|
Post by redleg on Jul 1, 2015 19:33:07 GMT -5
It's not. Which is why the SCOTUS should have refused to hear the case, and simply said that was a state issue. And since both Sotomayor and Ginsburg refused to recuse themselves from the case, despite the fact that they had preruled for it by performing gay "marriages", the states should simply declare the ruling null and void. Except that "equal protection" is in the Constitution. If marriage is to exist as a government matter - even at the state level - the law has to be applied equally. That's why it needs to cease to exist as a government matter. Unfortunately, by it's nature, civil marriage creates inequality. What the SCOTUS ruling has done is set up a fight between 'equal protection' and religious liberty. If the religious are forced to support perversion, in opposition to their religion, then there is no equal protection.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 1, 2015 20:35:49 GMT -5
Except that "equal protection" is in the Constitution. If marriage is to exist as a government matter - even at the state level - the law has to be applied equally. That's why it needs to cease to exist as a government matter. Unfortunately, by it's nature, civil marriage creates inequality. What the SCOTUS ruling has done is set up a fight between 'equal protection' and religious liberty. If the religious are forced to support perversion, in opposition to their religion, then there is no equal protection. Yes, they have. The solution remains to end civil marriage. This ends the equal protection issue.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 1, 2015 22:03:47 GMT -5
Obviously, you haven't been keeping up. There's a bakery in WA that has been shut down, and the owners smacked with over $100 k in "fines" from a lawsuit brought by one of her competitors. All because she wouldn't cater a gay "wedding". In CO, a baker was also "fined" because of the same thing. That's the government punishing individuals for not "celebrating" perversion. Well, first, I don't believe much of what you write unless you back it up with a link, which you have not done here. And no, I'm not going to do your research for you. More than likely your source is one of those wacky websites run by the Family Research Council or some other hate group.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 4, 2015 12:30:21 GMT -5
Obviously, you haven't been keeping up. There's a bakery in WA that has been shut down, and the owners smacked with over $100 k in "fines" from a lawsuit brought by one of her competitors. All because she wouldn't cater a gay "wedding". In CO, a baker was also "fined" because of the same thing. That's the government punishing individuals for not "celebrating" perversion. Well, first, I don't believe much of what you write unless you back it up with a link, which you have not done here. And no, I'm not going to do your research for you. More than likely your source is one of those wacky websites run by the Family Research Council or some other hate group. You mean like the NYT, WaPo, or LAT? Maybe you should get your news from sources other than Huffingtonpuffington Post.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 4, 2015 13:46:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 4, 2015 15:06:35 GMT -5
I'm not surprised to learn that you got some details wrong.
The people of Oregon decided they wanted a law against discrimination. The bakers wished to discriminate, breaking that law. There's no lawsuit involved; they face civil penalties for discrimination exactly the same as if they'd posted "No Coloreds" in their window. That's because, as the Labor Commissioner pointed out in your article, a bakery is not a church. Therefore, it cannot employ that status to make itself somehow exempt from anti-discrimination laws.
What you Republicans are going to have to do is find some land somewhere and make your own country where you can engage in discrimination as you like. Because in this country you've got to live with other people, a majority of whom find bigotry unacceptable to the point of outlawing it.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 5, 2015 8:02:51 GMT -5
I'm not surprised to learn that you got some details wrong. The people of Oregon decided they wanted a law against discrimination. The bakers wished to discriminate, breaking that law. There's no lawsuit involved; they face civil penalties for discrimination exactly the same as if they'd posted "No Coloreds" in their window. That's because, as the Labor Commissioner pointed out in your article, a bakery is not a church. Therefore, it cannot employ that status to make itself somehow exempt from anti-discrimination laws. What you Republicans are going to have to do is find some land somewhere and make your own country where you can engage in discrimination as you like. Because in this country you've got to live with other people, a majority of whom find bigotry unacceptable to the point of outlawing it. "Civil penalties" are a lawsuit. And a bakery is a private establishment. They didn't say "no gays", they simply refused to cater to what they saw as an abomination. What the Oregon government did was reinstitute slavery, since they are forcing Christians, or anyone else that opposes perversion, to cater to that perversion. They are also repealing the 1A, since they are forcing association, regardless of whether that association is wanted by both parties. Will they rule the same way if a black owned bakery is asked to bake cakes for a KKK rally? Or a Muslim owned bakery is asked to cater a gay wedding? And the gag order also violates their freedom of expression. So, not only are they forcing a Christian to either descend into the sewer with the court, but they are being told they can't even disagree.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 5, 2015 8:05:03 GMT -5
I'm not surprised to learn that you got some details wrong. The people of Oregon decided they wanted a law against discrimination. The bakers wished to discriminate, breaking that law. There's no lawsuit involved; they face civil penalties for discrimination exactly the same as if they'd posted "No Coloreds" in their window. That's because, as the Labor Commissioner pointed out in your article, a bakery is not a church. Therefore, it cannot employ that status to make itself somehow exempt from anti-discrimination laws. What you Republicans are going to have to do is find some land somewhere and make your own country where you can engage in discrimination as you like. Because in this country you've got to live with other people, a majority of whom find bigotry unacceptable to the point of outlawing it.We already have a land. The problem is that you are all for discrimination, as long as it's the "correct" people that are discriminated against. That would be anyone with sincerely held principles and beliefs, because people like that don't bow to your almighty government.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 5, 2015 9:31:29 GMT -5
"Civil penalties" are a lawsuit. But not a lawsuit by a competitor, as you asserted. And a bakery is a private establishment. It is not, however, a religious establishment. Therefore, the owners cannot use religion to excuse their bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 5, 2015 9:33:07 GMT -5
We already have a land. The problem is that you are all for discrimination, as long as it's the "correct" people that are discriminated against. That would be anyone with sincerely held principles and beliefs, because people like that don't bow to your almighty government. Then go live there. Oh, you think THIS is that land? Apparently not, since voters have rejected your desire to encode bigoted behavior into the law. But try this: see if you can get a Constitutional Amendment through that will enable it. I'd really, really like to see you try that.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 5, 2015 21:00:44 GMT -5
"Civil penalties" are a lawsuit. But not a lawsuit by a competitor, as you asserted. And a bakery is a private establishment. It is not, however, a religious establishment. Therefore, the owners cannot use religion to excuse their bigotry. Yes, it was. Follow the money. The woman that filed the lawsuit was her competitor.
Actually, no, she wasn't the one that filed the complaint. However, there was apparently collusion between the BOLI and the gay mafia.
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/2/oregon-bakers-seek-reopening-of-gay-marriage-case-/ I'm still trying to find the article I read a week or so ago that tracked the money from the BRO, through a competitor of this bakery, and to the BOLI.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 5, 2015 21:18:19 GMT -5
"Civil penalties" are a lawsuit. But not a lawsuit by a competitor, as you asserted. And a bakery is a private establishment. It is not, however, a religious establishment. Therefore, the owners cannot use religion to excuse their bigotry. So, gays can only be gay in their own homes? Atheists can only be atheist in their own homes? They are prohibited from exercising their religion except in their houses of worship? How about blacks? Can they only be black in private, or can they refuse service to KKK members? How about Jewish businesses? Can they refuse to serve Neo Nazis? Will this same "Labor Board" rule the same way when a Muslim refuses a gay "couple"? Or is it only Christians that are prohibited from being Christian outside a church?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 5, 2015 21:22:01 GMT -5
We already have a land. The problem is that you are all for discrimination, as long as it's the "correct" people that are discriminated against. That would be anyone with sincerely held principles and beliefs, because people like that don't bow to your almighty government. Then go live there. Oh, you think THIS is that land? Apparently not, since voters have rejected your desire to encode bigoted behavior into the law. But try this: see if you can get a Constitutional Amendment through that will enable it. I'd really, really like to see you try that. Sorry, no. Every state that it's come up on a ballot has resoundingly rejected it. Even CA. That's why the Left had to buy off, or install Marxist judges, so they could override the will of the people. And a Constitutional amendment is coming. At least the attempt is. Through a Convention of the States. So, how is it "bigoted" for a Christian to adhere to his/her religion, but it's fine for perverts to demand the firing of anyone that disagrees with them? Or a judge to prohibit anyone from even discussing the case? After it's been decided? Sounds like star chambers and hidden courts, the stuff of Communist Russia and NAZI Germany. And you support them.
Sorry, 19 states didn't have judges force them to accept. However, out of that 19, only about 3 actually voted for it. The rest just didn't have a lawsuit to overturn the will of the people. So, it's your sainted government forcing states to 'accept' perversion, in spite of what the citizens want.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 6, 2015 9:27:35 GMT -5
So, gays can only be gay in their own homes? Atheists can only be atheist in their own homes? They are prohibited from exercising their religion except in their houses of worship? How about blacks? Can they only be black in private, or can they refuse service to KKK members? How about Jewish businesses? Can they refuse to serve Neo Nazis? Will this same "Labor Board" rule the same way when a Muslim refuses a gay "couple"? Or is it only Christians that are prohibited from being Christian outside a church? This assertion tells me you simply don't understand public accommodation laws at all. Or, maybe, you disagree with them. I know many bigots do. I don't know if that describes you or is what motivates you, but from your comments it's not looking good for you. When you establish a public accommodation, long precedent has said that you cannot refuse service for reasons of race, religious affiliation, gender, and other similar qualities, now including sexual orientation. A public accommodation is not a church, as has been ruled, and is not subject to the protections of the First Amendment. The analogy you're groping for is more like this: I have discovered a cure for some deadly illness, let's say cancer. And I refuse to dispense it to Christians because I don't agree with Christianity. That would be wrong, and I would expect to be slapped down for attempting it. If, in the privacy of my own home, I disdain Christians for the pain and suffering their mythology has inflicted on the world over the centuries, I would NOT expect to be slapped down for that. I hope you can understand the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 6, 2015 9:30:23 GMT -5
And a Constitutional amendment is coming. At least the attempt is. Through a Convention of the States. Well, let us know if you ever succeed in turning the United States into Bigotonia, 'kay? Someone, I don't see it happening. For a self-proclaimed expert on the Constitution, you seem not to understand that it's most important provisions are those things it forbids. And you do not seem to understand that if the Constitution forbids it to the Federal government, it generally forbids it to the states. There are some exceptions, but civil rights have never been one of them.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 6, 2015 9:37:47 GMT -5
So, gays can only be gay in their own homes? Atheists can only be atheist in their own homes? They are prohibited from exercising their religion except in their houses of worship? How about blacks? Can they only be black in private, or can they refuse service to KKK members? How about Jewish businesses? Can they refuse to serve Neo Nazis? Will this same "Labor Board" rule the same way when a Muslim refuses a gay "couple"? Or is it only Christians that are prohibited from being Christian outside a church? This assertion tells me you simply don't understand public accommodation laws at all. Or, maybe, you disagree with them. I know many bigots do. I don't know if that describes you or is what motivates you, but from your comments it's not looking good for you. When you establish a public accommodation, long precedent has said that you cannot refuse service for reasons of race, religious affiliation, gender, and other similar qualities, now including sexual orientation. A public accommodation is not a church, as has been ruled, and is not subject to the protections of the First Amendment. The analogy you're groping for is more like this: I have discovered a cure for some deadly illness, let's say cancer. And I refuse to dispense it to Christians because I don't agree with Christianity. That would be wrong, and I would expect to be slapped down for attempting it. If, in the privacy of my own home, I disdain Christians for the pain and suffering their mythology has inflicted on the world over the centuries, I would NOT expect to be slapped down for that. I hope you can understand the difference. Yes, I do. My analogies are spot on. What you are saying is that, because someone opens a business, they can no longer be human, but are some sort of government orchestrated robot, not allowed to have any opinions, beliefs, or values that the government doesn't want them to have Public accommodation laws are simply another method for the government to decide FOR YOU how to think, act, and believe. Again, what happens if a black bakery refuses a KKK cake? Do you really think any judge would rule in favor of the KKK? Or a Muslim refusing a gay wedding cake? Do you really think that Muslim bakery would be destroyed? I don't. What this ruling says is that only the Progressive religion will be allowed in the public sphere, or those religions that the Progressives really fear, like Islam. How many Progressives have rioted, or even demanded the firing, of Muslims over anti gay rhetoric? If you have a real atheist religion, and some Christian comes to you to bake a cake for a wedding, and you refuse, that's a whole different situation than you refusing to allow them in your store. Freedom of association means that the government has no authority to force anyone to associate, in any way, with anyone else. Forcing a baker, a photographer, or a dress maker to create something specific for a specific event is different from allowing someone to come in and buy something off the shelf, that's already been made. If you can't see that, there is no help for you.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 6, 2015 9:41:29 GMT -5
And a Constitutional amendment is coming. At least the attempt is. Through a Convention of the States. Well, let us know if you ever succeed in turning the United States into Bigotonia, 'kay? Someone, I don't see it happening. For a self-proclaimed expert on the Constitution, you seem not to understand that it's most important provisions are those things it forbids. And you do not seem to understand that if the Constitution forbids it to the Federal government, it generally forbids it to the states. There are some exceptions, but civil rights have never been one of them. You seem to fail to understand that the bigotry is from the gays, Progressives, and other nonthinking individuals. How many conservatives, or Christians, have demanded that gays be fired from any position? How many have attacked any organization that even hints at helping out those under assault, like the gays and other Communists have done to GoFundMe sites? Any time any delusions held by the Left are disagreed with, the Left does it's best to destroy the 'denier'. Not discuss, not argue back, but destroy. That's because they can't allow competing ideas to be heard, theirs won't hold up any longer than a match in a tornado. They have nothing but lies, calumny, and force to get their agenda through, because no one would allow any of it if the truth were allowed to be heard.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 6, 2015 9:43:27 GMT -5
Yes, I do. My analogies are spot on. What you are saying is that, because someone opens a business, they can no longer be human, but are some sort of government orchestrated robot, not allowed to have any opinions, beliefs, or values that the government doesn't want them to have No, you don't. Not that I expected you to; you fanatics are all alike. They can have any opinion they want. They just can't refuse service on that basis. Public accommodation laws are simply another method for the government to decide FOR YOU how to think, act, and believe. Again, what happens if a black bakery refuses a KKK cake? Do you really think any judge would rule in favor of the KKK? Or a Muslim refusing a gay wedding cake? Do you really think that Muslim bakery would be destroyed? Got it, you disagree with public accommodation laws. What a sad world you must live in. If you have a real atheist religion, Atheism is not a religion. Before you oppose something you'd do well to understand it! ...to create something specific for a specific event is different from allowing someone to come in and buy something off the shelf, that's already been made. If you can't see that, there is no help for you. I don't see a difference because there isn't one. In each case the person is providing a service. Whether the item is off-the-shelf or bespoke is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 6, 2015 9:44:52 GMT -5
And a Constitutional amendment is coming. At least the attempt is. Through a Convention of the States. Well, let us know if you ever succeed in turning the United States into Bigotonia, 'kay? Someone, I don't see it happening. For a self-proclaimed expert on the Constitution, you seem not to understand that it's most important provisions are those things it forbids. And you do not seem to understand that if the Constitution forbids it to the Federal government, it generally forbids it to the states. There are some exceptions, but civil rights have never been one of them. On the contrary, those things it forbids to the Feds, it grants to the states, or the people, exclusively. You forget the second part of the religious section of the 1A, "...nor inhibit the free exercise thereof". That means that gays have no legal right to force anyone, business or not, to violate their religious beliefs. If a bakery won't bake a "wedding" cake for a gay, go somewhere else and get one. It's gone so far that a court in CO refused to prosecute a gay bakery for not baking a cake for a religious event, citing "homophobia". They did, however, persecute a Christian bakery for the same "offense".
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 6, 2015 9:51:14 GMT -5
On the contrary, those things it forbids to the Feds, it grants to the states, or the people, exclusively. Incorrect. Some things, typically the ability to violate civil rights, it forbids to both. You forget the second part of the religious section of the 1A, "...nor inhibit the free exercise thereof". That means that gays have no legal right to force anyone, business or not, to violate their religious beliefs. If a bakery won't bake a "wedding" cake for a gay, go somewhere else and get one. Nothing about public accommodation prevents religious people from practicing their faith. They just can't run their business like it's a church when it is not. Such a simple concept, so difficult for you to understand. It's gone so far that a court in CO refused to prosecute a gay bakery for not baking a cake for a religious event, citing "homophobia". They did, however, persecute a Christian bakery for the same "offense". You probably got this from CNS or the Moonies and didn't understand it, since that's your history. Care to provide a link? If a bakery run by gays refused service to a religious couple it should be prosecuted. If that happened.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 6, 2015 10:00:07 GMT -5
Yes, I do. My analogies are spot on. What you are saying is that, because someone opens a business, they can no longer be human, but are some sort of government orchestrated robot, not allowed to have any opinions, beliefs, or values that the government doesn't want them to have Ah, but gay, or politically correct businesses can discriminate all they want. It's only Christian businesses that are being destroyed. shoebat.com/2014/12/12/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service-watch-shocking-video/outfrontonline.com/news/pro-lgbt-baker-slapped-religious-discrimination-complaint/Public accommodation laws are simply another method for the government to decide FOR YOU how to think, act, and believe. Again, what happens if a black bakery refuses a KKK cake? Do you really think any judge would rule in favor of the KKK? Or a Muslim refusing a gay wedding cake? Do you really think that Muslim bakery would be destroyed? No, what a subservient world you must live in. When you are looking to government to tell you what's "moral", you have surrendered your humanity. There is nothing in the world that will stop "discrimination", in business or in life. What "public accommodation" laws do is force businesses into collusion with the government over who is to be discriminated against on any given day. I notice that you still haven't answered any of my questions about blacks serving the KKK, or Jews serving NeoNazis. Wonder why not? If you have a real atheist religion, Of course it is. It simply substitutes Man, or government, for God. You refuse to admit that, because you equate "religion" with Christianity, which you obviously disagree with. Fine. But that doesn't mean you have no religion. ...to create something specific for a specific event is different from allowing someone to come in and buy something off the shelf, that's already been made. If you can't see that, there is no help for you. Wrong. If I build a table, then put it up for sale, I have created something I wanted to create. If someone comes in and asks for a specific type of table, then I am using God's talents to design and build that table. It's not an off the shelf commodity. I'm being asked to use whatever ability I have for a specific purpose. Same with a baker, or photographer. Should a photographer be forced to take porno pix just because the customer wants it? Or even photograph a nudist event, if the photographer doesn't believe in it?
