SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Littlejoe]

The only thing I would question is what religious reason he could cite for that claim. Is there a recognized religious prohibition or is it a sincerely held belief? That's the sticking point I think. I believe the Baker won his point because he was CONSISTENT in his practice whereas the Commission showed themselves hypocrites.

Well, it's a hypothetical just like the one Yttrium made...there's no religion I know of that is anti interracial marriage (I realize I could be wrong on that). But, to answer your question, anyone can "found" their own religion and make the dictates what they want. (Hence I could be wrong on the interracial thing). they do not have to be based on anything...or someone could just write their own scripture and claim it was inspired by their god...

[One Bad Pig]

Now I'm curious as to what would happen in the following situation:

A black and white couple in Colorado go to a baker to get a wedding cake. The baker is religiously opposed to interracial marriages, and refuses to make a cake for them. The couple takes it to court, claiming racial discrimination. What happens?

As others have pointed out, there is plenty of precedent to find for the couple in that case. I have no idea what religious grounds are used to argue for miscegenation. Of course, if I were part of the couple, I'd just go to another baker, and spread the word to boycott the person who refused to make the cake.

[Sparko]

Yeah, we submitted our brief in January and the oral args for our case were heard in March. They didn't reference our brief during questioning, but the decision is still forthcoming. Hopefully before June ends.

Nice. that will look good on your resume!

[Sparko]

No. Apples and Oranges.

They have gay apples and oranges now?

Is that where the pejorative "fruit" came from?

[Sparko]

"Trump supporters" is "something I believe."
"Black, gay, female, short, disabled" is "something I am."

If they are being excluded because of their beliefs - that's "free speech"
If they are being excluded because of who they are - that's "bigotry/prejudice/racism/sexism/heightism/etc."

You seem to just characterize people as "what I believe" and "what I am" on a whim, twisting the description to your preconception.

Like in the bakery case. You insist it was because of what they were that they were turned away, but it wasn't. It was "what they believed" -- They believed it was OK for two men to be married. The owner disagreed. simple.

Using your twisted definition you can make either category the other simply by restating it.

Gay people are not "what they are" they are simply people who "believe in having sex with someone of the same sex" or who "believe that the same sex is more attractive to them than the opposite sex"

Basically sexual orientation is a mental belief, no matter what the cause of the belief. It originates in the brain. No brain no orientation. Race on the other hand concerns the whole person, and has nothing to do with mental status. Remove the brain and the person is still a black, white or brown person of that particular race.

Addiction is genetically based too. It results in various behaviors which are illegal. So using your metric, it would be bigotry to deny a drink to an alcoholic, or to arrest a drug addict.

[Sparko]

Nothing personal oxmixmudd, but you talk too much.

What YOU don't comprehend is that the issue is NOT religious freedom, but a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex or national origin in Public Accommodations, such as a cake shop. You are demanding special treatment for Christians who believe that their freedoms override the freedoms of other people, in this instance gay couples. It doesn't.

But it wasn't Tassy. If it were then it would have been a simple decision for the supreme court. I keep telling you that and you just repeat your fixed narrative no matter what. Like a stuck record. Get a new story.

[Cow Poke]

As others have pointed out, there is plenty of precedent to find for the couple in that case. I have no idea what religious grounds are used to argue for miscegenation.

The only thing I've ever heard is "the mark of Cain".





(But when they become Mormons, they become white and delightsome!)

[rogue06]

Speaking of hypotheticals, I wonder what the reaction would be if some skinheads entered a Jewish bakery and demanded that a cake be made reading "Hitler Had the Right Idea" and decorated with the universal symbol for prohibited^[1] over a Star of David.

Or if someone entered a Muslim bakery and demanded a cake that read "Muhammad Was A Pedophile"

Or into a bakery owned by a vocal atheist demanding a cake reading "Burn in Hell All You Atheist %#$@^#&s!" (and not using cartoon vulgarities)


Would it be okay for any of them to refuse? Or is it just Christians who are expected to throw out their beliefs and meekly comply?












1.
00000000000000ars4a.png

[Sparko]

Yes...they are. You may not see it in those terms...but "who we are" (in this context) is something we are genetically coded to be, or physically are. What we believe is not. No one is genetically programmed to have one religious belief or another.

Maybe we are genetically programmed for religion: https://www.newscientist.com/article...s-inclination/

But again, why should your standard mean anything? Who made you the arbiter of what is and isn't bigotry? I don't recall some official definition of bigotry that says anything about genetics, or that it is what carpedm9587 says it is.

This is just your opinion. Our opinion is that you are wrong. So now what?

[thewriteranon]

Nice. that will look good on your resume!

FTR, we didn't actually go to the SC. Our brief was (presumably) read by the justices. I haven't been putting the brief on my resume, though I have mentioned it in interviews, just because I'm unsure how it plays being so politically charged. I'll probably end up adding it, because it looks like putting my leadership role in the pro-life group is gonna be more beneficial than not in the upcoming Early Interview Process. At that point, a brief is just icing on the cake. Hahahaha.

[Sparko]

The interacial couple wins their discrimination suit and the baker pays the damages.

But would it be racism if he had no problem if the couple was all black, or all white? Seems to me he would just be against the principal of an interracial marriage. Not against any particular race, or against marriage. Just interracial marriage.

It would be an interesting case.

[carpedm9587]

So, at least according to you, it is perfectly alright to discriminate against anyone who believes in gay marriage. Got it.

The discrimination in question is about the gender of the people marrying - not who believes what.

[Sparko]

The discrimination in question is about the gender of the people marrying - not who believes what.

It isn't about the gender of the customers at all. He has sold cakes to both genders. He would even sell other items to a same sex couple so it isn't even about what they believe. It is about the event. I know you can't accept that, but it is true.

[Joel]

"Trump supporters" is "something I believe."
"Black, gay, female, short, disabled" is "something I am."

If they are being excluded because of their beliefs - that's "free speech"
If they are being excluded because of who they are - that's "bigotry/prejudice/racism/sexism/heightism/etc."

One can have prejudice/bigotry regarding things other than biology, including beliefs. The article being discussed refers to a business owner boycotting all who are registered to vote Republican. The person is clearly pre-judging each person registered Republican. Probably assuming something that is not true of everyone registered Republican. Likewise someone could be prejudiced against "liberals", jumping to false conclusions about individual self-identified liberals. Or Muslims. etc.

A related question:
I think I understand that the distinction being made here is the idea that it's especially mean to treat someone ill for something they had no control over, like their biology. But is that even always the case? A person might care more about their beliefs, actions, and character than about superficial things like their biological characteristics. In which case ill treating them regarding the former might be more mean?

Unlike Jim and Tass, I do not think you "support" Trump in that you are putting your back to the wheel to support him in an ongoing fashion. I recognize you saw him as the "lesser of X evils." However, there is no "against X" box on the ballot. People look at the candidates, and vote for the one they want most of the available list. Suck it up, CP; you voted for Trump. You didn't vote "against" Hillary. There were actually several candidates on the ballot, and you could have voted for any of them. You chose Trump. That doesn't make you a "Trump supporter." It does make you someone who voted FOR Trump.

That doesn't follow. I think it is likely that most of the time voters are casting votes against someone/thing, not for. Take the last U.S. presidential election, where both major candidates in the general election had very low approval ratings. Yet most voters cast a vote for one of the two. But most of them were not voting FOR either, but against the other. That there were other candidates on the ballot doesn't make a difference, because all of them were polling much lower. If your highest priority in voting was to prevent candidate X from getting into office, then it becomes rational to cast a vote for the next highest polling candidate Y, whomever that might be. That cannot be considered a vote FOR Y. Even more so because there is no "against X" box on the ballot. Voting for Y is simply the best "against X" option available on the ballot. Candidate Z might even be the candidate that the voter "wants most of the available list", and yet may still rationally cast for Y because the voter views preventing X to be more important.

That isn't what I do. I personally choose not to vote for the lesser evil. But I think most people do. And I can understand why they do. It's a serious flaw in the vote-for-one voting system. There are other voting systems that avoid that flaw, and I think we should switch systems.

And incidentally, there seems to be a great deal of prejudice against people who cast votes for Trump.

[rogue06]

The discrimination in question is about the gender of the people marrying - not who believes what.