jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

So, in other words, none of what you wrote prior as your rationale for disagreement (e.g., saying "everyone is a bigot" or calling people a "racist or a bigot or a leftie or a fascist") actually applied. Glad we cleared that up. More reason not to take you seriously.

CC's feelings are just hurt, or he's the self-appointed morality police for people whose feelings get hurt or minimized when they say ridiculous things. It's impossible to argue logically with a good 5 ideologues on here. How do you feel about people who continually claim things about others that aren't true? Or do your elevated standards only apply to not calling someone Mr Poopy Pants? If you have such high-minded motivations, what do you think about someone who repeatedly says that they're here to watch chaos, while enjoying every minute of it? A person who says from time to time he made something up or doesn't believe what he posted?

Others are perfectly capable of deciding whether they want to take me "seriously," thank you. But keep on speaking for them, Sheriff CC. You're debating style, not logic.

Amazing. Where do you come up with this stuff? I'm not sure what book about me your're studying but you need to put it down.

I've never claimed to be correct or morally superior, have high-minded opinions or the gatekeeper of anything. I staunchly argue the moderate opinions I have. You keep assuming that and bringing that up. I don't know why. You're the only one who constantly brings that up. Nobody should believe or take anything anyone says on the internet seriously. This is internet 101.

Yeah, I enjoy the back and forth and the inanity of some posters. There are about a thousand other people on these forums that do too. Its why many people participate- for the absurdity sometimes, for the entertainment sometimes, for the knowledge sometimes. This is what the off topic forum is for. If I were here to cause trouble for trouble's sake I'd be posting incorrect information in Civil Av or giving bad advice in the photog forum. You're the only one who's insulting people in those forums. I never have.

Seb and I have extremely heated discussions and we both think each other is insane at times but we are having a good time- we have the ability to do that. Do I enjoy watching the same users lose their mind over and over? Absolutely. I also enjoy debating with some about things we both feel passionately about. I can do that without feeling personally slighted or misunderstood. Its not that big of a deal, man. We're aviation nerds here.

Just because someone isn't using or participating in the forums exactly like you want them to doesn't make them "insane" or "a sheriff." Don't read into it too much or take things so seriously. Its all fun!!

So in other words it's OK to be full of sh*t

Took me long enough but I'm getting on the 2122M highway

That's totally fine. You do you.

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

It was a win for the cake shop. They won the case. They didn't sell the cake to the gay couple.

Doesn't matter what the future holds. The cake shop won the case and they didn't have to serve those who they didn't want to.

Is it really? 100 people claim victory but 100,000 who refuse to give them business so that bakery no longer exists. Is that really a victory for the elitists and evangelicals? If they do not have money or a business?

I don't care about the baker or his store. He should go out of business for being a jerk and a bigot. So should all the other businesses that behave in a racist, sexist, bigoted, whatever way. But it should be their right to do that. I always side on the side of more personal freedom. Every time. Doesn't mean i'm a racist, or homophobic. It applies to everyone across the board equally. Same reason I fought for and supported gay marriage and the bathroom issue- its a person's personal choice to do whatever they want to do.

I care about the right of a person to be free to do what they want. There's no physical harm to the customer. There's no financial harm to the customer. Let that business owner be a terrible person. Go to a business that wants you (99.9% of businesses).

Saying everyone who opposes this is a gay-hating bigot it typical discourse in America these days. Once again there's only two polarized sides. I support BOTH parties...the right of the gay couple to get married and have a wedding AND the right of the store owner to refuse service.

There are only two sides to this issue and, in the end, you side with the couple and not the bakers. I totally agree to let bigots and narrow minded people dig their own holes. And there was harm done to the couple. For the bakers to say "my personal beliefs outrank and outweigh you" is hurtful. Has that ever happened to you? Someone saying "I am more important than you because..." and push you aside? It hurts like hell.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Is it really? 100 people claim victory but 100,000 who refuse to give them business so that bakery no longer exists. Is that really a victory for the elitists and evangelicals? If they do not have money or a business?

I don't care about the baker or his store. He should go out of business for being a jerk and a bigot. So should all the other businesses that behave in a racist, sexist, bigoted, whatever way. But it should be their right to do that. I always side on the side of more personal freedom. Every time. Doesn't mean i'm a racist, or homophobic. It applies to everyone across the board equally. Same reason I fought for and supported gay marriage and the bathroom issue- its a person's personal choice to do whatever they want to do.

I care about the right of a person to be free to do what they want. There's no physical harm to the customer. There's no financial harm to the customer. Let that business owner be a terrible person. Go to a business that wants you (99.9% of businesses).

Saying everyone who opposes this is a gay-hating bigot it typical discourse in America these days. Once again there's only two polarized sides. I support BOTH parties...the right of the gay couple to get married and have a wedding AND the right of the store owner to refuse service.

There are only two sides to this issue and, in the end, you side with the couple and not the bakers. I totally agree to let bigots and narrow minded people dig their own holes. And there was harm done to the couple. For the bakers to say "my personal beliefs outrank and outweigh you" is hurtful. Has that ever happened to you? Someone saying "I am more important than you because..." and push you aside? It hurts like hell.

I side with the couple in regards its the moral and ethical and nice thing to do. Legally I side with the bakers.

I think we've all been hurt at some point about something. Maybe a spouse was unfaithful or a person was made fun of because of their weight. That doesn't mean we should legislate against those things, should we? I get that it could be considered a "hate crime" but that's for another day. I'm sure it was a deeply offensive thing to experience but things like that happen in life. Was it harmful to them? Emotionally yes but not harmful in the way beating them up or burning their house down would be. We can't legislate hurt feelings. What we can do is be the better person and patronize a business or create a business that is better and more open than that business. We can talk to people who think like that and show them everyone is human. Taking them to court and ruining them financially is only going to drive their hatred and bigotry deeper. They're going to think "see, these people bla bla bla."

Just my opinion.

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

I don't care about the baker or his store. He should go out of business for being a jerk and a bigot. So should all the other businesses that behave in a racist, sexist, bigoted, whatever way. But it should be their right to do that. I always side on the side of more personal freedom. Every time. Doesn't mean i'm a racist, or homophobic. It applies to everyone across the board equally. Same reason I fought for and supported gay marriage and the bathroom issue- its a person's personal choice to do whatever they want to do.

I care about the right of a person to be free to do what they want. There's no physical harm to the customer. There's no financial harm to the customer. Let that business owner be a terrible person. Go to a business that wants you (99.9% of businesses).

Saying everyone who opposes this is a gay-hating bigot it typical discourse in America these days. Once again there's only two polarized sides. I support BOTH parties...the right of the gay couple to get married and have a wedding AND the right of the store owner to refuse service.

There are only two sides to this issue and, in the end, you side with the couple and not the bakers. I totally agree to let bigots and narrow minded people dig their own holes. And there was harm done to the couple. For the bakers to say "my personal beliefs outrank and outweigh you" is hurtful. Has that ever happened to you? Someone saying "I am more important than you because..." and push you aside? It hurts like hell.

I side with the couple in regards its the moral and ethical and nice thing to do. Legally I side with the bakers.

I think we've all been hurt at some point about something. Maybe a spouse was unfaithful or a person was made fun of because of their weight. That doesn't mean we should legislate against those things, should we? I get that it could be considered a "hate crime" but that's for another day. I'm sure it was a deeply offensive thing to experience but things like that happen in life. Was it harmful to them? Emotionally yes but not harmful in the way beating them up or burning their house down would be. We can't legislate hurt feelings. What we can do is be the better person and patronize a business or create a business that is better and more open than that business. We can talk to people who think like that and show them everyone is human. Taking them to court and ruining them financially is only going to drive their hatred and bigotry deeper. They're going to think "see, these people bla bla bla."

Just my opinion.

One person bullying another or a couple splitting up is apples and oranges to this case. This case is "you do not deserve my service because my moral code outweighs that of a group of Americans." If a shop offers services in exchange for membership fees, that is one thing. But, if anyone can just wander in off the street, plunk down cash, and say "I want to order your service" they should not be able to discriminate.

Besides, as has been discussed as nauseum, there are plenty of ways to deny service without being a jerk about it. Things like "We are booked for two solid weeks and we can not possibly take on any more work for that time period" or "we have a previously scheduled family event for then so we can not." If they just leave it at that, there would be no problem. But, knowing evangelicals, they would take to social media and start crying about the mean old gays who came in and wanted their service so they were forced to lie to get out of it. That opens a whole other can of worms....

seb146 wrote:

So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.

I would support your right to do so. There is no right in the Constitution to force another to provide a service. But why are so in favor of legislating away freedom? Do you really want to live enslaved to law?

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.

I would support your right to do so. There is no right in the Constitution to force another to provide a service. But why are so in favor of legislating away freedom? Do you really want to live enslaved to law?

I want to think that you support such because you do not understand that you are supporting the right of a majority to overwhelm and crush out of existence businesses or people "the majority" disagree with.

It's cute that someone who is professed as gay says it's awesome that this means he can discriminate against someone who is Christian and thinks his existence is reprehensible, and you then think that is A-OK. But that is just trying to make a point, not a good point or way to build a nation and society. It is a way to subjugate others, those in the minority, is this what you support?

The reason it is wrong to be able to categorically exclude people from a business is the same for both sides: It destroys society, it damages a fair process for justice. It is not OK to solely exclude you because you are Jewish or Christian or agnostic just as it is not OK to wholly exclude people who are gay or transgender or black or Chinese etc. It is wrong to attack and exclude others if they are law abiding and not dangerous or outside if the service or business you provide.

I know there are some odd lines being looked at with the sale of wedding cakes etc. and what is "art" versus what is "product" versus free speech versus freedom of association (or whatever, I am not trying to make a argument on this point) and they are being properly tested and tried in the court of law and public opinion. But it is the rule of law that we as society have that will be applied and discussed through time to ensure fairness is achieved as much as it can be in an imperfect human society.

Tugg

jetero wrote:

Flighty wrote:

jetero wrote:

Should a Palestinian doctor be required to deliver a Israeli baby?

Yes. But they should not be required to praise the event in speech or writing. That is Orwellian. (Whatever this ruling said or didn’t say.)

Boy do you have a strange view of core services. Shoe shiners and doctors required to "praise" you after they shine your shoes or deliver your baby.

An Orwellian dystopia, if you're so interested, one full of propaganda and misinformation. Those things to me are pretty synonymous with this sort of mindless right-wing populism.

Did baker bake cakes for non-Christian couples (or people who didn't get married in church by an ordained minister, or people who otherwise violated his view of Christianity) "praising them" by writing, "Congrats John and Jane on your wedding"?

If so, I'd say he's good. If not, I'd say it's a pretty flimsy standard as far as general rules for public accommodation goes. The defense essentially agreed, never holding that it was his right to refuse service but rather that baking a cake is artistic expression. That's a bit off to me as well, but, I'm one of those crazy whack-job "leftists."

But this particular question remains unsettled. Calculated restraint by the Supreme Court in this regard, including Justices Kagan and Breyer joining in the decision, was probably the best way to go.

It is Orwellian in the sense that compelled speech is not speech at all. It is the government ventriloquizing on real people like this Amber who didn’t want to say congratulations on your gay wedding.

Not only artists and religious people have this right; everyone does under the first amendment. Now do we have the right to refuse restaurant service on a prohibited basis, no.

Duplicate

Flighty wrote:

jetero wrote:

Boy do you have a strange view of core services. Shoe shiners and doctors required to "praise" you after they shine your shoes or deliver your baby.

An Orwellian dystopia, if you're so interested, one full of propaganda and misinformation. Those things to me are pretty synonymous with this sort of mindless right-wing populism.

Did baker bake cakes for non-Christian couples (or people who didn't get married in church by an ordained minister, or people who otherwise violated his view of Christianity) "praising them" by writing, "Congrats John and Jane on your wedding"?

If so, I'd say he's good. If not, I'd say it's a pretty flimsy standard as far as general rules for public accommodation goes. The defense essentially agreed, never holding that it was his right to refuse service but rather that baking a cake is artistic expression. That's a bit off to me as well, but, I'm one of those crazy whack-job "leftists."

But this particular question remains unsettled. Calculated restraint by the Supreme Court in this regard, including Justices Kagan and Breyer joining in the decision, was probably the best way to go.

It is Orwellian in the sense that compelled speech is not speech at all. It is the government ventriloquizing on real people like this Amber who didn’t want to say congratulations on your gay wedding.

Not only artists and religious people have this right; everyone does under the first amendment. Now do we have the right to refuse restaurant service on a prohibited basis, no.

Flighty for the umpteenth time I agree that there is a rationale for your conclusion if you believe caking is a form of art. Arguments have been made to the contrary that you have conveniently chosen to ignore.

For the avoidance of doubt, a.net community, let the record show here for the sake of posterity that Flighty McA.Net Member thinks putting icing on a cake in a style imitating countless cakes that have been done before is an artistic expression and that forcing someone to put “Congrats on your nuptials” on it is Orwellian compelled speech.

Finally, let the record show that Flighty McA.Net’s opinion of the case was not the same as the Supreme Court’s yesterday (nor did that opinion negate such an opinion).

Happy Flighty?

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So it will be Constitutional when I refuse service to someone based only on their Christianity. Cool.

I would support your right to do so. There is no right in the Constitution to force another to provide a service. But why are so in favor of legislating away freedom? Do you really want to live enslaved to law?

That's what this fight is about. If heteros can celebrate their third, fourth, fifth, etc. marriage but not bake a cake for a gay couple because "religion" then turnabout is fair play. Use their own logic against them. If they don't like it, they should not have picked a fight they know they will lose.

I am not sure if I have said this before but evangelicals are going to be the loudest bunch of whiners and first in line at law offices and courts if they are denied anything based on their religion but they will damn well be the first to deny everything they can to anyone else based on their own beliefs and whine and litigate until they get their way. Evangelicals just want to subjugate and control others. They need to know what it is like so they don't do it again. A simple SCOTUS ruling will not do anything. Why do you think we are so passionate about our beliefs? Not because we have been in control for centuries, that's for sure!

seb146 wrote:

That's what this fight is about. If heteros can celebrate their third, fourth, fifth, etc. marriage but not bake a cake for a gay couple because "religion" then turnabout is fair play. Use their own logic against them. If they don't like it, they should not have picked a fight they know they will lose.

I am not sure if I have said this before but evangelicals are going to be the loudest bunch of whiners and first in line at law offices and courts if they are denied anything based on their religion but they will damn well be the first to deny everything they can to anyone else based on their own beliefs and whine and litigate until they get their way. Evangelicals just want to subjugate and control others. They need to know what it is like so they don't do it again. A simple SCOTUS ruling will not do anything. Why do you think we are so passionate about our beliefs? Not because we have been in control for centuries, that's for sure!

So it sounds like you really don't have an issue with the law. Your problem doesn't appear to be the actual act of denying a service or transaction. Instead your issue appears to be your intense dislike of a group of people. How ironic.

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

That's what this fight is about. If heteros can celebrate their third, fourth, fifth, etc. marriage but not bake a cake for a gay couple because "religion" then turnabout is fair play. Use their own logic against them. If they don't like it, they should not have picked a fight they know they will lose.

I am not sure if I have said this before but evangelicals are going to be the loudest bunch of whiners and first in line at law offices and courts if they are denied anything based on their religion but they will damn well be the first to deny everything they can to anyone else based on their own beliefs and whine and litigate until they get their way. Evangelicals just want to subjugate and control others. They need to know what it is like so they don't do it again. A simple SCOTUS ruling will not do anything. Why do you think we are so passionate about our beliefs? Not because we have been in control for centuries, that's for sure!

So it sounds like you really don't have an issue with the law. Your problem doesn't appear to be the actual act of denying a service or transaction. Instead your issue appears to be your intense dislike of a group of people. How ironic.

Here is what you evangelical righties don't get:

You all have never been denied anything.

LGBTQ have been denied employment, marriage, housing. Blacks have been denied employment, marriage, housing, voting. Women have been denied employment, marriage, housing, voting. White, Christian, heterosexual men have been denied NONE of those things. They were the ones who did the denying. They feel slighted and need to be included. They play victim because everyone else was so they need to be. So, why not give them the full ride?

MSPNWA wrote:

seb146 wrote:

That's what this fight is about. If heteros can celebrate their third, fourth, fifth, etc. marriage but not bake a cake for a gay couple because "religion" then turnabout is fair play. Use their own logic against them. If they don't like it, they should not have picked a fight they know they will lose.

I am not sure if I have said this before but evangelicals are going to be the loudest bunch of whiners and first in line at law offices and courts if they are denied anything based on their religion but they will damn well be the first to deny everything they can to anyone else based on their own beliefs and whine and litigate until they get their way. Evangelicals just want to subjugate and control others. They need to know what it is like so they don't do it again. A simple SCOTUS ruling will not do anything. Why do you think we are so passionate about our beliefs? Not because we have been in control for centuries, that's for sure!

So it sounds like you really don't have an issue with the law. Your problem doesn't appear to be the actual act of denying a service or transaction. Instead your issue appears to be your intense dislike of a group of people. How ironic.

Hatred all around! All over a cake, well, and frosting! And people thinking they know enough to speak for God on the whole cake-frosting issue. Totally in the spirit of washing the feet of the poor and hanging out with the other “outcasts.” Sounds fine by me.

I’ll pray for you, buddy. Keep on keeping on with your whole persecution fantasy.

Gorsuch made some good points about the freedom of religion being a very high value.

seahawk wrote:

Gorsuch made some good points about the freedom of religion being a very high value.

Your point? What did you think about the dissents?

Or was there yet again no real purpose to your post?

jetero wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Gorsuch made some good points about the freedom of religion being a very high value.

Your point? What did you think about the dissents?

Or was there yet again no real purpose to your post?

I think Gorusch is right. Religious freedom is mire important than anti-discrimination rules.

Apart from that you would not believe it anyway, if I say that this remarks show where the US is headed if Trump gets to select more supreme court judges.

Neil Gorsuch:

... “the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”

seahawk wrote:

jetero wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Gorsuch made some good points about the freedom of religion being a very high value.

Your point? What did you think about the dissents?

Or was there yet again no real purpose to your post?

I think Gorusch is right. Religious freedom is mire important than anti-discrimination rules.

Apart from that you would not believe it anyway, if I say that this remarks show where the US is headed if Trump gets to select more supreme court judges.

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How the hell is Christianity above this????? The government can not establish laws putting one religion above another.

So, as I have said before, when a Muslim bakery bakes cakes for LGBTQ weddings and Christian bakers whine because of religion, what then? What will the religious argument be? That all Muslims are gay? WTF is wrong with evangelicals that they can not just let people live by Constitutional law? Why do evangelicals hate the Constitution?

Flighty wrote:

In America, you cannot force someone to pledge allegiance

Isn't raging at black men for not pledging sufficient allegiance a core tenet of Trumpism?

seahawk wrote:

Neil Gorsuch:

... “the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”

It's interesting that he unintentionally (I assume) conflated religious freedom with "speech that we hate" and "beliefs that we find offensive". At the end of the day, religious freedom is synonymous with discrimination. No one has ever fought for religious freedom to do anything kind and positive for society--it's always selfish and to the detriment of someone else. If Christians want to aggressively remind America that they are a religion first and foremost of discrimination, then maybe I cancel my donations to FFRF

I'm always intrigued by how Christians are snowflakes when it comes to their beliefs.

A Christian baker cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding because it violates their "sincerely held beliefs" and they fear it makes them complicit in something their book says is yucky.

You know who else has a sincerely held belief? The Muslim clerk running the alcohol shop or the gas station and who nonetheless rings you out when you load up on alcohol, even though alcohol is forbidden in Islam. Yet the Muslim clerk won't tell you you can't drink alcohol because his faith says it's bad, nor do they try to suggest it makes them complicit in a behavior the Quran says is yucky.

seb146 wrote:

There are only two sides to this issue and, in the end, you side with the couple and not the bakers. I totally agree to let bigots and narrow minded people dig their own holes. And there was harm done to the couple. For the bakers to say "my personal beliefs outrank and outweigh you" is hurtful. Has that ever happened to you? Someone saying "I am more important than you because..." and push you aside? It hurts like hell.

Awww, feelings were hurt? Well, certainly that's legally actionable in the snowflake century.

Give me a break.

Yeah, we've all been hurt. That's part of life. You deal with it. Not everyone agrees with you, holds your same beliefs. So associate with those who do. Litigating isn't going to change hearts.

And no, there are NOT only two sides to this. But I'm glad you can think of things in such neat linear and binary ways. Your world must be so tidy. Real life exists in a lot of shades of gray.

einsteinboricua wrote:

I'm always intrigued by how Christians are snowflakes when it comes to their beliefs.

A Christian baker cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding because it violates their "sincerely held beliefs" and they fear it makes them complicit in something their book says is yucky.

You know who else has a sincerely held belief? The Muslim clerk running the alcohol shop or the gas station and who nonetheless rings you out when you load up on alcohol, even though alcohol is forbidden in Islam. Yet the Muslim clerk won't tell you you can't drink alcohol because his faith says it's bad, nor do they try to suggest it makes them complicit in a behavior the Quran says is yucky.

If he owns the gas station, he is free to not offer any alcoholic beverages. If his employed the owner decides what is being sold, if he does not like it, he is free to find another job.

What I find most interesting is the basic idea of forcing some one to perform a service for you. Do you really want to force a baker to make a cake for you, even if he really does not want to? Would you eat the cake?

seahawk wrote:

What I find most interesting is the basic idea of forcing some one to perform a service for you. Do you really want to force a baker to make a cake for you, even if he really does not want to? Would you eat the cake?

I'm talking about how two people with "sincerely held beliefs" react different when required to do something that they themselves believe to be sinful.

Alcohol and Islam don't mix; the Muslim store clerk could very well find another job where they don't have to sell alcohol. Yet they do it anyway because they understand, it's not them who are sinning. But somehow, baking a cake makes you complicit in gay wedding?

seahawk wrote:

jetero wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Gorsuch made some good points about the freedom of religion being a very high value.

Your point? What did you think about the dissents?

Or was there yet again no real purpose to your post?

I think Gorusch is right. Religious freedom is mire important than anti-discrimination rules.

Is that what he said? Because, if he did, it sure as hell wasn't in what you quoted.

seahawk wrote:

Apart from that you would not believe it anyway, if I say that this remarks show where the US is headed if Trump gets to select more supreme court judges.

You seem to be implicitly arguing for Supreme Court justices who weigh religion in their decisions, which seems odd to me, but, hey, I get it, some want a theocracy (on their terms, of course).

seahawk wrote:

What I find most interesting is the basic idea of forcing some one to perform a service for you. Do you really want to force a baker to make a cake for you, even if he really does not want to? Would you eat the cake?

I'm not sure why you find this so interesting considering the right to public accommodation is a matter of settled law per the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with religious organizations and private clubs exempted. This is viewed as the legislative embodiment of the equal protection clause of the Constitution (and the whole life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness thing), although I acknowledge that it seems to you that some rights rank higher than others, the right to practice one's religion (and impose it on others de facto, which, BTW, does not exist) apparently being the the most primary. This law prohibits discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex or national origin," and the right of states and other jurisdictions to add additional protected classes has been upheld in the judicial record, most recently in this very case. For the umpteenth time, the whole basis for the argument of the caker (I've had to invent a word as it keeps on being said that he was no mere baker) was that caking is a work of artistic expression. What you are arguing has no basis whatsoever vis-a-vis this decision.

In any case, your smugly clueless, "Why do you want a cake from someone who hates you?" reveals you're not really interested in the legalities of it all, nor do you have any appreciation of the historical reasons why the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted in the first place. It's as hollow as my saying, "Why didn't the caker suck it up and decorate? Did he really think that God was going to judge him for writing "happy marriage" and plopping 2 grooms on a layer cake? How silly." But, in some peoples' very flimsy mind, religion is a trump card for anything and everything.

Right-wing populists want litmus tests for immigrants to make sure they understand "Western values." Freedom of religion is certainly one. I, and plenty others would argue, that freedom of most certainly means freedom from. Regardless, the whole concept of civil rights is Western in nature. It's great when people say, "Well, suck it up and be happy, you could be living in Saudi Arabia, where you'd be stoned." That's the whole damned point. If the Trumpists like the idea so much, let's have a litmus test for "Western values" for people who are here today (Trump seems to be of the opinion that citizens who don't stand for the anthem are fair game for being thrown out of the country, so by that logic I don't see why we can't do the same to others).

slider wrote:

Awww, feelings were hurt? Well, certainly that's legally actionable in the snowflake century.

Give me a break.

Yeah, we've all been hurt. That's part of life. You deal with it. Not everyone agrees with you, holds your same beliefs. So associate with those who do. Litigating isn't going to change hearts.

And no, there are NOT only two sides to this. But I'm glad you can think of things in such neat linear and binary ways. Your world must be so tidy. Real life exists in a lot of shades of gray.

Those damn liberal snowflakes and their discrimination claims: http://kdvr.com/2015/01/20/man-who-requ ... -educator/

OA412 wrote:

slider wrote:

Awww, feelings were hurt? Well, certainly that's legally actionable in the snowflake century.

Give me a break.

Yeah, we've all been hurt. That's part of life. You deal with it. Not everyone agrees with you, holds your same beliefs. So associate with those who do. Litigating isn't going to change hearts.

And no, there are NOT only two sides to this. But I'm glad you can think of things in such neat linear and binary ways. Your world must be so tidy. Real life exists in a lot of shades of gray.

Those damn liberal snowflakes and their discrimination claims: http://kdvr.com/2015/01/20/man-who-requ ... -educator/

Such antisocial behavior.

seahawk wrote:

What I find most interesting is the basic idea of forcing some one to perform a service for you. Do you really want to force a baker to make a cake for you, even if he really does not want to? Would you eat the cake?

It is not "forced", the business owner can sell their business if they do not want to do business with the public at large. Let me pose the question this way: If a business (and likely a large number of businesses if one is allowed to forego) does not want to sell to blacks or Asians, or to Jewish people, or to women, is that OK? Is that something you will accept as permissible? Is it OK if more and more businesses want to do this?

To me it is not. It is not a rule I would accept in my country and society.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

seahawk wrote:

What I find most interesting is the basic idea of forcing some one to perform a service for you. Do you really want to force a baker to make a cake for you, even if he really does not want to? Would you eat the cake?

It is not "forced", the business owner can sell their business if they do not want to do business with the public at large. Let me pose the question this way: If a business (and likely a large number of businesses if one is allowed to forego) does not want to sell to blacks or Asians, or to Jewish people, or to women, is that OK? Is that something you will accept as permissible? Is it OK if more and more businesses want to do this?

To me it is not. It is not a rule I would accept in my country and society.

Tugg

Exactly in WESTERN SOCIETY, there is such a thing called the public interest. This allows government to establish licensing requirements for business that, for example, make people wash their hands before serving food, keeping food at appropriate temperatures so as not to kill people, and, it just so happens, requiring businesses to serve all people equally. This right was affirmed in the Masterpiece decision.

But Seahawk is not making legal arguments.

jetero wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Your point? What did you think about the dissents?

Or was there yet again no real purpose to your post?

I think Gorusch is right. Religious freedom is mire important than anti-discrimination rules.

Is that what he said? Because, if he did, it sure as hell wasn't in what you quoted.[/quote]

That is exactly what he says. The secular state must not limit the religious freedom of a person and must defend this freedom even if it finds the resulting behaviour offensive.

jetero wrote:

You seem to be implicitly arguing for Supreme Court justices who weigh religion in their decisions, which seems odd to me, but, hey, I get it, some want a theocracy (on their terms, of course).

Actually I was just thinking about cake.

seahawk wrote:

jetero wrote:

Tugger wrote:

It is not "forced", the business owner can sell their business if they do not want to do business with the public at large. Let me pose the question this way: If a business (and likely a large number of businesses if one is allowed to forego) does not want to sell to blacks or Asians, or to Jewish people, or to women, is that OK? Is that something you will accept as permissible? Is it OK if more and more businesses want to do this?

To me it is not. It is not a rule I would accept in my country and society.

Tugg

Exactly in WESTERN SOCIETY, there is such a thing called the public interest. This allows government to establish licensing requirements for business that, for example, make people wash their hands before serving food, keeping food at appropriate temperatures so as not to kill people, and, it just so happens, requiring businesses to serve all people equally. This right was affirmed in the Masterpiece decision.

But Seahawk is not making legal arguments.

No I am supporting religious freedom. Nobody should be forced to do business with sinners.

Ergo you're supporting a conception of the law that doesn't currently exist.

But, hey, that's your typical thang. Three cheers for consistency!

jetero wrote:

Tugger wrote:

seahawk wrote:

What I find most interesting is the basic idea of forcing some one to perform a service for you. Do you really want to force a baker to make a cake for you, even if he really does not want to? Would you eat the cake?

It is not "forced", the business owner can sell their business if they do not want to do business with the public at large. Let me pose the question this way: If a business (and likely a large number of businesses if one is allowed to forego) does not want to sell to blacks or Asians, or to Jewish people, or to women, is that OK? Is that something you will accept as permissible? Is it OK if more and more businesses want to do this?

To me it is not. It is not a rule I would accept in my country and society.

Tugg

Exactly in WESTERN SOCIETY, there is such a thing called the public interest. This allows government to establish licensing requirements for business that, for example, make people wash their hands before serving food, keeping food at appropriate temperatures so as not to kill people, and, it just so happens, requiring businesses to serve all people equally. This right was affirmed in the Masterpiece decision.

But Seahawk is not making legal arguments.

Okay I stop the trolling. In pracitcal terms I would be happy if the bakers would tell me that he despises me before I order and eat something he made for me, but I also find the court ruling very American. I think no other non theocracy would come to the same conclusion.

seahawk wrote:

That is exactly what he says. The secular state must not limit the religious freedom of a person and must defend this freedom even if it finds the resulting behaviour offensive.

If you think the passage you cited implicitly has bearing on the caker's right not to cake for a gay couple you're wrong considering he signed the concurring opinion, but I know you won't let that stop you.

seahawk wrote:

jetero wrote:

You seem to be implicitly arguing for Supreme Court justices who weigh religion in their decisions, which seems odd to me, but, hey, I get it, some want a theocracy (on their terms, of course).

Actually I was just thinking about cake.

Ah, so what you meant was:

seahawk wrote:

Religious freedom is mire important than anti-discrimination rules when it comes to cake.

I say that this remarks show where the US is headed on matters involving cake if Trump gets to select more supreme court judges.

You're a strange dude, Seahawk.

jetero wrote:

seahawk wrote:

jetero wrote:

Exactly in WESTERN SOCIETY, there is such a thing called the public interest. This allows government to establish licensing requirements for business that, for example, make people wash their hands before serving food, keeping food at appropriate temperatures so as not to kill people, and, it just so happens, requiring businesses to serve all people equally. This right was affirmed in the Masterpiece decision.

But Seahawk is not making legal arguments.

No I am supporting religious freedom. Nobody should be forced to do business with sinners.

Ergo you're supporting a conception of the law that doesn't currently exist.

But, hey, that's your typical thang. Three cheers for consistency!

I like to trigger you. Because there is more discussion about the baker or what other users might think than the courts verdict. I would be worried about a supreme court that comes to that conclusion much so if you read the statements by some judges. But what do those matter when it is urgent to make sure that the forum poster believe the right thing.

seahawk wrote:

I like to trigger you.

Oh really? I had no idea. You're a real winner.

seahawk wrote:

Because there is more discussion about the baker or what other users might think than the courts verdict.

The vast majority of the Trumpists on here believe that the Court conclusively said the caker was not forced to cake an, er, cake for the gay couple. That's patently false, but won't stop them from saying, say, 5 years down the road when essentially the same case is in front of them and the Supreme Court decides that the scope public accommodation rights includes gay people, that the Supreme Court changed its mind!

That is the entire problem with the politics in this country right now. People are arguing things as fact when they are not at all.

You're doing your part by stating things that you don't believe for the purpose of "triggering." WTG buddy! Again, if you need an extra hand to get your rocks off, I'm sure there are plenty to choose from in Germany. Maybe you and CC can give each other some mutual help.

seahawk wrote:

I would be worried about a supreme court that comes to that conclusion much so if you read the statements by some judges. But what do those matter when it is urgent to make sure that the forum poster believe the right thing.

Whatever that means.

jetero wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I like to trigger you.

Oh really? I had no idea. You're a real winner.

seahawk wrote:

Because there is more discussion about the baker or what other users might think than the courts verdict.

The vast majority of the Trumpists on here believe that the Court conclusively said the caker was not forced to cake an, er, cake for the gay couple. That's patently false, but won't stop them from saying, say, 5 years down the road when essentially the same case is in front of them and the Supreme Court decides that the scope public accommodation rights includes gay people, that the Supreme Court changed its mind!

There I do disagree, because the supreme court did not change its mind but it took a big step into the wrong direction. It opens doors that should have been left tightly close. More so if you consider that 2 judges sided with Phillips, Apart from that I think it is bad joke that your religious believes should have any say about who eats a cake, when you are running a bakery. The baker was not required to be at the ceremony nor come in contact with any substance that might not be in accordance with his religious believes. Since when does the baker decide what is written on a cake?

seahawk wrote:

jetero wrote:

seahawk wrote:

I like to trigger you.

Oh really? I had no idea. You're a real winner.

seahawk wrote:

Because there is more discussion about the baker or what other users might think than the courts verdict.

The vast majority of the Trumpists on here believe that the Court conclusively said the caker was not forced to cake an, er, cake for the gay couple. That's patently false, but won't stop them from saying, say, 5 years down the road when essentially the same case is in front of them and the Supreme Court decides that the scope public accommodation rights includes gay people, that the Supreme Court changed its mind!

There I do disagree, because the supreme court did not change its mind but it took a big step into the wrong direction. It opens doors that should have been left tightly close. More so if you consider that 2 judges sided with Phillips, Apart from that I think it is bad joke that your religious believes should have any say about who eats a cake, when you are running a bakery. The baker was not required to be at the ceremony nor come in contact with any substance that might not be in accordance with his religious believes. Since when does the baker decide what is written on a cake?

New policy: Don't deal with schizophrenics due to my sincerely held religious beliefs

jetero wrote:

seahawk wrote:

jetero wrote:

Oh really? I had no idea. You're a real winner.



The vast majority of the Trumpists on here believe that the Court conclusively said the caker was not forced to cake an, er, cake for the gay couple. That's patently false, but won't stop them from saying, say, 5 years down the road when essentially the same case is in front of them and the Supreme Court decides that the scope public accommodation rights includes gay people, that the Supreme Court changed its mind!

There I do disagree, because the supreme court did not change its mind but it took a big step into the wrong direction. It opens doors that should have been left tightly close. More so if you consider that 2 judges sided with Phillips, Apart from that I think it is bad joke that your religious believes should have any say about who eats a cake, when you are running a bakery. The baker was not required to be at the ceremony nor come in contact with any substance that might not be in accordance with his religious believes. Since when does the baker decide what is written on a cake?

New policy: Don't deal with schizophrenics due to my sincerely held religious beliefs

You conservative....

slider wrote:

seb146 wrote:

There are only two sides to this issue and, in the end, you side with the couple and not the bakers. I totally agree to let bigots and narrow minded people dig their own holes. And there was harm done to the couple. For the bakers to say "my personal beliefs outrank and outweigh you" is hurtful. Has that ever happened to you? Someone saying "I am more important than you because..." and push you aside? It hurts like hell.

Awww, feelings were hurt? Well, certainly that's legally actionable in the snowflake century.

Give me a break.

Yeah, we've all been hurt. That's part of life. You deal with it. Not everyone agrees with you, holds your same beliefs. So associate with those who do. Litigating isn't going to change hearts.

And no, there are NOT only two sides to this. But I'm glad you can think of things in such neat linear and binary ways. Your world must be so tidy. Real life exists in a lot of shades of gray.

When someone denies you service based on one specific part of your life (skin color, gender, religion) then you can talk down to me about hurt.

Also, what are the shades of grey in this case?

There is a point being brought up around social media circles:

This shop did not want to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because the owners thought it would be an endorsement of homosexuality. So, that means gun manufacturers are endorsing mass murder. Same logic.

jetero wrote:

Such antisocial behavior.

I can't believe he'd bully that baker.

OA412 wrote:

jetero wrote:

Such antisocial behavior.

I can't believe he'd bully that baker.

Caker, OA412. Mere bakers can be bullied. It's the cakers whose lives are built on artistically expressing their individual approval for every couples' marriage through frosting who are the real victims.

jetero wrote:

OA412 wrote:

jetero wrote:

Such antisocial behavior.

I can't believe he'd bully that baker.

Caker, OA412. Mere bakers can be bullied. It's the cakers whose lives are built on artistically expressing their individual approval for every couples' marriage through frosting who are the real victims.

Bahahahaha, love it!

Can you imagine how much pressure Ruth Bader Ginsburg's cardiologist is under? If she croaks before 2018 its all over for the next 30 years. Everyone can kiss even a chance of rulings like this goodbye for a generation.

jetero wrote:

Flighty wrote:

jetero wrote:

Boy do you have a strange view of core services. Shoe shiners and doctors required to "praise" you after they shine your shoes or deliver your baby.

An Orwellian dystopia, if you're so interested, one full of propaganda and misinformation. Those things to me are pretty synonymous with this sort of mindless right-wing populism.

Did baker bake cakes for non-Christian couples (or people who didn't get married in church by an ordained minister, or people who otherwise violated his view of Christianity) "praising them" by writing, "Congrats John and Jane on your wedding"?

If so, I'd say he's good. If not, I'd say it's a pretty flimsy standard as far as general rules for public accommodation goes. The defense essentially agreed, never holding that it was his right to refuse service but rather that baking a cake is artistic expression. That's a bit off to me as well, but, I'm one of those crazy whack-job "leftists."

But this particular question remains unsettled. Calculated restraint by the Supreme Court in this regard, including Justices Kagan and Breyer joining in the decision, was probably the best way to go.

It is Orwellian in the sense that compelled speech is not speech at all. It is the government ventriloquizing on real people like this Amber who didn’t want to say congratulations on your gay wedding.

Not only artists and religious people have this right; everyone does under the first amendment. Now do we have the right to refuse restaurant service on a prohibited basis, no.

Flighty for the umpteenth time I agree that there is a rationale for your conclusion if you believe caking is a form of art. Arguments have been made to the contrary that you have conveniently chosen to ignore.

For the avoidance of doubt, a.net community, let the record show here for the sake of posterity that Flighty McA.Net Member thinks putting icing on a cake in a style imitating countless cakes that have been done before is an artistic expression and that forcing someone to put “Congrats on your nuptials” on it is Orwellian compelled speech.

Finally, let the record show that Flighty McA.Net’s opinion of the case was not the same as the Supreme Court’s yesterday (nor did that opinion negate such an opinion).

Happy Flighty?

No even if cake baking is not art, writing a message on the cake is speech. You cannot force somebody to say something that they don't want to say. Whether they are an artist or not. People have this freedom to control their speech without the government taking away their assets.

Yes, I understand the Supreme Court ruled on another matter and we are good.

Flighty wrote:

jetero wrote:

Flighty wrote:

It is Orwellian in the sense that compelled speech is not speech at all. It is the government ventriloquizing on real people like this Amber who didn’t want to say congratulations on your gay wedding.

Not only artists and religious people have this right; everyone does under the first amendment. Now do we have the right to refuse restaurant service on a prohibited basis, no.

Flighty for the umpteenth time I agree that there is a rationale for your conclusion if you believe caking is a form of art. Arguments have been made to the contrary that you have conveniently chosen to ignore.

For the avoidance of doubt, a.net community, let the record show here for the sake of posterity that Flighty McA.Net Member thinks putting icing on a cake in a style imitating countless cakes that have been done before is an artistic expression and that forcing someone to put “Congrats on your nuptials” on it is Orwellian compelled speech.

Finally, let the record show that Flighty McA.Net’s opinion of the case was not the same as the Supreme Court’s yesterday (nor did that opinion negate such an opinion).

Happy Flighty?

No even if cake baking is not art, writing a message on the cake is speech. You cannot force somebody to say something that they don't want to say. Whether they are an artist or not. People have this freedom to control their speech without the government taking away their assets.

Yes, I understand the Supreme Court ruled on another matter and we are good.

So the customer would would have to convince the baker that "Dreams do come true, Dave and Peter" with 2 groom figures on the cake is because 2 straight men have opened their own shop for groom´s clothing and not because they are homosexual and are getting married. Or want a birthday cake with the text in Spanish or for Jewish or Muslim customers, better ask the baker if he is not insulted by the text.

That is totally stupid.

Flighty wrote:

jetero wrote:

Flighty wrote:

It is Orwellian in the sense that compelled speech is not speech at all. It is the government ventriloquizing on real people like this Amber who didn’t want to say congratulations on your gay wedding.

Not only artists and religious people have this right; everyone does under the first amendment. Now do we have the right to refuse restaurant service on a prohibited basis, no.

Flighty for the umpteenth time I agree that there is a rationale for your conclusion if you believe caking is a form of art. Arguments have been made to the contrary that you have conveniently chosen to ignore.

For the avoidance of doubt, a.net community, let the record show here for the sake of posterity that Flighty McA.Net Member thinks putting icing on a cake in a style imitating countless cakes that have been done before is an artistic expression and that forcing someone to put “Congrats on your nuptials” on it is Orwellian compelled speech.

Finally, let the record show that Flighty McA.Net’s opinion of the case was not the same as the Supreme Court’s yesterday (nor did that opinion negate such an opinion).

Happy Flighty?

No even if cake baking is not art, writing a message on the cake is speech. You cannot force somebody to say something that they don't want to say. Whether they are an artist or not. People have this freedom to control their speech without the government taking away their assets.

Yes, I understand the Supreme Court ruled on another matter and we are good.

What the hell happened to the United States of America?! I’m sure what you’re describing is sincere, but good Lord.

Flighty wrote:

jetero wrote:

Flighty wrote:

It is Orwellian in the sense that compelled speech is not speech at all. It is the government ventriloquizing on real people like this Amber who didn’t want to say congratulations on your gay wedding.

Not only artists and religious people have this right; everyone does under the first amendment. Now do we have the right to refuse restaurant service on a prohibited basis, no.

Flighty for the umpteenth time I agree that there is a rationale for your conclusion if you believe caking is a form of art. Arguments have been made to the contrary that you have conveniently chosen to ignore.

For the avoidance of doubt, a.net community, let the record show here for the sake of posterity that Flighty McA.Net Member thinks putting icing on a cake in a style imitating countless cakes that have been done before is an artistic expression and that forcing someone to put “Congrats on your nuptials” on it is Orwellian compelled speech.

Finally, let the record show that Flighty McA.Net’s opinion of the case was not the same as the Supreme Court’s yesterday (nor did that opinion negate such an opinion).

Happy Flighty?

No even if cake baking is not art, writing a message on the cake is speech. You cannot force somebody to say something that they don't want to say. Whether they are an artist or not. People have this freedom to control their speech without the government taking away their assets.

Yes, I understand the Supreme Court ruled on another matter and we are good.

Most people in the USA don't understand what the court considers speech.

Clothes are speech, hair style is speech, the way you cut your yard can be speech in certain circumstances. When the next case comes to the SC about this it will be found to be speech and will be allowed, especially if the religious bar has been hit. RFRA and all that.

seahawk wrote:

Neil Gorsuch:

... “the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”

But to jump off that point, and I noted it in my earlier post because Justice Kennedy (of all people) was one of the more vehement opinions that the Co Commission was actively and overtly hostile to Jack Phillips and his position. “While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other member of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”--Kennedy

Again, that's a key nuance here that is being oversimplified as some crazy evangelical bigots vs gays argument, which it is absolutely not.

slider wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Neil Gorsuch:

... “the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”

But to jump off that point, and I noted it in my earlier post because Justice Kennedy (of all people) was one of the more vehement opinions that the Co Commission was actively and overtly hostile to Jack Phillips and his position. “While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other member of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”--Kennedy

Again, that's a key nuance here that is being oversimplified as some crazy evangelical bigots vs gays argument, which it is absolutely not.

slider thank you so much, I’m not sure other people get it. Just something people can be “for” or “against.”

slider wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Neil Gorsuch:

... “the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the ‘proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence’ that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive.”

But to jump off that point, and I noted it in my earlier post because Justice Kennedy (of all people) was one of the more vehement opinions that the Co Commission was actively and overtly hostile to Jack Phillips and his position. “While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other member of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”--Kennedy

Again, that's a key nuance here that is being oversimplified as some crazy evangelical bigots vs gays argument, which it is absolutely not.

Its a religious freedom argument going back to ED vs. Smith. Its not going to be struck down when the case is presented to the court.