If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Silhouette]

Pop, read my last post. There actually is such a thing in USSC case law known as "gay marriage". It's Obergefell. Go read the Opinion all the way through and you'll see what I'm talking about.

If so, it would clearly be discrimination against heterosexuals. Violating the constitution.

Hmmmmmm

Nope, the link is to the requirements in Colorado to get a marriage license. No sexuality requirement

Well Obergefell isn't required to be mentioned either on Colorado marriage licenses. But the specific language in Obergefell in court tests is important to note. Colorado will cite they assume the public will know it's about gay marriage since that's how the Court stated it as its intent. I'm not trying to undermine you, but that's just the way the Court worded the Opinion on purpose. Clearly they were anticipating what you are talking about, two dudes completely not in a relationship at all, but just pals with a piece of paper that controls or funnels assets in a particular way. So over and over and over in Obergefell they interwove the terms "same sex" "gays and lesbians" and "homosexual" all throughout from start to finish. They didn't do that by accident.

And you're right, that intent IS a discrimination against heteros in that scenario. That's just one of like 17 serious and unfortunate reasons Obergefell is such a FUCKING train wreck, legally speaking. What about polygamists? What about consenting adult brothers or sisters marrying? Why are all these equally-repugnant lifestyle choices being shut out while "gay pride parade in front of kids" deviants get a special pass to hold a contract that also violates a child's benefit to marriage of getting both mother and father out of the deal?

And Ginsburg advertised her bias to the press weeks before the hearing. And there's no Constitutional provisions for special privileges for "just some but not other lifestyles" getting a federal override on marriage. And the Judicial Branch cannot add or bootstrap brand spanking new language onto federal laws outside the Legislature's permission...And....And....And... No wonder Scalia went bye bye. Obergefell killed him.

 

[Pop23]

^^ Just not "gay" wedding cakes worldy. It is a new market and one his faith won't allow him to participate in.

EXACTLY

 

[Pop23]

Pop, read my last post. There actually is such a thing in USSC case law known as "gay marriage". It's Obergefell. Go read the Opinion all the way through and you'll see what I'm talking about.

If so, it would clearly be discrimination against heterosexuals. Violating the constitution.

Hmmmmmm

Nope, the link is to the requirements in Colorado to get a marriage license. No sexuality requirement

Well Obergefell isn't required to be mentioned either on Colorado marriage licenses. But the specific language in Obergefell in court tests is important to note. Colorado will cite they assume the public will know it's about gay marriage since that's how the Court stated it as its intent. I'm not trying to undermine you, but that's just the way the Court worded the Opinion on purpose. Clearly they were anticipating what you are talking about, two dudes completely not in a relationship at all, but just pals with a piece of paper that controls or funnels assets in a particular way. So over and over and over in Obergefell they interwove the terms "same sex" "gays and lesbians" and "homosexual" all throughout from start to finish. They didn't do that by accident.

And you're right, that intent IS a discrimination against heteros in that scenario. That's just one of like 17 serious and unfortunate reasons Obergefell is such a FUCKING train wreck, legally speaking. What about polygamists? What about consenting adult brothers or sisters marrying? Why are all these equally-repugnant lifestyle choices being shut out while "gay pride parade in front of kids" deviants get a special pass to hold a contract that also violates a child's benefit to marriage of getting both mother and father out of the deal?

And Ginsburg advertised her bias to the press weeks before the hearing. And there's no Constitutional provisions for special privileges for "just some but not other lifestyles" getting a federal override on marriage. And the Judicial Branch cannot add or bootstrap brand spanking new language onto federal laws outside the Legislature's permission...And....And....And... No wonder Scalia went bye bye. Obergefell killed him.

A PARADOX. Lol

 

[Pop23]

Here we go again.

He would not even produce a same sex wedding cake for an opposite sex couple.

Here’s your problem, and it’s actually quite simple. There is no such thing in the law known as Gay Marriage. There is such a thing as Same Sex Marriage. And if he produces for one group, the PA states he must for all, unless that production violates a constitutionally protected right. He produced for no group, treating all groups EQUALLY.

