Colorado Christian cakeshop sued a third time for discrimination.

Well I wasn't thinking so much of rape, but rather ANY birth. At the end of the day, biology is the only thing that can FORCE a birth, no matter how the pregnancy occurred.

 

So what are you saying that he should do?

 

Why should he make the cake? Because the government wants him to? What sort of sad excuse for a conservative are you?

 

That is the intention of the laws within the relevant context. The key distinction is between types of people (gay/straight, male/female, Christian/Muslim etc.) and types of behaviour. Different types of people should be treated the same but types of behaviour can be treated differently, largely because you can’t change what you are but you can change what you do.

In part , yes.

Yes. The laws that prohibit discrimination on grounds of gender or sexual orientation pretty much always include grounds of religion too. You can’t treat a customer differently because they’re Christian in the same way you can’t because they’re homosexual.

That is part of the law (in the US at least), so yes.

They didn’t need to actually fight to change the law but I feel they should have been honest about what they thought the actual underlying unfairness was. Is their problem that all business owners are required to provide services they personally object to, regardless of their grounds and reasoning or is their problem specifically that Christians are required to provide services for same-sex weddings? Their individual case would be essentially the same either way but the wider public policy consequences are very different.

No I haven’t. Internet searches are international by default though. As I said, I’ve no interest in putting more effort in to that specific aspect. You’ll just have to deal with that fact.

Do, not did. They usually assume (sometimes incorrectly, though legally that makes no difference). Most of us can see a couple together and pick up on the subconscious cues that suggest they’re in a romantic relationship or not and that tells us at least something about their sexual orientation.

There seem to be legal arguments presented for both, in a common scattergun approach to many legal cases. Everything seems to lean heavily on the religious basis for their objection though. If it was entirely about freedom of expression, that wouldn’t be necessary. It wouldn’t matter why he didn’t want to work on a same-sex wedding (or a Muslim wedding, or a mixed-race wedding or a secular wedding…).

I’d like to think we’d all say that. The issue is in where the line of “actual, genuine discrimination” is drawn.

 

I thought that you were talking about protection for Christians who discriminate!

In which case, they SHOULD win their case if the Supreme Court finds a state's law unconstitutional, right? Or indeed, if a state has treated someone with anti-religious bias, as in Jack's case.

Do you feel that you know the case well enough to be able to say that they were not honest about what they thought the actual underlying unfairness was?

Be honest Joe. When was the last case that you heard of, where a gay person or couple were refused non-wedding related service?

Jack's religion was his basis for not wanting to express an expression which runs counter to who he is. However, it all comes down to speech. A secular baker would've had just as valid a First Amendment argument, it's just that their basis might've been traditional American family values or something. Jack being religious shouldn't have made his case any easier to win than a secular baker in the same case. However, in reality, it did. This is because his religion gave the useless, biased, unprofessional pieces of human waste at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission something to attack and this is what the Supreme Court RIPPED them on, and this is what won the case for him in a VERY narrow decision. It could've been very a different outcome if Jack wasn't religious. The useless piece of crap, Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote the decision, wouldn't have had such a convenient way out, and might've actually been forced to make a PROPER First Amendment decision. I'm glad that useless turd is out of the picture now. Go Gorsuch and Kavanaugh!

Well it shouldn't be drawn at someone who happily serves gay people all the time, but just couldn't create an artistically designed cake which was to represent a same sex wedding.

 

whatever law? dont be ridiculous. the laws that infringe upon their religion, absolutely. Then they get to take it to the religious experts running the church of commerce for a religious decision.

 

You were mistaken.

If the Supreme Court ruled the law (or application of it) unconstitutional then yes, the business owner would win their case. A ruling of misconduct in the process should lead to a fair rerunning of that process.

As well as you do to suggest the opposite. We can only go on what is in the media and I think there is a major aspect of what the lawyers want rather than what the clients. But I honestly believe there was that apparent inconsistency within this case (and others like it) and I think that boils down to how some religious people feel their beliefs should override the law (and no, that isn’t what the First Amendment says).

