This Is The Most Important Religious Liberty Decision Since Masterpiece Cakeshop

[Quartermaine]

I can understand why those who have little understanding of conservative Christianity have such puerile fears. Try not to believe the worst about people, friend.

I'm all to familiar with conservative Christians thank you

 

[GACfan]

I'm all to familiar with conservative Christians thank you

I am too, and that's why I decided that I couldn't be supportive of the Republican Party anymore. The straw that finally broke the camel's back for me was when Trump was elected. I was shocked to see so many conservative Christians supporting and defending a man like him. I couldn't believe that he was becoming the face of the Christian Right and the rest of the Republican Party. It didn't take me long to realize shortly after he started his campaign that I didn't want to be politically associated with him or have my personal Christian faith associated with him either. I also started to distance myself from his conservative Christian supporters too. Donald Trump doesn't even remotely represent my moral values or my Christian faith. I'm ashamed that he is even associated with the Christian faith in the first place. I doubt the Republican Party will ever be able to salvage its reputation in the aftermath of Trump.

 

[Aldebaran]

I am too, and that's why I decided that I couldn't be supportive of the Republican Party anymore. The straw that finally broke the camel's back for me was when Trump was elected. I was shocked to see so many conservative Christians supporting and defending a man like him. I couldn't believe that he was becoming the face of the Christian Right and the rest of the Republican Party. It didn't take me long to realize shortly after he started his campaign that I didn't want to be politically associated with him or have my personal Christian faith associated with him either. I also started to distance myself from his conservative Christian supporters too. Donald Trump doesn't even remotely represent my moral values or my Christian faith. I'm ashamed that he is even associated with the Christian faith in the first place. I doubt the Republican Party will ever be able to salvage its reputation in the aftermath of Trump.

People on the Republican side supported him because he became the party's nominee. The only real alternative was Hillary Clinton. So if people didn't want her, they voted for Trump. My own personal preference for the Republican side was Ted Cruz, but since he wasn't the one who ended up as the nominee, Trump was it.
I know that I'll be told that this is bad reasoning. But consider the fact that the same sentiment is occurring right now on the democrat side. "Anyone but Trump" is what we're hearing, along with "Whoever can beat Trump". Is it really so different?

 

[Aldebaran]

they are realistic. deal with it.

Then I'll let you deal with a realistic scenario:

Suppose a black woman who is a Christian owns a bake shop, and a white man comes in an says he wants a cake made and decorated with items and words that is for a White Supremacist event. The words are all about white power and are quite derogatory toward blacks, and even women. The shop owner tells the man that she can't in good conscience complete his order and tells him about a shop that's right across the street that has filled orders similar to his.

Has this woman "discriminated" (using the definition of your choosing) against this guy? If so, how?

Has he discriminated against him based on his gender, being a man?
Has he discriminated against him based on his race, being white?
Has he discriminated against him based on his beliefs or values, being a white supremacist?
Or has she not discriminated against him at all, being that she herself is a woman, and a "minority", and the fact that white supremacists are generally hated anyway?

 

[Quartermaine]

Then I'll let you deal with a realistic scenario:

Suppose a black woman who is a Christian owns a bake shop, and a white man comes in an says he wants a cake made and decorated with items and words that is for a White Supremacist event. The words are all about white power and are quite derogatory toward blacks, and even women. The shop owner tells the man that she can't in good conscience complete his order and tells him about a shop that's right across the street that has filled orders similar to his.

Has this woman "discriminated" (using the definition of your choosing) against this guy? If so, how?

