Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple

[s_bushido]

No, the ruling came because the justice department gave up nothing else they lost in lower courts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...this isn't even a ruling. It's just a brief issued by the DOJ on the government's position on the issue. It's still up to SCOTUS to rule one way or another if the case continues.

[Deleted]

It is a human right to practice your religious beliefs

As long as there refusal of service in this case was not done in an abusive manner its entirely lawful

I suspect that the ruling in this case came down on the side of freedom of religion because there was no attempt to be abusive but simply a desire to stick to their religious beliefs

Much as you are I might disagree with them, both sides have an equal right in this instance

And said religious belief still have to fall under the laws of the land (otherwise satanists could kill people).

But ultimately I am only disagreeing with the ruling and notion that it is the ethical thing to do. It is merely opinion, and I do respect other opinions on this matter (I might add I have really enjoyed this thread because there has been so many really good back and forth arguments and very little of the usual mud flinging).

I might also add that I come from a country that oddly enough is state run religion, yet we somehow are less than 25 % religious; so I do come from a position quite different to the US. This of course colours my opinion and moral compass to that, and I do absolutely understand the notion that this is being represented as a question of freedom of speech/expression and practice of religion, I just hold the position that it falls under discrimination, and that the laws not protecting them from said freedom of expression discrimination is what I take issue with.

[Machismo]

But this is legislation or are you too ideologically obtuse to see that? If I make a law saying "If you think this person is a faggot, then you can kick them out, no problem." how is that not legislating in favor of discrimination?

The only way government does nothing, like in your conservative utopia is if government is simply absent. You can't pick and chose.

No law would be required. The only issue would arise, is when someone already made a law that banned or restricted something. Then the action would be getting rid of that legislation.

You don't need a law to say something is legal. Things are legal, until the government stops it.

[artemishunter1]

I'm not sure you realize but you're actually agreeing with me. People shouldn't be able to legislate their hatred and bigotry AKA we shouldn't make laws that will allow people who fall into that category to say stuff like you: "you look like a faggot to me, so get out of my shop... cause religion."

We are not making a law at all. We are taking down a law. Let people behave the way they want to behave. Religion or not is irrelevant.Do you believe, gov't gives you the right to own a business? To apply your trade? Because before all these laws, people were free to do their own trade. Laws came later supplimentary due to safety issues.

[Machismo]

Sure, just let me pull a business on the of my ass.

Great, I wish you the best of luck.

[cparle87]

It is in the state this happened, I believe. That's the whole point that the supreme court has to decide, if states can add sexual orientation to the protected class list, and give it all the strength of the protections for race, religion and gender.

Yeah, I looked it up on wikipedia after Sormine's last response. As of 2014, two courts of appeal have said it isn't, while one says it is. Take from that what you will.

[Maybach]

Except this guy is a hypocrite because in the bible it says all sins are equal in the eyes of God. If you refuse to make a cake for a homosexual wedding then he should refuse to make a cake for people who had sex before marriage, for divorcees, for people who swear, who have lied, who have stolen, etc... All of these are sins of equal measure to God. So the argument that he is risking his immortal soul by baking a cake is bullshit because he would just as much be risking his immortal soul baking a cake for any sinner. This is a bigot who hates gay people trying to hide behind his religion to excuse his bigotry. You don't think people didn't twist and contort Christianity into why white people are superior to black people? Jesus wouldn't kick out sinners he would walk with them and try to change them. Where was the contract selling his soul to the devil if he made a cake? Where was the required gay orgy he would have to be involved with if he made the cake? Where was the bible he was to burn and swear upon his soul to disavow God if he made a cake? The guy is a bigot who uses his religion as a shield to hide his bigotry and Jesus would be ashamed of him.

If a person walked into the same store and said "I am an adulterer and have not repented, bake me a cake celebrating my adultery" I would expect the store owner to refuse service in exactly the same way

However, most people don't walk into stores and make such statements as you use to justify your argument

In this instance the person asked for a cake celebrating gay marriage so it was self evident to the store owner

In respect of your point about people twisting christianity to justify the argument that one race is superior to another, I have yet to find a single reference to this in the bible and would condemn any such argument, it simply has no basis in scripture

Only one religion as far as I am aware promotes one race above others and that is the reference in judaic scripture to Israelites being gods "chosen people" and this has certainly been misused by extreme right wing jews up to present times

Most religions, frankly, are pretty tolerant on the point of race

You assert that the store owner in this instance is a bigot

Do you know the store owner or have you spoken to him?

Or are you simply assuming that this is the case in view of his religious beliefs?

If he really believes his immortal soul is in peril how does that make him a bigot?

A religious zealot maybe, a bigot no

[Draco-Onis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...this isn't even a ruling. It's just a brief issued by the DOJ on the government's position on the issue. It's still up to SCOTUS to rule one way or another if the case continues.

You are correct, I looked up another article the case is still going to SCOTUS it is just that the Trump administration will be taking the side of the baker.

[Arganis]

No law would be required. The only issue would arise, is when someone already made a law that banned or restricted something. Then the action would be getting rid of that legislation.

You don't need a law to say something is legal. Things are legal, until the government stops it.

This is non-sensical. You're picking and choosing what constitutes an infringement on "freedom" versus what doesn't, based on your political views. "Telling people they have to bake a cake for everyone" Bad, law is forcing me to bake a cake for homos. "Telling people feel free to kick out queers from your establishment if you feel so inclined." Good, that's not a law that's "freedom". Total ideological BS.

Want real freedom from government? Then go live in the woods.

[Machismo]

If a person walked into the same store and said "I am an adulterer and have not repented, bake me a cake celebrating my adultery" I would expect the store owner to refuse service in exactly the same way

However, most people don't walk into stores and make such statements as you use to justify your argument

In this instance the person asked for a cake celebrating gay marriage so it was self evident to the store owner

In respect of your point about people twisting christianity to justify the argument that one race is superior to another, I have yet to find a single reference to this in the bible and would condemn any such argument, it simply has no basis in scripture

Only one religion as far as I am aware promotes one race above others and that is the reference in judaic scripture to Israelites being gods "chosen people" and this has certainly been misused by extreme right wing jews up to present times

Most religions, frankly, are pretty tolerant on the point of race

You assert that the store owner in this instance is a bigot

Do you know the store owner or have you spoken to him?

Or are you simply assuming that this is the case in view of his religious beliefs?

If he really believes his immortal soul is in peril how does that make him a bigot?

A religious zealot maybe, a bigot no

The store owner is certainly a bigot. he literally refused to serve someone, because that person is gay. That's some pretty hefty intolerance. Just because it is based on religious beliefs, doesn't mean it's not bigotry.

[Maybach]

And said religious belief still have to fall under the laws of the land (otherwise satanists could kill people).

But ultimately I am only disagreeing with the ruling and notion that it is the ethical thing to do. It is merely opinion, and I do respect other opinions on this matter (I might add I have really enjoyed this thread because there has been so many really good back and forth arguments and very little of the usual mud flinging).

I might also add that I come from a country that oddly enough is state run religion, yet we somehow are less than 25 % religious; so I do come from a position quite different to the US. This of course colours my opinion and moral compass to that, and I do absolutely understand the notion that this is being represented as a question of freedom of speech/expression and practice of religion, I just hold the position that it falls under discrimination, and that the laws not protecting them from said freedom of expression discrimination is what I take issue with.

I think the solution is quite simple, give equal rights to both sides of the debate unless one side or the other engages in abusive language or violence, both of which are already illegal

Mutual respect and tolerance rather than hyperbole and rhetoric

[Machismo]

This is non-sensical. You're picking and choosing what constitutes an infringement on "freedom" versus what doesn't based on your political views. "Telling people they have to bake a cake for everyone" Bad, law is forcing me to bake a cake for homos. "Telling people feel free to kick out queers from your establishment if you feel so inclined." Good, that's "freedom". That's total ideological BS.

Want real freedom from government? Then go live in the woods.

You are making one mistake, the second example does not require anyone to say anything to them. It's simply an absence of government banning such behavior.

[Maybach]

The store owner is certainly a bigot. he literally refused to serve someone, because that person is gay. That's some pretty hefty intolerance. Just because it is based on religious beliefs, doesn't mean it's not bigotry.

bigotry
ˈbɪɡətri/Submit
noun
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Pretty much covers most of the posts condemning the store owner don't you think?

[Deleted]

I think the solution is quite simple, give equal rights to both sides of the debate unless one side or the other engages in abusive language or violence, both of which are already illegal

Mutual respect and tolerance rather than hyperbole and rhetoric

Are you saying that gays should be allowed to discriminate against religious people in case of service?

[pathora44]

If a person walked into the same store and said "I am an adulterer and have not repented, bake me a cake celebrating my adultery" I would expect the store owner to refuse service in exactly the same way

However, most people don't walk into stores and make such statements as you use to justify your argument

In this instance the person asked for a cake celebrating gay marriage so it was self evident to the store owner

In respect of your point about people twisting christianity to justify the argument that one race is superior to another, I have yet to find a single reference to this in the bible and would condemn any such argument, it simply has no basis in scripture

Only one religion as far as I am aware promotes one race above others and that is the reference in judaic scripture to Israelites being gods "chosen people" and this has certainly been misused by extreme right wing jews up to present times

Most religions, frankly, are pretty tolerant on the point of race

You assert that the store owner in this instance is a bigot

Do you know the store owner or have you spoken to him?

Or are you simply assuming that this is the case in view of his religious beliefs?

If he really believes his immortal soul is in peril how does that make him a bigot?

A religious zealot maybe, a bigot no

So again all sins are equal in the eyes of God. If he is truly fearful for his soul he should look into everyone of his clients records to see they aren't sinners. Let's go as simple as divorcees and if he truly is fearful for his soul he should ask for their divorce papers and see the reason. If the groom or bride divorced because they committed adultery during their first marriage he is celebrating that sin by making a cake for them. He won't though because he doesn't care about that.

[Machismo]

bigotry
ˈbɪɡətri/Submit
noun
intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Pretty much covers most of the posts condemning the store owner don't you think?

Everyone is a bigot. Personally, I think it much better to be bigoted against a hateful asshole, than because someone is gay.

[triplesdsu]

Ive never understood this desire to force people who dont want to provide you a service to do so. Especially with food. If someone feels like discriminating against me or my kind, the last thing I want to do is give them my money. it rather see the free market kill their business. It doesnt make good business sense to discriminate, especially in 2017, but it's their choice.

[oxymoronic]

expected when you appoint a neo nazi as the AG. really it is like acting shocked that nazis are nazis. If anything it has proven that our freedom and democracy is very fragile in this country

uhh so sessions bad but holder great? and which is racist again?

[Arganis]

You are making one mistake, the second example does not require anyone to say anything to them. It's simply an absence of government banning such behavior.

Like I said, that's ideological bullshit. You ARE making a law and that law is essentially passively allowing you to discriminate against homos and anyone else you see as undeserving of your business. You want no law aka no government involvement, then you go live in the forest because you can't just pick and chose what you think constitutes "government infringement" on your freedom based on ideology.

You're the type of guy who think taxations is theft but still wants to drive on the roads and buy that car and have that electricity. That's not the way the world works buddy. A real neutral state is one where you do business with everyone. Not one where you make laws to only do business with who you want.

[Maybach]

Are you saying that gays should be allowed to discriminate against religious people in case of service?

If homosexuals were members of a religious group that believed interacting with christians jeopardised their immortal souls yes

I simply do not believe that one sides human rights trump the other sides whichever way around you view this debate

If the bake in this instance said " fuck off I am not making cakes for fags" I would be the first person to condemn the store owner

If the store owner said " I apologise for not being able to serve you as by making this cake celebrating gay marriage god might judge me as defying his scripture" I would respect his right to hold that belief and practice his religion