Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

I'd be fine with them making her do it as long as the same would apply to a Muslim florist but you know it wouldnt. Biased and unfair! I've even had a Muslim taxi driver refuse to let me in because I had sealed bottle of wine on me. If you are gonna force this stuff , force it on everyone equally

 

If there are limits to religious ‘expression’ where do you feel the line should be drawn?

 

OR, and stick with me here — we can make laws that treat everyone the same. Want to tell a Muslim we don’t serve your kind here, fine, all you need is a disclosure at your door. Don’t want to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple, also fine — see the sign that shows everyone we dislike.

My point is the public accommodation system is unequal by design. It gives certain groups power over others while limiting it to others. There should be public accommodations for everyone or for no one. And since the dislike of gay people is so strong that we need to upend decades of laws so we can discriminate against them it is only just that we let them (or any other group) be aware that a facility would refuse services to them so they do not waste their time at that establishment.

Deal?

 

Okay, so you have no idea what it means! Otherwise you would be able to say what you think it DOES mean, not what you think it DOESN'T menan.

 

So a gay baker has to bake a cake which has anti-gay messaging on it?

 

And what harm was that?

 

Giftedone for President!!

 

Although, only because you think it was a free speech issue because of the messaging in the cake, right?

 

No, YOU had a point that Jesus was probably gay. I am scrutinising you. Are you able to defend your position?

 

Now you are stating to make sense

 

I did not see the baker case as discrimination.

 

no one knows for sure, you can't prove he was not, we do know he never married and like to hang with the guys, we know he got upset about a guy in the bible not kissing him and rubbing oil on his head as the quote from the bible showed

 

We've got several themes going here as I see it:


1. The legislation prohibiting discrimination is bad (or good) as a matter of policy

2. Whether the legislation is wise policy, it is (or is not) unconstitutional as applied to merchants with religious objections.

3. The religious objection is bogus because the Bible is (or is not?) indifferent to gay marriage.

 

Supreme Court just remanded a case out of Oregon with directions to reevaluate in light of Masterpiece.

I don't know what they expect the lower court to do. Is it okay to force bakers to make custom cakes for gay weddings so long as they don't insult the baker's religion in the process?

 

The bare fact that certain state actors have presumed codify a delusion into some semblance of law is of course not itself a delusion.

Actually, at the federal level in the US, it most certainly is not.

I think of it as not being a slob WRT legal arguments.

What you've presented here is not exactly redolent with compelling logic, and I'm not much inclined to click through; but the bigger problem is, freedom of association implies freedom of dissociation, which is particularly relevant to this thread; and I don't see anything in that quote that addresses that, or in 1A that implies it.

 

Where is Freedom of Association in the Constitution if not in the First Amendment?

 

Are you saying that this should give people the freedom to choose their customers?

 

Why, what does federal law say about marriage?

What's WRT?

Are you saying that the law doesn't give people the freedom to choose their customers?

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3:28&version=KJV

"
Galatians 3:28 King James Version (KJV)
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
"

 

actually he was probably bi-sexual as the he wanted both the male and the female to kiss him and rub oil on his head

 

Sure, but it would be obvious to both you and me that it would be discrimination if he refused to serve gay people AT ALL,
not just limited to same sex wedding cakes. The question is, should this be legal in your opinion?

 

And what do you think that's saying? Go on, make me laugh. I'm laughing already in anticipation of the ridiculousness!

 

Which was what?

 

And should this include struggling businesses having to spend money that they can't afford?

Haven't gay people always sought equal treatment?

Religion "demands" what?

The article says that she did nothing illegal.

If you think that there is discrimination on the basis of things which are not included in these laws, then do you think they should be added?

 

what do you think it means