TradeTheBeal! Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Counting down to the next business owner who chooses to discriminate based on their religious liberty..... Im gonna knock an extra $666 off any used Mazda for Church of Satan members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Counting down to the next business owner who chooses to discriminate based on their religious liberty..... I think you are overreacting a bit. The SC didn’t really sanction religious based discrimination as much as it told the Colorado Civil Rights Commision to take a hike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Which gets back to my original question (as captured here by another tweeter named Jeremy). And where does hate speech (I know it's protected as long as it's not slanderous or inciting) disengage one from that requirement (I know that it didn't fall into hate speech but to me it was dang close to it)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 10 minutes ago, No Excuses said: I think you are overreacting a bit. The SC didn’t really sanction religious based discrimination as much as it told the Colorado Civil Rights Commision to take a hike. LoL because telling the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to take a hike always sends a clear signal that SCOTUS is opposing discrimination. 3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: Which gets back to my original question (as captured here by another tweeter named Jeremy). Yup, unless the Masterpiece cake shop is ONLY mass producing identical cales then they are in the business of custom cakes. They refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. They chose to discriminate based on their religion. For the record it wasn’t long ago that religious bigots refused service to inter-racial couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 That's a bit hyperbolic. The Court ruled 7-2 that the Colorado Commission violated the bakers religious rights. They didnt rule on the bigger issue, and really didnt rule on the Commissions ability to rule against bakers (as an example) in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 11 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Yup, unless the Masterpiece cake shop is ONLY mass producing identical cales then they are in the business of custom cakes. They refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple. They chose to discriminate based on their religion. For the record it wasn’t long ago that religious bigots refused service to inter-racial couples. The problem being when someone comes in and asks for the anti-gay cake....do you have to make that provided that it's not inciting or slanderous? Sadly, it seems yes if you want to remain consistent. I have a hard time with that (making people customize hateful messages). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 1 minute ago, The Evil Genius said: The problem being when someone comes in and asks for the anti-gay cake....do you have to make that provided that it's not inciting or slanderous? Sadly, it seems yes if you want to remain consistent. I have a hard time with that. That was a key point. In fact, the Commission had ruled IN FAVOR of bakers refusing to make anti gay cakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: The problem being when someone comes in and asks for the anti-gay cake....do you have to make that provided that it's not inciting or slanderous? Sadly, it seems yes if you want to remain consistent. I have a hard time with that. Was the wedding cake decorated with BDSM and dildos? Or was ot a traditional wedding cake for a gay couple? What would be an anti-gay cake? I assume that an anti-gay cake would have to have some sort of specific messaging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 On the pardon issue, this is my take- Accepting a pardon includes accepting an admission of guilt for a crime. If Trump attempts to pardon himself that would be an impeachable offense as the President would have just confessed to a high crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 If the courts allow POTUS to pardon himself then we are officially over as a nation of law and order with checks and balances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Was the wedding cake decorated with BDSM and dildos? Or was ot a traditional wedding cake for a gay couple? What would be an anti-gay cake? I assume that an anti-gay cake would have to have some sort of specific messaging? I think it was explained a page or two back by no excuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haithman Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Thread title needs to be updated from 9 months to 500 days...the rest is still accurate though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Well, it's good to see the Golden Rule being exercised as well as it is. i mean, that is if you WANT someone to say **** YOU YOU ****ING ASSHOLE. Just be nice. How ****ing hard is that? ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 41 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Counting down to the next business owner who chooses to discriminate based on their religious liberty..... this was probably covered and i havent kept up with the thread, but curious how this is seen- https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/seattle-coffee-shop-anti-choice-activists_us_59dbd39de4b0b34afa5b77d9 Quote "The openly gay co-owner of a Seattle coffee shop is feeling the heat after a video of him asking a group of anti-abortion activists to leave his establishment surfaced last week. Ben Borgman, who co-owns Bedlam Coffee in Seattle’s Belltown neighborhood, got into an argument with members of Abolish Human Abortion when he asked the group to take their business elsewhere. A video of the altercation was posted to Abolish Human Abortion’s Facebook page with the caption, “Angry homosexual kicks Christian customers out of coffee shop.” does he have to serve the pro life activists? or are his actions seen as being in response to their actions or beliefs, or does that even matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 He should have served them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 10 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: He should have served them. i agree that he 'should' have (maybe) but should he be compelled to by law? i'm very pro gay marriage, yet i think i have to believe that the guy shouldnt be compelled to make the cake, probably mostly for the sake of moral consistency, more or less what i think NE was saying. what about a muslim bakery refusing service to a gay couple (filmed by one particular conservative youtuber that you can find if you want to see it)? do we feel differently because the religion is different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Why am I Mr. Pink? Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/scotus-cake-ruling06042018.pdf?mod=article_inline&mod=article_inline ^^ copy of SC opinion. Seems this decision was narrowly tailored to the specific facts of this case -- that the Colorado Commission had to be neutral and respectful of the baker's religious argument. The Court found that some members did not apply that standard when some of the commission endorsed a view that religious arguments can never be used in public/commercial domain, characterized the baker's faith as despicable and rhetorical and compared his argument made for slavery and the holocaust. The second reason being that this same Commission treated other bakers conscious objections to making vulgar cakes as genuine while treating his as not genuine. In a case where a baker refused to make a custom religious theme cake, the Commission noted that baker offered the customer other type of cakes. (was this a real case or hypothetical?) In this case, the Commission never mentioned or considered that. “I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.” Tr. 11–12. ^^ This seems to be the biggest "proof" of the commission not treating the baker's religious claim as neutral. My own thoughts as an atty who files maybe 2-3 appeals a year - there is a far easier and lower standard of proof on appeal to show that a lower court misapplied the law/standard of review or used the wrong law/standard of review vs showing the lower court got the ruling wrong. Review and appellate courts give great deference to lower courts decision as to facts, credibility etc. Only appeals I have ever won were where the trial court used the wrong standard of law. Factual decisions almost never get reversed. But also, you need a favorable transcript for your side. it sounds like some of these commissioners' got loose lips and couldnt help but speak from their own personal view points and opinions and not focusing on the facts and standard of law for that particular case. If the commission didnt get on his or her soap box and feel the need to compare the baker's argument to slavery or the holocaust, the SC would have had a harder time showing that the Commission misapplied the standard of law - conscientious objection/view point arguments must be viewed as neutral. Commissioners need to leave their own personal views and opinions at the door and only rule on the facts and record presented to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 What were the activists doing that prompted the shop owner to kick them out? If they were protesting in his shop then yup...gone. If not, then sell them the damn coffee. And if you’re asked to make a wedding cake for Mel & Pat rather than your customary Leslie and Kelly thrn just make the damn cake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 17 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: He should have served them. I disagree. Pro Life beliefs is not a protected class. Businesses do not have to serve everyone, they just cant deny service to anyone they choose for any reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 7 minutes ago, grego said: i agree that he 'should' have (maybe) but should he be compelled to by law? i'm very pro gay marriage, yet i think i have to believe that the guy shouldnt be compelled to make the cake, probably mostly for the sake of moral consistency, more or less what i think NE was saying. what about a muslim bakery refusing service to a gay couple (filmed by one particular conservative youtuber that you can find if you want to see it)? do we feel differently because the religion is different? To me (and only me), religion should never play into it. If you carry an item (or provide a service) then you should sell/provide that item/service to everyone and anyone. Provided, that item/service isn't protected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 36 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: If the courts allow POTUS to pardon himself then we are officially over as a nation of law and order with checks and balances. Pfffft, that's when the fun begins.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said: To me (and only me), religion should never play into it. If you carry an item (or provide a service) then you should sell/provide that service to everyone and anyone. Provided, that item/service isn't protected. I know this is a rabbit hole we've been down before, but if a Christian Bookstore offers book ordering services, are they obligated to order any book a customer asks them to order? Porn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.