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 6, 2015 10:07:59 GMT -5
On the contrary, those things it forbids to the Feds, it grants to the states, or the people, exclusively. What "civil right"? Where is marriage mentioned at all in the Constitution? The 'civil right' would be for gays to cohabit without state injunction. That's not what they want. There is no "right" for them to force the state to recognize their cohabitation. And what of the 'civil rights' of the religious? Which is, by the way, enumerated in the Constitution. You forget the second part of the religious section of the 1A, "...nor inhibit the free exercise thereof". That means that gays have no legal right to force anyone, business or not, to violate their religious beliefs. If a bakery won't bake a "wedding" cake for a gay, go somewhere else and get one. Yes, it does. If a business owner has a pedophile come in wanting something 'celebrating' his perversion, should that owner be forced to serve him? Again, if a black bakery were asked to bake a cake 'celebrating' a KKK gathering, should he be forced to do so? If not, then it's the government discriminating against religion, which is expressly forbidden by the 1A. It's gone so far that a court in CO refused to prosecute a gay bakery for not baking a cake for a religious event, citing "homophobia". They did, however, persecute a Christian bakery for the same "offense". I did. Didn't you see it? Within the link are videos of gay bakeries refusing service to Christians. thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/04/06/3643178/colorado-bakery-wins-against/Try that one. The government has decided that perversion is to be protected, and morality to be punished. It's as simple as that. They are just using existing law to persecute anyone that doesn't submit to the perversion.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 6, 2015 10:34:49 GMT -5
You are arguing, apparently with a straight face, that Christianity is essentially a bigoted religion and this should be protected by the Constitution. I'd shake my head, but I have met Christians just like you. Small wonder I hold your faith in such disdain. If this is truly Christianity, it is past time the religion joins its predecessors on the scrap heap. Fortunately, that appears to be happening in the First World.
P.S. Fix your quote so that it does not look like I wrote your hate speech! Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 6, 2015 10:41:51 GMT -5
Checked out your link at "outfrontonline.com".
You understand that the man wanted the baker to make a cake with hate speech on it, right? That's not a religious cake. Well, it didn't used to be; it appears this is what Christianity is evolving into in this country.
You opinions about atheism are like most of your opinions: not based on facts and poorly thought out.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jul 6, 2015 10:55:43 GMT -5
You are arguing, apparently with a straight face, that Christianity is essentially a bigoted religion and this should be protected by the Constitution. I'd shake my head, but I have met Christians just like you. Small wonder I hold your faith in such disdain. If this is truly Christianity, it is past time the religion joins its predecessors on the scrap heap. Fortunately, that appears to be happening in the First World. P.S. Fix your quote so that it does not look like I wrote your hate speech! Thank you. Wrong. What you see as bigotry is simply discernment, and exercise of free will. You still avoid answering my question about blacks and the KKK, and with good reason. If you answered, it would affirm that you are bigoted only against Christians, and see them has having no rights, despite the fact that they built this nation. Christianity doesn't discriminate against people. It does discriminate against sin. You, as an atheist, can't separate the action from the person. Christians are commanded to do so. "Love the sinner, but hate the sin". You simply don't want any moral code, because that might inhibit you from doing what you want to do. Morality comes from God, whatever you wrongly believe. Without God, the entire world would be ISIS. And don't come back with the claptrap that "ISIS does believe in God, they are following His commandments". They don't, and they aren't. They, like most of the "religious" dictators are using religion as cover to commit whatever atrocities they want.
|
|