SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Tassman]

A woman wanting an abortion has lots of choice regarding places she can go to get one. Just as a homosexual has lots of choice regarding places to go to get a cake.

Why force those who disagree with those things to change for the sake of cultural expediency?

Of course I know your answer. "Because! Their rights supercede the rights of Christians in every area!"

No, because the rights of Evangelicals do not supersede the rights of the rest of the citizenry as per the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which guarantee ALL citizens equal protection of the law.

[Tassman]

No I'm not. The 'special privileges' you keep clamoring about are a REQUIREMENT of the constitution.

"The government shall make no low RESTRICTING the free exercise thereof".

The "free exercise" of religion does not include special treatment at the expense of other citizens. It does not supersede the rights of the rest of the citizenry as per the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which guarantee ALL citizens equal protection of the law...as emboldened in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. .

[mossrose]

No, because the rights of Evangelicals do not supersede the rights of the rest of the citizenry as per the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which guarantee ALL citizens equal protection of the law.

Like I said. The rights of everybody else supercede the rights of Christians.

[MaxVel]

No, because the rights of Evangelicals do not supersede the rights of the rest of the citizenry as per the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which guarantee ALL citizens equal protection of the law.

ALL citizens would include religious people, whose rights are also specifically protected in the actual Constitution itself, as Jim has pointed out. You're ignoring one whole side of the question.

But have away at it, when atheism is no longer fashionable, people will have forgotten that whatever worldview is currently in power should - by the Constitution - show tolerance to other worldviews, and as you are so keen to teach everyone, treat atheists as madmen to be stamped out by law and force if need be. That's the society that your stupidity will lead to.

[oxmixmudd]

The "free exercise" of religion does not include special treatment at the expense of other citizens. It does not supersede the rights of the rest of the citizenry as per the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which guarantee ALL citizens equal protection of the law...as emboldened in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. .

If all you have to say are your talking points - please don't bother. This is actually beneath you. You are smart enough to know that the points I've made have merit. Indeed, the SCOTUS recognized the issues I'm raising in its opinions. So by just grabbing a snippit and saying the same thing over and over again, what you are actually doing is admitting you have no argument,but that you are too stubborn to admit that fact.


Jim

[MaxVel]

If all you have to say are your talking points - please don't bother. This is actually beneath you. You are smart enough to .know that the points I've made have merit. Indeed, the SCOTUS recognized the issues I'm raising in its opinions. So by just grabbing a snippit and saying the same thing over and over again, what you are actually doing is admitting you have no argument,but that you are too stubborn to admit that fact.


Jim

Have to disagree with you Jim. Empirical evidence shows that it's not beneath him.

[JimL]

Like I said. The rights of everybody else supercede the rights of Christians.

No, but you actually want certain people to not have the same the rights as you, because you don't accept them for who they are. If you went into a bakery and the baker said we bake wedding cakes for everyone except for christians, so sorry but get lost, then you'd have a discrimination case. That's what the baker in the Colorado case did to the gay couple.

[Tassman]

If all you have to say are your talking points - please don't bother. This is actually beneath you. You are smart enough to know that the points I've made have merit. Indeed, the SCOTUS recognized the issues I'm raising in its opinions. So by just grabbing a snippit and saying the same thing over and over again, what you are actually doing is admitting you have no argument,but that you are too stubborn to admit that fact.

What you are demanding is that you and your fellow Christians have special treatment, that your civil rights override those of other citizens. That is not acceptable according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is nothing more to be said.

[Tassman]

Like I said. The rights of everybody else supercede the rights of Christians.

Stop with the Christian persecution crap. ALL citizens have equal rights. Christians (unlike the pigs in Animal Farm) are not "more equal than others".

[rogue06]

What you are demanding is that you and your fellow Christians have special treatment, that your civil rights override those of other citizens. That is not acceptable according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is nothing more to be said.

What you are demanding is that gays have special treatment, that their civil rights override those of other citizens. That is not acceptable according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing more to be said.

[Tassman]

What you are demanding is that gays have special treatment, that their civil rights override those of other citizens. That is not acceptable according to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing more to be said.

equal protection of the laws in Public Accommodations...including cake shops.

[Teallaura]

No, but you actually want certain people to not have the same the rights as you, because you don't accept them for who they are. If you went into a bakery and the baker said we bake wedding cakes for everyone except for christians, so sorry but get lost, then you'd have a discrimination case. That's what the baker in the Colorado case did to the gay couple.

Nope, they are fighting for the same right of refusal that others enjoy BASED on the PROTECTED status of CREED.

The actual right in the Constitution is the Freedom of Association which the CRA tramples all over. The reasoning for the CRA was that without it people literally were unable to obtain services AT ALL - or in such a reduced form that they could not compete commercially. THAT is what the CRA was addressing and what the Court intended to rectify in allowing the CRA. Society has changed - there's no longer any danger of being unable to obtain service at all - and the CRA is no longer justified.

What you are arguing for is a return to a form of slavery in which people are forced to perform labor for others when they do not wish to - a version of eminent domain for services in effect. This is what the 13, 14 and 15th amendments were supposed to prevent.

[rogue06]

equal protection of the laws in Public Accommodations...including cake shops.

NO! The alleged "right" being demanded by gay Christophobes is that of discrimination against a certain category of person, namely devotely religious Christians^[1]. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which supersedes all other laws) guarantees be allowed to practice their religion... including bakers.











1. Please note that they never, ever go to a halal bakery (Muslim) and start demanding that they be forced to kowtow to their demands (although folks have made videos posing as a gay person wanting a wedding cake and being turned down by Muslim bakery after Muslim bakery)

[Tassman]

NO! The alleged "right" being demanded by gay Christophobes is that of discrimination against a certain category of person, namely devotely religious Christians^[1]. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which supersedes all other laws) guarantees be allowed to practice their religion... including bakers.

1. Please note that they never, ever go to a halal bakery (Muslim) and start demanding that they be forced to kowtow to their demands (although folks have made videos posing as a gay person wanting a wedding cake and being turned down by Muslim bakery after Muslim bakery)

[JimL]

Nope, they are fighting for the same right of refusal that others enjoy BASED on the PROTECTED status of CREED.

Could you cite an example please, Tea?

The actual right in the Constitution is the Freedom of Association which the CRA tramples all over.

The one issue has nothing to do with the other, they are separate issues Tea. We are free to associate with anyone we like, but there are also rules regulating business in the public square. Serving the public doesn't mean you have to hang out with them. You know, we have to use a bit of common sense when interpreting the Constitution, everything can't be spelled out for us in minute detail. The problem is that when it isn't spelled out, like lawyers exploiting loopholes in the law, agenda driven people exploit the lack of detail in the Constitution.

The reasoning for the CRA was that without it people literally were unable to obtain services AT ALL - or in such a reduced form that they could not compete commercially. THAT is what the CRA was addressing and what the Court intended to rectify in allowing the CRA. Society has changed - there's no longer any danger of being unable to obtain service at all - and the CRA is no longer justified.

Nope, there is no such wording in the CRA, it is about discrimination period. It's silly to argue that discrimination is okay in some instances so long as everyone isn't discriminating.

What you are arguing for is a return to a form of slavery in which people are forced to perform labor for others when they do not wish to - a version of eminent domain for services in effect. This is what the 13, 14 and 15th amendments were supposed to prevent.

That's just silly. People choose to go into business to make money knowing full well that there are civil rules that need be adhered to. To equate that with slavery, which i see conservatives doing all the time, is just ridiculous.