Why the Upcoming Supreme Court Masterpiece Cakeshop Case is Important and Why Even Religious People Should Hope the Baker Loses

[Intraluminal]

DISCLAIMER: Let me say up front that I am biased against religion. Despite that, I recognize that there are people who feel that religion is a good thing, and I can respect that. I am trying to make this MyTake as even-handed as possible, and I ask that you, as a reader, take the time and trouble to actually read my take before posting. I dislike blocking opposing viewpoints, but posters who clearly demonstrate that they did not read my take, by arguing against points that I did not make, will be blocked.

Many groups (NOT ALL) on the religious right have tried for decades to misuse the First Amendment. In 1983, Bob Jones University argued that it should be allowed to deny admissions to interracially married couples because, it said, the Bible prohibits interracial marriage, and admitting those students violated the university’s Christian mission. It lost its tax-exempt status as a result of that trial (https://goo.gl/uVUaqv ). If Masterpiece Cakeshop prevails, then any personally-owned university will again be able to discriminate using the same argument. Granted, it might not prevail at the Supreme Court, but cases take years to get to the Supreme Court, and who knows? They might prevail with this case as a precedent.

So, here we are, arguing over cake and religion. Except - IT'S NOT ABOUT CAKE. That's the whole point. It's about whether a company serving the public has the right to discriminate against people and use religion as its tool.

It's also not about "the free market." People often say, "the free market will take care of this." But the "free market" often isn't free. Many markets, especially in small towns, are not free. In fact "the free market" is frequently not free (https://goo.gl/bhJMx2 ). A quick example. How many internet providers (ISPs) do you have access to? I live just outside Boston, A major city, and there are only two ISPs, so there's no competition for my business - I pay what they want, or I don't have internet access. In the same way, many small towns can only support one or two businesses of each type.

What this case is really about is whether I can use religion as an excuse to discriminate against people I don't like. Remember, there are 4,200 religions in the world (https://goo.gl/cLx6dY ). Among these 4,200 religions is at least one religion that believes that "brown skin" is god's curse (https://goo.gl/dT3wu7 ) The rest have other, similarly ridiculous, beliefs. I haven't familiarized myself with all 4,200 of them, but I'd be willing to bet that at least one of them has a rule that would discriminate against you.

Why should you, as a religious person, be very, very afraid of this case setting a precedent? A lot of you are Christian, and right now, Christianity holds sway. Guess what the fastest growing religion in America is? That's right - Islam (https://goo.gl/dMyDh9). But that's only a small part of what you should worry about. There are no rules about religions. What do I mean by that? I mean that I could sit down tomorrow, make up a religion, make up "religious laws," register my religion as a religion with the state, become tax-exempt, and impose my "laws" on you.

If I'm a baker, this is no big deal. You can live without that cake, trust me, but what if I open up an ISP in your (small) area? I could refuse to allow some website to even show up on your web-browser. So long as I was reasonably discreet about it, you might never know I was doing it, and because my religion "forbids" me to carry that "heathen" web-site, there'd be nothing you could do about it if you did find out. This example is just one of many ways the religious exemption could (and would) be misused.

[lizziepooh03]

"I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

These are not just corny signs put up by small town hideaway places; this is the foundation of everything decent and fair especially if you respect and value an individual's rights to do their own thing.

I, as a business owner, have the right to decide if I want to provide my services to someone or not, regardless of anything. I can refuse someone because of the shoes they wear (or lack thereof) or I can refuse because I am a fucking racist piece of shit and I refuse to serve blacks. I, as a private business owner in the US, have that right and should be able to retain that right.

Every private business owner should have the right to refuse service to someone for whatever reason they want even if they are morally repugnant reasons.

Public facilities do not have that right. Public facilities are not private facilities so public facilities need to treat everyone as the law dictates they need to be treated.

"I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a value I support.

I do not support having the US government force a private business owner to serve a customer they refuse to serve regardless of how morally reprehensible their choice is to me or not.

I actually value my freedom of choice and in so doing, I have to support other people's choices in freedom even if I disagree with them. And even if I strongly disagree with them. Even if it takes every ounce of my willpower to hold myself back from pounding them to death because of their morally repugnant values, I still support their right to exist and their right to chose which customer they want to service or not.

Because *cough cough* I still value freedom and what that all entails. And leftists, leftists would not know freedom if it came up and bit them in the face - they have no clue what freedom means. They think freedom means being free to think what I think is true is therefor right so therefor free but they have no concept of what happens when they encounter someone that disagrees with them and if they value freedom of thought, they have to allow that person to think what they think. Egads! Leftist's head explodes!

God help someone that disagrees with a leftist and the leftist is in charge. There is a saying, "scratch a leftist and you will find a little dictator." This situation is why this saying has merit... leftists can't handle people's freedom if someone disagrees with them... just saying...

[jacquesvol]

@lizziepooh03

"I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

Thus a pilot could refuse to take off because there's a gay in his plane?

[jacquesvol]

@lizziepooh03 what's your job? Or are you retired? Does the pension fund employee havetheright to stop paying your pension to you if you're gay?

[freakyzeaky]

@jacquesvol as long as the pilot is working for an employer who requires him to fly without discrimination for the passengers, then yes, he should take off or else he risks losing his job. Now if it was the pilots own private business, he owned it and could set the rules, then yes, he can deny whoever he wants to deny and still keep his business.

The free market will eventually catch up to him, because there will be another pilot out there that will not discriminate and he will get all the business the other guy is passing up on.

The employee pension fund at a business will have a bunch of policies written up and legally binding that HR manages and enforces. Chances are those businesses will have nondiscrimination policies in place. An employee should check these things before they work for a company. If companies refused to hire gay or give pension to gays, then people can boycott them, a person can refuse to work for them, etc.

The government does not have to be the big bro.

[Intraluminal]

@freakyzeaky

First, that whole "he can find someone else" is ridiculous. If that's so, then why did we end segregation? We could have kept segregation and just said ,"well, they can go somewhere else." In fact, we still be segregated today.

Secondly, the "free market" not only doesn't work to serve small numbers of people, it actively discriminates against them. AND, "eventually" can be a LONG time - years if not decades. by the way, how many internet service providers do you have where you live? If the airport (not the airplane) was privately owned, how far to the next nearest airport? Where's your second-guess hospital?

[freakyzeaky]

Except bakeries are a dime a dozen, hospitals are not. If hospitals refused people of color or homosexuals, there would be major outrage, and yes, civil rights movements like we saw in the 60s. However with a bakery, yes, just move on to another one. It is their right to deny whoever they want to serve, it is their PRIVATE business.

Same goes for if I was selling a microwave on Craigslist. I could sell it, anyone, I damn well choose. I could lie and tell anyone, sorry, I won't sell to you. What makes that any different than selling from out of a brick and mortar building?

The issue with segregation was that it was widespread and law enforcement was actively using violence to intimidate and coerce black people and other minorities. That is much different than the simple issue of private businesses choosing who they want to do business with.

You have no right to demand the services or business of another.

[jacquesvol]

@freakyzeaky That's the way verdicts become law of the land.
It would still become legal for hospitals or airlines to refuse them. Outrage or not.

[Lumberman53]

@freakyzeaky hospitals maybe I could understand, but something that is not so risky like bakeries or other similar services they should have the right

[Lumberman53]

@jacquesvol Hospitals are one thing because it's a matter of safety but other than that where there is no such risk such as a bakery and other similar services they have the right to refuse. The freedom to refuse goes both ways if a gay bakery wants to refuse to bake a cake for a Christian couple they have to right to, just as much as the Christian baker would.

[redeyemindtricks]

“I can refuse someone because of the shoes they wear (or lack thereof) or I can refuse because I am a fucking racist piece of shit and I refuse to serve blacks. I, as a private business owner in the US, have that right and should be able to retain that right.”

^^ Factually incorrect.

If you are found to have discriminated systematically against any “protected class” (as defined in the 1964 civil rights act), then you’ll at the very least get hit with hefty fines, and you’ll possibly be charged with a federal crime on top of those.

[jacquesvol]

The Founding Fathers too could have landed somewhere else to establish their theocracy.

[lizziepooh03]

To @jacquesvol and @Intraluminal - I believe @freakyzeaky and @Lumberman53 answered your questions more concisely and beautifully than I ever could. They said the points I would have made to you but they did so with less words and more clearly and efficiently than I ever could.

@redeyemindtricks Civil Rights Act of 1964 - I had to look it up but I was not surprised by what I found since it confirmed what I thought would already be in place - the civil rights act prohibited unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations.

These are the things and the only things that the government should control if the government was to be in control of some things.

Think about it for a little bit. There are some things the government should not control and they should not control whether or not a private business owner takes on a customer or not. They just really should not be in control of that. Shame you do not get that.

[redeyemindtricks]

Do you not know the history of this? Most of the first places where the civil rights act was vigorously enforced were cafeterias, restaurants, and other private businesses.

Read the law yrself
civilrights.findlaw.com/.../...unctive-relief.html

In fact, all of these different kinds of ••private•• businesses are even MENTIONED, specifically.

[Intraluminal]

@redeyemindtricks

Exactly. Otherwise, the law would have been meaningless.

[lizziepooh03]

@redeyemindtricks and @Intraluminal

The first sentence from your own link..."The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is federal civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination in numerous settings including: employment, education, voting, and public accommodations.

If you can't get from that sentence what the law actually means, then maybe you just should give up on thinking decisions out for yourself. You do not seem that sharp.

And you actively seem to work against the truth.

Not good...

[Intraluminal]

If you won't read more than the first sentence, then you're not willing to examine the evidence.

[lizziepooh03]

@Intraluminal Reading more than the first sentence still won't change the fact of what the Civil Rights Act of 64 tried to do.

You may read more into what the law actually did, but that is on you. Because you have it wrong, should not mean everyone should have it wrong. Just saying...

You really need to re-think your argument. This one has no traction. It is quite, obviously, dumb because it is easily proven wrong.

[redeyemindtricks]

s33.postimg.org/.../...D-8951-_D0_EEB008_A0_C9.png

s33.postimg.org/.../...2-92_CE-905_FE7_EA79_EF.png

s33.postimg.org/.../...9-89_C3-_F142_E0183_E63.png

[jacquesvol]

@redeyemindtricks Those people will consider that as 'socialist' stuff invented to enslave them.

[lizziepooh03]

@redeyemindtricks Not sure where you got your quote but the law specifically only mentions public facilities, as they should.

Here is a quote from the law: "78 Stat. 241 - An Act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes."

Here is the link www.gpo.gov/.../content-detail.html

[lizziepooh03]

To @redeyemindtricks, @jacquesvol and @Intraluminal - I want to try a different track of reasoning with you.

I want to ask you if you think that it is OK for the artists that refused to play or have their song played at republican benefits due to a difference in political beliefs? And if so, how is it any different from a bakery refusing to service a client due to their political (religious) beliefs except for the fact that you agree with the artists and not with the bakers? I mean, really. Please check your bias and answer rationally on this.

Any business owner should be able to decide if they want to do business with someone or not... regardless of their reasons. Their business, their choice. How can you argue with that? And you can't, if you agree that people can refuse their services for political reasons. Just saying... think about it...

[jacquesvol]

@lizziepooh03
A bakery selling a product is not perceived as showing PUBLIC sympathy for the buyer. An artist performing at a political meeting does show his sympathy.

[lizziepooh03]

@jacquesvol Your answer makes no sense. :0 Not sure what to do with it...

To @redeyemindtricks and @Intraluminal - let's hope you guys can do better. The question is do you think that it is OK for the artists that refused to play or have their song played at republican benefits due to a difference in political beliefs? And if so, how is it any different from a bakery refusing to service a client due to their political (religious) belief. Please do better than @jacquesvol's answer. At least make it interesting for me... please.

[Intraluminal]

@lizziepooh03

You asked, "The question is do you think that it is OK for the artists that refused to play or have their song played at republican benefits due to a difference in political beliefs? And if so, how is it any different from a bakery refusing to service a client due to their political (religious) belief.'

Yes. It was OK (although disrespectful) For a number of reasons.

1) The artists do not, and are not in the business of, providing a general service to the public (with one exception that I will address later). This differentiates them from a baker who door is, and should be, open to the general public.

2) The artists' refusal was not directed at a *class* of people, such as black people or gays, who cannot change their nature, but toward republicans who, theoretically at least, can change their minds. This is an essential difference. as I will explain:

[Intraluminal]

The essential difference between discriminating against groups of people who have an intrinsic nature, and those who make bad choices is clear.

A black person cannot (in the unlikely event that they wished to) become white, not a gay person straight. "Punishing" a black person for being black (because discrimination IS a way of punishing people) is both useless and harmful to society. No matter how much they are discriminated against, black people cannot become white., so the discrimination does not effect a change. Further, the discrimination hurts the person who is discriminated against, hurts his or her family, and results in reduced productivity, thereby damaging society at large.

However, the contrary is NOT true, punishing a thief for his actions, or a bigot for his discrimination, can lead the person to change. People can and do, over time, respond to negative consequences and canalter their behavior (although they often don't).

[Intraluminal]

3) The artists' music is designed, and used, as a means of communication (aka speech). Although the baker in question has (after the fact) identified himself as, "a cake artist" even the republican judge found this claim ridiculous.

This brings us back to my first point. the the artists' DO PROVIDE a general service to the public when they allow their music to be distributed to the public as CDs or mpegs or whatever. At that point, they lose their argument that they have a right to refuse to provide service, and, in fact, they could not IN REALITY restrict the republicans from using their music - all they could do is bitch and moan about it. It was the republicans THEMSELVES who chose not to play the artists' musical recordings.

[Intraluminal]

4) There is another, very important difference between the artists and the baker. It is complex, but I'll try to simplify it as much as possible.

Let's start with an example. If you are stopped by the police for speeding, you doubtless realize that you pay a small part of the officer's salary. If fact, people who care stopped by the police often say this. Nevertheless, you do not get your ticket reduced by your contribution toward the officer's salary.

Why? Because, although you contribute to the police via taxes, it is recognized that your responsibility/ownership to the police is as part of society. The police belong to ALL the members of society as a whole - not as an ownership by share, but as part of a collective. You do pay the police officer's salary but only as a collective. The officer's services are SHARED just as the cost of the police is SHARED. The fact that you pay more or less of that share doesn't matter, or SHOULDN'T theoretically at least.

[Intraluminal]

This concept that the police services belong to all of the citizens, is clear I hope. Of course the same concept belongs to the fire department, the roads, the public utilities, and all the rest of the public services we depend upon. Is that part clear?

[orphanedmind]

@Intraluminal I think your responses are naive. I am unaware of any thieves or bigots that have changed their behavior due to punishment, and almost certainly not their thoughts.

[Intraluminal]

@orphanedmind

Interesting. You respond "as though" you read my detailed response to @lizziepooh03 but in actuality all you responded to was my final paragraph. Even there, you fail to respond to the issues raised, but simply respond with your opinion that punishment (jail) doesn't work. If that's so, then why jail people@ if jail doesn't work (as you claim) then either we shouldn't jail them at all (because it doesn't work) or we should execute them all (because nothing else works).

Does spanking kids also not work@ that would certainly invalidate the biblical injunction "spare the rod and spoil the child."

[jacquesvol]

@lizziepooh03 Just admit you don't want gays to have civil rights. :-p

[freakyzeaky]

I still view the whole free market transactional nature of business and services to be the sole providence of the people who are partaking in that transaction and not some overseeing government body playing middleman, forcing arbitrary rules, essentially going against the very freedom of what this nation was founded on.

Think about before there were businesses, before there was even currency.

Native American tribes relied on a trade and barter system. There was nothing there that could stop them from discriminating against another person who wanted to trade with them. A person could easily dislike the way a person looked or acted and refuse to trade. That was their choice. It was their goods, their services, and they could always find another person to trade with. The same goes for a person who needs a certain good or service. There will always be another person who is willing to trade.

[freakyzeaky]

That is the foundation of capitalism. There will always be competition, as long as there is not widespread and systematic discrimination, as was the case in the 50s and 60s when the police authorities used coercion and force to deny minorities access to goods and services other races and classes of people had access to.

The truth is, the government itself is almost always the source of oppression. It isn't the people because people are inherently free. The government should only be there to ensure that freedom is not infringed upon. That freedom includes choosing who you want to do business with, who you want to serve, and where you can go to receive goods and services.

Any current laws on the books do not erase that guiding principle, the very principle that the US was founded on.

[jacquesvol]

@freakyzeaky free market transactional nature of business and services is only valid in the absence of monopolies or oligopolies. In this case , it seems this baker had a monopoly on high quality wedding cakes in that place.

[freakyzeaky]

@jacquesvol the baker offered the gay couple other bakeries they could go to get their cake. Watch the videos I posted on this Take from Ben Shapiro. It wasn't as if the baker straight up refused the gay couple. He had strict rules in place that extended beyond baking cakes for gay weddings. And again, he provided them with other bakeries they could contact to get their cake.

This is just an example of people taking advantage of the current political climate to play the victim and to bring attention to social justice issues. Social justice is often wielded as a weapon to take away the freedoms of others.

[jacquesvol]

@freakyzeaky the bigotry freedom?

[freakyzeaky]

@jacquesvol people are free to be whatever they choose as long as they aren't harming other people. You can't stop bigotry or racism by force. That is something that needs to change from within. Just as you can't force someone to love you and would you want to? Would it be true love?

Bottom line, that couple could have easily gone to another bakery and let that guy be a religious bigot. Their business would have been appreciated elsewhere. They could put a bad review on Yelp and made others aware of the discriminatory practices. They could have used free and honest dialog rather than looking to big daddy government to come and take care of them.

It just reminds me of people who sue fast food companies for making them fat. Anything to make a buck off of being a "victim".

[Intraluminal]

@freakyzeaky

Hi, I've been following your conversation. I can show you where you're making a logical error, but it requires that you follow the reasoning closely (objecting where necessary) and be honest. What do you do, in general terms, for a living?

[jacquesvol]

@freakyzeaky Of course you're not racist or bigot but you defend racism and bigotry in name of your principles.
That's such an old excuse...

