|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> As I was saying /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1528124074 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/18 at 07:54:34 |
|
Title: As I was saying Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/18 at 07:54:34 It's Wrong to force someone to do what their conscience doesn't agree with. It's Why we have conscientious objector protections. Maybe now you'll understand WHY the baker was within his rights and MAYBE the perpetual butthurt types will grow up and realize You and your wants aren't all there is And Just because you have a vocal and violent group supporting your cause That don't make it RIGHT. Article Continues Below The Stars' Best Kept Secrets: Jenna Dewan The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Lakewood baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of religious beliefs did not violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. The case pitted Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, and the couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins. The court ruled in a 7-2 vote that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s actions violated the free exercise clause. 19ShareTweetEmail Around The WebMgid |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by WebsterMark on 06/04/18 at 08:11:42 It was a 7-2 ruling, not a 5-4 which is significant. Also significant that the two most liberals, Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. You can get a .pdf copy of the opinion which I scanned through a little. It's actually very interesting. Here's a key phrase I read: "The Colorado Court of Appeals was wrong to conclude the Philips's conduct was not expressive because a reasonable observer would think he is merely complying with Colorado's public accommodations law. This argument would justify any law that compelled protected speech. And this Court has never accepted it. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Eegore on 06/04/18 at 09:07:27 When he said "I'd make a cake for two dogs, but not for two women." he violated the law. Luckily it worked out in his favor because its better to encourage customers to go somewhere else than to encourage businesses to be afraid of customers. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by MnSpring on 06/04/18 at 11:59:26 78585A524F583D0 wrote:
So I want a Pork Sandwich, I walk into a shop that sells nothing but custom Sandwiches. They will NOT, make me a ‘Pork’ Sandwich, because they don’t, ‘believe’ in Pork. Do I sue, or go to the next store ? So I want a box of Bullets, I walk into a sporting goods store. They will Not, sell me a box of bullets, because they don’t, ‘believe’ in guns. Do I sue, or go to the next store ? (Oh, and most certainly, need to add a, Skin Color, Race, Religion, Sexual Preference, Heritage, to the above) |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Eegore on 06/04/18 at 12:22:36 He believes in same sex wedding cakes, but does not sell them. Nothing in the law dictates a belief in the existence of a product. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by MShipley on 06/04/18 at 13:12:55 Once again the point is simply missed: If I walk into a store and the guy at the counter says.... You are a white Christian, I will not serve you! That is OK with me. This is a free country. I would not sue, call the police or any other thing. It is that mans inalienable right to be a racist a*$&$*$& if he wants to be. On the other hand it is my right to not go there and buy his products. additionally it is my right to share my experience with others and it is their right not to shop there also. If someone does not like me for any reason. I would prefer they tell me so, so that I can spend my money somewhere else. I do not prefer that the Government steps in and forces me to support a racist A*%&^$, by forcing him to be something he is not. What ever happened in this country where people wore big boy pants and handled life without the interference of the government? We have become a society of children that run to Daddy crying, Daddy, Daddy look what Bobby did he didn't treat me right. People in Western culture need to grow up. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Serowbot on 06/04/18 at 15:20:21 SCOTUS is on the wrong side of history with this one. In the 60's this baker would be refusing a wedding cake to a mixed race couple.... |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Eegore on 06/04/18 at 16:09:50 "If I walk into a store and the guy at the counter says.... You are a white Christian, I will not serve you! That is OK with me. This is a free country" I feel the same but that doesn't change the law. Feel that way, do it all day long and see if that changes the legal structure where you live. Keep comparing cakes to sandwiches and see if the law changes. Those laws are put there by the constituents, like you and me. Complaining about it doesn't change anything. Comparing our opinions of how the law should be interpreted, or if it should exist at all is at least 50% of the problem. When laws we don't agree with pass where I live we do something about it. When they tried to crack down on marijuana we responded by legalizing it. I hope every cake guy in the nation wins their respective legal battles, but I'm not going to gripe without having knowledge of the law, and the nexus that connects the cake guys action to the legislative crime. His statement violated the law enough to go to trial, no opinion or comparative sandwich talk will change that. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/18 at 17:22:59 6274637E66737E65110 wrote:
No You're thinking it's okay to demand someone DO what is wrong in their beliefs. Doesn't matter WHERE or HOW they are Wrong in YOUR mind, it's THEIR CONSCIENCE. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by MnSpring on 06/04/18 at 17:30:22 “… Those laws are put there by the constituents, like you and me…” Not even remotely true. It Used to be, until a few got by, with NO ONE knowing about them. Then More, then More, Then MORE, THEN the, "Big Daddy”. “You Have to Pass it to see what is IN it” Their was not to many, ‘constituents’, that knew about what was in that. After that, just worse. This, ‘Passing’, Laws, has become a JOKE. The, ‘Elected’, talk about a Bill, make a big deal about it, fight over it, then, BOTH, sides ‘tack on’ their little, pet, Pork Bellies. And the, ‘constituents’, don’t have a CLUE !!!!!!!!! It is NOT, the NORM, to pass a ‘law’, and have the, “constituents”, know about it. It is NOW, UNUSUAL, to have a law, which is talked about by everybody. Then when the, ‘constituents’, have decided, AGAIN, the, ‘Elected’, ‘tack on’ their, pet, Pork Bellies. “…Complaining about it doesn’t change anything…” Here is a recent talked about one. Pedophiles can go into Little Girls Bathrooms, If they, Pretend, to Pretend! Well, that's right, don't think it was a, change. Yet I wonder, how many, 'constituents', Knew, what that 'law' was about ? |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/04/18 at 17:34:47 6A4A48405D4A2F0 wrote:
Prove that was said. I'm calling Bullshit |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by MnSpring on 06/04/18 at 17:44:45 6A4A48405D4A2F0 wrote:
203F393E23241525152D3F33784A0 wrote:
Ya know, I also would like to know, where that statement came from. I am not aware of that Baker saying such a thing. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/05/18 at 00:18:12 5A4C5B465E4B465D290 wrote:
Since you are an atheist, maybe it's not possible for you to understand what it means to be expected to CONTRACT with someone to perform a service that is contrary to your spiritual beliefs. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/05/18 at 00:20:02 73506D4E4C5750593E0 wrote:
203F393E23241525152D3F33784A0 wrote:
Ya know, I also would like to know, where that statement came from. I am not aware of that Baker saying such a thing. [/quote] Even IF he said that, it's Not wrong. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by WebsterMark on 06/05/18 at 04:56:54 Actually, the ruling was based on the fact the Colorado court was so heavily anti-christian biased, they did not even consider the baker's opinion seriously. Had the state court not acted like condescending a$$holes (I know, hard to imagine leftist acting that way....) the Supreme Court may have upheld the state's ruling. I want to see what happens when a Palestinian refugee Muslim baker refuses to bake a cake for Jewish couple fron Israel. That's the real test. Libs love Palestinians (from afar) and watching themselves twist into knots justifying that would be entertaining! |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by WebsterMark on 06/05/18 at 05:08:13 BUT..... you can't be in business and randomly discriminate. That is unconstitutional. Now, having said that, there are exceptions and I think if you can show a historical precedent behind your beliefs, there is a narrow acceptable range. For example, Sisters of the Poor and birth control. Fully agree you can't make them pay for after morning pills. And I think you can discriminate based on sexual orientation (in rare cases) and not race because sexual orientation is chiefly defined as behavior while the color of you skin is not. That's why racism is immoral, there's no basis in it. I think a Christian baker who can demonstrate a long standing ideology against homosexuality can't be forced to use his creative talents to create a cake. That's the other aspect of this. Creating wedding cakes is an art. Serving ice creme to a gay man is not. A Baskin Robbins employee cannot refuse service to a gay couple if he operates his business using any benefits from the US Constitution which of course every business does. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 05:44:07 You are correct he did not say the statement as I quoted. He agreed to make a cake for a dog wedding, then later when asked admitted to that statement also adding that he would not do it for two women. It was two separate statements. This can be found in CO case# CR-2013-0008 as well as CO ACLU, the ACLU contains only the first part where he was asked about dog weddings. http://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/files/Probable%20Cause%20Determination%20(2).pdf [i] "Actually, the ruling was based on the fact the Colorado court was so heavily anti-christian biased, they did not even consider the baker's opinion seriously." The Supreme Court viewed it differently, and by my assessment in the opposite way. "Commission's review of the case lacked the religious neutrality required" |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by WebsterMark on 06/05/18 at 05:51:58 The Supreme Court viewed it differently, and by my assessment in the opposite way. "Commission's review of the case lacked the religious neutrality required "Lacking neutrality" means not being neutral, meaning biased towards one position over the other. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 05:56:33 477572636475625D71627B100 wrote:
Ok I see what you are saying. I don't think the initial ruling was anti-Christian but I do think it was wrong. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by WebsterMark on 06/05/18 at 07:13:12 Actually it was very much anti-christian. Again, had the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted civilly, this case might have gone the other way. Here, Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” And at a later meeting, Kennedy pointed out, one commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.” “This sentiment,” Kennedy admonished, “is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.” |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by MnSpring on 06/05/18 at 07:34:54 6141434B5641240 wrote:
More on the ‘Baker’ thing. First, the baker NEVER SAID: “I'd make a cake for two dogs, but not for two women." What Happened was: [i]“ During this conversation, S. Schmalz claimed to be a dog breeder and stated that she planned to host a "dog wedding" between one of her dogs and a neighbor's dog. Phillips did not object to preparing a cake for S. Schmalz's "dog wedding." The ‘charge’ issued by DORA, should have NEVER been issued in the first place. The Burden of Proof, is on the Couple. The, Couple, Never PROVED, their point. In Fact, they Proved the Opposite, by stating they KNEW, the baker would sell them cupcakes other cakes etc. for other events. They, ‘Cried’ about the Baker, saying, ‘Illegal’, Which a same sex Marriage in CO WAS. It was clear, they were, ’Shopping’, for someone to NOT, make a Cake, JUST so they could SUE. The baker did NOT, discriminate against a Gay, But would not do something to celebrate, something that was, ILLEGAL. In fact the Baker, CLEARLY, stated he would sell something in the shop, which had NOTHING to do with their sexual orientation. So, making that special cake, for a, ILLEGAL event. AND, the Violation of the Bakers Religion. That document/charge, is a clear, stereotype, example, of the personal opinion, of the writer, who gets paid a tremendous amount of money, to push a piece of paper back and forth on his/her desk. Wonder what the ultra-Liberal, Kum-By-You singing, Snowflakes, would say, if someone wanted a custom cake baked to, Celebrate a Bank Robbery ? Or a Jail Break ? Or a Murder ? |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by WebsterMark on 06/05/18 at 09:23:07 Could I go to a Jewish baker and pay him to create a Hitler cake so I could celebrate his birthday? It's not illegal to write out the N word so could I force a balck bakery to make me a KKK cake with that word on it? If they refused, what are my options? |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/05/18 at 09:34:15 Face it, it's a business. The owner has taken risks to have a business. The owner WANTS to make money. And doesn't want people angry. But it's HIS business and whatever policies he uses will affect the bottom line. So, when a business owner says No, you can bet it's for good reason. Should a business owner mistreat the people What is gonna happen? Get rich? Go broke? People have a right to NOT DO what they can't do in good conscience. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 09:45:09 "First, the baker NEVER SAID: “I'd make a cake for two dogs, but not for two women."" I agree, I stated that in my post: " You are correct he did not say the statement as I quoted." During the proof evident hearing he later stated that he would make the cake for two dogs, he did not state the words "Dog Wedding". This information was taken into account during the hearing and was considered part of proof evident and was a small contributing factor, of many to the case going to trial. My quote was incorrect. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 10:04:40 152720313627300F233029420 wrote:
What part of that is specific to Christians? |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by WebsterMark on 06/05/18 at 11:30:30 People have a right to NOT DO what they can't do in good conscience. Not in commerce they don't. There is a narrow road where they can't be forced, but its rare and narrow. Forcing a devote Christian baker against his will to use his creative, artistic talents to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple which is against his historical religion is one such narrow path. Refusing to serve a black man is not. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by WebsterMark on 06/05/18 at 11:31:36 0121232B3621440 wrote:
What part of that is specific to Christians?[/quote] I thought Kennedy's point was well made. You don't see it? |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by MnSpring on 06/05/18 at 11:40:04 6D4D4F475A4D280 wrote:
(to quote a now famous phrase) ‘What Does It Matter ?” The, form of Religion, that the Baker Practiced, believed in, does not condone a Marriage between two of the same sex. “… neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission…” |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by MnSpring on 06/05/18 at 12:42:02 7D6B7C61796C617A0E0 wrote:
WARNING WILL ROBERTSON - WARNING- WARNING (A Drive BY) The Left, is seldom Right |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 14:50:58 "I thought Kennedy's point was well made. You don't see it? " I don't see anything there about Christians specifically. Is there a reference that has the entire manuscript where I can search for Christian specific elements? I will have to do some research on Christianity as well to identify the components that point specifically to that religion. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 14:54:47 "(to quote a now famous phrase) ‘What Does It Matter ?” I see the statement saying "religion" but not "Christians" so is the issue specific to that one religion or is it to religion as a whole? |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by verslagen1 on 06/05/18 at 15:00:35 7066716C74616C77030 wrote:
We could suppose anything, but it wasn't. Very limited win. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by WebsterMark on 06/05/18 at 15:13:32 58787A726F781D0 wrote:
The context of the case clearly implies Christianity. This was not a baker claiming to be a non-practicing Jewish man. Nor a Buddist. This was a man who said being forced to do this was an affront to his Christian beliefs. If the baker was a Muslim and the Colorado commission acted the same way (which of course they wouldn't) then the court should have ruled the exact same way. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Eegore on 06/05/18 at 15:16:26 How do you come to the conclusion that if he was Muslim that they wouldn't have come to the same decision? I'm sure they would have used other words, but anti-religion to me seems they would have ruled the same, just ignoring the Muslim as well. Are there Muslim business owners that have similar cases in Colorado that could be looked at? |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by LostArtist on 06/07/18 at 14:30:45 526067767160774864776E050 wrote:
okay, I haven't been following this thread, as I just don't care much, to me a business, or corporation can't have a religion, aka, businesses and corporations aren't persons, and if they are open to the public, then public accommodation laws are in effect and the business has a legal responsibility to follow them, if they can't, in good conscious, then they shouldn't open a business open to the public, if they can be private clubs or whatever, like where I live, there are bars that only serve alcohol, no food, but they aren't allowed by law, but they are private clubs so you have to join a "club" to drink there, that way they can do what they want. anyway, back to Web's post here. in the past, it was in his historical religion to not consider black people people, that they were unworthy and darned just because they were black. so, did the words in the bible change, or did culture and education change how the words were interpreted (in either the past or the present) imo, this baker, and others, are using religion as a scapegoat to unburden themselves of any responsibility of their own bigotry. Jesus SERVED sinners, why can't this baker? |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/07/18 at 16:28:36 The Jew must bake a cake with the swastika on it for the Nazis. The black must contract with the kkk. The court went right to acknowledge the rights to NOT participate. The mistake was to not include inherent property rights. We OWN ourselves. Serving the public is a given. Being ASKED to Contract with someone to Create something that IS part of a Ceremony that Honors the UNNATURAL isn't RIGHT. Argue with me on that point. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by Eegore on 06/08/18 at 05:40:28 "Ceremony that Honors the UNNATURAL isn't RIGHT" There are tons of people that wouldn't agree with that statement alone. That in itself would be a 5 page thread. There's a lot of people, straight religious people that don't think homosexuality is unnatural. Being a lower percentage doesn't automatically make something "unnatural." The "ceremony" means absolutely nothing to many people. There's a lot to argue there. There's even more like me that don't care, and don't see why he didn't just take the money and donate it to his church. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by verslagen1 on 06/08/18 at 07:39:52 What if the baker said "I contract all these types of cakes to the baker across the street and mark them up 20%" would you intern say "no thanks" and walk across the street? |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/08/18 at 07:45:12 Being a lower percentage doesn't automatically make something "unnatural Not many children are the result of homo sex, is there? Sex, in nature Is Reproductive. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by WebsterMark on 06/08/18 at 08:54:53 without getting into a gay debate, there are long term, historical practices and beliefs by organizations that, in my mind anyway, are valid and justifiable reasons to not be forced to use creative talents. Like I said, I don't think a waiter can refuse service to a gay couple, but a baker can refuse to use his creative services for a gay marriage. He can demonstrate a long standing tradition that is behavioral based. Can the KKK demonstrate a long standing tradition against blacks? Yes, but its not behavioral based so I don't believe they have a valid argument. We've allowed Native Americans to smoke material that for you and I would be illegal because they were able to demonstrate a historical precedent. Now, can a fundamentalist Muslim refuse to use his creative ability to make a cake for a Jewish couple? I would have to say yes, he can refuse. |
|
Title: Re: As I was saying Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/08/18 at 10:02:05 Fine by me |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |