supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[bhsmte]

The problem is twofold:
1. the Constitution trumps "human dignity". And the "human dignity" case applies to both sides.
2. They are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They do it all the time. But even more important, the constitution protects their right to refuse to serve anyone, for whatever reason. Anything else would make them slaves.

Does this mean they could also refuse to serve blacks?

 

[Almost there]

Does this mean they could also refuse to serve blacks?

Straw man. They are not choosing to not serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in an event that violates their religious principles - which are protected by the first amendment.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Straw man. They are not choosing to not serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in an event that violates their religious principles - which are protected by the first amendment.

Exxxxxxxxxactly!

 

[Liza B.]

Considering in some cases business owners had to go on social media to figure out details of their customer's personal lives, that seems like a tough argument to make.



And what's the difference between a gay and straight wedding? The identity of the people getting married.



People thinking this way lost the battle when they had to sell houses to Jews in good upstanding Christian neighborhoods. And when they couldn't turn away Irish people applying for jobs. And when they had to serve black customers at their restaurants. Guess every generation or so we have to relearn the same truths.

No, it's not the identity, it's the wedding--it's the event.

Your last paragraph is nonsensical.

 

[bhsmte]

Straw man. They are not choosing to not serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in an event that violates their religious principles - which are protected by the first amendment.

No strawman atball. You stated the constitution protects their rights to not serve anyone.

Do you not remember what you wrote?

 

[FireDragon76]

Straw man. They are not choosing to not serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in an event that violates their religious principles - which are protected by the first amendment.

Is a baker really a participant in a wedding, or merely serving a customer?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Straw man. They are not choosing to not serve homosexuals. They are refusing to participate in an event that violates their religious principles - which are protected by the first amendment.

Do you think it would be legal for them to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial or an interfaith wedding?

Do you think it should be legal for them to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial or an interfaith wedding?

 

[Almost there]

No strawman atball. You stated the constitution protects their rights to not serve anyone.

Do you not remember what you wrote?

Are you talking about this: "They are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They do it all the time."

"It" means, within the context of the preceding sentence, "serve blacks". Not "don't serve blacks".

 

[Almost there]

Is a baker really a participant in a wedding, or merely serving a customer?

He is a participant in that he is providing his services (baking the cake) for the wedding. If they buy one off the shelf, that is a different thing.

On a side note, I would not want to eat a cake that the government, via the power of the gun, forced someone to bake for me. Just sayin'.

 

[Almost there]

Do you think it would be legal for them to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial or an interfaith wedding?

Do you think it should be legal for them to refuse to bake a cake for an interracial or an interfaith wedding?

If it violated their religious convictions, yes. That is what the 1st amendment is all about. It's very binary.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you talking about this: "They are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They do it all the time."

"It" means, within the context of the preceding sentence, "serve blacks". Not "don't serve blacks".

Let me make this simple for you. See post 29, where you said (see bold):

The problem is twofold:
1. the Constitution trumps "human dignity". And the "human dignity" case applies to both sides.
2. They are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They do it all the time. But even more important, the constitution protects their right to refuse to serve anyone, for whatever reason. Anything else would make them slaves.

 

[bhsmte]

If it violated their religious convictions, yes. That is what the 1st amendment is all about. It's very binary.

Religious rights, just like free speech and or 2nd amendments rights, are not limitless. One's rights, tend to reach their limit, when they begin to infringe on the rights of others and especially so, in public environments.

 

[Almost there]

Let me make this simple for you. See post 29, where you said (see bold):

The problem is twofold:
1. the Constitution trumps "human dignity". And the "human dignity" case applies to both sides.
2. They are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They do it all the time. But even more important, the constitution protects their right to refuse to serve anyone, for whatever reason. Anything else would make them slaves.

Then you should have quoted that in your post instead of what you actually quoted.

And it looks like what you bolded there answers your question.

 

[Almost there]

Religious rights, just like free speech and or 2nd amendments rights, are not limitless. One's rights, tend to reach their limit, when they begin to infringe on the rights of others and especially so, in public environments.

I agree with the old "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" concept. But in the case of a business, he's being passive. He is simply saying that, for whatever reason, he wants people to stay away from him in his space. And if he owns or leases it, it is his space. It is called "quiet enjoyment".

And if the business owner does refuse service to blacks, women, men, young people, old people etc. it just leaves more customers for their competitors.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

I think it is time for our country to take a step back. I am ok with discrimination in this instance. Provided no one's life is at stake and another business can accommodate the customer within a reasonable distance and time frame, go ahead & discriminate!

Just note what groups of people you won't serve and what services you won't provide in your store, on your website, on your advertisements, & on any printed materials.

That way those groups won't even approach you about those services. Also, people who don't want to support such views can avoid putting money in your pocket as well.

Everybody wins!

 

[bhsmte]

I agree with the old "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" concept. But in the case of a business, he's being passive. He is simply saying that, for whatever reason, he wants people to stay away from him in his space. And if he owns or leases it, it is his space. It is called "quiet enjoyment".

And if the business owner does refuse service to blacks, women, men, young people, old people etc. it just leaves more customers for their competitors.

I hate to break it to you, but the supreme court is not going to do away with anti discrimination laws and wipe out public accommodation laws either.

 

[bhsmte]

Then you should have quoted that in your post instead of what you actually quoted.

And it looks like what you bolded there answers your question.

I quoted the entire post the 1st time around, which is why I asked you if you quickly forgot what you said.

 

[KCfromNC]

I think you have rights mixed up with privileges.

Can you explain why you think that?

 

[KCfromNC]

Is a baker really a participant in a wedding, or merely serving a customer?

If I remember correctly, at least one baker sold a cake for, uh I mean, happily participated in a canine wedding but wouldn't sell a cake to gay people. I'm sure we can find all sorts of other interesting examples where conflating selling a product and attending an event would make them look kinda hypocritical.

 

[KCfromNC]

I agree with the old "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" concept. But in the case of a business, he's being passive. He is simply saying that, for whatever reason, he wants people to stay away from him in his space.

I thought in this case he did actively turn away a gay couple before even finding out what they wanted. Or am I confusing this with another case where that was exactly what happened? Then there was the case of a baker which actively tracked down the customer on social media to find out their sexual orientation before canceling their order, also pretty above and beyond the normal activity of a business owner.

And if he owns or leases it, it is his space. It is called "quiet enjoyment".

More like public accommodation.

And if the business owner does refuse service to blacks, women, men, young people, old people etc. it just leaves more customers for their competitors.

Yes, being shut down for breaking the law would do that to a business.