https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/05/...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
“Justices Sharply Divided in Gay Rights Case”
“Justices Sharply Divided in Gay Rights Case”
Why is this a case about gay rights and not Religious right........
- Thread starter Bird Dog
- Start date
because even if you hide behind religion it is clear that you are imposing you beliefs on the rights of others.
The supreme court has already decided a similar case in the past.
Today we would all agree that it is insane to allow someone to discriminate against blacks because of their religion
Will the Supreme Court case about a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple lead to a decision similar to the court's 1968 ruling in the case of South Carolina's Piggie Park barcecue?
For some civil rights advocates, the parallels between the two cases are clear.
When two African-Americans parked their car at a Piggie Park drive-in in August 1964 in Columbia, South Carolina, the waitress who came out to serve them turned back once she saw they were black and didn't take their order.
In the civil rights lawsuit that followed, Piggie Park owner Maurice Bessinger justified the refusal to serve black customers based on his religious belief opposing "any integration of the races whatsoever."
Federal judges dismissed Bessinger's claim.
"Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens," U.S. District Judge Charles Earl Simons Jr. wrote in 1966."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/03/some-see-echoes-68-court-case-in-wedding-cake-dispute.html
The supreme court has already decided a similar case in the past.
Today we would all agree that it is insane to allow someone to discriminate against blacks because of their religion
Will the Supreme Court case about a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple lead to a decision similar to the court's 1968 ruling in the case of South Carolina's Piggie Park barcecue?
For some civil rights advocates, the parallels between the two cases are clear.
When two African-Americans parked their car at a Piggie Park drive-in in August 1964 in Columbia, South Carolina, the waitress who came out to serve them turned back once she saw they were black and didn't take their order.
In the civil rights lawsuit that followed, Piggie Park owner Maurice Bessinger justified the refusal to serve black customers based on his religious belief opposing "any integration of the races whatsoever."
Federal judges dismissed Bessinger's claim.
"Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens," U.S. District Judge Charles Earl Simons Jr. wrote in 1966."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/03/some-see-echoes-68-court-case-in-wedding-cake-dispute.html
You have that exactly backwards. It is the gay community that is trying to impose their beliefs on the Christians who refuse to participate in their weddings.
Nobody is stopping a same-sex couple from using another bakery. They *choose* not to use another bakery because they want to force the Christian baker to go against his beliefs.
This isn't rocket science, so not sure why you don't understand it.
transporter
Well-Known Member
Not in a discriminatory manner you don't. It's really not that difficult a point to understand. If you are in business, you cannot discriminate. This is an obvious discrimination case.
The part that is interesting now is that the baker is claiming his cake design is art and therefore protected under "free speech" under the 1st amendment.
Yes, the folks who wanted to cake should have gone somewhere else. Which is exactly the "slippery slope" the gun nutters use all the time...isn't it?
Hopefully, the Supremes can come to some sort of middle of the road decision on this. Of course that won't satisfy anyone...especially those who post on sites like this (and similar ones on the freaky far left).
So ANY Business owner has is required by force of Gov to service ANY Customer ?
Gay Coffee Shop Owner Blasts Anti-Abortion Activists In Viral Video
and that fits in here, how exactly ?
one is a cake, the other a heavily regulated tool ...
unless you are saying firearms should be as easily available as cakes
Last edited:
When it comes to freedom of religion, yes indeed you do. In fact, it's right there in our US Constitution. To wit:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Ooh, here's another one!
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction there of, are citizens of the United States and of the State where in they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Not to mention there are dozens of cases where the Supremes have found in favor of free practice of religion, and against forced compliance that is at odds with one's religious beliefs. If you want, I can run a few down for you.
Not exactly. Or even close. The argument the "gun nutters" use is that gun ownership is a right, under our US Constitution. Just like freedom of religion.
You have the right to keep and eat cake
Passed in 1792 by Senator Marie Antoinette.
That's sort of like you trannies bitching about not getting dates.......discriminatory?
So do you disagree with the courts earlier ruling that Bessinger didn't have the right to discriminate against blacks based on his religion?
so you think being born black is the same as making a life choice
Abraham Hamilton III, general counsel to the American Family Association, is wary of arguments comparing Phillips’ refusal to make a wedding cake for gay people to racial discrimination. “As an African American man myself, I think to conflate issues concerning marital preferences as something as easily identifiable as skin color is offensive.” The reason Hamilton believes “the two are not remotely on the same page” is that skin color is a “readily discernible characteristic” and sexual orientation is not.
Ryan T. Anderson, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says it would be wrong to compare Phillips’ principled refusal to bake a wedding cake with any kind of racial discrimination. He said that while there are “reasons for supporting [heterosexual marriage] that have nothing to do with hatred or condescension,” the same cannot be said of opposition to integration.
“When the Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage, it did not say that opposition to interracial marriage was based on ‘decent and honorable premises’ and held ‘in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.’ It did not say it because it could not say it,” he said.
Anderson noted that the Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage included a statement in the majority opinion from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that the First Amendment protects religious people who may “advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”
http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/...-the-highly-anticipated-supreme-court-ruling/
Abraham Hamilton III, general counsel to the American Family Association, is wary of arguments comparing Phillips’ refusal to make a wedding cake for gay people to racial discrimination. “As an African American man myself, I think to conflate issues concerning marital preferences as something as easily identifiable as skin color is offensive.” The reason Hamilton believes “the two are not remotely on the same page” is that skin color is a “readily discernible characteristic” and sexual orientation is not.
Ryan T. Anderson, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says it would be wrong to compare Phillips’ principled refusal to bake a wedding cake with any kind of racial discrimination. He said that while there are “reasons for supporting [heterosexual marriage] that have nothing to do with hatred or condescension,” the same cannot be said of opposition to integration.
“When the Supreme Court struck down bans on interracial marriage, it did not say that opposition to interracial marriage was based on ‘decent and honorable premises’ and held ‘in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.’ It did not say it because it could not say it,” he said.
Anderson noted that the Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage included a statement in the majority opinion from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that the First Amendment protects religious people who may “advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”
http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/...-the-highly-anticipated-supreme-court-ruling/
Your “experts” from the heritage foundation and the American family association are biased so their opinions are worthless.
Being gay is not a choice anymore than being black is .
You know what is a choice ? Believing a book of fairy tales and using it as an excuse treat actual living people poorly.
That’s a choice you make every day if you think it’s okay to discriminate against anyone
Black, white , Jewish, gay, Muslim , Christian.
What if the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster opened a bakery that didn’t serve Christians. I doubt you would just turn the other cheek
Leftist nomenclature for anyone who believes in the supremacy of the citizen over the state.What is a "gun nutter"?
ah yes that dismissive handwav'em ... your opinions suck
burn that straw man
Last edited:
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Lurk
Happy Creepy Ass Cracka
What is a "gun nutter"?
Isn't that in the brown jar next to the Nutella at the grocery store?