Has he discriminated against him based on his gender, being a man?
Has he discriminated against him based on his race, being white?
Has he discriminated against him based on his beliefs or values, being a white supremacist?
Or has she not discriminated against him at all, being that she herself is a woman, and a "minority", and the fact that white supremacists are generally hated anyway?

the race, gender , religion of the shop owner are all immaterial as are the views of the customer

Otherwise you just presented an actual occurrence. During the time Masterpiece Bakery was in litigation a white Christian man walked into a bakery wanting to order cakes with some rather sick anti-gay slogans and imagery on them, (Staff Edit) The baker refused and the good white Christian man filed lawsuit claiming discrimination. The white Christian man lost his case because he wasn't being discriminated against. The court ruled that the baker rejected the vulgar message the customer wanted not the customer and that the baker would have rejected any vulgar message no matter who such comments were directed against and no matter who was making that request.

 

[AACJ]

Considering a wedding venue owner in Jackson Miss just refused services to an interracial couple it tough to claim that it is baseless.

why a exaggeration? can you point to any part of the ruling that prevents it from being used against som other minority?

I do not understand why you continue to provide bad analogy by comparing skin color and disability with sexual preference/practice. The former are outside of personal choice, not biblically condemned, and have federal class-protection. The latter shares none of those attributes. So why do you continue to compare apple and oranges?

Of course the Jackson Miss refusal was brought short. Because refusal based on race has no relevant support.

 

[AACJ]

Supreme Court returns case of florist who declined gay wedding to lower court

Supreme Court returns case of florist who declined gay wedding to lower court

Have to pray for this cases. Maybe it has already been decided.

 

[Quartermaine]

I do not understand why you continue to provide bad analogy by comparing skin color and disability with sexual preference/practice. The former are outside of personal choice, not biblically condemned, and have federal class-protection. The latter shares none of those attributes. So why do you continue to compare apple and oranges?

Pay attention. I'm not comparing skin color to orientation or to anything. I'm pointing out that the justification and the legal president for discrimination are all the same.


You might also want to go do some reading on the history of discrimination. Within living memory Biblical condemnation of things like interracial marriage and racial equality were commonplace.

Of course the Jackson Miss refusal was brought short. Because refusal based on race has no relevant support.

Actually the owner's refusal was perfectly legal. In the rush to push through laws making it legal to discriminate against members of the LGBT community they made it legal to discriminate based on race and religion and pretty much any other reason.

 

[Aldebaran]

Pay attention. I'm not comparing skin color to orientation or to anything. I'm pointing out that the justification and the legal president for discrimination are all the same.


You might also want to go do some reading on the history of discrimination. Within living memory Biblical condemnation of things like interracial marriage and racial equality were commonplace.

Actually the owner's refusal was perfectly legal. In the rush to push through laws making it legal to discriminate against members of the LGBT community they made it legal to discriminate based on race and religion and pretty much any other reason.

Hopefully the reasons will include the right of a person to not be forced to act against their own conscience.

 

[Quartermaine]

Hopefully the reasons will include the right of a person to not be forced to act against their own conscience.

That is what the wedding venue owner was doing when she refused to rent to the interracial couple

 

[Aldebaran]

That is what the wedding venue owner was doing when she refused to rent to the interracial couple

Again, you are off-topic.

 

[Quartermaine]

Again, you are off-topic.

its on topic. you just don't want to deal with it

 

[Aldebaran]

its on topic. you just don't want to deal with it

I'll let the courts deal with it, which is the subject of the OP.

 

[Quartermaine]

I'll let the courts deal with it, which is the subject of the OP.

So you don't care that right now the courts are saying that businesses can refuse service to blacks and Jews and Hindus and the handicapped and widows and and just about anyone else? you don't saee anything wrong with that?

 

[hedrick]

There is also the victory in Arizona last Monday:
Arizona Supreme Court says artists have right to decline same-sex wedding creations

However, I wonder how many victories there will be under a Democrat president which could be in little over a year.

I doubt a Democratic president would have much effect on the Arizona Supreme Court.

The issue here, as in most of this thread, is compelled speech. However a detailed review of precedents seems to say that there's no actual Supreme Court precedent for this particular class of situation, which is in effect compelling the creation of speech.

Here's a review: https://texaslawreview.org/the-law-of-compelled-speech/. The author feels, and I agree, that this is at least as invidious as other cases that have been decided. But unlike other Supreme Court cases where ideology is involved, this one will have impacts far from just sexuality. I don't think Supreme Court ideology is going to have much effort on this decision.

But as I've pointed out before, Masterpiece Cake is not at all as clear, because the issue there is whether creating a cake is speech. My sense is that even a liberal Supreme Court would agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, but might not extend that to Masterpiece Cake.

 

[Aldebaran]

So you don't care that right now the courts are saying that businesses can refuse service to blacks and Jews and Hindus and the handicapped and widows and and just about anyone else? you don't saee anything wrong with that?

I would care if that was the case, which it isn't.
I saw plenty wrong when the SCOTUS ruled against people simply trying to run their business the way they have been all along until ruling homosexuals can now cause people under force of law to recognize them as being "married" to each other, and then force businesses to go along with that and then take further steps to make business owners violate their own conscience by creating things they normally wouldn't have, attend the "weddings" to do photography, and otherwise endorse homosexual "marriage" as being normal and acceptable.

Now the roles are reversed. It's time to stop and be thankful for things like this.

 

[Quartermaine]

I would care if that was the case, which it isn't.

explain how the ruling does not open that door.


If you have a business owner saying that because of their beliefs they have the right to refuse to serve minority A and it is acceptable Then it must be acceptable for the business next door to say that because of their beliefs they have the right to refuse to serve minority B."

I saw plenty wrong when the SCOTUS ruled against people simply trying to run their business the way they have been all along until ruling homosexuals can now cause people under force of law to recognize them as being "married" to each other, and then force businesses to go along with that and then take further steps to make business owners violate their own conscience by creating things they normally wouldn't have, attend the "weddings" to do photography, and otherwise endorse homosexual "marriage" as being normal and acceptable.

just like the court did in Loving V Virginia

Now the roles are reversed. It's time to stop and be thankful for things like this.

things like everyone getting treated just like everyone else? oh the horror

 

[hedrick]

I would care if that was the case, which it isn't.
I saw plenty wrong when the SCOTUS ruled against people simply trying to run their business the way they have been all along until ruling homosexuals can now cause people under force of law to recognize them as being "married" to each other, and then force businesses to go along with that and then take further steps to make business owners violate their own conscience by creating things they normally wouldn't have, attend the "weddings" to do photography, and otherwise endorse homosexual "marriage" as being normal and acceptable.

Now the roles are reversed. It's time to stop and be thankful for things like this.

To my knowledge there are no laws that force anyone to acknowledge or endorse gay marriage. There are laws that require people to serve all people equally. Even Masterpiece Cake was of that kind.

While I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, even if they had ruled the other way, it was analogous to a printer who prints a variety of things, not all of which he agrees with. No reasonable person would consider people involved in these services actually agrees with all the messages they distribute.

 

[Aldebaran]

explain how the ruling does not open that door.

If you have a business owner saying that because of their beliefs they have the right to refuse to serve minority A and it is acceptable Then it must be acceptable for the business next door to say that because of their beliefs they have the right to refuse to serve minority B."

And if it's not acceptable to the general public (that's who is important, right?), then those businesses won't get enough patronage to stay in business. Otherwise, they'll stay in business. That's allowing the marketplace to decide. Chick Fil a was bombarded by negative news coverage, and yet there were plenty of people who thought they made correct decisions. They're thriving as a result.

things like everyone getting treated just like everyone else? oh the horror

Things like the court case (the subject of this thread) which is what I thought we were discussing.

 

[Aldebaran]

To my knowledge there are no laws that force anyone to acknowledge or endorse gay marriage. There are laws that require people to serve all people equally. Even Masterpiece Cake was of that kind.

While I agree with the Arizona Supreme Court, even if they had ruled the other way, it was analogous to a printer who prints a variety of things, not all of which he agrees with. No reasonable person would consider people involved in these services actually agrees with all the messages they distribute.

Not all printers agree to print everything either.