U.S. top court's cake case pits gay rights versus Christian faith

[Jingthing]

49 minutes ago, Credo said:

I am sure there will be more court challenges and some will likely make clear where the line in the sand is drawn on this and similar issues that involve religious beliefs.   

Some may recall that there have been problems with Muslim taxi drivers who refuse to transport people carrying alcohol or who have a dog (including seeing-eye dogs).   Since one of the largest airports, Minneapolis-St. Paul, had something like 3/4 of the drivers being Muslim, this is/was a big issue.

 

Yeah, not hard. Take the fares or lose their legal right to serve the public. Duh!

[Rimmer]

More baiting/flames have been removed also replies.

 

Time to tone down this dialogue or risk a holiday

[attrayant]

And so it begins: South Dakota GOP Lawmaker: Business Owners Shouldn’t Have to Serve Black People

 

"South Dakota State Rep. Michael Clark had a strong reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case: Not only did he celebrate the Court’s narrow ruling that a Colorado commission went was hostile to the baker’s faith, he said all business owners should have the right to discriminate, even if we’re talking about bakers refusing to sell cakes to black customers."

[Berkshire]

33 minutes ago, attrayant said:

And so it begins: South Dakota GOP Lawmaker: Business Owners Shouldn’t Have to Serve Black People

 

"South Dakota State Rep. Michael Clark had a strong reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case: Not only did he celebrate the Court’s narrow ruling that a Colorado commission went was hostile to the baker’s faith, he said all business owners should have the right to discriminate, even if we’re talking about bakers refusing to sell cakes to black customers."

Yeap, that's exactly what these supporters of the baker is saying.  But when pressed, they always backtrack.  To the point of making no sense....as Clark clearly demonstrated (from the article):

 

[He says, “Of course, I was wrong, all business should serve everyone, equally.” But does that mean he thinks the baker in Colorado should’ve made a cake for the same-sex couple? He doesn’t tell us.]

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

And so it begins: South Dakota GOP Lawmaker: Business Owners Shouldn’t Have to Serve Black People

 

"South Dakota State Rep. Michael Clark had a strong reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case: Not only did he celebrate the Court’s narrow ruling that a Colorado commission went was hostile to the baker’s faith, he said all business owners should have the right to discriminate, even if we’re talking about bakers refusing to sell cakes to black customers."

No religion discriminates on the basis of colour, so not even remotely similar. He'll be on a big lose if he does try discriminating on the basis of colour as there is no religious element to that.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No religion discriminates on the basis of colour, so not even remotely similar. He'll be on a big lose if he does try discriminating on the basis of colour as there is no religious element to that.

You need to re-read the book of Genesis.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You need to re-read the book of Genesis.

I don't accept that a fairy story that was written to explain why men in funny hats should get a free ride to tell the people what to do qualifies as "religion".

I'm not a Jew, so I don't consider the Old Testament to be of any significance in my religious beliefs.

Perhaps some religions do discriminate ( nowadays ) on the basis of colour, but I am not aware of any mainstream religions that do, except perhaps the one with a certain black preacher in the US that rails against "white" people.

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't accept that a fairy story that was written to explain why men in funny hats should get a free ride to tell the people what to do qualifies as "religion".

I'm not a Jew, so I don't consider the Old Testament to be of any significance in my religious beliefs.

Perhaps some religions do discriminate ( nowadays ) on the basis of colour, but I am not aware of any mainstream religions that do, except perhaps the one with a certain black preacher in the US that rails against "white" people.

To remind you what you said;

 

“He'll be on a big lose if he does try discriminating on the basis of colour as there is no religious element to that.”

 

Your own personal thoughts on the book of Genisis, that you are not a Jew or that the Old Testament does not  figure in your own personal religious beliefs is a complete irrelevance.

 

The book of Genisis provides a religious basis for colour prejudice, your claim stated above is wrong.

 

We all make mistakes.

 

Have the good grace to admit your error.