[freakyzeaky]

@jacquesvol Because that is what freedom and free will are all about. We have the right to choose. I might not agree with your choices, but I can agree with your right to make them.

[freakyzeaky]

I work in IT, specifically for a US state agency.

I don't know how that makes a difference. If I don't like my job, I can leave and get a new one. The agency is bound by certain rules and regulations, but it was my employers right to set those policies as it is my employer's organization, more specifically, the governor, who was elected as a representative of the people of the state.

Now let's say I was the owner of my own IT firm. Although this isn't the law, I should be able to hire who I want, pay them what I want, provide services to who I want, and so on. My business is my own. That is how it should be. If potential clients don't like that or prospective employees don't like how I didn't hire them for X reason, then they can find another employer that will hire them or provide the service.

I don't really see how it is that hard to understand. It really is /that/ simple.

[freakyzeaky]

Now if there was widespread discrimination, that is a different story. That is where revolution comes into play. The US was also founded on the idea of revolution. The power should always always always be in the people's hands and not government overseers.

[redeyemindtricks]

@freakyzeaky "If potential clients don't like that or prospective employees don't like how I didn't hire them for X reason, then they can find another employer that will hire them or provide the service."

The point of civil-rights legislation is that this just isn't true.

Back in '64 — when the long arm of the law had to ••force•• mom-and-pop businesses like cafeterias to serve black customers alongside white ones — this just wasn't true. Without federal enforcement, there was just no way the black customers were going to be served.
Plenty of business owners were openly hostile to integration — and even the ones who weren't, were smart enough to realize that having the KKK fucking up their premises would do no favors for their bottom line.

I think we can safely assume that you're from a large metro area, where yr statement is mostly going to be true. But — as alws — laws aren't made for people who will willingly follow them anyway.

[jacquesvol]

@freakyzeaky widespread discrimination exists.

[freakyzeaky]

@jacquesvol I would argue that it doesn't, not anymore.

[redeyemindtricks]

@freakyzeaky Insofar as it doesn't, how much of that is because federal legislation doesn't LET it?
I think you'd be a damn fool to give an answer that's not close to 100%.

[freakyzeaky]

@redeyemindtricks no, I really truly believe that the climate for systematic racism has long since passed, with or without laws. People are afraid to be labeled as a "racist". There is a reason why the word is thrown around so wantonly by leftists who want to shut down their political rivals. It wasn't like back in the 60s where racism was openly accepted. The same goes for homosexual acceptance. In just a few decades, homosexuality has been widely embraced, even by conservatives! The social pressure is there now, and the free market is dictated by the consumer, and the consumer is part of the aforementioned society.

Just like I believe the there is no longer a need for affirmative action...

Nowadays, fighting tooth and nail over a single bakery and it's owner practicing religious freedom, is a waste when the free market will take care of things. This isn't the ONLY baker in their area I am sure.

I know the laws, I am not arguing laws. Laws can change. But principles, those...

[freakyzeaky]

... those are still valid even when laws are enacted and enforced.

[redeyemindtricks]

@freakyzeaky Slippery slopes are a thing.

It's true that a single bakery, in a large metro area, is not a big deal in the larger scheme of things. On that, you and I agree.

... And that's EXACTLY why it's so important for the courts to rule in a way that reinforces the principles of civil rights NOW — WHILE IT'S NOT a big deal.

The alternative is to let things slide down that slippery slope until "big deals" ARE happening (... and with those other cases serving as precedents to allow whatever discriminatory practices). That's not the alternative we want.

[OlderAndWiser]

1. The misuse of the First Amendment is not limited to religious organizations. Protecting nude dancing because it is “free speech” seems rather ludicrous to me. And in the current climate, there are many “news” organizations which deliver more propaganda than news but they are protected by the First Amendment.

2. So what if Bob Jones University could deny admission to an interracial couple. It is only one of thousands of universities in this country. Is there something about Bob Jones University that makes it a unique opportunity?

3. If the cake baker does not bake the wedding cake for Bob and Tim, they can go elsewhere and get a cake. They have not been denied a right guaranteed by the Constitution. If the cake baker is forced to bake the cake, he is being forced to do something contrary to his religion.

4. Internet service providers are huge corporations which are governed by a board of directors. They are not making any decisions on the basis of religious doctrine. There are some smaller, closely held corporations which do operate with respect to religious beliefs, but they do not operate in areas where they have a quasi-franchise.

5. There may be thousands of religions in the world but the baker only had one religion. When his case went to trial, he was required to prove that he sincerely believed in his religion, that it was not merely a pretext for discriminatory actions. He proved that he held his religious beliefs long before this controversy arose. He did not look out the window, see Armenians approaching, and do a quick google search to determine which religions discriminated against Armenians.

6. Despite your contempt for religions, most mainstream religions accomplish many good works every day. The fact that some may have beliefs which seem ridiculous to you does not mean that they should all be disrespected.

7. Religions do not need to be “registered” with the state.

8. Being recognized as a religion does not give a group standing to impose their religious laws on anyone else. Contraire, what you are suggesting is that your non-religious view of the world should be imposed on those who follow different religions.

This seems like an extension of the general operating principle in our current culture: if it involves Christians, it must yield to anyone else who does not like it.

[Intraluminal]

1. The misuse of the First Amendment is not limited to religious organizations...
Agreed. I for one do not think that burning the flag tells me anything except that you're an asshole. Never-the-less...
2. So what if Bob Jones University.. is there something.. that makes it a unique opportunity?
Not at all, but remember that BJU was fighting what it knew to be a losing battle. Most universities didn't want to go there, BUT if the discrimination were LEGAL, then this would have been wide-spread.
3. A) If the cake baker does not bake the wedding cake... they can go elsewhere... They have not they will serve BASED on what they are. Black, white, methodist, gay, whatever - is the issue, NOT constitutionality.
B) If the cake baker is forced to bake the cake, he is being forced to do something contrary to his religion.
How is baking a cake contrary to anyone's religion? Where is, "thou shalt not bake a cake for gays in the Bible? That "where in the Constitution" argument can cut both ways.

[Intraluminal]

4. Internet service providers are huge corporations which are governed by a board of directors. They are not making any decisions on the basis of religious doctrine.

NO. BUT they COULD if this guy wins.

... smaller, closely held corporations which do operate with respect to religious beliefs, but they do not operate in areas where they have a quasi-franchise.
REALLY? Prove it. I'm sure there are places where they do or COULD.

5. There may be thousands of religions... but the baker only had one religion. When his case went to trial, he was required to prove that he sincerely believed in his religion...
How does one PROVE they are really a believer? I am really a believer in Pastafarianism. How would you prove that I'm not?

6. Despite your contempt for religions, most mainstream religions accomplish many good works every day.
Debatable. Very, very debatable, but I'm not going there now, and that issue in TANGENTIAL to my take.

[Intraluminal]

7. Religions do not need to be “registered” with the state.
For tax exempt status? I *think* you're wrong, but maybe you're right.

8. Being recognized as a religion does not give a group standing to impose their religious laws on anyone else.
If this guy wins his case, that's EXACTLY what they can do. In fact, under the Hobby Lobby case it has already happened. Women are being denied abortion coverage, forcing them to obey SOMEONE else's religious dictates.

[mak_1]

It's not the point that people can go elsewhere. If that was the case, America never would have desegregated their schools, restaurants and other public places. Black people could have just gone elsewhere, but that wasn't the point. The point is that people shouldn't be denied things over personal traits they cannot change.

Also, if you don't see the problem with a university denying admission to interracial couples in 1983, then you are really missing the point. Let's ban white couples from some universities too then. I mean what's the problem if they can just go to another? So long as there is at least one other school for them to attend then there is no problem... right?

That logic coupled with racism is exactly the justification for racial segregation in America. Sad that it is still being used today to justify discrimination.

[OlderAndWiser]

Yes, a religion must apply for tax-exempt status. If I form a religion in my home, we have 10 members and we don't care about tax-exempt status, there is no registration required.

8. Being recognized as a religion does not give a group standing to impose their religious laws on anyone else.
If this guy wins his case, that's EXACTLY what they can do. In fact, under the Hobby Lobby case it has already happened. Women are being denied abortion coverage, forcing them to obey SOMEONE else's religious dictates.

Me imposing my religion on you would be telling you what you can and cannot do based on my religion. You imposing your non-religious law on me is telling me what I must do based on your beliefs.

Women are not being denied abortions or access to birth control. They are being told that it is their responsibility and not the responsibility of the employer.

I could respond to all the other points you raised but I don't feel like doing that tonight.

[Intraluminal]

@mak_1
Excellent, excellent points. TY.

[OlderAndWiser]

@mak_1 There are things that a white person cannot do today in America but a black person can do. I am not a fan off racial discrimination and I don't need anyone to ride in on a white horse to set me straight. I am a proponent of people, in private settings, having the freedom to do whatever they want.

[Intraluminal]

If an abortion is made unaffordable because you have imposed your religious beliefs on me, then how do I get an abortion? Magic?

[OlderAndWiser]

You and I will never agree. We can end this conversation while it is still civil.

[Intraluminal]

@OlderAndWiser.

"having the freedom to do whatever they want."
These guys wanted to buy a cake from a company that is supposed to serve the public, using public licensing to promote its business, and public services to protect it's money and provide safety for it's customers and staff.

If this baker wanted to bake "in private settings" that would be fine. We wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Intraluminal]

I have no intention of becoming uncivil. I am genuinely trying to understand how this baker's actions differ from the many restaurants in the south that used to refuse to serve black people.

[OlderAndWiser]

Can you take a hint? Good night!

[Intraluminal]

good night. May flights of angels fly thee to thy rest.

[hellionthesagereborn]

No. Their are many reasons why, for instance the baker had made cakes for this couple for years, he had told them outright that he could not do a wedding cake for them as it whent against his religious beliefs of marriage being between a man and a woman but he would make them a cake for anything else i. e. it wasn't prejudice it was not exploitation; or because equal rights necessitates equality i. e. you cannot discriminate against some one this opening the door to discrimination against Christians (as a gay coffee shop owner has already done, yet is being defended for doing against Christians); or because dictating to some one that they have to do what you say under the threat of violence (as this is the only real power the government has to enforce its laws) is morally reprehensible; but really even those aside their is only one real reason why we should hope that this does not side with a couple that is willing to oppress another simply because they want to bend the world to their own will, and that is if the government is willing to use the threat of economic sanctions and really the threat of violence (as if you ignore the rules they will inevitably have to use force to punish you for disobeying them) to enforce a rule that tells a person they must go against their conscious and to violate their beliefs, then their is nothing, NOTHING, stopping them from doing the same to you. this was the principle of non discrimination laws, that no one has the right to dictate to a person what they can and cannot choose to do, its now being exploited to force an ideology on others. This should be terrifying to you and every one else. If they do this they will do it again and it will not stop, in fact its already happening. Currently if you use the wrong pronoun and "misgender" a person will result in up to a year in prison in California and a fine and possible eviction in New York. Meanwhile to infect a person knowlingly with HIV is only 6 months imprisonment. If this is allowed to happen at the federal level, it won't stop and we will lose the very thing that makes our country so special, so powerful, the right to choose how we live our lives.

[Intraluminal]

I get the impression that you are a thinking person, and that you have thought about these problems deeply. That's good. These issues are important and we should be thinking about them.

The only thing I ask is that you slow down a bit. You mentioned so many issues that they're all tangled up.

Could you please pick one issue, and we'll discuss this one issue at a time? Thanks.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Sorry its hard trying to prevent the thoughts from spilling out. First point and the most important, if the government sides with one group to oppress the other, that is forcing a person to accept a differing ideology as true, then they can do that to any one and that will inevitably lead us down a dark path. That is why we have the freedom of expression and of religion and of speech to prevent just such a thing from happening. If you look at England for example, historically which ever ruler came in dictated what you could and could not say or think. That's why they ended up with so many persecutions of catholics, then protestants, then catholics, then protestans that where not their kind of protestants etc. By making it a right of the individual we prevent these types of oppression as who ever is in power cannot enforce their world view on to the populace. Its a safe guard. If they can make some one you disagree with give up their beliefs, then can do the same to you.

[jacquesvol]

And now religious die-hards think it's time to persecute gays and liberals...

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol Persecute? How is not making a cake for a wedding but explicitly telling them you will make them a cake for any and all other events persecution? Tell me how punishing a man for not doing what you want, punishing them because of their religion not persecution? The answer is it is persecution and its coming from the left. That's why they don't punish the gay coffee shop owner who threw out a church group from his shop, because he was gay so its okay for him to discriminate. Its about not persecuting in fact. Not really sure how you got that backwards, the gay coffee shop owner had every right to determine who he wanted to serve because he was a private business owner, the Christian baker also had that right, but the left wants to take the Christians rights away (by threat of violence through the government) but not the gay mans right to discriminate. That is persecution, and again its coming from the left (as it usually does.).

[jacquesvol]

If you want to push non Christians out of society, that's how: not selling them your product.
Imagine Amazon asking your sexual preferences before taking your order.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol He never asked their sexual preference, your intentionally omitting information because you know you have no argument. They wanted a wedding cake, he told them he could not do that but he was more then happy to make them a cake for anything else. That's not discrimination against their sexuality (but I do find it ironic how extreme leftist like you scream about how wrong discrimination is but then turn around and discriminate against literally every one who doesn't think like you do. I really am amazed at how you guys juggle so much cognitive dissonance). Further more the gay coffee shop owner threw out a church group when he found out they where Christian, why isn't he being brought to court I wonder? Probably because he is gay and for some strange reason in our extreme leftist society gays are a protected class, they can do what ever they want whenever they want without consequence and people like you are fine with it.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol But I understand why your confused, this is America and in America we believe in certain unalienable rights, one of those is freedom of religion, another freedom of expression. Just as the gay couple cannot be punished for being gay we also believe that its wrong to punish people because of their religious beliefs (I know its probably a foreign concept to you, your use to punishing and discriminating against any one who doesn't think like you), we also believe in the rights of the individual so while the gay couple have the right to not do businesses with the baker, the baker has the right not to do business with the gay couple (its really strange because muslim bakers deny service to homosexuals but for some strange reason are not punished for it, I wonder why?(its because its only discrimination when you do it to people whom you agree with)), no different then the gay coffee shop owner choosing not to do business with Christians, he has that right.

[jacquesvol]

Wrong. I don't punish.

[jacquesvol]

"the gay coffee shop owner threw out a church group when he found out they where Christian"
Not acceptable!
Source?

[Intraluminal]

@jacquesvol

Why, Trump of course. The font of all wisdom and knowledge. Champion of human rights and dignity. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, and as a mild-mannered billionaire, able to confuse idiots.

[jacquesvol]

😆😆

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol https://youtu.be/FRUJmGzV9Ko he found out they had put up fliers near by (not in or around his shop) and upon finding out they where Christian he threw them out. No one has brought him to court as of yet. The left has remained perfectly silent on this issue because again, it benefits them, they are not interested in preserving the rights of people, all they care about his their own personal agenda. As I said he has that right as a private business owner to decide whom he does business with, I just also believe that the baker does as well. That's the disconnect between my stance and the lefts stance, they don't want to fight against discrimination, they just want to fight against "discrimination" if it affects them.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol As for you not punishing, no you don't but you are calling for it. You are calling for the government to force a man to do something he does not wish to do even though he has done nothing to harm any one. That couple can go to a different baker, they can start their own bakery that only caters to gays etc. instead you and they and the left have decided its okay to make him do what YOU want. That its okay to get the government involved despite the fact that the only way the government can make any one do anything is with threats of violence and when that fails actual violence. Ergo you think its okay to use violence against some one that you disagree with. Again, I don't.

[hellionthesagereborn]

What does trump have to do with any of this?

[jacquesvol]

Asking a baker to bake , just like for other customers is not punishing him.

[jacquesvol]

It's his job and craft.

[jacquesvol]

Are youtube clips ever checked and double checked? Anyone can post anything there as long as there not much nudity in it.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol Oh jesus fucking Christ, their it is again. What excuse are you going to give when I give an article detailing the event? I mean I had to bypass most of them because they tended towards conservative sites and I know you will immediately dismiss them because of that. I mean honestly, if its not in your little echo chamber you just ignore it. This happened, the guy even was on a radio show in (I believe it happened in Washington) his home state talking about it (claiming it wasn't discrimination not really, but he didn't want Christians in his shop (which is absolutely discrimination). Just accept the evidence and move on, we both know your just trying to find some excuse for why its "wrong" so that you can continue to believe that your side has the moral superiority (you don't). As for the baker, your confused, he works because he has chosen too, not because its mandated by others. If he chooses not to make a cake for the KKK does that mean he should be forced to as well?

[jacquesvol]

@hellionthesagereborn
My best guess: that bar owner wanted to show how discrimination feels. (Or the whole thing was s stunt set up only to gain views on youtube.)
Thebakery stuff backfiring in the face of Christian zealots

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol As I said, their are articles, he was interviewed so we know for an absolute fact that it was not a hoax. As for showing how discrimination feels, no that's not what he said about it and two, how would that make any sense as these people did not discriminate against them in any way shape or form (you do know that not every Christian is agains gays right? My grandfather is very religious, he also happens to be gay. Its not mutually exlusive.) so that's like me punching you in the mouth so that you know how it feels because some one else at some other point in time hit some one else, who wasn't me, in the mouth. Its irrational. So your argument is that its made up (its not) or the guy is not only a bigot and who discriminates against Christians, he is also an asshole who hurts people to teach them a lesson for perceived wrongs commited by some one else. Not a good counter argument. Thanks for staying true to form though. Its just a shame you won't call out leftist/gay zealots

[jacquesvol]

You read interviews. I didn't. The man probably told why he did it.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol Yeah, he said it was discrimination, he said it was because they where handing out pamphlets around the block (not to him and not in his store) and when he found out that they where Christians and they had an opinion he didn't like he kicked them out, you know discriminated against them.

[jacquesvol]

Thus not Christians in general but a group of zealots

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol Zealots? Please, don't talk any more your embarrassing yourself. Like I said, every single fucking time, you always do this. You always make up some bullshit excuse for why the left is perfect and every one else is evil. Why your right and every one else has to be wrong. First you tried to claim that it was all Christians who hated gays and thus discriminated against them (that by the way is discrimination), then I showed you that no gays where doing the same to Christians and your response is to try and argue for why that didn't happen, then I proved it did and you try to claim it was a hoax, then I showed that it wasn't so now your saying that it was the Christians fault because, well your side couldn't ever be in the wrong now could it? I mean a gay person acting in a way that isn't good? Impossible, their gay. Your aware that gay people are in fact people right? They can be just as bigoted as every one else (so are you by the way)? What the hell is wrong with you?

[jacquesvol]

@hellionthesagereborn Just read this: www.sacbee.com/.../article15394181.html

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol Lets pretend that its not a giant hoax (it almost certainly is), so what? Do you know the probability of any law being passed? Its insanely low, any one can propose a law, in fact its standard practice to push through as many duplicates as you possibly can in the hopes that it makes it far enough to actually be seen by a committee, not voted on, just to be seen by a committee who will then pass it along to another committee etc etc. So that means a whole lot of nothing. The left has made it illegal to "misgender" a person, they have literally made it so that you will go to prison if you call a he a she or a she a he and they don't identify as a she. Prison. So don't give me this bullshit. When something actually becomes a law, like again, California imprisoning people for calling some one by the wrong gender pronoun or New Yorks law that will fine and evict any one who calls some one by the wrong gender pronoun (sound like zealots to you?), then we will have an issue.

[jacquesvol]

To propose such a law, in California, that guy must feel it pleases a lot of people.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol No. That's stupid. When the government proposes yet more taxes, do they do it because they think tax payers are going to be happy with it? No, they do it because that's what they want to do. That's just an idiotically stupid rational for something that is a non existent issue that you are desperately trying to make a point of. Meanwhile, again, people are arrested and imprisoned for misgendering, guess which one is a better argument, the one where one person proposed one bigoted law that never got passed or looked at, or the entire group that pushed for and passed a bigoted law that also violates our constitutional rights?

[Intraluminal]

@hellionthesagereborn "What does trump have to do with any of this?"

You run all your thoughts together. You cannot formulate cohesive ideas, but instead create arguments using groups of unrelated ideas. You cannot separate your feelings from the ideas you try, unsuccessfully, to express. You demonstrate the complete inability to differentiate between superficially similar, but intrinsically different things. All these issues are characteristic of Trumpites. Maybe you're not a Trumpite, but my guess is that you are.

[hellionthesagereborn]

How so? My thoughts are pretty damn coherent as far as I can tell. Maybe, since your the one making the accusation/insult, you could clarify where I did any of those things and how your not simply projecting your actions on to me? As for Trump, again, what does that have to do with anything? Is he the one taking that man to court? No. Is he the one who is defending the man? No. Has he created some kind of law that would affect this in any way shape or form? No. So I can't help and get the impression that you decided that everything I said was "emotional" and "incoherent" because I did not agree with your statement that this was some how trumps fault, that because you clearly hate trump and I clearly did not show that I shared your hatred, that I must therefore be wrong. Again, unless you can actually back up your statements, you shouldn't make accusations like that.

[hellionthesagereborn]

I mean you went from, "I get the impression that you are a thinking person. . . " to "You cannot formulate cohesive ideas, but instead create arguments using groups of unrelated ideas. You cannot separate your feelings from the ideas you try, unsuccessfully, to express.", seems in rather stark contrast doesn't it? Again, your upset because I don't agree with you and that's really a terrible reason to be upset with some one.
As for trump, some things I agree with others I don't, I didn't vote and frankly don't care about political ideologies because they are all wrong, not one of them is the truth which is the only thing I truly care about.

[Intraluminal]

@hellionthesagereborn

I'm sorry, but you just proved my point.

Yes. I did say, "I get the impression that you are a thinking person,..."
BUT
I fished by saying, " You mentioned so many issues that they're all tangled up. Could you please pick one issue, and we'll discuss this one issue at a time?"

This habit you have, of being (apparently) being unable to grasp complete concepts, and/or accepting only the small pieces that fit your preconceived notions, represents the very issue I raised.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Yes you did say that, but that's not what I was reffering to now was it? That's why I presented the quote about me "feeling" and not the supposed lack of coherency. But then you knew that you just don't like what I have to say. The concepts and arguments I presented where coherent, lets just get that out of the way now shall we? What I presented was a long list of reasons why this was bullshit, that's not incoherence that was just a list. It was wrong because he did not discriminate against them, he refused one time for one thing. It was bullshit because when a gay man discriminated against Christians it was deemed to be acceptable by society which shows massive hypocrisy on the lefts (i. e. your) part. It was wrong because you are effectively using violence to get your way as that is the only thing the government can use to get some one to do something, that is they only have the threat of force and when that fails actual force. It was wrong because if he can be forced to sacrifice

[hellionthesagereborn]

his principles then their is nothing to stop the government or various lobby groups to force every one else to sacrifice their principles. It was a violation of the first amendment right to freedom of religion and expression. See? List, not incoherent argument, a list. So now that we have shown that your comment was due to either you trying to dismiss my statements or you being so completely mentally deficient you can't figure out how to read a list, lets move on to your other claims. Unable to grasp complete concepts? Really? As previously stated I didn't even mention the so called "incoherence" comment, I specifically provided your quote about me "feeling" rather then using logic. So again, this is either you attempting to dismiss what I have to say because you have no way to argue against it (because you don't) or you are mentally deficient to the extent where it should be quite embarrassing to you.

[hellionthesagereborn]

So which one is it? Are you mentally deficient or are you just trying to dismiss my comments because you can't use logic or reason to argue against them? That's a rhetorical question by the way, we both know the answer to this, your trying to dismiss my statements because to you your feelings and your zealous devotion to your ideology is far more important then the truth or looking like a rational human being so you will play dumb and/or insult people in order to protect it. Its rather sad but its a pretty common thing that people do. I don't understand how you can handle the cognitive dissonance personally (In that you have differing standards for people based upon which group they are apart of).

[hellionthesagereborn]

Also you have yet to explain what trump has to do with this particular situation? It would seem almost as if it had nothing to do with it at all and you where just using that as some kind of insult rather then just come up with a logical rational argument.

[Intraluminal]

Let's take it one point at a time. OK?
You said, "It was wrong because he did not discriminate against them, he refused one time for one thing"

My question to you is, how many TIMES do you have to discriminate against someone for it to "count" as discrimination?
a) Once
b) twice
c) repeatedly
d) other

[Intraluminal]

second point, you said, "when a gay man discriminated against Christians it was deemed to be acceptable by society... your part."

Although some people might argue that throwing out people who are distributing horrible, misleading pictures, and are attacking your sexuality, is different than refusing to provide service, I * AM * NOT * IN * FAVOR * OF * HIS * ACTIONS. Sorry. He was wrong, and should have minded his own business or at most should have told them off, but continued to provide service.

[Intraluminal]

Third point, you said, "It was wrong because you are effectively using violence to get your way as that is the only thing the government can use to get some one to do something, that is they only have the threat of force and when that fails actual force."

Your argument is *ridiculous* Why?

Because the only power ANY government or person EVER has is by YOUR logic "violence."

You J-Walk. You get a ticket. You refuse to pay the ticket, you get arrested and taken to jail then court (violence). You refuse to pay the court fine, you are arrested and jailed (violence).

So, by your argument, NO law can EVER be enforced because it's violent.

You beat someone up. How can we stop you? Anything we do is ultimately violent.

[hellionthesagereborn]

What do you define as discrimination? Because if you not agreeing with something in your mind is discrimination then you are discriminating against me and every one else in the world. That seems to be a really broad definition. So clearly define what you think discrimination is. Personally I think discrimination is perfectly acceptable, as long as its not from the government a person should be free to choose whom they associate with, I don't do drugs, so I discriminate against those who do and try to avoid them and not associate with them. Doesn't mean I hate them but I don't like that environment. I don't like people who are extremely prejudice either by hating minorities, or hating gays or hating religious people and wishing harm upon them, I don't find that acceptable so I discriminate against them and choose not to associate with them. Is that wrong? Is that Immoral? Does that violate the constitution in some way shape or form? I would say no.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Descrimination is an issue when its done by the government, otherwise a private citizen has every right to live their lives as they see fit, whether that be avoiding religious people, avoiding racist people, avoiding certain races, avoiding gay people, etc. etc. etc. so long as they are not harming or taking away the rights of others (and no, no one is entitled to the services of another that's just absurd.).
As for your claim about the Christians, at which point did they discriminate against the gay coffee shop owner? Never. So that was a false claim. When did they hand out those pamphlets in that coffee shop? Never. What was disgusting about them objecting to abortion exactly? Do they not have the right to disagree with you? Why are you discriminating against them? Why are you suggesting that their views are wrong and some how inferior because they are not your view? Where you not just objecting to discrimination a moment ago?

[Intraluminal]

Also, regarding the second point, :... It was bullshit because when a gay man discriminated against Christians..."

He was NOT discriminating against *C*H*R*I*S*T*I*A*N*S* he threw out a group that had put up posters that *implied* that GAYS were responsible for abortion. Here are their posters. Notice the "rainbow" arms.
www.pinknews.co.uk/.../Big-Inside-AGMD-QF.jpg

Since almost ALL of his customers are Christians of one type or another, the idea that he discriminated against *christians* is silly. I doubt that if they'd come in after putting up posters about, "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "judge not lest ye be judged" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or virtually any of the things J*E*S*U*S* actually SAID, that he'd have gotten upset.

[hellionthesagereborn]

How is my argument ridiculous? By your own admission if they refuse to cooperate with something they think is wrong either they have to give up their beliefs and convicitons or suffer violence at the hands of the government. You know that is an absolutely fact. When Thomas Pain refused to pay taxes to a government that allowed slavery they fined him, again and again and again until finally they physically attacked him and imprisoned him. It was either endorse a government that allowed slavery or suffer physical violence. Your endorsing that against a man who doesn't want to make a wedding cake. That's an absurd argument for you to make. What I stated is objective fact and you know it. Your argument is utterly absurd. Of course we can enforce laws, its called violence, that's how we enforce them. What do you think police stop crimes by giving out free hugs? Do their guns shoot rainbows? I don't understand how you could have thought that was a logical argument.

[hellionthesagereborn]

All laws are backed with violence. If you tell a child to go their room because they have done something wrong and they don't listen do you stand their and do nothing or do you inflict a punishment on them? You inflict a punishment, and if that doesn't work you either allow them to do as they will (which is a terrible idea) or you physically punish them either through spanking or physically dragging them to their room. Again, the idea that laws are not enforced with the threat of violence backed by actual violence is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Again, what the hell do you think police do?

[jacquesvol]

to choose how we live our lives, gays excepted if religious nuts are 'offended'.

[hellionthesagereborn]

@jacquesvol Yeah, that's idiotically stupid beyond belief. Which is what I said you would do. So its wrong if religious people are offended by homosexuality but if atheist and gays are offended by religion then that's acceptable? Yeah, that's hypocrisy and your an asshole for it. As long as you are not hurting them then its acceptable and that's the difference, you think its okay to force others to do what you want but bitch and moan when the very things you advocate are done to the groups you preffer. That's where we differ, I don't think any one has the right to force any one to do anything. That's the fundamental difference between me and you guys, I don't believe in forcing any group to do something against their will if they have not done anything to harm another human being. Its called being a fair minded person, applying your morality equally and not being a bigot. Hopefully one day you'll figure it out.

[jacquesvol]

@hellionthesagereborn their job is baking cakes, wedding cakes.
I don't know what your job is , but in our job we all had to do things we didn't like.
Saying 'no' isn't always an option.
Do they have more privileges, because they quote the Bible?

[ObscuredBeyond]

You are not permitted by He who made the locales of true properties that make up the strings that make up the quarks that make up the particles that make up the atoms that make up our world to use your genitals just any old way you please. You're only allowed the ability, but not the right, because you cannot love Him unless you are first given a chance not to. That is Volition Dilemma. But you also have Vocational Destiny. You are not here to do just whatever the hell amuses you in a moment. And since you share this world with others, everything you do will somehow affect another.

All rights, therefore, can only exist with implied attached responsibilities. Every single lie of the Sexual Revolution has been fixated on defending the Great Hubiris, the Old Adam, as regards why we are even allowed to have sexual components of our biology in the first place.

There is no such thing here as a "right" built only on human opinion and desire to rebel against He Who Defines what a "right" even is. And none with zero responsibilities. Therefore, any movement that is built entirely around destroying responsibilities - and making it a crime to acknowledge that risky behaviors have logical consequences - can NEVER produce any true new human rights from nothing. And to even pretend it can, it must destroy actual rights of others to make room for its never-even-possibly-legitimate self.

LGBTQPIZ is a lie. There is only nature, and the corruption of nature. The willful giving up of one's self to vile affections, for one's own hubris. The modern political movement is about trampling under foot any opposition to this. A return to the violence of Sodom - which was a town built entirely on glorifying rape culture.

It was a lie then, it was a lie when Kinsey promoted it; and it always will be a lie. So the baker NEEDS to win. Lawrence v. Texas needs to be overturned. LBJ's Great Society also needs to be overturned.

What those pervs did to the baker was illegal under state law at the time. Moreover, they wanted to "help" bake it, going behind the counter. No other business tolerates such an intrusion by customers, and this baker shouldn't have to either.

HRC is a misnomer. They only want Sodom to rise again, and dance on everything. Even if that means taking real rights away from other, legitimate groups.

[Intraluminal]

You see, you just proved the opposite. The quantum fluctuations cause perturbations in string states. This gives rise to discrete oscillatory states within the multiverse, and as you know, the multiverse multifaceted reality state influences human behaviors.

Therefore due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which is part and parcel of the quantum state uncertainty, homosexuality is a given. The oscillatory instability guarantees not only homosexuality, but also a number if other perturbations related to psychometric alterations related to instabilities inherent in both micro and macro-based quantum systems, particularly those related to distributed networks and their biological analogies, such as neural networks.

[Intraluminal]

Sorry, the above was directed to @obscuredbeyond

You see, you just proved the opposite. The quantum fluctuations cause perturbations in string states. This gives rise to discrete oscillatory states within the multiverse, and as you know, the multiverse multifaceted reality state influences human behaviors.

Therefore due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle which is part and parcel of the quantum state uncertainty, homosexuality is a given. The oscillatory instability guarantees not only homosexuality, but also a number if other perturbations related to psychometric alterations related to instabilities inherent in both micro and macro-based quantum systems, particularly those related to distributed networks and their biological analogies, such as neural networks.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Heisenberg didn't rule what genitals are, and cannot be used to overrule what should be obvious. A wandering and corrupt mind, however, can develop an unhealthy obsession and invent the wildest of comparisons if apples and tire swings to imagine that it can excuse away any self inflicted imperfection in the self that it doesn't feel comfortable admitting needs correction.

[Intraluminal]

@ObscuredBeyond

Ah, but you're ignoring the input functions of string theory that relate to generative systems.

[Intraluminal]

As an aside, and unrelated to Heisenberg's uncertainty theory, your statement, "... because you cannot love Him unless you are first given a chance not to." is CLEARLY wrong.

[Intraluminal]

@obscuredbeyond

And before you ask: Yes! I can prove that.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Is it really love, if you never had a choice? If I dump a woman in your lap, and you are told you must care about her and for her, even if she worries you, and you arenot even given the option to ask yourself if you want it or not, then do you really love her? Nonsense! God wants faithful children, not mindless robot slaves. Volition Dilemma is only sealed off later, to prevent the trauma of further temptation, after one's life of trial is over.

As for the strings: the result we see is structure. If the mere presence of design cannot convince you of a designer with clear intent, it's only because you don't *want* to see it. Heisenberg cannot contradict plain reason like that. Nor can Schrodinger. We can't isolate singular electrons in space, because we were never meant to.

[mak_1]

I am a Christian (not very religious, but I do believe in and pray to a God) and I completely agree with this post. People have used the Bible throughout history to justify the most heinous and disgusting acts ever committed and I don't think anyone should be able to blatantly use it against the public, even if they own a private business.

A lot of people showed support of the bakery in this situation and I think that's wrong. Like you mentioned, there are thousands of religions that people have never even heard of. Let's say I adhered to one of these religions that may have some radical positions and I also owned a bakery. Then would it be okay for me to deny a white couple service because my "religion" says that they are evil? No, I would be labelled a racist and it wouldn't be considered a religious freedom due to its discriminatory nature.

It's only garnered so much support from people in America because so many people are against the LGBTQ community and the religion they touted was Christianity. If it was any other community being discriminated against or religion used, then it would be the end of the world.

If the courts rule in favor of the bakery, then we are just allowing people a way to discriminate against other groups of people just because their religion says it's okay, when most of the time people take sacred texts completely out of context.

Anyhow, this was a great post.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Living together without marriage, statistically, does not live up to 90% of its promises. And it's condemned in Scripture. It's only glorified and enforced anyway, because even most "Christians" today refuse to rattle the world's cage by exposing this horrible fraud for what it is, and live by a higher standard.

Yet, God has never changed his position, just as our spleens still serve the same purpose as when Adam's spleen was done forming.

Pervertsexuality is never okay. And cultural changes in opinion will never change that. And has nobody ever talked to you about the oppressive brutality of rainbow degens against others - or each other?

MORAL DISCRETION is NOT "discrimination." Instead, it's literally the founding principle of our nation. Why did Plymouth come to form? So the King of England couldn't FORCE the Puritans to endorse the king's anti-scriptural doctrines, mostly ON MARRIAGE!

"A god" is not Christian conviction. You've been had.

[ObscuredBeyond]

17th century: King says to Puritans: "You MUST bow to MY teachings on marriage, screw what the Bible might say!" Puritans: "We have rights! You can't make us acknowledge frivolous divorce as A-OK! Jesus literally had a whole sermon against that!" King says: "You will bow to me, or go to jail!"

21st century: Sodomites say to Christian baker: "You MUST bow to OUR teachings on marriage, screw what the Bible might say!" Baker: "I have rights! You can't make me acknowledge dick-in-ass as A-OK, or equal to man and wife! Jesus uses the HISTORICITY of Adam and Eve to literally exclude the possibility, in that SAME SERMON!" Sodomites say: "You will bow to us, or we will sue you to oblivion and toss you in jail!"

Think about this: are you sure you are on the right side of eternity here?

[jacquesvol]

@ObscuredBeyond Gay don't want to sodomize these bakers

[jacquesvol]

I'm a Pastafarian. That would allow me to discriminate against vile potatarian potato eaters.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Let's not forget that in the Colorado case, pseudomarriage wasn't even legal at the time. So he's being sued for refusing to use his business to glorify illegal activity. What madness!

Moreover, they demanded to go behind the counter and dictate quality control over the product, to ensure he didn't find my loopholes around personally affirming their cause. No business owner should have to tolerate that kind of extortion or harassment! They may as well have put a gun to his head while they were at it!

But because they do gay, half the country thinks that means carte blanche?

[jacquesvol]

@ObscuredBeyond Thus all shops could turn away unmarried couples?

[ObscuredBeyond]

@jacquesvol: If they show up in the store shirtless or shoeless, then yes. Steak and Shake can even forbid you to enter unless they've confirmed you bring in nothing from outside. Of course, they have an excuse: health departments forbid it for quality control reasons.

You choose to ignore gender saliva chemistry. You choose to stick things up the chute that never belong there. You are not born with some impossible-to-override hardwire program that tells you that you have no choice but to abuse your colon. That's utter nonsense!

Also, the P in LGBTQPIZ stands for "pedosexual." Don't think they won't go there. They're already trying to. Currently, you can still refuse to make a pedo cake. They have to put a gun to your head. But just wait! The AGLP and several leftist judges are lobbying to reverse that. It's only a matter of time before business owners must endorse child rape via baking a cake!

[jacquesvol]

@ObscuredBeyond this NOTabout pedos. Non sequitur thu

[JustAnotherGirlie]

This whole case isn’t even about freedom of exercise of religion. The gu my gave an interview with the New York Times and said it was about freedom of expression. By decorating a cake for a LGBTQ couple, it’s portraying a message inconsistent with his work. He doesn’t make Halloween cakes either for that very reason. It’ll be an interesting case.
I think what’s sad is that religious people are so bigoted they don’t understand this constitution protects THEM. What happens if immigrants come over in large amounts and Islam ends up being a majority religion? What happens when the demographic changes and puritanical Christianity isn’t the default anymore? America isn’t a Christian Nation - there’s a separation of church and state. This protects all parties involved from being disenfranchised.
I don’t believe you have the right to discriminate based on color/nationality/socioeconomic status/orientation/race/etc. Because if the Supreme Court does this wrong, it WILL open the floodgates for businesses to discriminate for all types of reasons, no matter how ridiculous. Smdh what is happening to this country

[Intraluminal]

It actually IS about religion. That was his first argument. His lawyers added freedom of speech LATER and he started calling himself a "cake artist."

[Intraluminal]

You are one of the few who understand the possible ramifications of this case.

[JustAnotherGirlie]

There’s no mistake about it being about religion - I myself was confused about why he choose that specific reason. Now it makes sense - he got legal counsel and decide to fight this in the Supreme Court. Not on the basis of freedom of religion but expression.
Yeah the ramifications are quite serious. There are multiple rulings via landmark cases about the status of black people in this country - more than one Civil Rights Act, several amendments (15th amendment and Voting Rights) to secure sufferage. Typically you have to re-establish that precedent over and over again before people get it. Change is a slow process and it’s very difficult to legislate morality.
People simply DONT WANT to see LGBTQ folks as equal. So we have seen quite a few of these cases. If the Supreme Court confuses things with this case, it lets people know we aren’t committed to equality. And the same issue will come up 20 years from now

[Intraluminal]

If he wins this case based on freedom of religion and freedom of expression then he'll be able to use it as a precedent and use the freedom of religion part in future cases which means that they can not only legislate against gays and lesbians but they can start to legislate against single mothers for instance which were also prohibited by their religion.

[jacquesvol]

against single mothers, sorcerers, paganists, atheists, people working the 7th day, and many more.

[sjoes006]

Well it is important and it's an interesting civil liberty question but not one without precedent.

I listened to the arguments presented before SCOTUS and I'm a scholar of constitutional law... but I'm nervous that against all reason they may go the wrong way.

The state's attorney adeptly used a quote from Scalia to support his position on set norms v rights of an individual which is a society beholden to no one. Not sure if it landed. Even though Scalia was a very conservative justice he crafted his decisions in famously well chosen words that could go either way in terms of precedent unless he felt strongly.

He was aware of how each word and strung together would read.

The thing is, no conservative judge currently on the bench gives a shit in Scalia's writing when it comes to their ruling. Yes he was a great draftman of decisions. But that doesn't means they agree with him on the details.

You can't quote Scalia and win the case.

In this political climate, with this court, at best I'm expecting a thinly parsed line of if and when it is okay to say no fag go away.
Which does have larger reaching implications.

We must now more than ever demonstrate for rights we have all come to accept.

[JustAnotherGirlie]

Since you’re a scholar would you agree this issue would definitely come up again within 20 years? There’s a good change the Supreme Court will get caught on a minor technicality and rule the other way, opening up the floodgates for more types of discrimination - but maybe not against just LGBTQ people?

[Intraluminal]

@JustAnotherGirlie
and in other venues as well? Especially media?

[AllThatSweetJazz]

The free market isn't an absolute power but it does take it's toll if a business makes bad choices. With the ISP example, move, entourage others to move, encourage another ISP to set up shop, you have options. Really you're paying what they want you to pay because it's not *that* big a deal for you. That said, I'm not some super free-market libertarian, I just do believe it has a presence that's being overlooked in your example.

As for the cake. Well I don't see why the free market can't solve it, but even if it couldn't there's still middle ground that I think is appropriate...

I don't like religious protections. You live in this secular society by the same laws a policies as everyone else so fuck off with your special exceptions. However I think people should be able to make some choices with their businesses while at the same time there needs to be an expectation to serve the public without discrimination. I think you should just have a different class of business if you're going to do that. Get a business license that gives you more private control of it's goings on and give it a higher tax rate and/or size limit. So big businesses that can be deemed *vital to society and the public* get taxed differently and aren't allowed to discriminate. While small businesses that *intend to discriminate* are permitted to under a certain business license. So they're not disallowed to discriminate they just get taxed for it. Not the most *free* market, but neither is it forcing them to act counter to their religion -- has a good deal of freedom and no loopholes like making up a religion. Just a thought.

[Intraluminal]

A very interesting idea. A tax on prejudice. I love it! It would have to be high enough to ensure that competition existed though.

[Cursewords]

It's not important. The whole fact that 2 fags want to force someone to go against their beliefs is ridiculous. People have the right to refuse service to anyone that they wish. If they want to take it upon themselves to give themselves bad publicity and risk a loss of business because they don't want to serve someone, for any reason they are allowed to.

The only time that this doesn't apply is if you work a government job where you agreed to serve anyone regardless of your own beliefs or preferences. If you own your own business like this baker, you can do what-ever the fuck you please. This is nothing but 2 fags making a fuss about nothing and being attention whores.

What kind of idiot hires a bunch of gay staff for a gay wedding but then deliberately picks a Christian baker for the cake. This idiot wanted drama all along.

[Dude_1820]

I don't think it's a matter of religion, it's a matter of as a private business, they have the right to refuse service to whomever they choose. Liberals and conservatives are building up more and more hatred for each other. I'll be up front and say that I am conservative, however I am open to discussion and am not going to be a jerk about it. I will admit that conservatives have not handled some situations properly, however, liberals must be willing to admit their fuck ups too. If a Muslim bakery refused service for the same reason, it would be a big case. It not as big as now for the simple reason of the parties involved and the level of hatred for each other.

[Intraluminal]

"If a Muslim bakery refused service for the same reason, it would be a big case." A poster recently said that this happened, and had a link. Personally, I think it's the same thing whoever does it. I wouldn't care if he was selling privately, but he's selling to the PUBLIC. The gays are part of the public. If they were black, he'd alreay be shut down EVEN THOUGH there are religions (like early Mormonism used to) that hold that "brown skin" is a curse from god - "Ham's Sin."

[Dude_1820]

It still doesn't negate the fact that as a private bakery they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone in my opinion. I believe there was a news article a few years ago in which the situation was reversed, a gay bakery refused a wedding cake for a straight couple to make a point and it didn't make as big headlines.

[ObscuredBeyond]

@Intraluminal: I don't know anyone who still believes that straw argument. The verse in Genesis says "cursed is CANAAN," NOT Ham! And the curse was NOT on his skin, but his obsession with staring at naked men, to the point of being a Peeping Tom to his own grandfather!

I find it amusing how so many will try to twist that today, to excuse the very movement that got Canaan cursed in the first place!

This isn't hard:

If you are turned away for a birthday cake because you are black, that's unlawful discrimination.

If you bum off someone else's wife, there is no legal divorce, and want a "wedding" cake for a non-existent wedding, especially in a state with strict anti-bigamy laws, and the baker declines, then that is lawful DISCRETION. ESPECIALLY if you demand the chance to go behind the counter and "help" with baking, ignoring food health safety regulations along the way!

