Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case.

While it may well be that you've hit some target (imaginary or otherwise) dead center, that target sure as hell isn't yours truly.

Which might be interesting were I in the habit of making posts that required for their validation external sources, other than the Constitution.

Dream on, little dreamer.

I wouldn't, because that's not what I said. What I said is that the Constitution was adopted to secure both enumerated and unenumerated rights, one of which is the freedom to associate.

It's not a question of that. Your conscience will tell you things that are utterly foreign to me because you live, as we all do, in a unique slice of spacetime; but that hardly means I can't know there are a few things your conscience will never tell you.

Or perhaps you'd like to make the case that a man's conscience could possibly give him the green light to bugger a 5 year old?

 

The majority of people believe the baker to be the party that was in the wrong here. I have not seen a poll that directly questioned Christians so I can not argue one way or the other. Evangelicals are typically much more extreme in their views than other segments of society.

The crux here is force, just like there is legislation being pushed in Congress to penalize states that do not allow open discrimination in adoption and the groups that tried to ban same sex marriage and same sex relations the aggressor here. Just like they always have been.

 

In the wrong legally or in the wrong morally? Even I admit that he was in the wrong legally at first due to
the fact that he was found guilty by the state - this is before the Supreme Court gloriously overturned it of course!

What does this have to do with this baker case?

What groups?

 

2978 and counting?

 

So how would you answer someone who asked you how you can say that freedom to associate is one of those rights?

You seem to be under the impression that crazy people don't exist. If a man's conscience DOESN'T tell him to do bad things, then what does?

 

Yep - we're going for 3000!

 

Of course there can be and often will be. There certainly is in this case since the baker openly admitted their motive was that they don't agree with same-sex marriage. Their motive isn't in question, only whether the incident falls within the scope of the anti-discrimination laws and whether they have a valid first amendment defence.

And there will be countless much simpler (and thus low profile) discrimination cases where the offender makes their motive entirely clear, either to the victim ("We don't serve ni**ers here!") or by discussing their motives with others (such as an employer telling a colleague their not going to hire an applicant because they're female).

 

How exactly is this evidence that he was discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation?

In order for it to be concluded that "the incident falls within the scope of the anti-discrimination laws" doesn't the motive have to be determined?

Absolutely, but I mean in cases such as this baker case.

 

The motive was determined; he didn't want to provide services for a same-sex wedding because of his personal religious objection to them. The question was whether treating same-sex marriage differently to mixed-sex marriage was judged discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation (or possibly gender) under the relevant statue. Regardless of the answer to that question, the bakers actions and his stated motive for it remain exactly the same.

Sure, but when you're discussing general moral or legal principles, they need to work for all likely scenarios. It's failing to consider that which leads to this kind of issue in the first place.

 

And you think that it was fair to be judged discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation?

 

I'd say it's self-evidently an unalienable right that clearly falls within the scope of 9A.

How the hell you figure that I haven't got a clue.

Wrong question. Here's the right question: if a man's conscience tells him to do bad things, what the hell is it good for?

 

That's a different question to the one I've been focusing on but apparently the relevant laws deemed it fair since it was judged discriminatory and I don't believe any of the appeal rulings have challenged that aspect.

My personal moral opinion is that it was probably fair too. I don't pretend to have been in the court room or heard all the technical details but as a general matter of principle, I don't think legal same-sex marriages should be treated any different to legal mixed-sex marriages.

 

The SCOTUS decided on narrow grounds he was denied equal treatment by the CRC, they did not say what he did was legal. If a court ruling one way or the other is all it takes for you to believe something is wrong or not your principals are not very strong.

 

Homosexual relations need to be kept behind closed doors. Why do we even have to know about them? Isn't sexual relations a private matter? What was it that the baker even had to know the two were gay? Did they make it a point to tell him? Did they want two same sex figurines copulating on top of the cake? What was it?

 

Did I say something which contradicts that? All I said was that they overturned the ruling.

What are you referring to?

 

And you realise that the Supreme Court slammed the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for not adequately acquiring proof of intent to discriminate, right?

And that may be clouding your judgement here. You should try to remain objective and ask yourself if it was appropriate that the anti-discrimination law was applied in this way. I think that you're smart enough to admit that the law was being stretched somewhat compared to how it would be used against someone who kicks gay people out of their business every day. As much as you might like it, there is no law which says that gay people or gay couples must be treated the same as straight people or straight couples.

 

So you acknowledge that some people's conscience tells them to do bad things?

 

How is doing business in the way that someone wants enforcing anything on the public at large? You think this baker ASKED for the couple to walk into his shop?

What is?

What are the missing first and last letters? I'm so curious to know what the word is!

 

I've not seen anything suggesting that was the case; do you have a reference for it? The SCOTUS appeal was based on the first amendment defence and seems to have been won primarily on the opinion that the Commission failed to be neutral on the basis of religion.

Well there are two questions here; is it wrong and should it be illegal. Obviously, if you don't think it was wrong, you won't think it should be illegal. If you do think it's wrong, you can still go either way on the illegality depending on your opinion of things like the seriousness and level of government intervention.

I disagree entirely. The impact on the customer is the same whether they're told they can have the product they want or they're not welcome in the store at all. Similarly, the many of the defences claimed in this kind of case could apply in both cases. There are clearly wide scales of seriousness and various laws, regulations and punishments that can be applied. This is at the lower end but still within the scope of the law.

You keep talking about the law but not moral principles. There's no point discussing the law until we've agreed that people should be treated the same regardless of their sexual orientation or indeed on factors like gender, race, religion.

That said, the laws we're talking about say exactly that. "You can't discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation." is very straight forwards in itself. It's only the messy practicalities of real life that make them difficult.

 

What?

 

What are you asking "what" to?

 

No, I acknowledge that that's impossible.

 

So what if I said *******n it. It's a figure of speech and doesnt validate your faith at all. Absurd.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ing-cake-case.534233/page-150#post-1069350305

 

I'm confused. When exactly did I say that it validate's my faith?

How is doing business in the way that someone wants enforcing anything on the public at large? You think this baker ASKED for the couple to walk into his shop?

What, this Supreme Court ruling? Surely you can't be serious. It is perhaps the most NARROW in the Supreme Court's history!