Can you be liberal and Christian at the same time?

You appear clueless about the issues here. There certainly are limits that pertain. For example, words on a cake become a separate issue according to the courts. But, this is a total distraction.

The point is that these cake cases are a wedge issue oriented to creating a "religious" exemption from all public accommodation law. For example, if I don't have to bake you a cake, why should I be required to provide you and your same sex partner with a bed? What if I have "strong religious beliefs" concerning mixed race couples?

Plus, this transcends religion. After all, the courts have no way to question my "religion".

One might also notice that employment law would surely be affected as well. After all, if a firm can exclude customers on the basis of some "religious belief", why would it be required that the firm not fire people on the same basis?

 

None of that has anything to do with what I was saying to the member, but has to do with our ongoing conversation. I can't understand why you are confusing the two things. I told the member that you would disagree with him that gay bakers should be forced to bake cakes for anti gay hate groups. And I am correct about that right?

 

You are merely attempting to deflect to an issue that I pointed out has its own complexities. The law today does provide for limits in what a public accommodation is required to do. I even mentioned a specific area.

The point of my statements (here and everywhere I've discussed this) has addressed the central issue - which is that we're seeing an attempt to defeat the civil rights provisions in public accommodation law by promoting the idea of a religious exemption.

 

Yes, and do you think that they should be extended so that even a gay baker should be forced to serve members of an anti gay hate group? Gee, I really can't believe it has been this difficult to get a pro gay answer out of you! Even I'm sounding more pro gay than you right now!

 

Car buyer: I would like to purchase this car.
Auto dealer: Sorry, we don't sell to persons who wear a shoe size 9 or more.

 

Yeah, there is no law to prevent that, unless you can state one, which you have to this point been utterly incapable of.

 

Well that's quite unbelievable. I was actually thinking of pharmacies as a possible example where nobody can be discriminated against, even on the grounds of someone being a racist! I certainly wasn't thinking of it as an exemption to public accommodation law! That is just unbelievable. If the provision of medication in order to remain healthy or alive isn't a public accommodation, then I don't know what is. It seems a little bit more of an essential service than baked goods, but yet bakeries are covered. Not to mention, that the government regulation that is involved in pharmaceuticals, essentially makes it a government service which they are just putting in privately operated hands.

You also mention nursing. So people can be denied nursing attention in hospitals? Surely not.

I'm totally confused by this inconsistent nonsense. Is this only in certain states?

Do you mean when you said that "there is a strong movement to expand religious exemptions so that shop owners may discriminate against MORE individuals?" I asked you if you meant a strong move by government and you didn't respond in your reply. Regardless, what are the cases that you refer to?

In your same reply, you also didn't explain how "LGBTQ is only partially covered", after I asked you "what remains?" I took it to mean that certain members of the LGBTQ community are not protected in the current public accommodation laws. I wonder if you can clarify in your next reply.

What do you mean by "specific instances?"

 

Sorry, when did you previously ask me to answer the OP question?

 

And you really believe that if that happened our legal system would support the dealership if the prospective customer took it to court?

 

I never said I did, but I'm asking it now.

 

I thought that this is where you would go with it and it is a fair point, although, given that there is no relevant legislation written into law, wouldn't it only be able to be challenged on discretionary Constitutional grounds at the Supreme Court? Or at least a State Supreme Court?

 

No.

If my avatar didn't make it clear, yes.

 

I'm quite certain the dealership would lose, at any level of court, and doubtful the Supreme Court would even bother to hear a challenge to lower court rulings.

 

Can even the lowest court make a non-legislative judgement? Would any court even hear a case that isn't covered by legislation?

 

So that satisfies my curiosity, you don't NEED to be liberal to be a Christian, but I assume it may still remain possible to be both.

I don't put much faith in the avatar used by some members, "Mr_Truth" for example.

 

I believe they can and would.

 

I'm liberal, I'm so free to worship GOD,

 

You aren't proposing a scenario that can be analyzed. And, there ARE conditions under which such a baker would be required to bake the cake for such a customer and there ARE conditions under which the baker would NOT be required to bake the cake.

I've already pointed that out. The thing is, a cake DOES approach a "speech" issue. But, there are edges to that.

If you are interested in a good discussion of the issue I would suggest that you find and read the SCOTUS oral argument for the Colorado baker case.

The fact that remains is that removing restrictions on discrimination by providing a religious exemption is an assault on civil rights in general. And, that is exactly what these cake cases are attempting to do.

 

The issue in these cases is whether an individual employed by the hospital or the pharmacy can refuse to provide service when it is not immediately life threatening and it is perceived by the employee that it would be against their religious conviction.

There are politicians who back such moves. There are also religious organizations that are active in this field.

For a case of government involvement, look up Arizona SB 1062 - a religious exemption law that passed the legislature. It would be law had it not been vetoed by the governor.

Please remember that sexual orientation is only in state public accommodation law, and about half the states don't include it.

Here's a table of the states:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspx

 

Our courts are faced by weird claims designed to avoid civil rights law (like only African Americans are denied service on the basis of shoe size). And, public accommodations are motivated to sell their product.

If some other form of discrimination arises (or gets more attention, such as same sex marriage did), I'm sure it will get addressed.

 

Okay, and thank you, the OP question has been put to rest.
You CAN be liberal AND Christian at the same time, but it's not mandatory.

 

Shoe size?

 

Shoe size was mentioned earlier somewhere or other.

The idea was that a shop refuses to serve a customer because of shoe size. But, they were just trying to avoid the public accommodation law against discriminating on the basis of some other characteristic of that individual.

 

Well if the shoe size thing isn't real, then do you have any actual example of courts being "faced by weird claims designed to avoid civil rights law?"

 

Sure, but I don't understand why the more essential service is the one with the exemption, meanwhile, an individual employed by a bakery CANNOT refuse to provide service in many cases, even when such service is perceived by the employee as going against their religious conviction. Is this exemption only in certain states? I'd be surprised if it applied to California for example.

Is this restricted to when it comes to Public Accommodation for LGBTQ people?

Yeah I understand that. I took it to mean that certain members of the LGBTQ community are not protected in the current public accommodation laws in states that have these laws. Can you clarify?

What do you mean by "specific instances?"