Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Silhouette]

We now live a society that is trying it's best to be sterile and non offensive to everyone. The reality is the Founding Father never promised that.

Yeah, this is not really about that.

It absolutely IS all about that. Grumblenuts, is LGBT a lifestyle or innate? (don't forget the cult's term "gender-fluid".....)

 

[Pop23]

Now, what shit did I make up. Be specific, because I'm not a mind reader as you appear to be.

This is what you said: "And you believe that the Government should compel the gay to do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity"

Which is exactly opposite of my statement.

You believe in government overreach as the previous post shows (Post #1016) because you support PA laws and government telling private businesses owners who they can and cannot refuse service to - well - as long as you agree with the business owner.

On the other hand I think that ALL private businesses owners should have their rights of property and association respected and be able to refuse service to anyone whether I agree with them or not. PA laws should only apply to government entities and limit their ability to enter into contracts with and purchase goods and services from private entities since government agencies use taxpayer dollars.


You support government overreach - when it's not your ox being gored, I support getting the government out of the game.


>>>>

What ox of mine do you believe I own that is being gored?

I support both the idea that people should not be discriminated against when...........

1. ) What they are is not their fault and that what they are is static. A female can't change. We have tests that will always show she is female. A Minority will always be a minority. We have tests for that as well.

2.) What I want from commerce does not conflict with the Owners right to practice his/her/their religion. This is especially true when the service provided is non-essential. I support the ideal that essential goods and services are exempt from religious or spiritual exemption

Again, I am amazingly consistent

 

[WorldWatcher]

Now, what shit did I make up. Be specific, because I'm not a mind reader as you appear to be.

This is what you said: "And you believe that the Government should compel the gay to do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity"

Which is exactly opposite of my statement.

You believe in government overreach as the previous post shows (Post #1016) because you support PA laws and government telling private businesses owners who they can and cannot refuse service to - well - as long as you agree with the business owner.

On the other hand I think that ALL private businesses owners should have their rights of property and association respected and be able to refuse service to anyone whether I agree with them or not. PA laws should only apply to government entities and limit their ability to enter into contracts with and purchase goods and services from private entities since government agencies use taxpayer dollars.


You support government overreach - when it's not your ox being gored, I support getting the government out of the game.


>>>>

What ox of mine do you believe I own that is being gored?

I support both the idea that people should not be discriminated against when...........

1. ) What they are is not their fault and that what they are is static. A female can't change. We have tests that will always show she is female. A Minority will always be a minority. We have tests for that as well.

2.) What I want from commerce does not conflict with the Owners right to practice his/her/their religion. This is especially true when the service provided is non-essential. I support the ideal that essential goods and services are exempt from religious or spiritual exemption

Again, I am amazingly consistent

I'm not saying you aren't consistent. I'm saying you support PA laws when you agree with them, and want special rights for folks to claim religion and thereby be exempt from the laws.

Such a position results in unequal treatment under the law. The religious baker can refuse service because of the religious bakers religious beliefs, but the gay baker cannot refuse service to the religious baker because of the bakers religious beliefs.

By respecting rights of property and association you take religion out of the equation and treat both the religious baker and the gay baker the same under the law - both can refuse service for whatever reason they choose (or for no reason at all).

Your position supports government overreach - but only for the things you agree with. My position is that PA laws as applied to private business are government overreach and should be repealed.


.>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Now, what shit did I make up. Be specific, because I'm not a mind reader as you appear to be.

This is what you said: "And you believe that the Government should compel the gay to do something that would make him burn in hell for eternity"

Which is exactly opposite of my statement.

You believe in government overreach as the previous post shows (Post #1016) because you support PA laws and government telling private businesses owners who they can and cannot refuse service to - well - as long as you agree with the business owner.

On the other hand I think that ALL private businesses owners should have their rights of property and association respected and be able to refuse service to anyone whether I agree with them or not. PA laws should only apply to government entities and limit their ability to enter into contracts with and purchase goods and services from private entities since government agencies use taxpayer dollars.


You support government overreach - when it's not your ox being gored, I support getting the government out of the game.


>>>>

What ox of mine do you believe I own that is being gored?

I support both the idea that people should not be discriminated against when...........

1. ) What they are is not their fault and that what they are is static. A female can't change. We have tests that will always show she is female. A Minority will always be a minority. We have tests for that as well.

2.) What I want from commerce does not conflict with the Owners right to practice his/her/their religion. This is especially true when the service provided is non-essential. I support the ideal that essential goods and services are exempt from religious or spiritual exemption

Again, I am amazingly consistent

I'm not saying you aren't consistent. I'm saying you support PA laws when you agree with them, and want special rights for folks to claim religion and thereby be exempt from the laws.

Such a position results in unequal treatment under the law. The religious baker can refuse service because of the religious bakers religious beliefs, but the gay baker cannot refuse service to the religious baker because of the bakers religious beliefs.

By respecting rights of property and association you take religion out of the equation and treat both the religious baker and the gay baker the same under the law - both can refuse service for whatever reason they choose (or for no reason at all).

Your position supports government overreach - but only for the things you agree with. My position is that PA laws as applied to private business are government overreach and should be repealed.


.>>>>

You do understand that we agree far more than we disagree on what you wrote, right?

Here's the main problem. Government gets involved:

1. In areas they should not get involved in. Case in point, Marriage. Governments that want to allow two individuals to bind themselves to each other, no matter what sex, no matter what sexuality, should not be using a document with religious overtones to accomplish this. The document should be as Sterile as possible. The term CIVIL UNION should be used IN ANY UNION THAT SEEKS TO BIND TWO PEOPLE TO EACH OTHER IN A DOMESTIC UNION THAT THE COUPLE WANTS SANCTIONED BY THE STATE.

Now, lets look at the Baker. If the Baker makes a CIVIL UNION CAKE for one CIVIL UNION, then, even if PA Laws exist, he must make it for all. IT'S PURELY A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION WITH NO RELIGIOUS OVERTONES.

2. The Government will create law in an attempt to right wrongs. Unless those laws are for essential goods and services, they become cumbersome and serve as political footballs, nothing more, nothing less. They divide us far more than they unite us.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Notice that the Left never chooses to attack Muslim bakers for not baking gay wedding cakes.
This is a big clue that it's not really about principles, it's about the Left's disdain for Christians.
They choose to attack the Christian bakers on purpose. That is what the USSC has more or less said.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Notice that the Left never chooses to attack Muslim bakers for not baking gay wedding cakes.
This is a big clue that it's not really about principles, it's about the Left's disdain for Christians.
They choose to attack the Christian bakers on purpose. That is what the USSC has more or less said.

"What do you think happens when a gay, like SUPER gay Crowder tries to get a super gay wedding cake baked at a Muslim bakery? I’m pretty sure you can guess, but you might as well watch this week’s adventure to Dearborn, MI to find out!"


Only problem is Michigan does not include sexual orientation in their Public Accommodation law. So discriminating against gays in business is not illegal there like it is in Colorado.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Only problem is Michigan does not include sexual orientation in their Public Accommodation law. So discriminating against gays in business is not illegal there like it is in Colorado.


>>>>

It isn't illegal in Michigan nor Colorado if their laws conflict with the 1st Amendment. 1st Amendment wins. And I think that was painted well between the lines in this recent decision. Think of the word "respect" the Supremes used to warn those handling Christians in the marketplace....

 

[Pop23]

Notice that the Left never chooses to attack Muslim bakers for not baking gay wedding cakes.
This is a big clue that it's not really about principles, it's about the Left's disdain for Christians.
They choose to attack the Christian bakers on purpose. That is what the USSC has more or less said.

I have a feeling that even if the guy informed the Baker that they were two Straights that only wanted to Marry for financial benefit, he still would have been turned away.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I have a feeling that even if the guy informed the Baker that they were two Straights that only wanted to Marry for financial benefit, he still would have been turned away.

Logic dictates:
1. Speculative argument used to dispute documented fact is clearly fallacious by definition.
2. Worse, asserting "I have a feeling that" means you don't know and indeed can't even produce one verifiable example.
3. Therefore, the sample would be vanishingly small by comparison so insufficient even if you could.
4. Two people uniting as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" alone have no reason to formally celebrate, much less buy a wedding cake, revealing the argument to be desperate and ridiculous from the start.

 

[Pop23]

I have a feeling that even if the guy informed the Baker that they were two Straights that only wanted to Marry for financial benefit, he still would have been turned away.

Logic dictates:
1. Speculative argument used to dispute documented fact is clearly fallacious by definition.
2. Worse, asserting "I have a feeling that" means you don't know and indeed can't even produce one verifiable example.
3. Therefore, the sample would be vanishingly small by comparison so insufficient even if you could.
4. Two people uniting as in "marriage" or "civil union" for "financial benefit" alone have no reason to formally celebrate, much less buy a wedding cake, revealing the argument to be desperate and ridiculous from the start.

Dimwit, it was the expression of an opinion. But then, I do enjoy the free rent I am getting inside your head!

And then you speculate that two people uniting in a Marriage has no reason to formally celebrate? That is simply not your call pinhead, they would have just as much reason as any "same sex" couple would have.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Can you discriminate against everyone? If so, it's simply the product is not offered.

Mr. Phillips never tried to claim he didn't sell the product, he freely admits to providing wedding cakes.

You can even view his catalog on his website.


>>>>>

He has same sex wedding cakes in his catalog?

Link?

The product is wedding cakes.

Not the people buying them.


But you knew that.


.>>>>

Jewish delis sell sandwiches as their product. muslim delis sell falafels. Request extra bacon and ham on yours.

Sure love bacon and ham, if the Jewish or Muslim deli sells it I'd order it with extra bacon.

But if they don't offer it on the menu though I'm SOL. PA laws do not mandate what goods and services a business offeres, only that if they choose to offer them they cannot refuse service based on certain characteristics of the customers. Like the baker did. The difference is, under your silly attempt at a gotcha, is the Baker, buy his own admission sells wedding cakes.


But you are barking up the wrong tree, I think PA laws as applied to private business entities should be repealed and private business owners able to refuse service for any reason they want equally. The law as it is though is unequal - IMHO - because the baker wants an exemption to discriminate against gays because of his religious beliefs but a gay shop owner would be held in violation of the law if they discriminate against a religious person for their religious beliefs.

If the baker can discriminate against gays because of their religious beliefs - gays should be able to discriminate against the baker for those religious beliefs.
The KKK baker should be able to discriminate against blacks.
The Jewish deli owner against Muslims.
The Muslim deli owner against Jews.
The redneck baker against Mexicans,
etc.
etc.


>>>>

They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.

This is one of those either/or deals. It can't be both.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.

This is one of those either/or deals. It can't be both.

And Piggie Park wouldn't sell to blacks because of the owners personal religious views.

.>>>>

 

[task0778]

They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.

This is one of those either/or deals. It can't be both.

And Piggie Park wouldn't sell to blacks because of the owners personal religious views.

.>>>>

That would be IMHO a very hard sell to any court of law, all the way up to and including the SCOTUS.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.

This is one of those either/or deals. It can't be both.

And Piggie Park wouldn't sell to blacks because of the owners personal religious views.

.>>>>

Which religious texts define race as an abomination?

 

[WorldWatcher]

They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.

This is one of those either/or deals. It can't be both.

And Piggie Park wouldn't sell to blacks because of the owners personal religious views.

.>>>>

Which religious texts define race as an abomination?

Under Federal law personal religious beliefs do not have to be defined by the dogma of an established religious text.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

That would be IMHO a very hard sell to any court of law, all the way up to and including the SCOTUS.

I agree, hence part of my problem with PA laws.

Personal religious beliefs about not selling to black people = Not good enough.

Personal religious beliefs about not selling to gay people = exception granted.

In addition, a Gay shop owner does not have the right to discriminate against the personal religious beliefs of a customer and refuse them service. If they do they are then in violation - on grounds of religious discrimination - under both State AND Federal PA laws.


.>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.

This is one of those either/or deals. It can't be both.

And Piggie Park wouldn't sell to blacks because of the owners personal religious views.

.>>>>

Which religious texts define race as an abomination?

Under Federal law personal religious beliefs do not have to be defined by the dogma of an established religious text.


>>>>

A simple "none" would have sufficed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.

This is one of those either/or deals. It can't be both.

And Piggie Park wouldn't sell to blacks because of the owners personal religious views.

.>>>>

Which religious texts define race as an abomination?

Under Federal law personal religious beliefs do not have to be defined by the dogma of an established religious text.


>>>>

A simple "none" would have sufficed.

No, it's important to point out that under federal law you implication that religious beliefs that diverge from established dogma written in a book are invalid.

Federal law says otherwise.


>>>>

 

[Aba Incieni]

They don't sell it because of their religion. Same as the baker won't decorate a gay cake because of his religion.

This is one of those either/or deals. It can't be both.

And Piggie Park wouldn't sell to blacks because of the owners personal religious views.

.>>>>

Which religious texts define race as an abomination?

Under Federal law personal religious beliefs do not have to be defined by the dogma of an established religious text.


>>>>

A simple "none" would have sufficed.

No, it's important to point out that under federal law you implication that religious beliefs that diverge from established dogma written in a book are invalid.

Federal law says otherwise.


>>>>

Cool. Tell Shlomo I want extra bacon on my sub and let Abdul know I want extra ham on my falafel.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And Piggie Park wouldn't sell to blacks because of the owners personal religious views.

.>>>>

Which religious texts define race as an abomination?

Under Federal law personal religious beliefs do not have to be defined by the dogma of an established religious text.


>>>>

A simple "none" would have sufficed.

No, it's important to point out that under federal law you implication that religious beliefs that diverge from established dogma written in a book are invalid.

Federal law says otherwise.


>>>>

Cool. Tell Shlomo I want extra bacon on my sub and let Abdul know I want extra ham on my falafel.

Tell him yourself.

Of course if bacon isn't on the menu you are SOL as PA laws don't require that shop owners provide specific products as part of their business model - only that if such products are stocked or sold to the public that customers can't be refused for certain reasons such as race, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation or national origin.

But you would know that if you understood what Public Accommodation laws actually do instead of just trying to throw shit around the internet.


.>>>>