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

[Sormine]

Is that what we are discussion? No. We are discussion Sexual orientation. Those cases pretain to that. Want other things? Go find them. Cite your source for your debunked claims. I have proven that them upholding religious beliefs as a context for denying services is not unprecedented when it comes to denying services to LBGT couples.

Thus, this bakers claim is valid and is nothing ultimately new.

You're right. The verdict supporting it is.

So you admit you have no articles where the law actively supports discrimination in the defense of religious freedom. Got it.

[Zython]

No, its Yours. You're the one making claims without backing it up. Going on the article in the OP, and the judges decision, the guy did this repeatedly for the same reason each time. Thus, it is his beliefs. Neither you, nor I, or Anyone in this thread has the ability or right to say what his religious views are or are not.

If you wish to continue you make that claim, back it up with links or evidence. Otherwise, I am going to say you're lying to try and create a false narrative that supports your own opinion. Proof me wrong, and I shall retract that. However, from what I have seen, this truly is his religious view.

Ok, even assuming this is his sincerely held religious belief, what about someone who does this despite not sincerely holding said belief? What's the recourse there? There's only two options.

1. Refuse to question them on this, meaning that anyone who wants to break the law just have to come up with a flimsy excuse based on their beliefs.
2. The courts interrogate these people on their beliefs and the doctrine of their faith. This will end up turning the courts into interpreters and arbiters of religious doctrine.

Now, if you ask me, letting people break whatever laws they want OR turning our court system into a ecumenical council are both things we want to avoid. So really, the only option is to not codify religious exemptions.

- - - Updated - - -

Is that what we are discussion? No. We are discussion Sexual orientation. Those cases pretain to that. Want other things? Go find them. Cite your source for your debunked claims. I have proven that them upholding religious beliefs as a context for denying services is not unprecedented when it comes to denying services to LBGT couples.

Discrimination against LGBT people is ultimately inseparable from gender discrimination.

[Zantos]

So you admit you have no articles where the law actively supports discrimination in the defense of religious freedom. Got it.

Why ask for sources if you wont read them? I have no time to waste speaking with someone who makes up lies and then wont cite a source.

The baker was in the clear and exercised his right.

[Zython]

Start with the OP article.
Priest being allowed to wear an article of clothing in drivers license for religious reasons
Law put into place saying counselors can deny service based upon their beliefs
Texas passing a bill that allows adoption agency's to turn away people based upon belief

If you want more, I'm sure you can find them. There are verdicts on both sides of the fence, however, the US supreme court doesn't review these often and its left at a state matter. So, you're turn. Cite your source for your debunked claim.

Well, two problems.

1. Passing a law doesn't make that law constitutional.
2. As far as Supreme Court precedent, I would like to cite Employment Division v. Smith.

- - - Updated - - -

Why ask for sources if you wont read them? I have no time to waste speaking with someone who makes up lies and then wont cite a source.

The baker was in the clear and exercised his right. The Supreme court supports that.

The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it. All that happened was the DoJ issued a brief in support of the baker.

You...you DO realize the DoJ and SCotUS aren't the same thing, right?

[Zantos]

Ok, even assuming this is his sincerely held religious belief, what about someone who does this despite not sincerely holding said belief? What's the recourse there? There's only two options.

1. Refuse to question them on this, meaning that anyone who wants to break the law just have to come up with a flimsy excuse based on their beliefs.
2. The courts interrogate these people on their beliefs and the doctrine of their faith. This will end up turning the courts into interpreters and arbiters of religious doctrine.

Now, if you ask me, letting people break whatever laws they want OR turning our court system into a ecumenical council are both things we want to avoid. So really, the only option is to not codify religious exemptions.

If they don't truly hold it, the recourse is to tell them they are lying and to find in favor of the ones suing him. Pretty simple. However, he established a pattern. He has repeatedly done this. That leans towards it truly being his belief and not just a one time, random act. However, we can't ignore religious exemptions because the first amendment is a thing. People have the right to belief what they want and to not have that belief infringed upon.

Discrimination against LGBT people is ultimately inseparable from gender discrimination.

That may be, but its something that needs to be looked into and determined what is right and wrong. Do you allow the LGBT to force themselves on people and ignore their religious beliefs, or do you side with the first amendment and simply ask the LGBT to go to a different establishment? Its a tricky thing. I personally side with religious freedom since its not imposing itself or trying to force others to accept it. While those in the LGBT are trying to force people to do things in support of something they may not agree with.

- - - Updated - - -

You...you DO realize the DoJ and SCotUS aren't the same thing, right?

I got tripped up by the article title it seems. I thought the DoJ was supporting a Decision by the SCotUS

[Zython]

If they don't truly hold it, the recourse is to tell them they are lying and to find in favor of the ones suing him. Pretty simple. However, he established a pattern. He has repeatedly done this. That leans towards it truly being his belief and not just a one time, random act. However, we can't ignore religious exemptions because the first amendment is a thing. People have the right to belief what they want and to not have that belief infringed upon.

Hypocrisy isn't proof that the belief isn't sincerely held. It's just proof that they don't always act on it. Before you ask, yes, this is possible. That's what cognitive dissonance is.

That may be, but its something that needs to be looked into and determined what is right and wrong.

Yeah, we already covered that in 1964.

Do you allow the LGBT to force themselves on people and ignore their religious beliefs, or do you side with the first amendment and simply ask the LGBT to go to a different establishment?

Jesus, they're not trying to fuck the baker.

Its a tricky thing. I personally side with religious freedom since its not imposing itself or trying to force others to accept it. While those in the LGBT are trying to force people to do things in support of something they may not agree with.

Discrimination IS forcing them to accept it.

[Sormine]

Why ask for sources if you wont read them? I have no time to waste speaking with someone who makes up lies and then wont cite a source.

The baker was in the clear and exercised his right.

Accusing me of not reading the articles doesn't change the content within them.

[Zantos]

Hypocrisy isn't proof that the belief isn't sincerely held. It's just proof that they don't always act on it. Before you ask, yes, this is possible. That's what cognitive dissonance is.

Of course its possible. Its just harder to proof that that is what it is, if it is that, when it happens more often then not.

Yeah, we already covered that in 1964.

Actually, no, we didn't. It never said anything about religion playing a part in the decisions to discriminate or not. Its another text book example of a law not covering all the bases and then leaving it up to the states, or higher courts to deal with the missing pieces.

Jesus, they're not trying to fuck the baker.

You don't need to be trying to fuck someone to be trying forcing an acceptance of your lifestyle upon them. The baker doesn't accept their lifestyle. Plain and simple. The reason he stated was due to his religion. At that point we again need to determine what that exactly entails and how far it can go before you are infringing upon someones first amendment rights.

Discrimination IS forcing them to accept it.

No. It shows intolerance. It shows bigotry. It is Not trying to force them to accept it. It is not trying to force them to do something that goes against their beliefs and view points. Trying to get someone to create something with a message supporting something they do not belief in nor condone however, IS trying to force them to accept it. You are trying to force them to set aside their lifestyle, their view points, and do something that goes against who they are by trying to get an artist to Create art that supports you.

[tehdef]

I think a business should be able to refuse service to anyone for whatever reason they want.

They did that in the 1960's. That's why "niggers" weren't allowed in white shops.

They'd still do it if they could get away with it.

[Nfinitii]

Justice dept made the right call, they should stay out of stuff like this and let society handle it. If someone refuses u service for whatever reason, u tell ur friends and have them tell their friends etc. it's going to hurt their business. Not like I would want someone's who hated me for a stupid reason to make my wedding cake anyways. And the baker is stupid, a gay person's money is just as good as anyone else's money, ur there to make money not make political statements.

[Darkeon]

They did that in the 1960's. That's why "niggers" weren't allowed in white shops.

They'd still do it if they could get away with it.

Feel free to criticize and, due to societal pressure and not forced government actions, make these people be shunned for their bigoted views and, eventually, have their profits lowered due to it - if those around them feel so inclined.

[Sormine]

I guess you think some words/ideas are Voldemort.

But our Supreme Court values personal freedom. Our justices laughed at the idea of hate speech. You swear by it. Homosexuality isn't a protected class here, and the government can't compel a citizen to violate their religion.

I feel like I've been the butt end of an entire mmo-c community trolling where they all pretend to host extremely dangerous right wing view points and it took me up until this guys post for me to realize it.

[Machismo]

They did that in the 1960's. That's why "niggers" weren't allowed in white shops.

They'd still do it if they could get away with it.

You are right, many would.

[Masark]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but homosexuality isn't protected.

Stop walkin and start reading. It is in Colorado, where this case is taking place.

[xGLxAnubis]

As long as we have freedom of religion in this country you should not be forced to do something that goes against your religious/moral beliefs..

I'm sorry, can you point me again to where it says "Thou shalt not bake cakes for homosexuals"? I can't seem to find the passage forbidding baking cakes for certain groups of people.

If you're going to sport the 'religious freedom/morals' bit, the act you're doing should ACTUALLY be against your religion or morals. One might be morally opposed to homosexual sex, but that's not the same as your religion interacting with or performing services FOR homosexual people. What about "Sorry, you can't eat at our restaurant as a homosexual; by allowing you to eat we're allowing you to live, and that would be directly supporting homosexuality."? Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

[Stormspellz]

It had nothing to do with them being a man or a women. It had to do with them being gay. I think the government should have no say in who a person serves in their business. People do not have a right to other peoples labour. Capitalism will do it's thing and if the baker across the street will make the cake they get more business and will be more successful.

"Oh you are christian? sorry this ambulance won't help you."

[Deleted]

Good thing in my country you have no legal right to deny service to anyone, and anyone that does will be fined pretty harshly (lowest fine is 75000 EUR) and will most likely end up closing their business the week after because of it. The only thing they can deny is when the service is indecent, racist, vulgar, or anything similar to that.

Not to mention violates his beliefs, that crap wouldn't fly here either, because mainly law dictates that it's above religion, and that religion can only be practiced on private property and churches (that includes anything related to religion being forbidden), which basically means denying service because of religion would result in another fine.

[Darkeon]

"Oh you are christian? sorry this ambulance won't help you."

When one compares pastry to health care, you know they are stretching it real thin.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

The deal is that you can refuse people business. It might be for an asshole reason but it is not a right to get a cake baked at a certain bakery. The reason you cannot make a ruling against them is pretty clear. Let us say you had 200 cakes to make and you could only make 200 cakes. Then a gay couple came in, you were full and book, but then they demanded you make a cake. Then they could just pull the "because I was gay" card and sue the shit out of place. THAT CLEARLY WASNT THE CASE HERE. But once you start the slippery slop in federal court its very hard to reverse.

[Deleted]

When one compares pastry to health care, you know they are stretching it real thin.

It's still a public service, it's just not a service related directly or in function of the government. Thankfully in my country any public service, whether it's your bakery, or the hospital, is required to be on point with legalities surrounding giving everyone the exact same service and options, ie no discrimination of any kind is tolerated.