Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Pop23]

Silhouette - re: the 'innate' business. Are you in favor of removing all the protected classes that aren't based on innate traits? (religion, citizenship, veteran status, gender etc... )

Being the devils advocate here.

There is only one of those on your list that isn't verifiable by either scientific test or documentation, and that one is protected by the Constitution.

 

[dblack]

Silhouette - re: the 'innate' business. Are you in favor of removing all the protected classes that aren't based on innate traits? (religion, citizenship, veteran status, gender etc... )

Being the devils advocate here.

There is only one of those on your list that isn't verifiable by either scientific test or documentation, and that one is protected by the Constitution.

Yeah. I'm not clear on the point of all the innate/immutable/whatever excuses. As far as religion goes, it's not protected from discrimination by other citizens. It's protected from preferential legislation. This is the classic liberal inversion of applying Constitutional limitation to citizens. It's not supposed to work that way. The Constitution is rules for government to follow. Not the rest of us.

 

[Silhouette]

. Are you in favor of removing all the protected classes that aren't based on innate traits? (religion, citizenship, veteran status, gender etc... )
.

I answered the question before. If race or gender are discriminated against, there is nothing a person can do about the very final and immutable way they were born. In the gender-fluid lifestyle camp however, it is behavioral and people cannot be forced to condone or promote a behavior they find wholly repugnant to their value system. That would be the state siding with one ideology over another. And the Court just warned Colorado about that.

I would not be in favor of removing any class; only establishing a logical means by which discrimination can be tested regarding the different classes. Innate cannot be helped so it is the purest of protected forms. Behavioral can be helped; but we have established that religious behavior has protections while mere lifestyles do not. I'm unware of a God that LGBT prays to or some unifying faith; although it can be argued they function as a semi-fluid cult that welcomes & even evangelizes (see my signature) initiates but despises defectors.

 

[Pop23]

Silhouette - re: the 'innate' business. Are you in favor of removing all the protected classes that aren't based on innate traits? (religion, citizenship, veteran status, gender etc... )

Being the devils advocate here.

There is only one of those on your list that isn't verifiable by either scientific test or documentation, and that one is protected by the Constitution.

Yeah. I'm not clear on the point of all the innate/immutable/whatever excuses. As far as religion goes, it's not protected from discrimination by other citizens. It's protected from preferential legislation. This is the classic liberal inversion of applying Constitutional limitation to citizens. It's not supposed to work that way. The Constitution is rules for government to follow. Not the rest of us.

Lets face reality in most of this. These are more likely to divide us than to unite us. Political footballs

 

[dblack]

Silhouette - re: the 'innate' business. Are you in favor of removing all the protected classes that aren't based on innate traits? (religion, citizenship, veteran status, gender etc... )

Being the devils advocate here.

There is only one of those on your list that isn't verifiable by either scientific test or documentation, and that one is protected by the Constitution.

Yeah. I'm not clear on the point of all the innate/immutable/whatever excuses. As far as religion goes, it's not protected from discrimination by other citizens. It's protected from preferential legislation. This is the classic liberal inversion of applying Constitutional limitation to citizens. It's not supposed to work that way. The Constitution is rules for government to follow. Not the rest of us.

Lets face reality in most of this. These are more likely to divide us than to unite us. Political footballs

Of course. The entire concept of PA laws is bad medicine. As you suggested, the impetus for these laws is understandable, particularly with the legacy of slavery. But the concept is flawed at its core and it's time to admit that.

 

[dblack]

but we have established that religious behavior has protections while mere lifestyles do not.

Took me awhile surfing through your word salad - but there's bullshit core of it, right there. The First Amendment does not require anything from, not impose any restrictions on, non-governmental entities. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.

 

[Pop23]

Silhouette - re: the 'innate' business. Are you in favor of removing all the protected classes that aren't based on innate traits? (religion, citizenship, veteran status, gender etc... )

Being the devils advocate here.

There is only one of those on your list that isn't verifiable by either scientific test or documentation, and that one is protected by the Constitution.

Yeah. I'm not clear on the point of all the innate/immutable/whatever excuses. As far as religion goes, it's not protected from discrimination by other citizens. It's protected from preferential legislation. This is the classic liberal inversion of applying Constitutional limitation to citizens. It's not supposed to work that way. The Constitution is rules for government to follow. Not the rest of us.

Lets face reality in most of this. These are more likely to divide us than to unite us. Political footballs

Of course. The entire concept of PA laws is bad medicine. As you suggested, the impetus for these laws is understandable, particularly with the legacy of slavery. But the concept is flawed at its core and it's time to admit that.

Bad law often ends poorly. The concept is flawed, in many of these as they rely on Boards who's make up are purely political. I actually think the SCOTUS ruling brought that to light. We all have a right to fair trial of our peers. These Boards will begin to be scrutinized and their members past opinions will be an integral part of this process from now on. It does not bode well for their existence in the first place

 

[Pop23]

but we have established that religious behavior has protections while mere lifestyles do not.

Took me awhile surfing through your word salad - but there's bullshit core of it, right there. The First Amendment does not require anything from, not impose any restrictions on, non-governmental entities. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.

Let me see if I'm reading you right. And please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Government is prohibited in denying the right of the citizen from freely excising their religious beliefs. Publicly, Privately or in Commerce.

Am I reading you correctly?

 

[Silhouette]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.

But the USSC did just say something about state-neutrality on questions of promoting or favoring one ideology over another. See my signature for details.

 

[dblack]

but we have established that religious behavior has protections while mere lifestyles do not.

Took me awhile surfing through your word salad - but there's bullshit core of it, right there. The First Amendment does not require anything from, not impose any restrictions on, non-governmental entities. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.

Let me see if I'm reading you right. And please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Government is prohibited in denying the right of the citizen from freely excising their religious beliefs. Publicly, Privately or in Commerce.

Am I reading you correctly?

That's how I read it, yes.

 

[dblack]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.

But the USSC did just say something about state-neutrality on questions of promoting or favoring one ideology over another. See my signature for details.

The USSC also endorsed ACA's individual mandate, along with, historically, many other bad decisions.

 

[Silhouette]

[


The USSC also endorsed ACA's individual mandate, along with, historically, many other bad decisions.

You mean like Obergefell? Even you have to admit that one of the Justices publicly declaring her bias for gay marriage just weeks before the Hearing is disallowable. That the Decision must be revisited therefore with Ginsburg recusing herself.

 

[Pop23]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.

But the USSC did just say something about state-neutrality on questions of promoting or favoring one ideology over another. See my signature for details.

Not to butt in, but I read your signature and my answer is, either both must be allowed, or neither.

We are making to many, non verifiable assumption in either case. There is no independent, scientific test that can independently verify one is either Christian or what Sexuality one is.

 

[Pop23]

but we have established that religious behavior has protections while mere lifestyles do not.

Took me awhile surfing through your word salad - but there's bullshit core of it, right there. The First Amendment does not require anything from, not impose any restrictions on, non-governmental entities. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.

Let me see if I'm reading you right. And please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Government is prohibited in denying the right of the citizen from freely excising their religious beliefs. Publicly, Privately or in Commerce.

Am I reading you correctly?

That's how I read it, yes.

Then the Board ruling itself is beyond the scope allowed in the 1st Amendment.

 

[task0778]

in some places there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment. Colorado appears to be one of those places.

Not just Colorado nor Christian by a long shot... but you do appear to cry about it far more than any other.

I just love personal attacks, it makes it so much easier to put somebody on Ignore. Bye.

 

[Silhouette]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.

But the USSC did just say something about state-neutrality on questions of promoting or favoring one ideology over another. See my signature for details.

Not to butt in, but I read your signature and my answer is, either both must be allowed, or neither.

We are making to many, non verifiable assumption in either case. There is no independent, scientific test that can independently verify one is either Christian or what Sexuality one is.

Butt in all you like. I do all the time. We're less about having conversations with each other than with the topic.

I agree. It must be both or neither. Which is why it's illegal for public schools to be removing any and all reference to faith ideologies while simultaneously forcing the children to associate deviant sex behaviors with a person's accomplishments as a required course. The Court if it said nothing else, said that a state must remain neutral with respect to ideological lifestyles. That is the opposite of what's going to happen in CA public schools this Fall unless someone steps in and puts a stop to it.

 

[dblack]

The USSC also endorsed ACA's individual mandate, along with, historically, many other bad decisions.

You mean like Obergefell? ...

No. I mean the USSC is sometimes wrong, and later corrected.

 

[Flopper]

Dimwit, it’s ok, people have a RIGHT to express opinion. Even those who’s opinion is different than yours.

Nah, really, Genius? Even lil ole me? Who'd a thunk it?

They can celebrate for what ever damn reason they want shit for brains.

Sure, but why would anyone want shit for brains?

G-Nuts is under the false impression that same sex means same sex, but only if gay.

Mr-Know-It-All remains under the false impression that, practically speaking, and at least here in the U.S., same sex doesn't mean gay.
Put another way: Genius here ,.. simply can't wrap his massive head around the concept that, though possible of course, and aside from his inability to provide a single, verifiable example thus far, the statistical probability of any couple here in the U.S.actually celebrating their decision to formally, publicly, and legally unite (marry) for reasons other than sex and romantic attraction to one another remains so vanishingly small as to render the entire line of argument feeble at best; desperate, ridiculous, way out of touch, and thoroughly ignorable in any case. Oh well. Poor guy.... Sure must suck to be him!

1. Of course you have a right to express an opinion, and it is my right to point out how wrong your opinion is. Even more so, it is equally the right of Heterosexual same sex couples to Marry as it is Homosexual same sex couples. That however is FACT and not opinion.

2. Still trying the "it's never happened" that a heterosexual same sex couple has never married gambit? Then he tries to legitimize something about a same sex heterosexual not celebrating the union because this union isn't predicated on romantic attraction?

Huh, G-Nuts has obviously not read the law. Where in the law (hows this for being secular G-Nuts?) is a romantic attraction a qualification for Marriage? And while you are at it, give us that link to the State Statute that tests the couple for Romantic attraction?

Are you seriously saying that Marriage is never and has never been solely between individuals uniting for financial benefit? Are you really that stupid? Marrying for Money or Power is as old as the institution itself, and yes, most of those have celebrated the union with a party. The institution may have changed, but the fact that Gold-diggers still exist has not.

And I would remind G-Nuts, that their is no less expensive way to convey property or money than a $50 marriage licence. Or a dying widowed Man who has a pension with survivors benefit? Marry your buddy without a pension, and he will live a better life because he simply signed a piece of paper.

Does it happen, neither G-Nuts or Pop23 could actually know now can we? Check out your marriage license applications. There is no line on them referencing sexuality now is there.

You want to also question why a same sex heterosexual couple would want to celebrate such a union. Well, I suppose if I were the recipient of the Property or the Pension, SURE AS SHIT I'D WANT TO THROW A PARTY!

And Wedding Cake? You mean that symbol that historically was broken over the head of the Bride and Groom to ensure fertility? Seems every bit as appropriate at a same sex hetero Marriage as it does a same sex homosexual Marriage, wouldn't you agree?

Then there is the point that G-Nuts questions the reasoning that a Heterosexual same sex couple would want to Marry in the first place? Those that question the reasoning a Homosexual couple would even want to Marry were called Homophobes. What kind of Phobe are you G-Nuts? Must be some kind, right?

I know a couple, two women in their 40's who both have kids and live together and plan to marry. They certainly have a close relationship but I doubt they are homosexual, possible bisexual would be a better label. There're a lot advantages to marriage over just living together such as:

• Joint tax filings
• Spouse inherits their partners estate.
• Married partners are allowed to make important medical decisions for their spouses.
• Some employers provide family benefits exclusively to families.
• Spouses can make final arrangements in case of death.
• The divorce process helps to ensure a fair division of assets and resolution of custody disputes when a married couple separates.
• Married couples can apply for family rates for health insurance plans.
• The government can't force married spouses to disclose confidential information privately discussed during a marriage.
• Married spouses have visiting rights in jails, prisons, hospitals, and other places that provide visiting rights only to immediate family.
• If the couple has kids, the marriage provides a more stable environment than just living together which is important when you're raising youngsters.

Regardless of sexual orientation of a couple, if they have a close permanent personal relationship, marriage is likely a better option than just living together.
Marriage provides many benefits to same-sex couples

 

[Pop23]

Dimwit, it’s ok, people have a RIGHT to express opinion. Even those who’s opinion is different than yours.

Nah, really, Genius? Even lil ole me? Who'd a thunk it?

They can celebrate for what ever damn reason they want shit for brains.

Sure, but why would anyone want shit for brains?

G-Nuts is under the false impression that same sex means same sex, but only if gay.

Mr-Know-It-All remains under the false impression that, practically speaking, and at least here in the U.S., same sex doesn't mean gay.
Put another way: Genius here ,.. simply can't wrap his massive head around the concept that, though possible of course, and aside from his inability to provide a single, verifiable example thus far, the statistical probability of any couple here in the U.S.actually celebrating their decision to formally, publicly, and legally unite (marry) for reasons other than sex and romantic attraction to one another remains so vanishingly small as to render the entire line of argument feeble at best; desperate, ridiculous, way out of touch, and thoroughly ignorable in any case. Oh well. Poor guy.... Sure must suck to be him!

1. Of course you have a right to express an opinion, and it is my right to point out how wrong your opinion is. Even more so, it is equally the right of Heterosexual same sex couples to Marry as it is Homosexual same sex couples. That however is FACT and not opinion.

2. Still trying the "it's never happened" that a heterosexual same sex couple has never married gambit? Then he tries to legitimize something about a same sex heterosexual not celebrating the union because this union isn't predicated on romantic attraction?

Huh, G-Nuts has obviously not read the law. Where in the law (hows this for being secular G-Nuts?) is a romantic attraction a qualification for Marriage? And while you are at it, give us that link to the State Statute that tests the couple for Romantic attraction?

Are you seriously saying that Marriage is never and has never been solely between individuals uniting for financial benefit? Are you really that stupid? Marrying for Money or Power is as old as the institution itself, and yes, most of those have celebrated the union with a party. The institution may have changed, but the fact that Gold-diggers still exist has not.

And I would remind G-Nuts, that their is no less expensive way to convey property or money than a $50 marriage licence. Or a dying widowed Man who has a pension with survivors benefit? Marry your buddy without a pension, and he will live a better life because he simply signed a piece of paper.

Does it happen, neither G-Nuts or Pop23 could actually know now can we? Check out your marriage license applications. There is no line on them referencing sexuality now is there.

You want to also question why a same sex heterosexual couple would want to celebrate such a union. Well, I suppose if I were the recipient of the Property or the Pension, SURE AS SHIT I'D WANT TO THROW A PARTY!

And Wedding Cake? You mean that symbol that historically was broken over the head of the Bride and Groom to ensure fertility? Seems every bit as appropriate at a same sex hetero Marriage as it does a same sex homosexual Marriage, wouldn't you agree?

Then there is the point that G-Nuts questions the reasoning that a Heterosexual same sex couple would want to Marry in the first place? Those that question the reasoning a Homosexual couple would even want to Marry were called Homophobes. What kind of Phobe are you G-Nuts? Must be some kind, right?

I know a couple, two women in their 40's who both have kids and live together and plan to marry. They certainly have a close relationship but I doubt they are homosexual, possible bisexual would be a better label. There're a lot advantages to marriage over just living together such as:

• Joint tax filings
• Spouse inherits their partners estate.
• Married partners are allowed to make important medical decisions for their spouses.
• Some employers provide family benefits exclusively to families.
• Spouses can make final arrangements in case of death.
• The divorce process helps to ensure a fair division of assets and resolution of custody disputes when a married couple separates.
• Married couples can apply for family rates for health insurance plans.
• The government can't force married spouses to disclose confidential information privately discussed during a marriage.
• Married spouses have visiting rights in jails, prisons, hospitals, and other places that provide visiting rights only to immediate family.
• If the couple has kids, the marriage provides a more stable environment than just living together which is important when you're raising youngsters.

Regardless of sexual orientation of a couple, if they have a close permanent personal relationship, marriage is likely a better option than just living together.
Marriage provides many benefits to same-sex couples

ABSOLUTELY!

It's a practical solution for many, like these women, to complicated problems. And all for a price of roughly $50!

I've made the above case many times. And even if we change your preamble just slightly, making both of these women Heterosexual and not Bi-sexual, under the current law, these Marriages are legal.

Do yo agree?

 

[Flopper]

but we have established that religious behavior has protections while mere lifestyles do not.

Took me awhile surfing through your word salad - but there's bullshit core of it, right there. The First Amendment does not require anything from, not impose any restrictions on, non-governmental entities. It says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That's it. Nothing about discrimination by other citizens or business.

The free exercise clause which you are quoting has not been interpreted consistently by the Supreme Court so there is plenty of room for debate. The question to be answered is when does the actions of the state constitute, prohibiting the free exercise of religion. When the state passed a law requiring employees to be available to work 7 days a week, the law clearly violated the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment.

However, in the case of the Colorado baker, the question is does making a wedding cake for a gay wedding constitute a violation of his right of free exercise of his religion or does it just violate his personal beliefs and opinions. That's a tough call for a court because the decision rests on exactly what the person's religion teaches and whether the baker's action would prohibit exercising his religion.

As I understand the issue, the bakers religion forbids homosexual acts. So does providing a wedding cake for a gay wedding facilitate a homosexual act or is it just incidental to act?