Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    04 Jun '18 14:59
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

    Seems like kind of a narrow decision that's very fact-specific. I'm reading it now.

    There's no question though, that it's at least something of a win for religious freedom.
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    04 Jun '18 15:11
    Now Left wingers will start expanding the impeachment list to SCOTUS.
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    04 Jun '18 15:171 edit
    Originally posted by @sh76
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

    Seems like kind of a narrow decision that's very fact-specific. I'm reading it now.

    There's no question though, that it's at least something of a win for religious freedom.
    Religious freedom can exist if and only if religious speech and actions are treated identically to non-religious speech and actions. In other words, any and all religious exemptions based on religion alone are, in and of themselves, violations of religious freedom.
  4. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2415
    04 Jun '18 15:311 edit
    It's a painful reminder of the signs I sometimes saw in restaurants when I was growing up which read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," which was the euphemism for "Black people will not be served." So now it's gays, same old same old.

    One man's right is another man's barrier.

    Oh well, there are other bakeries in town.
  5. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    04 Jun '18 15:433 edits
    Originally posted by @moonbus
    It's a painful reminder of the signs I sometimes saw in restaurants when I was growing up which read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," which was the euphemism for "Black people will not be served." So now it's gays, same old same old.

    One man's right is another man's barrier.

    Oh well, there are other bakeries in town.
    The Nation of Islam, which preaches Caucasians are "the devil", now has precedent to legally deny service to whites under the banner of religious freedom. One way or another, this will come back around to legally discriminating against minorities.
  6. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    04 Jun '18 15:46
    Originally posted by @sh76
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

    Seems like kind of a narrow decision that's very fact-specific. I'm reading it now.

    There's no question though, that it's at least something of a win for religious freedom.
    In your professional opinion, could this be used to justify discriminatory hiring practices against gays by religious organizations?
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    04 Jun '18 15:54
    Originally posted by @sh76
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

    Seems like kind of a narrow decision that's very fact-specific. I'm reading it now.

    There's no question though, that it's at least something of a win for religious freedom.
    it's a win for intolerant, hypocritical asholes who now have a legal precedent to be intolerant to anyone they dislike.

    i would be curious if that hypocritical ashole has his store open on sunday.
    i would be curious if that hypocritical ashole sells wedding cakes to couples who were married before.
    i would be curious if that hypocritical ashole sells dairy products during periods of fasting.

    oh, he only practices religion when it's convenient or as an excuse to discriminate against people he doesn't like.

    good news for klansmen, though. they can now safely discriminate against blacks and jews as long as they do it in the name of their religion.
  8. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12091
    04 Jun '18 16:11
    Originally posted by @moonbus
    It's a painful reminder of the signs I sometimes saw in restaurants when I was growing up which read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," which was the euphemism for "Black people will not be served." So now it's gays, same old same old.

    One man's right is another man's barrier.

    Oh well, there are other bakeries in town.
    Really? The courts say they can simply refuse to serve gays?

    Or is it not participating in a religious ceremony with which you have religious reasons to not take part?
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    04 Jun '18 16:12
    Originally posted by @sh76
    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

    Seems like kind of a narrow decision that's very fact-specific. I'm reading it now.

    There's no question though, that it's at least something of a win for religious freedom.
    It seems a really case specific based on a distaste for how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission expressed some views in the hearing - supposedly showing "hostility" towards religion. The Court reiterated early:

    The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by
    generally applicable laws.

    And the ruling would seem to have little precedential value:

    Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here
    violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside. p. 3

    Reading the full opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
  10. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    04 Jun '18 16:24
    Originally posted by @vivify
    In your professional opinion, could this be used to justify discriminatory hiring practices against gays by religious organizations?
    Probably not.

    As No1 said, this is a very narrow decision. The Colorado Commission lost the case with some outrageous attacks on the baker's religious beliefs. If the Commission had stayed respectful to religion but had stuck to the "if you're a public accommodation, you have to serve everyone equally" position, the result might have been different. At least, it would not have been a 7-2 decision.

    Hobby Lobby is a better precedent for discriminatory hiring practices and that hasn't really opened the floodgates for that.
  11. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    04 Jun '18 16:31
    Originally posted by @sh76
    Probably not.

    As No1 said, this is a very narrow decision. The Colorado Commission lost the case with some outrageous attacks on the baker's religious beliefs. If the Commission had stayed respectful to religion but had stuck to the "if you're a public accommodation, you have to serve everyone equally" position, the result might have been different. At leas ...[text shortened]... edent for discriminatory hiring practices and that hasn't really opened the floodgates for that.
    I don't understand. What do "attacks on the baker's religious beliefs" have to do with anything? SCOTUS ruled in favour of a party because the opposing party were meanies?
  12. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    04 Jun '18 16:42
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    I don't understand. What do "attacks on the baker's religious beliefs" have to do with anything? SCOTUS ruled in favour of a party because the opposing party were meanies?
    SCOTUS ruled in favour of a party because the opposing party violated a person's natural and Constitutional right to free exercise of religion by using distaste or opposition to that religious practice as a basis for ruling against him.

    It is well-settled that government intent and purpose matters in deciding civil rights cases, though it perhaps can be argued that intent should be irrelevant.
  13. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    04 Jun '18 16:461 edit
    Originally posted by @moonbus
    It's a painful reminder of the signs I sometimes saw in restaurants when I was growing up which read "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone," which was the euphemism for "Black people will not be served." So now it's gays, same old same old.

    One man's right is another man's barrier.

    Oh well, there are other bakeries in town.
    Do you really not see a difference between...

    "I'm not giving you the same lunch as everyone else is getting because you're black"

    and

    "I'm not putting two men on a wedding cake that I produce because that violates my belief system"

    ?
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    04 Jun '18 16:47
    Originally posted by @vivify
    The Nation of Islam, which preaches Caucasians are "the devil", now has precedent to legally deny service to whites under the banner of religious freedom. One way or another, this will come back around to legally discriminating against minorities.
    Good!

    Why would I want a poisoned cake?
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    04 Jun '18 16:48
    Originally posted by @sh76
    Do you really not see a difference between...

    "I'm not giving you the same lunch as everyone else is getting because you're black"

    and

    "I'm not putting two men on a wedding cake that I produce because that violates my belief system"

    ?
    Speak slower and use smaller words.
Back to Top