RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Republicans hate gays, Part 567,204
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13342



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 11:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The problem with that is that the New Testament is not the entire Bible and taken as a whole the Bible says a lot of things. Many acts and beliefs have been justified over the years on the basis of "it says so in the Bible," Leviticus being a frequent source.

If you recall, Bob Jones University defended for many years (don't know if that's still the case) many blatantly discriminatory practices by reliance on the Bible.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 12:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
The problem with that is that the New Testament is not the entire Bible and taken as a whole the Bible says a lot of things. Many acts and beliefs have been justified over the years on the basis of "it says so in the Bible," Leviticus being a frequent source.

If you recall, Bob Jones University defended for many years (don't know if that's still the case) many blatantly discriminatory practices by reliance on the Bible.


....and the info above nicely demonstrates just one more BIG reason these kinds of legislation (allegedly designed to 'protect' religious freedoms) cannot possibly be effective: There are TOO MANY variations within religions to be fully covered AND realistic. Jews don't care about the NT. Muslims don't either, yet many Christians pay little heed to the OT. Should the laws attempt to serve Everyone, it'd be crazy-making. Separation of Church and State should remain the prevailing doctrine.

Yep. Discrimination is NOT a new social phenomenon. For Good Christians, Tony's example cited should be all they need re: WWJD?

TonyL222 wrote:
When Jesus went from Jerusalem to Galilee, His Disciples wanted Him to avoid Samaria, whom the Jews regarded as vile and ignorant, and a "class" of people no respectable Jew would ever associate with. Jesus went through Samaria. Instead of avoiding or shunning an outcast, Jesus sought opportunities to embrace people.

Quote:
"Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou,
being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." (John 4:9)


A Christian's strongest witness isn't the words spoken but the life lived - the actions taken. Every day a Christian should ask if the things I did that day drew anyone nearer to Christ - or pushed them away.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13342



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 1:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
[Should the laws attempt to serve Everyone, it'd be crazy-making. Separation of Church and State should remain the prevailing doctrine.


"Remain"? That's never been the "prevailing doctrine." The First Amendment contains two distinct and equally important prohibitions.

The Government may not make any law respecting the establishment of religion.

The Government may not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

You can't just pick one and ignore the other. They are co-equal in importance.

The pilgrims and other settlers to this nation fled Europe largely to escape religious persecution and to find a home where they could freely practice their religion, most of which were minority disfavored religions in their home countries. That's the foundation upon which this nation was built.

The First Amendment was intended precisely to protect EVERYONE. As Justice O'Connor explained in her opinion in the Native American Church peyote case:

"[T]he First Amendment was enacted precisely to protect the rights of those whose religious practices are not shared by the majority and may be viewed with hostility. The history of our free exercise doctrine amply demonstrates the harsh impact majoritarian rule has had on unpopular or emerging religious groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish. Indeed, the words of Justice Jackson in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (overruling Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940)) are apt:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 1:32 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Howee wrote:
[Should the laws attempt to serve Everyone, it'd be crazy-making. Separation of Church and State should remain the prevailing doctrine.


"Remain"? That's never been the "prevailing doctrine."(Question Shocked) The First Amendment contains two distinct and equally important prohibitions.

The Government may not make any law respecting the establishment of religion.

The Government may not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

You can't just pick one and ignore the other. They are co-equal in importance.

Okay. "Government" (State) cannot make laws about religion. I don't see where either contradicts Separation of Church and State. And I certainly think the separation is what (most) TRY to maintain in our highest governmental positions, whether or not they succeed.

ArtBest23 wrote:
The pilgrims and other settlers to this nation fled Europe largely to escape religious persecution and to find a home where they could freely practice their religion, most of which were minority disfavored religions in their home countries. That's the foundation upon which this nation was built.


I disagree strongly with this. A relevant PART of the foundation, yes. But honestly, MOST newcomers to America were mercenary businessmen, plain and simple. Jamestown was purely an economic venture. The Pilgrims, wanting their "religious freedom" were headed for Jamestown, but got blown off course, so (the future) Massachusetts Bay Colony had that as their foundation, and led others to come for the same reason. BUT. Hudson Bay Co., The Dutch, etc., etc., came for economic opportunity. It certainly wasn't ALL about 'religious freedom'--that was more of a side-effect, with the Crown happy to be rid of them, whilst adding live bodies to the colonial population.

ArtBest23 wrote:
The First Amendment was intended precisely to protect EVERYONE. As Justice O'Connor explained in her opinion in the Native American Church peyote case:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."


I certainly wouldn't disagree with the above. And I'd be quick to emphasize the "One's right...." to mean EVERYone's right. All.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13342



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 2:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Howee wrote:
[Should the laws attempt to serve Everyone, it'd be crazy-making. Separation of Church and State should remain the prevailing doctrine.


"Remain"? That's never been the "prevailing doctrine."(Question Shocked) The First Amendment contains two distinct and equally important prohibitions.

The Government may not make any law respecting the establishment of religion.

The Government may not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

You can't just pick one and ignore the other. They are co-equal in importance.

Okay. "Government" (State) cannot make laws about religion. I don't see where either contradicts Separation of Church and State. And I certainly think the separation is what (most) TRY to maintain in our highest governmental positions, whether or not they succeed.

ArtBest23 wrote:
The pilgrims and other settlers to this nation fled Europe largely to escape religious persecution and to find a home where they could freely practice their religion, most of which were minority disfavored religions in their home countries. That's the foundation upon which this nation was built.


I disagree strongly with this. A relevant PART of the foundation, yes. But honestly, MOST newcomers to America were mercenary businessmen, plain and simple. Jamestown was purely an economic venture. The Pilgrims, wanting their "religious freedom" were headed for Jamestown, but got blown off course, so (the future) Massachusetts Bay Colony had that as their foundation, and led others to come for the same reason. BUT. Hudson Bay Co., The Dutch, etc., etc., came for economic opportunity. It certainly wasn't ALL about 'religious freedom'--that was more of a side-effect, with the Crown happy to be rid of them, whilst adding live bodies to the colonial population.

ArtBest23 wrote:
The First Amendment was intended precisely to protect EVERYONE. As Justice O'Connor explained in her opinion in the Native American Church peyote case:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."


I certainly wouldn't disagree with the above. And I'd be quick to emphasize the "One's right...." to mean EVERYone's right. All.


I didn't say it "contradicts" anything. But the phrase "separation of Church and State" is a reference only to the Establishment Clause, which is only half of the equation and says nothing about the Free Exercise Clause which is of equal import.

And no offense, but I think your focus entirely on Jamestown ignores the overwhelming influence of religious persecution in motivating settlement of the colonies.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 5:48 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
I didn't say it "contradicts" anything. But the phrase "separation of Church and State" is a reference only to the Establishment Clause, which is only half of the equation and says nothing about the Free Exercise Clause which is of equal import.


Maybe we're just hung up on some semantics: To me, 'separation of church and state' means government shall not exert rule over religion, and religion shall not exert rule over government. I don't get how your "Free Exercise Clause" ("The Government may not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.") doesn't fit with that, as you seem to imply....to me, it fits perfectly.

ArtBest23 wrote:
And no offense, but I think your focus entirely on Jamestown ignores the overwhelming influence of religious persecution in motivating settlement of the colonies.


Well, it's way more than just focusing on Jamestown: I also mentioned other European interests involved in settling the new World, such as the Dutch East Indies Company and the Hudson Bay Co., who were NOT of a religious nature.

Jamestown was the first official/permanent English settlement. It was NOT established for religious freedom. As I said, there is no doubt that religious persecution contributed to much of our foundation, but it never was the SOLE, or even main, impetus behind the colonization of the (future) USA.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 7:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Well, it's way more than just focusing on Jamestown: I also mentioned other European interests involved in settling the new World, such as the Dutch East Indies Company and the Hudson Bay Co., who were NOT of a religious nature.


Dutch West India Company. Wink

East held the monopoly in Asia.

But I do agree with your point. Seperation goes both ways.

And while religious persecution played a big role in many of the earliest colonies, that was 100-200 years before the Constitution was written. It would have had an impact but those who wrote it were much more concerned with outside powers influencing their new Government. One of those powers was the Church.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 9:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Dutch West India Company. Wink

Yeah. That one, too. Razz Laughing



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 13342



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 9:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
It would have had an impact but those who wrote it were much more concerned with outside powers influencing their new Government. One of those powers was the Church.


I'm curious where you find evidence of a concern about the Church as an outside power being a driving force in the formation of the nation, apart from the prohibition on the establishment of a state religion, which was about protecting religious choice, not the "power of the Church".

These people were mostly of English heritage, and in the 18th century the state controlled the Church of England, not vice versa.


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 10:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
It would have had an impact but those who wrote it were much more concerned with outside powers influencing their new Government. One of those powers was the Church.


I'm curious where you find evidence of a concern about the Church as an outside power being a driving force in the formation of the nation, apart from the prohibition on the establishment of a state religion, which was about protecting religious choice, not the "power of the Church".

These people were mostly of English heritage, and in the 18th century the state controlled the Church of England, not vice versa.

It was the fear of religious institutions using their power to gain political power and force belief. Here are a couple of famous Jefferson quotes:

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 10:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
justintyme wrote:
It would have had an impact but those who wrote it were much more concerned with outside powers influencing their new Government. One of those powers was the Church.


I'm curious where you find evidence of a concern about the Church as an outside power being a driving force in the formation of the nation, apart from the prohibition on the establishment of a state religion, which was about protecting religious choice, not the "power of the Church".

These people were mostly of English heritage, and in the 18th century the state controlled the Church of England, not vice versa.


In the 17th century, when the U.S. was settled (and well into the 18th century), there was great concern in England about the church controlling the state, much of it related to the possibility of having a Catholic monarch. It's also important that there was essentially a Protestant revolution in England in the mid-17th century, which resulted in anti-Catholic laws being passed and enforced. During Cromwell's rule, it's fair to say that the state was taken over by religious forces, even if they were home grown.

Not to mention, of course, that several of the colonies were founded by specific religious groups fleeing state persecution because they weren't in the established religion - Massachusetts Bay (the Pilgrims, who had fled religious persecution by the British government), Pennsylvania (Quakers) and, at least sort of, Rhode Island (fleeing from religious persecution in Massachusetts).

So, religious influence on the state was a very real concern for the Founders.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/06/15 10:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme, quoting Jefferson wrote:
"Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights."

Now, THAT'S a keeper. I'll see if I can get a nice little Amish gal to embroider it as a gift for Pence's office wall. Cool



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/08/15 1:01 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

As only he can, Jon Stewart makes complete sense of it all. Cool



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 5667



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/09/15 9:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Pizzeria re-opens.

http://www.wthr.com/story/28766503/walkerton-pizzeria-that-backed-religious-freedom-law-reopens


norwester



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6362
Location: Seattle


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/10/15 10:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ex-Ref wrote:
Pizzeria re-opens.

http://www.wthr.com/story/28766503/walkerton-pizzeria-that-backed-religious-freedom-law-reopens

Laughing all the way to the bank. A brilliant capitalistic maneuver to get out of debt. Crystal (the daughter) is probably a lesbian who had pizza catered at her wedding! Wink Laughing
Quote:
O'Connor says he'll use some of his share of more than $842,000 raised on GoFundMe to make improvements and donate some to charity.

To top it off, they maybe need to have a public change of heart, can't we all just get along style.



_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/10/15 11:42 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

norwester wrote:
Crystal (the daughter) is probably a lesbian who had pizza catered at her wedding! Wink Laughing

Norwester, you bigoted li'l Mormon you--certainly, you're not implying lesbians would serve PIZZA at their wedding reception. Are you? Shocked



Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

It really was a brilliant move. The stupid ones are the GoFundMes.... Razz The marvels of a Free Country.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 5667



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/21/15 11:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

No surprise here. Coach fired for post.

http://wane.com/2015/04/21/coach-fired-over-twitter-threat-to-indiana-pizza-shop/


Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 5667



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/07/15 1:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I finally got it!!!!!!! My form-letter response from Pence regarding my email.

For your entertainment:


Dear Ex-Ref:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was a pleasure to hear from you.

The freedom of religion for every Hoosier is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and in the Indiana Constitution, which reads, 'No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.' For generations, these protections have served as a bulwark of religious liberty for Hoosiers and remain a foundation of religious liberty in the State of Indiana, and that will not change.

The Indiana General Assembly passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act raising the judicial standard that would be used when government action intrudes upon the religious liberty of Hoosiers, and I was pleased to sign it.

Since that time, the law has become a subject of great misunderstanding and controversy across our state and nation. However, we got here, we are where we are, and it is important that our state take action to address the concerns that have been raised and move forward.

I called upon the Indiana General Assembly to clarify that this new judicial standard would not create a license to discriminate or to deny services to any individual as it critics have alleged. I am grateful for the efforts of legislators, business, and other community leaders who came together to forge the clarifying language in the law.

Hoosiers deserve to know, that even with this legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enhances protections for every church, non-profit religious organization or society, religious school, rabbi, priest, preacher, minister, or pastor in the review of government action where their religious liberty is infringed. The law also enhances protection in religious liberty cases for groups of individuals and businesses in conscience decisions that do not involve provision of goods and services, employment and housing.

In the midst of this furious debate, I have prayed earnestly for wisdom and compassion, and I have felt the prayers of people across this state and across this nation. For that I will be forever grateful.

There will be some who think this legislation goes too far and some who think it does not go far enough, but as governor I must always put the interest of our state first and ask myself every day, 'What is best for Indiana?' I believe resolving this controversy and making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana.

Our state is rightly celebrated for our pro-business environment, and we enjoy an international reputation for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance, and kindness of our people. Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan; it is our way of life. Now that this is behind us, let's move forward together and with a renewed commitment to the civility and respect that make this state great.

Sincerely,
Mike Pence
Governor


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 14900
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 05/07/15 8:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ex-Ref wrote:
I finally got it!!!!!!! My form-letter response from Pence regarding my email.

For your entertainment:


Dear Ex-Ref:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It was a pleasure to hear from you.

The freedom of religion for every Hoosier is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and in the Indiana Constitution, which reads, 'No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.' For generations, these protections have served as a bulwark of religious liberty for Hoosiers and remain a foundation of religious liberty in the State of Indiana, and that will not change.

The Indiana General Assembly passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act raising the judicial standard that would be used when government action intrudes upon the religious liberty of Hoosiers, and I was pleased to sign it.

Since that time, the law has become a subject of great misunderstanding and controversy across our state and nation. However, we got here, we are where we are, and it is important that our state take action to address the concerns that have been raised and move forward.

I called upon the Indiana General Assembly to clarify that this new judicial standard would not create a license to discriminate or to deny services to any individual as it critics have alleged. I am grateful for the efforts of legislators, business, and other community leaders who came together to forge the clarifying language in the law.

Hoosiers deserve to know, that even with this legislation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act enhances protections for every church, non-profit religious organization or society, religious school, rabbi, priest, preacher, minister, or pastor in the review of government action where their religious liberty is infringed. The law also enhances protection in religious liberty cases for groups of individuals and businesses in conscience decisions that do not involve provision of goods and services, employment and housing.