That wasn’t what we were talking about there. That was about anti-homosexual discrimination in general terms. How it has and could happen needs to be distinguished between whether and how often it currently does happen.

I do not believe that in US society, a non-religious (indeed, non-Christian) business owner bringing the same case would get anything like as much support or anything like as much chance of legal success as the Christian business owner. You could argue they’d have just as valid a legal case but I don’t believe they’d be treated equally (ironically). A Muslim wouldn’t have a hope in hell.

I also don’t believe that, even if they did win, the precedent essentially invalidating all anti-discrimination law in a vast swathe of circumstances, would be accepted and the relevant laws would be changed to take account of that somehow. Arguing on the basis of being Christian does give an advantage in America.

That is true, but I don’t believe it would have got that far in the first place if he hadn’t been Christian. Remember, this followed on from a series of back and forths which kept the whole mess alive.

”I’m happy to serve black people all the time, I just refuse to make a cake for a mixed-race wedding”, “I’m happy to employ Catholics all the time, I just refuse to allow them to wear crucifixes in the office”, “I’m happy to work with women all the time, I just refuse to accept their authority as managers”.

 

Abiding by the laws usually works well in avoiding lawsuits.

 

Church of Commerce?

 

only humans can force it when alternatives exists to prevent it... my issue is with the word "force"

it's like saying a rapist did not force a women to give birth, biology did

 

Why would he have to make the choice if he wasn't being targeted by this disgusting piece of human waste?

 

I hate to repeat everything.

I said he WILL be targeted, since he is not getting the point (is stupid) and had made himself an easy target.

Anyone can walk into his store and say "bake me a gay cake" knowing he will refuse, and then take him to court and get some money out of him.

Since you do not live in US, you probably didn't know that suing people for money is practically a American national sport. This guy is too stupid, and easily taken advantage of and in the end HE ends up looking like the bad guy. He needs to learn how to abide by the laws, or shut down his business.

 

Yep I didnt stutter

 

What is it?

 

He already shut down PART of his business, that being the wedding cakes part, in order to avoid what he thought would surely be the only part of his business which could land him in future legal trouble. Little did he know that some disgusting pile of human waste would later target him with the OUTLANDISH request of a gender-transition cake. I'm pretty sure he couldn't have seen that one coming. You don't seem to express much support for your fellow Christian.

 

No, that's not forcing anything. That's just not providing alternatives.

It is true that biology is the only thing that can force a birth, no matter how the pregnancy occurred. However, this is NOT an argument against providing abortion in cases of rape.

 

Then why did you say, "they shouldn't win their case if what they did was legitimately against the law?"

How do you know how well I know this case?

What have you seen to lead you to that suspicion?

What is the inconsistency?

I wasn't talking about anti-homosexual discrimination in general terms. I have only ever talked about it in public accommodation terms in this thread. You have specified public accommodation too. Earlier you said that there was "widespread anti-gay discrimination everywhere, including in public accommodation." And I asked you to tell me when you last heard of a case where a gay person or couple were refused a non-wedding related service. Can't you remember even roughly? If not, then you probably haven't ever heard of such a case.

As much support? No, probably not. Jack's support base was certainly driven by the Christian community and comprised mostly of Christians and Jews I would suspect, although with a healthy amount of secular libertarians too I would guess. As much chance of legal success? I don't know why you believe that this wouldn't be true.

You have heard of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, haven't you?

Why the hell not? Because the US Justice system is highly bigoted towards Muslims?

What is your evidence for this?

You mean that you don't believe that the Supreme Court would have agreed to hear the case?

Yeah, this would be no different to Jack's case in refusing to make a cake for a same sex wedding.
It would presumably be based on the belief that Biblical marriage is between two people of the same race. (A bogus belief.)

I can't see how this would be seen as discrimination. Workplaces have the right to adopt secular policies. Would employees of other religions be allowed to bear items which express their faith? If so, then we would certainly have a discrimination case on our hands. Even if it was illegal, it couldn't be equated to a wedding services case, as an employee wearing a crucifix doesn't create a burden for the employer.

This wouldn't be a legal case would it?

 

Because that’s what I meant. If the law is unconstitutional, their actions wouldn’t be legitimately against the law. If there was misconduct in the process, no valid ruling either way would have been made so they’ll have neither won or lost yet.

I don’t , I’m entirely guessing based on your posts.

General observation of lawyers, especially in civil cases.

Between wanting religious people to be free to ignore a law other people are still required to follow.

I was though. I see no justification is distinguishing when you’re trying to deny the existence of discrimination. The idea that, given the well-known discrimination against homosexuals throughout modern history, the idea that it would never extend in to “public accommodation” is ridiculous. I’ve witnessed in person casual discrimination in stores against customers because they were (perceived to be) gay. Anecdotes aren’t evidence and you’re free not to believe me but what you want to be true isn’t evidence that it never happens either.

Or how about this more recent example of the attitudes still hanging on? ; https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/2018/06/no_gays_allowed_tennessee_hardware_store_sign.html

Because this kind of case is tried and won in the media and the widespread support of vocal and powerful individuals and organisations will influenced legal decisions (even though they shouldn’t – judges are only human after all).

Just because it’s written doesn’t mean it happens. Isn’t there an argument that the case against the bakery is unconstitutional but that still happened?

American in general is (the UK being no better) and it’d be about that trial by media again.

It’s an opinion based on general observation. I’m not presenting it as definitive fact.

I’m not convinced it would have got as far as anyone asking them to rule because there wouldn’t have been the same level of back and forths on different rulings.

This specific statement has nothing to do with religion and nothing to do with whether it would be a legal, civil or HR issue. The sole question was where the line for “actual, genuine discrimination” should be drawn. If serving homosexuals but refusing to serve same-sex marriages is where you draw that line, I don’t see how that line doesn’t continue as described in any of my hypothetical examples.

 

yes, and not allowing rape victims to use those alternatives is forcing the rape victim to have her rapists baby

 

Is not allowing non-rape victims to use those alternatives forcing them to have their baby?

 

What do you mean? Jack won due to misconduct in the process.

In Jack's case?

Neither Jack nor his legal team said this. Perhaps you are thinking of other cases.

I can't see how it can extend to public accommodation, given that it is impossible to see someone's sexual orientation, except if a gay couple were showing clear signs that they are a couple. If we humans had the ability to detect sexual orientation, then yes, anti-gay discrimination would probably happen more, at least without laws making it illegal. However, given the HUGE market risk from social action, this would be limited to parts of the US which are basically bigoted hell holes. I do wonder if one single business in the UK would survive such discriminatory practice though. I'm sure that they wouldn't survive in Australia and it's not as if we're more socially conservative than the UK.

Any idea how it was perceived?

A truly despicable sign, however, this was in response to the Supreme Court passing same sex marriage. Notice that this wasn't his policy prior to the Supreme Court decision. He chose a ridiculous, and unnecessary way to voice his major objection to same sex marriage. He later said that gays are welcome into his store.

The media? Oh right, because the media just love religious people? When the big outlets talk about these cases, whose side do you think they are on?

Sure, but these pile of crap states don't give a damn about the Constitution. I'm talking about the Supreme Court treating a secular person equally. Not some wasteland of a state.

How is America and the UK bigoted in general towards Muslims? And since when has the media been anti-Muslim? What the hell are you even talking about Joe?

Not evidence to prove that it is a fact, evidence that you see to think that,"arguing on the basis of being Christian does give an advantage in America."

Why would a secular person's lawyer who is getting paid lots of money, not ask the Supreme Court to hear their clients case? If you said that you don't think the Supreme Court would've agreed to hear the case, then you would have a valid argument.

It does extend to your hypothetical examples, it's just that I don't think that any of them should be where the legal line is drawn either, because none of them demonstrate a clear intent to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sex.

 

What is Church of Commerce? Google knows nothing about it.

 

He didn’t win, the ruling was invalidated. There is currently no valid judgement for or against in this case. They’re essentially back to square one.

Quite possibly, I don’t know.

One of their legal arguments was on the basis of the constitutional freedom to practice religion. The implication there is that an individual shouldn’t be forced to obey a law if doing so would go against their religious beliefs. That clearly only applies to religious people.

Yes, if they’re showing signs that they’re a couple. Some people will also make assumptions based on appearance and behaviour. It doesn’t matter whether their assumptions are rational or accurate, if the intention of the provider is to discriminate on the basis of proscribed characteristics, it is an offence. I must have made this point a dozen times to you already so I can’t understand why you continue to ignore it.

You give human beings far too much credit.

My most common experience is with a young lady who chooses to dress quite masculine and is often with her female partner. Like loads of people who are (or appear) unconventional for one reason or another face day-to-day discrimination as a consequence. This is just one example.

The sign was discriminatory even if what he later said what true and even if his motivation was the legalisation of same-sex marriage, his implicit target was all homosexuals. Just one very blatant example of the casual discrimination which happens all the time.

The media is more complicated than that. They don’t really take sides, they just print whatever they think will get them the most readers/clicks/advertising hits. Sometimes a story will spin best as poor put-upon Christian against selfish imposing gays and sometimes it will spin best as poor harmless homosexuals against selfish imposing Christians. This case has been long and wide enough to garner both kinds of coverage to various extents.

That doesn’t change my point; Just because it is written down doesn’t mean it happens. That even applies to Supreme Court rulings. After all, they have been reversed in the past.

You are a very lucky person to be so insulated from the discrimination which exists in our societies. Terrorism and illegal immigration and implicitly tied to Muslims in the public eye, especially in Europe and that has an inevitable knock-on effect on Muslims citizens, even when they’re entirely innocent.

You serious don’t believe there is any social advantage to being (seen as) Christian in the US?

If they thought the court would refuse or they had no chance of winning? If they consistently loose every step before that, can they even take a case to the Supreme Court?

Treating someone differently because they are gay, Christian or female is the very definition of discrimination and is exactly what my examples were written to describe.

I’m really not interested in continuing this circular discussion if you’re going to keep fudging on the very definitions of the fundamental concepts involved. If you don’t accept the standard definition of discrimination and don’t accept it happens to all sorts of different groups on a day-to-day basis, there is nothing for us to discuss.

 

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that Supreme Court didn't make a clear decision which would decide whether he had a First Amendment exemption and therefore would become a precedent for all future cases? Sure, but that would've been what's called a landmark case. The decision was a hopeless one, written by a useless Justice, but Jack Philips DID win at the Supreme Court. Pretty convincing too, 7-2 voting in his favour.

Yeah, "ONE OF" their legal arguments! Exactly!

Marks & Spencer adopt a 'no gays allowed' policy tomorrow. What happens to them?

Sure you can't be serious. You can't think of one single UK publication which has a bias one way or the other?

I don't deny that anti-Muslim bigotry exists in the "public eye." You originally said that "a Muslim wouldn’t have a hope in hell" of winning a case like Jack's, presumably in a US context. So this means that you think that the bigotry is extended to the US justice system. You then said the the UK is "no better." Then you seemed to point to anti-Muslim bigotry towards Muslims in the media when you referred to "trial by media" in relation to a Muslim case. Have I got this right?

Oh sure, it's just SO socially advantageous to be anti-same sex marriage and anti-abortion. What planet are you living on Joe?

So you think that Jack had an advantage in Colorado's legal system because he was a Christian? Surely you can't be serious.

Absolutely, but I don't accept that any of your examples demonstrate treating people differently. I said that the baker refusing the mixed race couple would be no more racist than Jack was being homophobic. I said that the employer wasn't clearly discriminating on the basis of religion in regards to their Catholic employee, but rather perhaps just enforcing their secular policies. Would it also be discrimination to prevent employees from holding prayer meetings in the office?

 

Then we have nothing further to discuss.