SCOTUS to take the cake

[jab]

Justice Kennedy wasn't engaged in any "twisting." Justice Kennedy's distinction is certainly existential.

Their sexual orientation, which is protected under the Colorado law, is different from what they are doing, getting married. The law protects a characteristic associated with the person, in this instance sexual orientation, and does not protect something they wanted to do at the time, get married, or what they eventually did do, were married.

It is like saying you won't serve blacks because they are uppity and have a lot of nerve mingling with whites.

You are not against them. You are against their uppity behavior.

Absolute nonsense.

More like saying you won't serve blacks in your restaurant not because of their race but because you, on religious terms, don't approve of interracial mingling. And that sort of claim in the USA was ruled against legally decades ago.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actual speech/expression. Also, you are really bogging down on the technical gutter here. Ravensky is clearly making a distinction between flat out denial of service (no wedding cake for you) verses denial of a particular request, in general demeaning or seriously bad taste (I'll make you a bible shaped cake, I just don't want to put demeaning speech on it). You just keep jumping up and down saying "Haw! Haw! Service refused! Service refused!" It sounds petty.

Alleging some argument is technical isn’t a rebuttal. Ohs noes, whatever shall I do, there’s a technical component to my argument. Oh the horror and unfathomable terror of a technical aspect to an argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please reread the post or not. Your technical point is a false equivalence. As is Alito's.

 

[untermensche]

Justice Kennedy wasn't engaged in any "twisting." Justice Kennedy's distinction is certainly existential.

Their sexual orientation, which is protected under the Colorado law, is different from what they are doing, getting married. The law protects a characteristic associated with the person, in this instance sexual orientation, and does not protect something they wanted to do at the time, get married, or what they eventually did do, were married.

It is like saying you won't serve blacks because they are uppity and have a lot of nerve mingling with whites.

You are not against them. You are against their uppity behavior.

Absolute nonsense.

More like saying you won't serve blacks in your restaurant not because of their race but because you, on religious terms, don't approve of interracial mingling. And that sort of claim in the USA was ruled against legally decades ago.

I agree 100%.

This is a case about a bigot and a bunch of people bending over backwards to protect his sick bigotry.

This nation has a long way to go in terms of recognizing the equality of gay human beings.

 

[RavenSky]

Alito is focused upon what the commission is doing, and how the commission is treating the two cases in its application of the law in regards to a specific point of view inherent in both cases.

Hence, the fact the baker doesn’t sell any Halloween cakes is similar to Marjorie’s case doesn’t weaken Alito’s concern of the commission discriminatorily applying the law based on specific viewpoints.

Baker Phillips discriminates against gay couples by refusing to make them a wedding cake.

To be parallel, we need to agree that Baker Silva discriminated against her customer because of his religion and his free expression thereof. Here is another problem for Alito... Silva is Catholic.

Moreover,

The decision also noted that the bakery Web site includes multiple examples of cakes decorated with Christian symbols and language, including the words “God Bless” and “Mi Bautizo,” which is Spanish for “my baptism.”

So she is perfectly willing to create cakes with religious words and images on them, and to sell them (or anything else) to religious people. What she is not willing to do is to make cakes with hateful messages... for anyone.

The purpose of his request, Jack explained to the evangelical publication, was to see if the Colorado Civil Rights Commission would handle what World characterized as “discrimination against Christians” the same as it had handled a previous charge that another Colorado bakery participated in “discrimination against gays.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ivil-rights-complaint/?utm_term=.1e8fc7c1732d

She did not discriminate against William Jack because of his religion (being a hateful asshole is not a protected class), whereas Baker Phillips did discriminate against his customers due to their sexual orientation.

 

[fast]

whereas Baker Phillips did discriminate against his customers due to their sexual orientation.

Question. I don't know the story, so I ask for clarification regarding the interpretation of "against his customer."

If the customer walked in and said, "I'm a homosexual and would like to purchase a plain cake with no writing or anything else on it," would the response be "no, you're a homosexual and I therefore won't serve you as a customer?" If the answer is yes, then you and I have a shared meaning of "against his customer."

On the other hand, if the customer walked in and said,"I'm a homosexual, and I want a cake that says "gay lives matter," then a response of "no" would to me be more reminiscent of being against what a customer wants. Granted, there is the interpretation that he's against the customer since he's against what the customer wants, but the distinction is paramount in my grasping the truth of the matter, for an unwillingness to sell to a gay person regardless of his wants is substantively different than a willingness to sell to a gay contingent upon his wants.

 

[Bomb#20]

He didn't consent to bake cakes for what he perceives to be mockeries of his religion's sacraments. You choosing to define someone as consenting to X because he consented to Y is not a substantive argument that he consents to X.


Nobody is forcing a McDonald's employee to fry burgers. The employee already consented to fry burgers. This doesn't stop you from claiming companies like McDonald's are dictatorships and complaining about their CEOs reducing people to tools. You have a blatant double standard.

What about if someone came in to McDonald's and asked for 20 burgers with 'KKK' branded into the top of the buns for a Klan barbecue?

Or if you like, a bun shop.

I'm not following. What are you trying to find out from me? What does someone asking a stamp-out-a-billion-identical-products outfit like McDonald's to do a unique customization their employees don't even have the branding irons for have to do with my pointing out untermensche's inconsistent standards for coercion and consent?

 

[Bomb#20]

What I mean by Christian document is an instruction from Jesus.

In which case there are no Christian documents.

There are many alleged instructions from Jesus in the New Testament.

Your ignorance of them doesn't make them go away.

Stop making idiotic accusations. You have no reason to think I'm ignorant of the alleged instructions. You didn't say what you meant by "Christian document" was "an alleged instruction from Jesus". You said you meant "an instruction from Jesus". The alleged instructions from Jesus are actually instructions from people who wrote down whatever instructions they pleased, 50 or 100 years after Jesus allegedly lived, and attributed them to Jesus, in an age when writing your own words and attributing them to someone more famous than yourself was standard propaganda practice. Do you seriously believe the Bible saying "Jesus said X" is better evidence for Jesus having said X than the Bible saying the Jews said "His blood be on us and on our children." is evidence for the Jews ever having said that?

Now that we have your first idiocy out of the way, let's move on to your second. If what you mean by Christian document is an alleged instruction from Jesus, Jesus is alleged to have said "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled". That means the entire Old Testament Hebrew law is incorporated by reference into Jesus's alleged instructions. There's an awful lot in the Old Testament law about persecuting gays.

And now let's move onto your third. Biblical authority is not the be-all and end-all of Christianity. It's just something Martin Luther made up for political purposes, because he was saying "The Pope is wrong." and he felt he needed a justification more impressive to superstitious people than "Because I say so". So for you to imagine that "There is nothing contained within the Christian religion that says followers should discriminate in this manner." is the sort of claim you can prove merely by scanning the Bible, while you ignore the traditions and authorities actual Christians actually get their actual Christian beliefs from, such as, for example, the Pope, is idiotic.

Popes and the entire Catholic hierarchy discriminates against women.

Duh. That's a reason to despise Catholicism.

According to you it means that any Catholic in business can legally discriminate against women since the Pope does it.

Just like you think Catholics can legally discriminate against gay people in business because the Pope says so.

Your position is lunacy.

Speaking of things that are just made up, you just made all that up. Quote me saying any of that garbage you made up about me. When you put words in people's mouths -- when you invent lunatic positions and attribute them to your opponents for no other reason than that it pleases you to think the worst of them -- you are being a bad person. Stop doing that. Stop doing it to me, and stop doing it to the many other posters you do it to.

Of course the Pope saying people can discriminate is not grounds for letting them do so. I didn't tell you the Pope said it was okay as evidence that it was okay. I told you the Pope said it was okay as evidence that you were an idiot to claim "There is nothing contained within the Christian religion that says followers should discriminate in this manner." You do understand, don't you, that it's possible for the Christian religion to be wrong and simultaneously for you to be an idiot? You understand "The Christian religion is wrong" does not logically imply "untermensche is not an idiot", don't you? Stop saying idiotic things.

 

[ruby sparks]

He didn't consent to bake cakes for what he perceives to be mockeries of his religion's sacraments. You choosing to define someone as consenting to X because he consented to Y is not a substantive argument that he consents to X.


Nobody is forcing a McDonald's employee to fry burgers. The employee already consented to fry burgers. This doesn't stop you from claiming companies like McDonald's are dictatorships and complaining about their CEOs reducing people to tools. You have a blatant double standard.

What about if someone came in to McDonald's and asked for 20 burgers with 'KKK' branded into the top of the buns for a Klan barbecue?

Or if you like, a bun shop.

Are they branding buns for other customers?

If the KKK can legally meet they have to eat.

Feeding people is not saying you support everything they stand for.

It's never meant that.

That's exactly why I added 'bun shop'.

And yes, it'd have to be a bun shop that customised or added text to their buns on request.

The question was not about their right to eat, but asked if I, who might think the KKK vile, should be allowed the option of declining to put 'KKK' on the buns I make for them, or whether I should risk prosecution by not doing it.

It's the same as my banner question in the other (spin off) thread.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not following. What are you trying to find out from me? What does someone asking a stamp-out-a-billion-identical-products outfit like McDonald's to do a unique customization their employees don't even have the branding irons for have to do with my pointing out untermensche's inconsistent standards for coercion and consent?

Just your opinion on the question.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm not following. What are you trying to find out from me? What does someone asking a stamp-out-a-billion-identical-products outfit like McDonald's to do a unique customization their employees don't even have the branding irons for have to do with my pointing out untermensche's inconsistent standards for coercion and consent?

Just your opinion on the question.

Don't you think your question means you don't want bomb20's opinion?

 

[untermensche]

Are they branding buns for other customers?

If the KKK can legally meet they have to eat.

Feeding people is not saying you support everything they stand for.

It's never meant that.

That's exactly why I added 'bun shop'.

And yes, it'd have to be a bun shop that customised or added text to their buns on request.

The question was not about their right to eat, but asked if I, who might think the KKK vile, should be allowed the option of declining to put 'KKK' on the buns I make for them, or whether I should risk prosecution by not doing it.

It's the same as my banner question in the other (spin off) thread.

Do you think it is reasonable to equate a hate group with two innocent people just wanting a cake for their wedding?

It may be reasonable to dislike KKK members. But there is no reason to dislike innocent people that just want to get married.

 

[ruby sparks]

Do you think it is reasonable to equate a hate group with two innocent people just wanting a cake for their wedding?

It may be reasonable to dislike KKK members. But there is no reason to dislike innocent people that just want to get married.

Steady on old chap, comparing and contrasting does not necessarily imply equating. I have tried a few scenarios, that one, at first glance, seems easier, which is partly why I tried it.

So, could I take it that you think I should have to make a bun with KKK on the top, or not?

If the latter, you might justify it by saying something along the lines of what you just said.

If the former, the the KKK customer might challenge me by saying his organisation is legal (I am assuming it is legal?) so what are my legal grounds to refuse?

We are assuming that I put text on buns for other customers.

Perhaps discriminating on grounds of thinking an organisation immoral is not an anti-discrimination law? I don't know. Perhaps groups like the KKK are not protected in the same way that other groups are.

In any case, after you've answered, try this one. I think it's less clear cut:

I am a strongly pro-choice banner-maker and I am asked to make a banner for an anti-abortion rally. Should I be obliged, by law, to make the banner (all other things being equal)?

I don't know the answer myself, so please don't think I'm trying to win a point.

 

[untermensche]

I am saying that there is at least something reasonable to hold against KKK members.

A gay couple wanting to get married have done nothing wrong. They are completely innocent.

 

[ruby sparks]

I am saying that there is at least something reasonable to hold against KKK members.

A gay couple wanting to get married have done nothing wrong. They are completely innocent.

Yes. I got that. It seems like a fair point.

Well, they are definitely innocent in your opinion and mine. And this seems quite reasonable. We are assuming they are consenting adults harming no one and only engaging in love. That it involves, or may involve their rectums is irrelevant.

I wonder if it would have made a difference if the baker had been asked to put something on a cake to celebrate.....oral sex, between a man and a woman? Or unwedded promiscuity?

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm not following. What are you trying to find out from me? What does someone asking a stamp-out-a-billion-identical-products outfit like McDonald's to do a unique customization their employees don't even have the branding irons for have to do with my pointing out untermensche's inconsistent standards for coercion and consent?

Just your opinion on the question.

Which question? The question of whether the McDonald's employee and the bun baker consented to write KKK? Clearly not. The question of whether requiring them to do it is coercion? Clearly. The question of whether coercing them to do it uses them as a mere means to an end rather than treating them as ends in themselves? Clearly. These aren't matters of opinion.

If you mean, is requiring people to make cakes for gay weddings similar to the KKK scenario, it's similar in some ways and dissimilar in others. Again, not an opinion.

If you mean, would it be sound public policy for the government to require people to make buns for Klan barbecues and write KKK on them whenever a customer demands it, no, not in my opinion.

If you mean, would it be sound public policy for the government to require people to make cakes for gay weddings, there are two primary arguments being made: the "Coercion is bad, m'kay?" argument and the "Discrimination is bad, m'kay?" argument. In my opinion, both of these are religious arguments. They lump together the wide spectrum of discrimination, from a motel-owner turning away a black traveler at midnight because he hates blacks, at one end of the spectrum, to a legalized prostitute declining to open her legs to a white man because it makes her feel like a plantation slave, at the other end of the spectrum, as if that whole range of discrimination were all the same thing. Anybody who either says the government should authorize motel discrimination or says the government should punish prostitute discrimination is a religious fanatic. The dispute among reasonable people is where to draw the line. I'm reading the thread with interest, looking for thoughtful arguments on that point, because in my opinion there are two sides to this issue and I can see both of them. Unfortunately, mostly what the thread contains is "Coercion is bad, m'kay?" and "Discrimination is bad, m'kay?".

 

[untermensche]

I am saying that there is at least something reasonable to hold against KKK members.

A gay couple wanting to get married have done nothing wrong. They are completely innocent.

Yes. I got that. It seems like a fair point.

Well, they are definitely innocent in your opinion and mine. And this seems quite reasonable. We are assuming they are consenting adults harming no one and only engaging in love. That it involves, or may involve their rectums is irrelevant.

I wonder if it would have made a difference if the baker had been asked to put something on a cake to celebrate.....oral sex, between a man and a woman? Or unwedded promiscuity?

Why are you talking about rectums?

Straight people have anal sex.

 

[ruby sparks]

I am saying that there is at least something reasonable to hold against KKK members.

A gay couple wanting to get married have done nothing wrong. They are completely innocent.

Yes. I got that. It seems like a fair point.

Well, they are definitely innocent in your opinion and mine. And this seems quite reasonable. We are assuming they are consenting adults harming no one and only engaging in love. That it involves, or may involve their rectums is irrelevant.

I wonder if it would have made a difference if the baker had been asked to put something on a cake to celebrate.....oral sex, between a man and a woman? Or unwedded promiscuity?

Why are you talking about rectums?

Straight people have anal sex.

Because, or so I read, this is what many who think homosexual sex between two men is wrong are often bothered about.

 

[untermensche]

Why are you talking about rectums?

Straight people have anal sex.

Because, or so I read, this is what many who think homosexual sex between two men is wrong are often bothered about.

They are bothered by many things.

Most of them were abused as children. Their minds were abused.

Told a bunch of lies but told it was the truth.

 

[Bomb#20]

I am saying that there is at least something reasonable to hold against KKK members.

A gay couple wanting to get married have done nothing wrong. They are completely innocent.

Yes. I got that. It seems like a fair point.

Well, they are definitely innocent in your opinion and mine. And this seems quite reasonable. We are assuming they are consenting adults harming no one and only engaging in love. That it involves, or may involve their rectums is irrelevant.

But they aren't harming no one. They're harming the baker. untermensche already stipulated that turning somebody into a tool for your own ends qualifies as harming him.

One of the persistent canards in this thread and in pretty much every debate on this topic is that the gay couple in the court case just want a nice cake to eat and feed to their friends. That is not reality. If what you want is a nice cake for you and your guests to eat, then you do not buy it from somebody whom you've given a reason to spit in it, and certainly a reason not to do his best work for you. These cases are political theater. The point of the cake is to express the message that discrimination will not be allowed. What the gay couple and their guests and whoever financed their lawsuit will enjoy about the cake is not the flavor, or the artistry, but the fact that the guy who made it didn't want to. The intent is to make him the symbolic sacrificial victim on the altar of their self-righteousness. If that wasn't their goal then they'd order a sexual-preference-neutral cake or find a gay-friendly baker.

This isn't to say that the baker should win. That's an open question. Maybe coercing people to participate in other people's morality plays in the role of villain is a business the government ought to be in. That's a coherent position to argue for. But let's not kid ourselves that the customers aren't harming him. Punishing him in order to make an example of him to others is the purpose of the exercise, the whole reason they choose that particular baker to order a cake from in the first place.

 

[untermensche]

I am saying that there is at least something reasonable to hold against KKK members.

A gay couple wanting to get married have done nothing wrong. They are completely innocent.

Yes. I got that. It seems like a fair point.

Well, they are definitely innocent in your opinion and mine. And this seems quite reasonable. We are assuming they are consenting adults harming no one and only engaging in love. That it involves, or may involve their rectums is irrelevant.

But they aren't harming no one. They're harming the baker. untermensche already stipulated that turning somebody into a tool for your own ends qualifies as harming him...

The baker is not their tool.

They are a customer of a person open to the public.

Dealing with the public carries rules.

You cannot kick people out because they are a racially mixed couple.

You cannot refuse service because you have some delusion.