He did produce wedding cakes. He said so in court documents.

Same sex couples had been getting married in religious services since the 1960's and legal SSCM starting in 2004 in MA where the couple was to be married. The occasion of denial was in 2012 so while Colorado may have not have recognized the civil marriage it was still a legal civil marriage under MA law where they were to be wed.

.>>>>

His business is located in Colorado.

 

[Silhouette]

A PARADOX. Lol

Bingo. The word "Paradox" should be listed in the dictionary followed simply and only by the definition: "The Obergefell Decision 2015".

 

[kaz]

I don't know why I'd be chastising pop though for arguing that gay is protected by sex discrimination laws. He isn't doing that. And even if we allow the word parsing of sex discrimination and call a gay couple a group, your argument is still a fail.

Which isn't what he said. He said that because Mr. Phillips wouldn't sell to a same sex couple who were heterosexual, that relieved him of the sexual orientation provision of the law

If he will sell cakes to two men, then he clearly is not refusing to sell to the gay couple because of their sex

I'm simply pointing out that the sex of the customers also is covered under the law

Which is only relevant if that is why he's not selling them the cake. Sex discrimination would require that he's not selling them a cake because of their sex.

And as pop keeps pointing out and you're not grasping, he won't sell a same sex wedding cake to a man and a woman or a heterosexual couple either.

The sex of the customers is not the reason he won't sell the cake. There is no way you can argue therefore that the sex of the customers is why he won't sell the cake

Two gay men. Will you sell us a birthday cake?
Baker: Sure, you're gay aren't you?
Two gay men. As a kite
Baker: Just wondered. What name do you want on the cake?

Their sex isn't relevant, it's just not

 

[kaz]

Since I oppose all PA laws for private businesses, why would I need to draw that distinction?

Which is the point authoritarian's the LIKE PA laws as long as it isn't their ox being gored frequently ignore. If PA laws are repealed, the there are no special rights needed for a religious person to discriminate against homosexuals and we don't end up with unequal treatment under the law for a religious shop owner vs. a gay shop owner. A situation where a religious shop owner can discriminate against a gay because of their religious views, but a gay shop owner can't discriminate against a customer because of the religious views of the customer.


.>>>>

You didn't answer my question, but OK. A business owner should be able to discriminate against any customer for any reason. Or no reason. But in reality, we almost never do for things like race or sexual orientation. It's usually only if we're afraid we won't get paid. Sometimes we won't do things because it would harm our business's reputation. If we're getting paid and it won't negatively impact our business, we just want the work

 

[Syriusly]

You know- a good Christian would probably actually know something like the 10 Commandments.

Which doesn't mention homosexuality- or baking cakes for gay couples.

Sounds like someone doesn't want folks referencing Romans 1 or Jude 1 in these discussions.

Sounds like someone - well you- is lying about the Bible.

 

[Syriusly]

Let's be honest: This has nothing to do with "discrimination." This is about gays using legalized gay marriage to harass and persecute Christian vendors. .

Let's be honest here: Mike doesn't give a damn about the bakers- he is just pissed of that two men can legally marry- and pissed off that Christians can no longer persecute Americans who happen to be gay.

 

[Syriusly]

I understood exactly what you said. You said- and I am paraphrasing - that because we allow same sex marriage, there is not logical, or rational, reason to prohibit a pedophile from marrying a child. It is pretty much the same thing as claiming that same sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. I explained why that is stupid, ignorant and dangerous but you seem to be living in an alternative reality where there is no distinction between individual, subjective reality, and the objective truth encoded in our laws that most people agree on that provides the framework for a rational and stable society.

Hold on a minute. You don't believe that all laws are rooted in objective truth, do you? You can't actually believe that, but the reason I ask is because the way you worded your last sentence almost makes it sound like you are equating those two. So to be clear, please answer this question… Do man-made laws constitute objective truth, yes or no?

And I see what the problem is here. You are looking at this from a purely practical standpoint. And I am looking at it from a more philosophical standpoint. When you look at it that way, what I said was not ridiculous at all. It is absolutely true that if something is purely subjective, then there is no right answer, no particular opinion can be more right than any other. Do you disagree with that?

No I do not agree. The law is the objective truth to the extent to which it reflects a consensus about values and social norms. I maintain that your statement- that there is no basis for denying a pedophile to marry a child since we allow same sex marriage is ridiculous, and bizarre by ant measure.

Gays don't have a "right" to government validation or perks. They do have a right to be left alone if they're not harming anyone

Gays have the same 'right' to government validation or perks as any other American. And as for the 'right' to be left alone- the only reason that they have that right is because the courts overturned the laws passed by Conservatives that didn't leave them alone.

 

[Syriusly]

That's so contorted. No one who was involved in writing any law against sex discrimination meant that or even thought of it. You're parsing the words and making up a new meaning that was never intended. Sex discrimination means you're discriminating against a sex. He isn't. That ridiculous logic is exactly how the courts have fucked up justice in our legal system

I totally agree on two things. It's purely an academic discussion that Pops injected into the thread because Mr. Phillips case did not hinge on sex discrimination. You should be chastising him for injecting an unrelated issue. Secondly, the courts apply the law. The law in question specifically says "groups" in it's text. The ridiculous thing is that the law should be repealed and rights of property and association restored to private business entities. If so, then the whole treating religious views as special rights exempting business owners from generally applicable Public Accommodation laws goes away because any owner can refuse service for any reason.

If the law has the word “groups” in it, the prosecution is OBLIGATED to prove he has a “Bias against a GROUP”

Again, what “group” of a protected class is that BIAS practiced against when his policy is APPLIED EQUALLY.

Worldy, Pop is right here. Just give it up..

Pop- now that Silhouette agrees with you- aren't you now questioning your stance?

 

[Syriusly]

As a libertarian, I obviously agree all public accommodation laws regarding private citizens and businesses should be repealed.

Windsor averred no less than 56 times that the definition of marriage is up to the individual 50 states.

Windsor was very clear that the states control marriage law- but only as long as they are constitutional.

Obergefell pointed out that marriage laws that prohibited same gender marriages were unconstitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

As a libertarian, I obviously agree all public accommodation laws regarding private citizens and businesses should be repealed.

This won't happen. What will happen is a compromise. When it comes to lifestyles or ideologies, there can be no punishment with PA laws for passive refusal to serve. When it comes to race and gender, there will be punishment allowed because those things cannot ever be helped and are not part of any choosing process or behavior whatsoever.

That's how this all will render out. It's too bad the Court chickened out this time. But it may be wisdom instead of reluctance. They alluded as to how this is where this is all going and bought themselves some time to try to untangle the rat's nest that Obergefell created by judicially-legislating just one set (but not any others that must also qualify) of repugnant (have you seen pride parades anticipating children watching??) lifestyles as "specially deserving of exception from majority rule"....while in hubris quoting Windsor as their justification.

Windsor averred no less than 56 times that the definition of marriage is up to the individual 50 states. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

I didn't say PA laws against private businesses would go away, I said they should.

Look at this contrived scenario. a gay couple go into a shop and want the business to actively write a message for a gay couple. And look how incredibly difficult it was to find a baker who wouldn't do it. They scoured far and deep to find one. If they'd just wanted to buy a cake, he'd have sold it knowing they were gay. So to get him to discriminate, they had to make him write a pro-gay message on it.

Discrimination against any of those groups happen so incredibly seldom and the solution was incredibly simple. Go to another of the dozens of bakers in the area. Even the Montgomery bus system opposed the laws in the 50s South that made their best customers sit in the back or stand.

And the price is incredibly high. Government abuses every power it gets. Because of those laws, the government can investigate, fine, scrutinize businesses and they end up as court cases clogging the system. The laws are abusive and solve almost nothing.

I said as a libertarian, I oppose PA laws. I should say because of things like abusive government abuse such as PA laws, I'm a libertarian

But in all that you're sidestepping the distinction between being forced to accommodate ideologies and lifestyles (behavioral, chosen) vs race and gender (immutable, innate, non-behavioral). .

Because you are the only one making those distinctions.

homosexuality is considered to be as 'immutable' as religion is.

And no- the Constitution does not say that business's cannot discriminate against Christians- public accommodation laws say that.

 

[Syriusly]

Which isn't what he said. He said that because Mr. Phillips wouldn't sell to a same sex couple who were heterosexual, that relieved him of the sexual orientation provision of the law. I'm simply pointing out that the sex of the customers also is covered under the law.

BTW, unlike Pop here, I believe that in Obergefell the Court meant throughout and was specific to interweave the words "same sex", "homosexual" and "gays and lesbians' together in nearly every paragraph to emphasize and underline what they meant clearly by "same sex". So, give it a read and get back to us. They interchange those words so often that towards the end it is clear they intended to blend them all as one. So for the purposes of Obergefell, "same sex marriage" is one and the same as "gay marriage"

Wow- I actually think Silhouette got something right. I guess it is like a stopped clock.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ Just not "gay" wedding cakes worldy. It is a new market and one his faith won't allow him to participate in.

EXACTLY

Just like Muslim cabbie's faith won't allow them to transport riders with seeing eye dogs.......

 

[Syriusly]

Pop, read my last post. There actually is such a thing in USSC case law known as "gay marriage". It's Obergefell. Go read the Opinion all the way through and you'll see what I'm talking about.

If so, it would clearly be discrimination against heterosexuals. Violating the constitution.

Hmmmmmm

Nope, the link is to the requirements in Colorado to get a marriage license. No sexuality requirement

And you're right, that intent IS a discrimination against heteros in that scenario. That's just one of like 17 serious and unfortunate reasons Obergefell is such a FUCKING train wreck, legally speaking. What about polygamists? What about consenting adult brothers or sisters marrying? Why are all these equally-repugnant lifestyle choices being shut out while "gay pride parade in front of kids" deviants get a special pass to hold a contract that also violates a child's benefit to marriage of getting both mother and father out of the deal?.

Poor little snowflake- I almost can see the spittle coming out of your mouth as you typed that .

Virtually none of that is true or relevant.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You didn't answer my question, but OK. A business owner should be able to discriminate against any customer for any reason. Or no reason. But in reality, we almost never do for things like race or sexual orientation. It's usually only if we're afraid we won't get paid. Sometimes we won't do things because it would harm our business's reputation. If we're getting paid and it won't negatively impact our business, we just want the work

I did answer your question. No distinction should be needed.


.>>>>

 

[mikegriffith1]

Look, in 99.9% of cases, if a Christian vendor declines to service a gay wedding, the gay couple can very quickly and easily just find other vendors. No one is being "denied" anything. If a secular baker declined to bake a gay wedding cake because he didn't believe in marriage at all and thus did not bake any wedding cakes for anyone, the gay couple would just find another baker. The gay couple would not go running to court to sue the man to force him to start baking wedding cakes. That's because gays don't care about harassing or persecuting fellow secularists.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If he will sell cakes to two men, then he clearly is not refusing to sell to the gay couple because of their sex

Clearly the fact that he makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers.
That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers. That is his behavior and what he stated in court documents.

Which is only relevant if that is why he's not selling them the cake. Sex discrimination would require that he's not selling them a cake because of their sex.

He did refuse to sell them a product that he normally supplied based on their sex. Since they were being married as a "same-sex" couple that is pretty much defining it. If they were a "different-sex" couple he would have sold them the wedding cake.

And as pop keeps pointing out and you're not grasping, he won't sell a same sex wedding cake to a man and a woman or a heterosexual couple either.

First of all the product is "wedding cake", the customers are different-sex and same-sex. He clearly indicated he would sell wedding cakes to different-sex couples and refused to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples.

The sex of the customers is not the reason he won't sell the cake. There is no way you can argue therefore that the sex of the customers is why he won't sell the cake

You confuse "reason" with "behavior". His act/behavior was to refuse service. There is no exception in the law for reasons for an act. The SCOTUS punted on that question because the hostile comments of the Commission tainted the process. But note:

The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Employment Division v. Smith.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Newman v. Piggie Park.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Bob Jones University v. United States.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in the Muslim Taxi driver case from Minnesota.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient for Mormons that believed in polygamy.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Elane Photography v. New Mexico (where the SCOTUS allowed the State Supreme Court ruling to remain in effect)

Two gay men. Will you sell us a birthday cake?
Baker: Sure, you're gay aren't you?
Two gay men. As a kite
Baker: Just wondered. What name do you want on the cake?

Irrelevant as the law does not say "pick and choose" what goods and services need to be made available under the Colorado PA law, the law clearly states "full and equal" access to all "goods and services", not a subset of goods and services.

Their sex isn't relevant, it's just not

I know, it wasn't part of the case.

Now if Mr. Phillips had argued before the court that sexual orientation wasn't the issue in providing full and equal goods and services to the male/male customers but it was the sex composition of the customers - then we would be having a different discussion with different case history to comment on.

Right now we are just discussing Pops theoretical justification to absolve Mr. Phillips of being exempt from the law (i.e. it wasn't about sexual orientation) because he wouldn't have sold the wedding cake based on the sex of the couples regardless of their sexual orientation. By selling to different-sex couples and - by his own words - refusing to sell them to "same-sex" couples the criteria causing the behavior is clearly defined as the sex composition of the couple.


.>>>>>

 

[koshergrl]

If he will sell cakes to two men, then he clearly is not refusing to sell to the gay couple because of their sex

Clearly the fact that he makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers.
That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers. That is his behavior and what he stated in court documents.

Which is only relevant if that is why he's not selling them the cake. Sex discrimination would require that he's not selling them a cake because of their sex.

He did refuse to sell them a product that he normally supplied based on their sex. Since they were being married as a "same-sex" couple that is pretty much defining it. If they were a "different-sex" couple he would have sold them the wedding cake.

And as pop keeps pointing out and you're not grasping, he won't sell a same sex wedding cake to a man and a woman or a heterosexual couple either.

First of all the product is "wedding cake", the customers are different-sex and same-sex. He clearly indicated he would sell wedding cakes to different-sex couples and refused to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples.

The sex of the customers is not the reason he won't sell the cake. There is no way you can argue therefore that the sex of the customers is why he won't sell the cake

You confuse "reason" with "behavior". His act/behavior was to refuse service. There is no exception in the law for reasons for an act. The SCOTUS punted on that question because the hostile comments of the Commission tainted the process. But note:

The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Employment Division v. Smith.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Newman v. Piggie Park.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Bob Jones University v. United States.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in the Muslim Taxi driver case from Minnesota.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient for Mormons that believed in polygamy.
The "reason" for the behavior was not sufficient in Elane Photography v. New Mexico (where the SCOTUS allowed the State Supreme Court ruling to remain in effect)

Two gay men. Will you sell us a birthday cake?
Baker: Sure, you're gay aren't you?
Two gay men. As a kite
Baker: Just wondered. What name do you want on the cake?

Irrelevant as the law does not say "pick and choose" what goods and services need to be made available under the Colorado PA law, the law clearly states "full and equal" access to all "goods and services", not a subset of goods and services.

Their sex isn't relevant, it's just not

I know, it wasn't part of the case.

Now if Mr. Phillips had argued before the court that sexual orientation wasn't the issue in providing full and equal goods and services to the male/male customers but it was the sex composition of the customers - then we would be having a different discussion with different case history to comment on.

Right now we are just discussing Pops theoretical justification to absolve Mr. Phillips of being exempt from the law (i.e. it wasn't about sexual orientation) because he wouldn't have sold the wedding cake based on the sex of the couples regardless of their sexual orientation. By selling to different-sex couples and - by his own words - refusing to sell them to "same-sex" couples the criteria causing the behavior is clearly defined as the sex composition of the couple.


.>>>>>

He doesn't refuse to bake cakes for queers.

He refuses to create special cakes fo homo fake weddings.

There's a diff. He wouldn't create cakes that celebrated satanism, either.