Koko78 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 16 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Nazi's are not a protected class of people. I don't understand how you could possibly equate the two. Equating the term slavery is an astonishing leap of logic (And rather insulting) because one people are getting paid to make a cake and you wouldn't say this about a baker refusing to bake a cake for an interracial wedding because that violated their religious beliefs. Is it slavery if someone wants to have a whites only business? It's discrimination based on ethnic origin. I'm at least 1/1024 German and celebrate my ethnic heritage by eating Nazi cake (well in this example, anyhow.) Does the Jewish bakery get to refuse service, unfairly discriminating against me? You're advocating that they cannot discriminate against me, and must use their artistic skills to bake me a cake. Would it make you feel better if I demanded a cake depicting the torture and murder of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition, as a celebration of Christianity? The term slavery is entirely appropriate. You want to force people to perform services without the option to refuse. That's involuntary servitude, also known as... slavery. 20 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: I stand somewhat corrected, but the case did not uphold the rights of the bakers expression as a reason to why they won the case. The court did not rule based off of free speech grounds. No one said they did. You are the one who claimed that the Court said something that it did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Koko78 said: Would it make you feel better if I demanded a cake depicting the torture and murder of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition, as a celebration of Christianity? Baker: "To be fair, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 1 minute ago, LABillzFan said: Baker: "To be fair, no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" You won't be able to talk him out of anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 SEND IN THE NUNS! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 1 hour ago, billsfan89 said: Nazi's are not a protected class of people. Define a protected class of people And why should one group receive protections that are not afforded to another? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, /dev/null said: Define a protected class of people And why should one group receive protections that are not afforded to another? The legal term refers to immutable characteristics. Race, Gender, Religion, Age, Sex, and Sexual Orientation are the classes that you can't discriminate against. That applies equally to all people and are not special privileges for minority groups. You can't be a black owned business that serves the public but refuses service to white customers. These protections are applied to everyone. A gay owned business can't say they do not serve straight people. https://www.upcounsel.com/is-sexual-orientation-a-protected-class 2 hours ago, Koko78 said: It's discrimination based on ethnic origin. I'm at least 1/1024 German and celebrate my ethnic heritage by eating Nazi cake (well in this example, anyhow.) Does the Jewish bakery get to refuse service, unfairly discriminating against me? You're advocating that they cannot discriminate against me, and must use their artistic skills to bake me a cake. Would it make you feel better if I demanded a cake depicting the torture and murder of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition, as a celebration of Christianity? The term slavery is entirely appropriate. You want to force people to perform services without the option to refuse. That's involuntary servitude, also known as... slavery. No one said they did. You are the one who claimed that the Court said something that it did not. Are you really saying that Nazi=German? That is your defense? This is intellectually insane for you to make that comparison. The Nazi party was a political party that is defunct, that does in no legal or ethical sense qualify as discrimination of a protected class. I honestly can't believe you are arguing this. Are you seriously saying that a business that only wants to serve white people are slaves? If you are advocating for voluntary segregation fine but come out and say it. Don't be selective of what kinds of segregation you think is OK based on an absurd definition of slavery. Edited October 18, 2018 by billsfan89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: The legal term refers to immutable characteristics. Race, Gender, Religion, Age, Sex, and Sexual Orientation are the classes that you can't discriminate against. That applies equally to all people and are not special privileges for minority groups. You can't be a black owned business that serves the public but refuses service to white customers. These protections are applied to everyone. A gay owned business can't say they do not serve straight people. https://www.upcounsel.com/is-sexual-orientation-a-protected-class Who says Nazis can't have their own secular religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Who says Nazis can't have their own secular religion? Common sense and human decency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 1 minute ago, billsfan89 said: Common sense and human decency. Common sense to who? Who decides the decency and morality? If it was up to me anyone throwing feces and body fluid in protest would be judged as indecent. But, your side disagrees. Commie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 4 hours ago, billsfan89 said: I think the whole argument of civil unions OK but just don't call it marriage is basically advocating for a separate but equal system which philosophically I think states that there is something wrong with a homosexual marriage that isn't equal to that of a relationship with a man and a woman in a legal sense. If a government is truly secular and there is no good non-religious argument against issuing marriage licenses to same-sex adults then I fail to see why you can deny people the same legal standing. I also fail to see what the slippery slope argument is in gay marriage. If a church is forced to marry a same-sex couple I will be the first person to say that is too far and a violation of that churches freedom of association and religion. But from what I can tell that is simply not happening in any even remotely significant manner. But bakeries that serve the entire public being forced to bake a cake or cater a same-sex wedding is treating gay couples with basic protections under the law. If you serve the public you have to serve the entire public. Yes, you can deny service to anyone but you can't do so based off of immutable characteristics. The difference is the word marriage, which is historically associated with a religious procedure. Call it whatever you want, but not marriage. And BTW, you wouldn't be able to get a legal civil union contract in a church either, that would come from the City Hall along with the civil union license, which you still need to obtain. So if you want to be married in the eyes of your Lord, go to the house of worship. If you want it legally binding, get a civil union. On the other point, others handled it fairly well. You cannot deny services that you offer to the general public, on the other hand you cannot compel someone to do perform a special service that's against your beliefs. Do you have the right to walk into a Kosher Restaurant and demand that they serve you a bacon cheeseburger? It's a restaurant that serves food to the public. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 19 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: The legal term refers to immutable characteristics. Race, Gender, Religion, Age, Sex, and Sexual Orientation are the classes that you can't discriminate against. Those aren't immutable characteristics. They should be, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 15 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: The legal term refers to immutable characteristics. Race, Gender, Religion, Age, Sex, and Sexual Orientation are the classes that you can't discriminate against. immutable? as in cannot be changed? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 (edited) 22 minutes ago, GG said: The difference is the word marriage, which is historically associated with a religious procedure. Call it whatever you want, but not marriage. And BTW, you wouldn't be able to get a legal civil union contract in a church either, that would come from the City Hall along with the civil union license, which you still need to obtain. So if you want to be married in the eyes of your Lord, go to the house of worship. If you want it legally binding, get a civil union. On the other point, others handled it fairly well. You cannot deny services that you offer to the general public, on the other hand you cannot compel someone to do perform a special service that's against your beliefs. Do you have the right to walk into a Kosher Restaurant and demand that they serve you a bacon cheeseburger? It's a restaurant that serves food to the public. That's a bad example with the Kosher restaurant. If it is not a service they offer then you can't order something that isn't on the menu. You can't be denied a service that they offer based off of an immutable quality that falls under a protected class. I can't go to a Vegan restaurant and order a hamburger. The debate comes down to do you think that sexual orientation is a protected class of people that you can't generally and overtly discriminate against? Legally speaking sexual orientation is a protected class. So if sexual orientation is a protected class than your religion is not a valid reason to say you will not provide them a service that you would provide anyone else who is willing to pay. People tried to make religious freedom arguments to refuse service to black people and it didn't work because it violated the civil rights act. Also if you want to abolish legal marriage and replace it with civil unions for everyone then I honestly wouldn't have any issue because everyone is playing by the same rules. It doesn't become separate but equal. However if marriage is the legal term then it should be accessible to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. 30 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Common sense to who? Who decides the decency and morality? If it was up to me anyone throwing feces and body fluid in protest would be judged as indecent. But, your side disagrees. Commie. The Legal system has defined what qualifies as a religion and what can fall into a protected class, these laws and definitions are part of the civil rights act and the amendments to it that followed. If you are advocating for repealing the civil rights act in the interest of the freedom to segregate and discriminate then fine but just say it. That's often been the libertarian argument against it but don't tap dance around it. If you are a white business owner that only wants to serve white people you shouldn't be forced by the government to do so is their argument. The only other argument that you can say is that sexual orientation is not a protected class of people. Legally speaking they are. So if you feel that a baker shouldn't be allowed to say they wouldn't bake a cake for an interracial wedding but should be allowed discriminated against gay people then you are arguing that gay people should't be afforded those protections. And stop with this my side *****. If you throw ***** or body fluid in protest that is public indecency and probably assault and you should be punished for it. Antifa are idiotic and I will not defend them same as I can't ascribe the far rights actions to you. Edited October 18, 2018 by billsfan89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, GG said: The difference is the word marriage, which is historically associated with a religious procedure. Call it whatever you want, but not marriage. And BTW, you wouldn't be able to get a legal civil union contract in a church either, that would come from the City Hall along with the civil union license, which you still need to obtain. So if you want to be married in the eyes of your Lord, go to the house of worship. If you want it legally binding, get a civil union. On the other point, others handled it fairly well. You cannot deny services that you offer to the general public, on the other hand you cannot compel someone to do perform a special service that's against your beliefs. Do you have the right to walk into a Kosher Restaurant and demand that they serve you a bacon cheeseburger? It's a restaurant that serves food to the public. The Supreme Court actually indulged in a nice bit of hair splitting in that case, distinguishing between serving a person, versus serving a ceremony. And in splitting that hair, made a decently rational and equitable precedent: while you can't deny service to an individual based on individual characteristic - say, refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple or a KKK member, you can refuse to provide service to a ceremony you don't support - i.e., a gay wedding or a KKK rally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: The Supreme Court actually indulged in a nice bit of hair splitting in that case, distinguishing between serving a person, versus serving a ceremony. And in splitting that hair, made a decently rational and equitable precedent: while you can't deny service to an individual based on individual characteristic - say, refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple or a KKK member, you can refuse to provide service to a ceremony you don't support - i.e., a gay wedding or a KKK rally. They actually did not set any precedent with this case. It likely will be taken to the Supreme Court again. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/ Kennedy wrote, “the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward.” Thus, “the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 10 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: They actually did not set any precedent with this case. It likely will be taken to the Supreme Court again. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/06/the-court-slices-a-narrow-ruling-out-of-masterpiece-cakeshop/561986/ Kennedy wrote, “the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward.” Thus, “the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.” If you read the actual decision and the majority opinion, you'd see that it does. The primary factor against Colorado in finding their anti-religious bias was that they did recognize the right to refuse services for ceremonies or messages, but applied it inconsistently. Kennedy's opinion establishes exactly what I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 3 hours ago, GG said: You won't be able to talk him out of anything. What a show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, DC Tom said: If you read the actual decision and the majority opinion, you'd see that it does. The primary factor against Colorado in finding their anti-religious bias was that they did recognize the right to refuse services for ceremonies or messages, but applied it inconsistently. Kennedy's opinion establishes exactly what I said. From reading the judgement and reading various interpretations I am reading that this does not set the precedent that you can refuse a ceremony but not people (If I am reading what you wrote correctly.) Its seems to me there were many extenuating circumstances in this case that made it unable to set a precedent. For one gay marriage was not legal in Colorado when they ordered the cake and the court also took issue with how the Colorado Civil Right Commission handled the bakery treating them with hostility instead of neutrality as required by law. In Kennedy's opinion it establishes that they could not rule more broadly which does not set the precedent due to the fact that the ruling was based off the aforementioned circumstances and not off of any right to free expression. Now when a similar case gets kicked back up to the Supreme Court I think that argument about ceremony vs. person will be used. However that argument will likely fail because if it is a service that they would offer to anyone then you can't discriminate based off of sexual orientation once again due to the civil rights act and sexual orientation falling under a protected class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: From reading the judgement and reading various interpretations I am reading that this does not set the precedent that you can refuse a ceremony but not people (If I am reading what you wrote correctly.) Its seems to me there were many extenuating circumstances in this case that made it unable to set a precedent. For one gay marriage was not legal in Colorado when they ordered the cake and the court also took issue with how the Colorado Civil Right Commission handled the bakery treating them with hostility instead of neutrality as required by law. In Kennedy's opinion it establishes that they could not rule more broadly which does not set the precedent due to the fact that the ruling was based off the aforementioned circumstances and not off of any right to free expression. Now when a similar case gets kicked back up to the Supreme Court I think that argument about ceremony vs. person will be used. However that argument will likely fail because if it is a service that they would offer to anyone then you can't discriminate based off of sexual orientation once again due to the civil rights act and sexual orientation falling under a protected class. The Civil Rights Act does not override an the Constitutional protection of Freedom of Religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted October 18, 2018 Share Posted October 18, 2018 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: The Civil Rights Act does not override an the Constitutional protection of Freedom of Religion. Does your freedom of religion allow you to not serve black people if it goes against your religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts