Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Both the US and Canadian courts generally rule on the narrowest possible issue. Having determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated the case prejudicially, they never reached the main issue. There are advantages both ways, but had they ruled on the main issue, the Civil Rights Commission would have gotten away with unacceptable behavior.
It is. Apparently you do not understand the morality of the purpose was the issue.
So religious organisations do not have the right to set out a code of conduct or ethical standards. It was not religious belief but a code of conduct that was underpinned by the organisations values which were based on their beliefs. But what is the difference? All organisations have to have a code of conduct and depending on which is it they will have different standards according to the values they uphold to. In fact, most organisations whether they are religious or secular base their code of conduct on Christian values anyway. They also expect people to behave properly outside work including any poor behaviour that may bring the organisation into disrepute and therefore the representative can be dismissed. This includes bad behaviour of a sexual nature such as having affairs or promiscuous behaviour which secular society thinks ok to do without any real consequences apart from some shame. But certainly not a loss of job or dismissal from a school or professional organisation like sports, politics, law including lawyers etc.
Actually as far as I understand it this is the same case I am talking about and I originally found the info here which does refer to the case as the masterpiece cake shop case. I cannot put the original link which explains this better for fear that it would be edited as the headline wording in saying "go to hell" has nothing to do with anything malice. Anyway here is another link with a similar explanation which shows that the cake shop guy was willing to bake them a cake but did not want to put any message about being gay which he also refuses to do for divorce parties and anyone who wants to critisize gays.
Well according to the supreme court's decision there are situations where a person can refuse to cater to people based on religious belief. I think it is unfair to say that nobody cares and just dismiss other peoples rights like they don't exist. Just like a judge in the Christian law school case stated when the other judges felt that the Christian law schools rights were small and therefore should not be an issue. They said the Christian Law schools rights were not small and needed to be considered.
No quite the opposite. I am all for free speech. What I am saying is there is a growing trend where certain groups and these are usually the groups crying out for their rights are shutting off the rights of anyone who disagrees with them by claiming that it is hate speech simply because they disagree. This is usually seen when someone states their view about gender or same-sex marriage and they are made out to be bigots and haters when all they are doing is expressing their view which they should have the right to do. As many people are now recognizing that freedom of speech is slowing dying thanks to the politically correct movement and SJW especially in Universities which should be the bastion of free speech.
No if you go to the links I provided you will find the details of the case.
No, they ruled in favour of the cake shop on an individual basis for this case and found that Mr Phillips the cake shop owners right to religious freedom of expression was denied. They just did not address whether this ruling applies nationally to all situations but this does not take away from the fact that in this case, Mr Phillips had the right to express his religious beliefs. I guess they will continue to address these situations on a case by case matter for some time as it is not an easy matter.
I think you will find they did and though they have not applied this decision to be uniform I think you will find future cases using this one as a precedent.
anyones right of reply or to express their view against another. As you will see in the links I provided this is happening a lot. If someone disagrees with someone based on their religious views or personal views and it goes against what is claimed they are shut down by being called a bigot or discriminatory and their views are not given a fair representation. People try to discredit them personally so their views are not taken seriously. In all accounts, this is shutting down people based on personal attacks.
It is the calling someone a bigot and then denying them the right to rely which is the problem. Calling them a bigot is part of trying to discredit them and shut them down.
1) free speech does not mean free to ACT on your beliefs if they violate the law
[/QUOTE]
Yes but denial of the freedom of speech is a problem.
Of course but the point I am making is that there is also a right to expression of things like religious belief which has to do with how to express yourself in things like your trade or art. In the case of the cake shop, the owner had a right to express his belief in the cakes he made by not having anything on them that went against his religious beliefs. He did nit just do this for gays but for anyone who requested something like for Halloween or divorce parties or even put anti-gay slogans on cakes so he was consistent with his approach and was not singling out the gays.
