The Christian Persecution Catalog

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,276
40,378
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Since what you are saying is contrary to any facts, I think you are.
You are wrong - and a liar.

Of course the ccrc went after him.
It did not seek him out. Someone filed a complaint because he violated the state's antidiscrimination law.

If you are unwilling to admit to the intent of the gay couple in filing the complaint...
The couple's "intent" is irrelevant, since they did not break any law.

Or do you think being gay allows for special treatment in a free market?
Being gay requires the same treatment as anyone else. No special treatment is involved here, except for someone who wants immunity from the law on account of his religious beliefs. If is the religious person who wants special treatment.

What part of impermissible hostility do you not understand, hmmmm?
I understand all of it. As my quote shows, you are misrepresenting what the Court said.

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.
Wrong. The CCRC could easily have upheld the law and ruled against Phillips without showing any hostility.

What you think the scotus did not say and what that means is mere speculation not supported by facts.
Wrong. I am showing what the Court said. You are making up something and claiming the Court said it, when it did not.

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.
I suggested nothing. I quoted the Supreme Court. Your opposition to antidiscrimination laws is what is irrelevant.

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?
Antidiscrimination laws apply to places of public accommodation. Doctors and lawyers do not qualify by statutory definition. And your opposition to antidiscrimination laws - in places of public accommodations or anywhere else - has nothing to do with what the Supreme Court ruled.
 
Likes: 2 people
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
You are wrong - and a liar.
No. You are the liar and I have demonstrated this fact time and again. Would you like me to remind you?

It did not seek him out.
Irrelevant. The ccrc acted with 'clear hostility' towards the baker's religion. That is the definition of persecution -- or would you have me post the definition of persecution one more time?

Someone filed a complaint because he violated the state's antidiscrimination law.
The baker did not seek out the gay couple. And he did not violate the state's anti-discrimination law -- according to the scotus.

What you think the scotus meant with what the scotus did not say is pure speculation on your part -- not fact.

The couple's "intent" is irrelevant, since they did not break any law.
Neither did the baker -- according to the scotus. As far as persecution is concerned, though, the intent of the gay couple is relevant because it would demonstrate persecution. The nazi's weren't breaking their laws when they persecuted the jews and yet, we agree that they, indeed, persecuted the jews. Isn' that so?

Being gay requires the same treatment as anyone else.
What exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean that no one is ever refused a wedding cake by any baker?

No special treatment is involved here, except for someone who wants immunity from the law on account of his religious beliefs. If is the religious person who wants special treatment.
You want to appropriate something that doesn't belong to you -- an individual's labor, skill and expertise. You can't. No amount of your merry-go-round argument would change that.

I understand all of it.
No, you don't understand. You are merely speculating about what the scotus meant about something they did not say.

As my quote shows, you are misrepresenting what the Court said.
No. You are the one misrepresenting facts since you are the one speculating about something that wasn't said.

Wrong. The CCRC could easily have upheld the law and ruled against Phillips without showing any hostility.
You are wrong. It is the ccrc's ruling itself against the baker that proved hostility.

Wrong. I am showing what the Court said. You are making up something and claiming the Court said it, when it did not.
Nonsense. The court said the ccrc acted with clear hostility against the baker's religious belief. That is what persecution means and that is what I am claiming.

You are the one claiming all sorts of things from something the court did not say.

I suggested nothing. I quoted the Supreme Court. Your opposition to antidiscrimination laws is what is irrelevant.
Yes you are suggesting it. If you and the ccrc had your way, you would force the baker to sell his labor and the work product thereof against his will.

Antidiscrimination laws apply to places of public accommodation. Doctors and lawyers do not qualify by statutory definition.
And so does the baker in this case.

And your opposition to antidiscrimination laws - in places of public accommodations or anywhere else - has nothing to do with what the Supreme Court ruled.
Nonsense. It is your understanding of anti-discrimination laws that is irrelevant here. And you have the scotus ruling to peruse at your leisure to know exactly why.
 
Last edited:

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,276
40,378
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
The baker did not seek out the gay couple. And he did not violate the state's anti-discrimination law -- according to the scotus.
That is not what the Supreme Court said. The Court overturned the CCRC's finding because the baker did not get a neutral hearing; it did not find he was in compliance with the law, nor did it invalidate the law.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
That is not what the Supreme Court said. The Court overturned the CCRC's finding because the baker did not get a neutral hearing;
Correct. If the hearing were neutral, then the ccrc's ruling should have been different. But it wasn't neutral. It was conducted with clear hostility towards the religious belief of the baker. And this clear hostility is the cause of the ccrc's erroneous ruling.

it did not find he was in compliance with the law,
Because that wasn't the question brought before the court. You are speculating on something the court did not say.

nor did it invalidate the law.
Correct again. The law wasn't in question. What was in question is the ccrc's interpretation of the law.

No speculations required.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,276
40,378
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Correct. If the hearing were neutral, then the ccrc's ruling should have been different.
Not at all. The baker transgressed the antidiscrimination statute. There is no reason that a neutral hearing should have resulted in a different result, as it could reasonably have resulted in the same outcome. The problem in the case was that the hearing was not neutral, which tainted the outcome. It is possible to have had the same outcome untainted by non-neutrality. If your statement is correct, then the Court should have struck down the antidiscrimination statute altogether, and it did not.

But it wasn't neutral. It was conducted with clear hostility towards the religious belief of the baker. And this clear hostility is the cause of the ccrc's erroneous ruling.
You have no legal basis for asserting the ruling was erroneous. See above response.

Because that wasn't the question brought before the court. You are speculating on something the court did not say.
It was absolutely the question the baker brought before the Court. The Court simply declined to review the law.

What was in question is the ccrc's interpretation of the law.
Its interpretation was not at issue in the Court's ruling, only its application.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
Not at all. The baker transgressed the antidiscrimination statute.
The question of whether the baker transgressed anti-discrimination law was precisely the point of the ccrc ruling which the scotus overturned.

So, no, the baker did not transgress the anti-discrimination statute.

There is no reason that a neutral hearing should have resulted in a different result, as it could reasonably have resulted in the same outcome. The problem in the case was that the hearing was not neutral, which tainted the outcome. It is possible to have had the same outcome untainted by non-neutrality.
The fact is, the ccrc upheld rulings in favor of conscience-based objections by other bakers -- ones that depict anti-gay sentiments. In this case, phillips' conscientious objection was found to be irrelevant. Had the ccrc been neutral, there was no reason why one objection is valid and the other not -- despite your emotional hand-wringing.

If your statement is correct, then the Court should have struck down the antidiscrimination statute altogether, and it did not.
And why do you suppose is that, hmmm?

The scotus did not strike down the anti-discrimination statute altogether because the baker did not violate the statute. That seems more plausible than your wishful opinion, does it not?

You have no legal basis for asserting the ruling was erroneous. See above response.
Sorry but I am not asserting it. The scotus asserted it.

Its interpretation was not at issue in the Court's ruling, only its application.
Nonsense.

It is the ccrc's interpretation that a person's conscience has no place in commerce. The scotus ruled otherwise.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,276
40,378
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
So, no, the baker did not transgress the anti-discrimination statute.
He acted in direct noncompliance with it.

Had the ccrc been neutral, there was no reason why one objection is valid and the other not -- despite your emotional hand-wringing.
I have not spoken emotionally at all. You are simply assuming that the commission would have had to have reached a different result if acting neutrally. If that were the case, the law would have been found unconstitutional and struck down. The court did not do that.

The scotus did not strike down the anti-discrimination statute altogether because the baker did not violate the statute. That seems more plausible than your wishful opinion, does it not?
I expressed nothing "wishful." I cited the plain language of the ruling.

Sorry but I am not asserting it. The scotus asserted it.
No, it did not. The Court asserted not that the result itself was incorrect, but rather that the result came about from an unfair hearing on the issue. The Court said nothing about what the correct result should have been had the CCRC acted neutrally.

It is the ccrc's interpretation that a person's conscience has no place in commerce. The scotus ruled otherwise.
That is not what the CCRC said. That is what the antidiscrimination statute says, in certain contexts. And the Supreme Court did not rule otherwise, else it would have had grounds to invalidate the statute. It was the application of the statute that was done incorrectly, not the meaning of the statute outside its plain text.
 
Jan 2007
7,548
480
Irrelevant
He acted in direct noncompliance with it.
That is for the court to decide, not you -- hence speculation and wishful thinking.

I have not spoken emotionally at all. You are simply assuming that the commission would have had to have reached a different result if acting neutrally.
That is not the case at all. The commission had ruled in favor of a conscience-based refusals 3 times in the past. Not only did they neglect to explain how the baker's refusal is different from those, they ruled that the baker's conscience is irrelevant to the case -- hence, clear and impermissible hostility.

If that were the case, the law would have been found unconstitutional and struck down. The court did not do that.
No. That is not the case at all.

Anti-discrimination laws ought to be weighed against a person's conscience neutrally and with respect for the latter. The law remains as it stands. It just burdens the complainants to a more rigorous proof of discrimination.

I expressed nothing "wishful." I cited the plain language of the ruling.
You did not. You are speculating that the ccrc's ruling would be the same even if it conducted the hearings neutrally. That is wishful thinking.

No, it did not. The Court asserted not that the result itself was incorrect, but rather that the result came about from an unfair hearing on the issue. The Court said nothing about what the correct result should have been had the CCRC acted neutrally.
Such speculations are moot. A ruling is deemed invalid if the basis for arriving at that ruling is fatally flawed. That is how the rules of predicate logic works -- whether you believe it or not.

And the scotus explicitly invalidated the ccrc's ruling. That means the baker did not violate anti-discrimination laws.

That is not what the CCRC said. That is what the antidiscrimination statute says, in certain contexts. ...
That is a bald-faced lie.

http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/06/04/16-111_j4el.pdf

At several points during its meeting,
commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs
cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or
commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and
persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business
community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips
can believe “what he wants to believe,” but cannot act on
his religious beliefs “if he decides to do business in the state.” Tr. 23.

A few moments later, the commissioner
restated the same position: f a businessman wants to
do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the—
the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to
look at being able to compromise.”
 

Similar Discussions