Members banned from this thread: Michael J, bmanmcfly and Idiocracat


Page 1 of 33 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 329
Thanks Tree126Thanks

Thread: The Fatal Flaw in the Bakers’ Free Speech Argument

  1. #1
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58,930
    Thanks
    28867

    From
    Vulcan

    The Fatal Flaw in the Bakers’ Free Speech Argument

    The Masterpiece Cakeshop Oral Argument and the Fatal Flaw in the Bakers’ Free Speech Argument
    7 DEC 2017 MARCI A. HAMILTON



    The above article is a brief legal analysis of why Masterpiece Cakeshop's free speech argument for discriminating against a gay couple makes no sense, and the danger of allowing it to succeed.

    (Ms. Hamilton is an expert in religious freedom issues, with respect to both religion clauses of the 1st Amendment.)
    Thanks from Babba, Blues63, skunk and 2 others

  2. #2
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,168
    Thanks
    48260

    From
    So. Md.
    Excellent explanation!

  3. #3
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    19,013
    Thanks
    2981

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    I think the precedent created is more interesting... that no longer are companies private entities that can determine who they want to do business with..

    Just need to frame it as a discrimination argument and you can win 100s of thousands of dollars.

  4. #4
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    40,260
    Thanks
    42204

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    I think the precedent created is more interesting... that no longer are companies private entities that can determine who they want to do business with..

    Just need to frame it as a discrimination argument and you can win 100s of thousands of dollars.
    That argument left the building in 1964 with Jim Crow....

  5. #5
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    54,295
    Thanks
    2921

    From
    Washington state
    One way to solve this whole issue is for government to get out of the marrige business altogether and let the churches do it, where it started in the first place. Government has no obligation to marry people, so stop it. Courts are now in the business of trying to settle issues about who has to provide services for a wedding even though they are opposed to it. Simple, stop marriages, let the church do it. The courts are deciding who gets rights and who doesn't, so its a conflict of the first amendment. When the Supreme Court made the Gay marriage ruling in 2015 they basically prevented free exercise of religion (first amendment) for some people in the business of servicing weddings. Now they are in a position to choose who gets rights and who doesn't. They created quite a mess for themselves unless they rule for what religious people lost 3 years ago, which is free exercise.

  6. #6
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    19,013
    Thanks
    2981

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    One way to solve this whole issue is for government to get out of the marrige business altogether and let the churches do it, where it started in the first place. Government has no obligation to marry people, so stop it. Courts are now in the business of trying to settle issues about who has to provide services for a wedding even though they are opposed to it. Simple, stop marriages, let the church do it. The courts are deciding who gets rights and who doesn't, so its a conflict of the first amendment. When the Supreme Court made the Gay marriage ruling in 2015 they basically prevented free exercise of religion (first amendment) for some people in the business of servicing weddings. Now they are in a position to choose who gets rights and who doesn't. They created quite a mess for themselves unless they rule for what religious people lost 3 years ago, which is free exercise.
    I agree... don't compell the church, compell the court to recognize the marriage document.

    My wife and I had considered a court wedding with a bbq with family... but that plan changed. The church we went through had certain requirements of us, they wanted to be sure that we shared compatible values to the church and everything.

    You can have it both ways; allow people to get married and allow churches to maintain their beliefs.

  7. #7
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58,930
    Thanks
    28867

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    One way to solve this whole issue is for government to get out of the marrige business altogether and let the churches do it, where it started in the first place.
    That makes no sense. Churches had their own law independent of, and superior to, the civil authority. This is unconstitutional in the United States.

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Government has no obligation to marry people, so stop it.
    The civil government is the proper repository of the law, not religious organizations.

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    The courts are deciding who gets rights and who doesn't.
    No, they are not. A thing is not a "right" just because you say it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    When the Supreme Court made the Gay marriage ruling in 2015 they basically prevented free exercise of religion....
    No, it did not. You are making that up entirely. It is not a denial of your free exercise of religion to allow gays to get married.



    And finally, of course, your post has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, which is about the baker's free speech argument, not religious freedom.
    Thanks from Puzzling Evidence

  8. #8
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58,930
    Thanks
    28867

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    I agree... don't compell the church, compell the court to recognize the marriage document.
    The church is not compelled to do anything. And courts cannot be required to recognize the legality of a marriage document that does not conform to civil law. Religion has no legal authority in the United States as a matter of constitutional law.
    Thanks from jacobfitcher

  9. #9
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,168
    Thanks
    48260

    From
    So. Md.
    Marriage is a freaking legal contract. Why would we turn it all over to religion. That's just stupid.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    13,035
    Thanks
    5083

    From
    China
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The civil government is the proper repository of the law, not religious organizations.
    As a Dominionist, he believes Christians are a master race that have a moral imperative to persecute non-Christians by dictating laws and rights to everyone.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

Page 1 of 33 12311 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 23rd October 2016, 02:02 PM
  2. Free Speech
    By MaryAnne in forum Current Events
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 30th November 2015, 04:28 PM
  3. How Free Is Free Speech in America?
    By PGreen in forum Opinion Polls
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 14th January 2015, 08:04 AM
  4. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2nd December 2014, 08:16 PM
  5. Free speech is not speech free of consequences
    By Cicero in forum Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 22nd December 2013, 04:55 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed