Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by AZRWinger The issue at hand is the ruling in the case involving a Colorado baker's refusal to ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2018, 03:58 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,516
Thanks: 10,079
Thanked 15,230 Times in 9,230 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The issue at hand is the ruling in the case involving a Colorado baker's refusal to bake a custom cake for a same sex couple's wedding. It's the opinion referenced in the linked article.
Yeah. That's what I'm talking about...


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Despite your earlier claim the opinion did not sanctify the right of same sex couples to trample over the religious rights of others. The decision was narrow in scope. Realizing that, you resort to your usual tactics attempting mockery while childishly trying to distort "narrow" as a description of the vote not the opinion.
You have awfully thin skin for as many insults as you throw around.

To the actual issue at hand, I DISTORTED NOTHING.
It would behoove you to actually try to show how I supposedly distorted the statement's rulings. But I know your tactics and your diversions... When you start in by trying to hypocritically whine about how awfully you have been treated, you have devolved to the state of making claims (like claiming my assessment was "distorted") while you provide absolutely no justification for that assessment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Perhaps less time trying to insult me personally would allow you a better grasp of the legal opinion at issue here. Again, the challenge is to provide proof the SCOTUS provided the broad injunctions against religious objections by merchants to participating in same sex weddings in the case of the Colorado baker.
Stop whining and look at what I quoted.
It was right there. I'm going to repeat what you ignored.
Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons
and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as
inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws
and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,
protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The
exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be
given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same
time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay
marriage are protected views and in some instances protected
forms of expression. As this Court observed in
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___ (2015), “[t]he First
Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach
the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless,
while those religious and philosophical objections are
protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not
allow business owners and other actors in the economy
and in society to deny protected persons equal access to
goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable
public accommodations law.
See Newman v. Piggy
Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402, n. 5 (1968) (per
curiam); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian
and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 572
(1995)
The court reaffirmed the standard. The demonstrated quite explicitly and succinctly [b]that these sort of laws still stand and there is no "religious" protection against these laws.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #72 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2018, 08:02 PM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,382
Thanks: 9,439
Thanked 9,945 Times in 6,072 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Yeah. That's what I'm talking about...



You have awfully thin skin for as many insults as you throw around.

To the actual issue at hand, I DISTORTED NOTHING.
It would behoove you to actually try to show how I supposedly distorted the statement's rulings. But I know your tactics and your diversions... When you start in by trying to hypocritically whine about how awfully you have been treated, you have devolved to the state of making claims (like claiming my assessment was "distorted") while you provide absolutely no justification for that assessment.



Stop whining and look at what I quoted.
It was right there. I'm going to repeat what you ignored.
Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons
and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as
inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws
and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,
protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The
exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be
given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same
time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay
marriage are protected views and in some instances protected
forms of expression. As this Court observed in
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___ (2015), “[t]he First
Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach
the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless,
while those religious and philosophical objections are
protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not
allow business owners and other actors in the economy
and in society to deny protected persons equal access to
goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable
public accommodations law.
See Newman v. Piggy
Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402, n. 5 (1968) (per
curiam); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian
and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 572
(1995)
The court reaffirmed the standard. The demonstrated quite explicitly and succinctly [b]that these sort of laws still stand and there is no "religious" protection against these laws.
Cutting and pasting the same irrelevancies doesn't make them valid.

Again, the Court threw out the ruling against the Colorado baker due to the prejudicial remarks of the Colorado human rights commissioner. As I wrote earlier I could find no evidence in the court's ruling in this case reaffirming the pious braying that you claimed was included.

As is your habit you have avoided even trying to meet the challenge to your claim. It's ok though, just admit you were wrong so we can establish a common data point to enable further discussion. Wouldn't want you to get the reputation of being too thin skinned to admit your error.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
  #73 (permalink)  
Old 10-12-2018, 09:00 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,791
Thanks: 9,628
Thanked 5,901 Times in 3,986 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

the First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach
the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless,
while those religious and philosophical objections are
protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not
allow business owners and other actors in the economy
and in society to deny protected persons equal access to
goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable
public accommodations law....
yep, this is the problem.

it simply says,
Religious ...Specifically CHRISTIAN... people can TALK about their faith (in some venues) but can't ACT on it. They are not free to live it out. And can be forced to ACT against what they believe. Or be forced out of their jobs or businesses, be fined and/or possibly jailed FOR ACTING on those religious and philosophical objections taught in their faith.

This is the definition of religious persecution. Nearly the very thing many Pilgrims left England to get away from.

BTW, no homosexuals are being force to do actions against their consciences, or losing their businesses, or being threatened with fines or jail. They are simply being asked to be TOLERANT of those that don't want to assist them in certain SPECIFIC events of theirs... because of sincerely held religious beliefs.

The similar to not helping NAZI's or Klansmen, or Rebel Reenactments, or Satanist (or other religions "protected class"), or any specific events objectionable to the a biz owners personal religious (or even political) beliefs.

The opinion of law, as you quote it above FI16, is defacto religious discrimination.
Similar too forcing Jews to make Matzo Ball Soup for the Neo-Nazi convention or ELSE.
Similar to forcing the PETA member pet shop owners to sell dogs to the Korean family that wants to eat the dog for new years dinner as is tradition.... or ELSE.

The claims of "protected class" is simply MISused here as a twisted legal whip against those that don't want to help promote the vices of homosexual marriage or transgenderism.

the fact that the local committee that the STOCUS rebuffed now has somehow picked-up a NEW case against the same Baker is telling. This time it's a transgender event that is offended by the man's religion. So with the new SCOTUS guidelines in hand the unelected, non-due process, non-court, star chamber committee will try to proceed to PUNISH this man for LIVING out his Christian faith .... that's taught freely and "protected" under the 1st amendment.

Genesis 1
26"...So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them..."

Romans 1
...26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error....

Ephesians 5
...10 Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly;...

Romans 12
7 Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all...

__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #74 (permalink)  
Old 10-13-2018, 04:15 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,516
Thanks: 10,079
Thanked 15,230 Times in 9,230 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Cutting and pasting the same irrelevancies doesn't make them valid.
You claiming they are irrelevant while completely failing to justify your assessment does not make them invalid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Again, the Court threw out the ruling against the Colorado baker due to the prejudicial remarks of the Colorado human rights commissioner. As I wrote earlier I could find no evidence in the court's ruling in this case reaffirming the pious braying that you claimed was included.
I just quoted the ruling which explicitly documents what I stated.
And the only response you can muster is that you don't find it valid with absolutely no explanation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
As is your habit you have avoided even trying to meet the challenge to your claim.
WHAT CHALLENGE?
You never once explained why the quoted text doesn't say exactly what I said it said.
Instead, you just repeat that you think it's not valid and now you claim you had a "challenge"???
What challenge?
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #75 (permalink)  
Old 10-13-2018, 09:52 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 77,692
Thanks: 54,478
Thanked 25,840 Times in 18,416 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Mrwonder


Ephesians 5
Quote:
...10 Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly;...
who is to say a gay couple will not raise up a saint?
my aunts were 'unfruitful' too in raising me. but my marriage produced a minister who is married to a minister of the faith.

just another aspect maybe you hadn't thought of.
__________________
Quote:
The state OF California has a booming economy and $16 billion in surplus and “rainy day” reserves
Reply With Quote
  #76 (permalink)  
Old 10-14-2018, 08:31 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,791
Thanks: 9,628
Thanked 5,901 Times in 3,986 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
Mrwonder


Ephesians 5

who is to say a gay couple will not raise up a saint?
my aunts were 'unfruitful' too in raising me. but my marriage produced a minister who is married to a minister of the faith.

just another aspect maybe you hadn't thought of.
Who's to say that the children of rape will not grow up to be the ones who cure cancer.
Does that mean we should encourage rape?
Who's to say that the children of racist will not grow up to be the ones who bring ethnic peace to all nations.
Does that mean we should encourage racism?

are rape and racism things we should consider promoting because of good that MIGHT come down the line?

But sure, God can and HAS worked many sinful and outright evil actions out for the best.... individually and collectively. And turned darkness into light. But it doesn't mean we should support or promote the darkness.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #77 (permalink)  
Old 10-14-2018, 11:06 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,382
Thanks: 9,439
Thanked 9,945 Times in 6,072 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
You claiming they are irrelevant while completely failing to justify your assessment does not make them invalid.



I just quoted the ruling which explicitly documents what I stated.
And the only response you can muster is that you don't find it valid with absolutely no explanation.



WHAT CHALLENGE?
You never once explained why the quoted text doesn't say exactly what I said it said.
Instead, you just repeat that you think it's not valid and now you claim you had a "challenge"???
What challenge?
Again you fasten on an excerpt to present a distorted view of the decision.

Quote:
The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the
First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in
a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was
entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full
and fair consideration to his religious objection as he
sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this
case was presented, considered, and decided. In this case
the adjudication concerned a context that may well be
different going forward in the respects noted above. How-
ever later cases raising these or similar concerns are
resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the
Commission and of the state court that enforced the
Commission’s order must be invalidated.
The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances
must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the
context of recognizing that these disputes must be re-
solved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere
religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to
indignities when they seek goods and services in an open
market.
The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals is re-
versed.
The excerpt you insist on quoting is merely background to the decision. It's history but not despositive in this case. The issue of same sex couples being able to trample religious rights is left open for another day.

It's not surprising you avoid recognizing the blatant hostility of the Oregon officials toward the exercise of religious freedom. They even used some of the same intolerant rhetoric towards Christian objection to same sex marriage you are so fond of spouting.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #78 (permalink)  
Old 10-14-2018, 12:12 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,447
Thanks: 1,457
Thanked 2,235 Times in 1,774 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
There wasn't a decision on the merits of arguments in the "cake case" that was decided based upon a judicial issue of prejudice and animus by the lower level court.

The "cake case" does not create any precedent in allowing religious discrimination for other decisions.

Reynold's v United States still establishes the precedent for Freedom of Religion where only the religious opinion is protected and not actions based upon a religious opinion that would be detrimental to the social good order.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ShivaTD For This Useful Post:
  #79 (permalink)  
Old 10-14-2018, 01:21 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,516
Thanks: 10,079
Thanked 15,230 Times in 9,230 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Again you fasten on an excerpt to present a distorted view of the decision.
No.
An overview of all the potential facets of the decision.
There is nothing distorted in recognizing the courts explicitly stated these laws are not overruled by religious excuses.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The excerpt you insist on quoting is merely background to the decision. It's history but not despositive in this case. The issue of same sex couples being able to trample religious rights is left open for another day.
No.
It's NOT background at all.
They are reaffirming the continued precedent of claims of "religion" not superceding these laws.

You fail to appreciate the fact that they would not have stated this without explicitly reversing it if they had any intention of reversing it.
The fact that they stated it is a demonstration they explicitly continue to hold true to this facet of the legal application.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
It's not surprising you avoid recognizing the blatant hostility of the Oregon officials toward the exercise of religious freedom.
This is another dumb ploy you pull whereby you claim people haven't addressed something previously that you are just now bringing up for the first time.
What you need to get through your biased head is that enforcing these laws is not [u]inherently[/b] "blatant hostility" towards religious freedom.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
There wasn't a decision on the merits of arguments in the "cake case" that was decided based upon a judicial issue of prejudice and animus by the lower level court.
The "cake case" does not create any precedent in allowing religious discrimination for other decisions.
Reynold's v United States still establishes the precedent for Freedom of Religion where only the religious opinion is protected and not actions based upon a religious opinion that would be detrimental to the social good order.
It's astounding that I have quoted the ruling where it explicitly notes that the anti-business discrimination laws are not legally allowed to be violated by an excuse of "religion", and yet people on the right want to continue to pretend that's the case.

The kicker is in looking at reality...
If the "cake case" had set any broader precedent indicating religion is an excuse to violate these laws, people would have immediately flocked with pushing their case to affirm this.
You would have seen other Christian businesses immediately push their legal case forward to press this advantage. But it's just not there.
The lawyers and courts recognize what was said here. But the religious right refuses to comprehend the simple English of the court ruling.
I think it's a self-fulfilling anger cycle on the right where they fail to comprehend reality, they get angry that things are not implemented the way they think they should run (without actually bothering to recognize how they are being run and why), and this anger based on failure to comprehend fuels itself over the years... Ten years from now when no SCOTUS ruling exists to grant special rights to religion to violate these laws, they still won't comprehend they were always wrong.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by foundit66; 10-14-2018 at 01:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
adoption, after, cake, court, fight, gay, looms, ruling, supreme

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0