But what is hateful speech? Is criticizing someone and as the previous poster said calling someone a bigot hateful speech. Is naming and shaming people for things they have done, or telling the truth about someone even though it may be hurtful hateful speech. The problem I see is that some are deciding things that people say as part of freedom of speech as being hateful and therefore denying them their right to free speech. They not only call them names bi=ut actually get physically violent to stop some from expressing their rights to freedom of speech. An example is posted below
I never said you don't have the right. I said it is when it is used to shut out freedom of speech by calling people names when they try to reply. By calling them a bigot for expressing their view which is often the truth they are not giving equal opportunity of reply after the other person had the courtesy to listen and allow the person their say.
But is not it an issue when for example speakers on a certain topic are invited except for some who may be experts in that field especially at a place that promotes that topic and is known for having debates. Seems selective and a denial of some over others.
But it means you have a right to opposing views without being shut down
I am glad you said to a certain extent.
Once again, there is no “right to reply,” people have th3 right to shout you down, walk away, or call you a bigot. The first amendment only applies to the government. The government cannot restrict your speech unless it invites illegal actions. You have no free speech rights with other private citizens. You have no free speech rights at work. Someone telling you to “shut up” is totally legal. You do not have a “right to opposing views without being shut down” unless it is the government shutting you down. And even then, the government can shut you down for your actions if they are illegal. Sexual orientation is a protected class, divorced people and Halloween are not. The government intervened because the gay wedding cake was rejected to a protected class. You talk about people having the “courtesy to listen.” You do not have a right to courtesy.
I never said anything about people having the right to reply. I said people have the right to express their opinion when replying or addressing a topic without being shut down or stopped. But I think people do not have the right to shut anyone down from speaking especially in universities and that is why there is an uproar where some are saying Universities should be punished for allowing this.
Then why is there such a problem relating to freedom of speech with all the Universities and other public places where people are being denied their opportunity to speak through no platforming for example. Why do some want to sue for libel over what someone said and then the other person claims his freedom of speech. Why is freedom of speech an issue in the media where people claim they are being muzzled because some group wants to shut them down from speaking their mind.
Then why did the courts support Mr Phillips right as a cake shop owner to not decorate the cake with gay celebration ornaments.
I think he is correct in how he understands and explains freedom of speech.[/quote]
This appears to be wrong. I'm inclined to believe the Supreme Court's summary of the facts. From the decision:
The court exempted Mr Phillips from the discrimination act, so they determined his religious belief allowed him to choose not to create a cake for the gay couple which for me is the same thing. It is not as if the court did not have the power to find him guilty of discrimination because they did in the first court hearing. Now they have dropped this because of his right to express his religious beliefs.
Universities are denying certain speakers from talking at their debates for no good reason all because they do not want that view to be heard, it is called "No-Platforming".
If you read my reply I did not say that calling someone a bigot is against free speech. I said that calling someone a bigot is part of the tactics that are being used to shut down free speech. By discrediting someone through name calling and bringing their character into question minority groups aim to undermine anything they have said. Then this justifies their action to physically shut them down and deny them the opportunity to speak on the basis that they are troublemakers who do not deserve to be heard. It is all part of the ploy to stop free speech.
This link refers to one occassion Peterson has been blocked from speaking because some people don't like what he says.
This Syllabus seems to come from the court transcripts and shows that Mr Phillips was willing to make a cake and sell other products to the gay couple but just not decorate a cake to celebrate the gay wedding as it went against his religious beliefs. Evidently, he has also refused to decorate other cakes for Halloween and divorce parties.
That is confusion, for the fact is that the general public was not offered a service that was not offered to homosexuals, for as expressed and ignored, both were denied service to contract with the baker to create a work for an express purpose which he held as morally objectionable, while both could contract with the baker to create a work which he did not hold to be morally objectionable. Neither could contract for a special work to celebrate fornication but both could contract for a creation celebrating marriage defined in Scripture (as well as the state at the time).
Is the general public allowed to order wedding cakes from the bakery? Yes. Are homosexuals allowed to order wedding cakes from the bakery? No. So yes the general public was in fact offered a service that was not offered to homosexuals.