In the midst of this furious debate, I have prayed earnestly for wisdom and compassion, and I have felt the prayers of people across this state and across this nation. For that I will be forever grateful.

There will be some who think this legislation goes too far and some who think it does not go far enough, but as governor I must always put the interest of our state first and ask myself every day, 'What is best for Indiana?' I believe resolving this controversy and making clear that every person feels welcome and respected in our state is best for Indiana.

Our state is rightly celebrated for our pro-business environment, and we enjoy an international reputation for the hospitality, generosity, tolerance, and kindness of our people. Hoosier hospitality is not a slogan; it is our way of life. Now that this is behind us, let's move forward together and with a renewed commitment to the civility and respect that make this state great.

Sincerely,
Mike Pence
Governor


Interesting that he does not point out that it is still perfectly legal to discriminate in the state of Indiana, you just can't use this specific law to defend that discrimination in court.


Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 5667



Back to top
PostPosted: 05/13/15 8:37 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Apparently Indiana has an unlimited supply of idiots.

This is from the guy that co-authored the RFRA bill.

http://www.21alive.com/news/local/Author-of-RFRA-defends-bill-claims-it-was-represented-incorrectly-303618141.html


Quote:
"As we got closer to that time, more attention was coming to Indianapolis and I think people just jumped on that," said Kruse. "We were the center of the American news and we were thinking why doesn't some other catastrophe happen and the news go cover a Nepal earthquake or something"


Rolling Eyes


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59642
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 09/01/16 7:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

She beat her son with a hanger and said Indianas religious freedom law gave her the right

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/01/she-beat-her-son-with-a-hanger-and-said-indianas-religious-freedom-law-gives-her-the-right/

Quote:
The 7-year-old boy had a total of 36 deep purple bruises across his back, on his arm and on his thigh.

He had a loop mark on his ear that, court records say, was from the small hook of a plastic hanger that his mother had used to beat him.

When the boys elementary school teacher patted him on the back, he flinched. The state Department of Child Services was then called to the Indianapolis school.

According to a probable cause affidavit, the boys mother, Kin Park Thaing, hit the boy multiple times with a coat hanger after she became very angry with him one night.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59642
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/05/17 2:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Gay wedding cake case comes before Supreme Court

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gay-wedding-cake-case-supreme-court-ramifications-discrimination/story?id=51581307

Quote:
The case is tied to a baker who says he has the right under the First Amendment to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In 2012 a gay couple visited Masterpiece Cakes in Lakewood, Colorado, and asked for a custom cake — a request the owner declined.



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 7808
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/05/17 3:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

My guess is that SCOTUS will rule that you cannot force a baker to put a specific message or image on a cake, but that a baker cannot deny a product or service to one group that is available to all others.

The idea that making food for an event that a person will not be participating in is somehow protected "artistic expression" stretches credulity and would create a murky atea of the law with no clear bright line test between what is protected and what is not (ie: at what point does me cooking a meal for someone become artistic expression? Does frying up a frozen burger at McDonalds count? What if it isn't frozen and I am using a recipe of my own making?)



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 59642
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 12/05/17 5:06 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
My guess is that SCOTUS will rule that you cannot force a baker to put a specific message or image on a cake, but that a baker cannot deny a product or service to one group that is available to all others.


That seems reasonable to me



_________________
On Christmas Day, the Gingerbread Man said, ‘Ladyfingers, be my wife.’
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 12094
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 08/23/19 10:07 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Andddd........The Beat Goes On:
Quote:
Remarkably, the department argued in its memorandum that the reason anti-gay discrimination is not unlawful under the ban on sex-based discrimination is because, in cases of adverse treatment by an employer, both gay men and gay women would be addressed equally poorly .

I know Don the Con is running out of Shiny Objects to dangle for the distraction of his mouth-breathing base that might detract them from Real Concerns, but if it should get that far, I hope the supremes don't equivocate on shutting that shit down.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Page 9 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin