S/o: Family Research Council (FRC).

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Here is her answer to Corraleno's comment:

 

Source for your legitimate, current religion practicing racial discrimination based on the scriptures as a religious practice?   We have the Methodists, the Catholics, and the "I hate Hindus" religious faith?   You have to establish and defend your case before you can ask someone else to respond to it.  No one has done that, that I saw, but there are over 100 responses I can't get to now.  I just keep hearing, "Well...what about THIS (unrelated thing to religious freedom in cake cases)?"

 

I'm out.  I have things to do today.  Race is not at issue here and is already completely protected,  though you may argue that someone SOMEWHERE doesn't like interracial marriages.  ?  There is no scriptural precedent prohibiting men and women of various melanin levels marrying - just so long as it is one man and one woman, who forsake all others. 

 

Every single thing you said was asked and answered along the way.  I'm just not going back to find it. The thread is too large. 

 

(Bolding mine.)

 

You don't care for the answer, and you don't agree with it.  Understood.  But she answered your question, and this was not the first time. 

 

That is not an answer.  It is a very clear deflection by declaring it "not an issue".

 

 

[LizItaly]

This is EXACTLY the tautology in her argument, though. The only reason race is a protected class is because public accommodation laws protect it!

 

Sexual orientation is also protected class because public accommodation laws protect it.

 

TM believes that there should be an exemption to those laws for people who feel that homosexuality is against their religious beliefs.

 

If that exemption were to be granted, then race, religion, and the other protected categories would also no longer be protected, as long as the person discriminating cited religious beliefs.

 

When asked how it would be possible to pass a law that would allow Christians to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, without letting them use the same excuse for other categories, her answer was that the other forms of discrimination aren't supported by the Bible, and that only "orthodox" interpretations of "legitimate" religions should be allowed to be used as the basis for religious exemptions.

 

You don't see the difficulty there???  :confused1:

I don't think she was arguing for an "exemption" as none would be needed under 1st Amendment freedoms.

 

Race is protected because of the American history of slavery and Jim Crow (which was law, not custom).  Your first bolded does not make sense.  Perhaps you mean race is protected by public accommodation?  Because it is certainly not true that public accommodation is the reason we protect race in America.

 

Sexual orientation is a protected class in some places.  Race is federally protected, and a special case due to a particular history.  Sexual orientation is protected in Colorado, but the baker did not refuse to bake a cake because the clients were gay.  He refused to create a new cake for a particular event, but offered to serve them in other ways.  This has been said over and again.  I realize you do not see it that way.  Clearly there is broad disagreement.

 

Sexual orientation is not protected everywhere; it is certainly not protected by Title II of the Civil Rights Act.

[Slartibartfast]

That is not an answer.  It is a very clear deflection by declaring it "not an issue".

Bolling v. Sharpe, among several other cases involving race were cited in the Supreme Court's decision when they struck down DOMA. According to the Supreme Court Of the United States it is an issue.

 

 

When at first Windsor and Spyer longed to marry, neither

New York nor any other State granted them that

right. After waiting some years, in 2007 they traveled to

Ontario to be married there. It seems fair to conclude

that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered

the possibility that two persons of the same sex

might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that

of a man and woman in lawful marriage. For marriage

between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought

of by most people as essential to the very definition of that

term and to its role and function throughout the history of

civilization. That belief, for many who long have held it,

became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged.

For others, however, came the beginnings of a

new perspective, a new insight. Accordingly some States

concluded that same-sex marriage ought to be given

recognition and validity in the law for those same-sex

couples who wish to define themselves by their commitment

to each other. The limitation of lawful marriage

to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been

deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be

seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust

exclusion.

 

Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of

New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for

same-sex couples who wanted to affirm their commitment

to one another before their children, their family, their

friends, and their community. And so New York recognized

same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then

it later amended its own marriage laws to permit samesex

marriage. New York, in common with, as of this writing,

11 other States and the District of Columbia, decided

that same-sex couples should have the right to marry and

so live with pride in themselves and their union and in a

status of equality with all other married persons. After a

statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to

discuss and weigh arguments for and against samesex

marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of

marriage to correct what its citizens and elected representatives

perceived to be an injustice that they had not

earlier known or understood. See Marriage Equality Act,

2011 N. Y. Laws 749 (codified at N. Y. Dom. Rel. Law Ann.

§§10–a, 10–b, 13 (West 2013)).

 

 

Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage

in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA

should be considered as the beginning point in deciding

whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and

tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will

be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being

within the authority and realm of the separate States. Yet

it is further established that Congress, in enacting discrete

statutes, can make determinations that bear on

marital rights and privileges. Just this Term the Court

upheld the authority of the Congress to pre-empt state

laws, allowing a former spouse to retain life insurance

proceeds under a federal program that gave her priority,

because of formal beneficiary designation rules, over the

wife by a second marriage who survived the husband.

Hillman v. Maretta, 569 U. S. ___ (2013); see also Ridgway

v. Ridgway, 454 U. S. 46 (1981); Wissner v. Wissner, 338

U. S. 655 (1950). This is one example of the general principle

that when the Federal Government acts in the exercise

of its own proper authority, it has a wide choice of the

mechanisms and means to adopt. See McCulloch v. Maryland,

4 Wheat. 316, 421 (1819). Congress has the power

both to ensure efficiency in the administration of its programs

and to choose what larger goals and policies to

pursue.

 

 

Other precedents involving congressional statutes which

affect marriages and family status further illustrate this

point. In addressing the interaction of state domestic

relations and federal immigration law Congress determined

that marriages “entered into for the purpose of

procuring an alien’s admission [to the United States] as an

immigrant†will not qualify the noncitizen for that status,

even if the noncitizen’s marriage is valid and proper for

state-law purposes. 8 U. S. C. §1186a(b)(1) (2006 ed. and

Supp. V). And in establishing income-based criteria for

Social Security benefits, Congress decided that although

state law would determine in general who qualifies as an

applicant’s spouse, common-law marriages also should be

recognized, regardless of any particular State’s view on

these relationships. 42 U. S. C. §1382c(d)(2).

Though these discrete examples establish the constitutionality

of limited federal laws that regulate the meaning

of marriage in order to further federal policy, DOMA has a

far greater reach; for it enacts a directive applicable to

over 1,000 federal statutes and the whole realm of federal

regulations. And its operation is directed to a class of

persons that the laws of New York, and of 11 other States,

have sought to protect. See Goodridge v. Department of

Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003); An

Act Implementing the Guarantee of Equal Protection

Under the Constitution of the State for Same Sex Couples,

2009 Conn. Pub. Acts no. 09–13; Varnum v. Brien, 763

N. W. 2d 862 (Iowa 2009); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 15, §8

(2010); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:1–a (West Supp. 2012);

Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment

Act of 2009, 57 D. C. Reg. 27 (Dec. 18, 2009); N. Y.

Dom. Rel. Law Ann. §10–a (West Supp. 2013); Wash.

Rev. Code §26.04.010 (2012); Citizen Initiative, SameSex

Marriage, Question 1 (Me. 2012) (results online at

http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/2012/tab-ref-2012.html

(all Internet sources as visited June 18, 2013, and available

in Clerk of Court’s case file)); Md. Fam. Law Code Ann.

§2–201 (Lexis 2012); An Act to Amend Title 13 of the

Delaware Code Relating to Domestic Relations to Provide

for Same-Gender Civil Marriage and to Convert Existing

Civil Unions to Civil Marriages, 79 Del. Laws ch. 19

(2013); An act relating to marriage; providing for civil

marriage between two persons; providing for exemptions

and protections based on religious association, 2013 Minn.

Laws ch. 74; An Act Relating to Domestic Relations—

Persons Eligible to Marry, 2013 R. I. Laws ch. 4.

 

 

In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is

necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority

over marriage as a matter of history and tradition.

State laws defining and regulating marriage, of

course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons,

see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject

to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations†is

“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive

province of the States.†Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393404 (1975).

 

 

The recognition of civil marriages is central to state

domestic relations law applicable to its residents and

citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287,

298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and

legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled

within its bordersâ€). The definition of marriage is

the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate

the subject of domestic relations with respect to the

“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement

of marital responsibilities.†Ibid. “[T]he states,

at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed

full power over the subject of marriage and divorce

. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the

Government of the United States on the subject of marriage

and divorce.†Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562,

575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594

(1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of

husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws

of the States and not to the laws of the United Statesâ€).

 

 

Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal

Government, through our history, has deferred to statelaw

policy decisions with respect to domestic relations. In

De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U. S. 570 (1956), for example,

the Court held that, “[t]o decide who is the widow or widower

of a deceased author, or who are his executors or

next of kin,†under the Copyright Act “requires a reference

to the law of the State which created those legal relationshipsâ€

because “there is no federal law of domestic relations.â€

Id., at 580. In order to respect this principle, the

federal courts, as a general rule, do not adjudicate issues

of marital status even when there might otherwise be a

basis for federal jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards,

504 U. S. 689, 703 (1992). Federal courts will not

hear divorce and custody cases even if they arise in diversity

because of “the virtually exclusive primacy . . . of the

States in the regulation of domestic relations.†Id., at 714

(Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment).

 

 

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition

and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s

beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the

common understanding was that the domestic relations of

husband and wife and parent and child were matters

reserved to the States.†Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280

U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some

respects from State to State. For example, the required

minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New

Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),

with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012).

Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary

(most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful—

such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19

(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the

practice). But these rules are in every event consistent

within each State.

 

Against this background DOMA rejects the longestablished

precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations

of marriage are uniform for all married couples

within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional

guarantees, from one State to the next. Despite

these considerations, it is unnecessary to decide

whether this federal intrusion on state power is a violation

of the Constitution because it disrupts the federal balance.

The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of

central relevance in this case quite apart from principles

of federalism. Here the State’s decision to give this class

of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity

and status of immense import. When the State used its

historic and essential authority to define the marital

relation in this way, its role and its power in making the

decision enhanced the recognition, dignity, and protection

of the class in their own community. DOMA, because of

its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition

of reliance on state law to define marriage. “‘[D]iscriminations

of an unusual character especially suggest

careful consideration to determine whether they are

obnoxious to the constitutional provision.’†Romer v.

Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 633 (1996) (quoting Louisville Gas &

Elec. Co. v. Coleman, 277 U. S. 32, 37–38 (1928)).

 

The Federal Government uses this state-defined class

for the opposite purpose—to impose restrictions and disabilities.

That result requires this Court now to address

whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation

of an essential part of the liberty protected by the Fifth

Amendment. What the State of New York treats as alike

the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure

the same class the State seeks to protect.

 

 

In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex

marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of

those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their

own times.†Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___

(2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a

proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal

system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution

intended. The dynamics of state government in the

federal system are to allow the formation of consensus

respecting the way the members of a discrete community

treat each other in their daily contact and constant interaction

with each other.

 

 

The States’ interest in defining and regulating the

marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees,

stems from the understanding that marriage is more than

a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory

benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two

adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the

State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond

that is more enduring.†Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558,

567 (2003). By its recognition of the validity of same-sex

marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by

authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages,

New York sought to give further protection and dignity to

that bond. For same-sex couples who wished to be married,

the State acted to give their lawful conduct a lawful

status. This status is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment

of the intimate relationship between two people, a

relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the

community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both

the community’s considered perspective on the historical

roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding

of the meaning of equality.

 

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to

protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and

equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.

See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe,

347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s guarantee of

equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional

desire to harm a politically unpopular group

cannot†justify disparate treatment of that group. Department

of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535

(1973). In determining whether a law is motived by an

improper animus or purpose, “‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual

character’†especially require careful consideration.

Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA

cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility

of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an

important indicator of the substantial societal impact the

State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs

of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual

tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of

marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the

benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal

recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a

 

law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that

class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law

here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate

status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex

marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of

the States.

 

The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text

demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of

same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in

the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an

incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence.

The House Report announced its conclusion that “it is both

appropriate and necessary for Congress to do what it can

to defend the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage.

. . . H. R. 3396 is appropriately entitled the ‘Defense

of Marriage Act.’ The effort to redefine ‘marriage’ to extend

to homosexual couples is a truly radical proposal that

would fundamentally alter the institution of marriage.â€

H. R. Rep. No. 104–664, pp. 12–13 (1996). The House

concluded that DOMA expresses “both moral disapproval

of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality

better comports with traditional (especially JudeoChristian)

morality.†Id., at 16 (footnote deleted). The

stated purpose of the law was to promote an “interest in

protecting the traditional moral teachings reflected in

heterosexual-only marriage laws.†Ibid. Were there any

doubt of this far-reaching purpose, the title of the Act

confirms it: The Defense of Marriage.

 

The arguments put forward by BLAG are just as candid

about the congressional purpose to influence or interfere

with state sovereign choices about who may be married.

As the title and dynamics of the bill indicate, its purpose is

to discourage enactment of state same-sex marriage laws

and to restrict the freedom and choice of couples married

under those laws if they are enacted. The congressional

goal was “to put a thumb on the scales and influence a

state’s decision as to how to shape its own marriage laws.â€

Massachusetts, 682 F. 3d, at 12–13. The Act’s demonstrated

purpose is to ensure that if any State decides to

recognize same-sex marriages, those unions will be treated

as second-class marriages for purposes of federal law.

This raises a most serious question under the Constitution’s

Fifth Amendment.

 

 

DOMA’s operation in practice confirms this purpose.

When New York adopted a law to permit same-sex marriage,

it sought to eliminate inequality; but DOMA frustrates

that objective through a system-wide enactment

with no identified connection to any particular area of federal

law. DOMA writes inequality into the entire United

States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the

estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination

of what should or should not be allowed as an

estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and

numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are

laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal

sanctions, copyright, and veterans’ benefits.

 

 

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of statesanctioned

marriages and make them unequal. The principal

purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons

like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as

rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person.

And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married

under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of

both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory

marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA

forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose

of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal

law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of

basic personal relations the State has found it proper to

acknowledge and protect.

 

By this dynamic DOMA undermines

both the public and private significance of statesanctioned

same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples,

and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages

are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex

couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier

marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose

moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see

Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State

has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands

of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law

in question makes it even more difficult for the children to

understand the integrity and closeness of their own family

and its concord with other families in their community

and in their daily lives.

 

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their

lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible

and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many

aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to

the profound. It prevents same-sex married couples

from obtaining government healthcare benefits they would

otherwise receive. See 5 U. S. C. §§8901(5), 8905. It

deprives them of the Bankruptcy Code’s special protections

for domestic-support obligations. See 11 U. S. C.

§§101(14A), 507(a)(1)(A), 523(a)(5), 523(a)(15). It forces

them to follow a complicated procedure to file their state

and federal taxes jointly. Technical Bulletin TB–55, 2010

Vt. Tax LEXIS 6 (Oct. 7, 2010); Brief for Federalism

Scholars as Amici Curiae 34. It prohibits them from being

buried together in veterans’ cemeteries. National Cemetery

Administration Directive 3210/1, p. 37 (June 4, 2008).

For certain married couples, DOMA’s unequal effects

are even more serious. The federal penal code makes it a

crime to “assaul[t], kidna[p], or murde[r] . . . a member of

the immediate family†of “a United States official, a

United States judge, [or] a Federal law enforcement officer,â€

18 U. S. C. §115(a)(1)(A), with the intent to influence or

retaliate against that official, §115(a)(1). Although a

“spouse†qualifies as a member of the officer’s “immediate

family,†§115©(2), DOMA makes this protection inapplicable

to same-sex spouses.

 

DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex

couples. It raises the cost of health care for families

by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their

workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas.

Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter

Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or reduces

benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse

and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family

security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security

Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a

surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.

 

DOMA divests married same-sex couples of the duties

and responsibilities that are an essential part of married

life and that they in most cases would be honored to accept

were DOMA not in force. For instance, because it is expected

that spouses will support each other as they pursue

educational opportunities, federal law takes into consideration

a spouse’s income in calculating a student’s federal

financial aid eligibility. See 20 U. S. C. §1087nn(b).

Same-sex married couples are exempt from this requirement.

The same is true with respect to federal ethics

rules.

 

Federal executive and agency officials are prohibited

from “participat[ing] personally and substantially†in

matters as to which they or their spouses have a financial

interest. 18 U. S. C. §208(a). A similar statute prohibits

Senators, Senate employees, and their spouses from accepting

high-value gifts from certain sources, see 2

U. S. C. §31–2(a)(1), and another mandates detailed financial

disclosures by numerous high-ranking officials and

their spouses. See 5 U. S. C. App. §§102(a), (e). Under

DOMA, however, these Government-integrity rules do not

apply to same-sex spouses.

 

The power the Constitution grants it also restrains.

And though Congress has great authority to design laws to

fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot

deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of

the Fifth Amendment.

 

 

What has been explained to this point should more than

suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the

necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons

who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires

the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional

as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected

by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due

Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against

denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.

See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors,

Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the

Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the

power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,

the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment

makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more

specific and all the better understood and preserved.

 

 

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and

restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex

marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a

class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition

and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a

disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status

the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs

all federal officials, and indeed all persons with

whom same-sex couples interact, including their own

children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages

of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no

legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to

disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its mar-riage laws,

sought to protect in personhood and dignity.

 

 

By seeking to displace this protection and treating those

persons as living in marriages less respected than others,

the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful

marriages.

 

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second

Circuit is affirmed.

 

It is so ordered.

~UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

[ktgrok]

She made it clear over and over that race is legitimately protected; she also made it clear that it is irrelevant to the question of the baker and the wedding cake.

she said race was inborn, so not a behavior. I pointed out that choosing to marry outside your race IS a behavior, and asked her to clarify, based on that. She refused. She even quoted around it, but never answered the question, instead answering questions I never asked. It was impressive. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't think she was arguing for an "exemption" as none would be needed under 1st Amendment freedoms.

 

Race is protected because of the American history of slavery and Jim Crow (which was law, not custom).  Your first bolded does not make sense.  Perhaps you mean race is protected by public accommodation?  Because it is certainly not true that public accommodation is the reason we protect race in America.

 

Sexual orientation is a protected class in some places.  Race is federally protected, and a special case due to a particular history.  Sexual orientation is protected in Colorado, but the baker did not refuse to bake a cake because the clients were gay.  He refused to create a new cake for a particular event, but offered to serve them in other ways.  This has been said over and again.  I realize you do not see it that way.  Clearly there is broad disagreement.

 

Sexual orientation is not protected everywhere; it is certainly not protected by Title II of the Civil Rights Act.

 

Shenanigans.  He refused to bake them a wedding cake when he found out they were gay.  He had accepted the order before knowing they were gay.

 

And please note when we are discussing the baker it involves a state where sexual orientation *is* protected the same as race.

 

BTW, gender, religion, and national origin have the same protections as race. 

 

[Slartibartfast]

she said race was inborn, so not a behavior. I pointed out that choosing to marry outside your race IS a behavior, and asked her to clarify, based on that. She refused. She even quoted around it, but never answered the question, instead answering questions I never asked. It was impressive.

Several links were also posted in regards to studies stating that homosexuality is inborn.

[DragonFaerie]

This thread has gone around and around and made more laps than are in a typical Nascar race. ;)

 

It's exhausting!

 

 

I'm just impressed no one has smacked into the wall yet.

 

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

 

That's debatable.

 

Yep.  See above. :D

 

Wasn't his very first miracle turning water into wine? Not curing the sick, not raising the dead, not walking on water, but helping to keep the party going?

 

Jesus would totally DJ*. That's not sacrilegious at all.

 

* I'm an atheist, and I approve this message.

 

At the risk of offending....well....everyone, this totally reminds me of the Buddy Christ from Dogma.  :thumbup1:   :rofl:

[Mrs Mungo]

Sexual orientation is a protected class in some places. Race is federally protected, and a special case due to a particular history. Sexual orientation is protected in Colorado, but the baker did not refuse to bake a cake because the clients were gay. He refused to create a new cake for a particular event, but offered to serve them in other ways.

The law does not allow that. If you offer goods to most customers, then you cannot refuse to offer those same goods to customers in protected classes. I posted the law earlier. He was refusing to sell them a wedding cake *because they are gay*.

[*Lulu*]

It's exhausting!

 

 

 

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

 

 

Yep. See above. :D

 

 

At the risk of offending....well....everyone, this totally reminds me of the Buddy Christ from Dogma. :thumbup1: :rofl:

Well, as someone who found the DJ JC performance hilarious and unoffensive.......

 

You're going to need a lot more than Buddy Christ to offend me!

[*Lulu*]

The law does not allow that. If you offer goods to most customers, then you cannot refuse to offer those same goods to customers in protected classes. I posted the law earlier. He was refusing to sell them a wedding cake *because they are gay*.

Exactly.

[LucyStoner]

Why the need for sarcasm and ad hominem attacks? TranquilMind has been patiently arguing a side of this discussion almost on her own while being attacked repeatedly and personally over and over again. Most of the commenters on this thread do not agree with her, but she has been courageous enough to stand up for her principles regardless.

 

Even if you do not agree with her, she deserves your respect, or, at the very least, respectful treatment.

Confirmation bias.

 

If you think that was an attack, apparently you don't really know from attack.

 

This thread has been for the most part respectful (aside from one poster telling people they weren't married, that was admittedly odd and disrespectful). You take one jocular remark and latch on to that to prove your incorrect assertion about the tenor of this thread.

 

I am a grown woman and often joke at my own expense or laugh when people tease me a little. I assume that TM is the same and can also take a little humor. People shouldn't take themselves so deathly serious that they can't see a frivolous joke for a frivolous joke.

 

TM had failed to address a number questions over and over. Where you see patient discussion, other people may see 17 different things.

 

Also, as for the part of your post about knowing gay people who disagree with me. Uh, so what? I know gay people who disagree with me. I know straight people who disagree with me. I don't speak for ANY gay people, much less all of them. I speak for myself. The gay people you know also don't speak for all gay people or all Americans. They speak for themselves.

 

ETA- I frankly I *am* a bit impressed by TM's question maneuvering. There's a real skill to it. And many well paid jobs. Perhaps as White House Press Secretary. They usually get lucrative offers after the leave the White House, right? And book deals!

[DragonFaerie]

Interesting article:

 

Short Talk Can Change People's Views on Marriage of Same-Sex Couples

 

Of course, one has to have an open mind and be wiling to actually consider a different perspective....

[*Lulu*]

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I don't know how many other ways she can say race is legitimately protected.

 

For the record, American anti-miscegenation laws were a historical anomaly. There were no such laws across the English-speaking, Christian world of the British commonwealth, and mixed-race marriages were, in fact, very common in places like India and in the Caribbean islands. When SCOTOS ruled the laws unconstitutional in Loving, they were not acting in some new, modern, and progressive way. The laws were clearly unconstitutional, totally ridiculous, and completely out of the bounds of our own legal, common law traditions.

The issue is not that race is legitimately protected, NOW.

 

There are two issues we have bounced back and forth between and some posters have tried to intertwine.

 

Issue One:

 

Religion- scripture is not uniformly interpreted across christiandom. How do we choose which interpretations are worthy of having exceptions made? Some sects of Christianity still use scripture to justify racism and some religions outside of Christianity have tenets that affirm discriminatory practices. How do we ensure religious freedom if we put the government in a position of deciding which religions are and are not "legitimate"?

 

Issue Two:

 

Legality- if a class is recognized as protected, (and sexual orientation is), how can we make exemptions to the protections for one class without endangering the protections for the others? If the law says businesses must comply with x, y, z and there are already ways to work around religious issues, (like forming a private club or not offering a particular service to any customer), what is lost by following the law? How is a law that protects everyone and allows freedom to choose other ways of transacting business beside public companies restricting religious freedom?

[Vera]

Interesting article:

 

Short Talk Can Change People's Views on Marriage of Same-Sex Couples

 

Of course, one has to have an open mind and be wiling to actually consider a different perspective....

Interesting. I would love for someone to spend a few minutes speaking with my handsome, brilliant, articulate, kind son and explain to him why he isn't good enough to be treated equally.

[Corraleno]

I don't think she was arguing for an "exemption" as none would be needed under 1st Amendment freedoms.

 

Yes she is. She believes that Christians who think that homosexuality is a sin should be exempt from following public accommodation laws, while denying the same exemption to those who wish to discriminate against other groups on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs.

 

IOW, the 1st Amendment should protect the "religious freedom" of TM, and those who share her beliefs, to discriminate against gays, but it does not protect the religious freedom of others to discriminate against African-Americans for the same reason.  Because apparently some religions, and some beliefs, aren't as "legitimate" as others and therefore don't deserve the same protection as her beliefs.

[Vera]

The general tone has been suspicious of and hostile to anyone who disagrees with a particular viewpoint currently in vogue.

I am so glad that treating everyone with kindness is finally in vogue.

[Slartibartfast]

I am so glad that treating everyone with kindness is finally in vogue.

 

I read writings from Founding Fathers that don't even exist yet.

[Firefly]

Yeah,  I always just scour polls and news feeds to find the most "in vogue" cause and hitch my wagon to it.  Or not.  :001_rolleyes:

[*Lulu*]

Oh noes, the new, modern and progressive ways are coming!

 

I have never before heard someone say that like it's a bad thing.

Clearly you don't get out enough! :P

 

I'll have to invite you to my next extended family get together.

 

Prepare to have your mind completely blown with mental gymnastics of Olympian quality.

[FaithManor]

Here is her answer to Corraleno's comment:

 

Source for your legitimate, current religion practicing racial discrimination based on the scriptures as a religious practice?   We have the Methodists, the Catholics, and the "I hate Hindus" religious faith?   You have to establish and defend your case before you can ask someone else to respond to it.  No one has done that, that I saw, but there are over 100 responses I can't get to now.  I just keep hearing, "Well...what about THIS (unrelated thing to religious freedom in cake cases)?"

 

I'm out.  I have things to do today.  Race is not at issue here and is already completely protected,  though you may argue that someone SOMEWHERE doesn't like interracial marriages.  ?  There is no scriptural precedent prohibiting men and women of various melanin levels marrying - just so long as it is one man and one woman, who forsake all others. 

 

Every single thing you said was asked and answered along the way.  I'm just not going back to find it. The thread is too large. 

 

(Bolding mine.)

 

You don't care for the answer, and you don't agree with it.  Understood.  But she answered your question, and this was not the first time. 

 

Wow, you just don't get the problem. It doesn't matter if you or her interprets the scripture as saying that interracial marriage is OKAY...the point is that there are very real people who say that scripture DOES prohibit interracial marriage and openly admit they would discriminate in a heart beat. Apparently you have not heard of the church in Kentucky that just recently voted to disallow interracial couples from joining the church. That's in 2014 and a church that is mainstream in terms of Protestantism. What do you think will happen in businesses owned by their church members IF their religious belief became protected? If the baker's religious belief is protected in the business place, then theirs by default must be as well.

 

That's the problem. Her interpretation of the scripture is the only correct one in her eyes, so no one else's matters. BUT the law cannot differentiate. The law cannot be applied unevenly. So, if her right to discriminate against a gay couple is to be protected than the business down the street also gets to claim that scripture says "blah" and discriminate against anyone they like on that basis. She can't have her cake and eat it too. This has been explained over, and over, and over again. If she truly wants to let the baker off, then she also has to let the guy off that won't sell to a person who has been divorced, or a hindu person because he believes they are idolators, or a gentile, or Muslim, or a Jew because "they killed Jesus" (a common sentiment in some Christian circles), or a woman because he believes in the supremacy of man in the home (Ephesians), or a Catholic because he thinks they are heretics, or a woman because she wears pants and he believes this is unscriptural - something that is taught in a lot of fundamentalist churches, or ....the list gets unbelievably long and ALL of it is very, very plausible if the nation decides that this business can discriminate in the public realm based on a closely held religious belief. The law cannot decide which beliefs are "okay" and which ones are not.

 

We have a protestant church 9 miles from my home that actively preaches, believes to the bottom of its members souls, that birth defects are caused by the sin of one or both parents. They actively shun families with a child born with a birth defect. They are open about it. Adamant. They think scripture backs them up (sins of the fathers visited down from generation to generation). Therefore, IF TM's philosophy on religious liberty were to dominate the landscape, then any member of that church could open a business, claim a deeply held belief, and put up a sign that says, "Not serving anyone with a birth defect" and that would have to be legal. The likes of lawyers from Westboro Baptist and such would very likely successfully defend them in court based on the baker being legally protected from serving a gay customer based on religious belief.

 

That's the problem. It's not ludicrous and it's not far fetched. We have an active KKK in this county. They believe that the Bible supports their evil, twisted "theology". They would LOVE for religious liberty to go that far. Love it. If the government supports the "beliefs" of a specific protestant group who want to discriminate against gays in their businesses due to deeply held religious belief, than all of the extremists out there get protection for their beliefs and how they act on it when conducting business in the community.

 

God help us all if that happens. It most certainly is not a country I would want to continue to live in for damn certain.

 

Several posters have asked repeatedly for her to address HOW a law could be written that protects the baker that wants to discriminate against a gay couple but not protect the people that refuse to sell to an interracial couple, and no legitimate response is given. Saying it's not scriptural fails to make a legal argument that could stand because the very people that want to discriminate against the interracial couple absolutely use their own interpretation of scripture to back their "closely held belief". The state cannot decide between the interpretations because it cannot back any one religious argument or it violates the constitution in establishing a state religion. This is one reason so many people were absolutely flabbergasted at the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision because it does appear that the court actually backed one specific set of religious beliefs.

 

This is where the frustration comes from because the side that backs the baker doesn't have a legally viable argument to this most important question and this question is central to the future of civil rights.

[LucyStoner]

Yeah, I always just scour polls and news feeds to find the most "in vogue" cause and hitch my wagon to it. Or not. :001_rolleyes:

Phew, glad I'm not the only one.

 

Or not.

[Scrub Jay]

This is the new, hot trend - get on it, ladies!  http://www.glamour.com/lipstick/blogs/girls-in-the-beauty-department/2014/12/dyed-armpit-hair-pictures

[DragonFaerie]

This is the new, hot trend - get on it, ladies!  http://www.glamour.com/lipstick/blogs/girls-in-the-beauty-department/2014/12/dyed-armpit-hair-pictures

 

You know, you really should warn a person.....

[*Lulu*]

This is the new, hot trend - get on it, ladies!  http://www.glamour.com/lipstick/blogs/girls-in-the-beauty-department/2014/12/dyed-armpit-hair-pictures

  

You know, you really should warn a person.....

I just don't even have words.....

[Mrs Mungo]

This is the new, hot trend - get on it, ladies! http://www.glamour.com/lipstick/blogs/girls-in-the-beauty-department/2014/12/dyed-armpit-hair-pictures

This *could* be the new way to recognize WTMers? ;)

[Scrub Jay]

I can't decide between green and blue so I think I would do one of each.

[LucyStoner]

Well, that's a trend train I can not ride. As I have no appreciable amount of armpit hair.

 

Really, I'm busted up about it. Give me a second.

 

And now I am over it.

[IsabelC]

:lol:

Tempting, except I'm far too lazy busy with important home schooly stuff to bother dying any hair. And nobody sees my armpits unless I'm swimming.

Oh OK, I'll admit it, I just don't see why armpit hair needs to be 'celebrated'.

 

Excellent change of subject though :)

[Slartibartfast]

Well, that's a trend train I can not ride. As I have no appreciable amount of armpit hair.

 

Really, I'm busted up about it. Give me a second.

 

And now I am over it.

I don't really either...maybe they sell some sort of armpit wig?

[kiana]

This is the new, hot trend - get on it, ladies!  http://www.glamour.com/lipstick/blogs/girls-in-the-beauty-department/2014/12/dyed-armpit-hair-pictures

 

You know, I get what they're trying to do, but the yellow just looks like she's using iodine for deodorant.

[CaffeineDiary]

She made it clear over and over that race is legitimately protected; she also made it clear that it is irrelevant to the question of the baker and the wedding cake.

 

No, you can't just assert "this isn't relevant because race is legitimately protected" without providing a rationale, and claim that that's an argument.  It's not an argument; it's an assertion.  

 

The United States has a 400 year history of arguing that black slavery was justified by the Bible.  Whether or not this is true was an existential question for our nation.  We have literally fought a war over the the question.  The entire point of what TranquilMind was asked to respond to is that there is a direct analogy between the question "Should the law allow me to discriminate by race because the Bible permits (or encourages) discrimination by race" and "Should the law allow me to discriminate against [some other group] because Bible permits (or encourages) discrimination against [some other group]".  Someone who is arguing that the latter is permissible has a responsibility to tackle the former question head on.  TranquilMind has done neither.

 

Since we've already established that there are plenty of people who (disgustingly) want to discriminate by race because of their reading of the Bible, the response "My personal reading of the Bible is that it doesn't allow discrimination by race" doesn't answer the question, when that response comes from anyone whose title isn't Official Ameripope.

[Vera]

Interesting. I would love for someone to spend a few minutes speaking with my handsome, brilliant, articulate, kind son and explain to him why he isn't good enough to be treated equally.

I just found out that the above mentioned handsome son came very close to a perfect score on the GRE!!!! Sorry - I had to throw in that mom brag. The baker should be BEGGING to make my awesome son a cake!

[hornblower]

 

If I show up in Mr. "I Hate Traditional Christians" store  and he tells me he doesn't make cakes for middle-aged, white, traditional Christians, I'll be on down the road, rolling my eyes.

 

 

respectfully, part of your blase attitude to that might be a) it doesn't happen & b ) you're the privileged population. As has been stated above, while religious adherence is down, the majority of people in the US apply the loose Christian label whether they practice it or were raised in it or just culturally identify with it. People who are in a majority privileged population either don't face discrimination or persecution, or if they do experience it, have a multitude of alternative options. When you're a minority facing discrimination, it's quite a different perspective.

 

 

 

quoting myself to add another thing

 

c ) also, isn't this entire thread fundamentally about a Christian person who is feeling discriminated against? Who is feeling forced to do/prevented from doing something by secular laws ? And suddenly is not feeling so cheery about just rolling their eyes & going about their business in a different way? Otherwise why wouldn't the cake maker just roll their eyes and shrug and find a way to work within the laws?  /mostly rhetorical questions....  But it strikes me that a number of vocal Christian organizations spend a lot of time arguing that they're being persecuted or discriminated against in North America....

 

I said way up in post 2 that this was going to about the paradox of tolerance. (see, we could have just stopped at post #2 ;)  )

 

I suspect everyone here understands deeply that there is no simple answer and that just like when are balancing individual right & responsibilities, in a pluralistic and multicultural society, there are difficult decisions regarding balancing the rights of one person/group and the rights of another person/group.

 

These are the discussions we need to have & will continue to need to have if we want to continue to live in western democracies in a peaceful and tolerant way.   I'm glad we all had this discussion.

 

 

 

 

[Word Nerd]

This is apparently a thing now too:

http://beardbaubles.tictail.com/product/beard-baubles

[BrookValley.]

This is apparently a thing now too:

http://beardbaubles.tictail.com/product/beard-baubles

 

Please do not show that to my husband. Kthnx?

[Pam in CT]

Nothing new under the sun.

 

Gimli at the Council of Elrond....  

[K&Rs Mom]

 They had only in the past few years before I moved there lifted the gender segregated sidewalks. 

 

 

:huh:  Wait, what?  I've learned a lot from this thread.

[*Lulu*]

 

 

:huh: Wait, what? I've learned a lot from this thread.

There was a joke about pink and blue sidewalks, but I don't think that part was ever true.

 

The school I went to had several students attnding who had been kicked out of BJU. They said there were sections of the school where even the walkways were single sex. I know for sure areas around the dorms were like that, and I seem to remember something about another area being that way as well. It has been a few years ago through....

[FaithManor]

There was a joke about pink and blue sidewalks, but I don't think that part was ever true.

 

The school I went to had several students attnding who had been kicked out of BJU. They said there were sections of the school where even the walkways were single sex. I know for sure areas around the dorms were like that, and I seem to remember something about another area being that way as well. It has been a few years ago through....

 

Not just BJU, but Moody Bible Institute, God's Bible College, and Kentucky Mountain Bible Institute were this way back in the 80's. I can't say if they still are, but I know a gal at KMBC and her description leads me to believe that it might still be this way in terms of the sidewalk outside of the dorms. I think that going to and from the other buildings, there is no segregation.

[*Lulu*]

Not just BJU, but Moody Bible Institute, God's Bible College, and Kentucky Mountain Bible Institute were this way back in the 80's. I can't say if they still are, but I know a gal at KMBC and her description leads me to believe that it might still be this way in terms of the sidewalk outside of the dorms. I think that going to and from the other buildings, there is no segregation.

That is my understanding as well.

 

KMBC is still that way. (We have family friends whose children have all attended KMBC)

 

Hobe Sound is that way as well, IIRC.

[TranquilMind]

TranquilMind, why do you reply to some statements and not others? You frequently repeat points you made earlier - as you yourself have noted - but there are many questions left unaddressed, and often you repeat something that other people have already refuted, sometimes TO the person who has refuted it. For example, you've yet to explain why people who are against interracial marriage are not acting scripturally (even when they can cite chapter and verse to back themselves up) but people who disagree with your interpretation of passages you view as condemning gay marriage are ALSO not acting scripturally. You just assert those without justifying them. Several people have asked this.

 

Are you having trouble following the thread? I know that can happen when there are many comments. If so, perhaps later, after we're done with school, I or somebody else can track down the unanswered comments and PM them to you. It'd be easy for me - it's like my secret aspie superpower!

Well, what I have been doing, as time permits, is sometimes responding to the questions in my inbox, but when there were too many, sometimes I just began at the end of the thread, and attempted to work my way backward for awhile.  Obviously, in a thread of this size, many posts will be missed, especially doing it in this fashion. 

 

I've been busy, and many questions have been repeated over and over.  My answers are insufficient for some, but those are my answers, and I have no interest in repeating them hundreds of times.

Other than that, if you have a superpower and can pull out the actual questions from this overwhelming thread that haven't been asked and answered - and have time to do that, and can do it impartially- great!  That would be awesome.  ;)

 

I'm pleased that almost everyone could address issues and not personalities in this thread.  It truly is only about religious freedom and what limitations should exist, and what should happen when those freedoms conflict with other interests,  in my view.   The First Amendment protections are critically important to me. 

[TranquilMind]

quoting myself to add another thing

 

c ) also, isn't this entire thread fundamentally about a Christian person who is feeling discriminated against? Who is feeling forced to do/prevented from doing something by secular laws ? And suddenly is not feeling so cheery about just rolling their eyes & going about their business in a different way? Otherwise why wouldn't the cake maker just roll their eyes and shrug and find a way to work within the laws?  /mostly rhetorical questions....  But it strikes me that a number of vocal Christian organizations spend a lot of time arguing that they're being persecuted or discriminated against in North America....

 

I said way up in post 2 that this was going to about the paradox of tolerance. (see, we could have just stopped at post #2 ;)  )

 

I suspect everyone here understands deeply that there is no simple answer and that just like when are balancing individual right & responsibilities, in a pluralistic and multicultural society, there are difficult decisions regarding balancing the rights of one person/group and the rights of another person/group.

 

These are the discussions we need to have & will continue to need to have if we want to continue to live in western democracies in a peaceful and tolerant way.   I'm glad we all had this discussion.

 

 

 

 

No.  It is about a person's First Amendment right that is being trampled, in furtherance of countervailing views.  You could flip this scenario, and the result would be the same.  Let's say that Mr. Westboro Baptist Clone goes into a bakery, and requests that the Mr. Gay Cake Maker invest his talent and prepare a cake for him for an event that states, "ALL F*&*S GO TO HELL!".   Owner declines that business. 

 

The general reasoning here would disallow this, stating that the business owner has to serve all interests equally, even those which are repugnant to him.  I say, by sharp contrast, Mr. Cake Maker should be able t decline that business under the guise of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and religious freedom (if applicable).  This isn't about selling Mr. Westboro a generic donut or birthday cake; all would do that equally.  This is about FORCING Mr. Cake Maker to invest his talents in making a specific item for an event that he finds morally repugnant and and participate in "speech" that violates his beliefs (and maybe faith- let's say he also attends Metropolitan Church).  He would be forced to further unwittingly participate in "speech" if Mr. Westboro posts the cake online or in the media, praising Mr. Cake Maker for his talents in creating this awesome cake for the "God hates ****S" event. 

 

In that case, Mr. Cake Maker should be free to decline this business and this association (freedom of association in the First Amendment) and participate in this speech?    Does Mr. Cake Maker really lose the right to decline?  I say no.  Most of you say yes, under the reasoning frequently restated in this thread.   

[hornblower]

I don't know why both this & the conservative Christians thread all boiled down to cake.....*

"If you're in the business of providing a service to the public, then you provide it to the public. The whole public. You do not discriminate based on gender, race, ethnicity, country of origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, language, religion, caste..... 

You do not discriminate. Period. Full stop."

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/535766-why-do-so-many-conservative-christians-feel-they-have-to-dictate-how-the-rest-of-us-live/page-23?do=findComment&comment=6074275

*hey, do we all need a cake distraction about now?

 

[Slartibartfast]

I wouldn't go into the cake business because everything I did would end up on cakewrecks.

[Slartibartfast]

No. It is about a person's First Amendment right that is being trampled, in furtherance of countervailing views. You could flip this scenario, and the result would be the same. Let's say that Mr. Westboro Baptist Clone goes into a bakery, and requests that the Mr. Gay Cake Maker invest his talent and prepare a cake for him for an event that states, "ALL F*&*S GO TO HELL!". Owner declines that business.

 

The general reasoning here would disallow this, stating that the business owner has to serve all interests equally, even those which are repugnant to him. I say, by sharp contrast, Mr. Cake Maker should be able t decline that business under the guise of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and religious freedom (if applicable). This isn't about selling Mr. Westboro a generic donut or birthday cake; all would do that equally. This is about FORCING Mr. Cake Maker to invest his talents in making a specific item for an event that he finds morally repugnant and and participate in "speech" that violates his beliefs (and maybe faith- let's say he also attends Metropolitan Church). He would be forced to further unwittingly participate in "speech" if Mr. Westboro posts the cake online or in the media, praising Mr. Cake Maker for his talents in creating this awesome cake for the "God hates ****S" event.

 

In that case, Mr. Cake Maker should be free to decline this business and this association (freedom of association in the First Amendment) and participate in this speech? Does Mr. Cake Maker really lose the right to decline? I say no. Most of you say yes, under the reasoning frequently restated in this thread.

So does this include cakes for interracial marriages? 

 

People keep saying it isn't pertinent on this thread but The Supreme Court of the United States says it is and since they are the authority on what is pertinent in the US then it is.

[Mrs Mungo]

No.  It is about a person's First Amendment right that is being trampled, in furtherance of countervailing views.  You could flip this scenario, and the result would be the same.  Let's say that Mr. Westboro Baptist Clone goes into a bakery, and requests that the Mr. Gay Cake Maker invest his talent and prepare a cake for him for an event that states, "ALL F*&*S GO TO HELL!".   Owner declines that business. 

 

The general reasoning here would disallow this, stating that the business owner has to serve all interests equally, even those which are repugnant to him. 

 

No, that is not the reasoning. Does a gay baker have to sell a cake to Westboro? Yes. Does it have to say "God Hates F&*S?" Not unless they are selling cakes with the motto to everyone else. Get it?

[*Lulu*]

No, that is not the reasoning. Does a gay baker have to sell a cake to Westboro? Yes. Does it have to say "God Hates F&*S?" Not unless they are selling cakes with the motto to everyone else. Get it?

 

But, but......

 

I don't get it. Could you explain it just one more time?

[Scrub Jay]

But, but......

 

I don't get it. Could you explain it just one more time?

 

But, please, explain it this time with interpretive dance.

 

[*Lulu*]

But, please, explain it this time with interpretive dance.

 

Oooooooooo

 

Can we also request that, "You do an eclectic celebration of a dance! You do, Fossie, Fossie, Fossie. Or Martha Grahm, Martha Grahm, Martha Grahm. Or Twi-la, Twi-la, Twi-la. Or Michael Kidd, Michael Kidd, Michael Kidd. Or Madonna, Madonna, Madonna. But you keep it all inside."?

[*Lulu*]

Sorry.

 

Too much snark.

 

I'm trying to cut back.