"Is Religious Freedom in the U.S. Broken Beyond Repair?"

[Nous]

I believe the poster was addressing not the law as currently interpreted,
but instead expressing an opinion about what the law should be.

I didn't see any expression of such an opinion. On what grounds does the poster (or anyone) conclude that CADA should say something different?

Note
also that the USSC could rule such that the interpretation could change.

See #62. How about responding to it?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know what you're saying here. I'm usually pretty clear and specific in my posts. I said in many cases both religious and political affiliations can be a matter of what you were enculturated with. At a later point, you may choose to something different, but that's less likely to occur due to a lot of social factors. I'm not sure what you thought I said.

I point out that what some would call a "choice" could be more inherent.
So to label something as chosen, shouldn't be the standard for what
qualifies as a "protected group"

Religions are protected, but we see people changing them...regularly
for some. We also see people choosing a race, eg, Elizabeth Warren.
But this doesn't diminish associated rights to be free from discrimination.

Again, I'm not sure what you're thinking you're replying to in what I said.

This has nothing to do with the case. There was no "compelled speech". There was the service of providing a cake he does to any customer, but he chose to deny giving them one because they were gay. Suppose it was a White man with a Black bride. The guy says, "I will not support your mixed marriage with my cakes. Go away." What's your opinion here? Is it still okay? What if they're a Black couple? Is okay to refuse then? What if they're Hispanic? Ok then?

There is no difference. And it's not a matter of "protected group", whatever the hell that means. It's a matter of diversity all having equal rights and access to goods and services. That is an easy distinction to make.

It's my fault for going off on a tangent, & being unclear about
treating this case in a more general fashion than the specifics.
First, to refuse to serve a gay couple at all, strikes me as wrong.
I think the baker will lose in this regard.
I'm looking at the cake as speech (just as burning a flag is speech).

I get confused at times.
Please forgive.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't see any expression of such an opinion.

Tis just my inference based upon his posts.

See #62. How about responding to it?

Too much work.

 

[Kemosloby]

Where did you get that idea?

You can provide the explanation I asked for in #62 if you believe the majority on the Court will rule in favor of Phillips.

I'm sure the cake baker will lose and I will see it as a disgrace to freedom. But the cake baker can use some creativity in avoiding gay marriage cakes by not offering the entire spectrum of the rainbow on cake decorations.

 

[Nous]

For everyone who believes the Court will rule in favor of Phillips:

Please explain why you believe Justice Kennedy--the author of Obergefell, and Lawrence v. Texas, and Windsor--will vote to strike down CADA.

Oh, and I forgot Kennedy also authored Romer v. Evans. Kennedy has literally saved gay people from the jaws of death.

Actually I think there's a good chance that Roberts (who didn't join the dissent in Parvan, the recent Arkansas case about having both names of a married same-sex couple on a child's birth certificate) will join Kennedy,Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan in Masterpiece.

 

[Nous]

I'm sure the cake baker will lose and I will see it as a disgrace to freedom.

Is it just gay people that you think deserve to be legally discriminated against, or do you think it's good to discriminate on the basis of race, religion and gender?

But the cake baker can use some creativity in avoiding gay marriage cakes by not offering the entire spectrum of the rainbow on cake decorations.

That's probably supposed to be funny.

 

[Nous]

See #62. How about responding to it?

Too much work.

You arrived at the opinion that Kennedy would strike down CADA, but it's too much work to tell us how you arrived at that opinion?

Are you sure that you're clear as to how you arrived at that opinion? Didn't you indicate earlier that you voted on how you want the Court to rule?

Do you believe that the Court will strike down all public accommodations laws--totally reversing almost a dozen opinions? Or will it hold that the basis of sexual orientation is special with regard to discrimination, unlike gender, age, and other forbidden bases in such laws?

 

[Revoltingest]

You arrived at the opinion that Kennedy would strike down CADA, but it's too much work to tell us how you arrived at that opinion?

Are you sure that you're clear as to how you arrived at that opinion? Didn't you indicate earlier that you voted on how you want the Court to rule?

Do you believe that the Court will strike down all public accommodations laws--totally reversing almost a dozen opinions? Or will it hold that the basis of sexual orientation is special with regard to discrimination, unlike gender, age, and other forbidden bases in such laws?

Yes, it's too much work to answer all your questions.

 

[Nous]

Yes, it's too much work to answer all your questions.

Yes, thinking, identifying facts, using logic, it's all horrible exhausting stuff. It should be outlawed in debate forums.

 

[Enoch07]

They don't have a right to discriminate on the basis of the protected characteristics. It violates the public accommodations law.

You are not entitled to someone elses labor.

You guys who support this law really need to sit down and think this through long-term. Because you are potentially setting precedent for very bad things in the future.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, thinking, identifying facts, using logic, it's all horrible exhausting stuff. It should be outlawed in debate forums.

Distraction, bickering, deflection, assigning work....all
things which don't inspire a response in a discussion.

 

[Kemosloby]

Is it just gay people that you think deserve to be legally discriminated against, or do you think it's good to discriminate on the basis of race, religion and gender?

That's probably supposed to be funny.

Not on race or gender but on the basis of religion I can see where someone might discriminate. Such as a Jewish Rabbi refusing to preach Christianity.

 

[Nous]

You are not entitled to someone elses labor.

Craig and Mullins were not attempting to obtain anything that Phillips doesn't offer and sell to different-sex couples. Right? Why suggest that Craig and Mullins were trying to steal something from Phillips?

Do you understand why Phillips and those who have submitted briefs in support of him do not propose your arguments?

You guys who support this law really need to sit down and think this through long-term. Because you are potentially setting precedent for very bad things in the future.

I'm only in favor of abiding by precedent that is already firmly established without exception by the decisions in public accommodations cases, e.g., Heart of Atlanta Motel, the various cases upholding laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender and religion, precedent such as articulated in Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.:

Undoubtedly defendant . . . has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This Court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishment upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.​

It's you who wants to violate an unbroken series of decisions. What disaster do you imagine is going to happen if the Court abides by precedent in upholding CADA?

I ask you the same question I asked above: Is it just gay people that you think deserve to be legally discriminated against, or do you think it's good to also discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc.?

 

[Windwalker]

Not on race or gender but on the basis of religion I can see where someone might discriminate. Such as a Jewish Rabbi refusing to preach Christianity.

So, if their religion says the infidel shall die, do they have the right to kill you? What if it says you shall drive out the black man from your borders? What if it says you shall serve food to no Jew? What if it says you shall not suffer a witch to live? And so on and so forth? Are you morally justified to disobey the laws of the land you live in?

 

[Nous]

Not on race or gender but on the basis of religion I can see where someone might discriminate. Such as a Jewish Rabbi refusing to preach Christianity.

The context here is about public accommodations. I'll ask again: Is it just gay people that you think deserve to be legally discriminated against by businesses open to the public, or do you think it's good for businesses to also discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc.?

 

[Nous]

Distraction, bickering, deflection, assigning work....all
things which don't inspire a response in a discussion.

Then why do you engage in such stuff?

 

[Kemosloby]

So, if their religion says the infidel shall die, do they have the right to kill you? What if it says you shall drive out the black man from your borders? What if it says you shall serve food to no Jew? What if it says you shall not suffer a witch to live? And so on and so forth? Are you morally justified to disobey the laws of the land you live in?

Mine doesn't say any of those things. But should a cake maker be forced to imagine ideas for gay weddings? It's obviously offensive to his conscious and makes him sick to have to think of ideas for gay weddings. He should sue the government for pain and suffering if they force him to make cakes for gays.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The current Supreme Court has a history of voting pro-LBGT. I don't see any reason to suspect this will be any different. It will probably be another 5-4, with the 5 making up Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

 

[Kemosloby]

The context here is about public accommodations. I'll ask again: Is it just gay people that you think deserve to be legally discriminated against by businesses open to the public, or do you think it's good for businesses to also discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc.?

It's not apples to oranges. Homosexuality is a disgusting and immoral thing. A person should have a right to have nothing to do with them in any situation.

 

[Jesster]

If someone installed central air in homes, would it be okay for them to refuse service to a gay couple? They'd like... have to be in their house for a long time while the couple is all married and gay. How uncomfortable!

How many services can use this excuse? Is it just cakes, or do you draw the line somewhere else? How is anything like this not discrimination?