Religious Discrimination by the Republican State of Arizona?

Do you think this will go to the USSC and that they will decide that religion trumps all public accommodation law?

 

So then your solution is to deny certain businesses from being able to reject certain customers, but allow other businesses to reject certain customers? That doesn't sound like equal treatment to me.

 

WHO?

 

They disagree with a lot more than just me.

They disagree with there existing public accommodation law.

These laws were put in place for a strong reason. Just deciding that hate for some group is sufficient to invalidate the laws is no more than childish.

 

Has the federal government said this?

 

You would say that a black song writer/jingle writer should have to write a song promoting white supremacy if they had a storefront? Surely you can't be serious!

In what case?

 

@WillReadmore, it's quite telling that you're unable to respond to this despite being asked twice. It seems clear that you know how stupid it was to say that there are two sexual perverts on the SC!

 

Can you cite a source?

Yes, to prevent discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

If they opened a public accommodation with that as the product for sale, then that is what the individual signed up for.

If that same person solicits his product/service to prospects he identifies, that is entirely different. That's not a public accommodation.

For one case, let's say the vendor is a known artist whose work is recognized.

Let's say Salvador Dali creates a wedding cake.

Any attribution of speech would surely accrue to Salvador Dali, not the couple being married. It would be viewed as a tribute by the artist.

In other cases, the cake, the invitations, the food, the punch, the attire, the flower arrangements, may ALL be created by people who could call themselves artists.

However, one would have to assume that these products represented the desires and design choices of ... the couple being married.

The USSC discussed this to some depth in the wedding cake case that reached the USSC. You can find the transcripts online.


In the invitation case, there is no indication that the objection had anything to do with public speech by the invitation printers. Their only complaint was that they themselves found the job distasteful - NOT that it was their speech. It's quite reasonable to require that to be speech, one would have to know who the heck is speaking. And, the printers were NOT speaking - the words were those of the couple being married. There was no connection back to the printer.

I know, I know - Arizona doesn't agree. They think that the US congress got it wrong when they created public accommodation law as a way of slowing down racism, sexism, religionism, and allowing all citizens to have equal access to public accommodations, as they are how our capitalist system distributes goods and services.

Let's use some logic here.

 

?? Seriously, I thought everybody knows who the sexual perverts are on our USSC.

They are Clarence "Long Dong Silver" Thomas and Kavanaugh.

 

Federal public accommodation law and federal employment law cover the same groups.

Sexual orientation is NOT one of those groups, like religion, sex, etc. are.

Come on! You don't even know your own talking points!

 

So just a mere accusation makes someone a "sexual pervert?" Are YOU a sexual pervert just because I accuse you of sexual harassment?

 

I think it could eventually go to the SC, but I don't expect that they will decide that religion trumps all public accommodation law. The last case that the SC ruled in favour of the defendant was Materpiece Cakeshop v Colorado, where they didn't rule on the grounds of religious freedom, but rather that Jack was treated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in a way which violated his First Amendment Rights. You act as if the SC has ruled before in favour of a defendant who kicks people out of their establishment on the basis of race or sexual orientation. The SC could decide that businesses that provide wedding services can refuse service to gay weddings.

 

A business choosing not to sell to someone doesn't prevent them from having access to those goods and services from other sellers. You do not have the constitutional right to force a business owner to provide you with goods and services. If a situation arises where a store has a monopoly, and it's unreasonable to assume that a couple can buy from another vender, that's one thing, but you simply want to punish anyone who doesn't agree with you. Business transactions are a two lane road. A vender has the right to refuse service, just as a customer has the right to refuse to give their business to a vender.

And let's be honest, you do not apply the same logic to other constitutional trights. You wouldn't for example, say that a store HAS to sell guns because the second amendment says that people have the right to buy them. You apply it only to rights that you personaly agree with. This isn't about the constitution it's about you forcing others to agree with you. And that is called fascism.

 

Such a constitutional right is not necessary. Federal and state law enables this, as we see in so many cases. Well, it's not really "force", but certainly "compel." I should add, that while Federal law enables this via the Public Accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act, businesses don't find themselves in opposition to it because no business refuses to serve people on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Business don't even find themselves in opposition to state law, in which 'sexual orientation' is added to that list, because the businesses that get caught up in these kind of cases are not discriminating on the basis of the sexual orientation of the person, but rather the event that a product is to be used for or the customised product that is being requested, or both.

What sort of product could be monopolised by a store?

 

In small communities, where choice of stores are limited, there might be only one baker skilled in making wedding cakes, for example. In such as case that baker has a monopoly on that service.

 

And you would say that such a baker should be compelled to serve all customers?

 

Yes, someone who offers services to the general public, and who has a monopoly on those goods and services, should not be allowed to refuse service without legitimate cause. And I don't consider not likeing gays to be legitmate cause.

And don't give me the BS about it being about their "religion". These same people who refuse to service gay couples are more than happy to served divorcees who are remarrying, despite the bible prohibiting such marriages. They don't give a rat's ass what the bible says. They just hate gays.

 

Define "legitimate." Should a black baker be allowed to refuse service to a member of the KKK?

How do you know that they are more than happy to serve divorcees who are remarrying?

Then why are they more than happy to serve them?

 

The Colorado baker whose case went to the supreme court, has more than a few past customers who say that he was made aware that they had previously been divorced prior to making cakes for their wedding. He did refuse to make a cake celebrating one customers' divorce, but he never once refused to make a wedding cake for a straight couple, even when he was told that one or both of them had previously been married and had divorced.

The bible clearly states that it's a sin to remarry following a divorce. So this proves that he doesn't really care about what the bible says. He simply doesn't want to serve gays. And he has refused to serve gays couples in more than just wedding cakes. He refused to sell a couple bread for a dinner party they were havng because they were gay. He simply hates gays and refuses to sell to them period.

 

Define "legitimate." Should a black baker be allowed to refuse service to a member of the KKK?

Then why are they more than happy to serve them? You don't seem capable of responding to more than one section in a reply. So let's see how you go this time. I will respond to your last reply in the relevant thread.

 

I highly doubt a member of the KKK would buy from a black baker, and if they did it would most likely be a sham order meant as an affront to the baker. This happens a lot. A Jewish baker a few years ago made news by refusing a Neo-Nazi's order because it was a cake celebrating the Holocaust.

And they were happy to serve divorcees because they don't care that the bible says remarrying after a divorce is a sin. This shows that so called "Christian" bakers don't really follow their religion when it comes to their business. They simply use their religion as an excuse when they want to refuse serving people they don't like.

 

Nice dodge! Are you able to answer the question? Should a black baker who has a monopoly be allowed to refuse service to a member of the KKK? Also, haven't you also heard of religious businesses being deliberately targeted with sham orders as an affront?

Are you saying that he hasn't served ANY gay people before? If he actually hated gay people, then why would he serve ANY of them?

 

The same groups as what?

This reply doesn't make sense. You said, "they disagree with there existing public accommodation law." And I asked if you can cite a source.

What's your point?

What are you referring to? What did I say to make you say this?

 

Is every storefront defined as a "public accommodation?" Even a song writer? I'm not even sure that the girls in this case had a storefront.

You've misunderstood. You said, "the SC has ruled that there are limits concerning what the song writer would be required to put into the song." And I'm asking, WHAT SC case?

You're arguing against something that wasn't even argued! It wasn't argued that it was speech! It was argued that it was a restriction of religious freedom!