Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss A win for free conscience and expresion at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by foundit66 There is absolutely nothing in the law which would require such service. People need to read ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2018, 06:01 PM
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,575
Thanks: 336
Thanked 1,831 Times in 1,121 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
There is absolutely nothing in the law which would require such service.
People need to read what the law says instead of knee-jerking their thoughts on what they think would happen.
If the owner would refuse to dry clean a KKK costume regardless of who brought it in, that's within the law.



There is absolutely nothing in the law which would require such service.
People need to read what the law says instead of knee-jerking their thoughts on what they think would happen.
If the owner would refuse to make anti-gay protest signs regardless of who requested it, that's within the law.



There is absolutely nothing in the law which would require such service.
People need to read what the law says instead of knee-jerking their thoughts on what they think would happen.
If the owner would refuse to make an Adolph Hitler Birthday cake regardless of who requested it, that's within the law.

That's why I kept going back to whether or not the baker would have provided the exact same request for other people.
If the answer is YES, then the lawsuit is bound to come out against the baker...


There is a very limited list of characteristics under which public business discrimination is not allows.
Examples include race, gender, religion, and in some areas sexual orientation.
Other items are also included, but it's a very small list.

The above scenarios you list would not be on that list.


And one thing that I routinely see ignored by most people is that if this excuse is allowed for this, it would be a radical shift in how the laws have been applied.
"Sexual orientation" is just one characteristic that was added to the law books with the same legal template that other groups have had for over half a century.

If somebody can say "religious exemption" for sexual orientation, then they can do the same for any other situation.
Don't want to serve somebody who is black? Say "religious exemption" and it's suddenly legal to do so...
And if somebody wants to start pretending that it's wrong to put such groups as "religious", that's because you're applying your standards to their religious beliefs.

And make no doubts about it. They do put forth religious justification...
KKK Leader Disputes Hate Group Label: ‘We’re A Christian Organization’
Actually, if the dry cleaners would clean any costume, then he could be prosecuted under your interpretation of the law.
If the owner of the sign shop would make any protest signs, he could be prosecuted.
If the owner refuses to make an Adolph Hitler birthday cake but makes other birthday cakes, and that's within the law, then the same owner should be able to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Even if he would make one for a straight wedding.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to loboloco For This Useful Post:
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2018, 07:07 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,896
Thanks: 9,695
Thanked 5,940 Times in 4,017 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by loboloco View Post
And if it is a violation of the law, then the law violates the first amendment of the constitution of the United States.
yep.
__________________
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
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2018, 07:15 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,660
Thanks: 7,760
Thanked 10,706 Times in 6,045 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by loboloco View Post
Actually, if the dry cleaners would clean any costume, then he could be prosecuted under your interpretation of the law.
If the owner of the sign shop would make any protest signs, he could be prosecuted.
If the owner refuses to make an Adolph Hitler birthday cake but makes other birthday cakes, and that's within the law, then the same owner should be able to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Even if he would make one for a straight wedding.

According to the ruling of this judge, it is not a question of baking a cake. it is a question of "decorating" it in a special way. One that is offensive to the Decorating artist. Which, in most cases is the baker.

Could a baker refuse to bake a cake in the shape of a penis? After all, a cake is a cake? No, a common cake is a common commodity cake. It's no different for a car tire. It's a commodity.

A penis shaped one is custom art.

If one were to ask, could Michelin refuse to produce a "custom" set of tires with a swastika design in the tread? Again it's not about the tire.

For God's sake, this is not about the "cake."
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2018, 07:23 PM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,896
Thanks: 9,695
Thanked 5,940 Times in 4,017 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

This is not a knock on some Asians. It's just different cultures.
BUT there are celebrations in some Asian countries where DOG, for some celebrations, is a common meal.
Similar to our turkey for thanksgiving.

Would it be Illegal discrimination for a U.S. pet store to SELL a dog to a family that it knew was going to "humanly" kill and eat it?
The Pet Shop sells dogs to other Asians right?

Would it be Illegal Discrimination for a drug store clerk to refuse to sell Cough Syrup to teens she knows are using it to get drunk?
The Drug Store sells cough syrup to other teens right?

Would it be Illegal Discrimination for a hardware store owner to refuses to sell a rope and duck tape to a man who said he was going to use it on his willing girlfriend?
The Hardware Store sells rope and duck tape to other men right?

Could it be that if the purpose or intended use of the product or service is against the sellers clearly defined religious/moral beliefs that a seller has every right to refuse the service?
Seems to me the clear answer is yes.

If "the law" says otherwise then the "the law" is wrong. As so many others are, and have been, in this country.
__________________
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

Last edited by mr wonder; 02-12-2018 at 07:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:31 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,521
Thanks: 10,080
Thanked 15,233 Times in 9,233 Posts
Post Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by loboloco View Post
Actually, if the dry cleaners would clean any costume, then he could be prosecuted under your interpretation of the law.

"Just as a black dry cleaner owner should be allowed to refuse to dry clean a KKK costume."
As I pointed out, protected characteristics include stuff like religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, ...

KKK membership is not any of those.
As such, no protection.


Quote:
Originally Posted by loboloco View Post
If the owner of the sign shop would make any protest signs, he could be prosecuted.
If the owner refuses to make an Adolph Hitler birthday cake but makes other birthday cakes, and that's within the law, then the same owner should be able to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Even if he would make one for a straight wedding.
Prosecuted for what?
Making an Adolph Hitler is not an issue of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ...
As such, it's not protected by law.

If they refused to make a star of David cake, that would be a violation of the law. Because religion is on that list.

Adolph Hitler is not on that list.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
According to the ruling of this judge, it is not a question of baking a cake. it is a question of "decorating" it in a special way. One that is offensive to the Decorating artist. Which, in most cases is the baker.
Yet again, what the business person considers as "offensive" is not a defense.
As I pointed out earlier, by this level of analysis, all the KKK members had to do to refuse service to black people is say that the burger had not been created yet and it would be "offensive" to them to create that burger.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
Could a baker refuse to bake a cake in the shape of a penis? After all, a cake is a cake? No, a common cake is a common commodity cake. It's no different for a car tire. It's a commodity.
A penis shaped one is custom art.
If they refused to bake a cake in the shape of a penis for anybody, then there is no legal violation.
You guys keep looking for ways to get around the law while refusing to try to comprehend:
a) the history of these laws, and
b) how these laws are actually applied.

Calling it "art" is not a defense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
If one were to ask, could Michelin refuse to produce a "custom" set of tires with a swastika design in the tread? Again it's not about the tire.
A swastika or nazi status is not a race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
IT IS NOT ON THE LIST.

It's about what is on the actual list for that state / area.

You guys keep creating b.s. examples of what you think might be magically protected and concocting a strawman out of a non-existent protection.
__________________
“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
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2018, 09:36 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,521
Thanks: 10,080
Thanked 15,233 Times in 9,233 Posts
Post Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
This is not a knock on some Asians. It's just different cultures.
BUT there are celebrations in some Asian countries where DOG, for some celebrations, is a common meal.
Similar to our turkey for thanksgiving.
Would it be Illegal discrimination for a U.S. pet store to SELL a dog to a family that it knew was going to "humanly" kill and eat it?
The Pet Shop sells dogs to other Asians right?
Would it be Illegal Discrimination for a drug store clerk to refuse to sell Cough Syrup to teens she knows are using it to get drunk?
The Drug Store sells cough syrup to other teens right?
Would it be Illegal Discrimination for a hardware store owner to refuses to sell a rope and duck tape to a man who said he was going to use it on his willing girlfriend?
The Hardware Store sells rope and duck tape to other men right?
Could it be that if the purpose or intended use of the product or service is against the sellers clearly defined religious/moral beliefs that a seller has every right to refuse the service?
Seems to me the clear answer is yes.
If "the law" says otherwise then the "the law" is wrong. As so many others are, and have been, in this country.
I find it amusing you finish up with "If "the law" says otherwise ..."
To me, it demonstrates you don't know what the law says.

Scenario a) Asians and eating dogs.
Refusing to sell to anybody who would eat the dog would not be protected.
Refusing to sell to an Asian person who is assumed to want to eat the dog would be illegal unless solid reasoning could be shown for why that person would be understood to eat the dog. assuming is not good enough.

Scenario b) Cough Syrup
You invoke no protected status, so this is a nonsense complaint.
It's legal to discriminate in business based on age.

Scenario c) bondage and tape
You invoke no protected status, so this is a nonsense complaint.
It's legal to discriminate in business based on what you describe.
It's not based on gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation or any of the other items on the list.
__________________
“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
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:02 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,896
Thanks: 9,695
Thanked 5,940 Times in 4,017 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I find it amusing you finish up with "If "the law" says otherwise ..."
To me, it demonstrates you don't know what the law says.

Scenario a) Asians and eating dogs.
Refusing to sell to anybody who would eat the dog would not be protected.
Refusing to sell to an Asian person who is assumed to want to eat the dog would be illegal unless solid reasoning could be shown for why that person would be understood to eat the dog. assuming is not good enough.

Scenario b) Cough Syrup
You invoke no protected status, so this is a nonsense complaint.
It's legal to discriminate in business based on age.

Scenario c) bondage and tape
You invoke no protected status, so this is a nonsense complaint.
It's legal to discriminate in business based on what you describe.
It's not based on gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation or any of the other items on the list.
Seems you miss the point, the refusals are all based on the intended use.
This is a right as well.

It's not because they were Asians but the known use... and as i said it should NOT be illegal to refuse the sale. and I think PETA and other animal rights groups would agree.
And in my view you can refuse a legal items to minors IF you have a good "principled" reason. THIS has been upheld in court on occasion as well. NOT just because they are minors though.
and if it's legal ... in your view... to discriminate on to the Rope Sale based on intent then it should be for others as well.

REPEATEDLY it's be shown that the bakers and florist DO , in act, serve homosexuals with ALL other request. Birthdays, etc.. But this ONE activity/event is refused. So it's NOT "ALL Asians" or "ASSUMED eating" but KNOWN activity that violates their beliefs.

Bakers have refused to make Cakes with religious verses and cakes that celebrate Trump because personal beliefs are violated… WITHOUT LAW SUIT, why? Because of a CLEAR right of refusal to do so on the grounds STRONG personal convictions.

3 things the homosexual lobby do wrong here.
1. they want to assume the motives of Bakers, florist etc. are simply universal discrimination against a class, when demonstrably it's NOT the case.
2. they want to deny the civil rights of another protected class to practice their faith and OPT OUT of participation in activities on the job that violate their faith/beliefs.
3. they want to FORCE participation or Close the Biz/End careers of those that won't ACT as if they agree with homosexual marriage.

If "the law" supports the homosexual lobby on those issues it's wrong.
As it is/has been in other areas.
__________________
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
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:30 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,508
Thanks: 9,537
Thanked 10,084 Times in 6,147 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
Seems you miss the point, the refusals are all based on the intended use.
This is a right as well.

It's not because they were Asians but the known use... and as i said it should NOT be illegal to refuse the sale. and I think PETA and other animal rights groups would agree.
And in my view you can refuse a legal items to minors IF you have a good "principled" reason. THIS has been upheld in court on occasion as well. NOT just because they are minors though.
and if it's legal ... in your view... to discriminate on to the Rope Sale based on intent then it should be for others as well.

REPEATEDLY it's be shown that the bakers and florist DO , in act, serve homosexuals with ALL other request. Birthdays, etc.. But this ONE activity/event is refused. So it's NOT "ALL Asians" or "ASSUMED eating" but KNOWN activity that violates their beliefs.

Bakers have refused to make Cakes with religious verses and cakes that celebrate Trump because personal beliefs are violated… WITHOUT LAW SUIT, why? Because of a CLEAR right of refusal to do so on the grounds STRONG personal convictions.

3 things the homosexual lobby do wrong here.
1. they want to assume the motives of Bakers, florist etc. are simply universal discrimination against a class, when demonstrably it's NOT the case.
2. they want to deny the civil rights of another protected class to practice their faith and OPT OUT of participation in activities on the job that violate their faith/beliefs.
3. they want to FORCE participation or Close the Biz/End careers of those that won't ACT as if they agree with homosexual marriage.

If "the law" supports the homosexual lobby on those issues it's wrong.
As it is/has been in other areas.
Glad I read to the end of the thread, your comment is the point I was about to raise.

Advocates of using government to bludgeon small businesses into going along with homosexual marriage not just as a legal institution by judicial decree but something beyond question or objection. None of the vendors sensationalized as discriminating against homosexuals for refusing to provide goods or services to same sex marriages when they they provide services to customers without regard to sexual orientation just not for weddings. For example, the elderly florist in Colorado who refused to do wedding arrangements recognized one of the couple as a frequent customer. But smearing anyone who declines to endorse same sex marriage as a homophobic bigot deserving to have their business destroyed is a necessity for identity politics.

Advocates of harsh punishment for vendors of wedding services when they decline to participate in homosexual marriage fail to recognize the portrait of impotent victims they paint of homosexuals. In the Democrat created Jim Crow South discrimination was required by law. There are no laws requiring similar discrimination against homosexual weddings and plenty of welcoming vendors for wedding services. Instead of encouraging empowerment by selective purchasing the hapless victim requiring jackbooted assault by government to protect them.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 02-13-2018, 12:19 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,521
Thanks: 10,080
Thanked 15,233 Times in 9,233 Posts
Post Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
Seems you miss the point, the refusals are all based on the intended use.
This is a right as well.
No. I didn't miss your point.
But you sure as heck have (once again because I know I've pointed this out to you in the past) ignored mine.

The problem with your diatribe is you don't recognize that it is our society which votes these individual and specific groups into being included in the law.
They don't pick each and every motivation.
In fact, the vast majority of motivations are not picked.
Thus it's ultimately pointless to just start making up new motivations as strawman arguments.

It would be like me trying to compare rituals of religion and pretending that cannibalism is going to be their next ritual. It's not a real argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
It's not because they were Asians but the known use... and as i said it should NOT be illegal to refuse the sale. and I think PETA and other animal rights groups would agree.
And what you ignore is that in the vast majority of situations IT IS NOT ILLEGAL to refuse sale.
And nobody is arguing that all such situations should be made illegal.
This very mechanism of stating public businesses cannot discriminate based on characteristic_X started over half a century ago.
And in that time we have actually not added that many items to the list. So don't pretend this is all just a domino effect either because it really isn't.

We both acknowledge "it's not because they were Asian", SO THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT OUR SOCIETY AND THE LAW ACKNOWLEDGES THIS IS NOT ILLEGAL to refuse that specific sale.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
And in my view you can refuse a legal items to minors IF you have a good "principled" reason. THIS has been upheld in court on occasion as well. NOT just because they are minors though.
And there is no law changing this situation
You're trying to argue against a law by complaining about what it actually does not do.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
and if it's legal ... in your view... to discriminate on to the Rope Sale based on intent then it should be for others as well.
No.
This logic is like saying "If you think it's legal to go 65 MPH on the highway then you should allow people to drive 65 MPH next to the school zone too"



Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
REPEATEDLY it's be shown that the bakers and florist DO , in act, serve homosexuals with ALL other request. Birthdays, etc.. But this ONE activity/event is refused. So it's NOT "ALL Asians" or "ASSUMED eating" but KNOWN activity that violates their beliefs.
This has already been explained numerous times.
Just because other forms of business service are allowed does not mitigate that an illegal act was performed in a specific situation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
Bakers have refused to make Cakes with religious verses and cakes that celebrate Trump because personal beliefs are violated… WITHOUT LAW SUIT, why? Because of a CLEAR right of refusal to do so on the grounds STRONG personal convictions.
mr wonder
You are getting into a zone where you refuse to listen.
You make up your own explanation and refuse to listen when others explain the reality.
It's damn annoying and shows when you aren't serious as to understanding the situation...

The list of characteristics by which a person cannot discriminate in business is actually small and very much finite.
The vast majority of motivation reasons ARE NOT COVERED.
At the federal level and in most locations, political orientation is not covered.

Thus if somebody wants to refuse to serve somebody because they are a Democrat / Liberal or Republican / Conservative, that is legal.
Your analogy is like pointing to a 65 MPH zone and trying to declare that the school zone speed limit is somehow invalidated.
Our society has voted on which characteristics they want protected.
And if a majority voted in "political orientation" tomorrow, then a new set of standards would be implemented.

Until then, acknowledge what's really going on here...


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
3 things the homosexual lobby do wrong here.
This is one of the areas where you and others on the same page refuse to acknowledge reality.
First, A MAJORITY IN OUR SOCIETY VOTED THESE LAWS INTO BEING.
It's not just "homosexual lobby", but a majority of citizens who wanted and implemented these laws.

Second, IT'S NOT JUST GAYS THAT ARE COVERED.
Laws have existed on the books for over half a century which provide the exact same protection for blacks, women, Christians, Jews, whites, etc.
But you fixate on the one group you don't want included, as you ignore the fact that Christians are already covered.


Such hypocrisy is palpable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
1. they want to assume the motives of Bakers, florist etc. are simply universal discrimination against a class, when demonstrably it's NOT the case.
This is just a b.s. comment and if you have a specific case you want to argue on this then point it out specifically.

The truth is that in the vast majority of these cases, THE BAKERS ADMITTED their illegal motives.
There is no need to "assume" they broke the law.
The argument has revolved around justifying them breaking the law and claiming it should be a protected violation


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
2. they want to deny the civil rights of another protected class to practice their faith and OPT OUT of participation in activities on the job that violate their faith/beliefs.
I've explained this to you numerous times.
The vast majority of classes are not protected.
People who want to eat dogs are not protected.
Age is typically not protected. (And often the courts upheld justification in laws that govern age discrimination based on intoxication situations)

And, as I have pointed out, Christians are also protected but you say not one peep about them.
__________________
“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; 02-15-2018 at 06:25 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
and, conscience, expresion, for, free, win

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 11:35 PM.


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

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0