The libertarian thread is the next door over.
Advertisement
by The Black Forrest » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:50 pm
by The Black Forrest » Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:54 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Reverend Norv wrote:So this particular baker, because he was treated unfairly by the Commission, had his free exercise rights limited in an unconstitutional way, and he rightly won his case. But the ruling rests on the Commission's bias and hostility - not on the antidiscrimination law itself. As Justice Kagan writes in her concurrence, had the Commission not shown such hostility, its decision might even have stood - because the secular bakers would have refused to make homophobic cakes for any customers, regardless of religion, while Phillips refused to bake a cake for a gay couple specifically because they were gay. That's a valid reason for the Commission to find discrimination in the second case but not the first. But instead of that rationale, it repeatedly demeaned the plaintiff and belittled his beliefs.
The part in red is incorrect. Phillips also refused a request from a gay man's heterosexual mother to bake a gay wedding cake. His refusal was not based on the sexual orientation of the prospective customer but rather on the message that the cake would convey -- that homosexual relationships are equal and should be celebrated.
by Reverend Norv » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:00 pm
Christian Democrats wrote:Reverend Norv wrote:So this particular baker, because he was treated unfairly by the Commission, had his free exercise rights limited in an unconstitutional way, and he rightly won his case. But the ruling rests on the Commission's bias and hostility - not on the antidiscrimination law itself. As Justice Kagan writes in her concurrence, had the Commission not shown such hostility, its decision might even have stood - because the secular bakers would have refused to make homophobic cakes for any customers, regardless of religion, while Phillips refused to bake a cake for a gay couple specifically because they were gay. That's a valid reason for the Commission to find discrimination in the second case but not the first. But instead of that rationale, it repeatedly demeaned the plaintiff and belittled his beliefs.
The part in red is incorrect. Phillips also refused a request from a gay man's heterosexual mother to bake a gay wedding cake. His refusal was not based on the sexual orientation of the prospective customer but rather on the message that the cake would convey -- that homosexual relationships are equal and should be celebrated.
For really, I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he. And therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that Government. And I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.
Col. Thomas Rainsborough, Putney Debates, 1647
A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
by Auralia » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:05 pm
Reverend Norv wrote:It was decided because, despite Kennedy's various hints and equivocations about his feelings on other, peripheral issues...
by Reverend Norv » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:12 pm
Auralia wrote:Reverend Norv wrote:It was decided because, despite Kennedy's various hints and equivocations about his feelings on other, peripheral issues...
Those hints and equivocations give us some sense as to how Kennedy will rule in future. And they seem to tilt somewhat in favour of religious liberty, per my analysis above.
For really, I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he. And therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that Government. And I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.
Col. Thomas Rainsborough, Putney Debates, 1647
A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
by The Black Forrest » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:15 pm
Reverend Norv wrote:Auralia wrote:Those hints and equivocations give us some sense as to how Kennedy will rule in future. And they seem to tilt somewhat in favour of religious liberty, per my analysis above.
There's also these:
"While those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."
“Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”
"Any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons."
My sense of the decision is that Kennedy is outraged by the Commission's disrespect for the plaintiff's religious beliefs, and that he wants these sorts of disputes to be "resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs," but not that he's interested in expanding a religious loophole for discrimination in public accomodations.
by TURTLESHROOM II » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:18 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Baker discriminates against LGBT people.
Baker told that he shouldn't discriminate against LGBT people.
Baker complains about being discriminated against.
You literally couldn't make it up.
As TS adapts to new normal, large flagellant sects remain -|- TurtleShroom forfeits imperial dignity -|- "Skibidi Toilet" creator awarded highest artistic honor for contributions to wholesome family entertainment (obscene gestures cut out)
by Bakra » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:19 pm
Reverend Norv wrote:My sense of the decision is that Kennedy is outraged by the Commission's disrespect for the plaintiff's religious beliefs, and that he wants these sorts of disputes to be "resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs," but not that he's interested in expanding a religious loophole for discrimination in public accomodations.
by The Black Forrest » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:21 pm
Bakra wrote:Reverend Norv wrote:My sense of the decision is that Kennedy is outraged by the Commission's disrespect for the plaintiff's religious beliefs, and that he wants these sorts of disputes to be "resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs," but not that he's interested in expanding a religious loophole for discrimination in public accomodations.
