Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples

[The Black Forrest]

But what is the rational basis for discrimination?

Um, you know, like religion and stuff.

Ahh but isn't religion a justification for it?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Um, you know, like religion and stuff.

Religion is not a ration basis for discrimination.

Religion is not rational period.

[Othelos]

Um, you know, like religion and stuff.

Religion is not a ration basis for discrimination.

Sarcasm.

[Auralia]

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

Irrelevant. It's still discrimination.

Of course it's relevant, because we're trying to balance competing rights: freedom of religion and the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services. Limited private sector discrimination does have a significant negative impact on the right to equal access to services.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Irrelevant. It's still discrimination.

Of course it's relevant, because we're trying to balance competing rights: freedom of religion and the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services. Limited private sector discrimination does have a significant negative impact on the right to equal access to services.

What.
Religious Freedom.
Requires the denial.
Of services.
Question mark.

[The Black Forrest]

Irrelevant. It's still discrimination.

Of course it's relevant, because we're trying to balance competing rights: freedom of religion and the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services. Limited private sector discrimination does have a significant negative impact on the right to equal access to services.

Freedom of Religion isn't a freedom to discriminate.

[Othelos]

Um, you know, like religion and stuff.

Ahh but isn't religion a justification for it?

Yeah. Ostrachism demands that I not serve cakes to black people, so I won't.

[Auralia]

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?

It doesn't matter. I don't need to provide a rational basis for my beliefs in order to exercise my freedom of religion.

[Dyakovo]

Irrelevant. It's still discrimination.

Of course it's relevant, because we're trying to balance competing rights: freedom of religion and the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services. Limited private sector discrimination does have a significant negative impact on the right to equal access to services.

Once again, their freedom of religion was not infringed upon.

[Othelos]

Irrelevant. It's still discrimination.

Of course it's relevant, because we're trying to balance competing rights: freedom of religion and the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services. Limited private sector discrimination does have a significant negative impact on the right to equal access to services.

What exactly do you mean by "limited"?

[The Black Forrest]

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

It doesn't matter. I don't need to provide a rational basis for my beliefs in order to exercise my freedom of religion.

that's why we create laws.

To keep you from forcing your religion on others.

[The Black Forrest]

Of course it's relevant, because we're trying to balance competing rights: freedom of religion and the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services. Limited private sector discrimination does have a significant negative impact on the right to equal access to services.

Once again, their freedom of religion was not infringed upon.

But but the baker could get the gay!

[Mavorpen]

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

It doesn't matter. I don't need to provide a rational basis for my beliefs in order to exercise my freedom of religion.

In other words, legislating a protection for your decision to discriminate according to your religion is irrational. Got it.

We'll stick to actually legislating based on state interests, thanks.

[Auralia]

Of course it's relevant, because we're trying to balance competing rights: freedom of religion and the state's interest in ensuring equal access to services. Limited private sector discrimination does have a significant negative impact on the right to equal access to services.

What.
Religious Freedom.
Requires the denial.
Of services.
Question mark.

Yes, it does. People can have religious convictions to refrain from taking a certain action.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Okay this is flat out bullshit I need to call out, I owe it at least to the fact I've been in the world of business administration all my life.

See, in a business delivering a product, your religious opinions don't matter. They don't mean jack shit to the people buying from you or the people working to make the product and as a retailer, your religious opinion means shit to the customers.

Your company may or may not sponsor religious groups or any groups' opinions the company's leaders want to associate with. And they can structure their schedules around religious holidays and whatnot, that's all fine.

What is bullshit though is deny service to a customer simply because of your own religious convictions. Businesses don't work like that and any business who operates that way either gets into lawsuits or loses customer base and they are forced to close, because that's a very stupid business to even invest on to begin with.

[The Black Forrest]

What.
Religious Freedom.
Requires the denial.
Of services.
Question mark.

Yes, it does. People can have religious convictions to refrain from taking a certain action.

Baking a cake makes the baker gay?

[The Emerald Dawn]

What.
Religious Freedom.
Requires the denial.
Of services.
Question mark.

Yes, it does. People can have religious convictions to refrain from taking a certain action.

"Yes, it does." is not an answer to my question.

Please try again, and this time actually answer it.

[Auralia]

In other words, legislating a protection for your decision to discriminate according to your religion is irrational. Got it.

You need to distinguish between rational bases for particular religious beliefs and the rational basis for protecting freedom of religion in general.

[Mavorpen]

In other words, legislating a protection for your decision to discriminate according to your religion is irrational. Got it.

You need to distinguish between rational bases for particular religious beliefs and the rational basis for protecting freedom of religion in general.

I did.

It'd help if you actually read my post.

[Tekania]

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

Incorrect in this case. SCOTUS does not have appelate jurisdiction over the determinations of state codes and laws, only federal ones. Or in short, the state law could only be appealed if the law was being challenged based upon a reasoning from an applicable federal law or constitutional provision. There is none. SCOTUS has no review power in the NM case. They could potentially do a Federal RFRA claim, but as there is existing SCOTUS precedent relating the the Federal RFRA relation to states governments, that would be a pointless endeavor as the courts would rule against them, and likely SCOTUS would just refuse the case and leave the lower courts point standing. That's a lot of money in filing costs to put into a case one knows they could not win.

[The Black Forrest]

In other words, legislating a protection for your decision to discriminate according to your religion is irrational. Got it.

You need to distinguish between rational bases for particular religious beliefs and the rational basis for protecting freedom of religion in general.

When the bakers ability to worship and go to places of worship is being blocked by the evil gays; then we will defend him.

[Auralia]

Yes, it does. People can have religious convictions to refrain from taking a certain action.

"Yes, it does." is not an answer to my question.

Please try again, and this time actually answer it.

I did answer your question. As I just said, people can have a religious conviction that taking a certain action is wrong. Therefore, refraining from taking that action constitutes a form of religious exercise.

[Auralia]

You need to distinguish between rational bases for particular religious beliefs and the rational basis for protecting freedom of religion in general.

When the bakers ability to worship and go to places of worship...

Yeah, religious freedom is much broader than that.

[The Black Forrest]

"Yes, it does." is not an answer to my question.

Please try again, and this time actually answer it.

I did answer your question. As I just said, people can have a religious conviction that taking a certain action is wrong. Therefore, refraining from taking that action constitutes a form of religious exercise.

Baking and selling a cake is protected.

[The Emerald Dawn]

"Yes, it does." is not an answer to my question.

Please try again, and this time actually answer it.

I did answer your question. As I just said, people can have a religious conviction that taking a certain action is wrong. Therefore, refraining from taking that action constitutes a form of religious exercise.

Name one. This isn't a hard question.

If it is as common as you're indicating, and requires protection because it serves a public interest to protect, you should be able to name a few examples.

We don't protect people's religious interest in shooting black people, so you're going to need to be specific.