Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers

[RumTumTugger]

But you wouldn't call the Christian plaintiff spiteful and hate-filled for filing suit.

as I said wouldn't happen. unless they did it because there were lot of intolerant bullying bigoted gay activists in that jurisdiction using an unconstitutional law to force bakers, photographers etc to go against their sincerely belief that participating in celebration of a lifestyle they think is wrong then i'd say htey are making a test case out of it to see if there was equality under the law or whether this unconstitutional law was only enacted to force one view on everyone.

[Sparko]

They shouldn't. Which is why the question of "vanilla" or generic works, as opposed to commissioned (content-specific) works, is important. Where there's a message or "speech" being "published," First Amendment rights trump anti-discrimination law. When it's a generic good or service, First Amendment rights aren't involved.

Therefore no bakery should have to make gay wedding cakes. Making a gay wedding cake is making political speech and it is against the business owner's religious beliefs.

And yet that is not what we see happening. Although you were correct in that the Lexington T-shirt place did win their lawsuit, these other cases show that the local government doesn't give a darn about the first amendment, just about being politically correct.

[RumTumTugger]

you see Sam i as a conservative Christian who take the BIBLE SERIOUSLY unlike some i can mention also understand one thing people do have a right to their views and act on them as long as it is not TRAMPLING on the GOD GIVEN RIGHTS of others. something you and this intolerant bigoted bullying gay couple don't understand you feel it is right to trample on others rights not t participate in something you want to force them to participate in. there was no TRUE Harm done to that gay couple they were jsut mean intolerant bullying bigots I call it like I see it Sam. Laws like the one used by the gay couple are nothing but tools for the intoreant bigoted bullying folks like that Gay couple to use to enslave others. they care nothing abouty Rights only about getting their way or esle.

which is why we need laws like the one the Indiana governor signed and the bill going through the process in Texas so that the true bullies and their enablers will be stopped before they even attempt to bully others just to get their way

[Sparko]

1) I did not impugn seer's integrity by calling for a citation.

2) If you ask for a citation on a point of fact I make on the topic being discussed, I'll generally provide it.

3) As you show above, I clearly did provide such a citation, in this instance the case law from the NM supreme court. So when you wrote:

your memory was very clearly wrong. And I get to pat myself on the back for remembering enough of what you were talking about to tie it back into the NM supreme court hearing. Still have a few brain cells in the ol' hippocampus left, it seems.

1. My memory was wrong when I said "creative works of art" where you said "commissioned works"

2. You did NOT provide citation to the law. Just to legal briefs and opinions of a court. The opinions are how the law is interpreted by a specific case, not the law itself.

3. I provided you the actual NM law (see above) and it said nothing about "commissioned works"

[Sam]

Therefore no bakery should have to make gay wedding cakes. Making a gay wedding cake is making political speech and it is against the business owner's religious beliefs.

And yet that is not what we see happening. Although you were correct in that the Lexington T-shirt place did win their lawsuit, these other cases show that the local government doesn't give a darn about the first amendment, just about being politically correct.

What "political speech" is being made by the baker? "My job is to make wedding cakes and so I'm making a wedding cake"? Because unless there's anything else specifically portraying a message on that cake, simply performing the same service for various clientele ain't protected speech.

And I fully expect future cases to fall down that line of what "speech" means and I very, very much doubt that "speech" will ever be so broadly defined as to allow for unfettered discrimination. We're almost certainly never going back to Heart of Atlanta.

[Sam]

1. My memory was wrong when I said "creative works of art" where you said "commissioned works"

2. You did NOT provide citation to the law. Just to legal briefs and opinions of a court. The opinions are how the law is interpreted by a specific case, not the law itself.

3. I provided you the actual NM law (see above) and it said nothing about "commissioned works"

I cited the evidence pertaining to what I was talking about and the relevant case law (and legal precedent is considered part of the law). I'm under no obligation to make my argument using citations of someone else's choosing ... that doesn't even make sense.

What's relevant here is that you were accusing me of hypocrisy in calling for a citation when, by your accusation, I don't provide citations for my statements when asked and instead "get upset" by such requests. You disproved your own accusation and scored in your own goal.

[Sparko]

What "political speech" is being made by the baker? "My job is to make wedding cakes and so I'm making a wedding cake"? Because unless there's anything else specifically portraying a message on that cake, simply performing the same service for various clientele ain't protected speech.

And I fully expect future cases to fall down that line of what "speech" means and I very, very much doubt that "speech" will ever be so broadly defined as to allow for unfettered discrimination. We're almost certainly never going back to Heart of Atlanta.

speech that says "Gay marriage is normal and good" when the baker doesn't believe that.

also since it is a "commissioned" work, you were arguing previously that they had the right not to have to create the cake, now you are arguing the opposite. Please make up your mind.

