If selling a gay couple a wedding cake means a "Christian" baker participated in the marriage...

[SweetSue92]

Just a reminder: at heart here is, can the government force to to make products or serve events which violate your moral conscience just because "discrimination laws".

Again. I believe are new Supreme Court is going to say, no, they cannot. That going into private business does not make you an indentured servant to gov't bureaucrats. And that is the right call, btw.

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to say, "YOu can ignore laws you don't like because a Magic Sky Fairy said so."

that's a recipe for chaos. How do you tell a sincerely religious homophobe or racist from a plain old secular homophobe or racist?

I don't know any major religions that adhere to racism so openly that they would endorse a business owner not selling to someone based on their skin color. That's generally not going to be an issue. But even if it were, you're weighing out competing rights. The gov't does not have the right to conscript people into acts of business just because they hung an "open" sign on their door.

I'm sure the ruling will come with all kinds of caveats and it should, and will be open to individual judgments down the line, as it should. But so what. That's why we have courts, judges, and the appeals system.

 

[hadit]

The vast majority of gun owners will never shoot a human being in their lives. The vast majority of guns will never be used to harm a human being.

Wasn't talking about the majority of gun owners,w ho bought one gun once, put it in the back of their closets and forgot about it.

I am talking about the "super owners", that 3% of the population that owns 50% of the guns, and have wank fantasies about shooting the darkies. they are a tragedy looking for a place to happen.

The vast majority of "super owners" will never shoot another human being. The vast majority of their guns will never harm a human being, your phallic fantasies aside.

That's reality.

 

[Silhouette]

If you craft one of the centerpieces of the event then you have participated in the event . Participation in the event should be voluntary and Not mandatory

They volunteered the minute they said, "Will make Custom Wedding Cakes"

Then gay graphic designers signed up to print “homosexuality is a sin unto God” on highway billboards when they said they make custom billboards.

BTW, why didn’t you say your sock puppet was Sparky before Joe?

 

[Silhouette]

Just a reminder: at heart here is, can the government force to to make products or serve events which violate your moral conscience just because "discrimination laws".

Again. I believe are new Supreme Court is going to say, no, they cannot. That going into private business does not make you an indentured servant to gov't bureaucrats. And that is the right call, btw.

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to say, "YOu can ignore laws you don't like because a Magic Sky Fairy said so."

that's a recipe for chaos. How do you tell a sincerely religious homophobe or racist from a plain old secular homophobe or racist?

I don't know any major religions that adhere to racism so openly that they would endorse a business owner not selling to someone based on their skin color. That's generally not going to be an issue. But even if it were, you're weighing out competing rights. The gov't does not have the right to conscript people into acts of business just because they hung an "open" sign on their door.

I'm sure the ruling will come with all kinds of caveats and it should, and will be open to individual judgments down the line, as it should. But so what. That's why we have courts, judges, and the appeals system.

The caveats will be

1. Was the shop owner informed that a ritual or offensive ideal was to be celebrated?

2. Did the shop owner make it clear it was the ritual or concept (not the individual) he was rejecting?

There’s also the issue of customers being unruly. In which case the individual could be turned away.

 

[SweetSue92]

Just a reminder: at heart here is, can the government force to to make products or serve events which violate your moral conscience just because "discrimination laws".

Again. I believe are new Supreme Court is going to say, no, they cannot. That going into private business does not make you an indentured servant to gov't bureaucrats. And that is the right call, btw.

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to say, "YOu can ignore laws you don't like because a Magic Sky Fairy said so."

that's a recipe for chaos. How do you tell a sincerely religious homophobe or racist from a plain old secular homophobe or racist?

I don't know any major religions that adhere to racism so openly that they would endorse a business owner not selling to someone based on their skin color. That's generally not going to be an issue. But even if it were, you're weighing out competing rights. The gov't does not have the right to conscript people into acts of business just because they hung an "open" sign on their door.

I'm sure the ruling will come with all kinds of caveats and it should, and will be open to individual judgments down the line, as it should. But so what. That's why we have courts, judges, and the appeals system.

The caveats will be

1. Was the shop owner informed that a ritual or offensive ideal was to be celebrated?

2. Did the shop owner make it clear it was the ritual or concept (not the individual) he was rejecting?

There’s also the issue of customers being unruly. In which case the individual could be turned away.

I'm not really understanding number one. Are you saying that otherwise, the shop owner might be rejecting a customer because of who they are rather than an event/occasion that might be offensive?

 

[Silhouette]

Just a reminder: at heart here is, can the government force to to make products or serve events which violate your moral conscience just because "discrimination laws".

Again. I believe are new Supreme Court is going to say, no, they cannot. That going into private business does not make you an indentured servant to gov't bureaucrats. And that is the right call, btw.

I don't think the Supreme Court is going to say, "YOu can ignore laws you don't like because a Magic Sky Fairy said so."

that's a recipe for chaos. How do you tell a sincerely religious homophobe or racist from a plain old secular homophobe or racist?

I don't know any major religions that adhere to racism so openly that they would endorse a business owner not selling to someone based on their skin color. That's generally not going to be an issue. But even if it were, you're weighing out competing rights. The gov't does not have the right to conscript people into acts of business just because they hung an "open" sign on their door.

I'm sure the ruling will come with all kinds of caveats and it should, and will be open to individual judgments down the line, as it should. But so what. That's why we have courts, judges, and the appeals system.

The caveats will be

1. Was the shop owner informed that a ritual or offensive ideal was to be celebrated?

2. Did the shop owner make it clear it was the ritual or concept (not the individual) he was rejecting?

There’s also the issue of customers being unruly. In which case the individual could be turned away.

I'm not really understanding number one. Are you saying that otherwise, the shop owner might be rejecting a customer because of who they are rather than an event/occasion that might be offensive?

Correct. This is how the Court will rule. If a guy wants a cake, you sell him one. If there’s a ritual or ideal to be celebrated with that cake & he informs the shop owner, then the shop owner will be free to participate or not in that ritual or ideal according to his personal moral structure. Without any consequences.

For instance, a customer might walk into a cake shop & tell the owner he wants a penis cake because he likes to eat dick. Then if any person finds that ideal or icon offensive, they can reject it. The only way a shop keep could be in trouble is if he made a dick cake for one guy but not another. Even then he could claim the customer was unruly. There’s no law saying a shop keep has to serve unruly customers.

 

[Silhouette]

You know, it got really quiet around this thread right about the time when early in the morning on Christmas, yesterday, it appeared as if JoeB had a sock puppet manifest. Made more eerie by the fact that I'd just nicknamed him "Sparky" as "Sparky" was typing a post seemingly in lockstep with JoeB. Same IP address?

Anyway, the Court will rule that a customer informing a shopkeep of a product's destination to celebrate a ritual or ideal that is thoroughly repugnant to the shop keep (religious or not, because a moral structure doesn't need a label), will automatically allow the shop keep to not participate. The ritual or ideal is what's being rejected, not the person. And yet, unruly customers can also be rejected for any reason...

 

[DandyDonovan]

Both sides are doing that. Fucking stupid authoritarians.

"It's okay if people throw Trump supporters out heehee that's funny, but the government should FORCE Christians to serve gays"

I don't get it.

I'm sure you don't.

No one chooses to be gay. Or black.

People have to make an active effort to be a Trump supporter. It's actually a sustained act of stupidity.

Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.

First of all, you can't even prove that gay isn't a choice, second of all you sure can't prove that some people just aren't born Republicans.

Third of all, and most importantly, you can't justify allowing the government to force some people to do business with some people based on whatever reason, but not others. Meaning , obviously that I should have the right to deny service to a queer whether he chose to be gay, or whether he was born gay. It's IRRELEVANT. As are you.

 

[Silhouette]

Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.

First of all, you can't even prove that gay isn't a choice, second of all you sure can't prove that some people just aren't born Republicans.

Third of all, and most importantly, you can't justify allowing the government to force some people to do business with some people based on whatever reason, but not others. Meaning , obviously that I should have the right to deny service to a queer whether he chose to be gay, or whether he was born gay. It's IRRELEVANT. As are you.

This is where you are wrong. That could spill over into denying someone just because they are black. Unless you want the Court to really delve into what makes one "gay" (acquired behavior) vs black (innate). Personally I would like to see the Court "go there".

But what they will chicken out and do instead of addressing that elephant in the living room is a compromise. They'll agree not to expose the LGBT cult as an incomplete set of sexual deviant addictions, and instead focus on an individual's right to reject an ideal or ritual in a product produced as their 1st Amendment right. Not individuals based on their race or where they are addicted to putting their dicks.

I'd be very leery of proposing to Justice Thomas especially that his noble race is on par with ass sex. Very leery. But who knows? LGBT cultees are extremely deluded and pushy. I kind of hope they push the issue.

 

[boedicca]

Merry Christmas, bub.

I don't think you get either the concept of Liberty, but that's for another day.

You can't have freedom OF religion unless you have freedom FROM religion.

You have the right to believe in whatever backward ass superstitions from the bronze age you want.

Your business does not. Your business has to obey the same commerce laws the rest of us do.

B'loney. The cake buyers have freedom from religion if they choose another baker to bake their cake. Instead, they are trying to impose their Statist Secular Relgion on a Christian.

 

[mdk]

Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.

First of all, you can't even prove that gay isn't a choice, second of all you sure can't prove that some people just aren't born Republicans.

Third of all, and most importantly, you can't justify allowing the government to force some people to do business with some people based on whatever reason, but not others. Meaning , obviously that I should have the right to deny service to a queer whether he chose to be gay, or whether he was born gay. It's IRRELEVANT. As are you.

This is where you are wrong. That could spill over into denying someone just because they are black. Unless you want the Court to really delve into what makes one "gay" (acquired behavior) vs black (innate). Personally I would like to see the Court "go there".

But what they will chicken out and do instead of addressing that elephant in the living room is a compromise. They'll agree not to expose the LGBT cult as an incomplete set of sexual deviant addictions, and instead focus on an individual's right to reject an ideal or ritual in a product produced as their 1st Amendment right. Not individuals based on their race or where they are addicted to putting their dicks.

I'd be very leery of proposing to Justice Thomas especially that his noble race is on par with ass sex. Very leery. But who knows? LGBT cultees are extremely deluded and pushy. I kind of hope they push the issue.

Imagine that! Your argument contains another loophole that affords you the right to refuse service all the while denying it to others. Rights for me, but not for thee.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.

First of all, you can't even prove that gay isn't a choice, second of all you sure can't prove that some people just aren't born Republicans.

Third of all, and most importantly, you can't justify allowing the government to force some people to do business with some people based on whatever reason, but not others. Meaning , obviously that I should have the right to deny service to a queer whether he chose to be gay, or whether he was born gay. It's IRRELEVANT. As are you.

This is where you are wrong. That could spill over into denying someone just because they are black. Unless you want the Court to really delve into what makes one "gay" (acquired behavior) vs black (innate). Personally I would like to see the Court "go there".

But what they will chicken out and do instead of addressing that elephant in the living room is a compromise. They'll agree not to expose the LGBT cult as an incomplete set of sexual deviant addictions, and instead focus on an individual's right to reject an ideal or ritual in a product produced as their 1st Amendment right. Not individuals based on their race or where they are addicted to putting their dicks.

I'd be very leery of proposing to Justice Thomas especially that his noble race is on par with ass sex. Very leery. But who knows? LGBT cultees are extremely deluded and pushy. I kind of hope they push the issue.

This isn't where I'm wrong, this is where you are stupid. This isn't about gays, and it isn't about Christians. I will ask you again, what if an atheist just says "no I don't like the queers because it's gross" and refuses service based on that rather than religious reasons. Can the government tell THAT person they can't discriminate against the queer, but you can?

I swear you authoritarians on both sides are just stupid.

PS A black man should absolutely have the right to refuse to serve white people , it's HIS business, or hers.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.

First of all, you can't even prove that gay isn't a choice, second of all you sure can't prove that some people just aren't born Republicans.

Third of all, and most importantly, you can't justify allowing the government to force some people to do business with some people based on whatever reason, but not others. Meaning , obviously that I should have the right to deny service to a queer whether he chose to be gay, or whether he was born gay. It's IRRELEVANT. As are you.

This is where you are wrong. That could spill over into denying someone just because they are black. Unless you want the Court to really delve into what makes one "gay" (acquired behavior) vs black (innate). Personally I would like to see the Court "go there".

But what they will chicken out and do instead of addressing that elephant in the living room is a compromise. They'll agree not to expose the LGBT cult as an incomplete set of sexual deviant addictions, and instead focus on an individual's right to reject an ideal or ritual in a product produced as their 1st Amendment right. Not individuals based on their race or where they are addicted to putting their dicks.

I'd be very leery of proposing to Justice Thomas especially that his noble race is on par with ass sex. Very leery. But who knows? LGBT cultees are extremely deluded and pushy. I kind of hope they push the issue.

Imagine that! Your argument contains another loophole that affords you the right to refuse service all the while denying it to others. Rights for me, but not for thee.

To be fair , I just don't think that poster is smart enough to grasp the point we are making here.

 

[Silhouette]

Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.

First of all, you can't even prove that gay isn't a choice, second of all you sure can't prove that some people just aren't born Republicans.

Third of all, and most importantly, you can't justify allowing the government to force some people to do business with some people based on whatever reason, but not others. Meaning , obviously that I should have the right to deny service to a queer whether he chose to be gay, or whether he was born gay. It's IRRELEVANT. As are you.

This is where you are wrong. That could spill over into denying someone just because they are black. Unless you want the Court to really delve into what makes one "gay" (acquired behavior) vs black (innate). Personally I would like to see the Court "go there".

But what they will chicken out and do instead of addressing that elephant in the living room is a compromise. They'll agree not to expose the LGBT cult as an incomplete set of sexual deviant addictions, and instead focus on an individual's right to reject an ideal or ritual in a product produced as their 1st Amendment right. Not individuals based on their race or where they are addicted to putting their dicks.

I'd be very leery of proposing to Justice Thomas especially that his noble race is on par with ass sex. Very leery. But who knows? LGBT cultees are extremely deluded and pushy. I kind of hope they push the issue.

This isn't where I'm wrong, this is where you are stupid. This isn't about gays, and it isn't about Christians. I will ask you again, what if an atheist just says "no I don't like the queers because it's gross" and refuses service based on that rather than religious reasons. Can the government tell THAT person they can't discriminate against the queer, but you can?

I swear you authoritarians on both sides are just stupid.

PS A black man should absolutely have the right to refuse to serve white people , it's HIS business, or hers.

The Court will sift out refusal of individuals & instead focus on informing & the right to refuse to honor ideals or rituals others ask them to participate in.

You can prattle on all you like. It this is how it will come down.

And I know mdk hates to hear this but the right to refuse any unruly customer does exist. It’s just a fact.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know any major religions that adhere to racism so openly that they would endorse a business owner not selling to someone based on their skin color. That's generally not going to be an issue. But even if it were, you're weighing out competing rights. The gov't does not have the right to conscript people into acts of business just because they hung an "open" sign on their door.

Why would it have to be a major religion? The Southern Baptist Convention and Mormon Church have some pretty racist history.

Yes, I am weighing competing rights. Given that Gays have faced a history of repression and Christians have not, I would go so far to say gays merit more protection.

I'm sure the ruling will come with all kinds of caveats and it should, and will be open to individual judgments down the line, as it should. But so what. That's why we have courts, judges, and the appeals system.

Well, you can hope that, but the courts are smart enough to realize that once you give an exemption to obeying laws, you are opening a pandora's box.

 

[JoeB131]

B'loney. The cake buyers have freedom from religion if they choose another baker to bake their cake. Instead, they are trying to impose their Statist Secular Relgion on a Christian.

The Cake Makers have the freedom of religion to choose something else to do for a living.

Shit, why not apply this to all workers, not just business owners. "Sorry, Boss, I think filing these PO's would be against my Religion! Stop oppressing me, man."

 

[JoeB131]

Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.

Probably better educated than you are, and I'm pretty good at getting a rise out of you.

First of all, you can't even prove that gay isn't a choice, second of all you sure can't prove that some people just aren't born Republicans.

Sure I can prove being gay isn't a choice. Very simply.

When did you choose to be straight? See. If sexual orientation is a choice, then there had a to be a day when you were thinking about it, and chose one way or the other.

I can pretty easily prove that people aren't born in any political party. You only have "Republicans" in the United States. You don't have republicans beign born in Japan or Chad. It's a very geographic level of stupidity.

Now, I could argue it's a result of generations of inbreeding, looking at the regions that consistantly vote Republican.

Third of all, and most importantly, you can't justify allowing the government to force some people to do business with some people based on whatever reason, but not others. Meaning , obviously that I should have the right to deny service to a queer whether he chose to be gay, or whether he was born gay. It's IRRELEVANT. As are you.

Sure we can. We can designate protected classes based on their history of oppression. We already do for minorities and women.

Tell you what, though, go down to wherever you work and scream your homophobia at the top of your lungs. Let me know what HR says.

You guys are on the wrong side of history.

 

[JoeB131]

ou know, it got really quiet around this thread right about the time when early in the morning on Christmas, yesterday, it appeared as if JoeB had a sock puppet manifest. Made more eerie by the fact that I'd just nicknamed him "Sparky" as "Sparky" was typing a post seemingly in lockstep with JoeB. Same IP address?

Sparky has been posting here for months... so your argument is that I cleverly created a sock named Sparky because I know you would call someone "Sparky"?

I would say you're kind of nuts, but then I read the same homophobic crazy garbage you post here every day.

 

[boedicca]

B'loney. The cake buyers have freedom from religion if they choose another baker to bake their cake. Instead, they are trying to impose their Statist Secular Relgion on a Christian.

The Cake Makers have the freedom of religion to choose something else to do for a living.

Shit, why not apply this to all workers, not just business owners. "Sorry, Boss, I think filing these PO's would be against my Religion! Stop oppressing me, man."

Your concept of freedom is that someone must give up their profession in order to practice his religion?

What a totalitarian creep you are.

 

[mdk]

Your argument is stupid, which I have ascertained is the norm for you. I mean truly you are a dumb fuck.

First of all, you can't even prove that gay isn't a choice, second of all you sure can't prove that some people just aren't born Republicans.

Third of all, and most importantly, you can't justify allowing the government to force some people to do business with some people based on whatever reason, but not others. Meaning , obviously that I should have the right to deny service to a queer whether he chose to be gay, or whether he was born gay. It's IRRELEVANT. As are you.

This is where you are wrong. That could spill over into denying someone just because they are black. Unless you want the Court to really delve into what makes one "gay" (acquired behavior) vs black (innate). Personally I would like to see the Court "go there".

But what they will chicken out and do instead of addressing that elephant in the living room is a compromise. They'll agree not to expose the LGBT cult as an incomplete set of sexual deviant addictions, and instead focus on an individual's right to reject an ideal or ritual in a product produced as their 1st Amendment right. Not individuals based on their race or where they are addicted to putting their dicks.

I'd be very leery of proposing to Justice Thomas especially that his noble race is on par with ass sex. Very leery. But who knows? LGBT cultees are extremely deluded and pushy. I kind of hope they push the issue.

This isn't where I'm wrong, this is where you are stupid. This isn't about gays, and it isn't about Christians. I will ask you again, what if an atheist just says "no I don't like the queers because it's gross" and refuses service based on that rather than religious reasons. Can the government tell THAT person they can't discriminate against the queer, but you can?

I swear you authoritarians on both sides are just stupid.

PS A black man should absolutely have the right to refuse to serve white people , it's HIS business, or hers.

The Court will sift out refusal of individuals & instead focus on informing & the right to refuse to honor ideals or rituals others ask them to participate in.

You can prattle on all you like. It this is how it will come down.

And I know mdk hates to hear this but the right to refuse any unruly customer does exist. It’s just a fact.

What on earth are you talking about? I am okay with refusing any customer for any reason. Why would you think I would force someone to do business with an unruly customer? Of the two of us, only you have all sorts of little self-serving loopholes when it comes to this issue. You're fine with the government forcing folks to do business with each other, so long as that group meets whatever arbitrary standard you're peddling today.