[ELVIS123456]

On 6/6/2018 at 6:46 PM, Berkshire said:

While what you're saying may make perfect sense to, say, a typical Christian, I do wonder about the precedence that it sets.  Which is to say, "discrimination is perfectly ok so long as it's based on religious teachings."  So discrimination could be ok against people of other religions, ethnicities, race, sex...so long as it's based on my religious convictions....?  What if a Muslim baker refuses to service a female customer who's not wearing a hijab?  I assume your support of religious freedom includes all religions. 

Agreed - it is all religions and all religious beliefs.  Yes, I know that could be taken to the extreme, but that is what the courts should test and they should draw the line.

It wasnt that the shop owner would not sell the gay couple a cake or anything else in the shop - he refused to make the specific decorations the couple wanted.

So in answer to the scenario you portray - no the Muslim baker  should not be able to refuse the sell the customer whatever is available on show in the shop just because she is not wearing a hijab - but if she wants the cake to be decorated with a pig being slaughtered/eaten - that would be OK to refuse.

The area is and should be 'grey' - black and white definitions do not work either way.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

You are a snowflake looking for offence - you are reading into what I wrote  what you want to see - you have no common sense.

Please forgive for pointing out the ridiculous nature of the sweeping generalisations you made. 

[BobBKK]

On 6/6/2018 at 3:42 PM, attrayant said:

 

He can.  The issue was not that the baker was serving people who didn't want to be served.  Maybe you should have asked "why can't he deny service to whomever he wants?"  The answer to which lies within the text of the following laws:

 

• Civil Rights Act of 1964 (for race, national origin & religion)
• Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967 (for people over 40)
• Equal Pay Act of 1963 (for gender)
• Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Immigration Reform & Control Act (for citizenship status)
• Civil Rights Act of 1968 (housing discrimination against those who have children)
• Americans with Disabilities Act
• Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

 

Hopefully 50+ years of case law answers your question.

 

Having said that, I am conflicted about this decision.  I think that sexual orientation should be a protected class but decisions are all over the place at this point.  If I had been the one denied service, I would have simply found another baker and then started a grassroots campaign to put the bigoted baker out of business as fast as possible.

 

This business lost their reputation the day they told Roseanne Barr to hold their drink.

 

 

 

Yes I do understand there is a ton of case law but is it RIGHT?  why can't a business owner, on ethical grounds, refuse to sell something? BTW is I was the gay 'refused' I would have done what you advise and cause a stink on social media etc. 

 

America is so litigious and PC it's lost it's soul and it panders to minorities constantly. BTW I loathe evangelical Christians so this is not a shout out for them in any sense.

[seajae]

On 6/7/2018 at 1:29 PM, Jingthing said:

The odd thing about this case is that even though the anti-gay bigots are celebrating this ruling as a huge legal victory, actually, it is not.

 

 

 

http://www.paywallnews.com/life/Opinion-|-In-Masterpiece--Kennedy-Solidifies-His-L-G-B-T--Legacy.rkPcj3Sx7.html

 

But if those guys THINK it is, I do fear more of those haters will act out against LGBT people in real life. We already see that with the "trump" election -- the haters feel empowered and backed up from the top. 

it was a 7 to 2 ruling, ie, was a big win, suggest people actually read it before putting their feet in their mouths. It takes away nothing from gay people but it does under certain circumstances give other people rights as well. There is way too much bullsh*t being spread about this, it is not anti gay, far from it but I guess some people are too stupid or ignorant to realize that and simply want to stir the pot

[Jingthing]

it was a 7 to 2 ruling, ie, was a big win, suggest people actually read it before putting their feet in their mouths. It takes away nothing from gay people but it does under certain circumstances give other people rights as well. There is way too much bullsh*t being spread about this, it is not anti gay, far from it but I guess some people are too stupid or ignorant to realize that and simply want to stir the pot

You're confusing the size of the vote with the significance of the legal precedent of the decision. Maybe too sophisticated a distinction for you.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

Yes I do understand there is a ton of case law but is it RIGHT? 

 

Whether it's "right" or not (I assume you're asking the ethical question as opposed to the legal one) depends on your ideology.

 

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

why can't a business owner, on ethical grounds, refuse to sell something?

 

Because, according to my set of values, it's unethical to refuse to offer services to people - especially a disadvantaged subset of the population that lacks political muscle to demand equality - just because of something that is out of their control.  I think that SHOULD be the ethical position of somebody who claims to uphold christian values too.

 

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

America is so litigious and PC it's lost it's soul and it panders to minorities constantly.

 

Then what should minorities do when they feel aggrieved?  The case obviously had merit if it made it all the way to the USSC.

[ELVIS123456]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Please forgive for pointing out the ridiculous nature of the sweeping generalisations you made. 

forgiveness for being a snowflake is not mine to give - truly repent and then you will see the light and feel the love 

[Jingthing]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

Snowflake is a low grade slur used by people without the intellectual ability to make reasoned arguments.

It's just designed to try to shut up people.

Next
...

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Scott

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

forgiveness for being a snowflake is not mine to give - truly repent and then you will see the light and feel the love 

I’m arguing on the side of people being treated equally and without discrimination on the basis of who or what they are.

 

You’re arguing in favour of discrimination and resorting to gross generalisations to support your arguments.

 

Which side of this debate do you really believe will win in the end?

 

I’m sufficiently confident not to resort to personal insults.

[lannarebirth]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Snowflake is a low grade slur used by people without the intellectual ability to make reasoned arguments.

It's just designed to try to shut up people.

Next
...

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

I think that's generally true but in this case I think it was meant to soften the description. Idiot or A-hole would have been more apropos but that can be read as inflammatory.

[Scott]

35 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I think that's generally true but in this case I think it was meant to soften the description. Idiot or A-hole would have been more apropos but that can be read as inflammatory.

Calling people names, including 'snowflake' is derogatory and a flame.   Making a general statement about people being snowflakes, or idiots isn't necessarily inflammatory.  

 

At any rate, one poster won't be posting for a while.  

 

Please stay on topic and keep it civil. 

[Jingthing]

As I've explained (but clearly lots of people will NEVER comprehend) the ruling in this court case is not in any way a big win for people that want to discriminate against LGBT people based on their status.

 

Don't believe me?

 

Here you go --

 

Quote

Arizona Court Uses Cakeshop Case to Affirm LGBT Rights

 

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2018/6/08/arizona-court-uses-cakeshop-case-affirm-lgbt-rights

[BobBKK]

16 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

Whether it's "right" or not (I assume you're asking the ethical question as opposed to the legal one) depends on your ideology.

 

 

Because, according to my set of values, it's unethical to refuse to offer services to people - especially a disadvantaged subset of the population that lacks political muscle to demand equality - just because of something that is out of their control.  I think that SHOULD be the ethical position of somebody who claims to uphold christian values too.

 

 

Then what should minorities do when they feel aggrieved?  The case obviously had merit if it made it all the way to the USSC.

 

Shop elsewhere and make a fuss so others don't use that shop. I don't think it's 'unethical' not to serve someone just stupid business practice. Now it's ALL about minorities in the US and many are fed up with it, so fed up they vote in a megalomaniac to the WH and the nation is divided. You can't have your cake and eat it. 

[seajae]

18 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You're confusing the size of the vote with the significance of the legal precedent of the decision. Maybe too sophisticated a distinction for you.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

read the ruling, they have not given people open opportunity to refuse service to anyone, the bigger majority is because they realized there is more involved in this than what was being claimed. As they have stated each future case will be taken on merit, suggest you actually read and understand why he won if you are able to remove your biased views

Edited June 9, 2018 by seajae

[attrayant]

6 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Shop elsewhere and make a fuss so others don't use that shop.

 

I did indicate that would have been MY preferred action in this case.  However, if we allow the free market to decide that it's okay to discriminate against a minority group, what do we do when the only vacant apartments in a town are owned by a landlord or group of landlords who don't want minority group X to live in their apartments?