Separation of Church and State

[Kenny]

She's not forced. Nobody's holding a gun to her head and making her bake anything.

The rule, basically, is that if you choose to sell your goods and services to the public, you have to sell them to the whole public without discriminating against certain customers.

If she doesn't like that deal, she's free to close up shop or change her offerings. "Sorry - we don't do wedding cakes any more. Just birthday cakes."

As I said: her religious freedom is intact.

Every business has to follow the law. An airline owner who thinks prayer is a substitute for preventive maintenance can't claim "religious discrimination" when the FAA says "no, you really do have to inspect your engines when we say you have to." The same principle applies.

As I said... I disagree... and I believe the courts ultimate sided with her. The one in England as well as the one in the US. I suppose it affirms what it does and does not mean.

In some sense EVERY business discriminates who they do business with. When I went to ask for a church loan, the bank said "We don't do church loans".

 

[Kenny]

... which is why when a business tries to interfere with a religious same-sex couple's wedding, it's an infringement on the religious freedom of the couple.

Courts said otherwise

 

[Sand Dancer]

Actually, for religious people, marriage is a religious institution as it was made by God (in christianity) where we submit to the government in registering our marriage.

Christians who get married by a JoP are still married, gay or hetero. No church needed. Churches only have a say in who has their weddings in churches. Of course, many churches will marry gays.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Courts said otherwise

The court didn't rule in favor of the baker visa vie religious discrimination, and made it clear that they weren't. Instead they were ruling against the commission on lack of neutrality.
Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the commission if they had remained neutral in their evaluation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...case-neither-side-has-much-reason-to-rejoice/

Basically, the baker got off on a technical jurisprudence. Not for the authenticity of the appeal.

 

[Kenny]

Christians who get married by a JoP are still married, gay or hetero. No church needed. Churches only have a say in who has their weddings in churches. Of course, many churches will marry gays.

that is true... but it was not so in the beginning.

 

[Kenny]

The court didn't rule in favor of the baker visa vie religious discrimination, and made it clear that they weren't. Instead they were ruling against the commission on lack of neutrality.
Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the commission if they had remained neutral in their evaluation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...case-neither-side-has-much-reason-to-rejoice/

Basically, the baker got off on a technical jurisprudence. Not for the authenticity of the appeal.

The majority stressed the narrowness of its decision, saying that “the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Although seven justices agreed that Phillips was entitled to a fair hearing from the Colorado commission, and the hearing he received didn't meet that standard, there were four separate opinions filed for the majority.

Kagan and Breyer wrote to say that bakers may refuse to make a cake with a message they find offensive, so long as they would refuse the same message to any customer.

Gorsuch and Alito argued that, because the Colorado commission had previously allowed bakers to refuse to decorate cakes with anti-gay designs, its decision to rule against the baker in this case was inherently inconsistent, and discriminated against some religious groups.

Thomas and Gorsuch, argued that cake decorating is expressive and protected from government restriction under the first amendment.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker, Leaves Unresolved Issues of Refusing to Serve Same-Sex Couples

 

[Left Coast]

OK... we disagree. The cake woman didn't mind making the cake... just didn't want to be forced to say things that violate her religious beliefs to which I agree but agree with Denny's

How weird and totally coincidental that you agree when it comes to people of other religions but all of a sudden when it's a conservative Christian you want special treatment for them.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The majority stressed the narrowness of its decision, saying that “the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

Although seven justices agreed that Phillips was entitled to a fair hearing from the Colorado commission, and the hearing he received didn't meet that standard, there were four separate opinions filed for the majority.

Kagan and Breyer wrote to say that bakers may refuse to make a cake with a message they find offensive, so long as they would refuse the same message to any customer.

Gorsuch and Alito argued that, because the Colorado commission had previously allowed bakers to refuse to decorate cakes with anti-gay designs, its decision to rule against the baker in this case was inherently inconsistent, and discriminated against some religious groups.

Thomas and Gorsuch, argued that cake decorating is expressive and protected from government restriction under the first amendment.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker, Leaves Unresolved Issues of Refusing to Serve Same-Sex Couples

"In the simplest terms, there is no “clean” win for either side. There is no majority that would have found for the baker absent the discriminatory comments by the commission; in fact, Kennedy strongly hints he might have gone the other way had the commissioners maintained their neutrality."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...case-neither-side-has-much-reason-to-rejoice/

Also worth noting that the same baker was sued again later for refusing to bake a pink and blue birthday cake for a transgender person and lost.
Colorado baker fined for refusing to make transgender transition cake

 

[Kenny]

How weird and totally coincidental that you agree when it comes to people of other religions but all of a sudden when it's a conservative Christian you want special treatment for them.

How so? And where?

 

[Kenny]

"In the simplest terms, there is no “clean” win for either side. There is no majority that would have found for the baker absent the discriminatory comments by the commission; in fact, Kennedy strongly hints he might have gone the other way had the commissioners maintained their neutrality."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...case-neither-side-has-much-reason-to-rejoice/

Also worth noting that the same baker was sued again later for refusing to bake a pink and blue birthday cake for a transgender person and lost.
Colorado baker fined for refusing to make transgender transition cake

Yes... they are relentless aren't they? Having a dozen other places, they keep chipping away at religious freedoms on purpose.

And I don't exactly agree with Washington Posts opinions.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes... they are relentless aren't they? Having a dozen other places, they keep chipping away at religious freedoms on purpose.

