world's IQ is dumbing down.

Mental issues require medication and psychiatric treatment.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Faggot is simply a disparaging term for male homosexual. But you are half right, I doubled checked the link in the op and it's about a transgender and not a male homosexual.

So the problem is, someone born under the rules of nature has a mental discrepancy with their physical self. So they don't respect the body they were born with, yet you and them expect me and everyone to respect them. Well, that's not gonna happen is it !!! Why idiots conform to their wacky ideas is beyond belief, the world's IQ is dumbing down.

Mental issues require medication and psychiatric treatment.

What do your Gay and Trans friends think about it ?

 

[Captain Caveman]

What do your Gay and Trans friends think about it ?

I know some gays, but I don't know of any who've had a Ripabollockoff or Stapadicktome. Whatever they think, it's their choice/opinion.

Tommy, if I have a tractor and I unbolted the body shell and slapped a Formula 1 body shell onto the tractor's chassis, do I have a Formula 1 car? What do you think will happen if I entered a Formula 1 season with my alleged "Formula 1" car?

 

[JoeB131]

You keep repeating this. But it's kind of a nonsensical thing to say. I guess, depending on the terms you're equivocating on, you could say a "business" has no rights. Kind of like a building, or a car, has no rights. But we're talking about people, and they do have rights. They don't forfeit those rights simply because they're doing business.

No, but they do have to follow the laws governing business, cars, buildings, etc.

For instance, when I owned a rental building, I was required to have two exits to the building AND install smoke and carbon dioxide detectors.
When I drive a car, I have to follow the rules of the road.
And when I own a business, I have to follow the non-discrimination laws.

 

[dblack]

No, but they do have to follow the laws governing business, cars, buildings, etc.

Yes, and those laws must abide by Constitutional limits on government - ie those laws must respect their rights. The right to say "no" is fundamental. That doesn't change because you are engaging in trade with another person. In fact, it's even more important in matters of trade.

Liberals want government to control trade. One reason why liberals suck.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, and those laws must abide by Constitutional limits on government - ie those laws must respect their rights. The right to say "no" is fundamental. That doesn't change because you are engaging in trade with another person.

Liberals want government to control trade. One reason why liberals suck.

No, the government should control trade because that's the only way you keep it reasonably fair.

If anything, we don't have enough government regulation of business. Which is why we have so many questionable operators out there.

 

[dblack]

No, the government should control trade because that's the only way you keep it reasonably fair.

If anything, we don't have enough government regulation of business. Which is why we have so many questionable operators out there.

So tell me, is there such a thing as too much regulation in your view? Is the democratic will of the majority ideal and infallible? Should everything be decided by government?

 

[JoeB131]

So tell me, is there such a thing as too much regulation in your view? Is the democratic will of the majority ideal and infallible? Should everything be decided by government?

To answer in order.
Yes, but we aren't anywhere near that in regulating business. Just ask the people in New Palestine.
Mostly yes.
Everything, no. This is something that we have collectively decided.

Let's review why we HAVE Public Accommodation laws to start with. It is not because some bureaucrat twirled his mustache and said, "Muh-hahahahah, this is a way to fuck with them." We have them because in certain parts of the country, you could not get service if your skin was a certain color, or if you belonged to the wrong religion.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The First Amendment doesn't grant religious people the right to ignore laws that the rest of us must follow. Anti-discrimination laws violate fundamental human rights and, in my view, are unconstitutional. But equal protection demands that the law applies to everyone, or is struck down for everyone. What I'm objecting to here is the conception of religious freedom as a special perk for members of state-recognized religions.

You seem to subscribe to that conception. How do you justify it? Why should someone be allowed to ignore the law for religious reasons, but not secular reasons?

Because not everyone will agree with you. The state will have to decide which religions are "established" and which aren't. I guess you just have to hope yours makes the list.

Really? Can you point me to a list of the world's "established" religions? Which list does the government use?

The First Amendment doesn't grant religious people the right to ignore laws that the rest of us must follow. Anti-discrimination laws violate fundamental human rights and, in my view, are unconstitutional. But equal protection demands that the law applies to everyone, or is struck down for everyone. What I'm objecting to here is the conception of religious freedom as a special perk for members of state-recognized religions.

So then, what you are suggesting is that no constitutionally guaranteed right is absolute, that all rights are subject to the laws of congress, which would then mean that cotus rights don’t really mean anything, and the only rights we have are the ones that congress allows us to have?

You seem to subscribe to that conception. How do you justify it? Why should someone be allowed to ignore the law for religious reasons, but not secular reasons?

[/B]
Because I believe the framers wrote the cotus to grant certain protections that are above the authority of government, meaning, government can’t take them away, unless the cotus is amended.

I don’t know what the framers were thinking, but religion was important enough to them for them to make a specific right

The argument really boils down to the question of, is it discrimination or religious freedom. The left will always argue that it’s discrimination, because from what I’ve seen, the left appear to be very anti religion. The right, being mostly pro religion, will see it as a religious freedom.

To me, for it to be discrimination, it has to involve some sort of hate, resentment, or animosity. I don’t think this fits into that category because there is no evidence of any hatred from Philips, no social media posts, no prior complaints from gay or trans people of him refusing service to them for other things. All of this started when he simply exercised his cotus rights, and the gay couple took it as a hate crime and sued him.

Because not everyone will agree with you. The state will have to decide which religions are "established" and which aren't. I guess you just have to hope yours makes the list.

So, where is this list of state approved religions?

Really? Can you point me to a list of the world's "established" religions? Which list does the government use?

Well, if you need a list of the religions of the world, a search engine will find it for you, as far as what list the government uses…hopefully that answer is none. Government isn’t supposed to be the arbiter of what people can worship. Cotus says people have the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose, it never gives the government the power to approve or deny one.

 

[JoeB131]

So then, what you are suggesting is that no constitutionally guaranteed right is absolute, that all rights are subject to the laws of congress, which would then mean that cotus rights don’t really mean anything, and the only rights we have are the ones that congress allows us to have?

There are no rights. There are just privileges that the majority tolerates.

It's why the Branch Davidians (or for that matter, the Catholics) aren't allowed to molest kids.
It's why the Rastafarians can't smoke pot.

Because I believe the framers wrote the cotus to grant certain protections that are above the authority of government, meaning, government can’t take them away, unless the cotus is amended.

I don’t know what the framers were thinking, but religion was important enough to them for them to make a specific right

They also enshrined separation of Church and state and the establishment clause, to keep the churches from imposing themselves on government. Since the regulation of commerce is a government function, then there is no constitutional right to claim a religious exemption.

Well, if you need a list of the religions of the world, a search engine will find it for you, as far as what list the government uses…hopefully that answer is none. Government isn’t supposed to be the arbiter of what people can worship. Cotus says people have the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose, it never gives the government the power to approve or deny one.

Actually, when I was in the service, the Army DID have a list of religions (including Satanism) and guides on how Chaplains should deal with them.

And of course, the army actually has... chaplains.

 

[dblack]

If trade must be controlled by the state because it can be unfair, why not sex? religion? procreation?

Everything, no. This is something that we have collectively decided.

You're missing, or dodging, the point. What sort of things should we "collectively decided"? Is everything up grabs? Is majority rule the ultimate power in your view? Seems like it.

Let's review why we HAVE Public Accommodation laws to start with. It is not because some bureaucrat twirled his mustache and said, "Muh-hahahahah, this is a way to fuck with them." We have them because in certain parts of the country, you could not get service if your skin was a certain color, or if you belonged to the wrong religion.

Yes. And unfortunately we chose a bad cure for that problem, one that is now creating more problems than it solves. Time to reconsider.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That works fine if you never have a dispute with others. Now, the law is ALREADY heavily weighted towards the privileged, that goes without saying, This is one case where the law favors the consumer over the business. (There should be more of these).

Side note, if a wage slave decided he didn't want to bake the cake for religious reasons, he would have been fired. This is about the privilege of a business owner, that doesn't really apply because businesses aren't people.


No, you are children who've gotten a bank account from the Koch Brother sugar daddies, which is the only reason anyone has to take you seriously.


Except when he refused service, he was in violation of the law. He isn't personally being fined, his business is.


Fourth Commandment, bitches.. Or third. The Catholics and Protestants can't agree where the wording break is.

Really, so why did Jesus have to say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Of course, no one was getting stoned that day, the question was put to Jesus to get him to contradict Mosiac law, so the Pharisees could bust him for blasphemy.

Except when he refused service, he was in violation of the law. He isn't personally being fined, his business is.

His business cannot run without his labor, so if the business is required to observe PA laws, he he himself claims religious freedom…are you suggesting that he has to give up his rights to accommodate others? I didn’t see that written into the cotus after the freedom of religion clause.

Fourth Commandment, bitches.. Or third. The Catholics and Protestants can't agree where the wording break is.

Remember the Sabbath day? Ok, but it doesn’t say to kill people who don’t.

Really, so why did Jesus have to say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Of course, no one was getting stoned that day, the question was put to Jesus to get him to contradict Mosiac law, so the Pharisees could bust him for blasphemy.

Ok, but are we still under OT laws and customs?

 

[dblack]

So then, what you are suggesting is that no constitutionally guaranteed right is absolute, that all rights are subject to the laws of congress, which would then mean that cotus rights don’t really mean anything, and the only rights we have are the ones that congress allows us to have?

What? WTF are you talking about? I never said anything like that. Stow the strawman.

The argument really boils down to the question of, is it discrimination or religious freedom.

It's very obviously discrimination. The question is whether we have the right to discriminate or not.

The left will ...

Not really interested in your left/right pissing match.

To me, for it to be discrimination, it has to involve some sort of hate, resentment, or animosity.

Then you have your very own custom definition of discrimination. Not exactly legally binding, but I guess you're welcome to it..

Well, if you need a list of the religions of the world, a search engine will find it for you, as far as what list the government uses…hopefully that answer is none. Government isn’t supposed to be the arbiter of what people can worship. Cotus says people have the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose, it never gives the government the power to approve or deny one.

Ok, now you're contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that only "established" religions should get a pass. So, which religions are "established" and which aren't? Who decides?

 

[JoeB131]

If trade must be controlled by the state because it can be unfair, why not sex? religion? procreation?

Uh, buddy, you need to talk to your fellow wingnuts... they already want to control sex and procreation... or didn't you read their latest abortion decision?

You're missing, or dodging, the point. What sort of things should we "collectively decided"? Is everything up grabs? Is majority rule the ultimate power in your view? Seems like it.

As a practical matter, it is. This is what I keep telling you fools. There are no "rights", there is just what the majority collectively tolerates.

Yes. And unfortunately we chose a bad cure for that problem, one that is now creating more problems than it solves. Time to reconsider.

Not at all. A couple of homophobic bakers are paying fines and maybe rethinking their life choices, but millions of minority and LGBTQ+ citizens can walk into a store and know that they can access the same products and services that straight white people take for granted. That seems like a pretty fair trade.

As Mr. Spock said, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."

 

[JoeB131]

His business cannot run without his labor, so if the business is required to observe PA laws, he he himself claims religious freedom…are you suggesting that he has to give up his rights to accommodate others? I didn’t see that written into the cotus after the freedom of religion clause.

Yes, I am saying the minute he opened a business, he created a legal entity that is subject to the laws of commerce.

Here's the thing. If he refused to serve gays because he thinks the Butt-stuff is icky, we would not be having this conversation. So why are we having it because his imaginary friend in the Sky thinks the Butt stuff is icky?

Remember the Sabbath day? Ok, but it doesn’t say to kill people who don’t.

Uh, killing people was pretty much the only penalty the OT had.

Talk back to your parents? Death
Not a virgin on your wedding night? Death
Gay? Death
Picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Death
Using the Lord's name in Vain? Death.

Thankfully, we are civilized now, and not using the teachings of Bronze Age savages to govern ourselves.

 

[dblack]

Uh, buddy, you need to talk to your fellow wingnuts... they already want to control sex and procreation... or didn't you read their latest abortion decision?

Oh, gawd - more of the left right idiocy? I quoted those examples specifically because "the right" is no better than "the left" when it comes to respecting liberty. Both sides are inconsistent hypocrites. Both are fundamentally statist and want as much power over society as possible. They just have different levers that they want to pull.

As a practical matter, it is. This is what I keep telling you fools. There are no "rights", there is just what the majority collectively tolerates.

Individual rights are incompatible with your worldview. Your rejection of the concept is obvious out of the gate. But thanks for clarifying.

 

[ThisIsMe]

There are no rights. There are just privileges that the majority tolerates.

It's why the Branch Davidians (or for that matter, the Catholics) aren't allowed to molest kids.
It's why the Rastafarians can't smoke pot.



They also enshrined separation of Church and state and the establishment clause, to keep the churches from imposing themselves on government. Since the regulation of commerce is a government function, then there is no constitutional right to claim a religious exemption.


Actually, when I was in the service, the Army DID have a list of religions (including Satanism) and guides on how Chaplains should deal with them.

And of course, the army actually has... chaplains.

There are no rights. There are just privileges that the majority tolerates

Well, cotus disagrees with you.

It's why the Branch Davidians (or for that matter, the Catholics) aren't allowed to molest kids.
It's why the Rastafarians can't smoke pot.

Because child molestation is not a teaching of the catholic religion. As far as the Rastafarian…if there are any who are practicing in the US and marijuanna is a tenant of their faith, I suggest they petition the government for infringing on their religious rights.

They also enshrined separation of Church and state and the establishment clause, to keep the churches from imposing themselves on government. Since the regulation of commerce is a government function, then there is no constitutional right to claim a religious exemption.

The establishment clause simply means the government can’t establish a national religion. That’s all. It doesn’t mean that religion can’t exist in government, it just means government can’t state a national religion.

Separation of church and state is the opposite of what you stated. It was to keep the government from imposing itself on religion

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State

Separation of church and state - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

It’s my understanding that the Danbury church was fearing that since their state had no religious protections enshrined in its constitution that other more prominent religions would establish a state religion. And to that, Jefferson said that there would be a wall of separation, meaning, government would not interfere and would not allow a state sponsored religion. Or something like that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, I am saying the minute he opened a business, he created a legal entity that is subject to the laws of commerce.

Here's the thing. If he refused to serve gays because he thinks the Butt-stuff is icky, we would not be having this conversation. So why are we having it because his imaginary friend in the Sky thinks the Butt stuff is icky?


Uh, killing people was pretty much the only penalty the OT had.

Talk back to your parents? Death
Not a virgin on your wedding night? Death
Gay? Death
Picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Death
Using the Lord's name in Vain? Death.

Thankfully, we are civilized now, and not using the teachings of Bronze Age savages to govern ourselves.

So why are we having it because his imaginary friend in the Sky thinks the Butt stuff is icky?

Because he doesn’t believe it’s imaginary, and his religion says it’s a sin, and the cotus says he can freely exercise his religion?

Uh, killing people was pretty much the only penalty the OT had.

Talk back to your parents? Death
Not a virgin on your wedding night? Death
Gay? Death
Picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Death
Using the Lord's name in Vain? Death.

But are we still living under those laws? Again, those are OT customs and laws, but most Christian’s observe NT beliefs and laws…so, are those laws still in effect?

 

[ThisIsMe]

What? WTF are you talking about? I never said anything like that. Stow the strawman.

It's very obviously discrimination. The question is whether we have the right to discriminate or not.

Not really interested in your left/right pissing match.

Then you have your very own custom definition of discrimination. Not exactly legally binding, but I guess you're welcome to it..

Ok, now you're contradicting yourself. Earlier said that only "established" religions should get a pass. So, which religions are "established" and which aren't? Who decides?

What? WTF are you talking about? I never said anything like that. Stow the strawman.

We’ll, you are certainly eluding to it. You seem to have the same opinion as joe in that legislation should have more weight than cotus rights. That equal protection laws mean that one person has to give up their rights to be able to accommodate someone else’s rights.

Then you have your very own custom definition of discrimination. Not exactly legally binding, but I guess you're welcome to it..

Well, for there to be discrimination, it has to be an opposition of someone based on some characteristic about them, which implies some sort of animosity, or hate. People generally don’t discriminate if they like the person. I would think that definition would be kind of universal.

So, to me, to demonstrate discrimination, there has to be an underlying reason, which would most likely be attributed to some sort of hate for whomever you are opposing.

Ok, now you're contradicting yourself. Earlier said that only "established" religions should get a pass. So, which religions are "established" and which aren't? Who decides?

No, I’m not contradicting, I gave you my definition of an established religion. Again, one that is established, meaning, already existing, globally recognized, well documented, detailed accounts, holy books or texts, written laws…etc. like Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc….

If you are looking for a list of established world religions, look it up on the internet….

Nobody decided, the religions are already decided…government doesn’t get to come in and say “this religion is acceptable and this one is not”, according to cotus.