Which makes this funnier, because Ginsberg and her lackey Sotomayer seem to think kangaroo courts are ok if they agree with their agenda. The baker plainly broke the law, but they needed to do it in a civil capacity with a fair and just trial.
But don't listen to me. Those two experts seem to think a fair trial is only applicable to their ilk. I may be slightly perturbed by this.
by Bakra » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:21 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:
How do you resolve with tolerance if one side refuses due to religion?
by The Black Forrest » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:23 pm
by Bakra » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:23 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Bakra wrote:
Which makes this funnier, because Ginsberg and her lackey Sotomayer seem to think kangaroo courts are ok if they agree with their agenda. The baker plainly broke the law, but they needed to do it in a civil capacity with a fair and just trial.
But don't listen to me. Those two experts seem to think a fair trial is only applicable to their ilk. I may be slightly perturbed by this.
Let's leave the remarks about the justices out of it. The same can be said about Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito.......
by Reverend Norv » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:23 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Reverend Norv wrote:
There's also these:
"While those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law."
“Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.”
"Any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons."
My sense of the decision is that Kennedy is outraged by the Commission's disrespect for the plaintiff's religious beliefs, and that he wants these sorts of disputes to be "resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs," but not that he's interested in expanding a religious loophole for discrimination in public accomodations.
How do you resolve with tolerance if one side refuses due to religion?
For really, I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he. And therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that Government. And I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.
Col. Thomas Rainsborough, Putney Debates, 1647
A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
by Vassenor » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:25 pm
TURTLESHROOM II wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Baker discriminates against LGBT people.
Baker told that he shouldn't discriminate against LGBT people.
Baker complains about being discriminated against.
You literally couldn't make it up.
> Baker refuses to participate in pro-homosexual event because his religion says is an abomination
> Baker told that he will participate in that event at gunpoint (literally if he didn't comply, by threats of prison and bankrupting fines)
> Baker denied a fair hearing by the Colorado extortion panel
> Baker complains about being literally persecuted and threatened with bankruptcy and imprisonment for obeying the explicit commands of his religion
Yeah, you really can't make that up. That shouldn't happen in America.
Maybe if the government put a gun to your head and forced you to participate in an anti-gay event, or bake a cake that reads "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION", you might start singing a different tune!
by TURTLESHROOM II » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:25 pm
As TS adapts to new normal, large flagellant sects remain -|- TurtleShroom forfeits imperial dignity -|- "Skibidi Toilet" creator awarded highest artistic honor for contributions to wholesome family entertainment (obscene gestures cut out)
by Kramanica » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:26 pm
Reverend Norv wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:The part in red is incorrect. Phillips also refused a request from a gay man's heterosexual mother to bake a gay wedding cake. His refusal was not based on the sexual orientation of the prospective customer but rather on the message that the cake would convey -- that homosexual relationships are equal and should be celebrated.
Which may or may not have violated the ADA anyway. Most antidiscrimination statutes have some wiggle room. If I'm white, and I'm booking a motel room on behalf of my black friend, and the owner refuses to do business with me, he's still in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The courts have been clear that the whole point in antidiscrimination laws in public accommodations is to ensure equal access to services, which is compromised by discrimination even at second hand.
But the real point is that the case wasn't decided on any of those merits. It was decided because, despite Kennedy's various hints and equivocations about his feelings on other, peripheral issues, he was clear that "the delicate question of when the free exercise of [Phillips'] religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here."
by West Leas Oros » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:26 pm
The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Oros, no. Please. You were the chosen one. You were meant to debunk the tankies, not join them. Bring balance to the left, not leave it in darkness.
