Within a few short years, homosexuals have gone from persecuted to persecutors...

[LittleNipper]

He baked them cakes several times. That is what bakers do.

Now your getting it. The baker sold wedding cakes, he refused full and equal treatment.

If this gay individual went to a photographer and demand he photograph him nude, would the photographer be discriminating because he had photographed women nude in his career?

Yes.

If the photographer only shot women nudes but not male, he'd be in vilation of the sex provisions of the law.

It’s about art. Nothing more.

It's about providing full and equal services (as specifically required by the law).



>>>>

The "law" is illegal, by forcing people to do that which they do not believe is proper. Kind of like insisting a homosexual must date women as well as men or he'd be discriminating. Discrimination is against the law therefore homosexuals are discriminating. On the other-hand heterosexuals are grandfathered in because they never dated or married anyone of the same sex for thousands of years.

So, you must start dating people of the opposite sex or you are discriminating --- I'm just applying your and liberal logic). It's about providing equal dating services.

Now, I know this is all bogus, but I know of no one who will die unless they eat wedding cake or have their photo taken or can sleep anywhere they choose. Hospitals are one thing. And I know of no church that would prevent an avowed homosexual from coming in for worship (they may not like what they will hear, but that is beside the point).

 

[WorldWatcher]

The "law" is illegal, by forcing people to do that which they do not believe is proper. Kind of like insisting a homosexual must date women as well as men or he'd be discriminating. Discrimination is against the law therefore homosexuals are discriminating. On the other-hand heterosexuals are grandfathered in because they never dated or married anyone of the same sex for thousands of years.

So, you must start dating people of the opposite sex or you are discriminating --- I'm just applying your and liberal logic). It's about providing equal dating services.

First of all let me start out by repeating. I feel public accommodation laws, as applied to private business entities, should be repeated and business owners allowed to discriminate for any reason they want INCLUDING race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, veterans status and pirates with a parrot on their shoulder going "Aaarrrggg, matey!". PA laws should apply ONLY to government entities and limit the ability of those entities to purchase goods/services and enter into contracts with entities that operate under a discriminatory business model.

With that said, discussing our the law works and my opinion of the law are two different things. Public accommodation laws have been upheld as constitutional both at the federal level under the Commerce Clause (Federal) and the States power to regulate intrastate commerce (10th Amendment).

To say they are "illegal" as a general principal is to show a lack of understanding about the history of PA laws and the challenges that have already been made.



>>>>

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The "law" is illegal, by forcing people to do that which they do not believe is proper. Kind of like insisting a homosexual must date women as well as men or he'd be discriminating. Discrimination is against the law therefore homosexuals are discriminating. On the other-hand heterosexuals are grandfathered in because they never dated or married anyone of the same sex for thousands of years.

So, you must start dating people of the opposite sex or you are discriminating --- I'm just applying your and liberal logic). It's about providing equal dating services.

I don't recall where, but somewhere I saw that someone was trying seriously to make the claim that a man is illegally discriminating if he declines to date “transwomen” (that is, mentally-ill men who think that they are women).

 

[Montrovant]

He baked them cakes several times. That is what bakers do.

Now your getting it. The baker sold wedding cakes, he refused full and equal treatment.

If this gay individual went to a photographer and demand he photograph him nude, would the photographer be discriminating because he had photographed women nude in his career?

Yes.

If the photographer only shot women nudes but not male, he'd be in vilation of the sex provisions of the law.

It’s about art. Nothing more.

It's about providing full and equal services (as specifically required by the law).



>>>>

The "law" is illegal, by forcing people to do that which they do not believe is proper. Kind of like insisting a homosexual must date women as well as men or he'd be discriminating. Discrimination is against the law therefore homosexuals are discriminating. On the other-hand heterosexuals are grandfathered in because they never dated or married anyone of the same sex for thousands of years.

So, you must start dating people of the opposite sex or you are discriminating --- I'm just applying your and liberal logic). It's about providing equal dating services.

Now, I know this is all bogus, but I know of no one who will die unless they eat wedding cake or have their photo taken or can sleep anywhere they choose. Hospitals are one thing. And I know of no church that would prevent an avowed homosexual from coming in for worship (they may not like what they will hear, but that is beside the point).

