The Christian Persecution Catalog

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
78,572
48,609
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
What did you imagine the court said?
I need imagine nothing. No variation of the word "persecute" appeared in the Court's opinion. Nor does the syllabus suggest "persecution."

What did YOU imagine the Court said?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Jan 2007
7,806
523
Irrelevant
I need imagine nothing. No variation of the word "persecute" appeared in the Court's opinion. Nor does the syllabus suggest "persecution."

What did YOU imagine the Court said?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162

The verdict said the commission had shown "clear hostility" and implied religious beliefs "are less than fully welcome in Colorado's business community".

per·se·cu·tion
ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.
"her family fled religious persecution"
synonyms: oppression, victimization, maltreatment, ill-treatment, mistreatment, abuse, ill-usage, discrimination, tyranny; More
persistent annoyance or harassment.
"his persecution at the hands of other students"

I ask again, what did you imagine your scotus said?
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
78,572
48,609
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
I ask again, what did you imagine your scotus said?
It was not "persecution." The baker did not get into his position because the government came after him. He violated a law that had nothing to do with religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jan 2007
7,806
523
Irrelevant
It was not "persecution."
What exactly are you whining against -- that the high court said 'clear hostility' or the dictionary meaning of persecution, hmmm?

The baker did not get into his position because the government came after him.
The ccrc did come after him for exercising his conscience in the conduct of his trade. Do you not think an individual's conscience should govern the conduct of his trade, hmmm?

He violated a law that had nothing to do with religion.
He violated no law, as far as the scotus is concerned.

So, what did you imagine the scotus said?
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
78,572
48,609
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
What exactly are you whining against...
I am not the one whining here.

The ccrc did come after him for exercising his conscience in the conduct of his trade.
It did not go after him. An individual filed a complaint.

He violated no law, as far as the scotus is concerned.
That is not what SCOTUS said. No law was struck down. The syllabus states that "Phillips ... was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. ... That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection." SCOTUS did not say that Phillips did not violate the law, but rather than the CCRC's hostility tainted the neutrality it was supposed to exhibit. In other words, the CCRC did not apply the law correctly. The law remains in place, and neither its constitutionality nor its propriety was ruled upon. In fact, at the end of the majority opinion, it stated:

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16–111, slip op. (U.S.S.C. June 4, 2018)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Jan 2007
7,806
523
Irrelevant
I am not the one whining here.
Since what you are saying is contrary to any facts, I think you are.

It did not go after him.
Of course the ccrc went after him. It acted with hostility towards phillips sincere religious objection. It's all there in the scotus ruling.

An individual filed a complaint.
If you are unwilling to admit to the intent of the gay couple in filing the complaint, then they are grossly ignorant of how a free market works.

Or do you think being gay allows for special treatment in a free market?

That is not what SCOTUS said. No law was struck down. The syllabus states that "Phillips ... was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. ... That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection." SCOTUS did not say that Phillips did not violate the law, but rather than the CCRC's hostility tainted the neutrality it was supposed to exhibit. In other words, the CCRC did not apply the law correctly. The law remains in place, and neither its constitutionality nor its propriety was ruled upon. In fact, at the end of the majority opinion, it stated:
What part of impermissible hostility do you not understand, hmmmm?

If the ccrc did not act with 'hostility' towards phillips, it would not have ruled against him. In fact, the ccrc's hostility towards phillips is evidenced from the erroneous ruling itself.

And the scotus corrected the mistake.

What you think the scotus did not say and what that means is mere speculation not supported by facts.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16–111, slip op. (U.S.S.C. June 4, 2018)
A person's labor and the work products thereof is that person's property. Gays do not have a right to a person's property. If people had rights over other people's property, it would not be a free market. And that is what you are suggesting here.

Could a christian physician refuse to perform an abortion on-demand?

Could a jewish lawyer refuse to defend an islamic terrorist accused of murdering innocent jews?

If the law doesn't allow such refusal, then the law is condoning forced servitude. The 'indignity' of the client here is far outweighed by the fact that you are forcing a person to do something against his will.