WLO Public News: Protest turns violent as Orosian Anarchists burn building. 2 found dead, 8 injured. Investigation continues.
by Vassenor » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:28 pm
TURTLESHROOM II wrote:As for legal matters, it is abominable that the Supreme Court has justices that rule on "stigma" (AKA MUH LITTLE FEELINGS) of one party (as he did in the SSM case that metaphorically raped the Tenth Amendment), and not the law or the Constitution. The entire SSM case that started this mess was based on "this hurts LGBT peoples' feelings", not the Constitution.
I believe this ruling is a good start, but it should go further. No one should be compelled to participate in sin.
- Muslim caterers should not be forced to serve pork to unbelievers.
- Jewish photographers or journalists should not be forced to attend and document Neo-Nazi rallies.
- Homosexuals should not be forced to produce a product reading "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION".
- Jews, Christians, and Muslims should not be forced to participate in the celebration, glorification, or enabling of homosexuality.
- Atheists should not be forced to participate in religious events.
Furthermore, I believe that private businesses (not involved in essential or life-saving services like police, fire, medicine, security, utilities, etc. etc.), should be allowed to refuse service for any reason, or refuse to hire or fire someone, etc., without any cause.
I would never dine at a restaurant that turns blacks away, but the owner should have a right to be stupid.
We live in a civilized country, where we recognize that racism, etc., is not to be tolerated. In modern dtimes, the Free Market would bring any corporation or entity that tried to do something that stupid down. Just ask Rosanne or any of the groping news anchormen.
Why do we still have the government in it?
by Kramanica » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:29 pm
Vassenor wrote:TURTLESHROOM II wrote:As for legal matters, it is abominable that the Supreme Court has justices that rule on "stigma" (AKA MUH LITTLE FEELINGS) of one party (as he did in the SSM case that metaphorically raped the Tenth Amendment), and not the law or the Constitution. The entire SSM case that started this mess was based on "this hurts LGBT peoples' feelings", not the Constitution.
I believe this ruling is a good start, but it should go further. No one should be compelled to participate in sin.
- Muslim caterers should not be forced to serve pork to unbelievers.
- Jewish photographers or journalists should not be forced to attend and document Neo-Nazi rallies.
- Homosexuals should not be forced to produce a product reading "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION".
- Jews, Christians, and Muslims should not be forced to participate in the celebration, glorification, or enabling of homosexuality.
- Atheists should not be forced to participate in religious events.
Furthermore, I believe that private businesses (not involved in essential or life-saving services like police, fire, medicine, security, utilities, etc. etc.), should be allowed to refuse service for any reason, or refuse to hire or fire someone, etc., without any cause.
I would never dine at a restaurant that turns blacks away, but the owner should have a right to be stupid.
We live in a civilized country, where we recognize that racism, etc., is not to be tolerated. In modern dtimes, the Free Market would bring any corporation or entity that tried to do something that stupid down. Just ask Rosanne or any of the groping news anchormen.
Why do we still have the government in it?
But when something hurts Christians' feelings, like not being allowed to treat homosexuals as subhuman, then it should be fixed?
by TURTLESHROOM II » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:30 pm
Vassenor wrote:So where does the bible explicitly demand that homosexuals be discriminated against?
As TS adapts to new normal, large flagellant sects remain -|- TurtleShroom forfeits imperial dignity -|- "Skibidi Toilet" creator awarded highest artistic honor for contributions to wholesome family entertainment (obscene gestures cut out)
by Krasny-Volny » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:30 pm
Vassenor wrote:TURTLESHROOM II wrote:As for legal matters, it is abominable that the Supreme Court has justices that rule on "stigma" (AKA MUH LITTLE FEELINGS) of one party (as he did in the SSM case that metaphorically raped the Tenth Amendment), and not the law or the Constitution. The entire SSM case that started this mess was based on "this hurts LGBT peoples' feelings", not the Constitution.
I believe this ruling is a good start, but it should go further. No one should be compelled to participate in sin.
- Muslim caterers should not be forced to serve pork to unbelievers.
- Jewish photographers or journalists should not be forced to attend and document Neo-Nazi rallies.
- Homosexuals should not be forced to produce a product reading "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION".
- Jews, Christians, and Muslims should not be forced to participate in the celebration, glorification, or enabling of homosexuality.
- Atheists should not be forced to participate in religious events.
Furthermore, I believe that private businesses (not involved in essential or life-saving services like police, fire, medicine, security, utilities, etc. etc.), should be allowed to refuse service for any reason, or refuse to hire or fire someone, etc., without any cause.
I would never dine at a restaurant that turns blacks away, but the owner should have a right to be stupid.
We live in a civilized country, where we recognize that racism, etc., is not to be tolerated. In modern dtimes, the Free Market would bring any corporation or entity that tried to do something that stupid down. Just ask Rosanne or any of the groping news anchormen.
Why do we still have the government in it?
But when something hurts Christians' feelings, like not being allowed to treat homosexuals as subhuman, then it should be fixed?
by Ethel mermania » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:30 pm
Vassenor wrote:TURTLESHROOM II wrote:As for legal matters, it is abominable that the Supreme Court has justices that rule on "stigma" (AKA MUH LITTLE FEELINGS) of one party (as he did in the SSM case that metaphorically raped the Tenth Amendment), and not the law or the Constitution. The entire SSM case that started this mess was based on "this hurts LGBT peoples' feelings", not the Constitution.
I believe this ruling is a good start, but it should go further. No one should be compelled to participate in sin.
- Muslim caterers should not be forced to serve pork to unbelievers.
- Jewish photographers or journalists should not be forced to attend and document Neo-Nazi rallies.
- Homosexuals should not be forced to produce a product reading "HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION".
- Jews, Christians, and Muslims should not be forced to participate in the celebration, glorification, or enabling of homosexuality.
- Atheists should not be forced to participate in religious events.
Furthermore, I believe that private businesses (not involved in essential or life-saving services like police, fire, medicine, security, utilities, etc. etc.), should be allowed to refuse service for any reason, or refuse to hire or fire someone, etc., without any cause.
I would never dine at a restaurant that turns blacks away, but the owner should have a right to be stupid.
We live in a civilized country, where we recognize that racism, etc., is not to be tolerated. In modern dtimes, the Free Market would bring any corporation or entity that tried to do something that stupid down. Just ask Rosanne or any of the groping news anchormen.
Why do we still have the government in it?
But when something hurts Christians' feelings, like not being allowed to treat homosexuals as subhuman, then it should be fixed?
by Reverend Norv » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:32 pm
Kramanica wrote:Reverend Norv wrote:
Which may or may not have violated the ADA anyway. Most antidiscrimination statutes have some wiggle room. If I'm white, and I'm booking a motel room on behalf of my black friend, and the owner refuses to do business with me, he's still in violation of the Civil Rights Act. The courts have been clear that the whole point in antidiscrimination laws in public accommodations is to ensure equal access to services, which is compromised by discrimination even at second hand.
But the real point is that the case wasn't decided on any of those merits. It was decided because, despite Kennedy's various hints and equivocations about his feelings on other, peripheral issues, he was clear that "the delicate question of when the free exercise of [Phillips'] religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here."
They're still allowed access to services. They're simply not willing to bake them a cake for this specific circumstance.
For really, I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he. And therefore truly, Sir, I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that Government. And I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under.
Col. Thomas Rainsborough, Putney Debates, 1647
A God who let us prove His existence would be an idol.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
by TURTLESHROOM II » Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:33 pm
Vassenor wrote:But when something hurts Christians' feelings... ...then it should be fixed?
As TS adapts to new normal, large flagellant sects remain -|- TurtleShroom forfeits imperial dignity -|- "Skibidi Toilet" creator awarded highest artistic honor for contributions to wholesome family entertainment (obscene gestures cut out)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Aggicificicerous, Ancientania, Cyptopir, Gun Manufacturers, Hidrandia, Ineva, Kostane, Kreushia, Luziyca, Neanderthaland, Omphalos, Plan Neonie, Shrillland, Talibanada, The Lone Alliance, The Vooperian Union, Tungstan
Advertisement