U.S. Supreme Court To Decide Cake Baker Free Speech Claim and Public Accommodation Law

KCfromNC · Jul 5, 2017

Serving Zion said:
Yes, in the seventh paragraph of the second article in the OP, he is found to have said:

I'm not talking about what he said me might do in some hypothetical situation, since he and his lawyers say a lot of things which don't quite add up. I'm curious what actually happened in the cases where he discriminated against actual customers.

I am comparing that some people expect immorality to be readily accepted, and some people are not comfortable to be party to immorality.

By comparing being gay to doing something illegal. Try again.

You would benefit to think deeply upon the proverbial wisdom of King Soloman's observation of this behaviour:

"The righteous detest the unjust, and the wicked detest the upright".

Yep, and the righteous in Colorado successfully punished the wicked actions of this baker.

I am sure you have been in a situation where you have thought "dang, I wish I had explained it that way". Well, it's just that often we don't understand really why we are the way we are until we have sat down and made sense of it. Sometimes, it also helps to have an objective analytical perspective, such as I am doing. Anyway, while he is being expected to explain his objection before fully rationalising it, we should expect his words to contain some deficiency in fullness of understanding.

No, I'd expect that if he were selling blessings rather than cakes the web site advertising his business might mention that fact. Weird that it doesn't, and that this excuse has only come up after losing a few appeals.

Also, there is often some reluctance (fear) to speak fully and openly about the way we truly feel, and in this case we can see that he is somewhat limited in his ability to speak in objection to homosexuality because people are particularly sensitive to the topic in the present times, and it carries a risk of provoking that bias to trigger an irrational reaction.

The invisible hand at work, as they say. Something about the majority of people detesting the unjust, I guess.

It sounds like the laws for minority support were crafted in that vicinity while being under the influence of particular passion, lending themselves toward extremists who wish to use the law for unjust purposes.

Yeah, everyone else is the extremist.

Another wisdom of King Soloman is insightful toward this: Proverbs 28:12

"When the righteous triumph there is great glory, but when the wicked rise to power, people hide."

I don't see that here - lots of people are speaking out against the immoral actions of this business owner.

Ah, I see, thanks for that! He obviously does not feel grieved by blessing that celebration of love .. and why should he? Dogs are the most loving creatures on earth, by my observation. This gay couple has no interest in love, they have abandoned it to pursue hatred instead.

I don't understand the need to try and demonize a couple for trying to buy a cake from someone who advertises he sells cakes.

Essentially at the foundation of this, is dominance. You who argue that this man should be forced to do that which he doesn't enjoy doing, because he is offered money

Nope. I'm saying if he chooses to run a business he needs to follow the laws regulating businesses. He doesn't get to pick and choose which laws he follows just because he believes in one religion or another.

Money, when used in your way, is idolatry. Did it never occur to you, sir, that you are engaging in idolatry? What will you do when the greater idolater turns upon you? Is this something that you have thought much about?

No. I mean, I enjoy a good bit of fiction as much as the next guy but this is a situation where we should probably stick to actual facts back here in reality.

First of all, I can see that you are struggling to decouple the idea of homophobia from religiosity. In fact, it is not simply a religious objection, it is a moral objection.

I know his lawyers are trying to downplay the religious defense after it didn't work, but let's not fall for their attempts to hide it.

Did they end up getting a cake for their celebration elsewhere? And if so, why can they not be content with that cake?

Yeah, why enforce any laws at all? I mean sure, my brother was murdered but I have a sister so it's all good.

Evan Jellicoe · Jul 5, 2017

Interesting discussion here. But in the end, it’s all going to boil down to whether the Supreme Court agrees that the wedding cake is really a custom work of art. If it is, then the outcome is clear. Even the ACLU is on record, at their web site, of supporting the absolute right of an artist to create or not create. No justification whatsoever is required. The web article says "a free society is based on the principle that each and every individual has the right to decide what art or entertainment he or she wants -- or does not want -- to receive or create." [emphasis added.]

This sentence is found in the fifth paragraph in this web article:

Freedom of Expression in the Arts and Entertainment

The Court therefore will rule either that it is a work of art, or that it is simply a commodity and not art. That will be the only thing at issue.

