Originally Posted by spence (Post 1024468)

Apples and oranges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1024463)

A very interesting case...a Colorado baker, who is Christian, refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. They sued, and a judge ruled in their favor. Last time I checked, the constitution guarantees the ability to practice your religion without government interference.

Does the baker's religion actually prohibit him from making a cake for a same sex couple? Is making a cake a practice of his religion? In this case, it may more be his right to free speech rather than a right to practice his religion.

But what happens when that freedom butts up against the freedom from discrimination?

At this point, it would be a matter of state law--Colorado's law barring discrimination at public accommodations based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.

As a federal constitutional matter, regardless of how SCOTUS would willy nilly "interpret" it, there is no prohibition against discrimination, except for equality before the law. Any SCOTUS "interpretation" of one part of the Constitution which negates another part should be null and void. In actual current practice (past 80 years or so) SCOTUS has repeatedly, at whim, used various parts of the Constitution (incorrectly) in contradiction to other parts or intents, especially in regards to individual "rights." So how the SCOTUS would rule, if this case got that far, depends on how 5 Justices "feel" about the issue--how they would "interpret" it. At the federal Constitutional level equality before the law falls under the constitutional enumerations--none of which prohibits personal discrimination. What the Constitution does is codify at the national level the ideal of the Declaration of Independence. It was written as a means to protect that independence against government tyranny. That Declaration guaranteed certain unalienable rights amongst which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The baker's refusal to bake the cake did not deny any of those unalienable rights.

I have no quarrel with gay marriage. What I don't like, is that proponents of gay marriage often used concepts like "inclusiuon" to support their cause. Well, if they are in favor of inclusion, doesn't that mean that Christians have a right to be included, too? And in suburban Colorado, assuming thi sbaker isn't the only baker in town, is it asking so much that they find a baker who doesn't have to violate his religious beliefs to support their wedding?

Did the gay couple speak of inclusion--of being included among the baker's clientele? They would have no inherent right to be included if they were not accepted. Inclusion is more of a societal privilege rather than a legal right.

The jusge said this..."At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spencer wrote in his 13-page ruling.

And what would that "blush" be if not an inherent right?

"This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

Ah . . . so a "cost" to society or a "hurt" to another person wipes away the blush of individual freedom and makes the baker, instead, a tool of society. So what was the "cost" to society? The cost of individual freedom being sacrificed to the need of a vague and incoherent collective? And what was the "hurt"? Was there a bodily harm or a threat to life? Was there the deprivation of someone's liberty, or to his pursuit of happiness?

And being denied service simply because of "who they are," in the relativistic "spectrum" of being and the legalistic "interpretation" thereof, can surely go beyond race, gender, and sexual orientation. That spectrum can be fractioned into smaller and smaller units until every individual is uniquely "who they are." To say that you cannot deny service to someone simply because of who they are is saying that you cannot deny service to anyone.

So when did we amend the constitution to guarantee that no one would ever experience hurt feelings? COurts have upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest military funerals, which is devastating to the families. In other words, the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, allow for the Westboro Baptist Church to hurt the family members trying to bury a fallen patriot. If freedom of speech trumps hurt feelings, why doesn't freedom of religion trump hurt feelings?

An interesting case. I say, tell the happy couple that even Chriistians have the freedom to practice religion, and they can easily find another baker happy for their business.

Originally Posted by *davack* (Post 1024771)

doesn't sound very Christian to me...

Originally Posted by *davack* (Post 1024847)

George Bush isn't intelligent enough to be a racist.

Originally Posted by DZ (Post 1024966)

Interesting decision. Article said his bakery was a "public business" - maybe it was a chain? Most small bakery's are "private businesses" - then maybe then it would have been ruled differently?

DZ

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1024975)

I think by "public", the judge meant that it was "open to the public", and therefore, subject to anti-discrimination laws.

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1025000)

Yep..

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1024980)

Should have just bumped up his price 100%

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1025023)

Or the happy couple could have chosen a baker that was willing to work for them, of which I'm sure there are several.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1025030)

But how would they have known that until they went to the baker? While I didn't read the link you posted, I'm betting he must have indicated he didn't like their lifestyle or something similiar. They prob. felt insult and thought it was illegal for the baker to discriminate against them and sued.

If he just said he had a few cakes that weekend and would have to charge extra, they prob. would have just walked away not knowing better.

Or he could have said he was out of flower cake decorations and only had basketball and football cake decorations left and I'm betting they would have went to someone else.

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1025071)

I think the key is how this BIGGOT told them to take their business somewhere else because they were fags.. He could have been wildly insulting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1025089)

Sorry. If someone told me that they will not serve me because of my sexualality, I will call them a #^&#^&#^&#^&ing BIGGOT. Furthermore, the very fact that you mention westboro Batist church.... The biggest bunch of BIGGOTS in this country, makes me completely fine with calling the baker a BIGGOT.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1025116)

If there's one thing that grinds my gears about conservative Christians and of course other religions, it's the fact that they push what they believe onto others.

That is the nature of all societies. A cohesiveness of at least some fundamental beliefs is necessary for society to function. Associations, organizations, by their nature, push their beliefs onto those within and request that those who are outside of their sphere allow them to have their beliefs and not be forced to abandon them for the benefit of others. The pushing goes both ways. Your gears seem to grind only when those you accept are pushed, but your gears run smooth when those you don't like are pushed against.

This pushing of beliefs is most destructive to a society of free people, not when various groups wish to be left to their beliefs, but when government pushes agendas on the whole of society. And I take it for the very reason that you don't like when some push their beliefs on others that your gears grind against Obamacare? Or do they only grind when conservative Christians "push" their beliefs? At any rate , I don't see the baker's refusal to bake a cake for the gay couple as pushing his beliefs on them. He was not trying to convert them or convince or force them to do anything. It was, on the contrary, the gay couple who wanted to force their views on him by making him do something against his own wishes to suit theirs.

Why doesn't everyone just keep their beliefs to themselves??

For the same reason you don't? You're certainly not keeping your beliefs to yourself in this thread.

Against gay marriage?? Don't have one!
Simple.

I'm sure the baker would agree with that. There doesn't seem to be anything in the story that says he would have a gay marriage, nor that he was doing anything to stop the gay couple from having one.

Tollerence of others that are not like you is what will save this planet from self destruction.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1025116)

Tollerence of others that are not like you is what will save this planet from self destruction.

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1025116)

If there's one thing that grinds my gears about conservative Christians and of course other religions, it's the fact that they push what they believe onto others.
Why doesn't everyone just keep their beliefs to themselves??
Against gay marriage?? Don't have one!
Simple.

Tollerence of others that are not like you is what will save this planet from self destruction.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1025116)

If there's one thing that grinds my gears about conservative Christians and of course other religions, it's the fact that they push what they believe onto others.
Why doesn't everyone just keep their beliefs to themselves??
Against gay marriage?? Don't have one!
Simple.

Tollerence of others that are not like you is what will save this planet from self destruction.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device