Supreme Court will hear gay wedding cake case, Masterpiece Cake

I am somewhat surprised that no one is discussing this issue?

My question to get the ball rolling is why should the antiChrist religion be sanctioned by this US government to trample the rights of the Christ religion?

which also brings up a secondary issue, by what authority does a secular atheist court have to adjudicate a religious matter in the first place? It would seem reasonable that only religious people, possibly theologians, are properly suited to be the judge of religious matters.

 

Okay the reason we New Atheists won't give on when we were not around openly when "In god we trust" was slapped on money and "Under god" added to the pledge of allegiance and we give a inch religious people will take it and keep pushing until religion is intertwined with society more than it is now. Right now most politicians are Christians and a good number evangelicals or young Earth creationists at all levels. So it stops now! You foist this garbage into the public square OUR legal groups and vocal members such as myself will fight back. Its not a religion for us its separating religion and state and keeping both safe from each other and a simple political posture to fight back when its needed.

As for this matter its a legal one can the baker discriminate based on his faith to a same sex couple who have in the state I assume rights as a protected class, by the way if I wanted an Atheist cake he would not do that even though non-theistic beliefs are protected under Federal Law and its also discrimination against someone with strongly held philosophical belief, which would and should also be an offense in comparison. Is his bigotry as a Christian protected under the Constitution which makes it a Federal Court matter. And who says the High Court is Atheist my bet would be every one of the Justices is a religious person but I wish it was mostly non-religious.

 

Ok the OP is from a religious standpoint, one religion v another, where the government has no authority to choose one over the other which would result in a state based established religion.

You are incorrect that its not a religion just because you are an athiest, which is possibly one of the most absurd things I ever heard, unless of course you can prove athiests have no moral standards that they live by, which incidentally is the religion of an atheist.

That said you want to take this down the purely legal avenue, that is not the case, its about which law will prevail...the organic law [freedom to exercise the religion of your choice which is a 'Reserved Right'] or law created in subordination to [which means UNDER] the organic law [discrimination]?

I'd also be very interested in hearing how you plan to seperate church from state since murder is one of the 10 commandments which is as religious as you can get, hence removing church from state would require removal of all cases dealing with one person killing another.

 

So then using your precise logic you could demand a jewish baker to provide swastika shaped cakes with an adolf figurine roasting jews over a fire and call them bigots when they refused. Seriously? I'd like to hear your justification for your position.

Another thing while I am on a roll here, is just because you put the 'bigotry' label on it hardly means it in fact is bigotry.

Christains have religious laws they need to obey in order to avoid sinning against their God. They cannot condone or become and accessory by any measure regarding homosexuality, which is not bigotry since the people who practice Christianity did not write the bible.

So there you go start fighting your way out of those corners.

 

There has already been a thread created on this ages back. Its got pages and pages. I don't know how many times I have had to point this out. The Nazis, Democrats, Republicans, Socialist, and Green party members are not protected classes in any state in the union. their symbols or ideas are not protected. Democratic bakers can refuse to put elephants on cakes too.

 

Now normally I'm against "the court of popular opinion", but this is one of those cases where that's the only court that should be involved.

The baker should have the right to do or not do certain things based on his beliefs. However the rights of others has to be considered. No one is required to go to that baker if his policies are against their beliefs.

So if the baker is in a very LGBT Tolerant area...then the rights of everyone else to choose whether or not to use that baker may affect his business once they learn of his attitudes. The baker needs to factor that into the equation.

 

This and cases like it have been discussed ad-infinitum. Yet another appeal doesn’t change any of the facts or principles involved.

This has nothing to do with any “anti-Christ religion” so that’s a meaningless question. Let’s stick to the facts.

Not a secular atheist court, just a secular one (as per the US Constitution) and not adjudicating on a religious matter but on a secular one (domestic trade involving public businesses). The law in question prevents businesses from discriminating against customers on the basis of sexual orientation (among other things). The religious beliefs of the business owner or staff members involved should be irrelevant in this context.

What is being pushed for (and what you appear to support) would really be a change in the law (and arguably the Constitution) to state that there should be a special exemption to this law (and by extension, every other law) for religious people (or at least Christians) which allows them to simply ignore it by stating obeying would go against their personal religious beliefs. Now you’re perfectly entitled to argue for such a change to be made (though some specifics would need clarifying) but that argument still needs to be made. I don’t think you can establish it as already being established and thus only needing a court ruling to confirm (which is why the proponents of that view keep losing cases).

 

thats really interesting Joe, but if you and I make an agreement that you can throw your doggies do do on my lawn, at what point do I magicaly get the power to regulate how or when or how much or what kind of doggies do do that you throw on my lawn?

This is contract law 101.

 

It is not arguable at all. The 14th Amendment gives the government i.e. the courts the power to enforce the first amendment. The courts have used this many times to carve out exemptions/exceptions for people and recently found way around even having to address it when dealing with third parties (i.e. non-governmental actors) in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby in which it found that the employees could get the same benefit (contraception) from going somewhere else so there was no need to impose upon the third party (Hobby Lobby) to have their religious beliefs imposed upon. The Supreme Court wouldn't have to do anything it hasn't already done in this case---Could they have gone somewhere else and gotten a wedding cake (similar to going somewhere else to get contraception benefits)? If so, then there is no need to force these bakers to make them one.

 

delete

 

Contract law is irrelevant since there is no contract in place between the parties in dispute. If anything, it’d about the refusal of the business to initiate any “contracts” with a certain category of people. If you want to perceive it as some kind of established contract though, once the business has agreed to provide the wedding cake, where would they get the right to regulate how the customers use it?

Incidentally, can I take this divergence on to a whole new angle as acknowledgement of my points about your misuse of “anti-Christ religion” and “secular atheist”? With a couple more cycles of this, we could strip out all of the rhetoric and misdirection to focus of the realities of the situation.

 

Seems there was a contract, the Christians were were fined it goes without saying they were obligated to perfrom the duty of baking a gay wedding cake for their customer despite it being against their religion.

Clearly they did not agree to provide a wedding cake, do you have any evidence that the baker agreed to provide a gay decorated cake?

Nah, no concession what so ever, so feel free to strip out the rhetoric and good luck demonstrating that gay religion by any name are not antichrist, since christianity teaches gay is against the Christian religion

 

In the OP, you tried to claim this is one religion v. another. But, that's total bs as demonstrated by the fact that many Christian churches welcome same sex couples and marry such couples - a full throatted demonstration of acceptance.

So, when YOU want to discriminate, that's on you. And, if you own a public accommodation business, you are still subject to public accommodation law, even though you are so gosh darn special.

Where does this end? What is the limit of your demand to be free to break laws based on personal belief?

Should your neighbor be allowed to broadcast a call to prayer from his home by loudspeaker understandable from a mile away 5 times a day?

 

The only reason this has for reaching the Supreme Court is that it was a grossly excessive fine.

 

I'm not sure of the details of the specific case being dragged before the Supremes.

But, in cases I do know about, such as the one in OR, the fines are high because there have been transgressions following the initial adjudication or that accrued due to behavior during the trial.

For example, the OR case involved the individual repeatedly and intentionally breaking direct court orders. And, there were repeated refusals to pay various fines and penalties due to the court (not the aggrieved party) that were not suspended for further review.

If you look at the total size of the check the defendant is being asked to pay to all parties, it may look large. But, in some cases that sum will include penalties from multiple transgressions, including those against the court.

 

since when is a church required for it to be a religion?

 

??
Many Christian churches marry same sex couples. And, that is increasing, not decreasing.

There is not uniform agreement among Christians on this issue.

And, there is not uniform agreement among non-Christians on this issue.

 

So what I was talking about one religion v another which has nothing to do with churches, I thought that should have been clear to you from my last response.

 

There has already been a thread on this awhile back. I'm not sure if you missed it but we have been discussing this. I am all for the bakers and photographers having the right to refuse service under certain circumstances such as a cake or photograph being to offensive.

 

Some Christians choose to discriminate against same sex individuals and some do not, going so far as marrying them, and otherwise treating them as fellow citizens.

I pointed that out, because there have been posts on this topic that imply some sort of religion v. atheism nonsense.

One does not need to be a Christian to discriminate and one does not need to be an atheist to accept our fellow human deings as deserving of equal treatment as promised by our constitution.

 

[QUOTE="Kokomojojo, post: 1067757692, member: 28583

My question to get the ball rolling is why should the antiChrist religion be sanctioned by this US government to trample the rights of the Christ religion?




which also brings up a secondary issue, by what authority does a secular atheist court have to adjudicate a religious matter in the first place? It would seem reasonable that only religious people, possibly theologians, are properly suited to be the judge of religious matters.[/QUOTE]
Public accommodation law is secular, not religious.

A bakery doing business under state and federal law is subject to public accommodation law.

 

Promise? Please be serious, nothing in the constitution is a promise. well this thread doesnt imply anything it explcitly states it.

 

so then congress can create law that violates one persons religion accepting another hence establishing a religion. In the case of the cake, antichrist religion, likewise in the case of the mormons.

 

lol. Sorry, but:
- as I pointed out, Christians disagree with you, so calling acceptance of same sex couples "antiChrist" is nonsense.

- Yes, it's pretty darn hard to make law that allows adherents of every religion to do everything their religion calls for regardless of circumstance.

- such limitations do not create a new religion. If you want to open a public accommodation business, you might want to see if that is going to be a problem for you before you open your business. If you're a grand dragon of the KKK (or whatever) you may choose not to open a lunch counter. Etc.

 

There is no sorry, you have long driven your position over the cliff.

Here let me get the crayon for you and color it k.

Since the beginning of time a tenet and law in the christian religion is that homosexuality is a sin which means a violation of christain law. Not real difficult so far right?

Now we have a group of gays who practice homosexuality and in their religion fudge packing and muff diving is a-ok. With me so far?

So you have the thesis of the cristians and the antithesis of gays, the Christ religion and the antiChrist religion. There was that so hard? Really?

No one cares, its not a democratic choice, it doesnt matter if 99.99% of all antichrist gays vote that black is white, it would only prove they are delusional. The fact is they cannot be Christainsif they agree with the antiChrist.

YOu got it backwards, you dont make laws to support any religion what so ever, any time a religion is involved you dismiss the case, blam not my jurisdiction case closed.

a baker can in no way be held negligent for not baking a gay decorated cake, the point is that the state has no legitimate authority to use a commercial venue to infringe upon the religion of the people.

If you feel that is incorrect by all means quote it in the constitution, where the state has the right to trespass upon the right to exercise ones religion