supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[Liza B.]

I'd be happy if companies who want to discriminate lose any legal privileges normal businesses get. We might have a tough time convincing business owners to give up their current legal protections, though. And the fact we'd have to kinda shoots down the idea that they exist outside of a legal framework granting those protections.

In that case, I look forward to the day Christians walk into an atheist bakery and force the atheist to bake a cake for our "Gay Marriage is an Abomination Unto the Lord" conference. I don't have to eat it; no one at the conference does. But you will have to bake it. And you will have to bake it after I explain to you just exactly what it is for.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

In that case, I look forward to the day Christians walk into an atheist bakery and force the atheist to bake a cake for our "Gay Marriage is an Abomination Unto the Lord" conference. I don't have to eat it; no one at the conference does. But you will have to bake it. And you will have to bake it after I explain to you just exactly what it is for.

Why are Christians always waiting for someone else to do what they want? If you want that cake experience, find an atheist bakery and do it.

 

[bhsmte]

So, the laws have gone too far, and now violate the First Amendment.

Time to begin walking them back.

Lets see what happens.

 

[Almost there]

Wait what?

Absolutely the US Const protects the rights of religious institutions. Lots of protected religious activity is essentially institutional, and does not devolve to any particular individuals. Could the govt outlaw tithing, for example?

IMO, institutional rights are placed on the foundation of the rights of the individuals within the institution. Those are the rights that are actually being protected.

 

[Almost there]

That's correct - the constitution describes the relationship between the government and its citizens.

The constitution does, however, give the government the right to regulate certain aspects of citizens' behavior and relationships with each other, including business transactions, and the courts have repeatedly found that civil rights laws are not outside the bounds of constitutionally-permissible regulations.



You would have the right to kick out anybody acting inappropriately. However, if your state protected sexual orientation, and if someone could establish that you employed a double standard in your actions (say, by permitting heterosexuals to make out in the corner while ejecting homosexuals for the same behavior), then you'd probably have some problems.

Yes. And I disagree with the SCOTUS on those decisions. And I have no problem saying they are dead wrong. After all, in a sane world with intelligent and reasonable people on the court, virtually all decisions would be 9-0. But since most of them are 5-4, the court has been a mockery to me for quite some time. I don't take them seriously, even when five agree with me.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Yes. And I disagree with the SCOTUS on those decisions. And I have no problem saying they are dead wrong. After all, in a sane world with intelligent and reasonable people on the court, virtually all decisions would be 9-0. But since most of them are 5-4, the court has been a mockery to me for quite some time. I don't take them seriously, even when five agree with me.

There is nothing quite like living in a beehive or ant colony.

 

[Almost there]

There is nothing quite like living in a beehive or ant colony.

That is kinda like what the world is becoming. Yeah.

It's why I moved from Seattle to a 32 acre "hobby farm" in rural KY. It is my own world that, truth be told, I rarely need or desire to leave. Of course, I used to travel a lot so I sort of have a "been there, done that" attitude about it all now.

Edit: I do have to leave the property to go to work,,,

 

[Ovlov90]

Although discrimination based on race, religion, etc. is deplorable I am equally opposed to living in a society where the state decides my who or how I conduct business. If I dont want to sell my car to a man in a chicken suit its no one elses business. Nor should I be required to give answer why I refuse. Its non of your business. It might have nothing to do with the suit. Just go find another car. Just because you want it does not mean I have to be the supplier. Go find another car. Or baker. The state should not hbe the power to force private contracts. Im going to take alot of heat for this opinion But its a two edged sword. The thought police are on the march.

 

[trunks2k]

Just go find another car. Just because you want it does not mean I have to be the supplier. Go find another car. Or baker.

Which sounds all nice and easy and stuff, except we've seen historically what happens when we take this approach. It doesn't end up well for certain groups.

 

[trunks2k]

In that case, I look forward to the day Christians walk into an atheist bakery and force the atheist to bake a cake for our "Gay Marriage is an Abomination Unto the Lord" conference. I don't have to eat it; no one at the conference does. But you will have to bake it. And you will have to bake it after I explain to you just exactly what it is for.

Certainly, the baker would not be required to write "Gay Marriage is an Abomination Unto the Lord" on the cake. That's an issue that's already settled. Though in this particular example, I'm not entirely sure that refusal to bake any cake for that event would fall under religious discrimination the fact that it's about a particular issue rather than because the group is Christian may muddy it some but I'm not gonna spend much time thinking about it until it actually happens.

As I said before I don't think it's a really difficult concept to deal with.
- I make widgets and sell them to the public.
- I'll happily sell specific widget A.
- Customer of type X and type Y want A.
- Would I refuse to sell A to X, but not Y? Is the difference between X and Y a protected category? If the answer to both is "Yes", then it's illegal.

 

[Ovlov90]

Yeah Im quite aware of that and agree. In a perfect world I suppose. Ive just discredited my whole viewpoint. Its state compulsion that bothers me the most about it all. Overideing individual free thought. However distastefull.

 

[trunks2k]

Yeah Im quite aware of that and agree. In a perfect world I suppose. Ive just discredited my whole viewpoint. Its state compulsion that bothers me the most about it all. Overideing individual free thought. However distastefull.

Yes, as you said, in a perfect world. In a perfect world, those that would discriminate against certain groups would be a minority, generally looked down upon, and services would be plentiful enough that going elsewhere would be no problem.

But we don't live in a perfect world.

 

[bhsmte]

Although discrimination based on race, religion, etc. is deplorable I am equally opposed to living in a society where the state decides my who or how I conduct business. If I dont want to sell my car to a man in a chicken suit its no one elses business. Nor should I be required to give answer why I refuse. Its non of your business. It might have nothing to do with the suit. Just go find another car. Just because you want it does not mean I have to be the supplier. Go find another car. Or baker. The state should not hbe the power to force private contracts. Im going to take alot of heat for this opinion But its a two edged sword. The thought police are on the march.

Selling your car on your own is a private transaction and you can discriminate all you want. If you open up a used car lot and invite the public, we have a different situation.

 

[Ovlov90]

404712"]Yeah Im quite aware of that and agree. In a perfect world I suppose. Ive just discredited my whole viewpoint. Its state compulsion that bothers me the most about it all. Overideing individual free thought. However distastefull.[/QUOTE]

Yeah Im quite aware of that and agree. In a perfect world I suppose. Ive just discredited my whole viewpoint. Its state compulsion that bothers me the most about it all. Overideing individual free thought. However distastefull.

Certainly, the baker would not be required to write "Gay Marriage is an Abomination Unto the Lord" on the cake. That's an issue that's already settled. Though in this particular example, I'm not entirely sure that refusal to bake any cake for that event would fall under religious discrimination the fact that it's about a particular issue rather than because the group is Christian may muddy it some but I'm not gonna spend much time thinking about it until it actually happens.

As I said before I don't think it's a really difficult concept to deal with.
- I make widgets and sell them to the public.
- I'll happily sell specific widget A.
- Customer of type X and type Y want A.
- Would I refuse to sell A to X, but not Y? Is the difference between X and Y a protected category? If the answer to both is "Yes", then it's illegal.

 

[durangodawood]

IMO, institutional rights are placed on the foundation of the rights of the individuals within the institution. Those are the rights that are actually being protected.

I think that would be an interesting world if all rights AND responsibilities did devolve to actual individuals. No hiding liabilities behind corporate "personhood", and so on.

But who would stand for that?

 

[Ovlov90]

Paul’s veiw on meat sacreficed to idols. If you dont know the source dont worry. But if its brought up as a selling point dont eat it. And not for your conscience but thiers. ( the idols werent real but the powers and proncepalities that inhabited them are) By bakeing the cake the baker feels he is involved in an immoral activity. But as a Christian I believe there is no such thing as a same sex marriage. Just because the state recognizes it does not mean it exists. I have brought it up in church are we prepared for the day someones come to ask our pastor to preform a same sex ceremony.

 

[Ovlov90]

Paul’s veiw on meat sacreficed to idols. If you dont know the source dont worry. But if its brought up as a selling point dont eat it. And not for your conscience but thiers. ( the idols werent real but the powers and proncepalities that inhabited them are) By bakeing the cake the baker feels he is involved in an immoral activity. But as a Christian I believe there is no such thing as a same sex marriage. Just because the state recognizes it does not mean it exists. I have brought it up in church are we prepared for the day someones come to ask our pastor to preform a same sex ceremony.

 

[Ovlov90]

So while not confirming the marriage real it would be a confirmation of the powers and princapalities behind the crermony. I have a question~ what would each one of us done in that bakers position?

 

[Ovlov90]

And why? Myself I would resist more to deny the state power over me than on faith princepals. Pride is a serious problem of mine.

 

[Almost there]

Although discrimination based on race, religion, etc. is deplorable I am equally opposed to living in a society where the state decides my who or how I conduct business. If I dont want to sell my car to a man in a chicken suit its no one elses business. Nor should I be required to give answer why I refuse. Its non of your business. It might have nothing to do with the suit. Just go find another car. Just because you want it does not mean I have to be the supplier. Go find another car. Or baker. The state should not hbe the power to force private contracts. Im going to take alot of heat for this opinion But its a two edged sword. The thought police are on the march.

I completely agree. And you really knocked it out of the park with that last sentence. That hits the core of why I'm so offended by this whole comedy.