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

[PeaceByJesus]

The union of two homosexuals. He has no issue with heterosexual unions.

That is simply false, due to his convictions being from Scripture, which conclusively does not sanction but only condemns homosexual relations wherever it manifestly deals with them.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

His religious convictions are centered around the expressed sexuality of his customers. That is how he broke the law. That is the crux of the issue no matter how you try to dance around it.

It is you who are dancing around the actual issue which was in what why was this discrimination as related to the baker's rights. For indeed, Phillip's denial was based on his religious convictions and thus the expressed sexuality of his customers, but this was not a matter of actually denying a couple a custom service because they were homosexuals, for as said repeatedly, straights would have also been denied the same service if they were the customers asking to contract to obtain a work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an illicit marriage.

Which is akin to the case in Ireland, in which the denial of a custom service for a cake with a prohomosexual marriage message was unanimously judged by the Ireland supreme court to not being discrimination homosexuals since the same service would have been denied for anyone else.

In the sense that no recognizing homosexual marriage as valid is discrimination, then both the baker and the state that prosecuted him was guilty.

But all this has been established before, and since you cannot accept it, it may be time for me to move on.

 

[Belk]

It is you who are dancing around the actual issue which was in what why was this discrimination as related to the baker's rights. For indeed, Phillip's denial was based on his religious convictions and thus the expressed sexuality of his customers, but this was not a matter of actually denying a couple a custom service because they were homosexuals, for as said repeatedly, straights would have also been denied the same service if they were the customers asking to contract to obtain a work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an illicit marriage.

Which is akin to the case in Ireland, in which the denial of a custom service for a cake with a prohomosexual marriage message was unanimously judged by the Ireland supreme court to not being discrimination homosexuals since the same service would have been denied for anyone else.

In the sense that no recognizing homosexual marriage as valid is discrimination, then both the baker and the state that prosecuted him was guilty.

But all this has been established before, and since you cannot accept it, it may be time for me to move on.

My accepting it is not your issue. Your issue is so far the courts have not found this reasoning compelling. I have tried to explain why but you keep coming back to the same arguments.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

My accepting it is not your issue. Your issue is so far the courts have not found this reasoning compelling. I have tried to explain why but you keep coming back to the same arguments.

You mean two supreme courts did not recognize that two different bakeries had a valid objection to providing special cakes for homosexual marriage because of what they represented?

 

[Belk]

You mean two supreme courts did not recognize that two different bakeries had a valid objection to providing special cakes for homosexual marriage because of what they represented?

Not to my knowledge no. One found an issue with a written message and one found a problem with a review process. I am not aware of an issue with the cake.

 

[bhsmte]

No they were contracted out given the high price of the item. So instead of a gay man coming in and buying a birthday cake for a birthday, the couple had to sit down explain what they wanted.

LOL

 

[bhsmte]

No they were contracted out given the high price of the item. So instead of a gay man coming in and buying a birthday cake for a birthday, the couple had to sit down explain what they wanted.

If customers were able to obtain wedding cakes by visiting this business, then it was normal course of his business.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

It had everything to do with the couple. The only difference between this couple and the others who he was willing to sell to was their sexuality.

No, he was willing to sell anything to the couple, except a wedding cake for a non-wedding. It isn't about the people involved at all, but about the event.

 

[redleghunter]

If customers were able to obtain wedding cakes by visiting this business, then it was normal course of his business.

The normal course being custom designed wedding cakes.

 

[Belk]

No, he was willing to sell anything to the couple, except a wedding cake for a non-wedding. It isn't about the people involved at all, but about the event.

Again, the courts have consistently rejected this reasoning. The only people who have homosexual weddings are homosexuals. Do you think that if you repeat the same reasoning over and over the courts will suddenly accept it for some reason?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Again, the courts have consistently rejected this reasoning. The only people who have homosexual weddings are homosexuals. Do you think that if you repeat the same reasoning over and over the courts will suddenly accept it for some reason?

No, the Supreme Court did NOT reject this reasoning. It never even got to the issue,because of the implicit and obvious anti-religious bias of the city.

Do you think insisting over and over that non-weddings (under biblical standards) are indeed weddings makes any difference to one who adheres to biblical standards?

 

[redleghunter]

No, the Supreme Court did NOT reject this reasoning. It never even got to the issue,because of the implicit and obvious anti-religious bias of the city.

That was the narrow focus of the SCOTUS ruling, which escapes the reasoning of some in the debate. Some see it as the state commission being too harsh, when in fact they ignored his right to free exercise of religion. It was not even a consideration to some members of the board. The SCOTUS in effect said the man did not get a fair hearing of his First Amendment rights.

 

[Belk]

No, the Supreme Court did NOT reject this reasoning. It never even got to the issue,because of the implicit and obvious anti-religious bias of the city.

The lower courts have on multiple occasions. This is not the first time the reasoning has come up and it is now being used as precedent. This reasoning will not work.

Do you think insisting over and over that non-weddings (under biblical standards) are indeed weddings makes any difference to one who adheres to biblical standards?

The rules of this website only allow me to comment on the legality as defined by man made law.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

There's no reason Colorado shouldn't protect wedding receptions in Colorado for marriages conducted in Massachusetts. I admit it seems odd, but probably not in a way that would make it unconstitutional.

While you may opine this, the fact is as shown, CO constitutionally did not recognize in-state or out-of-state homosexual marriages in 2012.
Thus SCOTUS recognizes that Phillip's "dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell."
.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I'd bet dollars to donuts ... er, wedding cakes ... that had I asked for a wedding cake, and he asked why, and I responded that "I just like wedding cakes", he'd have let me spend my money.

Perhaps, just as with a graduation cake, since you were not going to use it to misrepresent anything, or celebrate fraud, or what should not be celebrated. Had a straight person asked for a cake to celebrate a divorce, or a homosexual union, he/she would have been denied due to the purpose. Likewise a very patriotic veteran might deny a war protester a flag due to his expressed intent to burn it.

If a person wanted a cake for a homosexual wedding, then the request should not have been expressly for that, or indicated. But it seems it was a setup, to force a business to commit a crime it otherwise would not have, for the purposes of advancing a cause.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Not to my knowledge no. One found an issue with a written message and one found a problem with a review process. I am not aware of an issue with the cake.

Meaning two supreme courts did recognize that two different bakeries had a valid objection to providing special cakes for homosexual marriage because of what they represented to the baker. Whether that validated their discrimination is the issue.

In the first case (which invoked the second) the problem was because of what cake conveyed by writing, and which in the second the problem was because of what was conveyed by consenting to create and provide the custom cake for the purpose intended for it. Unless you reject the latter means of conveyance, the objection is in essence that same as the conveyance by writing. And SCOTUS saw this dismissal as a problem, and recognized that,

"To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.

Rather than dismissing that Phillip's had a legit religious objection in arguing he was using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, thus endorsing what he used them for, SCOTUS condemns the CO commission for essentially doing just that, esp. with its hostility and inconsistency:

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.

The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism [which CO held as valid denials].

The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips' willingness to do the same irrelevant.

The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf (emp. mine)

 

[PeaceByJesus]

If customers were able to obtain wedding cakes by visiting this business, then it was normal course of his business.

If customers were able to unconditionally obtain wedding cakes by visiting this business, then it was normal course of his business, but if obtaining such had been and were subject to moral considerations then that was a normal course of his business, which in this case it was. A meat marker sells meat, but only that which is Kosher or Halal can be obtained. But maybe one wants a non-kosher wedding, even marrying the meat as per his claimed "orientation," while PETA protests both is offensive to them.

 

[Belk]

Meaning two supreme courts did recognize that two different bakeries had a valid objection to providing special cakes for homosexual marriage because of what they represented to the baker. Whether that validated their discrimination is the issue.

In the first case (which invoked the second) the problem was because of what cake conveyed by writing, and which in the second the problem was because of what was conveyed by consenting to create and provide the custom cake for the purpose intended for it. Unless you reject the latter means of conveyance, the objection is in essence that same as the conveyance by writing. And SCOTUS saw this dismissal as a problem, and recognized that,

"To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.

Rather than dismissing that Phillip's had a legit religious objection in arguing he was using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, thus endorsing what he used them for, SCOTUS condemns the CO commission for essentially doing just that, esp. with its hostility and inconsistency:"

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.

The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism [which CO held as valid denials].

The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips' willingness to do the same irrelevant.

The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf (emp. mine)

None of this implies that it is now OK to deny custom wedding cakes for homosexuals. The first case was in Ireland and has no bearing on US law. If you are speaking of a different case please tell me the name of it. The Phillips case was narrowly decided so it does not in any way validate his argument. The only thing that can concluded from the Phillips case is that the CO commission needs to work on its hostility to religion.

 

[bhsmte]

]If customers were able to unconditionally obtain wedding cakes by visiting this business, then it was normal course of his business, but if obtaining such had been and were subject to moral considerations then that was a normal course of his business, which in this case it was. A meat marker sells meat, but only that which is Kosher or Halal can be obtained. But maybe one wants a non-kosher wedding, even marrying the meat as per his claimed "orientation," while PETA protests both is offensive to them.

If the dude provides.wedding cakes to customers, it is part of the normal course of his business, whether it pains you to admit or not.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

If the dude provides.wedding cakes to customers, it is part of the normal course of his business, whether it pains you to admit or not.

Only for weddings. This was not a wedding. Not by law and not in his faith, as a secondary consideration.