US Supreme Court/Petition Consideration/Bakery/Same-Sex Wedding

[Archivist]

That's not true, I'm opposed to denying anyone their civil rights and there is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to wedding cake, it's an obscene distortion of Constitutional law.

You wonder how you get a guy like Trump in the White House and it's this kind of extremism from the left.

Is there a Constitutional right to BBQ? Prior to the Supreme Court decision in Ollies Bar-B-Que, blacks were not permitted to eat-in at Olles, only whites. You see, it isn't a question of a right to wedding cake, it is a constitutionally protected right to engage in commerce.

 

[pat34lee]

Go back fifty years and you could publish this pretty much word for word as a protest against interracial marriage

Difference. One man, one woman. The bible doesn't specify color.
Comparing the two is like comparing adult sex to pedophilia, though
those for homosexuals don't like to admit it.

 

[pat34lee]

Is there a Constitutional right to BBQ? Prior to the Supreme Court decision in Ollies Bar-B-Que, blacks were not permitted to eat-in at Olles, only whites. You see, it isn't a question of a right to wedding cake, it is a constitutionally protected right to engage in commerce.

At one time, the SC decision was to segregate businesses. Separate but equal.
And just as Constitutional, since the SC said so, right?

 

[Archivist]

Difference. One man, one woman. The bible doesn't specify color.
Comparing the two is like comparing adult sex to pedophilia, though
those for homosexuals don't like to admit it.

But at one time many believe that scripture did demand separation between the races. In 1960 Bob Jones gave a speech in which he said the following: "Yes, God chose the Jews. If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty because He made racial separation in order to preserve the race through whom He could send the Messiah and through whom He could send the Bible. God is the author of segregation. God is the author of Jewish separation and Gentile separation and Japanese separation. God made of one blood all nations, but He also drew the boundary lines between races." He supported this by citing Acts 17:26 "And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live yon all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.

This was the view of southern Christians regarding separation of the races for generations.

 

[Archivist]

At one time, the SC decision was to segregate businesses. Separate but equal.
And just as Constitutional, since the SC said so, right?

Was it Constitutional at the time? Yes. was it right? No. That's why Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned.

 

[dentonz]

But it is not part of the marriage ceremony.

It doesn't matter. What matters is that the baker perceives that by baking the wedding cake he is participating in the wedding celebration. In a free society we should be free not to participate in any celebration that goes against our well-founded, historically accepted beliefs.

 

[Archivist]

It doesn't matter. What matters is that the baker perceives that by baking the wedding cake he is participating in the wedding celebration. In a free society we should be free not to participate in any celebration that goes against our well-founded, historically accepted beliefs.

So a racist should be allowed to refuse service to black customers?

 

[pat34lee]

This was the view of southern Christians regarding separation of the races for generations.

People come up with the strangest ideas to fit their prejudices. The bible only forbids mixing with those of other religions to prevent idolatry.

 

[Archivist]

People come up with the strangest ideas to fit their prejudices. The bible only forbids mixing with those of other religions to prevent idolatry.

Many in the US interpreted scripture as forbidding mixing of the races. Sadly some still do. Those who hold sincerely held religious beliefs that mixing of the races is wrong should not be permitted to violate federal law and refuse to bake wedding cakes for interracial couples. Likewise those who believe that scripture forbids same-sex marriage should not be allowed to violate state law and refuse to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples. And in either case the baker is not endorsing either interracial marriage or same-sex marriage since the cake is not part of the religious marriage ceremony.

 

[SilverBear]

That's nonsense and a dangerous equivocation. I grew up in the 70s and saw the aftermath of racial turmoil taking control. Ive always thought the civil rights movement was of great benefit to all citizens. Im a democrat with strong leftward leanings politically. The southern tendancy toward segregation was not limited to blacks, it also included catholics and Jews and even segregated poor whites who had it little better then poor blacks.

Why Dangerous?

The store owner was forced you the ruling of the Supreme Court to go against his religious convictions and serve people he didn't want to. Just like the baker you are defening.

 

[SilverBear]

Yet the minority view imposes it's will on the people as a whole. They are not following a moral concencus, they are attempting to forge one.

Sounds like the complaints leveled at civil rights in the 1960s.

When Bill Clinton took office sodomy was illegal in 19 states.

when Johnson took office interracial marriage was illegal in 24 states.

Elimliments dont ask dont tell as military doctrine. Later the Supreme Court overturns all laws against sodomy as unconstitutional because of privacy, btw the same premise as Roe v. Wade. All seemed well and good infill the dissenting argument that said looks like the Supreme Court has joined in the culture war. The issues of the culture war are gay rights, abortion and creationism. The campaign is legal political and social and it's unanimous among atheistic elitist in the United States and Europethat

That's darned constitution

When the defense of marriage act was struct down I knew that legitimized gay marriage, no problem. The California exercises it's constitution right to amend it's own constitution with proposition 8. All they were doing was retaining the traditional definition of marriage. That's when gay rights went from civil rights activism to despotic judicial oppression.

Just like how Virginia and the other segregated states were victims of judicial oppression.

Now this has nothing to do w/o th gay rights, I'm talking about states rights. When Bush and Gore came down to the last electoral votes Florida took days to certify the results, they were still counting. The difference went from thousands of votes to hundreds, the Supreme Court order them to stop counting. These infringments on states right were a precursor to the ultimate and inevitable incroachment on civil rights that is finally here.

civil rights are under federal law, not state.

There are bigger issues the wedding cakes. This isn't racism or any moral equivalent. Its clearly an infringments on religious conviction.

just like the ending of segregation.

You don't think so that's fine but one thing worth considering. There are no special civil rights of minorities. We all have civil rights in common as a protection against federal power. If they intrude on my civil right they are intruding on yours.

Yet you are arguing for the special right to discriminate.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if you like or approve of another's belief, their belief remains sincerely held.

like the sincerely held beliefs of racists.

 

[SilverBear]

That's not true, I'm opposed to denying anyone their civil rights and there is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to wedding cake, it's an obscene distortion of Constitutional law.

Butcher constitution does guarantee equal treatment for example every other email, even minorities. Businesses don't have the special right to refuse service to members of minorities.

 

[pat34lee]

Many in the US interpreted scripture as forbidding mixing of the races. Sadly some still do. Those who hold sincerely held religious beliefs that mixing of the races is wrong should not be permitted to violate federal law and refuse to bake wedding cakes for interracial couples. Likewise those who believe that scripture forbids same-sex marriage should not be allowed to violate state law and refuse to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples. And in either case the baker is not endorsing either interracial marriage or same-sex marriage since the cake is not part of the religious marriage ceremony.

I'm for freedom to choose. Let people deal with whom they will.
This is also why I'm against mega-corporations. There should be
competition in everything. That way, if you have one florist or baker
who won't deal with some people, another can take that business.

 

[pat34lee]

civil rights are under federal law, not state.
just like the ending of segregation.

Yet you are arguing for the special right to discriminate.

The supreme court was wrong with the separate but equal nonsense.
Then they went overboard on desegregation. Neither one should have
been any of their business, as passing laws are the work of Congress.

Actually, the right is the freedom of association, which is all but lost.
If I want to run a business and only deal in Christian books, who can
tell me I have to sell Playboy? Any company has the right to restrict
their product.

 

[Jeepneytravel]

If you don't want to serve minorities then you shouldn't be in business

Whose money is invested in the business? Try starting a business then your comment will have some validity....

 

[Archivist]

I'm for freedom to choose. Let people deal with whom they will.
This is also why I'm against mega-corporations. There should be
competition in everything. That way, if you have one florist or baker
who won't deal with some people, another can take that business.

So it isn't a problem if the only motel in town refuses to serve blacks or Muslims or gays. I guess that they can just keep on driving until they find another motel.

 

[Archivist]

The supreme court was wrong with the separate but equal nonsense.
Then they went overboard on desegregation. Neither one should have
been any of their business, as passing laws are the work of Congress.

Actually, the right is the freedom of association, which is all but lost.
If I want to run a business and only deal in Christian books, who can
tell me I have to sell Playboy? Any company has the right to restrict
their product.

But you can run a business that deals only in Christian books and you can refuse to sell Playboy. However, if you sell Playboy in your bookstore you can't refuse to sell it to black customers.

If these bakers only baked and sold cookies they couldn't be forced to bake a wedding cake for anyone, be they opposite sex or same-sex. Why? Because they only bake cookies, not cakes. They are treating all customers equally. But if they bake and decorate wedding cakes then they have to obey the law and bake wedding cakes for anyone.

 

[SilverBear]

The supreme court was wrong with the separate but equal nonsense.
Then they went overboard on desegregation. Neither one should have
been any of their business, as passing laws are the work of Congress.

and deciding if those laws are constitutional or not is the work of the court

Actually, the right is the freedom of association, which is all but lost.
If I want to run a business and only deal in Christian books, who can
tell me I have to sell Playboy? Any company has the right to restrict
their product.

but not it's patrons.

 

[SilverBear]

Whose money is invested in the business? Try starting a business then your comment will have some validity....

I have my own business.

 

[pat34lee]

So it isn't a problem if the only motel in town refuses to serve blacks or Muslims or gays. I guess that they can just keep on driving until they find another motel.

How many towns do you know with only one motel?
And yes, unless there is something like local officials
keeping a competing motel from opening.