'Gay wedding cake ' baker claim persecution...again

[Prokne]

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/0...supreme-court/

the baker, in questionc wouldn’t do the cake even for a heterosexual woman (who was the mother of one of the men), which probably helped mr phillips due to it showing he was doing so for his faith and not because they were gay.

If this is a reason for determining his faith, it is pretty ridiculous. It doesn't matter who buys the cake for the people, he is still not baking a cake specifically for gay men.

The point is that the SC did not say that the Colorado anti-discrimination in public business law was unconstitutional, so he still has to follow it, which he isn't.

[Talon8669]

Would you say the same thing if his Religion was against Race instead of homosexuals?

I guess if there was a religion that had that basis then yes. Keep in mind this whole thing is over a business owners right to refuse service. Though we do have protected classes so in your case with the question I think supreme court ruling would exclude him from being able to do so, that of course is specific to blacks only I believe.

[Prokne]

You're allowed to do as you please with your business, as it should be, who are you to tell what is right and what is wrong? aren't you forcing some kind of view to people?

He don't want to serve me? i'll go somewhere else where my money is appreciated, and since he only serve muslims, he is going out of business very fast, it's as simple as that.

A business is not a person and should not be allowed to do whatever it wants. If you, as a person running a business, can't follow the laws set forth for business practices, don't open a business. People can have whatever views they want, but they are not allowed to act on them in certain circumstances, especially where there is an imbalance of power such as that between a business and a customer.

[Deleted]

Semantic quibbling over the label of your particular flavor of hate isn't a productive argument.

Endus, everytime i saw you posting you where involved in deep "semantic quibbling", and however you put it, a sexuality/gender isn't a race, my race is caucasian white, not hetero.

And what the fuck with my particular flavor of hate, are you implying i'm hatefull? aren't you being intolerant right now?

LGBT people don't have any more "rights" than anyone else. Protected class legislation protects everyone, and equally, by definition.

Then why is your panty all twisted champ? are you going to argue that lgbt people are getting more fucked by shady, nebulous lobby/gov/company because they are lgbt? are you saying that i'm implying that i do not support for everyone to be protected equaly?

Mathematics, we know everyone is being from slightly annoyed to downright illegaly treated, if there is less than 5% of a country that is lgbt, anny funky shit will stick out waaay, waaaaay much.

[Prokne]

They also mentioned it was unlawfully impeding on his first amendment rights. This is all readily available from quick google searches from multiple sources.

Because they criticized him too heavily for what he believes, not that they can't require him to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

[Orbitus]

Oh my god. You seem to be struggling to actually understand what the fuck I am saying. YES they have "Holy Matrimony" but to THEM ALLLLLLLLL Marriage is Matrimony. It's why they are unable to separate the 2 and have constantly fought back against Same Sex Marriage.

Can you comprehend the simple sentence now?

It doesn't matter what it means to them. Christianity didn't care about marriage until the Council of Verona in 1184. But we know that there were marriages for thousands of years before then. If anyone can't comprehend a simple sentence, it is you. Christianity has had it for less than 1000 years, while the rest of the world has had it for more than likely 5000+ years.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you support a baker forced to bake a cake for Nazi's?

Nazis aren't a protected class. So they can be refused service. Next stupid question, Hellboi?

[Deleted]

A business is not a person and should not be allowed to do whatever it wants.

Say who? your view? what make them so superior?

If you, as a person running a business, can't follow the laws set forth for business practices[...]

As hard as you try, it's legal here.

People can have whatever views they want, but they are not allowed to act on them in certain circumstances, especially where there is an imbalance of power such as that between a business and a customer.

Again, that's legal where i am.

Do i enjoy that kind of treatment to my person? no, am i going to pull the public opinion for a minority of assholes? still a solid no, and as a matter of fact, who would give a plateform for me to speak about my ass, lonely white dude being refused service by muslims for my religion? i could actualy risk prison time for pointing out that's the case, leftist are very, very proned to yell about racism, hatred and other funny words finishing in "-ist", i will keep doing my things and capitalism will do it's work.

Like, on a different subject, Electronic Arts yelling at it's customer base to not buy their shit "if they can't handle it", guess Battlefield 5 will crash as hard a Battlefront 2, that's counter productive.

[Talon8669]

A business is not a person and should not be allowed to do whatever it wants. If you, as a person running a business, can't follow the laws set forth for business practices, don't open a business. People can have whatever views they want, but they are not allowed to act on them in certain circumstances, especially where there is an imbalance of power such as that between a business and a customer.

There is no customer though, as he did what he is legally allowed to do and refused service. As a business owner myself I can choose to provide or not provide service to anyone I please. In fact I refused service to 6 people this week.

[Endus]

They also mentioned it was unlawfully impeding on his first amendment rights. This is all readily available from quick google searches from multiple sources.

Just to be brutally clear; https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...diff2_e1pf.pdf

That's the actual verdict document, straight from SCOTUS directly, in full. To paraphrase section a); it was reasonable for Phillips to make the claim that his First Amendment rights were relevant, because this was before the USA v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges cases, which by the time SCOTUS laid out, were precedent. The only reason to bring those up, in that context, is because SCOTUS believes the precedent in those cases will work strongly against Philips' claim of religious rights, which at a glance, they should;

His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful.

The language is very precise. "Given the State's position at the time" clearly implies that the State's position, due to the precedent cited, should not be the same today. And they only suggested there was some force to Philips claim that he thought his decision was lawful as a result; that implies they think that case was far from solid, even then.

They didn't give his argument regarding his religious rights the proper consideration. If they had, and had ruled against it regardless, then SCOTUS very likely would have backed that decision regarding the state of law in 2012, and the state of law has since changed to render the argument unfeasible, in their opinion.

This is a strong indication that if the Colorado legal team gives his religious arguments due consideration and follows procedure, they'll firmly rule against Philips and this time, it'll be unassailable. The SCOTUS ruling never suggested that Philips was in the right.

[Nurasu]

Endus, everytime i saw you posting you where involved in deep "semantic quibbling", and however you put it, a sexuality/gender isn't a race, my race is caucasian white, not hetero.

And what the fuck with my particular flavor of hate, are you implying i'm hatefull? aren't you being intolerant right now?




Then why is your panty all twisted champ? are you going to argue that lgbt people are getting more fucked by shady, nebulous lobby/gov/company because they are lgbt? are you saying that i'm implying that i do not support for everyone to be protected equaly?

Mathematics, we know everyone is being from slightly annoyed to downright illegaly treated, if there is less than 5% of a country that is lgbt, anny funky shit will stick out waaay, waaaaay much.

If you can't understand the comparison between discrimination based in racism and discrimination based on orientation, then you're confusing sexual preference and sexual orientation on a fundamental level.

[Rooflesstoofless]

I really don't care that it's "his belief system". That isn't a defense. It just means his beliefs are bigoted and intolerant.

Isn't that the defense that helped him win the first case? It a Muslim deli owner also bigoted and intolerant if he refuses to sell lottery tickets, alcohol, or pork?

Religious rights are not without limit. The moment they start to negatively impact others unreasonably, that's the limit.

Who is negatively impacting who?

[Orbitus]

If I allow the baker freedom of speech and freedom of association I will have to allow it for everyone?

Here, I will solve the apparent conundrum you seem to be stuck on.

Colorado has sexuality as a protected class. Transgendered people are under that protected status. Just like Blacks, Jews, Muslims and all the other protected classes. When you apply for a business license in Colorado, you say you will abide by all state laws. Otherwise you won't be able to open your business legally. If you aren't serving these people, you should and will be shut down. Besides, there is no fucking single mention of transgendered people or cakes mentioned in the Big Book of Fairy Tales, AKA the bible.

[Deleted]

There is no customer though, as he did what he is legally allowed to do and refused service. As a business owner myself I can choose to provide or not provide service to anyone I please. In fact I refused service to 6 people this week.

As it's your right to do so, exactly.

Why did you allowed your service for those 6 peoples? i don't know, you have your reasons, but i would assume because they did something or because they where not looking fit to use consume your services, meanwhile, racialy oriented business is meant to fail from the start, you can't survive in a thriving market by alienating half (or possibly more) a customer base.

[Endus]

Endus, everytime i saw you posting you where involved in deep "semantic quibbling", and however you put it, a sexuality/gender isn't a race, my race is caucasian white, not hetero.

And what the fuck with my particular flavor of hate, are you implying i'm hatefull? aren't you being intolerant right now?

Nope to both questions. I was pointing out the lack of value to the "X isn't a race so it can't be racist" type quibbling. You were engaging in exactly that, even if you otherwise weren't backing a hateful argument directly.

Then why is your panty all twisted champ? are you going to argue that lgbt people are getting more fucked by shady, nebulous lobby/gov/company because they are lgbt? are you saying that i'm implying that i do not support for everyone to be protected equaly?

If you're complaining about LGBT people getting "special rights/privileges", what you're actually doing is complaining that they aren't being systemically oppressed any more.

They don't get any special rights or privileges.

[Deleted]

Here, I will solve the apparent conundrum you seem to be stuck on.

Colorado has sexuality as a protected class. Transgendered people are under that protected status. Just like Blacks, Jews, Muslims and all the other protected classes. When you apply for a business license in Colorado, you say you will abide by all state laws. Otherwise you won't be able to open your business legally. If you aren't serving these people, you should and will be shut down. Besides, there is no fucking single mention of transgendered people or cakes mentioned in the Big Book of Fairy Tales, AKA the bible.

Thanks for the heads up, not so much for the free taunt, that being said i didn't expected much from another case of TDS, see, both can play this game.

[Endus]

Isn't that the defense that helped him win the first case?

He lost that first case. That ruling was reversed by SCOTUS but, as I linked above, only because the state of the law at the time meant they should have given his argument more consideration. Which isn't a statement that SCOTUS felt his argument was legitimate, just that it couldn't be dismissed outright, which they'd done.

If the human rights commission does a proper consideration this time around, and determines that his religious views are unreasonable and prejudiced, they'll rule against him, and SCOTUS will back it based on precedent. They likely won't even take the case, as long as the procedural issues from the first aren't repeated.

It a Muslim deli owner also bigoted and intolerant if he refuses to sell lottery tickets, alcohol, or pork?

No. But this baker sold customized cakes. They weren't asking him for something he doesn't sell.
Now, if the hypothetical Muslim refuses to sell those things to a Jew but will sell them to anyone else, yes. That'd be bigoted and intolerant. This shit ain't complicated.

Who is negatively impacting who?

The guy breaking the law is negatively impacting the customers he's refusing to serve due to their membership in a protected class.

[Rooflesstoofless]

There is no customer though, as he did what he is legally allowed to do and refused service. As a business owner myself I can choose to provide or not provide service to anyone I please. In fact I refused service to 6 people this week.

You can tell a lot of people in this thread have never owned a business or worked for themselves. The world is FULL of assholes and you don't have to do business with them just because they have money.

Nazis aren't a protected class. So they can be refused service. Next stupid question, Hellboi?

Unless these people were trying to get a job from the baker or rent a house from him I don't think protected classes even qualify here. You can definitely be a Nazi and veteran (a protected class).

[Orbitus]

I am okay with someone that owns a private business that doesn't agree with something to refuse service. Period.

Well, it is a good thing you aren't a business owner. Because if you were, you would be out of business before it even started because you apparently didn't read the business license application that states that you can't refuse service to protected classes.

[Deleted]

Nope to both questions. I was pointing out the lack of value to the "X isn't a race so it can't be racist" type quibbling. You were engaging in exactly that, even if you otherwise weren't backing a hateful argument directly.

Racism have a clear definition, and being transphobic is definitely not being racist, those words have a very heavy connotation, like rape, genocide, murder, torture, etc... and it's quite tiresome seing them being tossed around like the buzzwords they became, yet people that aren't knowledgable on the new cultural war take them for what they meant, not what they mean nowadays, i am very allergic to dog whistles and that is definitely one.

If you're complaining about LGBT people getting "special rights/privileges", what you're actually doing is complaining that they aren't being systemically oppressed any more.

They don't get any special rights or privileges.

This is what you don't seem to understand, lgbt aren't being systematicaly oppressed any more or any less, champ, assholes will exist everywhere on this planet as my anecdotical and this anecdotical example proved, lgbt are being treated as citizens, asking for more is geting special rights or privileges.

[szechuan]

lgbt are being treated as citizens, asking for more is geting special rights or privileges.

They're still not being treated equally.

Christians in the past used the Bible to Justify Slavery and Racism. So would you say the same thing if Religious Groups decided to refuse service to a Race?