Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526
Results 251 to 258 of 258
Thanks Tree108Thanks

Thread: SC decides on same sex wedding cake

  1. #251
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,498
    Thanks
    3879

    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    The problem with your logic is that there is none.

    I am no just making 'stuff' up, I am using precedent and law and rules and court rulings as my guide.

    Religion is a protected class, but the Supreme Court has ruled that religion is not a pass when it comes to accommodation law.

    Remember back to the clerk that did not want to issue a wedding licence to a SSM couple.

    The court ruled that Davis should have complied with EEOC's accommodation rules and allowed another clerk to complete the transaction.

    If there was a superseding religious right over gay rights paradigm in the law, then it would have protected Ms Davis' actions.

    There is no hierarchy of protected classes...there is a hierarchy of rules and laws
    to protect all from discrimination.

    The court did not give carte blance to religions to discriminate...it chastised the arbiters of discrimination for being too harsh on the offending company.

    The Court never said in its ruling that the cake shop did not discriminate, it only said the baker was judged too harshly.
    You should read the Kennedy summary of the Masterpiece case. Liberals are famous for pointing out that "It's a living Constitution!"

    Well, it looks like the conflict between speech and anti discrimination laws are not yet fully explored. And that living Constitution may have some new chapters.

    Are you interested?

  2. #252
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    30,498
    Thanks
    3879

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    So you are saying local law trump the constitution they is total BS
    Are you saying that the courts have no place in resolving conflicts between legitimate civil rights?

    Do religious rights of expression ALWAYS trump anti-discrimination laws?

  3. #253
    New Member
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    471
    Thanks
    56

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    The problem with your logic is that there is none.

    I am no just making 'stuff' up, I am using precedent and law and rules and court rulings as my guide.
    LOLOLOL

    Religion is a protected class, but the Supreme Court has ruled that religion is not a pass when it comes to accommodation law.
    Most things aren't a "pass" when it comes to posting signs that you simply won't accommodate a group as many here are prone to note with strawman reasoning. If you post a sign saying "No Gays" then you would lose that suit.

    Remember back to the clerk that did not want to issue a wedding licence to a SSM couple.
    Sure and these two things are not even remotely the same. How could you even conflate them in any manner?

    The court ruled that Davis should have complied with EEOC's accommodation rules and allowed another clerk to complete the transaction.

    If there was a superseding religious right over gay rights paradigm in the law, then it would have protected Ms Davis' actions.
    Not at all and that is why the court ruled against her. She didn't just fail to issue licenses. She stopped issuing them to straight couples. She wouldn't allow anyone else in the office to issue them either. She may have thought she was acting under her religion but declare "you also have to stop every other clerk in the office from issuing licenses as well." As I stated earlier your rights shouldn't compel someone else and should end at their body. When she FORCED every other clerk to stop issuing licenses she went beyond her rights and trampled the rights of the couples seeking licenses and also the other clerks.

    There is no hierarchy of protected classes...there is a hierarchy of rules and laws
    to protect all from discrimination.
    Not a hierarchy. A test. At some point these cases will evolve into a test for discrimination. I suspect Masterpiece will be the model for a good chunk of that test. If you post a sign or simply refuse service, in other words no public accommodation, then that is discrimination. If you sell generic goods that every one can buy, that is public accommodation, if you refuse to sell a specific good with a specific speech intent, religious protection or speech protection. It seems to be shaping up pretty well in my opinion.

    The court did not give carte blance to religions to discriminate...it chastised the arbiters of discrimination for being too harsh on the offending company.
    Has anyone here claimed this? Did you enjoy setting up that strawman and knocking it down?

    The Court never said in its ruling that the cake shop did not discriminate, it only said the baker was judged too harshly.
    The animus shown was that the same CCRC had ruled in favor of other bakeries but ruled against them declaring their reasoning didn't court because.... well religion. The CCRC should have applied the rules equally. They didn't.

