Wait, so the guy who went all the way to the Supreme Court for his right to discriminate, now wants the state to pay him because he is being discriminated against ? WOW....The irony here is completely lost on many
The world isn't black or white but shades of grey. Do I think this guy is Hitler? Of course not. All I said was he's a dick. My brother is a dick half the time and the people making death threats are worse. They are peices of **** and I hope they're found and prosecuted. Even the gay couple from the first law suit deserve some ridicule. Was it frustrating and humiliating being denied that custom cake? Probably. But he didn't seem rude about it even if it was a dick move so I personally wouldn't of sued but whatever.
Correct. It's a place of business. In this country we are free, involuntary servitude was banned over 100 years ago.
What was incorporated into state constitutions? Colorado was not “slam dunked”, they were told they had to enact public accommodations equally as they were openly hostile to the bakers actions. Had they left out the vitriol and followed similar cases the outcome of the SCOTUS decision would have likely been different... They didn’t even answer the question whether religious freedom (to discriminate) overrules public accommodation.
No I haven’t, I was specifically responding to the first amendment claims. Using the 14th as a guide then religious preferences is no more protected than any of the other items as listed in the 14th.
Thats a question I struggle with, I am in the middle on most issues like this because I value individual liberty but I also do not believe open season for discrimination is something we should be cheering - nor will it be beneficial to society as a whole. So I’m torn. No, I’m saying it is absurd to say person A should not be able to discriminate against person B but person B can then turn around and discriminate against person A. That is the argument that religious groups are arguing.
They didn't need to the Supreme Court decides Constitutional questions. Any restriction on freedom of Religion IS discrimination that's why it's in the Civil Rights Act.
You want to strictly apply the 14th when it comes to Religious freedoms, but bend the rules for affirmative action. That smells like hypocrisy.
Do you think that it's reasonable to call it involuntary servitude? I used to, but think that it's a step too far, because they're not actually being physically coerced to do something that they don't want to do.
I do. I refuse to do any custom work for ANY asshat I don't care to do so for. The reasons do not matter. Free will and association with those I choose to do so with.
We're not talking about that, we're talking about free exercise. Who knows what the hell that's supposed to mean, but clearly the free exercise clause is applicable against the states under the P or I clause of 14A. Pilgrim, you've got me confused with someone else. Hell, I doubt I've ever posted a word about that on PF.
But that's not what the left wants it to be...........that was my point. They want EVERYONE on their plantation. lol
You think that they're proposing to not just make it illegal to refuse, but literally make it so that people can have a gun put to their head while they do what they don't want to do? I know that the left are sometimes pretty extreme, but I really don't think that they're proposing this!
Sorry, I thought that you were saying that the Civil Rights Act means that people can be protected from these state laws.
Interesting. Do you also value individual liberty if someone has a 'no gays allowed policy' in their business? Both in an essential services context and non-essential, because you've said before that you are happy for non-essential services such as a bakery to be exempt from these laws. Well not even the most STAUNCH libertarian would be "CHEERING" minority discrimination unless they are a racist, bigot or a homophobe etc, as only these sort of people would be cheering. Certainly widespread discrimination in public accommodation would be terrible for society. However, thankfully we don't have that. The very few cases of it are obviously bad and should be called out, but I don't think that it is enough to alter society in any way. Any evidence that religious groups are arguing this?
The First Amendment. Are you not aware that it was incorporated into state constitutions between 1940 and 1947? EXACTLY! THUS violating the 1st Amendment! Were you actually not aware that the Supreme Court specifically called them out for violating the 1st Amendment? No likely at all. Here is what was in the findings: Now, how do you suppose a government would be able to go about punishing a religious person for acting religiously, even in a nice and non-vitriolic way? Sure, and that was a complete disgrace, written by the useless and weak minded Justice Kennedy, who apparently has never seen a copy of The Constitution in his hopeless, miserable life! However, what does that have to do with what the Supreme Court had to say about the State of Colorado?
Would you say that he is no less a dick than someone who has a 'no-gays allowed' policy in their business?
No. He's definitely less of a dick than someone who refuses to serve gays all together. He had no problem selling the gay couple cakes and treats, he just didn't want to make a personalized one celebrating their marriage. On a scale of dicks he's on the small end.
