Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Colorado Baker

[RoadRunner79]

Here is an article, describing what I am talking about. 

Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. I recommend you read this article by David French to clear up a major misconception about the case that’s being promoted out there. The article responds to a New York Times opinion piece that completely misunderstands the case, claiming it’s about denying people services “because of who they are.” (See here and here for more responses to this common mistake.)

https://www.str.org/blog/religious-liber...xrnYiApCUk


Should we be discussing the discrimination of religious liberty? Perhaps we should be talking about peoples religious predjudice, instead of the ideas?

If progressive designers refuse to design dresses for the Trump women, they’re not discriminating on the basis of sex. They’re refusing to elevate and help honor a political family they dislike....

Or we could twist the narrative to say that those who refused to design a dress for the  women in the Trump inauguration as being sexist.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and according to them..they can;t freely engage in their religion unless theyre allowed to discriminate against the gays.

Personally, I don;t think that;s the case..but unless it is, they have no case. Do you understand?

---

If progressive designers refuse to design dresses for the Trump women, they’re not discriminating on the basis of sex. They’re refusing to elevate and help honor a political family they dislike....

Or we could twist the narrative to say that those who refused to design a dress for the  women in the Trump inauguration as being sexist.

It's almost as if you write copy for team trump, lol...because that;s -exactly- how every issue even remotely like that has been treated by both the trump admin and the trumpsters.

[Amarok]

Or we could twist the narrative to say that those who refused to design a dress for the  women in the Trump inauguration as being sexist.

No we could not . And no nobody's twisting this case the religious right want to discriminate against gays . Neither you nor the religious right are fooling anybody by trying to frame this as a civil rights issue . So just drop the pretense .

---

-and according to them..they can;t freely engage in their religion unless theyre allowed to discriminate against the gays.

Personally, I don;t think that;s the case..but unless it is, they have no case.  Do you understand?

---

Or we could twist the narrative to say that those who refused to design a dress for the  women in the Trump inauguration as being sexist.

It's almost as if you write copy for team trump, lol...because that;s -exactly- how every issue even remotely like that has been treated by both the trump admin and the trumpsters.

[robvalue]

If it was legal to refuse to serve people because of something entirely out of someone's control like sexual orientation, then it would have to also be legal to discriminate on any grounds, no matter how frivolous.

They really don't get it that the law protects everyone, even them. It's not a state versus Christianity battle. It just so happens that many Christians (and other religious folk) thrust themselves onto the oppresser side of the equation. I guess they've enjoyed being the majority and having all the perks so long that they can't even consider that they may one day be the minority.

[johan]

 I don't think that a restaurant owner and turn away a diner, because they are homosexual.  

Absolutely  agree.

There is also the matter of consistency.  I don't think that the restaurant owner can turn someone away because of they are republican or democrat, or support Trump or Clinton.  The same reasoning follows.  I don't think that they can turn away Trump or Hillary.

Here we disagree. Why should political affiliation be a protected class? Suppose the mayor created new regulations that raised your taxes or imposed city fees specifically for your type of business and as result you now make 80% less profit or no profit. Should you still be required by law to serve that mother fucker?

[Silver]

[LadyForCamus]

@RR, why does religious “liberty” so often involve taking something away from someone else? Why is interfering with the lives of consenting adults (and paying customers) regarded as a freedom Christians think society owes them?

If a business owner is not willing to provide his goods and services to every paying customer in the general public equally, because he can’t distinguish between business ethics and his personal, private religious beliefs, then maybe he shouldn’t have a business at all. Would you consider it fair if Price Chopper refused to sell groceries to the neighborhood child molester? Do cake shop owners who refuse cakes for gay couples perform background checks on all grooms-to-be requesting their services in order to be sure they aren’t convicted child molesters or rapists, or is it just those dirty, Hell-bound gays that they have a problem with? You really can’t see how that is discrimination?

[Angrboda]

@RR, why does religious “liberty” so often involve taking something away from someone else?  Why is interfering with the lives of consenting adults (and paying customers) regarded as a freedom Christians think society owes them?

If a business owner is not willing to provide his goods and services to every paying customer in the general public equally, because he can’t distinguish between business ethics and his personal, private religious beliefs, then maybe he shouldn’t have a business at all.  

FWIW, the court found similar attitudes in the Commission to be hostile to religion and not reflective of the neutrality toward free exercise claims that the law required.  To wit:

The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips  was  entitled  was  compromised  here,  however.    The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection. That  hostility  surfaced  at  the  Commission’s  formal, public  hearings,  as  shown  by  the  record.    On  May  30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case.  At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot  legitimately  be  carried  into  the  public  sphere  or commercial  domain,  implying  that  religious  beliefs  and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.  One  commissioner  suggested  that  Phillips can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on his  religious  beliefs  “if  he  decides  to  do  business  in  the state.”  Tr.  23.  A  few  moments  later,  the  commissioner restated  the  same  position:  “[I]f  a  businessman  wants  to do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the — the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look  at  being  able  to  compromise.”     Id.,  at  30.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

[Ravenshire]

I have to wonder how many of the people who are perfectly fine with supporting this bigotry would be ok with it if the couple were of mixed race instead of gay. After all, the buy-bull tells us that we're not to mix races like that. I'm betting there are very few that would support such open, racially motivated bigotry as his right to his sincere and deeply held belief.

Or, how about the baker refusing to supply a cake for a plural marriage (yes, they're illegal and yes, they happen anyway)? The buy-bull is fully supportive of plural marriage, but somehow I bet you'd get tons of christers supporting this particular bigotry as his right to his sincere and deeply held belief.

Both of these sincere and deeply held beliefs share a commonality. The popular view and the biblical view are at odds. It's only a matter of time before the popular view and the biblical view on homosexuality wind up at odds as well. That's a good thing because, as with mixed race marriages, the buy-bull is just fucking wrong. Too bad it's assholes like this baker that want to cling to the status quo and slow down progress to the day that gays will truly be accepted by society as a whole.

[Fake Messiah]

Or we could twist the narrative to say that those who refused to design a dress for the  women in the Trump inauguration as being sexist.

That's like refusing to make costumes for women of, let's say, Hitler-Jugend. It's not against women themselves but persons who are pushing for hateful ideology.

FYI after WW2 American army held a trial against a German symphonic conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler solely because he did not refuse to hold concerts for Nazis.