That's a pretty terrible analogy. A closer one would be if a dating service refused to allow homosexuals to use the service. All discrimination is not against the law, and the case in question is not simply about one person discriminating against another, but is about whether a business open to the public discriminated against a protected class (and, to some extent, about whether creating a wedding cake is considered a form of protected speech).

I would imagine that most, if not all, laws force someone to "do that which they do not believe is proper" in the right circumstances. If everyone agreed on what the proper thing is to do, laws would not be necessary.

I'm pretty sure that whether or not someone may die is irrelevant to public accommodation laws.

 

[Syriusly]

Isn't it interesting that Conservatives are suddenly arguing that Wedding Cakes are art and protected by the First Amendment- while just a few years ago were arguing that Pornography was not art- and was not protected by the First Amendment?

Isn't it interesting that LIbErals only care about protecting “artistic freedom” under the First Amendment when it pertains to disgusting, degrading, immoral expressions, such as pornography?

Anywhere that matters of good versus evil, morality versus immorality, are involved with political controversy, it is those of you on the left wrong than can reliably be found standing on the side of evil and immorality.

Anywhere that matters of good versus evil, morality versus immorality, are involved with political controversy, it is you Bob Blaylock than can reliably be found standing on the side of evil and immorality

 

[Syriusly]

He baked them cakes several times. That is what bakers do.

Now your getting it. The baker sold wedding cakes, he refused full and equal treatment.

If this gay individual went to a photographer and demand he photograph him nude, would the photographer be discriminating because he had photographed women nude in his career?

Yes.

If the photographer only shot women nudes but not male, he'd be in vilation of the sex provisions of the law.

It’s about art. Nothing more.

It's about providing full and equal services (as specifically required by the law).



>>>>

And I know of no church that would prevent an avowed homosexual from coming in for worship (they may not like what they will hear, but that is beside the point).

The funny thing is that churches can- and do discriminate- as they wish. There is no law that says a church has to 'accommodate' anyone.

And yes- there are churches that quite openly reject homosexuals

Watermark church dismissed me for being gay | Commentary | Dallas News

 

[Pop23]

If this gay individual went to a photographer and demand he photograph him nude, would the photographer be discriminating because he had photographed women nude in his career?

Yes.

If the photographer only shot women nudes but not male, he'd be in vilation [sic] of the sex provisions of the law.

So far, this thread has been about a more specific principle, of an artist being compelled to produce art celebrating something which he finds immoral. That we, as a a society, would even consider the possibility that government force might be applied to that end is disturbing enough.

Your remarks suggest a broader version of this, that the discretion as to what art an artist will or will not produce belongs, not to that artist, but to government—that it is government that has the power to dictate what an artist will or will not express, with the artist being allowed little or no say in the matter.

It seems to be that such a concept is completely irreconcilable with the freedom of expression affirmed in the First Amendment. Further, it renders any artist's work meaningless, if that work is not an expression of the artist's own will.

It’s about art. Nothing more.

It's about providing full and equal services (as specifically required by the law).

The First Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it is the highest law in this nation, and takes precedence over all lesser laws and litigative actions.

You really cannot retain any credibility in paying lip service to the rule of law, while at the same time advocating that the First Amendment be violated in order to uphold lesser laws. Yours is a position of abject lawlessness, thinly masquerading as lawfulness.

Well said. Art is the most cherished of all speech. To have the government dictate what an artist must produce lays all speech at the foot of government.

Now those who once claimed fascist oppression, have become the fascist.

And in only a few years.

Here’s to the New reality.

 

[Pop23]

Isn't it interesting that Conservatives are suddenly arguing that Wedding Cakes are art and protected by the First Amendment- while just a few years ago were arguing that Pornography was not art- and was not protected by the First Amendment?

Isn't it interesting that LIbErals only care about protecting “artistic freedom” under the First Amendment when it pertains to disgusting, degrading, immoral expressions, such as pornography?

Anywhere that matters of good versus evil, morality versus immorality, are involved with political controversy, it is those of you on the left wrong than can reliably be found standing on the side of evil and immorality.

Anywhere that matters of good versus evil, morality versus immorality, are involved with political controversy, it is you Bob Blaylock than can reliably be found standing on the side of evil and immorality

And you?

Nazi’s don’t make good preachers. How many artists have you threatened today?

 

[Pop23]

So then he must decorate a cake with nazi designs.

Nice world you created

Nazi's are not covered under Colorado's Public Accommodation laws, just like Bakeries in Michigan are not required to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples if it is a good or service normally provided. See, Michigan does not include sexual orientation under it's State Public Accommodation law.

And not I didn't create PA laws. I support their repeal to allow private businesses to discriminate based on any criteria they choose and let the market handle it.

But see, I understand their is a difference between the way the law is and the way I think it should be.


>>>>

Art as a product? You got to love the extremes you folks go to.

Part of the arguments the USSC heard were about whether the wedding cakes in question are a form of art which expresses a message, or more of a utilitarian item. One of the lawyers for the baker was arguing that his cakes are custom-made and a form of expression which should be protected. Several of the justices questioned whether that sort of categorization would then lead to many other types of services being denied; make-up artists, chefs, florists, and some others were brought up.

It's an interesting question: does a wedding cake, absent any sort of text, constitute a piece of art which is identified with the artist, or is it simply a food item? My first reaction is that the court will find that the cake is not a strong enough expression of art to be considered speech, but it's only a guess. The justices seemed to be looking at the issue in terms of its possible effect as precedent.

The cake is simply a canvas as can be many other things art can be applied upon.

That’s not up to interpretation

 

[Syriusly]

Isn't it interesting that Conservatives are suddenly arguing that Wedding Cakes are art and protected by the First Amendment- while just a few years ago were arguing that Pornography was not art- and was not protected by the First Amendment?

Isn't it interesting that LIbErals only care about protecting “artistic freedom” under the First Amendment when it pertains to disgusting, degrading, immoral expressions, such as pornography?

Anywhere that matters of good versus evil, morality versus immorality, are involved with political controversy, it is those of you on the left wrong than can reliably be found standing on the side of evil and immorality.

Anywhere that matters of good versus evil, morality versus immorality, are involved with political controversy, it is you Bob Blaylock than can reliably be found standing on the side of evil and immorality

And you?

Nazi’s don’t make good preachers. How many artists have you threatened today?

Damn you sure do know a lot of Nazi's.

Unlike the homophobic bigots- I don't threaten or persecute anyone.

You know- unlike the 200 years of Christian persecution- actual persecution- of gay Americans acting just like your Nazi buddies.

 

[Syriusly]

So then he must decorate a cake with nazi designs.

Nice world you created

Nazi's are not covered under Colorado's Public Accommodation laws, just like Bakeries in Michigan are not required to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples if it is a good or service normally provided. See, Michigan does not include sexual orientation under it's State Public Accommodation law.

And not I didn't create PA laws. I support their repeal to allow private businesses to discriminate based on any criteria they choose and let the market handle it.

But see, I understand their is a difference between the way the law is and the way I think it should be.


>>>>

Art as a product? You got to love the extremes you folks go to.

Part of the arguments the USSC heard were about whether the wedding cakes in question are a form of art which expresses a message, or more of a utilitarian item. One of the lawyers for the baker was arguing that his cakes are custom-made and a form of expression which should be protected. Several of the justices questioned whether that sort of categorization would then lead to many other types of services being denied; make-up artists, chefs, florists, and some others were brought up.

It's an interesting question: does a wedding cake, absent any sort of text, constitute a piece of art which is identified with the artist, or is it simply a food item? My first reaction is that the court will find that the cake is not a strong enough expression of art to be considered speech, but it's only a guess. The justices seemed to be looking at the issue in terms of its possible effect as precedent.

The cake is simply a canvas as can be many other things art can be applied upon.

That’s not up to interpretation

Odd- because that is exactly what the Justice are doing- so yeah- it is up to interpretation. And the justices will be the ones doing the interpretation.

 

[Syriusly]

If this gay individual went to a photographer and demand he photograph him nude, would the photographer be discriminating because he had photographed women nude in his career?

Yes.

If the photographer only shot women nudes but not male, he'd be in vilation [sic] of the sex provisions of the law.

So far, this thread has been about a more specific principle, of an artist being compelled to produce art celebrating something which he finds immoral. That we, as a a society, would even consider the possibility that government force might be applied to that end is disturbing enough.

Your remarks suggest a broader version of this, that the discretion as to what art an artist will or will not produce belongs, not to that artist, but to government—that it is government that has the power to dictate what an artist will or will not express, with the artist being allowed little or no say in the matter.

It seems to be that such a concept is completely irreconcilable with the freedom of expression affirmed in the First Amendment. Further, it renders any artist's work meaningless, if that work is not an expression of the artist's own will.

It’s about art. Nothing more.

It's about providing full and equal services (as specifically required by the law).

The First Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it is the highest law in this nation, and takes precedence over all lesser laws and litigative actions.

You really cannot retain any credibility in paying lip service to the rule of law, while at the same time advocating that the First Amendment be violated in order to uphold lesser laws. Yours is a position of abject lawlessness, thinly masquerading as lawfulness.

Well said. Art is the most cherished of all speech. To have the government dictate what an artist must produce lays all speech at the foot of government.

Now those who once claimed fascist oppression, have become the fascist.

And in only a few years.

Here’s to the New reality.

LOL- for years Conservatives have attacked artists- and the arts- and their First Amendment Rights.

Suddenly they want to decorate a cake with the First Amendment- because its a Christian being asked to obey the same law that tells a Jew that he has to serve a cake to a Christian.

 

[Pop23]

If this gay individual went to a photographer and demand he photograph him nude, would the photographer be discriminating because he had photographed women nude in his career?

Yes.

If the photographer only shot women nudes but not male, he'd be in vilation [sic] of the sex provisions of the law.

So far, this thread has been about a more specific principle, of an artist being compelled to produce art celebrating something which he finds immoral. That we, as a a society, would even consider the possibility that government force might be applied to that end is disturbing enough.

Your remarks suggest a broader version of this, that the discretion as to what art an artist will or will not produce belongs, not to that artist, but to government—that it is government that has the power to dictate what an artist will or will not express, with the artist being allowed little or no say in the matter.

It seems to be that such a concept is completely irreconcilable with the freedom of expression affirmed in the First Amendment. Further, it renders any artist's work meaningless, if that work is not an expression of the artist's own will.

It’s about art. Nothing more.

It's about providing full and equal services (as specifically required by the law).

The First Amendment is the law. As part of the Constitution, it is the highest law in this nation, and takes precedence over all lesser laws and litigative actions.

You really cannot retain any credibility in paying lip service to the rule of law, while at the same time advocating that the First Amendment be violated in order to uphold lesser laws. Yours is a position of abject lawlessness, thinly masquerading as lawfulness.

Well said. Art is the most cherished of all speech. To have the government dictate what an artist must produce lays all speech at the foot of government.

Now those who once claimed fascist oppression, have become the fascist.

And in only a few years.

Here’s to the New reality.

LOL- for years Conservatives have attacked artists- and the arts- and their First Amendment Rights.

Suddenly they want to decorate a cake with the First Amendment- because its a Christian being asked to obey the same law that tells a Jew that he has to serve a cake to a Christian.

Odd, liberals defended the artists that you speak of, yet you attack this one.

The baker never refused to bake these goons a cake, in fact he had in the past. He refused to produce art.

So you are in the business now of telling artists what and how they must work?

I think I’ll pass.

 

[Pop23]

So then he must decorate a cake with nazi designs.

Nice world you created

Nazi's are not covered under Colorado's Public Accommodation laws, just like Bakeries in Michigan are not required to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples if it is a good or service normally provided. See, Michigan does not include sexual orientation under it's State Public Accommodation law.

And not I didn't create PA laws. I support their repeal to allow private businesses to discriminate based on any criteria they choose and let the market handle it.

But see, I understand their is a difference between the way the law is and the way I think it should be.


>>>>

Art as a product? You got to love the extremes you folks go to.

Part of the arguments the USSC heard were about whether the wedding cakes in question are a form of art which expresses a message, or more of a utilitarian item. One of the lawyers for the baker was arguing that his cakes are custom-made and a form of expression which should be protected. Several of the justices questioned whether that sort of categorization would then lead to many other types of services being denied; make-up artists, chefs, florists, and some others were brought up.

It's an interesting question: does a wedding cake, absent any sort of text, constitute a piece of art which is identified with the artist, or is it simply a food item? My first reaction is that the court will find that the cake is not a strong enough expression of art to be considered speech, but it's only a guess. The justices seemed to be looking at the issue in terms of its possible effect as precedent.

The cake is simply a canvas as can be many other things art can be applied upon.

That’s not up to interpretation

Odd- because that is exactly what the Justice are doing- so yeah- it is up to interpretation. And the justices will be the ones doing the interpretation.

When art becomes the province of the government, and not the artist, your wet dream of a fascist nation becomes reality.