Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[The Scientific States]

Wait, so I could make a religious exception because I think someone's ugly when they walk into a store?

"Yeah, he's ugly, I'm not discriminating, it's against my religion, Jesus was hawt, he isn't. "

Well, you could actually send someone away for being ugly. "Ugly" isn't a protected group under the law.

"You sir have a nose as big as Ringo Starr's, please leave the premises."

Everyone would have a problem with that, because you can't discriminate against those who may not look "good", but if gays are refused the right to service, people think the business is "acting accordingly."

[Auralia]

What is the rational basis for ensuring equal access to all public accommodations versus the vast majority of public accommodations?

So I take it you're conceding, since you're asking me completely irrelevant questions?

No, the point I'm trying to make is that there is no rational basis for requiring that the baker provide the service when someone else is willing to provide an equivalent service. Laws need to have a rational basis to be upheld by the judiciary.

[The Scientific States]

So I take it you're conceding, since you're asking me completely irrelevant questions?

No, the point I'm trying to make is that there is no rational basis for requiring that the baker provide the service when someone else is willing to provide an equivalent service. Laws need to have a rational basis to be upheld by the judiciary.

There is a rational basis, how is the right not to be discriminated against not a rational basis?

[Auralia]

Yes, it does. That's the whole point - RFRA allows judges to make religious exceptions to laws when appropriate. If the legislature doesn't want the RFRA to apply to a particular law, then they can just say "the RFRA does not apply to this law." And the federal RFRA certainly applies to Congress - see Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal.

Stop bringing up the Federal RFRA, he FEDERAL RFRA and the SCOTUS rulings are immaterial to NM state codes and judicial rulings on NM law and constitution. The highest court review authority in the NM law and code is the New Mexico Supreme Court..... and we know their ruling.

Actually, the highest court review for New Mexico law is the Supreme Court of the United States.

And I've already said that this is a hypothetical discussion, since Colorado has no RFRA.

[Mavorpen]

No, the point I'm trying to make is that there is no rational basis for requiring that the baker provide the service when someone else is willing to provide an equivalent service. Laws need to have a rational basis to be upheld by the judiciary.

And that rational basis is that it serves the government's interest.

We just went over this.

[The Emerald Dawn]

HOLY !@#$

Unless you can make the case that being ugly is a disability.

If your ugliness has reached the point that you suffer from long-lasting incurable depression, and it affects your ability to carry on a healthy, lasting, relationship with other people, the SSA would consider you disabled.

BAM.

I did it.

[UED]

Unless you can make the case that being ugly is a disability.

If your ugliness has reached the point that you suffer from long-lasting incurable depression, and it affects your ability to carry on a healthy, lasting, relationship with other people, the SSA would consider you disabled.

BAM.

I did it.

O_O

[Auralia]

Yes, it does. That's the whole point - RFRA allows judges to make religious exceptions to laws when appropriate. If the legislature doesn't want the RFRA to apply to a particular law, then they can just say "the RFRA does not apply to this law." And the federal RFRA certainly applies to Congress - see Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal.

Wait, so I could make a religious exception because I think someone's ugly when they walk into a store?

"Yeah, he's ugly, I'm not discriminating, it's against my religion, Jesus was hawt, he isn't. "

In that case, you don't need a religious exception. "Ugliness" is not protected grounds in any anti-discrimination law, to my knowledge.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hold on the brakes!

I'm sorry, but can you point where in Adam Smith's works, or, in fact, can you point to any Business Administration course that teaches this bullshit?

20$ on source being from Oral Roberts.

Why would I not be impressed by it?

[Auralia]

Irrelevant. The point I was trying to make is that laws must have a rational basis to be upheld by the judiciary.

Preventing discrimination is perfectly rational.

Even when an equivalent service is easily available elsewhere?

[Auralia]

No, the point I'm trying to make is that there is no rational basis for requiring that the baker provide the service when someone else is willing to provide an equivalent service. Laws need to have a rational basis to be upheld by the judiciary.

And that rational basis is that it serves the government's interest.

We just went over this.

That's circular reasoning. The rational basis for an alleged governmental interest cannot be that it serves a government interest.

[The Scientific States]

Wait, so I could make a religious exception because I think someone's ugly when they walk into a store?

"Yeah, he's ugly, I'm not discriminating, it's against my religion, Jesus was hawt, he isn't. "

In that case, you don't need a religious exception. "Ugliness" is not protected grounds in any anti-discrimination law, to my knowledge.

Good point. However, what if you made a religious exception to take someone who is Hispanic off the premises? What would you think?

[United Angkoria]

If you want to live your lifestyle that is your choice but don't ask for approval from everyone.

[Mavorpen]

And that rational basis is that it serves the government's interest.

We just went over this.

That's circular reasoning. The rational basis for an alleged governmental interest cannot be that it serves a government interest.

The fuck? You just said that "laws need to have a rational basis..." The law's rational basis is governmental interest. I said jack shit about what the rational basis for governmental interest is.

[The Black Forrest]

Preventing discrimination is perfectly rational.

Even when an equivalent service is easily available elsewhere?

So preventing discrimination is irrational?

[The Emerald Dawn]

20$ on source being from Oral Roberts.

Why would I not be impressed by it?

"What is: Oral Roberts has long had a reputation as producing some well-educated, emotionally stunted, worldly inexperienced graduates."

Do I win?

[The Scientific States]

If you want to live your lifestyle that is your choice but don't ask for approval from everyone.

Ever heard of anti discrimination laws? The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id like to mention that being gay is not a "lifestyle", but that's for another day.

[Auralia]

In that case, you don't need a religious exception. "Ugliness" is not protected grounds in any anti-discrimination law, to my knowledge.

Good point. However, what if you made a religious exception to take someone who is Hispanic off the premises? What would you think?

I think an exception would be justified if an equivalent service was easily available elsewhere.

[The Black Forrest]

Good point. However, what if you made a religious exception to take someone who is Hispanic off the premises? What would you think?

I think an exception would be justified if an equivalent service was easily available elsewhere.

So what is the rational reason for discrimination?

[The Black Forrest]

Good point. However, what if you made a religious exception to take someone who is Hispanic off the premises? What would you think?

I think an exception would be justified if an equivalent service was easily available elsewhere.

Ohhh so as long as niggers can get help somewhere else; it's ok?

[Mavorpen]

I think an exception would be justified if an equivalent service was easily available elsewhere.

Ohhh so as long as niggers can get help somewhere else; it's ok?

It's almost like "Separate But Equal" was struck down as bullshit by the Supreme Court.

[Othelos]

I think an exception would be justified if an equivalent service was easily available elsewhere.

Ohhh so as long as niggers can get help somewhere else; it's ok?

Yes.

The good ole' days of segregation!

[The Scientific States]

Good point. However, what if you made a religious exception to take someone who is Hispanic off the premises? What would you think?

I think an exception would be justified if an equivalent service was easily available elsewhere.

What if the service is necessary? For instance, lets say someone needs something from a privately run clinic, and they need whatever is in that clinic for their life. Unfortunately for them they live in a small town full of bigots, and the man is told to find help elsewhere because he is gay.

Is that rational?

[Auralia]

That's circular reasoning. The rational basis for an alleged governmental interest cannot be that it serves a government interest.

The fuck? You just said that "laws need to have a rational basis..." The law's rational basis is governmental interest. I said jack shit about what the rational basis for governmental interest is.

That's not how rational basis review works. In rational basis review, you have to enumerate a legitimate governmental interest, then explain how the law is rationally related to the governmental interest. You have yet to explain how eradicating discrimination vs. ensuring that equivalent services are available constitutes a legitimate governmental interest.

[UED]

Ohhh so as long as niggers can get help somewhere else; it's ok?

Yes.

The good ole' days of segregation!

lol this is why I love NS