New SCOTUS case, web designer refuses gay couple

chistianity=bible, jews=torah, muslims=quran.

 

Wicca=?
Buddism = ?
What are the holy writs for the religions of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and Norse, who had entire pantheons of gods as part of their religions?
Simply noting that some religions have a holy text does not show anything that objectively makes a religion, given the religions out there, past and present, without any holy texts.
Further, you have yet to show where there is any absolute way to follow any religion, especially when there is a full history of pretty much every religion undergoing changes where people have decided that what is taught is not what was interpreted before. All religion is subjective.

 

So a person can do anything no matter what it is and say its religious. Yep its pure evil.

 

You have a right to religious beliefs, but not when it injures someone or a group.

Refusing to sell a service or product to a gay person is bigotry.

If you are a gay person, and someone refuses you service because you are gay, you are being injured by that person.

It would be no different than if you were black, and a restaurant owner told you' we don't serve blacks because it's against my beliefs about how God wanted people to associate, "caucasians with caucasians, blacks with blacks, asians with asians".

If you were that black person, you would feel hurt by it, like a second class citizen, and how would you explain it to a child?

Now, if you argument is that the Bible doesn't actually say these things, you would probably be right, as far as I know, but the Bible doesn't command anyone not to provide service to a gay person, or sell a product to a gay person, either.

both are equally examples of bigotry. Bigotry is wrong, it injures, it hurts.

 

Effectively. However, when it comes to law, they would have to show a consistency within their own behavior. Using the baker example, if they are claiming that they will not create wedding cakes for wedding types that they do not agree with on a religious basis, if they ever do created one (as opposed to selling a generic cake that they make anyway or sell one off the shelf), they have now shown that they do not actually have a religious objection, since they are not consistent. So to go more specific, if the baker claims that same sex and interracial weddings are against his religious beliefs, and he then knowingly makes a wedding cake that has specific interracial indicators, he has now shown that he doesn't have an actual religious belief in that area.

But looking over your wording, I have to point out, that religious beliefs are not a blank check. I and others have shown where there is a difference between selling a generic item/service and one that is specifically about a topic that would be, in potential, against a person's religious beliefs. Further, a religious belief cannot be something that forces someone other than the belief holder to do or not do something. Your (making you an example and not indicating any actual belief) religious belief that one should not work on a Sunday cannot be used to force me to not work on a Sunday. Such laws as there used to be were actually in violation of the 1st Amendment, even if they were never challenged. And of course my religious belief (again example not actual) of human sacrifice cannot be imposed upon another person making them the sacrifice.

 

Discrimination is not 'disagreement'.

Fail, no counter argument offered.

 

Comment dismissed, no counter argument offered.

 

I find it interesting that you completely ignored this particular argument of @Le Chef:

It is clear that the web site designer is not refusing services to the customer based upon their specific sexual orientation, especially since they are willing to to other web sites for their LBGT customers.

 

Nothing you argued counters the simple fact:

You can practice your religious beliefs, but not if it injures someone else.

Discrimination injures.

Freedom of association doe not exonerate you if you intentionally injure someone, religious beliefs or otherwise.

If you sold a product which you intended to explode in the hands of someone touching it, that is a crime. 'Freedom of association' wouldn't exonerate you.

If you discriminate based on race, creed, color, or sexual orientation, that's discrimination, and the 'freedom of association' argument won't exonerate you.

Now, sexual orientation isn't specifically written in the Constitution, however; it is written in the constitutions of California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, District of Columbia,

And, then there is the 9th amendment to cover 'unenumerated rights retained by the people that aren't listed in the bill of rights or elsewhere in the Constitution'.

Homosexuality was far from the minds of the framers, no where near as prevalent as it is today, it just wasn't a cultural issue like it is today, and it's fair to say that the spirit of the bill, given the number of states that specify it in their constitutions, given the entire reason for the 9th amendment, the spirit of the thing is that it is inclusive of sexual orientation.

It would be no different than if you were black, and a restaurant owner told you' we don't serve blacks because it's against my beliefs about how God wanted people to associate, "caucasians with caucasians, blacks with blacks, asians with asians".

If you were that black person, you would feel hurt by it, like a second class citizen, and how would you explain it to a child?

Now, if you argument is that the Bible doesn't actually say these things, you would probably be right, as far as I know, but the Bible doesn't command anyone not to provide service to a gay person, or sell a product to a gay person, either.

 

Apparently they don't since according to you you don't have to adhere to any rules.

 

The problem with this argument that you keep ignoring has already went pointed out: She does not refuse to serve gay people.

 

We can't just arbitrarily slap that word "bigotry" on anything that hurts our feelings and end the debate. It has a definition that's not based on feelings.

Same with "discrimination": the unsightly cannot be runway models. It's discrimination, but there is a reason for it. This designer does not want to design certain websites, regardless of who asks for them, because it offends her religious sensibilities. That is -- or was -- protected under the free exercise clause. She isn't refusing service to homosexuals.

Nor should a gay web designer be forced by law to design a website for a fundamentalist Christian church, even though it would be discrimination.

Now here's a radical notion: how about both sides agree to respect, or at least accept, the Supreme Court's decision, whatever it is. The alternative is civil war.

 

Yes she does.

 

That's just false.

Gay guy walks in and asks her to design a law office website for him, she'll do it.

Same with the Cake baker. Gay guy walks in and asks for a chocolate cake, he'll sell one.

 

Those aren't facts they're emotions and talking points.
The fact is that the constitution grants freedom of association. Fact is also that in most cases concerning conflicts of rights the courts work out compromises with each side giving a little. Your beloved 9th Amendment works both ways, Patricio. You seem to think homosexuality overrides every other right - it doesn't.

 

Neither does religion.

 

True, but at least it gets a mention in the constitution.

 

Non sequitur.

 

You didn't read any of the rest of that post. Otherwise you wouldn't make that statement since I already countered it.

 

Nope, according to you a christian can make up anything and claim its part of his religion.

 

This argument does give me slight pause. The best we can do is to have the trial court (not the Supremes) make a finding of fact as to the bona fides of the defendant's protest. Is she sincere?

Another issue would be if the defendant invoked a brand new religion of which there were only 3 or 4 members.

I suggest that both questions be submitted to a jury and let them find the facts first. Then we need to live with the result. All of us.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Which is still only part of the argument. While his religious beliefs don't have to align with any given church's claims of what their beliefs are, he still has to show a consistency of adhering to said religious belief, for it to be legally accepted as his personal religious belief. These changes in beliefs is exactly how all the various denominations and sects of a given religion come about. Remember that at one point, Christianity was a brand new religion, as was Islam. There is no reason why there cannot be new religions or new versions of existing ones. Unless you can show me how to objectively determine a religion.

Further, you still failed to address that aspect that just because something is a religious belief that doesn't mean that it is absolutely protected. For that matter, the same religious belief can be protected in one aspect but not in another. For example, polygamy. Although polygamy is not limited to those who are religious (there are many atheists who practice polygamy on a social level.), that will be the aspect by which we will look at this seeming contradiction. One's religious belief in polygamy does not require that the government even offers marriage as a legal institution, yet alone allow for any given number of participants. But on the other side, my polygamous marriage as a social and/or religious institution is protected, especially since I and my spouses have not sought to have more than our legal limits of marital participants in the legal form. IOW, simply because I claim another woman as my wife other than the one I am legally married to, as well as another man as my husband, as long as I do not try to have any of the legal benefits or protections, the government cannot violate my religious rights.

 

No, the relevance and indeed the bona fides of any claim as well as any opposition to a claim is important in many areas of the law.

 

Thing is a religion or denomination thereof can consist of a single member, especially if they just developed their specific belief system.