  4. #254
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,556
    Thanks
    31261

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    As soon as religious people start punishing heterosexual sodomites with equal gusto maybe I'll stop believing they're just feigning offense because they don't like gays.
    Indeed, one of the reasons behind Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), was this very distinction - that the law punished certain acts between members of the same sex, but not between members of the opposite sex, thereby demonstrating an animus against gays. (Justice O'Connor's concurrence would have invalidated the law solely on that basis.)
    Thanks from Blueneck

  5. #255
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,556
    Thanks
    31261

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    Religion is a protected class, but the Supreme Court has ruled that religion is not a pass when it comes to accommodation law.
    Or any other law - see Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). This decision was not touched by the Court in Phillips, and was not relevant. Both cases concerned laws that are facially neutral. Rather, the issue in Phillips was that the law was not neutrally applied. Thus, the law was not unconstitutional and was not struck down, because there is nothing wrong with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    The court did not give carte blance to religions to discriminate...it chastised the arbiters of discrimination for being too harsh on the offending company.

    The Court never said in its ruling that the cake shop did not discriminate, it only said the baker was judged too harshly.
    More accurately, the Court said the Commission expressed an animus toward the baker's religious beliefs, thus tainting its decision.

  6. #256
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,556
    Thanks
    31261

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    You should read the Kennedy summary of the Masterpiece case.
    Or one could just read the entire Opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Well, it looks like the conflict between speech and anti discrimination laws are not yet fully explored.
    Because it was not relevant to the case.

  7. #257
    Veteran Member ptif219's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    67,096
    Thanks
    4357

    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Are you saying that the courts have no place in resolving conflicts between legitimate civil rights?

    Do religious rights of expression ALWAYS trump anti-discrimination laws?
    It is in the first amendment. You can't make a law that forces a religion to go against it's doctrine

  8. #258
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    36,014
    Thanks
    30689

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by trumptman View Post
    LOLOLOL



    Most things aren't a "pass" when it comes to posting signs that you simply won't accommodate a group as many here are prone to note with strawman reasoning. If you post a sign saying "No Gays" then you would lose that suit.



    Sure and these two things are not even remotely the same. How could you even conflate them in any manner?



    Not at all and that is why the court ruled against her. She didn't just fail to issue licenses. She stopped issuing them to straight couples. She wouldn't allow anyone else in the office to issue them either. She may have thought she was acting under her religion but declare "you also have to stop every other clerk in the office from issuing licenses as well." As I stated earlier your rights shouldn't compel someone else and should end at their body. When she FORCED every other clerk to stop issuing licenses she went beyond her rights and trampled the rights of the couples seeking licenses and also the other clerks.



    Not a hierarchy. A test. At some point these cases will evolve into a test for discrimination. I suspect Masterpiece will be the model for a good chunk of that test. If you post a sign or simply refuse service, in other words no public accommodation, then that is discrimination. If you sell generic goods that every one can buy, that is public accommodation, if you refuse to sell a specific good with a specific speech intent, religious protection or speech protection. It seems to be shaping up pretty well in my opinion.



    Has anyone here claimed this? Did you enjoy setting up that strawman and knocking it down?



    The animus shown was that the same CCRC had ruled in favor of other bakeries but ruled against them declaring their reasoning didn't court because.... well religion. The CCRC should have applied the rules equally. They didn't.
    First of all ...and above all else were are not in a formal debate. so the rules of debate do not apply.

    You've given your opinion of my contentions. I can not disprove your opinion. You are welcome to it.

    DD
    Religion is a protected class, but the Supreme Court has ruled that religion is not a pass when it comes to accommodation law.
    You
    Most things aren't a "pass" when it comes to posting signs that you simply won't accommodate a group as many here are prone to note with strawman reasoning. If you post a sign saying "No Gays" then you would lose that suit.
    What does 'posting signs' have to do with the case or with religion not getting a pass on accommodation laws?

    Im going to stop here because it will be evident to all that you did not really understand my post or examples.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526

Similar Threads

  1. Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about wedding cake
    By DemoWhip in forum Current Events
    Replies: 753
    Last Post: 7th June 2018, 06:23 AM
  2. Now THAT is a wedding cake...
    By The Man in forum World Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 23rd August 2017, 05:20 AM
  3. Gay Wedding Cake Case Heads To Supreme Court
    By aboutenough in forum Current Events
    Replies: 320
    Last Post: 6th August 2016, 07:14 AM
  4. KKK Wedding Cake
    By aboutenough in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 327
    Last Post: 8th April 2015, 07:09 PM
  5. 13 Pro-Gay Bakers Refuse Christian Wedding Cake Order
    By aboutenough in forum Current Events
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 30th December 2014, 03:41 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed