No Cake for You

[TemplarKormac]

The "broader scope" won't exist until someone actually tries it in court.

The broader scope already exists, Doc. And it isn't too late for the owners of that bakery to file an appeal on those grounds.

You're right, it's not too late - and if they do, we'll have an answer to this debate.

But until then, nothing has been decided.

Fair enough.

 

[martybegan]

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

FF to abortion ..

Any conservative push on Abortion is either to allow the States to decide on it, or at worst to push for a federal amendment on banning it. For an amendment to work so many people would have to be in support of it that I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

Saying the law is dumb isn't saying they can't make or pass the law. And if the 1st is indeed incorporated to the States, denying them the ability to refuse service for religious reasons is preventing "free exercise thereof" and is thus unconstitutional.

You keep using state rights as some boogeyman, but they have always have been subject to the federal constitution.

The bakery isn't a church.

Not sure about your boogeyman argument. A state cannot violate a federally granted right.

The constitution doesn't protect churches directly, it protects a person's right to free exercise of religion. Church protection flows from that, not the other way around.

And where is the "right" to force other people to compromise their religious beliefs via government fiat? The government doesn't get "rights"

 

[martybegan]

The power of the boycott is the only economic weapon the downtrodden have at their disposal. And it has historically proven to be very, very effective.

You want to be a discriminatory asshole? Go ahead, and let the invisible hand decide your fate.

No one is destroying your business but yourself. No windows get broken, just your bank account when people stop buying your stuff.

I have no issues with boycotts or people deciding not to do business with people they don't like. My concern is when government is used as the mechanism for this.

Yeah...like they have been since 1964.

Now it's tyranny!

There is no comparison between the systemic government mandated discrimination seen against black Americans from the 1870's to the 1960's and a couple having to go to another baker for a wedding cake. You keep trying to equate the two, but it doesn't work.

 

[Seawytch]

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

FF to abortion ..

Any conservative push on Abortion is either to allow the States to decide on it, or at worst to push for a federal amendment on banning it. For an amendment to work so many people would have to be in support of it that I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

Actually, the state law expounded on the federal one. Since it is based on a federal law *GASP* any court rulings that apply to the federal law apply to the state law.

You are aware that Public Accommodation laws have been found Constitutional, right?

So, a state enacting a PA law outside of the Federal law (there are no Federal LGBT protections) is a "states rights" issue isn't it? I thought you guys were all about the states rights.

 

[Seawytch]

Let's try another example.

There are still "Christian" sects in this country that believe miscegenation is a sin against God.

Should a baker of that one of those religions be allowed to refuse to serve a mixed race couple?

It's sad when you can't make your point except to draw ridiculous comparisons.

It's an absolutely valid comparison. The bible forbids the mixing of the races. Should a religious bigot be able to discriminate against interracial couples?

You're only dismissing it because it is inconvenient to answer.

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

 

[martybegan]

The left are the new morality police, and they will use any government force available to either force you to accept their morals, or beat you into the ground so hard you are unable to resist their dogma.

FF to abortion ..

Any conservative push on Abortion is either to allow the States to decide on it, or at worst to push for a federal amendment on banning it. For an amendment to work so many people would have to be in support of it that I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

Actually, the state law expounded on the federal one. Since it is based on a federal law *GASP* any court rulings that apply to the federal law apply to the state law.

You are aware that Public Accommodation laws have been found Constitutional, right?

So, a state enacting a PA law outside of the Federal law (there are no Federal LGBT protections) is a "states rights" issue isn't it? I thought you guys were all about the states rights.

The PA law cases did not involve the exercise of religion (the ones that have made it past the lower courts that is).

And constitutional laws can still be stupid, or misapplied. Your definition of a PA that encompasses all businesses is wrong.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I am still waiting for someone to present a cogent argument as to how baking a cake somehow is forcing the baker to betray his faith.

Surely that baker has made cakes for gay people, adulterers, pedophiles etc without even knowing or caring about those sins.

IMO this is plain old hypocrisy that one must be a yoga master to perform the stretch required to justify

 

[Seawytch]

Actually a business should have the ability to refuse service to anyone for any reason, it's called freedom of association. Of course a business is the most democratic thing in our society, if they mess with enough people they won't stay in business. That's the way it should be done, let the customers decide if they remain in business.

And yet NOBODY is trying to get rid of Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level. No one. Federal law protects race, religion, country of origin, etc from discrimination in public accommodation. Some state laws also protect gays and yet those are the ones the bigots are trying to get rid of, not the Civil Rights Act's section on Public Accommodation. How come? Where's your defense of "states rights"?

 

[Seawytch]

FF to abortion ..

Any conservative push on Abortion is either to allow the States to decide on it, or at worst to push for a federal amendment on banning it. For an amendment to work so many people would have to be in support of it that I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

Saying the law is dumb isn't saying they can't make or pass the law. And if the 1st is indeed incorporated to the States, denying them the ability to refuse service for religious reasons is preventing "free exercise thereof" and is thus unconstitutional.

You keep using state rights as some boogeyman, but they have always have been subject to the federal constitution.

The bakery isn't a church.

Not sure about your boogeyman argument. A state cannot violate a federally granted right.

The constitution doesn't protect churches directly, it protects a person's right to free exercise of religion. Church protection flows from that, not the other way around.

And where is the "right" to force other people to compromise their religious beliefs via government fiat? The government doesn't get "rights"

And yet the law is quite clear on what is and is not a church.

 

[martybegan]

I am still waiting for someone to present a cogent argument as to how baking a cake somehow is forcing the baker to betray his faith.

Surely that baker has made cakes for gay people, adulterers, pedophiles etc without even knowing or caring about those sins.

IMO this is plain old hypocrisy that one must be a yoga master to perform the stretch required to justify

Its not up to anyone else, especially the government to demand a person explain their religious beliefs or practices. The document explicitly states "Free Exercise Thereof." The most you can do is refuse to associate with such a person.

 

[martybegan]

Actually a business should have the ability to refuse service to anyone for any reason, it's called freedom of association. Of course a business is the most democratic thing in our society, if they mess with enough people they won't stay in business. That's the way it should be done, let the customers decide if they remain in business.

And yet NOBODY is trying to get rid of Public Accommodation laws at the Federal level. No one. Federal law protects race, religion, country of origin, etc from discrimination in public accommodation. Some state laws also protect gays and yet those are the ones the bigots are trying to get rid of, not the Civil Rights Act's section on Public Accommodation. How come? Where's your defense of "states rights"?

It's coming. Again, just wait until one of these lawsuits comes against some black business.

And its a simple matter of time before someone on your side goes after a Church. They will not win, but the bad publicity alone would be enough to start a backlash.

 

[martybegan]

Any conservative push on Abortion is either to allow the States to decide on it, or at worst to push for a federal amendment on banning it. For an amendment to work so many people would have to be in support of it that I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

Saying the law is dumb isn't saying they can't make or pass the law. And if the 1st is indeed incorporated to the States, denying them the ability to refuse service for religious reasons is preventing "free exercise thereof" and is thus unconstitutional.

You keep using state rights as some boogeyman, but they have always have been subject to the federal constitution.

The bakery isn't a church.

Not sure about your boogeyman argument. A state cannot violate a federally granted right.

The constitution doesn't protect churches directly, it protects a person's right to free exercise of religion. Church protection flows from that, not the other way around.

And where is the "right" to force other people to compromise their religious beliefs via government fiat? The government doesn't get "rights"

And yet the law is quite clear on what is and is not a church.

Only for tax purposes, and because the government CAN'T tax churches, and want's to prevent people from scamming the system.

The tax issue says nothing about the Churches practice methods, belief structure, or what its MEMBERS can or cannot do.

 

[Seawytch]

FF to abortion ..

Any conservative push on Abortion is either to allow the States to decide on it, or at worst to push for a federal amendment on banning it. For an amendment to work so many people would have to be in support of it that I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

Actually, the state law expounded on the federal one. Since it is based on a federal law *GASP* any court rulings that apply to the federal law apply to the state law.

You are aware that Public Accommodation laws have been found Constitutional, right?

So, a state enacting a PA law outside of the Federal law (there are no Federal LGBT protections) is a "states rights" issue isn't it? I thought you guys were all about the states rights.

The PA law cases did not involve the exercise of religion (the ones that have made it past the lower courts that is).

And constitutional laws can still be stupid, or misapplied. Your definition of a PA that encompasses all businesses is wrong.

The Supreme Court DID have the opportunity to hear one of your "religious liberty" cases. They chose not to, leaving the lower court ruling in place. What was the ruling?

 

[Seawytch]

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

Saying the law is dumb isn't saying they can't make or pass the law. And if the 1st is indeed incorporated to the States, denying them the ability to refuse service for religious reasons is preventing "free exercise thereof" and is thus unconstitutional.

You keep using state rights as some boogeyman, but they have always have been subject to the federal constitution.

The bakery isn't a church.

Not sure about your boogeyman argument. A state cannot violate a federally granted right.

The constitution doesn't protect churches directly, it protects a person's right to free exercise of religion. Church protection flows from that, not the other way around.

And where is the "right" to force other people to compromise their religious beliefs via government fiat? The government doesn't get "rights"

And yet the law is quite clear on what is and is not a church.

Only for tax purposes, and because the government CAN'T tax churches, and want's to prevent people from scamming the system.

The tax issue says nothing about the Churches practice methods, belief structure, or what its MEMBERS can or cannot do.

That doesn't change the fact that the law recognizes what is and is not a church. While it might be based on the tax code, you don't get to just say "hey, now I'm a church not a baker".

 

[martybegan]

Any conservative push on Abortion is either to allow the States to decide on it, or at worst to push for a federal amendment on banning it. For an amendment to work so many people would have to be in support of it that I doubt we will see it in our lifetime.

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

Actually, the state law expounded on the federal one. Since it is based on a federal law *GASP* any court rulings that apply to the federal law apply to the state law.

You are aware that Public Accommodation laws have been found Constitutional, right?

So, a state enacting a PA law outside of the Federal law (there are no Federal LGBT protections) is a "states rights" issue isn't it? I thought you guys were all about the states rights.

The PA law cases did not involve the exercise of religion (the ones that have made it past the lower courts that is).

And constitutional laws can still be stupid, or misapplied. Your definition of a PA that encompasses all businesses is wrong.

The Supreme Court DID have the opportunity to hear one of your "religious liberty" cases. They chose not to, leaving the lower court ruling in place. What was the ruling?

They also ignored plenty of gay marriage cases until taking ones that they liked. Deciding not hear a case is not deciding against a position. There could have been technical reasons for denying cert.

 

[Seawytch]

But this gay wedding cake thing is based on a state's law. You appear to not support it and it is mystifying if you believe states have the right to set the rules.

Actually, the state law expounded on the federal one. Since it is based on a federal law *GASP* any court rulings that apply to the federal law apply to the state law.

You are aware that Public Accommodation laws have been found Constitutional, right?

So, a state enacting a PA law outside of the Federal law (there are no Federal LGBT protections) is a "states rights" issue isn't it? I thought you guys were all about the states rights.

The PA law cases did not involve the exercise of religion (the ones that have made it past the lower courts that is).

And constitutional laws can still be stupid, or misapplied. Your definition of a PA that encompasses all businesses is wrong.

The Supreme Court DID have the opportunity to hear one of your "religious liberty" cases. They chose not to, leaving the lower court ruling in place. What was the ruling?

They also ignored plenty of gay marriage cases until taking ones that they liked. Deciding not hear a case is not deciding against a position. There could have been technical reasons for denying cert.

Yes, you keep clinging to that hope.

Fact is, these are the laws in some places. Follow the law or suffer the consequences.

 

[martybegan]

Saying the law is dumb isn't saying they can't make or pass the law. And if the 1st is indeed incorporated to the States, denying them the ability to refuse service for religious reasons is preventing "free exercise thereof" and is thus unconstitutional.

You keep using state rights as some boogeyman, but they have always have been subject to the federal constitution.

The bakery isn't a church.

Not sure about your boogeyman argument. A state cannot violate a federally granted right.

The constitution doesn't protect churches directly, it protects a person's right to free exercise of religion. Church protection flows from that, not the other way around.

And where is the "right" to force other people to compromise their religious beliefs via government fiat? The government doesn't get "rights"

And yet the law is quite clear on what is and is not a church.

Only for tax purposes, and because the government CAN'T tax churches, and want's to prevent people from scamming the system.

The tax issue says nothing about the Churches practice methods, belief structure, or what its MEMBERS can or cannot do.

That doesn't change the fact that the law recognizes what is and is not a church. While it might be based on the tax code, you don't get to just say "hey, now I'm a church not a baker".

The issue isn't about churches, its about PEOPLE being able to freely exercise their religion, and the simple fact that something as inconsequential as a couple having to go to another baker is not worthy of governmental intervention to prevent.

The constitution, again, does not protect Churches, it protects PEOPLE's right to freely exercise religion, and a Churches protections flow from that, not the other way around as you see it.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, the state law expounded on the federal one. Since it is based on a federal law *GASP* any court rulings that apply to the federal law apply to the state law.

You are aware that Public Accommodation laws have been found Constitutional, right?

So, a state enacting a PA law outside of the Federal law (there are no Federal LGBT protections) is a "states rights" issue isn't it? I thought you guys were all about the states rights.

The PA law cases did not involve the exercise of religion (the ones that have made it past the lower courts that is).

And constitutional laws can still be stupid, or misapplied. Your definition of a PA that encompasses all businesses is wrong.

The Supreme Court DID have the opportunity to hear one of your "religious liberty" cases. They chose not to, leaving the lower court ruling in place. What was the ruling?

They also ignored plenty of gay marriage cases until taking ones that they liked. Deciding not hear a case is not deciding against a position. There could have been technical reasons for denying cert.

Yes, you keep clinging to that hope.

Fact is, these are the laws in some places. Follow the law or suffer the consequences.

Once again, stop being a vindictive twat.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If you are a repeat customer, who else would you go to for your wedding cake?

What an idiotic OP.

And....so succinct!

 

[Seawytch]

You are aware that Public Accommodation laws have been found Constitutional, right?

So, a state enacting a PA law outside of the Federal law (there are no Federal LGBT protections) is a "states rights" issue isn't it? I thought you guys were all about the states rights.

The PA law cases did not involve the exercise of religion (the ones that have made it past the lower courts that is).

And constitutional laws can still be stupid, or misapplied. Your definition of a PA that encompasses all businesses is wrong.

The Supreme Court DID have the opportunity to hear one of your "religious liberty" cases. They chose not to, leaving the lower court ruling in place. What was the ruling?

They also ignored plenty of gay marriage cases until taking ones that they liked. Deciding not hear a case is not deciding against a position. There could have been technical reasons for denying cert.

Yes, you keep clinging to that hope.

Fact is, these are the laws in some places. Follow the law or suffer the consequences.

Once again, stop being a vindictive twat.

Uh huh...all those black folks wanting to eat at the Woolworth's counter...they were "vindictive twats" too?

Sure took you an awful long time to get really mad about PA laws...51 years...and you're not even attacking the Federal PA laws, just the little state and local ones. Some "states rights" advocate you are.