Human Rights Watch: State Laws Threaten LGBT Equality

That's why people are allowed to discriminate against African-Americans so long as they cite religious reasons. Oh, wait...

Not really since race is a even more protected class

Which is why it´s so moronic when people compare race to sexuality.

Okay, so you admit that being part of a protected class doesn't allow you to discriminate against another protected class? I rest my case.

@tryit: Agreed.

Seem you missed the point, but no surprise there.

But good you at least agreed that religious people should be respected

I can understand a church not wanting to marry certain couples under its roof. I may not always agree with them, but I do think they should have a right to make that choice. But I don't agree with a business that refuses to serve a couple based on some supposed difference like sex, race, etc.

It's an interesting debate at times because it centers around the rights of the customer vs. the owner. Do you have a right to not service someone? Do you have a right to service? If I had a bunch of guys walk into my business covered in swastikas and KKK tattoos, I'd like to be able to tell them, "sorry but go elsewhere", however, I would be discriminating against them based on preconceived notions.

No, you missed the point. Freedom of religion does not allow you to discriminate by race, ergo religious liberty is not an excuse for discrimination, ergo discrimination against LGBT people is not protected by religious liberty.

This thread. Okay the fact is that it's not smart business to turn away customers. Churches do not have to marry everyone that asks so no religious issues there. But as far as making cakes that doesn't apply. Once you are involved in commercial transactions you have to abide by the secular laws.

And that is that.

And you are wrong which is why laws are being put in place to make sure you and your leftist comrades understand that.

Sexuality is not a protected group and never will be,

Which is exactly what racists said about race when they were segregating public places and banning interracial marriage. Enjoy being on the wrong side of history.

Engaging with Jacanuk is a fool’s errand. Really no point to it.

It is in all but law, and that is only a matter of time. Corporations, schools, public and private institutions, and so forth have, for the majority, made progress in this matter of civil rights. Pretty soon (like in a few years) I imagine legislation will follow. Maybe not, though, we will see how the GOP fares.

Wasn't too long ago we were banning same-sex marriage in a lot of places, including hippieville California; now look at us :D

Nah, he is not so bad. Wish he'd get out of Political Gamers a little more often, though :P

lol poor liberal progressive snowflake from Canada.

No you are right, your opinion does not change anything because you are wrong 99% of the time.

Well, as long as we offer the same acceptance to religious people as we do everyone else.

My only problem is the idea that the left has that they can trample on a group, they do not like, rights.

Either we accept all or we don´t accept anything. :)

@Jacanuk: so you don't like the left trampling on people's rights (of which you've given no evidence of) but are advocating trampling on the rights of LGBT people.

How can anyone be as insane as you?

@Jacanuk: “No you are right, your opinion does not change anything because you are wrong 99% of the time.”

Are you talking about yourself here?

Tell me how forcing someone to treat others with equality is trampling on them. Was the government trampling on racists and bigots when they made people serve blacks at the same counters as whites? Was the government trampling on people when they forced them to put blacks and whites in the same schools? Was the government trampling on people when they forced them to recognize interracial marriages as valid? How is it that treating people with fairness and decency somehow equates to trampling on religious people in your mind? Snowflake.

@theone86: yeah, I have to admit I find the whole "accept it all or accept nothing" a bit ironic coming from a socially conservative perspective.

I mean, the religious want their right to not accept certain people protected; meanwhile, homosexuals want their right to not be discriminated against protected. They don't want to hate on the religious people, they can still be pricks in their own homes and churches.

There are some people in the U.S.who have just gotten used to having control over everything and dictating the terms of how things work to everyone else. Now they're finally losing control and throwing a tantrum over it. Casting themselves as the victim is what they do when the usual tactics start to break down. They're losing their deathgrip on American culture and they're not going to let go without lashing out at everyone to let them know how upset they are over it. "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

@theone86: yeah it must be terrible to realize that soon you will be free to continue hating on whoever you want, you just won't be able to do it with any practical repercussions for the people you hate. Such a shame :P

I mean that's what it comes down to: they want their hate to have a tangible impact, they want to see it have an effect on the world.

You know, I'll go so far as to give them a bit of a pass and say it's not hate, at least not in the sense we typically think of it. Not in the sense of you wake up in the morning and say "god, those gay people really piss me the **** off." It's more like abuse, where they get a rush from actively hurting other people. That's why just sitting around having homophobic thoughts isn't good enough for them. Hating isn't the point for them, controlling other people is.

Do we have a free market? yes, then you have your answer.

And we are not treating someone equal or demanding equality. These people are trampling all over a group who the choice is as valid as their choice to outlive their sexuality.

Just because they assume their rights are more important.

You got something wrong here.

The religious people want their religion accepted and their right to have a business in a free market without being forced to go against their religion.

The LGBT community can do the exact same, what do you think would happen if a religious person went into an LGBT bakery and ask for a cake saying "all gays burn in hell"

Making a wedding cake is quite a bit different than making a cake that proclaims hate against a group of people.

If your religion prevents you from serving everyone equally, find another job.

Funny comeback.

We should be arguing for equality, not the right to discriminate for nonsensical reasons. WTF is this? Middle school? "Oh you're not gonna sell us a cake? Well fine! We are gonna open our own gay bakery nyah nyah nyah"

Jesus Christ...

I'd like to think that, ideally, the religious people would bake the cake and swallow their pride, realizing that while it's OK to be religious, they are none the less not in church, and in a truly free market the all-mighty dollar is what it's really about, and take their money, thinking "Man we just suckered some gays". Conversely, I'd like to think the homosexual bakery would more or less do the same thing, thinking of the greater good and going "You know what? We are better than that. We are not going to discriminate against them because we know what it is like to be discriminated against. It sucks! What are we? Israel!?!"

I mean I make a food product for a living too, I know there are bigots, hippies, and other people I don't really approve of drinking it but who cares? I'm not going to forbid them from drinking my beer because of ideological differences. Doing so is some low-class petty shit.

@br0kenrabbit: "Making a wedding cake is quite a bit different than making a cake that proclaims hate against a group of people."

Iirc, that's the legal precedent set. If a business offers a product, they cannot discriminate in who that like product is offered to. They are not, however, obligated to offer a different product that they don't normally offer.

And that's exactly how it should be.

And here you are pretty much saying that the religious bakery was in the clear when they refused service to a gay couple asking for a wedding cake.

Since it´s clear that a religious bakery would offer wedding cakes made to a man and a woman and not an LGBT couple going for partnership wovs.

@Jacanuk: "Since it´s clear that a religious bakery would offer wedding cakes made to a man and a woman and not an LGBT couple going for partnership wovs."

There is no material difference other than who it is offered to. That's according to your own statement above.

No, they offer wedding cakes. They should offer wedding cakes to everyone equally. They certainly are not in the clear. Here's a clip:

Yet by all accounts, the happy couple did not ask Mr. Phillips for a cake bearing a message with which the baker might disagree — such as “God Bless This Gay Marriage,” as a group of First Amendment scholars hypothesized, or a rainbow flag. That could make for a harder case. Instead, the would-be customers stated only that they were seeking a wedding cake before Mr. Phillips said he could not serve them.

A wedding cake is all that was asked for. Nothing different than what they offer anyone else.

Let´s be perfectly clear here. 2 things end this debate.

Sexuality is not a protected class and a business has the right to refuse service to anyone except in regards to the protected classes, IE Race, colour, religion and national origin. And in accordance with some courts insanely arbitrary reasons. which sexuality does not meet the standard for.

Not to mention that again as I said if this couple or any other LGBT person is refused service they have every right to tell everyone who cares about it and also go somewhere else. From a business pov, it does not make sense to refuse to serve customers and refuse good business. But religion is religion

They offer wedding cakes to a man and women, that is kinda implied by it being a religious bakery.

Also, I am sure they didn´t just demand a standard wedding cake, because then how would this baker even know who they decide to bring into their bedroom.

Let's look at precedent, which the SCOTUS must rely on when deciding current cases.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.

Maurice Bessinger justified the refusal to serve black customers based on his religious belief opposing "any integration of the races whatsoever."...the court called the religious freedom argument and Bessinger's other defenses "patently frivolous."

Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cathy’s Creations, Inc.

In his ruling, Lampe cautioned that the freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to refuse service to specific groups of people altogether, making note of the difference between creating a product for a specific event and selling a product, according to The Bakersfield Californian.

You have no idea of the specifics when the specifics are out there in publicly accessible reports and documents. So you're telling us you're arguing for a case you have not done the least amount of research into. In other words, you're just looking to bitch and moan.

Did you miss the part where colour and race are protected, classes?

And as to the 2nd ruling, which actually stated that the baker had every right to refuse service to the lesbian couple. Also, dumb idea to quote-mine when the full text goes against what you are trying to argue for.

"A recent decision by a California Superior Court Judge holds that a bakery cannot be required by discrimination law to make a same sex wedding cake, where the owner has a religious reason for declining to do so. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v Cathy’s Creations Inc (Cal Sup Ct, Kern Cty; BCV-17-102855; Lampe J, 5 Feb 2018) Judge Lampe refused an injunction against Cathy Miller, proprietor of Tastries Bakery, which would have required her to create a wedding cake for the same sex wedding of Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio. The basis for the decision was the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the judge holding that creating a wedding cake was a constitutionally protected form of “free speech”."

And as the above say, a bakery has the right to refuse an LGBT couple service.

You missed the relevant part, which is why I only quoted that part. Here it is again:

making note of the difference between creating a product for a specific event and selling a product

In the case being discussed, the gay couple were looking to purchase a cake, not to have one created.

Since there are too many cases and we need to be on the same page here.

"With that blunt comment, Jack Phillips, a baker who designs custom wedding cakes, sent two men out the door and set off a legal battle between religious liberty and gay rights that comes before the U.S. Supreme Court this fall." "Designs custom wedding cakes", which means the couple did not go in and ask for a standard wedding cake to go. as they say ""We went in with a bunch of ideas," said Mullins, 33. "But [Phillips] came in, asked who the cake was for and then he said he wouldn't make a cake for us. We were shocked and mortified and got up and left."

That case clearly deals with a custom designed wedding cake. Also, it´s in Denver so the Californian law does not apply.

Not to mention that Colorado has a civil rights act that includes sexual orientation. So here the baker does not have a leg to stand on.

The key thing from that case tho is that it has gone to the supreme court and in June we will get a final answer. So until then, this debate will have to stand at the current. Federal law does not have sexual orientation as a protected class.

It's not very Christian to deny service to individuals. @Jacanuk

Designing a cake was never discussed, that's why the lawsuit isn't dealing with the whole 'custom creation' bit. The problem was that he refused to sell a wedding cake, period. I'm not saying that they would not have later discussed custom design, but it never got that far and is not part of the lawsuit.

As both parties have maintained, the couple left Phillips’s bakery before discussing the cake’s design, including any language they would have wanted included.

The baker said he would sell the gay couple other kinds of cakes, but he could not in good conscience sell them a wedding cake, since same-sex weddings violate his religious beliefs.

This is what the lawsuit is dealing with.

There's no such thing as a free market. And just saying "free market" doesn't explain how forcing them to serve everyone equally is trampling on them. Are you really such a snowflake that you can't get over having to treat people with an equal amount of respect despite disagreeing with their lifestyle? Guess what, you can choose not to be Christian as well, does that mean I can discriminate against Christians?

And look, baking a cake is not trampling on your religion, signing a goddamned marriage license is not trampling on your religion. The fact that you would compare a cake containing an outright hateful message to a cake containing no message at all just shows how deranged you are. To you baking a cake for two people who love each other is hate speech just because of who they are (*gasp*, what's that, is it a righty playing identity politics?) not because of anything to do with the cake itself. Again, it's just because you have arbitrarily decided that it's offensive to your religion in order to cast yourself as the victim, just like people opposing interracial marriage arbitrarily decided it was offensive to their religion in order to cast themselves as victims.

Back in the sixties it was "black and white people can be attracted to each other, but they don't have to act on those feelings." Now it's "two people of the same people can be attracted to each other, they just don't have to act on it." Go on, keep proving my point for me, I dare you.

Considering most courts disagree with you I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

So perhaps next time read the entire thread before responding to a post mid thread.

good lord you're all still banging your head against that rather dense wall

Good luck

So you have no rebuttal, thanks for the win.

You call it what you want.

Facts are not on your side so not sure what you are trying to debate here.