Canadian SC: Christian law school can't forbid students from gay sex

[redleghunter]

The case wasn’t brought by the baker, and was not about the baker not recognizing their marriage. Same sex marriage is not a protected status. Sexual orientation is. The discrimination complaint was on the grounds of the baker not providing a wedding cake to a gay couple. It’s not as if the baker had to recognize their marriage to bake a freaking cake.

It was a wedding cake. By baking a wedding cake, one is celebrating a wedding of some sort. I think it was axiomatic in this case.

 

[redleghunter]

I was responding to another poster’s comment that “Discrimination that runs up against a Christian's (or insert other religion's) First Amendment rights should fall.”

That would mean that religion could be used as an excuse for all kinds of bigotry, thus my example. I wasn’t saying the gay wedding cake discrimination was analogous to putting a sign in the window saying “no Jews served here.”

In the case of Jack Phillips the objection was not that the customers were gay but that they were celebrating a wedding which according to his free exercise of religion is a violation of his faith. Jack Phillips never refused general products to homosexuals.

You and I should not be refused service in a Kosher deli in the Bronx NY ordering a turkey or beef sandwich. If we order a ham sandwich we would not get one as ham is not Kosher.

 

[redleghunter]

Why would gays go to a Christian University anyway?

To make sure it closes down.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You and I should not be refused service in a Kosher deli in the Bronx NY ordering a turkey or beef sandwich. If we order a ham sandwich we would not get one as ham is not Kosher.

Ham is not on the menu. But wedding cakes were on the baker's menu.

 

[bhsmte]

In the case of Jack Phillips the objection was not that the customers were gay but that they were celebrating a wedding which according to his free exercise of religion is a violation of his faith. Jack Phillips never refused general products to homosexuals.

You and I should not be refused service in a Kosher deli in the Bronx NY ordering a turkey or beef sandwich. If we order a ham sandwich we would not get one as ham is not Kosher.

You cant serve, what is not on the menu.

 

[redleghunter]

You cant serve, what is not on the menu.

Why isn't ham on the menu?

 

[redleghunter]

Ham is not on the menu. But wedding cakes were on the baker's menu.

Yet the couple was asking for a "ham sandwich."

 

[Arcangl86]

Yet the couple was asking for a "ham sandwich."

That's odd. I thought they were asking for a wedding cake. All snarkiness aside, what is the difference between a wedding cake for a opposite gender wedding and a same gender wedding?

 

[redleghunter]

That's odd. I thought they were asking for a wedding cake. All snarkiness aside, what is the difference between a wedding cake for a opposite gender wedding and a same gender wedding?

Why do you think Jack Phillips refused a gay couple a wedding cake?

 

[Arcangl86]

Why do you think Jack Phillips refused a gay couple a wedding cake?

Because it was a gay couple asking for one. Which is discrimination against a customer based on sexual orientation, which is btw against the law of Colorado.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why do you think Jack Phillips refused a gay couple a wedding cake?

It's not hard to figure out. He sells wedding cakes, but refused to sell one to them because they are gay.

 

[redleghunter]

Because it was a gay couple asking for one.

Because it was for a wedding in violation of his held religious beliefs which is his free exercise of religion. It was not because they were gay because he regularly served gay customers. It was about marriage which by his faith is between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4-9). His charge was that it would violate his faith to specially design what is a wedding cake according to his 'menu' for some union that is in violation of his religion.

Which is discrimination against a customer based on sexual orientation

As mentioned it was based on the union and not the person's orientation.

which is btw against the law of Colorado.

Not at the time was it against CO law. In fact at the time he refused to design the wedding cake CO law recognized only traditional marriage.

 

[redleghunter]

It's not hard to figure out. He sells wedding cakes, but refused to sell one to them because they are gay.

It's not hard to figure out it had nothing to do with their orientation but the event 'marriage' they wanted to celebrate which violated his free exercise of religion.

 

[Arcangl86]

Because it was for a wedding in violation of his held religious beliefs which is his free exercise of religion. It was not because they were gay because he regularly served gay customers. It was about marriage which by his faith is between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4-9). His charge was that it would violate his faith to specially design what is a wedding cake according to his 'menu' for some union that is in violation of his religion.

As mentioned it was based on the union and not the person's orientation.

Justice Scalia put it best. A tax on wearing yurmakles is a tax on being Jewish.

Not at the time was it against CO law. In fact at the time he refused to design the wedding cake CO law recognized only traditional marriage.

It was against CO to buy a cake celebrating a marriage held in another state?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I was responding to another poster’s comment that “Discrimination that runs up against a Christian's (or insert other religion's) First Amendment rights should fall.”

That would mean that religion could be used as an excuse for all kinds of bigotry, thus my example. I wasn’t saying the gay wedding cake discrimination was analogous to putting a sign in the window saying “no Jews served here.”

I see

As for Christians being at the forefront of the abolitionist movement, well they were also at the forefront of the institution of American slavery and the defense of slavery in the south. Pretty much everyone in the U.S. was a Christian at the time and the Bible was used to both defend and decry slavery.
Did Christianity Abolish Slavery?

No, not pretty much everyone in the U.S. was a Christian at the time, which has always been a remnant, and unlike slavery for which there is some support as regulated and in historical context, homosexual marriage is nowhere supported in Scripture, but all fornication is only condemned. As is all sin.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

No, it was not. The marriage had zero to do with the fact that the baker discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Even if the marriage was completely prohibited that does not change the anti discrimination law since you are not required to be legally married to request a wedding cake. The legality of the marriage is a complete red herring with respect to this case.

That is absurd. The baker did not recognize homosexual marriage, the state did not recognize homosexual marriage, and yet the state punishes the baker for not recognizing the same thing the state did not, under the premise of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is what the state constitution did.

Certainly you are not required to be legally married to request a wedding cake, but neither should you be required to recognize any definition of marriage by providing for the celebration of it. Since homosexual marriage was not recognized by the state, then it no legal status than as did a marriage btwn an man and a animal.

But while the state could charge the baker with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, the point is that the state did the same by not recognizing homosexual marriage/
That is hardly a red herring.

 

[bhsmte]

Why isn't ham on the menu?

Irrelevant.

When one opens a public accomodating business, they determine which products they sell. If a business owner does not sell something as a normal course of their business, they have no obligation to provide it.

It isnt rocket science.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The case wasn’t brought by the baker, and was not about the baker not recognizing their marriage. Same sex marriage is not a protected status. Sexual orientation is. The discrimination complaint was on the grounds of the baker not providing a wedding cake to a gay couple. It’s not as if the baker had to recognize their marriage to bake a freaking cake.

Of course it was about the baker not recognizing their marriage, since that is why he would not contract to provide for the celebration of it. And indeed he would be complicit in sanctioning any event marriage by agreeing to provide a costly contracted special work for the express purpose of celebrating it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's not hard to figure out it had nothing to do with their orientation but the event 'marriage' they wanted to celebrate which violated his free exercise of religion.

What? He sells cakes that people use to celebrate marriages all the time.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Ham is not on the menu. But wedding cakes were on the baker's menu.

Meat is om the menu also, identified as kosher, and wedding on the baker's menu as identified by his faith and the law .