|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 4, 2018 15:21:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 4, 2018 22:32:03 GMT -5
They didn't take it far enough, though. They didn't rule on, and reinforce, the free speech and freedom of association aspects of it. They also left it open for more businesses to be sued out of existence, because they tailored the decision far too narrowly.
|
|
|
Post by kemmer on Jun 5, 2018 0:01:09 GMT -5
I was surprised the ruling went 7:2. Competing rights always create difficulties.
I've always wondered what would have happened if, after striking down Jim Crow, which mandated racial discrimination, we'd given ourselves time to sort the rest out on our own. Unfortunately, we're not a patient people-- "can do" and "do it now" are part of our cultural DNA. We are, also, crass materialists (kinda offsets our Puritan traits), so I think "green" would be the color of choice in business decisions. (Consider the laws and covenants that forbade a property seller from taking the best offer, if said offer came from a black person/family. How long would sellers agree to be injured by those?)
We might have had a thriving black business community much earlier than the one that is just now emerging, more than fifty years later. (One of the downsides of the legal changes implemented in the late '60's was the reduction in the number of black-own businesses.)
We could argue that religion is protected by the Constitution, and so trumps LGBTQ rights until that document is amended. (How inconvenient would it really be for Muslim cabbies to refuse to drive people with service dogs? With UBER on board, it seems there are plenty of drivers out there, looking for fares. That's a serious question, btw. Competing rights.)
Oh, and don't sellers have rights, too? Rights that exist just because we're free people? Musicians who don't want their songs played in campaigns for politicians they dislike have, so far, gotten away with discriminating. Should this be allowed? They are, after all, discriminating on the basis of disliking the "free speech" of people they refuse to sell to. Personally, I think they should be allowed to refuse to participate in politics they abhor, just as I think a cake baker should be allowed to refuse to participate in celebrating a gay wedding.
Call me Pollyanna, but I really do think we could work all this out without the heavy foot of Big Brother on the scale. Never discount crass materialism as a force for good-- or the Puritan desire to "do the right thing", either. I just wish government folks (and I include professional "activists" in that group) had the same faith in ordinary Americans as I do.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jun 5, 2018 6:51:20 GMT -5
I felt all along that it was an abuse of government power against someone that wasnt politically coreect
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 5, 2018 8:58:38 GMT -5
I was surprised the ruling went 7:2. Competing rights always create difficulties. I've always wondered what would have happened if, after striking down Jim Crow, which mandated racial discrimination, we'd given ourselves time to sort the rest out on our own. Unfortunately, we're not a patient people-- "can do" and "do it now" are part of our cultural DNA. We are, also, crass materialists (kinda offsets our Puritan traits), so I think "green" would be the color of choice in business decisions. (Consider the laws and covenants that forbade a property seller from taking the best offer, if said offer came from a black person/family. How long would sellers agree to be injured by those?) We might have had a thriving black business community much earlier than the one that is just now emerging, more than fifty years later. (One of the downsides of the legal changes implemented in the late '60's was the reduction in the number of black-own businesses.) We could argue that religion is protected by the Constitution, and so trumps LGBTQ rights until that document is amended. (How inconvenient would it really be for Muslim cabbies to refuse to drive people with service dogs? With UBER on board, it seems there are plenty of drivers out there, looking for fares. That's a serious question, btw. Competing rights.) Oh, and don't sellers have rights, too? Rights that exist just because we're free people? Musicians who don't want their songs played in campaigns for politicians they dislike have, so far, gotten away with discriminating. Should this be allowed? They are, after all, discriminating on the basis of disliking the "free speech" of people they refuse to sell to. Personally, I think they should be allowed to refuse to participate in politics they abhor, just as I think a cake baker should be allowed to refuse to participate in celebrating a gay wedding. Call me Pollyanna, but I really do think we could work all this out without the heavy foot of Big Brother on the scale. Never discount crass materialism as a force for good-- or the Puritan desire to "do the right thing", either. I just wish government folks (and I include professional "activists" in that group) had the same faith in ordinary Americans as I do. The problem is, we have a subset of people that insist that the rest of society not only accommodate, but 'celebrate' any deviancy, any perversion, any whim they dream up. Freedom of association is relegated only to those that that believe the "correct" way. If you don't worship Big Brother, you are to be destroyed. That's the stated purpose of the lawsuit in the first place, the destruction of a business that didn't grovel at the feet of the deviant. The 'activists' have no intention of having faith in the ordinary American. We are "deplorable", remember? We don't simply accept any edict coming from our "betters", and actually think we have free will, and the right to assemble, worship, and say anything we want. They can't allow that, because it might lead to actual liberty, and a reduction in their power to force acceptance of the Communist agenda, and the slide to the lowest common denominator.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 5, 2018 11:01:28 GMT -5
Did you really read the article you linked to, RJ? Because nothing that I read about the decision even comes close to what you posted. But, then again, you continue to have problems with the truth. And you're still getting your talking points from that from the far right. Surprised you didn't link to Fox and Breitbart too!
The ruling was very narrow and focused on the Colorado civil rights decision. That board was found to be prejudiced against the baker, and on that basis the decision was overturned.
I don't think this particular decision will have the far-reaching effects you think it will.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 5, 2018 11:27:04 GMT -5
Did you really read the article you linked to, RJ? Because nothing that I read about the decision even comes close to what you posted. But, then again, you continue to have problems with the truth. And you're still getting your talking points from that from the far right. Surprised you didn't link to Fox and Breitbart too! The ruling was very narrow and focused on the Colorado civil rights decision. That board was found to be prejudiced against the baker, and on that basis the decision was overturned. I don't think this particular decision will have the far-reaching effects you think it will. I think Kennedy's decision speaks for itself, and my comments above accurately reflect it.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 5, 2018 11:29:31 GMT -5
I was surprised the ruling went 7:2. Competing rights always create difficulties. I've always wondered what would have happened if, after striking down Jim Crow, which mandated racial discrimination, we'd given ourselves time to sort the rest out on our own. Unfortunately, we're not a patient people-- "can do" and "do it now" are part of our cultural DNA. We are, also, crass materialists (kinda offsets our Puritan traits), so I think "green" would be the color of choice in business decisions. (Consider the laws and covenants that forbade a property seller from taking the best offer, if said offer came from a black person/family. How long would sellers agree to be injured by those?) We might have had a thriving black business community much earlier than the one that is just now emerging, more than fifty years later. (One of the downsides of the legal changes implemented in the late '60's was the reduction in the number of black-own businesses.) We could argue that religion is protected by the Constitution, and so trumps LGBTQ rights until that document is amended. (How inconvenient would it really be for Muslim cabbies to refuse to drive people with service dogs? With UBER on board, it seems there are plenty of drivers out there, looking for fares. That's a serious question, btw. Competing rights.) Oh, and don't sellers have rights, too? Rights that exist just because we're free people? Musicians who don't want their songs played in campaigns for politicians they dislike have, so far, gotten away with discriminating. Should this be allowed? They are, after all, discriminating on the basis of disliking the "free speech" of people they refuse to sell to. Personally, I think they should be allowed to refuse to participate in politics they abhor, just as I think a cake baker should be allowed to refuse to participate in celebrating a gay wedding. Call me Pollyanna, but I really do think we could work all this out without the heavy foot of Big Brother on the scale. Never discount crass materialism as a force for good-- or the Puritan desire to "do the right thing", either. I just wish government folks (and I include professional "activists" in that group) had the same faith in ordinary Americans as I do. I'm a bit surprised at Kagan and Souter going along... but I suspect they're both smart enough to know how this could be used against minorities as well. Competing rights have to be balanced. Not just gratuitously granted to specific classes of people.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 5, 2018 11:58:52 GMT -5
Again, RJ, reading is fundamental. You said, "The ruling is 7-2 in favor of allowing religious people to decline to make cakes supporting gay marriage." That is not what the decision said. Even the article you linked to notes that.
The decision was very narrow and focused on the Colorado decision against Phillips to find him in violation of Colorado public accommodations law. That's not quite the same thing as ruling in favor of allowing "religious" people to decline to do something, at least not in the minds of most educated people.
I suggest that you read the whole article next time.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 5, 2018 15:30:27 GMT -5
Again, RJ, reading is fundamental. You said, "The ruling is 7-2 in favor of allowing religious people to decline to make cakes supporting gay marriage." That is not what the decision said. Even the article you linked to notes that. The decision was very narrow and focused on the Colorado decision against Phillips to find him in violation of Colorado public accommodations law. That's not quite the same thing as ruling in favor of allowing "religious" people to decline to do something, at least not in the minds of most educated people. I suggest that you read the whole article next time. I understand you read another article in the leftist press (probably the NYT or somesuch) that tried to downplay this. However, Kennedy's decision reads in part as follows: Or did you just not understand what Kennedy said?
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 5, 2018 17:32:24 GMT -5
I read that. In fact, I went to the SCOTUS site and read the entire decision. Did you, or did you just rely on the unthinking partisan right-wing press that you love, the press that continues to ply fake news and claim it's accurate?
Like I said, I think you're reading too much into the decision, and I don't think it says what you want it to mean. But I have to remember, again, that you've continually shown that you're not too much of a legal scholar.
And, I believe, there's another case in the pipeline that may be decided shortly. Perhaps that will provide more clarification.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 5, 2018 19:13:44 GMT -5
I read that. In fact, I went to the SCOTUS site and read the entire decision. Did you, or did you just rely on the unthinking partisan right-wing press that you love, the press that continues to ply fake news and claim it's accurate? Like I said, I think you're reading too much into the decision, and I don't think it says what you want it to mean. But I have to remember, again, that you've continually shown that you're not too much of a legal scholar. And, I believe, there's another case in the pipeline that may be decided shortly. Perhaps that will provide more clarification. Great. Then you understand why my comments here are consistent with the decision.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 5, 2018 21:12:32 GMT -5
If you've read what I've said carefully, RJ -- and that's a big if, since reading doesn't seem to be a strong point of yours, as has been pointed out several times -- then you should know that your comments are not consistent with the decision.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 5, 2018 21:15:59 GMT -5
If you've read what I've said carefully, RJ -- and that's a big if, since reading doesn't seem to be a strong point of yours, as has been pointed out several times -- then you should know that your comments are not consistent with the decision. What does what you say have to do with what Kennnedy said? And no, I generally don't care enough about your nonsense to read it very carefully. It is at least 75% gibberish.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 6, 2018 12:56:15 GMT -5
You also need to put Justice Kennedy's comments, which you quoted, in context, RJ. The 3 bakers in the 3 Jack decisions, were not questioned about religious views, only their secular views. You'd know this if you'd bothered to read the decision or read something than the mindless, unthinking partisan press. In the Phillips case, the Commission members made disparaging comments about the baker because of his religious views. Had the Commission members not made comments about Mr. Phillips' religion, it's highly probable that the decision would have gone the other way
Hope you can understand this. I can try to rewrite in 1 and 2 syllable words in that will help you.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 6, 2018 13:22:41 GMT -5
You also need to put Justice Kennedy's comments, which you quoted, in context, RJ. The 3 bakers in the 3 Jack decisions, were not questioned about religious views, only their secular views. You'd know this if you'd bothered to read the decision or read something than the mindless, unthinking partisan press. In the Phillips case, the Commission members made disparaging comments about the baker because of his religious views. Had the Commission members not made comments about Mr. Phillips' religion, it's highly probable that the decision would have gone the other way Hope you can understand this. I can try to rewrite in 1 and 2 syllable words in that will help you. Phillip's religious beliefs are the reason the cake didn't get made. They're also probably the only reason this became a case in the first place. No one would question a black baker refusing to make a Klan themed cake. Only white Christians can have their motives questioned.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 6, 2018 14:54:57 GMT -5
Apples and oranges. But you should read the actual decision, not what the fake news right wing media days. But, then again, you're shown an aversion to the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jun 6, 2018 15:04:31 GMT -5
Apples and oranges. But you should read the actual decision, not what the fake news right wing media days. But, then again, you're shown an aversion to the truth. Refusing to make a cake you consider immoral is refusing to make a cake you consider immoral. The Christian baker and the black baker I described above are apples to apples. The only thing that makes them different to you is your own sense of morality. That's not something that can be adjudicated, which was Kennedy's point, that you're having so much difficulty with.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 6, 2018 19:04:57 GMT -5
We'll see, RJ. As I said, there's another case in the works.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 6, 2018 21:58:18 GMT -5
Apples and oranges. But you should read the actual decision, not what the fake news right wing media days. But, then again, you're shown an aversion to the truth. Not even remotely. 2 'gays' wanted to get "married", a baker refused to create a special cake for them, and instead of simply finding another baker, they sued. What you demand is that deviants have more rights than Christians. In addition, there were 2 other cases mentioned, where bakers didn't bake the cakes, and the "Rights" Commission sided with the bakers. It's about nothing but ideology, forcing everyone to not only accept, but "celebrate" the deviant lifestyle. It was never about rights, since there is no "right to marry", nor is there a "right" to have a special cake made. For any occasion. There is a right to free exercise of religion. You never heard of it, since none of your masters ever read the Constitution, and don't like it any way, but it's enumerated there.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 7, 2018 17:42:01 GMT -5
Obviously you haven't read the decision. I suggest you do so, since you have most of your "facts" wrong. When you know what really happened, come back and discuss.
And Jack sued more than 2 other bakers.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 8, 2018 9:22:10 GMT -5
Obviously you haven't read the decision. I suggest you do so, since you have most of your "facts" wrong. When you know what really happened, come back and discuss. And Jack sued more than 2 other bakers. What really happened is that 2 gays failed in their efforts to force a Christian to abandon his faith to support their deviancy. The only purpose of their lawsuit was to destroy a business that didn't "celebrate" their deviancy joyfully or vociferously enough. It was extortion by lawfare. Period.
|
|
|
Post by palealeman on Jun 8, 2018 14:47:17 GMT -5
In other words, you haven't read the decision. When you have -- if you ever do -- let me know and we can discuss. In the meantime, I'm not going to waste any more time on this with you, since you don't know what you're talking about (as usual). Again, read the decision and the other opinions.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jun 8, 2018 16:23:21 GMT -5
In other words, you haven't read the decision. When you have -- if you ever do -- let me know and we can discuss. In the meantime, I'm not going to waste any more time on this with you, since you don't know what you're talking about (as usual). Again, read the decision and the other opinions. Yes, I have. I also remember when the case was first brought in CO. The gays admitted that the only reason they brought suit was to 'punish' anyone that didn't revel in their deviancy. They want to force everyone into the same lifestyle, or at least to celebrate it, regardless of the religious beliefs of the businesses or the person. Degeneracy is rampant, and you and your masters are pushing it.
|
|