Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[Myrensis]

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

They didn't ask for approval, they asked for a cake, from a business that makes cakes.

[Auralia]

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?

Then an equivalent service is not easily available elsewhere, and so an exception would not be justified.

[The Emerald Dawn]

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.

Well, the Voting Rights Act was dismantled.

Why not the Civil Rights gains?

[The Black Forrest]

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.

So? What don't you educate us and explain the rational basis for discrimination?

[Mavorpen]

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.

And now you're lying through your teeth.

"Rational basis review" simply means that the enactment in question is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" governmental reason offered as its justification.

It says utterly nothing about having to "explain how the law is rationally related to the governmental interest."

Try again.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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?

Yes, yes you do

*hands out cookie*

[Auralia]

The good ole' days of segregation!

Except it's not. Limited private sector discrimination is very different from large scale public sector discrimination.

[The Emerald Dawn]

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

Do I win?

Yes, yes you do

*hands out cookie*

[Auralia]

"Rational basis review" simply means that the enactment in question is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" governmental reason offered as its justification.

It says utterly nothing about having to "explain how the law is rationally related to the governmental interest."

Try again.

I suggest you actually read what you quoted there.

[The Scientific States]

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?

Then an equivalent service is not easily available elsewhere, and so an exception would not be justified.

That's wonderful, because it'd probably be to late by then.

Wouldn't it be much simpler if we didn't segregate businesses, not to mention it'd be a whole lot fairer. Business owners are well aware that they are not allowed to refuse services to people who have done none wrong, therefore there was no "rational basis" involved.

[Auralia]

So? What don't you educate us and explain the rational basis for discrimination?

That's not relevant. I'm not proposing a law mandating private sector discrimination, so I'm not subject to rational basis review.

[The Scientific States]

Auralia, you're essentially saying we must make a long, case by case basis every time someone is refused service? Seems excessive.

[Mavorpen]

It says utterly nothing about having to "explain how the law is rationally related to the governmental interest."

Try again.

I suggest you actually read what you quoted there.

I'll take that as a concession.

[Dyakovo]

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.

He was referring to christians.
*nods*

[Auralia]

Wouldn't it be much simpler if we didn't segregate businesses, not to mention it'd be a whole lot fairer.

It might be simpler, and it might be fairer in your opinion, but it doesn't adequately balance freedom of religion with the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Wouldn't it be much simpler if we didn't segregate businesses, not to mention it'd be a whole lot fairer.

It might be simpler, and it might be fairer in your opinion, but it doesn't adequately balance freedom of religion with the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services.

I'm sorry, what religious freedom involves denying services to people?

[The Black Forrest]

The good ole' days of segregation!

Except it's not. Limited private sector discrimination is very different from large scale public sector discrimination.

But what is the rational basis for discrimination?

[Mavorpen]

Wouldn't it be much simpler if we didn't segregate businesses, not to mention it'd be a whole lot fairer.

It might be simpler, and it might be fairer in your opinion, but it doesn't adequately balance freedom of religion with the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services.

There you go with pretending you actually know what the state's interest is.

Hint: you don't, and you should stop lying about what their interests actually are.

[Auralia]

Auralia, you're essentially saying we must make a long, case by case basis every time someone is refused service? Seems excessive.

That's already the case. Discrimination claims are dealt with in court on a case by case basis.

[Othelos]

The good ole' days of segregation!

Except it's not. Limited private sector discrimination is very different from large scale public sector discrimination.

Irrelevant. It's still discrimination.

[Auralia]

I suggest you actually read what you quoted there.

I'll take that as a concession.

You go ahead and do that, then.

[Othelos]

Except it's not. Limited private sector discrimination is very different from large scale public sector discrimination.

But what is the rational basis for discrimination?

Um, you know, like religion and stuff.

[Mavorpen]

I'll take that as a concession.

You go ahead and do that, then.

I should probably do that, since you're asking questions already answered pages ago.

[The Black Forrest]

So? What don't you educate us and explain the rational basis for discrimination?

That's not relevant. I'm not proposing a law mandating private sector discrimination, so I'm not subject to rational basis review.

You are saying it's ok so what is the rational basis to allow it?

[Dyakovo]

But what is the rational basis for discrimination?

Um, you know, like religion and stuff.

Religion is not a ration basis for discrimination.