Oh, that thing about doing wedding cakes for dogs? Apparently the couple who were denied the wedding cake called back later and asked for a wedding cake for dogs, and were quoted a price, with no protest from Mr. Phillips. The cake seems never to have actually been made. Does that show hypocrisy? Maybe, maybe not. But it doesn’t matter. An artist may choose for any reason whatsoever to accept or turn down a request to create. But he may not arbitrarily decline a request to produce a non-art commodity or service. He may, to avoid involuntary servitude, decline to make cakes of any sort; he cannot be compelled to be a baker. But if he does work as a baker, he must provide his product to everybody equally. Unless it is a work of creative art.

Lots of good arguments in this thread, both for and against defining the cake as art. Let’s see what the Supreme Court ends up saying.

NotreDame · Jul 5, 2017

KCfromNC said:
The courts have already ruled the 1st amendment isn't a blanket excuse to break other laws when the exercise of those rights by an individual harms others. This is a good opportunity to continue that tradition.

A very crude, and partially accurate, summation of the Court's doctrine. Part of the problem is the vague and ambiguous use of the word "harm." The Court has held free speech rights may be exercised, contrary to the law, and while discriminatorily excluding others. See Hurley v Irish American Gay, Leabian, Bisexual Group of Boston.

See also Boy Scouts the of America v Dale (Applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association.)

So, maybe they will continue the tradition of free speech rights as paramount to public accommodation laws. Although if the Court doesn't, it's not because of your inaccurate statement and neither would the Court rely on your statement. The basis will be the rule announced in O'Brien, which I quoted.

Walsinghsm Way · Jul 6, 2017

Baruch Hashem!

Cute Tink said:
You are using the fact that they are gay and getting married to proclaim that they have a view to get around the fact that you are refusing service because of their sexual orientation and nothing more. That is not the case with the governor at all.

My quibble here is that you assume the baker was refusing to sell/bake the cake based on orientation -on their status-, when I read it as he was refusing based on behavior -that his work would go to celebrating an action he finds objectively objectionable, and that it could be inferred that he agreed with the conduct in question.

An orientation is not identical with behavior, though. At least not in any philosophical, psychiatric, anthropological called sources that I know of.

I can reason that the baker in question would have also refused the sale to a heterosexual couple who was buying a wedding cake for a Same Sex Marriage ceremony. Would he then have been considweed in violation of the PCA?

Cute Tink · Jul 6, 2017

Walsinghsm Way said:
Baruch Hashem!

My quibble here is that you assume the baker was refusing to sell/bake the cake based on orientation -on their status-, when I read it as he was refusing based on behavior -that his work would go to celebrating an action he finds objectively objectionable, and that it could be inferred that he agreed with the conduct in question.

An orientation is not identical with behavior, though. At least not in any philosophical, psychiatric, anthropological called sources that I know of.

I can reason that the baker in question would have also refused the sale to a heterosexual couple who was buying a wedding cake for a Same Sex Marriage ceremony. Would he then have been considweed in violation of the PCA?

Given that (realistically speaking) a same sex marriage ceremony is something only gay people are going to engage in, discriminating against "an event" is discriminating against the people involved. "A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews."

Belk · Jul 6, 2017

Walsinghsm Way said:
Baruch Hashem!

My quibble here is that you assume the baker was refusing to sell/bake the cake based on orientation -on their status-, when I read it as he was refusing based on behavior -that his work would go to celebrating an action he finds objectively objectionable, and that it could be inferred that he agreed with the conduct in question.

An orientation is not identical with behavior, though. At least not in any philosophical, psychiatric, anthropological called sources that I know of.

I can reason that the baker in question would have also refused the sale to a heterosexual couple who was buying a wedding cake for a Same Sex Marriage ceremony. Would he then have been considweed in violation of the PCA?

If he would bake a cake for a wedding of heterosexuals but not homosexuals it is not the action but the participants who are the issue.

Walsinghsm Way · Jul 6, 2017

Baruch Hashem y'all!
EDIT : oops, forgot to finish my first paragraph thought. Sorry y'all

Though I hear what you are saying Cute Tink, and you as well, Belk, I don't necessarily agree with it, as I do make the distinction that an orientation or inclination toward X does not automatically mean behavior will be engaged in, that you can be opposed to the behavior in question -in this case intimate relations outside the marriage of a man to a woman regardless of what - without necessarily objecting to the objective orientation (though that could also be the case). Thus not all gays or lesbians are sexually active, or seek a SSM.

In the end this isn't actually a subject that I am going to loose much sleep over, though.

I can forsee a decision by SCOTUS that allows redress of grievance for the baker, yet at the same timw not bejng allowed to become peecedent setting, maybe by setting a test for religious conviction as free speech I'm relation to business,

For myself though, the whole painful situation should properly be seem as a moral, not a legal issue.

If the baker is (as I will assume in charity to be the case) a committed Christian who holds that homosexual activity is morally wrong and not to be associated with or celebrated to the extent that he does not want a product or service of his making to participate in celebrating the action or behavior; then he should refuse the service *and* be willing to accept whatever legal consequences and sanctions arise as a result of a principled refusal, seeing his action as bearing witness to objective standards (almost a form of civil disobedience toward a government that seeks to normalize immoral behaviors) and seeing the legal ramifications as a form of persecution for his beliefs and action, not to seek redress from those sanctions, or to seek exoneration for them. He should suffer gladly for his witness.

Belk · Jul 7, 2017

Walsinghsm Way said:
Baruch Hashem y'all!
EDIT : oops, forgot to finish my first paragraph thought. Sorry y'all

Though I hear what you are saying Cute Tink, and you as well, Belk, I don't necessarily agree with it, as I do make the distinction that an orientation or inclination toward X does not automatically mean behavior will be engaged in, that you can be opposed to the behavior in question -in this case intimate relations outside the marriage of a man to a woman regardless of what - without necessarily objecting to the objective orientation (though that could also be the case). Thus not all gays or lesbians are sexually active, or seek a SSM.

I understand the distinction you are making but it is not a distinction that makes a difference in this particular case I think. My understanding is that in previous cases such distinctions have been tried and rejected as trying to split hairs. In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez - Wikipedia it is noted that such hair splitting is the same as in Bray V Alexander and that targeting an activity that is only engaged in by a protected class is the same as targeting the protected class.

Walsinghsm Way said:
In the end this isn't actually a subject that I am going to loose much sleep over, though.

I can forsee a decision by SCOTUS that allows redress of grievance for the baker, yet at the same timw not bejng allowed to become peecedent setting, maybe by setting a test for religious conviction as free speech I'm relation to business,

For myself though, the whole painful situation should properly be seem as a moral, not a legal issue.

If the baker is (as I will assume in charity to be the case) a committed Christian who holds that homosexual activity is morally wrong and not to be associated with or celebrated to the extent that he does not want a product or service of his making to participate in celebrating the action or behavior; then he should refuse the service *and* be willing to accept whatever legal consequences and sanctions arise as a result of a principled refusal, seeing his action as bearing witness to objective standards (almost a form of civil disobedience toward a government that seeks to normalize immoral behaviors) and seeing the legal ramifications as a form of persecution for his beliefs and action, not to seek redress from those sanctions, or to seek exoneration for them. He should suffer gladly for his witness.

It seems to me if this individual is a committed Christian then the easy way to not fall afoul the law is to simply not make wedding cakes. If you do not provide a service to anybody then no one can worry about discrimination. This is a large part of my issue with these cases. If a Christian firmly believes that baking a cake for a SSM is an issue then have the courage of your convictions and ensure you will not be put in a position where it becomes an issue.

Serving Zion · Jun 4, 2018

In the news today:

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple

The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantee.

Both sides claimed a measure of victory.

"It's hard to believe that the government punished me for operating my business consistent with my beliefs about marriage. That isn't freedom or tolerance," Phillips said in a statement.

"Today's decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue," Mullins and Charlie Craig said in a statement. "We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are."

The court will soon have the opportunity to signal its approach to handling similar cases. The justices on Thursday will consider whether to hear an appeal by a Washington state flower shop owner who refused to create a floral arrangement to celebrate a gay wedding, based on her Christian beliefs.

huge defeat in 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court decision

GAY MAFIA handed huge defeat in 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Christian baker

“The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” the decision stated.

Colorado’s bigoted, pro-gay commissioners were slapped hard, as Justice Kennedy wrote, “As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

In today’s decision, the Supreme Court also pointed out that Colorado bureaucrats went all-out to defend the rights of bakers who refused to decorate cakes with anti-gay messages, proving that Colorado’s laws are selectively applied only to Christians in order to unfairly coerce them to engage in speech that violates their own religions beliefs.

It’s not difficult to find a gay-friendly cake shop in any American city, yet the gay mafia isn’t satisfied with that diversity of choices in a free market economy. They feel it is their obligation to threaten, bully and bankrupt anyone isn’t sufficiently obedient to the gay agenda. That’s what makes today’s “gay rights” movement a whole lot closer to a Marxist / fascist “Brownshirts” movement than anything resembling real civil rights.

My message to gay people is simple: Yes, you have the right to be gay. You do not, however, have the right to force everyone else in society to embrace your sexuality.

But Leftists are increasingly proving why they are not qualified to participate in civil society. They have no real respect for diversity of religion, diversity of thought or diversity of views. They are authoritarians through and through. And that’s why they must be stopped.

-----------------------------------------

So what I'm picking in this is there is a real intrinsic need for healing in this gay couple, and their approach is actually working against them in that. They are expressing deep resentment toward those who oppose their sexuality, that manifests as premeditated wrath. It is unfortunate that the cake shop owner was not able to provide that healing to them (as he might have achieved by doing them a service), however he also can be seen as having only refused to perform actions that he has expressed as being emotionally traumatic (last paragraph, post #234).

The part that shows there is premeditated wrath in these people, is where they have said even after the hearing, that they intend to continue finding and persecuting people who morally object to their sexuality:

Mullins and Charlie Craig said in a statement. "We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are."

.. and the proof that this is rooted in an unhealed affliction, is where they have assumed the baker refused them based upon "who they are" - whereas Mr. Philips has been clear and consistent, through his speech and through his actions, that he did not decline because of who they are, but because of what they were asking him to do.

Belk · Jun 4, 2018

Serving Zion said:
In the news today:

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple

The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantee.

Both sides claimed a measure of victory.

"It's hard to believe that the government punished me for operating my business consistent with my beliefs about marriage. That isn't freedom or tolerance," Phillips said in a statement.

"Today's decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue," Mullins and Charlie Craig said in a statement. "We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are."

The court will soon have the opportunity to signal its approach to handling similar cases. The justices on Thursday will consider whether to hear an appeal by a Washington state flower shop owner who refused to create a floral arrangement to celebrate a gay wedding, based on her Christian beliefs.

huge defeat in 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court decision

GAY MAFIA handed huge defeat in 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Christian baker

“The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” the decision stated.

Colorado’s bigoted, pro-gay commissioners were slapped hard, as Justice Kennedy wrote, “As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

In today’s decision, the Supreme Court also pointed out that Colorado bureaucrats went all-out to defend the rights of bakers who refused to decorate cakes with anti-gay messages, proving that Colorado’s laws are selectively applied only to Christians in order to unfairly coerce them to engage in speech that violates their own religions beliefs.

It’s not difficult to find a gay-friendly cake shop in any American city, yet the gay mafia isn’t satisfied with that diversity of choices in a free market economy. They feel it is their obligation to threaten, bully and bankrupt anyone isn’t sufficiently obedient to the gay agenda. That’s what makes today’s “gay rights” movement a whole lot closer to a Marxist / fascist “Brownshirts” movement than anything resembling real civil rights.

My message to gay people is simple: Yes, you have the right to be gay. You do not, however, have the right to force everyone else in society to embrace your sexuality.

But Leftists are increasingly proving why they are not qualified to participate in civil society. They have no real respect for diversity of religion, diversity of thought or diversity of views. They are authoritarians through and through. And that’s why they must be stopped.

-----------------------------------------

So what I'm picking in this is there is a real intrinsic need for healing in this gay couple, and their approach is actually working against them in that. They are expressing deep resentment toward those who oppose their sexuality, that manifests as premeditated wrath. It is unfortunate that the cake shop owner was not able to provide that healing to them (as he might have achieved by doing them a service), however he also can be seen as having only refused to perform actions that he has expressed as being emotionally traumatic (last paragraph, post #234).

The part that shows there is premeditated wrath in these people, is where they have said even after the hearing, that they intend to continue finding and persecuting people who morally object to their sexuality:

Mullins and Charlie Craig said in a statement. "We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are."

.. and the proof that this is rooted in an unhealed affliction, is where they have assumed the baker refused them based upon "who they are" - whereas Mr. Philips has been clear and consistent, through his speech and through his actions, that he did not decline because of who they are, but because of what they were asking him to do.

Gay Mafia? Can't imagine where homosexuals get the idea Christians don't love them.

Shiloh Raven · Jun 4, 2018

Serving Zion said:
In the news today:

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple

U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay couple

The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips' religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The decision also did not address important claims raised in the case including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the Constitution's free speech guarantee.

Both sides claimed a measure of victory.

"It's hard to believe that the government punished me for operating my business consistent with my beliefs about marriage. That isn't freedom or tolerance," Phillips said in a statement.

"Today's decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue," Mullins and Charlie Craig said in a statement. "We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are."

The court will soon have the opportunity to signal its approach to handling similar cases. The justices on Thursday will consider whether to hear an appeal by a Washington state flower shop owner who refused to create a floral arrangement to celebrate a gay wedding, based on her Christian beliefs.

huge defeat in 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court decision

GAY MAFIA handed huge defeat in 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Christian baker

“The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” the decision stated.

Colorado’s bigoted, pro-gay commissioners were slapped hard, as Justice Kennedy wrote, “As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”

In today’s decision, the Supreme Court also pointed out that Colorado bureaucrats went all-out to defend the rights of bakers who refused to decorate cakes with anti-gay messages, proving that Colorado’s laws are selectively applied only to Christians in order to unfairly coerce them to engage in speech that violates their own religions beliefs.

It’s not difficult to find a gay-friendly cake shop in any American city, yet the gay mafia isn’t satisfied with that diversity of choices in a free market economy. They feel it is their obligation to threaten, bully and bankrupt anyone isn’t sufficiently obedient to the gay agenda. That’s what makes today’s “gay rights” movement a whole lot closer to a Marxist / fascist “Brownshirts” movement than anything resembling real civil rights.

My message to gay people is simple: Yes, you have the right to be gay. You do not, however, have the right to force everyone else in society to embrace your sexuality.

But Leftists are increasingly proving why they are not qualified to participate in civil society. They have no real respect for diversity of religion, diversity of thought or diversity of views. They are authoritarians through and through. And that’s why they must be stopped.

-----------------------------------------

So what I'm picking in this is there is a real intrinsic need for healing in this gay couple, and their approach is actually working against them in that. They are expressing deep resentment toward those who oppose their sexuality, that manifests as premeditated wrath. It is unfortunate that the cake shop owner was not able to provide that healing to them (as he might have achieved by doing them a service), however he also can be seen as having only refused to perform actions that he has expressed as being emotionally traumatic (last paragraph, post #234).

The part that shows there is premeditated wrath in these people, is where they have said even after the hearing, that they intend to continue finding and persecuting people who morally object to their sexuality:

Mullins and Charlie Craig said in a statement. "We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are."

.. and the proof that this is rooted in an unhealed affliction, is where they have assumed the baker refused them based upon "who they are" - whereas Mr. Philips has been clear and consistent, through his speech and through his actions, that he did not decline because of who they are, but because of what they were asking him to do.

As it has already been pointed out by @Hank77 in another thread...

Hank77 said:
They only backed the baker in this particular case because the Colorado Commission and Court in effect discriminated against him.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

*Thank you for the link by the way, Hank.*

Belk said:
Gay Mafia? Can't imagine where homosexuals get the idea Christians don't love them.

No kidding.

Belk said:
It seems to me if this individual is a committed Christian then the easy way to not fall afoul the law is to simply not make wedding cakes. If you do not provide a service to anybody then no one can worry about discrimination. This is a large part of my issue with these cases. If a Christian firmly believes that baking a cake for a SSM is an issue then have the courage of your convictions and ensure you will not be put in a position where it becomes an issue.

Well said.

wing2000 · Jun 4, 2018

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

-Justice Kennedy

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_new_d1of.pdf

Serving Zion · Jun 4, 2018

Shiloh Weasley said:
As it has already been pointed out by @Hank77 in another thread...

*Thank you for the link by the way, Hank.*

Thanks for that information, to show that Justice is not necessarily about morality as the enforcement of code of law .. and what we discuss in essence is where two parties have differing views of morality, and are engaged in a legal enforcement of law to decide between them.

Shiloh Weasley said:
No kidding.

Agreed, and all that has been said about a deep need for healing that is rooted in resentment manifesting as wrath, it applies perfectly upon observation of what is producing such aggressive words.

Shiloh Weasley said:
Well said.

.. if, and only if, one is to have a philosophy toward trade, such that money is believed to obligate a person to provide a service (which that perspective of law does), instead of viewing trade as a willing exchange between two parties, where money ensures that no record (or memory) of unequal exchange has been accrued between them.

(That was pretty well explained through post #234).

I am of a fundamental philosophy that trade should be an amicable deal between two parties, and if one of those parties should not be willing to trade, then the trade should not be forced. Where this causes a perceived deprivation, such as a store owner that refuses to sell bread to a hungry family, then an adjudicator might be required. But between reasonable people it shouldn't require more than a conversation to establish whether a deprivation is condemnable or not.

A reasonably good example of this might be to consider whether a vegetarian restaurant is similarly obligated to provide an option with meat on it's menu, to cater for those who cannot be satisfied with a meal that doesn't contain meat (and vice-versa, FWIW).

FireDragon76 · Jun 4, 2018

Belk said:
Gay Mafia? Can't imagine where homosexuals get the idea Christians don't love them.

This is proof enough that many Christians are motivated by hate in their politics.

Gays just want the same rights everybody else has. But many evangelicals, in their narcissism, act like everybody else must share their values, and that's not how this world works.

wing2000 said:
The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

-Justice Kennedy

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_new_d1of.pdf

In other words, the Supreme Court is going to be busy hearing these sorts of cases for years to come. Kennedy has cut out the court's work, now the court may become the arbiter of "sincerely held religious beliefs". Uggh.

FireDragon76 · Jun 4, 2018

Serving Zion said:
Thanks for that information, to show that Justice is not necessarily about morality as the enforcement of code of law .. and what we discuss in essence is where two parties have differing views of morality, and are engaged in a legal enforcement of law to decide between them.

Agreed, and all that has been said about a deep need for healing that is rooted in resentment manifesting as wrath, it applies perfectly upon observation of what is producing such aggressive words.

Evangelical Christians are not healers and shouldn't be lecturing gays on their pain. You will not be permitted to gaslight the gay community.

Serving Zion · Jun 4, 2018

wing2000 said:
The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

-Justice Kennedy

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_new_d1of.pdf

Tough ask! - here is the clincher: what makes a gay person's dignity more important than the respect of the religious person's beliefs? The answer can only lead to the natural purpose of sex, whether it is for recreation or procreation. We can see why it produces such bitter resentment, right? .. especially where the gay person's belief is that homosexuality is not a choice or a result of choices.

Serving Zion · Jun 4, 2018

Belk said:
Gay Mafia? Can't imagine where homosexuals get the idea Christians don't love them.

Yeah, this indicates a rather severe anxiety (discomfort, feeling of powerlessness) in the writer.. here's an idea about that:

Serving Zion - external writing said:
The world is taught to behave in unholy (sinful) manner.

Where this comes to impact a person unfairly (because remember - to not do to another as you would have them do to you, is to transgress them. It is an assault of sorts), then it can be distressing. It can make us feel as though we are being disrespected, not being treated as we should be treated, and when we recognise that we don't treat others that way, it is a sense of injustice. When it exists from a position that has power over us, it can be frustrating. This is what causes anxiety and depression.

Serving Zion · Jun 4, 2018

FireDragon76 said:
Evangelical Christians are not healers

To shame..

FireDragon76 said:
and shouldn't be lecturing gays on their pain.

Matthew 7:5 has an idea toward that. I agree that lecturing is probably not the best approach.

FireDragon76 said:
You will not be permitted to gaslight the gay community.

That's ok, I don't intend to do that. I only intend to be precise in judgement.

But I will make justice the measuring line and righteousness the plumb line. Hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and water will overflow the hiding place.
Isaiah 28:17

wing2000 · Jun 4, 2018

Serving Zion said:
Tough ask! - here is the clincher: what makes a gay person's dignity more important than the respect of the religious person's beliefs? The answer can only lead to the natural purpose of sex, whether it is for recreation or procreation. We can see why it produces such bitter resentment, right? .. especially where the gay person's belief is that homosexuality is not a choice or a result of choices.

Why do you presume one is more important than the other?

Belk · Jun 5, 2018

Serving Zion said:
Yeah, this indicates a rather severe anxiety (discomfort, feeling of powerlessness) in the writer.. here's an idea about that:

Doubling down and adding hubris? Sure. Why not.

U.S. Supreme Court To Decide Cake Baker Free Speech Claim and Public Accommodation Law

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Domer

Active Member

Blah

Senior Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Seek First His Kingdom & Righteousness

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

E pluribus unum

Seek First His Kingdom & Righteousness

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Seek First His Kingdom & Righteousness

Seek First His Kingdom & Righteousness

Seek First His Kingdom & Righteousness

E pluribus unum

Senior Member

Similar threads