Trump's Dept of Justice sides with Christian Cake Baker, Going to Supreme Court.

[LostSoul]

 

[ripskater]

That refusal can't violate constitutional law however. Projects can be rejected, but not on the basis of discriminatory standards

What kinds of laws do you think your country has on the books, right now, about housing and real estate refusal? You do not have the ability to refuse housing along racial lines

Not every refusal of services is lawful

It's just another example where companies can refuse to build your project.

Jack Phillips doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings. Same thing. He does not refuse to serve homosexuals, he has many gay customers that he bakes cookies and birthday cakes for.

 

[MacDuffle]

It's just another example where companies can refuse to build your project.

Jack Phillips doesn't want to bake cakes for gay weddings. Same thing. He does not refuse to serve homosexuals, he has many gay customers that he bakes cookies and birthday cakes for.

Sexual orientation has less protections under the law, especially older, constitutional law because anyone with half a leg in history recognizes there were absolutely zero lgbt rights in the US at its founding, and there continues to be advocates of its reduced provisions *cough* today, but that doesn't mean alternative sexuality didn't have a huge role in the foundation of classicism, greek theology, literature, science, and many key modern movements that advanced civilization and ideology and from which we developed our current systems. So it's old as fuck, it exists, and will not stop existing.

But yes, to say you can 'get away' with it or lawfully bully it, in many cases is correct. You just perpetuate historical backlash against people that continued to exist throughout modernizing civilizations in law abiding contexts and divide populations further.

The reason the baker's case is significant is that it represents a larger backsliding for alternative sexuality in terms of small business (and potentially big business) refusal of goods/services. Civil rights suceeded in desegregating goods/services providers but gay rights has not gotten its protections to that level yet. Many people think it should, and many people want to selectively put their foot down for it while working on their sabbath and eating shellfish and having premarital sex and pretending their extension of sexuality enforcement is their only priority in strict bible adherence

 

[Ichibanner]

If you answer assume everything I said is true and people really do associated you with a political position when you work intimately with it. If you agree with my argument at least consider that selling cookies at your store to a gay is different than intimately making a unique piece of art for a wedding ceremony. People at your church might start thinking less of you. Your Sunday school kids might start asking hey if gay marriage is bad why do you make cakes for them all the time?
Hell instead of guns think North America Man Boy Association?

I get what your saying, I still disagree. This is a slippery slope. I like your lawyer analogies but I'll add my own. Bill owns a successful housing construction business. He designs houses and his company builds them. He buys 100 acres of former farmland and plans to sub-divide it into 1 acre lots retaining some of the older trees. Tall Oaks Villa is born. He builds the model home and people like what they see. Ten houses go up, more are on the way. A clean cut thirty-something male professional talks to Bill and is convinced that the school district is great for his two kids, the work commute will be minimal, and his spouse Renee is going to love the area since it so much like the area outside of Montreal they came from the house Bill designed is going to be perfect. Lot # 26 is now his. Ground is broken, building supplies are on hand and a very nice 3200 square foot house will be sitting there.

The future homeowner stops by to check the progress. Bill is there talking to his foreman. The homeowner introduces Bill to his two adopted children and his loving husband of 5 years; Renee. Bill is stunned. He thought Renee would be a woman. Bill is a hardcore Christian. The houses are of his design. He cannot have two gay men living in one of his houses, much less two gays raising children. That would show that he condones gay marriage. He halts construction, tells the gay couple why he can't build them a house, and tells them that he will work with them concerning any and all refunds due. Bill will have to find a heterosexual who wants the lot.

The gay men are now barred from that neighborhood due to their sexual orientation. Bill is the only homebuilder for that neighborhood. Just like the Baker designs his cakes, Bill designs his houses. Like the Baker, Bill will not put his design into something that goes against his belief that homosexuality is wrong/sinful. They share the same sentiment that to do otherwise would be akin to condoning the sin of homosexuality and the defacing of the sanctity of Christian marriage.

If you use your logic Bill can ban Gays from the neighborhoods that he creates. Can he extend the protection that you would give him to keep Muslims out? If he is a hardcore White Supremacist who believes in the separation of races can he keep blacks out or refuse to build a home for a bi-racial couple?

If a gay couple wanted a window shaped like a dick and balls built into their home then I'd be fine with refusal to build that feature. Telling someone "you're gay, I won't build you a home, sorry that it means you can't live in this neighborhood" is different and shouldn't be protected. I see the cake issue the same way. It's more Christian to bake the cake while still living your Christian life then it is to refuse service because someone doesn't share your ieals. They didn't ask him to put two guys banging it out on the cake. It was simply a cake. Jesus didn't refuse the sinful, no real Christian would either.

 

[ripskater]

Sexual orientation has less protections under the law, especially older, constitutional law because anyone with half a leg in history recognizes there were absolutely zero lgbt rights in the US at its founding, and there continues to be advocates of its reduced provisions *cough* today, but that doesn't mean alternative sexuality didn't have a huge role in the foundation of classicism, greek theology, literature, science, and many key modern movements that advanced civilization and ideology and from which we developed our current systems. So it's old as fuck, it exists, and will not stop existing.

But yes, to say you can 'get away' with it or lawfully bully it, in many cases is correct. You just perpetuate historical backlash against people that continued to exist throughout modernizing civilizations in law abiding contexts and divide populations further.

The reason the baker's case is significant is that it represents a larger backsliding for alternative sexuality in terms of small business (and potentially big business) refusal of goods/services. Civil rights suceeded in desegregating goods/services providers but gay rights has not gotten its protections to that level yet. Many people think it should, and many people want to selectively put their foot down for it while working on their sabbath and eating shellfish and having premarital sex and pretending their extension of sexuality enforcement is their only priority in strict bible adherence

I agree with much in this post. I know we're on opposite sides on this case though.

I do think the LGBTQ went way too far in Obama's 2nd term. And I think we will see a correction here.

If you've seen my posts through the years then you obviously knew I was against changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. I knew it was gonna be lawsuit upon lawsuit for Christians and religious freedom.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

I had to stop less than a minute in - Adam Weishaup wasn't Jewish - the name isn't (white head), his family wasn't (100+ yr line of Christians); he wasn't a priest either.

Also I'm pretty sure that he had the backing of Joseph II instead of Rothschild - the Rothschild namesake was only 19 and barely starting his banking dynasty when Weishaupt founded the Illuminati .

 

[ShinkanPo]

I get what your saying, I still disagree. This is a slippery slope. I like your lawyer analogies but I'll add my own. Bill owns a successful housing construction business. He designs houses and his company builds them. He buys 100 acres of former farmland and plans to sub-divide it into 1 acre lots retaining some of the older trees. Tall Oaks Villa is born. He builds the model home and people like what they see. Ten houses go up, more are on the way. A clean cut thirty-something male professional talks to Bill and is convinced that the school district is great for his two kids, the work commute will be minimal, and his spouse Renee is going to love the area since it so much like the area outside of Montreal they came from the house Bill designed is going to be perfect. Lot # 26 is now his. Ground is broken, building supplies are on hand and a very nice 3200 square foot house will be sitting there.

The future homeowner stops by to check the progress. Bill is there talking to his foreman. The homeowner introduces Bill to his two adopted children and his loving husband of 5 years; Renee. Bill is stunned. He thought Renee would be a woman. Bill is a hardcore Christian. The houses are of his design. He cannot have two gay men living in one of his houses, much less two gays raising children. That would show that he condones gay marriage. He halts construction, tells the gay couple why he can't build them a house, and tells them that he will work with them concerning any and all refunds due. Bill will have to find a heterosexual who wants the lot.

The gay men are now barred from that neighborhood due to their sexual orientation. Bill is the only homebuilder for that neighborhood. Just like the Baker designs his cakes, Bill designs his houses. Like the Baker, Bill will not put his design into something that goes against his belief that homosexuality is wrong/sinful. They share the same sentiment that to do otherwise would be akin to condoning the sin of homosexuality and the defacing of the sanctity of Christian marriage.

If you use your logic Bill can ban Gays from the neighborhoods that he creates. Can he extend the protection that you would give him to keep Muslims out? If he is a hardcore White Supremacist who believes in the separation of races can he keep blacks out or refuse to build a home for a bi-racial couple?

If a gay couple wanted a window shaped like a dick and balls built into their home then I'd be fine with refusal to build that feature. Telling someone "you're gay, I won't build you a home, sorry that it means you can't live in this neighborhood" is different and shouldn't be protected. I see the cake issue the same way. It's more Christian to bake the cake while still living your Christian life then it is to refuse service because someone doesn't share your ieals. They didn't ask him to put two guys banging it out on the cake. It was simply a cake. Jesus didn't refuse the sinful, no real Christian would either.

But I think the gay couple are requesting that their names are in the couple like in some cakes where it states Mr and Mrs? I am not sure so please do correct me if I made the wrong assumption.

 

[ripskater]

But I think the gay couple are requesting that their names are in the couple like in some cakes where it states Mr and Mrs? I am not sure so please do correct me if I made the wrong assumption.

I don't think we know that shinkanpo. I think the baker immediately refused to take on their request once he knew the cake was for a gay wedding. That's the way it sounds in the videos I posted. And from both sides.

 

[xcvbn]

Seems like an obvious loss to me but still enough gray to be interesting.

The interesting thing to me is wondering how many people realize that if the baker wins then this legal argument applies to Muslims and Islam and actually increases the chances for Sharia law.

How? Because then any Muslim can make the argument that certain state laws are an infringement on his religious practices and he should be allowed to disregard those state and federal laws to stay in line with his deeply held religious positions.

The SC can just write p.s. excl. Islam at the bottom of the ruling. Problem solved.

But honestly I don't see the connection. This is a private business making a decision. How does a Muslim, for instance, marry an 8 year old in America and point to this ruling as legal precedent? Or demand 4 male witnesses to prove rape? Etc?

 

[Ichibanner]

I don't think we know that shinkanpo. I think the baker immediately refused to take on their request once he knew the cake was for a gay wedding. That's the way it sounds in the videos I posted. And from both sides.

Yeah, I have read nothing that states there was any imagery or such. I simply have read that it was a cake for a reception. Not the actual wedding cake. If anyone knows otherwise please inform us.

I don't think the guy should be forced to do anything but pay a fine if he broke local, state, or federal law. Otherwise people will simply have to choose to do business with him or not. The guy was willing to bake cookies or cupcakes how far of a stretch would it be to bake a damn cake. I guess he has to stand on some principle.

 

[KillMeGod]

the christ god is lies, wake up sheeple

 

[MacDuffle]

I agree with much in this post. I know we're on opposite sides on this case though.

I do think the LGBTQ went way too far in Obama's 2nd term. And I think we will see a correction here.

If you've seen my posts through the years then you obviously knew I was against changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. I knew it was gonna be lawsuit upon lawsuit for Christians and religious freedom.

Agreed, i'm not firestarting

the TL;DR version of my point in here is that anti-discriminatory policy covers race/gender/religion, so when half this thread fiercely maintains sexuality discrimination doesn't need provisions of protection, that rhetoric isn't far from rejecting other anti-discrimination constitutional law, and that's some scary shit

 

[ripskater]

Yeah, I have read nothing that states there was any imagery or such. I simply have read that it was a cake for a reception. Not the actual wedding cake. If anyone knows otherwise please inform us.

I agree. It sounds like they got married in another state. A wedding reception is still a wedding cake though , even if it's after the wedding celebrating back home.

When I first heard of this fiasco I thought the Baker shouldn't be forced to bake a gay wedding cake (with two dudes holding hands on the top tier). I now simply think the Baker is an ass and not very Christian if there was no gay imagery on the cake. It's a frickin' cake. Baking it won't damn you soul, it will show that you are merciful and tolerant like the Religious figure you're supposed to be emulating.

I don't think Jack Phillips is "an ass." I think he comes across as a good and kind man. But making a cake for a gay wedding bothers his conscience due to his religious beliefs. The gays should respect that, but they don't. So they obviously drug this through courts. They shoulda just walked out and walked down the street to a baker that celebrates their event.

 

[ShinkanPo]

I don't think we know that shinkanpo. I think the baker immediately refused to take on their request once he knew the cake was for a gay wedding. That's the way it sounds in the videos I posted. And from both sides.

okay I see.

 

[ripskater]

Agreed, i'm not firestarting

the TL;DR version of my point in here is that anti-discriminatory policy covers race/gender/religion, so when half this thread fiercely maintains sexuality discrimination doesn't need provisions of protection, that rhetoric isn't far from rejecting other anti-discrimination constitutional law, and that's some scary shit

I don't know law.

We will see how this plays out.

I wonder when the supreme court rules on this decision? I didn't catch that anywhere.

 

[MacDuffle]

I don't know law.

We will see how this plays out.

I wonder when the supreme court rules on this decision? I didn't catch that anywhere.

It has been delayed

As of right now, there are still states rights that allow refusal of service when it doesn't violate constitutional law

Constitutional law overrides states rights to protect race/gender/ethnicity/disability (hiring/firing for ex.) but does not cover sexuality

 

[HomerThompson]

Yes. Do you now understand why it's important this is a trickle, not a flood, of the poor and ignorant barbarians from across the world? Do you now understand why it is important to police who comes into your country, and first educate them to secular values-- or, even better, to selectively cull only those who seek your country because they share its values, and want to escape that barbarism, not simply because they are weaker barbarians fleeing stronger barbarians? A culture cannot be better than its people. No secular humanist government with a spine will ever see its population become predominantly Sharia-advocating Sunni Muslim. That darkness cannot succeed if you don't allow it, or worse, abet it.

and/or

No. First, let's parse this from discrimination of traits which are wholly innate and cannot be changed (i.e. skin color, gender, etc). We are not talking about traits. We are talking about beliefs and behavior.

Second, again, nothing about this entails discrimination. Discrimination is intrinsic only to a denial of service to a specific group that is afforded to the general public. Custom orders (such as those involving the cake in Oregon) are inherently immune to this critique. Simply because a baker is willing to use his business to offer a custom service where he bakes cakes for heterosexual couples does not behold him to do the same for a homosexual couples. These custom services are not symmetrical.

Otherwise, where does that end? There are lots of demands (since we aren't requesting here) that a person could make for a custom order that do not violate any legal spirit, but would be incredibly offensive to me. Ask me to bake a cake that says, "Kill White People!" just because speech is free? Not me. Piss off. Find another baker.

This is a trope of a familiar, failed argument, but more appropriately deployed, here. Personally, I never found the argument that would deny homosexual civil unions by splitting hairs between same-sex vs. heterosexual couples as asymmetrical institutions (i.e. man+man is not the same as man+woman) to be compelling because it entailed a denial-of-services to gay couples on behalf of the state that are matters of secular law (ex. the classic example from the film Philadelphia where he couldn't stay with his partner in the hospital because he wasn't "immediate family"...and that's just the tip of the iceberg).

From a secular point of view, that isn't a compelling argument. The secularists among us see that these people are partners, who love each other, live together, get sick together, share bank accounts or other resources together, pay taxes together, and intertwine their lives in a virtually identical way to heterosexual couples. Thus, at least in the eyes of the State, pertaining to legal rights, they should be afforded equal rights.

But we're no longer talking about the State. We are now talking about private individuals, and private individuals have the right to their religious beliefs in their own private businesses. They are not denying anyone the right to marry. They are not denying them state rights. They aren't even denying them the right to shop in their stores off the shelves, or to custom order those same heterosexual wedding cakes. They are denying a specific service, not a general service. They are denying it (a homosexual wedding cakes) to heterosexuals the same as they are denying it to homosexuals. So I don't see how this violates the Civil Rights Act.

Hell, this isn't even a matter of minority oppression. Gays might be a minority, but people who support gay marriage are not the minority, anymore. So your hypothetical there deviates from reality, and the metaphor lacks weight.

I acknowledge the weight of logic behind the Civil Rights Act, but this isn't that. This is government overreach. This is liberal bullying.

That's a lot of words to be wrong. Of course not baking the cake is discriminating against them. It's not a special service. They make wedding cakes for the general public. Denying a gay couple a cake is discriminating against a person from the general public simply because of their sexual orientation.

There is no such thing as a, "gay wedding cake". It's just a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding.

Your example of the cake with "Kill White People!" on it, is patently absurd. That is offensive language. You can't require a business to do something outside of their normal offerings that is problematic. A wedding cake for a gay wedding doesn't meet the same criteria at all. Just like you couldn't make a baker bake you a cake with "Fuck Jews!" on it. You don't have a right to special treatment if it is something that's not standard. A wedding cake was a standard offering. They were denied a cake for being gay. That's the whole story.

By your logic, Alt-Reicher's should be able to keep Jews out of their cake shops because they don't bake "Jewish" cakes. It's ridiculous.

 

[Madmick]

@Devout Pessimist is the least honest pollster on Sherdog.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen him vote his actual position besides offering support for Trump.

 

[HomerThompson]

@Devout Pessimist is the least honest pollster on Sherdog.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen him vote his actual position besides offering support for Trump.

LOL, I've noticed that too.

 

[Madmick]

That's a lot of words to be wrong. Of course not baking the cake is discriminating against them. It's not a special service. They make wedding cakes for the general public. Denying a gay couple a cake is discriminating against a person from the general public simply because of their sexual orientation.

Custom ordering by its nature is a special, unique service.

There. That's how to be right in very few words.

There is no such thing as a, "gay wedding cake". It's just a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding.

No, that's not true. Icing decorations, supplied figurines, the shaping of the cake itself, and other characteristics of custom cakes (such as wedding cakes are by their very nature when they aren't ordered off the shelf) can distinguish a homosexual wedding cake from a heterosexual wedding cake-- objectively.

If this was about him denying a shelf cake to a gay couple, then the gay couple would be in the right, and they would have a discrimination cake. I'm not wasting more time familiarizing myself with the details of this case because this started with the Oregon bakers, and that showed the true face of liberalism in this argument. I'm debating the liberals where they staked their argument, there.

Your example of the cake with "Kill White People!" on it, is patently absurd. That is offensive language. You can't require a business to do something outside of their normal offerings that is problematic.

Offensive to whom? To me? Certainly. But I'm just one guy. That which offends people (or what they consider "problematic") is subjective, changing from person to person, so you've staked your argument on quicksand.

A wedding cake for a gay wedding doesn't meet the same criteria at all. Just like you couldn't make a baker bake you a cake with "Fuck Jews!" on it. You don't have a right to special treatment if it is something that's not standard. A wedding cake was a standard offering. They were denied a cake for being gay. That's the whole story.

By your logic, Alt-Reicher's should be able to keep Jews out of their cake shops because they don't bake "Jewish" cakes. It's ridiculous.

If he denied a cookie-cutter cake offered to the public to these people simple because they were gay, then they will win the discrimination suit, and rightly so. That doesn't address my argument. My argument already reinforced that view.

Again, I'm speaking to the grander liberal agenda, here. I've not forgotten it, and I don't intend to allow them to nibble away at it with disingenuous goalpost-shifts of focus.