[Sam]

speech that says "Gay marriage is normal and good" when the baker doesn't believe that.

also since it is a "commissioned" work, you were arguing previously that they had the right not to have to create the cake, now you are arguing the opposite. Please make up your mind.

Generic wedding cakes are not a "commissioned work" in any way I've ever defined the term on this topic. If you want to use "generic" and "content-specific" as the terms, that's fine. But the meaning is clear, in any case.

Making a wedding cake doesn't convey any approval of the marriage in question. Line up six wedding cakes in a row and ask folks to decide which cakes were made with personal knowledge or approval of the couple. Given bakers who take a modicum of pride in their work, it can't be done.

[Sparko]

Generic wedding cakes are not a "commissioned work" in any way I've ever defined the term on this topic. If you want to use "generic" and "content-specific" as the terms, that's fine. But the meaning is clear, in any case.

Making a wedding cake doesn't convey any approval of the marriage in question. Line up six wedding cakes in a row and ask folks to decide which cakes were made with personal knowledge or approval of the couple. Given bakers who take a modicum of pride in their work, it can't be done.

Like I said, most wedding cake bakers make to order, or "commission" -- they don't usually have generic wedding cakes laying around getting stale.

[Sam]

Like I said, most wedding cake bakers make to order, or "commission" -- they don't usually have generic wedding cakes laying around getting stale.

As I've been using the terms:

"Commissioned work" = "Good or Service delivering specific content or message"

"Made to order" ≠ "Good or Service delivering specific content or message"

Therefore, "Made to order" ≠ "Commissioned work"


You can argue that the term used needs to be less ambiguous or that a better term might fit the concept better. You cannot argue that your alternative definition of the term, when it's already been explained as a specific concept repeatedly, is how I'm using the term.

[Sparko]

As I've been using the terms:

"Commissioned work" = "Good or Service delivering specific content or message"

"Made to order" ≠ "Good or Service delivering specific content or message"

Therefore, "Made to order" ≠ "Commissioned work"


You can argue that the term used needs to be less ambiguous or that a better term might fit the concept better. You cannot argue that your alternative definition of the term, when it's already been explained as a specific concept repeatedly, is how I'm using the term.

so now you just make up your own definitions?

Commission:
2.
a. To grant authority for (something to be made or done); place an order for: commission a new symphony for the festival.
b. To authorize or engage (someone to do something): commission an architect to design a building. See Synonyms at authorize.


And not only would a wedding cake be "made to order" but if it was supporting gay marriage, it would be making a specific message.

[Sam]

so now you just make up your own definitions?

Commission:
2.
a. To grant authority for (something to be made or done); place an order for: commission a new symphony for the festival.
b. To authorize or engage (someone to do something): commission an architect to design a building. See Synonyms at authorize.


And not only would a wedding cake be "made to order" but if it was supporting gay marriage, it would be making a specific message.

I've clearly articulated what context I'm conveying and even offered you an alternative term if you prefer. That context (or concept) is what's important. If you're just trying to "win" by demanding a narrow definition without supporting reason, it's hard to take that argument seriously.

I've defined the term as it's used in this debate; if you believe a different term should be used instead, offer it up and I'll probably use it. At some point, though, you need to move a bit past the bare semantics and focus on the idea that the words are conveying in the given context.

Gavagai.

[Mountain Man]

so now you just make up your own definitions?

Commission:
2.
a. To grant authority for (something to be made or done); place an order for: commission a new symphony for the festival.
b. To authorize or engage (someone to do something): commission an architect to design a building. See Synonyms at authorize.


And not only would a wedding cake be "made to order" but if it was supporting gay marriage, it would be making a specific message.

Sam is playing an old liberal game, that if you can control the language and force your opponent to agree to your tortured definitions then you've won the debate. He's using an ad hoc and unreasonably narrow definition of "commissioned" because he knows he doesn't have an argument without it.

[Sam]

Sam is playing an old liberal game, that if you can control the language and force your opponent to agree to your tortured definitions then you've won the debate. He's using an ad hoc and unreasonably narrow definition of "commissioned" because he knows he doesn't have an argument without it.

That would be necessary only if I were trying to cram a new meaning into a word in an existing constitution or statute. As Sparko has complained, I'm not actually referring to an explicit word or clause in either. I'm basing an argument off of the established case law regarding discrimination and free speech. So the actual word "commissioned" is not necessary to the argument I'm making. Thus, I've offered to use a different term or phrase if it better suits the idea I'm arguing.

In other words, I'm doing the opposite of what you accuse.

[Zymologist]

I am still curious about this:

What American ideal necessitates anti-discrimination laws?