For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[ChrisL]

I didn't ask for the basis. I asked who gets to decide.

that's what courts are supposed to do, but the line is clear and pretty easy to see.

Well, they did decide. The state court decided on a state law. What is the problem?

Law is wrong, court is wrong.

So.... the court gets to decide unless you disagree with the decision?

The court gets to decide regardless, but their decision has no impact on what I think is right or wrong.

You are entitled to keep your ignorant thoughts. You are not entitled to discriminate against people when conducting business in this particular state.

 

[martybegan]

No, you want to oppress other people for a trivial matter, and that's what I have a problem with. Unlike you I support freedom, not just freedom I agree with.

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

According to YOU, not according to the Constitution or the body the Constitution gives the authority decide when a law violates a constitutional right. You seem to think that a constitutional right is something any person gets to decide for themselves.

Actually making crap up in the constitution is what YOUR side does. I merely read it as is, and a person has a right to free exercise of religion. That sets the bar to the point where the government has to prove it has a compelling interest in suspending, even partially, that right.

 

[g5000]

Those poor Klansmen. Whining about being forced to make a cake for a homo, trying to hide behind Jesus.

Call the waaambulance!

 

[paddymurphy]

So after we get rid of the Supreme Court, how do you plan to strike down state laws that you believe violate the 1st amendment religious protections, or violate the 2nd amendment?

This is how liberal argue when they are losing.

They create false alternatives and straw men and expect you to fall for the premise of arguing from those false narratives.

Would you please show where I called for "getting rid" of the USSC.


When you do that, let me know.

And conservatives argue by claiming that the Supreme Court has been getting it wrong since 1803.

So you agree with:

Plessy vs. Fergusen (Separate but Equal) Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Dred Scott vs. Sanford: (Blacks are not Citizens) Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944 (Right to Intern the Japanese) Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Or how about Bush v. Gore, that gets you libs's panties in such a bunch?

Aren't those decisions gone?

I thought you said the Supreme Court was the last word?

Um, no YOU guys said it was the last word.

I'm saying these are examples of why that's wrong.

Dred Scott was overturned by the Post Civil War Amendments. Plessy was overruled by a subsequent Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. Korematsu has not been addressed again.

 

[martybegan]

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

I cited the fucking case for you. What more does it take for you to understand that you are wrong? Oh, I know, you are smarter than the several dozen SC Justices who have ruled on these religious freedom cases over the last 150 years. They were all idiots and you are omniscient.

My opinion matters more to me than some wrong court case.

Of course it does. that is the entire point here. You don't care what the Constitution says or what the Court says. You get to decide, all by yourself, what you are going to do. If you decide that your religion requires that you not pay taxes to a school district that teaches evolution, you should get to refuse to pay taxes, right?

Already dealt with that argument. not paying taxes creates an actual harm, and creates the compelling government interest to supersede any claims or religious objection.

 

[paddymurphy]

I know, poor you. You can't openly discriminate against people. How sad for you.

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

According to YOU, not according to the Constitution or the body the Constitution gives the authority decide when a law violates a constitutional right. You seem to think that a constitutional right is something any person gets to decide for themselves.

Actually making crap up in the constitution is what YOUR side does. I merely read it as is, and a person has a right to free exercise of religion. That sets the bar to the point where the government has to prove it has a compelling interest in suspending, even partially, that right.

Where in the constitution does it state that the government can restrict your freedom of religion when it has a compelling interest to do so? Does that word, compelling, appear in the First Amendment?

 

[martybegan]

That applies to you too. If serving gay people or treating everyone equally when doing business hurts you, too bad.

The Christian will make a homosexual a sandwich on a random Tuesday or Friday. They will sell them a coat or rent them a home. But they will not participate in anything to do with condoning homosexual relationships as on par with normal ones. They can't. They cannot participate in any aspect of a gay wedding. They're not being mean, they're being firm and true to their faith. They are harming no one by refusing to participate. It is an act of their first Amendment civil rights. And if you try to take away those rights from them, the 9th Amendment will allow the new wave of lawyers to sue YOU into the poorhouse...And you won't like the same weapon you've employed against Christians when it's turned back around on you.

Then don't go into the public accommodation business because, if you do, you will be expected to treat all of your customers the same, as you are not a religious institution.

So "think like I do" or else.

Nope, you just cannot openly discriminate when it comes to doing business with the public. When you open a business that serves the public, that is what is expected of you to do. Serve the public. The public includes all kinds of people that you might not like. Be prepared to serve them.

So basically opening a business = slavery. got it.

 

[paddymurphy]

I know that. These laws are in place to protect people from discriminatory business practices. ALL the people, even the Christians themselves. Only, some of them are too far gone to realize this.

"protecting" nothing but hurt feelings in this case, not actual harm.

You fainting flowers seem to be all big and tough when government does your dirty work, but being told "i'm sorry, we don't provide service X, please go to someone else" ZOMG, the vapors!!!!!

By that logic we should repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anything involving government should stay. Anything involving actual public accommodations should stay, but the law has to be tempered with respects to the rights of the people to associate with who they want to, and only when government has a clear compelling case to force them to do what it wants should government act.

The government has a compelling interest in protecting the citizenry from discrimination.

Not if by doing so it has to force someone to go against their morals, when their action causes not actual harm.

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

 

[g5000]

You can have a wedding cake when you pry it from my dead, cold hands!!!

 

[martybegan]

I don't want to, but unless there is actual harm and a compelling government interest other should be able to.

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

According to YOU, not according to the Constitution or the body the Constitution gives the authority decide when a law violates a constitutional right. You seem to think that a constitutional right is something any person gets to decide for themselves.

Actually making crap up in the constitution is what YOUR side does. I merely read it as is, and a person has a right to free exercise of religion. That sets the bar to the point where the government has to prove it has a compelling interest in suspending, even partially, that right.

Where in the constitution does it state that the government can restrict your freedom of religion when it has a compelling interest to do so? Does that word, compelling, appear in the First Amendment?

It's precedent, and basic law that ones rights can be limited if actual harm is done to another party, or a person has been given due process. It's why you can't murder someone in the name of Allah, you can't own a firearm if you are a felon, and you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded location.

 

[ChrisL]

That applies to you too. If serving gay people or treating everyone equally when doing business hurts you, too bad.

The Christian will make a homosexual a sandwich on a random Tuesday or Friday. They will sell them a coat or rent them a home. But they will not participate in anything to do with condoning homosexual relationships as on par with normal ones. They can't. They cannot participate in any aspect of a gay wedding. They're not being mean, they're being firm and true to their faith. They are harming no one by refusing to participate. It is an act of their first Amendment civil rights. And if you try to take away those rights from them, the 9th Amendment will allow the new wave of lawyers to sue YOU into the poorhouse...And you won't like the same weapon you've employed against Christians when it's turned back around on you.

Then don't go into the public accommodation business because, if you do, you will be expected to treat all of your customers the same, as you are not a religious institution.

So "think like I do" or else.

Nope, you just cannot openly discriminate when it comes to doing business with the public. When you open a business that serves the public, that is what is expected of you to do. Serve the public. The public includes all kinds of people that you might not like. Be prepared to serve them.

So basically opening a business = slavery. got it.

Ba-ha-ha!

 

[martybegan]

"protecting" nothing but hurt feelings in this case, not actual harm.

You fainting flowers seem to be all big and tough when government does your dirty work, but being told "i'm sorry, we don't provide service X, please go to someone else" ZOMG, the vapors!!!!!

By that logic we should repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anything involving government should stay. Anything involving actual public accommodations should stay, but the law has to be tempered with respects to the rights of the people to associate with who they want to, and only when government has a clear compelling case to force them to do what it wants should government act.

The government has a compelling interest in protecting the citizenry from discrimination.

Not if by doing so it has to force someone to go against their morals, when their action causes not actual harm.

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

 

[martybegan]

The Christian will make a homosexual a sandwich on a random Tuesday or Friday. They will sell them a coat or rent them a home. But they will not participate in anything to do with condoning homosexual relationships as on par with normal ones. They can't. They cannot participate in any aspect of a gay wedding. They're not being mean, they're being firm and true to their faith. They are harming no one by refusing to participate. It is an act of their first Amendment civil rights. And if you try to take away those rights from them, the 9th Amendment will allow the new wave of lawyers to sue YOU into the poorhouse...And you won't like the same weapon you've employed against Christians when it's turned back around on you.

Then don't go into the public accommodation business because, if you do, you will be expected to treat all of your customers the same, as you are not a religious institution.

So "think like I do" or else.

Nope, you just cannot openly discriminate when it comes to doing business with the public. When you open a business that serves the public, that is what is expected of you to do. Serve the public. The public includes all kinds of people that you might not like. Be prepared to serve them.

So basically opening a business = slavery. got it.

Ba-ha-ha!

It's what you are implying, even if you can't see it.

 

[ChrisL]

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

According to YOU, not according to the Constitution or the body the Constitution gives the authority decide when a law violates a constitutional right. You seem to think that a constitutional right is something any person gets to decide for themselves.

Actually making crap up in the constitution is what YOUR side does. I merely read it as is, and a person has a right to free exercise of religion. That sets the bar to the point where the government has to prove it has a compelling interest in suspending, even partially, that right.

Where in the constitution does it state that the government can restrict your freedom of religion when it has a compelling interest to do so? Does that word, compelling, appear in the First Amendment?

It's precedent, and basic law that ones rights can be limited if actual harm is done to another party, or a person has been given due process. It's why you can't murder someone in the name of Allah, you can't own a firearm if you are a felon, and you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded location.

It's not your right to discriminate based upon your religious beliefs. You can practice your religion and hold your bigoted and disgusting beliefs that others are less than human and not deserving to be treated equally, but you are not entitled to put those views into action when running a business because it violates the law of fair business practice, anti discrimination laws and civil rights laws which were put into effect because of hateful people like you.

 

[ChrisL]

By that logic we should repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Anything involving government should stay. Anything involving actual public accommodations should stay, but the law has to be tempered with respects to the rights of the people to associate with who they want to, and only when government has a clear compelling case to force them to do what it wants should government act.

The government has a compelling interest in protecting the citizenry from discrimination.

Not if by doing so it has to force someone to go against their morals, when their action causes not actual harm.

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

According to YOU, not according to the Constitution or the body the Constitution gives the authority decide when a law violates a constitutional right. You seem to think that a constitutional right is something any person gets to decide for themselves.

Actually making crap up in the constitution is what YOUR side does. I merely read it as is, and a person has a right to free exercise of religion. That sets the bar to the point where the government has to prove it has a compelling interest in suspending, even partially, that right.

Where in the constitution does it state that the government can restrict your freedom of religion when it has a compelling interest to do so? Does that word, compelling, appear in the First Amendment?

It's precedent, and basic law that ones rights can be limited if actual harm is done to another party, or a person has been given due process. It's why you can't murder someone in the name of Allah, you can't own a firearm if you are a felon, and you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded location.

It's not your right to discriminate based upon your religious beliefs. You can practice your religion and hold your bigoted and disgusting beliefs that others are less than human and not deserving to be treated equally, but you are not entitled to put those views into action when running a business because it violates the law of fair business practice, anti discrimination laws and civil rights laws which were put into effect because of hateful people like you.

They were put into place because said hateful people (of which I am not, you keep forgetting that) used government to create systemic economic oppression, coupled with systemic political oppression, neither of which apply to a gay couple having to go to another baker to get a cake.

 

[martybegan]

Anything involving government should stay. Anything involving actual public accommodations should stay, but the law has to be tempered with respects to the rights of the people to associate with who they want to, and only when government has a clear compelling case to force them to do what it wants should government act.

The government has a compelling interest in protecting the citizenry from discrimination.

Not if by doing so it has to force someone to go against their morals, when their action causes not actual harm.

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

 

[ChrisL]

According to YOU, not according to the Constitution or the body the Constitution gives the authority decide when a law violates a constitutional right. You seem to think that a constitutional right is something any person gets to decide for themselves.

Actually making crap up in the constitution is what YOUR side does. I merely read it as is, and a person has a right to free exercise of religion. That sets the bar to the point where the government has to prove it has a compelling interest in suspending, even partially, that right.

Where in the constitution does it state that the government can restrict your freedom of religion when it has a compelling interest to do so? Does that word, compelling, appear in the First Amendment?

It's precedent, and basic law that ones rights can be limited if actual harm is done to another party, or a person has been given due process. It's why you can't murder someone in the name of Allah, you can't own a firearm if you are a felon, and you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded location.

It's not your right to discriminate based upon your religious beliefs. You can practice your religion and hold your bigoted and disgusting beliefs that others are less than human and not deserving to be treated equally, but you are not entitled to put those views into action when running a business because it violates the law of fair business practice, anti discrimination laws and civil rights laws which were put into effect because of hateful people like you.

They were put into place because said hateful people (of which I am not, you keep forgetting that) used government to create systemic economic oppression, coupled with systemic political oppression, neither of which apply to a gay couple having to go to another baker to get a cake.

Sorry, but your posts belie your claims. You are a hateful bigot and you are angry that you cannot treat others as less than human beings while doing business. That is why these laws are necessary. Exactly because of people like yourself.

The gay couple does not have to go to another baker. They can go to any baker of their choice, and if they are denied service because they are gay, then that business is breaking the law and will be sued and perhaps put out of business. No, those laws are not going to be changed because you think it hurts you to not be able to discriminate . . . because it doesn't. It hurts the people you are discriminating against. Whether or not you think they are wimps because of that has nothing to do with fair business practices, following the rules and regulations put forth by your respective state in order to ensure the public has the same access to such businesses.

 

[paddymurphy]

Once again, the test is not that the government has to have a compelling interest in banning discrimination; the test is whether the law applies to everyone equally or targets religious practice.

Wrong, when one right goes against another, there has to be a good reason to force once side to go against its rights, such as actual harm to the other side.

I cited the fucking case for you. What more does it take for you to understand that you are wrong? Oh, I know, you are smarter than the several dozen SC Justices who have ruled on these religious freedom cases over the last 150 years. They were all idiots and you are omniscient.

My opinion matters more to me than some wrong court case.

Of course it does. that is the entire point here. You don't care what the Constitution says or what the Court says. You get to decide, all by yourself, what you are going to do. If you decide that your religion requires that you not pay taxes to a school district that teaches evolution, you should get to refuse to pay taxes, right?

Already dealt with that argument. not paying taxes creates an actual harm, and creates the compelling government interest to supersede any claims or religious objection.

So, baking a cake for a reception that will follow a civil marriage ceremony involves the baker in violating their faith but actually supplying money to the government that will be used to teach children that Genesis is a lie does not? What if the school was teaching in social studies classes about gay marriage and how it is a civil right? Or if the school teaches children about how to access and use birth control? You think that you baking a cake for a non-religious reception following a non-religious wedding is more of an imposition on your faith than paying to have your children taught about how to use birth control?

 

[ChrisL]

The government has a compelling interest in protecting the citizenry from discrimination.

Not if by doing so it has to force someone to go against their morals, when their action causes not actual harm.

More made up constitutional theory by the constitutional illiterate.

Thank you for admitting your are losing the argument. I have been consistent throughout and you have not yet once found any holes in my position, short of "I don't like it"

Yes, that has been your argument "I don't like it." It is not your right to discriminate when it comes to public accommodation business. Sorry that hurts your delicate sensitivities in that you can't treat other human beings as second class citizens. This is not Iran.

I don't like it when gay people are denied a service, I just don't like government force over something so trivial more.

You on the other hand want to treat religious people as 2nd hand citizens the moment they open a business.

The use of government over something like this is more harmful than the event it is trying to prevent.

No I don't. If a Christian went to have a cake baked, and the baker refused on religious grounds, the exact same thing is going to happen.