And I don't exactly agree with Washington Posts opinions.

I know right? This one time they told thus black lady that they didn't agree with her sitting in the front of the bus and the courts made them do it! What compelled speech, violation of religious freedoms.

Fortunately for you, the quote is right there, you don't even have to read the opinion.

 

[Kenny]

I know right? This one time they told thus black lady that they didn't agree with her sitting in the front of the bus and the courts made them do it! What compelled speech, violation of religious freedoms.

Fortunately for you, the quote is right there, you don't even have to read the opinion.

I know that somewhere you are trying to make a point.... somewhere...somewhere... somewhere.... ............ zzzzzzzzz

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Having a dozen other places, they keep chipping away at religious freedoms on purpose.

Why shouldn't LGBQT actively oppose those that would deny them their freedoms and dignity? The church actively opposes them, and has for millennia. It labors ceaselessly to marginalize and demonize people for their sexual preferences. This is not a rhetorical question - it request an answer if you can come up with one. I'm pretty sure that you can't give any reason why such people should accede to the church's treatment of them.

Atheists have the same struggle - continually being demeaned just for not accepting Christian theology. I'm an atheist who is exposes to thread after thread and post after post of disrespectful depictions of atheists at the hands of the faithful. Should I be happy with the institution that teaches them this, or should I push back at it and reveal its bigotries and hypocrisies when I can? That question was rhetorical and needs no answer. Of course I am justified in so doing - morally obligated, in fact - just as every person fighting for racial equality has a duty to himself, his community, and posterity to object to racism whenever it rears its ugly head.

It's interesting that what the church calls religious freedom is the freedom to demean and disrespect others, and sees the reaction to this as religious oppression - as an inappropriate incursion into what rights the church claims for itself, such as the "right" to call and treat others as abominations.

Incidentally, the church doesn't define what its freedoms are. The state does. If a Christian baker is granted by the state the freedom to refuse a customer based on his religious prejudices, the state can also take that away. Isn't that what the legal wrangling was about - the state determining the limits of those freedoms?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As I said... I disagree... and I believe the courts ultimate sided with her.

You were talking about a specific cake? I thought you were speaking in the hypothetical.

If you're talking about Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado, I think you're misrepresenting what the ruling actually said.

The one in England as well as the one in the US. I suppose it affirms what it does and does not mean.

What one in England?

In some sense EVERY business discriminates who they do business with. When I went to ask for a church loan, the bank said "We don't do church loans".

That would be analogous to what I suggested earlier: a bakery that doesn't want to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples could just not sell wedding cakes.

What wouldn't be okay is a bank that does lots of church loans refusing a loan to your church just because the manager disagrees with your denomination's beliefs or practices.

 

[metis]

Why shouldn't LGBQT actively oppose those that would deny them their freedoms and dignity? The church actively opposes them, and has for millennia. It labors ceaselessly to marginalize and demonize people for their sexual preferences.

I do agree with you as the state should stay out of religion-based decisions on marriage and some other areas per the 1st Amendment. If Church A doesn't want to conduct a LGBQT marriage, that's all fine & dandy, imo, but if they try to get these restrictions into law, then I believe they should lose their tax-exempt status because they are interfering with what the Constitution rather clearly implies. Otherwise, it's like having a Judeo-Christian form of "sharia" being mandated that applies to all people and all religions.

 

[VoidCat]

I know that somewhere you are trying to make a point.... somewhere...somewhere... somewhere.... ............ zzzzzzzzz

You know it's legal in some areas in the states unless laws have changed recently which could've happened I don't keep up with the news, to refuse service to an LGBT person in a restaurant. Like not even making a wedding cake just the person walks in maybe they wearing a shirt that says: Love is Love or had a tattoo of a pride flag and then be denied service. Maybe the person in my example here just wanted a burger to eat and a person refused cuz they are homophobic. The cake thing isn't much different imo tho you may disagree

EDIT: I've had a doctor refuse to see me for anything cuz im trans. I wasn't even looking for gender therapy or hrt. I was just there for an annual check up. I dont know if that is legal or not. But yeah. Refusing to bake a wedding cake you'd bake for other couples is not discrimination towards the LGBT person(sarcasm)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes... they are relentless aren't they? Having a dozen other places, they keep chipping away at religious freedoms on purpose.

Care to explain how "religious freedoms" are even a factor here?

On the "freedom" piece: as I've pointed out many times now, freedom is maintained. The business owner has complete control over what products and services they choose to offer. Anyone who doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple doesn't have to; all they would need to do is stop selling wedding cakes.

On the "religious" piece, what religion/denomination/etc. even has a tenet that forbids making a cake for a same-sex wedding?

 

[Sand Dancer]

that is true... but it was not so in the beginning.

True. So glad that changed.

 

[Left Coast]

How so? And where?

In the comment I replied to...obviously?

 

[Lazy Old Devil]

What one in England?

I don't know if there's been a case in England specifically, but perhaps he meant the one in Northern Ireland, the outcome of which was reported a couple of days ago:

"Christian bakers who refused to make gay activist a 'Support Gay Marriage' cake are 'relieved and happy' after European court threw out discrimination case as Equality Commission is slammed for spending £250k of taxpayer money"

Link:
EU court throws out case against Christian bakers who refused to make 'support gay marriage' cake | Daily Mail Online