Making party number 2 in the crime a man rather than a bummed-off wife DOES NOT justify it! It makes it WORSE!

[Intraluminal]

@ObscuredBeyond

Are you sure that no one, "... who still believes that straw argument?"

Also, your statement is an admission that they at least USED to. Who knows what other silliness is still believed, and by whom?

[ObscuredBeyond]

It was prominent enough in Harriet Beecher Stowe's time, that she felt it warranted mention in her book. That was... around 200 years ago? Anyone reading Genesis with a hint of any maturity though, will readily note that what got God so ticked off was nothing to do with skin; but everything to do with contempt for modesty.

[Intraluminal]

@ObscuredBeyond

I'm pretty sure that the Westboro Baptists still believe in hams curse.

[ObscuredBeyond]

Westboro is about the biggest fraud of a church entity I've heard of this side of Joel Osteen. For starters, they don't even have proper Anabaptist flavor theology. They appear to have Hyper-Calvinist views. That right away should give away that something's amiss there.

[Intraluminal]

@ObscuredBeyond

So, basically you're saying they're not a "real" religion then?

[ObscuredBeyond]

Here's a simple guide to denominational theologies, taken from a crash course in Luther's Small Catechism:

- Boulders and Windows Chess Paradox Predestination = Catholic / Lutheran (Those not familiar with it, it takes a while to explain.)

- Decision Theology = Most Anabaptists. (Hence why they don't believe in baptizing infants, since they can't comprehend faith without understanding having saving value.) Splintered off from Ulrich Zwingli, and most denominations are from this splinter.

- Double Predestination = Calvinism (A reduced emphasis on mission work, since they believe all who are destined to be saved are already so, so what's the point of evangelism?) John Calvin believed this better demonstrated the sovereignty of God's will, even though Paul appears to contradict Calvin often. Fewer denominations follow this thinking.

WBC takes Calvin to the extreme. Thus wanting gays exterminated, since redemption is impossible in their paradigm. Nothing Baptist, so smells fishy.

[Intraluminal]

He has explicitly stated, and his lawyers contend, that it is a religious thing.

[Intraluminal]

@ObscuredBeyond

The truth is that the WBC is "as real" a church as any other. They are all equally valid/invalid depending as they all do on fantasies and old tall tales.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

There is a relatively simple compromise to be made. Companies should be allowed to do whatever they want. In exchange, the government has the right to deny x% of tax deduction/breaks or tax at a higher rate of said companies on the basis of 1st amendment violations. So you can decide not to sell to minorities, or Muslims, or gay people, or Chinese people, (or vice versa), but is it economically feasible for the individual. There’s a couple of practical issues, but 1 way to solve it is by companies formally documenting which 1 to follow, and must comply for 1-3 years (people smarter than I can sort that out) before renewing, or changing, the contract

[HamAndCheese]

Anyone is allowed to shop at his bakery though. It's EXCLUSIVELY, the cakes which he doesn't do for gay couples. The fact is that it would be unethical to force someone to make a cake for someone that they don't want to make the cake for. The whole issue stems from an overly hasty earlier supreme court decision which puts us in an awkward situation where someone can't legally deny someone service for a number of reasons EVEN IF these reasons are not only heartfelt, but enacted in a broadly speaking harmless manner. Frankly, I doubt he'll win, though I hope he does. Because I don't see any reason that the government should be allowed to tell him how to bake his cakes and for whom on his own private property.

[freakyzeaky]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqfCdVUH4WYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eXgUy5UCGA

[Naydyonov]

"A major city, and there are only two ISPs, so there's no competition for my business - I pay what they want, or I don't have internet access."
Exactly, when's it's hard for businesses to compete then you get a virtual monopoly in which case if it was allowed to discriminate then it's possible both companies would.
However with a freer market and more competition there would be say 7 providers instead of 2 and if those 2 decided to discriminate then the other 5 would win new customers.

[Intraluminal]

True, but how do we get a freer market?

[Naydyonov]

Make it easier for people to start business, less expensive and quicker. That means looking at the process to open an official business and simplifying it. Also means stopping the government from subsidizing companies or bailing them out.
Once done I believe allowing easier manipulation of salaries so then employees and employers can establish an agreed salary rather than having a union or anyone else stall the process "Oh it's too little" "but I'm okay to work for that much" "no you need a higher salary "

[Intraluminal]

Unions are not the problem in America. All the unions are effectively dead. We'll be back to 90 work weeks before you know it. The real problem is that companies are allowed to do anticompetative

[Intraluminal]

Stuff all the time.

[Intraluminal]

That, and that companies have gotten so large that they can put up barriers to anyone getting into the market.

[Naydyonov]

this isn't 1870 when human rights wasn't a term.
Nowadays human rights is a very vibrant idea and no one would work 90 hour work week and no one would demand it.

Even if they did, all major companies would go bankrupt.
The way it works is that a company provides a job, money flows to the employee, that employee spends money at another company and they use that money to pay their employees as well.
If employees start making nothing then businesses would quickly run out of money, assuming people would even work 90 hours a week and assuming someone would even demand that.

If that was really the case then the government can be used, but I doubt that'd happen in 2017.

[Naydyonov]

That's why you need to allow small businesses to exist.
Only lots of small businesses can compete with big ones

[Intraluminal]

There are many venues, such as being an ISP, in which a small company is impossible.

[Thisperson98]

I know plenty of small ISPs that was built from the ground up.

[Intraluminal]

@Thisperson98

Really? Like I said, I live just outside of Boston which is a major tech area, MIT is just across the Charles River, and Comcast (one of America's most hated companies) sucks, but we only have two ISPs available. According to a Nobel prize winning economists computer simulation you need at least SEVEN competitors in order to have a free market.

[Intraluminal]

That is to avoid collusion and price fixing. by the way, both competitors rates are virtually identical and have been for decades.

[jacquesvol]

" I mean that I could sit down tomorrow, make up a religion, make up "religious laws," register my religion as a religion with the state, become tax-exempt, and impose my "laws" on you." Indeed. What about this example, for instance:

https://i.imgur.com/ucq2Q5x.jpg

[jacquesvol]

by the way where in the Bible is it written that thou shalt not bake cakes for gays" ?

[Intraluminal]

Right there in Pastriesettes 19:4

[jacquesvol]

Did I get this?

A Christian surgeon won't perform surgery on a gay person due to religious convictions.
A Christian commercial airline pilot would not take off if a passenger is gay... A county healthcare worker will not vaccinate a gay person... Is this the USA or Iran?

[Lumberman53]

@jacquesovol the difference is they can go to help somewhere else no one is stopping them. Gay marriage is legal still. They are not being persecuted or tortured here.

[jacquesvol]

Lumberman53 One of the intricacies of Anglo-saxon law systems is that judges' decisions become laws. Who wants 21st century laws written based on a thousands of years old codex?

[Lumberman53]

@jacquesvol but my point is there are no laws in America stopping gays. They can just go elsewhere instead of forcing people to provide service which violates their beliefs.

[jacquesvol]

@Lumberman53 Hindus could turn away people who eat hamburgers, based on that kind of court decision.

[Lumberman53]

@jacquesvol yeah well Hindus just as much as the Christian baker to turn away anyone they want so if they did refuse someone then I don't object to it

[Intraluminal]

@Lumberman53

As you sow, so shall you reap. Enjoy!

[Lumberman53]

@Intraluminal yeah thanks...

[jacquesvol]

I found it!
https://i.imgur.com/mXfVF6c.jpg

[vishna]

Imagine if zealots of the Nation of Islam were allowed to discriminate against white people. Lorddddd, that'd be the day... but it's just gay US citizens at the moment so no biggie.

[Intraluminal]

Exactly. That what they don't seem to be able to understand. Right *now* it's a christian discriminating against gays. Later it'll be some religion discriminating against them.

[orphanedmind]

The government is backed into a corner with this case, and they are guaranteed to make the wrong decision no matter which way they go. Their best option would have been to come up with a technical reason not to take this case.

[jacquesvol]

Trump appointed enough conservative judges to make clear what he wants.

[jacquesvol]

The govt is not the SCOTUS.

[jacquesvol]

Separation of Powers

[jakeofalltrades]

one persons rights shouldn't override the rights of another. if the bakery doesn't want to sell them the cake fine, they should go spend their money on someone who will.

[madhatters4]

great take!

[Lumberman53]

Wasn't there a case like this a few years ago?

[Lumberman53]

i.pinimg.com/.../...64c12d4ae6eb1f5bd28f311fe1.jpg

[Lumberman53]

It's their business they have the rights to refuse service to anyone. They also have the right to religious freedom so they can refuse based on beliefs.

[jacquesvol]

@Lumberman53 it could be the same case , finally coming befoore a high court.

[Lumberman53]

@jacquesvol I see thanks

[jacquesvol]

That memes implies that -in name of tolerance- Liberals should accept intolerance.

[jacquesvol]

*meme

[Lumberman53]

@jacquesvol Well people are acting out of their religious beliefs, and have the right to run the business they own to their own beliefs. So shutting down those with opposing beliefs no matter how intolerant the beliefs are, or how good the liberals think they are it is still intolerant of liberals.