Religious Discrimination by the Republican State of Arizona?

I don't even know where to start with you.

You don't know squat about the constitution.
You don't know squat about public accommodation law.
You don't know the laws the accused was charged with.
You don't know his response to the charge.
You don't know the SCOTUS decision.
You refuse to read ANYTHING related that isn't just some screed promoting some agenda.

Yet, you want to discuss the topic.

Sorry - this discussion is pointless.

 

If you want to know what was charged, then read the charges.

If you want to know public accommodation law, then you can start by reading public accommodation law.

If you want to know the SCOTUS decision, then read it.

etc,.

You have a LONG way to go before you know enough to discuss this topic. You better go get started.

 

If what you're getting at is that the state of Colorado via the double standard ridden, JOKE, Colorado Civil Rights Commission, found him guilty of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then I acknowledge that! If what you're getting at is that SCOTUS ruled in his favour NOT based on religious freedom, but based on the joke Commission's treatment of him, then I acknowledge that! Now, is there anything else that you think I don't understand?

 

It isn't illegal to deny an advertised service at a public accommodation unless the discrimination has a certain basis. I just want to make sure that you knew that. I'm pretty sure that you do.

 

No of course not. I just can't see how it could be proven that an employer fires someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. What evidence do you suppose would be required? I assume that you don't think that if someone fires a gay person, it MUST be because they are gay, even if they announced their gay engagement the day before being fired.

Are you not aware that ALSO in the Bible is the description of marriage as between a man and a woman? Do you not think that THIS is what is on their minds instead, rather than gay sex?

"Orgies of sin?"

Did these business owners say that the wedding and matrimony "is the abomination?"

So in your personal opinion, ceremonies are not symbolic of marriage? They're just pointless?

So then there's no reason why you wouldn't bake a cake or prepare some flowers for a gay hate meeting?

They will still not want to create the cake because it represents something that they disagree with. So yes, it isn't the ceremony ALONE that they have a problem with, but anything which represents gay marriage. What is it that you think their problem actually might be? Any ideas?

 

My response? You mean my probing questions? Notice how I don't just tell you that I disagree with you?

So are you now saying that it is discrimination on the basis of gender, rather than sexual orientation?

I agree that these business owners are not treating gay people EQUALLY, but this is not what these laws forbid. The laws say that they cannot discriminate on a certain basis.

No it would not be okay.

Is this the same as claiming to be fighting for equal treatment?

Again, non-religious business owners might have an Equal Protection Clause case, especially if they claim atheism or agnosticism as their religion.

They need to focus on themselves and win their case so that their livelihoods can stop being destroyed and they can get on with their lives! However, this doesn't mean that they think that only those in their religion should be able to refuse to provide services to gay weddings!

 

then you know it's happening, there has been many cases, just do a google search on Christian pharmacists refused to fill prescription

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Christian+pharmacist+refused+to+fill+prescription

 

there you go defended the discrimination of the same gender couples again - why do you think business should be able to discriminate like this?

 

Because it is THEIR business and they would deserve to go OUT OF business which is what would happen. I would not support a business owner who refused to serve people of a particular class - it would be totally wrong and I would condemn it. Again, this is not what these business owners did.

 

Each case is different and I was wondering if you had a specific one in mind.

 

See above

 

"But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh and the two will become one flesh." Mark 10:6-7

Is that clear enough for you?

If same sex

"Orgies of sin?"

Do you actually think that Christians "feel offended" by gay sex? They're not. These cases are not about what Christian's feel offended by.

AND celebrating the couple and their marriage?

No, government should not compel people to do something which EXPRESSES the something that they disagree with. In the case of the baker, it is an ARTISTIC CREATION which expresses something that they disagree with, which should be protected by the First Amendment.

 

Of all your posts on this topic I like this one best. this is the one that gives me the most to think about. Its the most specific and clear. I promise I will give this one its due, but I need time. 10 -13 hour days, and 6 days a week mean that some study ( of the scripture) and time for a response will need more patience. Do not feel forgotten if tomorrow or the next few days, I have time for some quickies on other topics or this one, ( relaxation therapy) but appear to neglect this one. Its a different mental state. A three course meal takes more time than some snacks and a can and they serve disparate needs. Tired people sometimes snack while awaiting Mom's pot roast, scalloped potatoes and peach pie next Sunday This post is on my radar.

 

I'm sure that you can tell that "if same sex..." was an incomplete sentence. I meant to remove it! Obviously ignore that in your forthcoming response, which I very much look forward to.

 

You've asked and I've answered those same "probing" questions multiple times now. We just disagree on the correct answers to those questions. Nothing here is new.

Yet again, this isn't a simple binary question. There are different aspects of intent, perception and outcome and an obvious overlap between gender and (perceived) sexual orientation in relation to marriage. It doesn’t matter whether you think this should be the case, it is the reality in live and the legal process.

Discrimination means not treating people equally!

Right, and that is the same as serving homosexual customers but not offering them all of the same services as other customers.

That is my perception. It would be very easy for any of the many defendants, lawyers or organisations involved in defending these cases to clarify. It’s obviously politically beneficial for them to talk in terms of equal rights (ironically) and how they’re being discriminated against rather than admitting that they actually want an advantage over and above everyone else.

Only if that is the basis of their objection and they actually consider it their religion, unless you’re actively promoting perjury. Anyone who doesn’t have a religion would not have an equal protection case at all.

Yes, they are perfectly entitled to be selfish bigots but I’m also perfectly entitled to call them out on that.

 

You're totally wrong Joe. If you went back and saw my replies to you, you would see that every single one of them have questions that have been asked for the first time! No question has been repeated, so I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about!

What if one of your parents went in and requested the cake on your behalf and they were refused the request?

I agree that these business owners discriminated, but again, this is not what these laws forbid. The laws say that they cannot discriminate on a certain basis. Discrimination is NOT illegal! If there was a law which said that all customers must be served equally, then I would say that these business owners clearly broke the law and I would have no problem with the law being used against them. They would also have to serve racists by law if the law said that they have to serve all customers equally. Thank God that isn't a law! Perhaps you think that such a law would be a good thing.

It would only be the same if the homosexual customers were not being offered all of the same services as other customers BECAUSE they are homosexuals, just like the women are being paid less BECAUSE they are women.

Okay, but you are trying to say that because they are making the case about themselves, this means that they don't care about non-religious people who might get in trouble in the future.

 

Your post #33 show that our discussion was essentially in exactly the same place we are now; questions about our different perceptions of the motives of the business owners, their desire for special treatment and the ability of non-religious business owners to use the same legal defences. I've made my opinions as clear as I can on those questions, though I recognise the whole mess as being very complex. Nothing has changed from my point of view through the 300-plus posts since.

There might be a technical legal loophole there. The moral principle is obviously no different though, so I don't see any reason to play with these kind of hypotheticals.

Stop with the dishonest word play. Obviously I'm talking about discrimination on those stated bases in this context.

Yes. I believe they were, you don’t. That difference of opinion has been apparent from the outset.

That isn’t an automatic link of course, but it is my general opinion based on my observation of these cases, if not of all the defendants themselves but certainly of the supporters and promoters who always end up surrounding them.

 

So to confirm then, you believe that these business owners do not want to provide a service to a gay wedding, JUST BECAUSE of the sexual orientation of the couple getting married?

 

they deserve to be fined for discrimination so everyone knows what they are... then they can go out of business

 

nope, any of them, same with Muslims taxi drivers refusing to take people home cause they saw beer in their grocery bags

 

Why would they need to be fined in order for people to know what they are?

 

makes it much easier for the whole country to hear the news, why do you want to protect them from being fined for such a act?

if I was getting married and did a search on google where to buy my cake and they came up with that fine tied to them, I would find another place, I would not want the memory of my wedding dirtied by such a business

 

How would a fine make it easier?

Good, that's the way that it should be, but unfortunately certain pieces of human waste would deliberately target such a business to try to get them in trouble. Pieces of human waste such as the trans gender lawyer in Colorado who deliberately targeted baker Jack Philips (after he was victorious in the Supreme Court),
asking him to create a cake which celebrates her gender transition, which he refused. What a filthy, rotten human being.

 

Rudy is one disgusting person.

 

So to confirm then, you believe that these business owners do not want to provide a service to a gay wedding, JUST BECAUSE of the sexual orientation of the couple getting married?