Cake for gay couple and ESPN blocking religious commercials

[fskimospy]

Why are you so interested in me saying something that is obviously implicit to my having read the OP? The whole point of this thread is that the courts spoke. And I have been saying that courts were wrong.

Hey, so long as you're willing to admit that people who actually know what they're talking about disagree with you that's fine by me.

 

[Daverino]

Sexual orientation (and more importantly sexual behavior) is not the same as race.

In the eyes of Colorado law it is. In the eyes of the Supreme Court it is. If you want to live in a place that discriminates against homosexuals you'll need to find a different country or start up movement to get the 14th amendment of the Constitution repealed.

 

[Daverino]

And the motivation of this guy is to defend the sanctity of marriage not animus towards gay people. Which is why he has no issue with serving birthday cakes to gays.

If that was his motivation, he wouldn't have been baking wedding cakes for dogs, as he had admitted doing in the past. . .

 

[umbrella39]

... but I respect anyone who doesn't want to do business with someone - for whatever that reason may be.

And that makes you an America hater just like the others who think that. As stated earlier, fine, build your own shop up in a cave somewhere and sell to whoever the hell you want. But if you want to do business in the city, with roads, lights, tax breaks... etc... you don't get to discriminate no matter what reason you have. You don't like it, pack up the show and head for the hills. Pretty simple math the courts will always side no matter how progressive hatred becomes again.

 

[nehalem256]

If that was his motivation, he wouldn't have been baking wedding cakes for dogs, as he had admitted doing in the past. . .

As long as the dogs were of the opposite sex there would seem to be no issue

On a more serious difference. A "dog marriage" is obviously a joke.

 

[Atreus21]

In the eyes of Colorado law it is. In the eyes of the Supreme Court it is. If you want to live in a place that discriminates against homosexuals you'll need to find a different country or start up movement to get the 14th amendment of the Constitution repealed.

Yeah. Thank God laws are always right and just.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah. Thank God laws are always right and just.

As laws go the 14th amendment is about as right and just as they get.

 

[umbrella39]

Yeah. Thank God laws are always right and just.

Thank God the ones that are always right and just won't be trampled on by progressive hatred trying to rear it's ugly head again. Just like a whack-a-mole the court should and always will be there to smack down these idiots who think they can hide behind either their Bible or their version of The Constitution to discriminate against any class of human being.

 

[Atreus21]

As laws go the 14th amendment is about as right and just as they get.

Yes, provided it's not interpreted to the extent that we cannot tell up from down for fear of being called bigots.

 

[Atreus21]

Thank God the ones that are always right and just won't be trampled on by progressive hatred trying to rear it's ugly head again. Just like a whack-a-mole the court should and always will be there to smack down these idiots who think they can hide behind either their Bible or their version of The Constitution to discriminate against any class of human being.

Electing not to bake a cake for someone because you don't like their lifestyle is rightly at the discretion of the baker.

If a muslim wishes not to bake cakes for Christian marriages, that should be his choice. If an airport chooses not to install facilities specific to allow muslim taxi-drivers to wash their feet, that should be the airport's choice.

 

[bshole]

Yes, provided it's not interpreted to the extent that we cannot tell up from down for fear of being called bigots.

If you don't accept gays and gay marriage, you are a bigot. Basically that is the definition of bigotry. Many would say that such prejudice on your part would be indicative of an evil and vile soul. Why should society or the government endorse or tolerate such blatant affronts to human decency on your part?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Again, the products being sold are wedding cakes and advertising air time. Adopting one's own guidelines under which one will sell advertising time based on using specific words is no different from adopting guidelines under which one will bake wedding cakes based on sex of participants. Both industries have the right to refuse service on similar circumstances - the bakery could not be forced to bake a cake emblazoned with "Fags die", nor could ESPN be forced to run ads with that message. However, in this case we are not talking about offensive messages. The bakery was asked to bake a cake which by itself was inoffensive (as far as we know); ESPN was asked to sell advertising time to a firearm manufacturer and to religious groups. Neither cake nor ads are inherently offensive unless your core beliefs, be they traditional religion or progressive anti-religion, make them so. The gay wedding cake could otherwise be identical to a straight wedding cake (except for the names) and still be offensive to the bakers simply for the people for which it is intended; a Davis Defense ad could be word for word identical to an ADT alarm ad except for the words "Davis Defense" & "ADT alarm" themselves and still be offensive to ESPN simply for the people for which it is intended.

Also, ESPN took their discrimination much further, a blanket refusal to sell ANY air time to Davis Defense or to religious groups regardless of content. The bakery would make any product except a wedding cake for the gay couple. Clearly the bakery is much less discriminatory than is ESPN.

Adopting restrictions on the products you sell doesn't discriminate against anyone as long as they apply to everybody equally. If I make wedding cakes and I refuse to sell to a straight couple because I don't want to do straight weddings, that's discrimination. If I don't sell to a straight couple because I only offer cakes shaped like genitalia and that's not what they're in the market for, I'm not being discriminatory, because I'm not offering the service they want to ANYBODY regardless of protected status. So ESPN, as long as it establishes the rules beforehand and doesn't allow certain religious groups to advertise but not others, is not discriminating against religion with a blanket ban of all religious advertisements; it's only discrimination if you will serve one class of people but won't serve others, all other things being equal. You can't serve one religion and no others, but you can serve none (in the same way that a baker could make no wedding cakes and not be guilty of bigotry for not making a wedding cake for a gay wedding).

The firearm manufacturer is irrelevant since "Arms Dealer" is not a protected class.

 

[Daverino]

The guts of the issue, right here in Elane Photography V Willcock:

{55}

Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA (New Mexico's anti-discrimination law) against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap&#8221. Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

{56} However, adoption of Elane Photography’s argument would
allow a photographer who was a Klan member to refuse to photograph an African-American customer’s wedding, graduation, newborn child, or other event if the photographer felt that the photographs would cast African-Americans in a positive light or be interpreted as the photographer’s endorsement of African-Americans. A holding that the First Amendment mandates an exception to public accommodations laws for commercial photographers would license commercial photographers to freely discriminate against any protected class on the basis that the photographer was only exercising his or her right not to express a viewpoint with which he or she disagrees. Such a holding would undermine all of the protections provided by anti-discrimination laws.

It is painfully obvious that people arguing against the gay couple do not know what a public accommodation is and why public accommodations are subject to anti-discriminatory laws, such as the Civil Rights act of 1964.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you don't accept gays and gay marriage, you are a bigot. Basically that is the definition of bigotry. Many would say that such prejudice on your part would be indicative of an evil and vile soul. Why should society or the government endorse or tolerate such blatant affronts to human decency on your part?

I'm not surprised progressives suppress opposing viewpoints through fear and social isolation...what religion do you belong to, again?

 

[Daverino]

Electing not to bake a cake for someone because you don't like their lifestyle is rightly at the discretion of the baker.

If a muslim wishes not to bake cakes for Christian marriages, that should be his choice. If an airport chooses not to install facilities specific to allow muslim taxi-drivers to wash their feet, that should be the airport's choice.

Not in America. Everything you stated is unconstitutional.

 

[Atreus21]

If you don't accept gays and gay marriage, you are a bigot. Basically that is the definition of bigotry. Many would say that such prejudice on your part would be indicative of an evil and vile soul. Why should society or the government endorse or tolerate such blatant affronts to human decency on your part?

Give a leftist enough sentences and by the end he'll define irony.

 

[Atreus21]

Not in America. Everything you stated is unconstitutional.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm interested more in debating the merits than in hearing the constant refrain of "it's legal, get used to it."

 

[nehalem256]

The guts of the issue, right here in Elane Photography V Willcock:

{55}

Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA (New Mexico's anti-discrimination law) against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

{56} However, adoption of Elane Photography’s argument would
allow a photographer who was a Klan member to refuse to photograph an African-American customer’s wedding, graduation, newborn child, or other event if the photographer felt that the photographs would cast African-Americans in a positive light or be interpreted as the photographer’s endorsement of African-Americans. A holding that the First Amendment mandates an exception to public accommodations laws for commercial photographers would license commercial photographers to freely discriminate against any protected class on the basis that the photographer was only exercising his or her right not to express a viewpoint with which he or she disagrees. Such a holding would undermine all of the protections provided by anti-discrimination laws.

It is painfully obvious that people arguing against the gay couple do not know what a public accommodation is and why public accommodations are subject to anti-discriminatory laws, such as the Civil Rights act of 1964.

The difference is that no one has ever said that 2 black people shouldn't be able to get married to each other. Refusing to photograph an all black wedding is not a political statement.

 

[fskimospy]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm interested more in debating the merits than in hearing the constant refrain of "it's legal, get used to it."

I'm pretty sure we debated the merits of it when we passed the Civil Rights Act.

 

[nehalem256]

Not in America. Everything you stated is unconstitutional.

Wrong. At issue in this case is a Colorado law. Not the constitution.

 

[Daverino]

In case you haven't noticed, I'm interested more in debating the merits than in hearing the constant refrain of "it's legal, get used to it."

Then which types of people do you approve of and disapprove of being discriminated against?

Apparently you're ok on discrimination based on sexual orientation or religion. How about discrimination by race? Or gender? Are those all fair game as well?

 

[nehalem256]

Then which types of people do you approve of and disapprove of being discriminated against?

Apparently you're ok on discrimination based on sexual orientation or religion. How about discrimination by race? Or gender? Are those all fair game as well?

It seems your argument is a little stupid given your previous quote:

Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA (New Mexico's anti-discrimination law) against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed—a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

Clearly it is okay to discriminate against certain types of people right?

 

[umbrella39]

Electing not to bake a cake for someone because you don't like their lifestyle is rightly at the discretion of the baker.

Not in my America but I digress. A black baker who elects not to produce their product for whites couples gets smacked with the mole hammer, too. You don't get to pick and chose what colors or lifestyles you sell a product to if you want to do business in the city, take any take break, etc. This is a society that serves all when the taxes, roads, lights are concerned.

If a Muslim wishes not to bake cakes for Christian marriages, that should be his choice.

Again, sure if they want to bake it and sell in out in the woods. But not in any business mine or your tax dollars helped support.

If an airport chooses not to install facilities specific to allow muslim taxi-drivers to wash their feet, that should be the airport's choice.

Of course it should be. Unless of course the airport has installed them for Christians and won't for Muslims Totally different topic you have segued into here...

 

[Daverino]

Wrong. At issue in this case is a Colorado law. Not the constitution.

The Colorado law, and similar state-based anti-discrimination laws have consistently been held Constitutional on the ground of equal protection guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has also been consistently reaffirmed as Constitutional.

 

[Retro Rob]

Then which types of people do you approve of and disapprove of being discriminated against?

Apparently you're ok on discrimination based on sexual orientation or religion. How about discrimination by race? Or gender? Are those all fair game as well?

I see your point. But I think we too often lump personal views together with active discrimination.

It's one thing to have personal objections to gay marriage (i.e, rejecting homosexual behavior and marriage), and its a completely different thing to refuse to serve them, while serving he rest of the general public.