Religious Freedoms vs. Other Civil Rights

[Sham]

Idk the whole situation is a mess at one angle you’re forcing a man to go against his beliefs to conform to current events and on the other end of the spectrum you’re refusing a non protected class. Hence why I hope this is an isolated event to that never gets brought back to the courts or the light (spoiler it will)

Christianity isn’t the only religion out there that sees Homosexuality as sin.

The interesting part about this turn of events was there was a social experience asking a person of Islam faith would they make they cake and he straight up said no. So I’m wondering why this is a Christian thing instead of a religion thing but that’s another topic for another day.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

Christianity isn’t the only religion out there that sees Homosexuality as a sin and I don’t believe the owner should just not be allowed to serve people just because of his personal beliefs. Once again, the owner stated that he would’ve sold the gay couple a cake but he wouldn’t decorate the cake with something that goes against his religion. It’s the gay couple’s fault for going into a Christian business and causing a stink which cost the owner to lose his way of making ends meet and reputation. The owner lost a lot, he’s probably more traumatized by the whole ordeal while the gay couple hasn’t lost anything but cause an uproar. Bottom line is, you can’t force a religious man to do something he doesn’t want to do. Same with established religious churches who don’t recognize gay marriage. It’s a form of disrespect. The gay couple could’ve happily went to another bakery and shaming the man for something he considers to be apart of his identity is no different than shaming a person’s sexuality.

"Won't someone think of the white cis het Christian male and what he suffered?" Give me a break...

He is, by definition of historical record, an oppressor and a hatemongerer.

If he had denied it for ANY OTHER REASON, this wouldn't be a needed debate.

He has the freedom to pick to be Christian and to choose his sect, but NOT to force his Christianity onto others. This DEFINITELY includes not making a cake because his version of God told JEWISH men to not be gay.

Leviticans(Those who actually believe that the Leviticus counts in Christianity even though Jesus struck down Jewish law(Leviticus) except the Ten Commandments...and steadfastly deny that the Bible has been edited by the Church for their own and others in power's desires/coverups/oppression of those who they fear/women/enabling get out of jail free cards) are the main Christians who push these outdated, hateful, fearmongering and often hypocritical policies.

Unless it applies to ALL theists and non-theists, it's biased and part of Crusades mentality.

 

[FullFathomsFive]

You can't refuse service based on discriminatory reasons. The issue is whether or not being gay should be a discriminatory thing, which is obviously should be. It's like saying a place should be allowed to refuse black customers.

The court's reasoning was at the time being gay didn't count for discrimination reasons, that law came after.

Not quite. The SC's reasoning was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission made a pig's ear of the case and behaved in a manner that was itself discriminatory, especially given that gay marriage wasn't legal in the state at the time. Kennedy's opinion avoided going into the nuts and bolts of determining what was free expression or discriminatory refusal of service or not: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

Crusades mentality

Modern Christianity's problems don't have anything to do with the Crusades (especially considering the baker in question here is a protestant).

 

[bobjr]

Christianity isn’t the only religion out there that sees Homosexuality as a sin and I don’t believe the owner should just not be allowed to serve people just because of his personal beliefs. Once again, the owner stated that he would’ve sold the gay couple a cake but he wouldn’t decorate the cake with something that goes against his religion. It’s the gay couple’s fault for going into a Christian business and causing a stink which cost the owner to lose his way of making ends meet and reputation. The owner lost a lot, he’s probably more traumatized by the whole ordeal while the gay couple hasn’t lost anything but cause an uproar. Bottom line is, you can’t force a religious man to do something he doesn’t want to do. Same with established religious churches who don’t recognize gay marriage. It’s a form of disrespect. The gay couple could’ve happily went to another bakery and shaming the man for something he considers to be apart of his identity is no different than shaming a person’s sexuality.

Congrats on supporting bigotry I guess? I don't know what to tell you. If you're against gay rights you're literally a bigot, there's no fancy way around it. Also what's wrong with you that shaming someone for their sexuality is the same as calling someone out on a thing where they're legit in the wrong?

 

[Gamzee Makara]

Not quite. The SC's reasoning was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission made a pig's ear of the case and behaved in a manner that was itself discriminatory, especially given that gay marriage wasn't legal in the state at the time. Kennedy's opinion avoided going into the nuts and bolts of determining what was free expression or discriminatory refusal of service or not: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf



Modern Christianity's problems don't have anything to do with the Crusades (especially considering the baker in question here is a protestant).

And who stacked that court full of biased Christian Conservative neoaristocracy that had everything to lose if it wasn't formally a case of " Oppressor isn't X You're X" deflection(the logic of 4chan anarchist trolls, I might add)?


Christians in the US ARE NOT OPPRESSED. To say otherwise is to deny history.

As if the Supreme Court is actually right all the time...Plessy V. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sanford...need I go on?

And buddy...

White people are still at war with Muslims and Nonbelievers over dominion of Jerusalem.

That IS the Crusades.

 

[bobjr]

The Supreme Court defended slavery for decades and never has been a progressive voice, just one that will be okay with it after decades of people fighting and dying for a cause.

 

[FullFathomsFive]

And who stacked that court full of biased Christian Conservative neoaristocracy that had everything to lose if it wasn't formally a case of " Oppressor isn't X You're X" deflection(the logic of 4chan anarchist trolls, I might add)?

Not sure how you got here from reading the opinion. Did you read it? The real meat of it is entirely about the conduct of a lower court.

White people are still at war with Muslims and Nonbelievers over dominion of Jerusalem.

That IS the Crusades.

Uhhhh.... no? The Crusades were not fought by 'white people' and that same group no longer has a stake in control of the area. 'The Crusades' isn't a catch-all for Christians doing bad things.

Unless you're seriously conflating Jews with the Catholic faith which prosecuted them for centuries?

 

[Gamzee Makara]

Not sure how you got here from reading the opinion. Did you read it? The real meat of it is entirely about the conduct of a lower court.



Uhhhh.... no? The Crusades were not fought by 'white people' and that same group no longer has a stake in control of the area. 'The Crusades' isn't a catch-all for Christians doing bad things.

Unless you're seriously conflating Jews with the Catholic faith which prosecuted them for centuries?

The opinion isn't what matters:It's what kind of mentality that was let in that led to troll logic becoming policy.

People of European descent(Which NOW includes Americans of all Christian Sects) fighting Muslims(War on Terror, Operation Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, The Afghanistan Conflicts, etc) with troops(Self-explanatory) and mercenaries(Hezbollah and Haliburton) in the name of an Abrahamic Deity(God/Allah) and Kings(US Presidents, Putin, Netenyahu, Ayatollah, Saddam Hussein, Saudis, etc) over racial and religious dominance(White Christians or Brown Muslims) of a shared Holy City(Jerusalem) by supplying weapons, money and manpower to opposing factions in said area, the rest of the region and neighboring states, for the reasons of wealth, power, godly brownie points/religious "right" and skin color, despite the official record(Which you seem to trust WAYYYY too much) saying otherwise.

Is THAT clear enough?

 

[FullFathomsFive]

The opinion isn't what matters:It's what kind of mentality that was let in that led to troll logic becoming policy.

Uh, ok? I thought we were discussing a notorious and important legal case, but whatever.

People of European descent(Which NOW includes Americans of all Christian Sects) fighting Muslims(War on Terror, Operation Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, The Afghanistan Conflicts, etc) with troops(Self-explanatory) and mercenaries(Hezbollah and Haliburton) in the name of an Abrahamic Deity(God/Allah) and Kings(US Presidents, Putin, Netenyahu, Ayatollah, Saddam Hussein, Saudis, etc) over racial and religious dominance(White Christians or Brown Muslims) of a shared Holy City(Jerusalem) by supplying weapons, money and manpower to opposing factions in said area, the rest of the region and neighboring states, for the reasons of wealth, power, godly brownie points/religious "right" and skin color

I guess you're right - pretty much every armed conflict is exactly like the Crusades if the criteria is 'Antagonists with troops and heads of state'. Damned if I know what it has to do with cake, though.

despite the official record(Which you seem to trust WAYYYY too much)

Ummmm... in what sense? Your posts really aren't very clear.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

Uh, ok? I thought we were discussing a notorious and important legal case, but whatever.



I guess you're right - pretty much every armed conflict is exactly like the Crusades if the criteria is 'Antagonists with troops and heads of state'. Damned if I know what it has to do with cake, though.



Ummmm... in what sense? Your posts really aren't very clear.

1. Religion is the cause of the problem. The courts upheld religious bigotry. The court is LEGALIZING bigotry byusing a "No, you" deflection most people grow out of in their teens.
2. Dodging the racial and religious connotations, are we? And read point 1, The Crusades were bigotry incarnate. And Christians have NEVER stopped warring with Muslims since and vice versa, so the bigotry continues on the same grounds, with the cake case being comparable and a microcosm of the deluded nature of fundamentalist religion.
3. That a biased court is somehow cannot be wrong but is always right, and that you take the word of a lot of corrupt people verbatim without any doubt or research.

Before we got on this tangent, I simply want to prove that the law won't be universally enforced, until proven otherwise, using historical examples. A Satanist won't be able to deny a Christian based on this precedent.

Justice for all. No exceptions.

Proof needs to be had that this applies to all theists, quasi-theists and non-theists, or it's bigoted and selective.

 

[FullFathomsFive]

The courts upheld religious bigotry. The court is LEGALIZING bigotry by using a "No, you" deflection

Did you read the opinion? What bit are you actually referring to when you say it's a deflection?

Anyway, bigotry has always been legal. The case isn't about whether you are allowed to be a bigot or not, it's about he distinction between service and expression and the connotations of either for religious belief.

And Christians have NEVER stopped warring with Muslims since and vice versa

Umm, except when they have? Countless times throughout history? I mean, one of the greatest and most valid criticisms of current US foreign policy is the dependence of the House of Saud for regional influence.

What do you even mean when you say 'Christians' and 'Muslims'? There are dozens of states adhering to either, with their own entirely unique histories, alliances, geographical situations etc.

Proof needs to be had that this applies to all theists, quasi-theists and non-theists, or it's bigoted and selective.

This is specifically addressed in the opinion. The SC explicitly noted that Colorado law allowed business owners to refuse to make cakes espousing a particular view on at least three occasions.

 

[Auraninja]

It’s the gay couple’s fault for going into a Christian business and causing a stink which cost the owner to lose his way of making ends meet and reputation.

One question: Is it a gay couple's fault that they should have expected a Christian business to be homophobic, or is it their fault that they didn't just grin and bear it in the face of discrimination?

 

[Gamzee Makara]

Did you read the opinion? What bit are you actually referring to when you say it's a deflection?

Anyway, bigotry has always been legal. The case isn't about whether you are allowed to be a bigot or not, it's about he distinction between service and expression and the connotations of either for religious belief.



Umm, except when they have? Countless times throughout history? I mean, one of the greatest and most valid criticisms of current US foreign policy is the dependence of the House of Saud for regional influence.

What do you even mean when you say 'Christians' and 'Muslims'? There are dozens of states adhering to either, with their own entirely unique histories, alliances, geographical situations etc.



This is specifically addressed in the opinion. The SC explicitly noted that Colorado law allowed business owners to refuse to make cakes espousing a particular view on at least three occasions.

The logic of the opinion is the same a troll online uses when called out. "No, you're the troll" The SC was calling the discriminated against the discriminator. how is this too hard for you?

And no one should suffer the consequences for the typical expression of such:Harming others. Another "right to sociopathy" person....

Armistice =/= permanent laying down of arms. Trade Wars are still wars. Some form of Christian have been fighting with Muslims all throughout history over the EXACT SAME REASONS, disguised as other conflicts. It doesn't matter what label you put on the Christian or Muslim party in question, it's still Christians fighting Muslims over Jerusalem. Deals were made between rival factions in the Crusades too..those opposed to the Empire were hired as spies and other taskmasters. Your point?

Theistic people of European and Middle Eastern descent. Do the math.

It's almost like a bias in the law of Colorado and the majority of the court exists regarding businesses or something...and unless the court gave justifications for those other cases rather than just using them as hammers, it's whataboutism.

Here's the short version for you.

The Court is wrong.

Their logic is childish and reeks of bias and immaturity.

The system that allowed this is based upon flawed theism.

You have the freedom to PICK and PASSIVELY express a religion, not to FORCE others into compliance with your doctrine.

The baker forced the gay couple to comply with his doctrine by denying them on religious grounds.

No one should go around having to expect bias and fear from every business.

Just because it's legal or not, doesn't make it right and just.

The Court says it'll enforce it equally, but it won't due to its current composition's personal biases that show throughout their recorded careers.

Even if it is proven through action instead of just words, It still isn't right, because you can express different religion in a heartbeat, but you can't change your who you're attracted to.

 

[FullFathomsFive]

The logic of the opinion is the same a troll online uses when called out. "No, you're the troll" The SC was calling the discriminated against the discriminator. how is this too hard for you?

Could you quote it for clarity? It'd be great if you could pull out a phrase that demonstrates your argument, because interpreting your posts is honestly quite difficult. The meat of the opinion is that the Commission did not take the First Amendment into appropriate consideration, regardless of the conclusion it arrived at. The SC is not actually disagreeing with the ruling, merely that the Commission didn't have the competency to make it.

Armistice =/= permanent laying down of arms. Trade Wars are still wars. Some form of Christian have been fighting with Muslims all throughout history over the EXACT SAME REASONS, disguised as other conflicts. It doesn't matter what label you put on the Christian or Muslim party in question, it's still Christians fighting Muslims over Jerusalem. Deals were made between rival factions in the Crusades too..those opposed to the Empire were hired as spies and other taskmasters. Your point?

So, if Christian and Muslim states are refighting the Crusades every time they are are and aren't at war, every waking moment of every Christian and Muslim state is exactly like a series of religious conflicts in the first half of the 2nd millennium? And this bears some relation to cake?

It's almost like a bias in the law of Colorado and the majority of the court exists regarding businesses or something...and unless the court gave justifications for those other cases rather than just using them as hammers, it's whataboutism...

The Court says it'll enforce it equally, but it won't due to its current composition's personal biases that show throughout their recorded careers.

I don't think you really understand the role of the SC in this case or the content of the ruling. The SC drew attention to these cases to demonstrate that there is a precedent in Colorado law for bakers to refuse to create products on the basis of their freedom of expression, and given this, the Commission should have done a better job of taking the baker's arguments along these lines into account. The SC is not arguing that the baker's refusal was legal, just that the Commission had not handled the case appropriately and had potentially ignored precedent.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

The whole dang thing. No quote needed. And the 1st Amendnment isn't clear on whether passive or forceful expression is allowed under it. There isn't one kind of expression. And the first Amendment isn't a get-out-of-jail-free clause for being an asshole. "MuH fReEdOm oF sPeEch"

When they stop fighting, and stop hating each other over petty differences, then The Crusades will truly be over.

And now people can refuse service to others if they are Christian(And IN NAME ONLY, other theists), or are lying about it, BECAUSE OF THIS. This shouldn't be hard. An oppressor(Christians) have just won an excuse to oppress on the groubs of identity.

You are defending legalized oppression on religious grounds of oppressed individuals via the SC's deflection of the party of offense to the offended by buying the bulls**t excuse they used in the ruling.

All because of Moscow Mitch blocking Obama's appointee.

 

[bobjr]

If you think a place can refuse to serve gay people you should also agree that a place can refuse to serve black or Latino people. It’s literally the same thing, denying someone because of how they were born. Who gives a **** what they believe if it’s factually wrong. Plus most of those regressive shitheads do it for the grift to make a few hundred thousand dollars on go fund me now anyway.

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

If you think a place can refuse to serve gay people you should also agree that a place can refuse to serve black or Latino people. It’s literally the same thing, denying someone because of how they were born. Who gives a **** what they believe if it’s factually wrong. Plus most of those regressive shitheads do it for the grift to make a few hundred thousand dollars on go fund me now anyway.

I totally agree. If a Muslim owned bakery refused to serve someone under the claim of religious freedom, that bakery would be shut down immediately by angry people, most likely white Republicans, because of unfair treatment. Religious freedom should not apply to just Christianity alone which it often is. Freedom of religion nowadays seems to be an excuse for Christians for denying customers based on sexual orientation due to being homophobic and bias. Religious freedom was originally used and formed as an idea for being able to worship the way you feel is correct without some angry mob killing you because you didn’t practice Christianity “the correct way.” People died for being a Quaker in Puritan communities. Freedom of religion was to end that practice which it did and allow people to leave in peace. It is now being distorted to an extreme.

 

[bobjr]

It’s not talked about because America hates to admit it, but there were churches who openly celebrated MLK Jr. being assassinated. Remember he only had about a 25% support rate among white people.

This isn’t a condemnation towards religion, but being religious does not protect you from being a bad person and having to face consequences for it. Religion is culture over time, and with any tradition it should be reflected on and questioned if it’s still relevant or good.

 

[FullFathomsFive]

The whole dang thing. No quote needed.

Ok, I guess we can't really debate this if you haven't read it.

When they stop fighting, and stop hating each other over petty differences, then The Crusades will truly be over.

I guess we can't really debate history either if you know nothing about it.

All because of Moscow Mitch blocking Obama's appointee.

Again, there's nothing to debate if you can't get the basic facts of the case right. The Court split 7/2.

The frustrating thing is that I think the SC might be inclined to rule against the baker in the initial case itself, because a commercial baker probably makes enough wedding cakes for enough people for it not to be reasonably considered expression - a position I share. Shame that the Commission was incompetent in handling the case.

In fact, that's a great analogy for this discussion. People are so willingly ignorant and incapable of making an effective case that they undermine positive causes.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

Ok, I guess we can't really debate this if you haven't read it.



I guess we can't really debate history either if you know nothing about it.



Again, there's nothing to debate if you can't get the basic facts of the case right. The Court split 7/2.

The frustrating thing is that I think the SC might be inclined to rule against the baker in the initial case itself, because a commercial baker probably makes enough wedding cakes for enough people for it not to be reasonably considered expression - a position I share. Shame that the Commission was incompetent in handling the case.

In fact, that's a great analogy for this discussion. People are so willingly ignorant and incapable of making an effective case that they undermine positive causes.

You're ignoring my points.

I've read the bloody opinion. I don't agree with it.

Analogies are a beautiful thing.

Insulting people will not get you your way.