Piggy Pork and Gay Wedding Cakes

[Agent Zero]

@DGUtley? What’s your take?

[Chris]

Over the past few years, SCOTUS has acknowledged through rulings, predominantly gay marriage, that gays are a protected (for lack of a better term) group, recognizing discrimination against them in all facets of society.

This decision will either grant full legal protection to gays or remove protections for not just gays but all groups, be they gay, black, female et al.

I don’t think Justice Kennedy will allow that to happen.

So far largely protections from government, as in the case of marriage--which, btw, I'm fine with, the government shouldn't discriminate.

But within society itself? People discriminate in all things for all sorts of reasons, that cannot be stopped by law or judicial opinions. Nor should they.

[Kacper]

Great find, yes this should be pretty cut and dry for the plaintiffs. There have been too many times that people use religion as a shield to hide behind their bigotry. Just like people would find no trouble in denouncing a religion that would allow necrophilia, to attempt to use religion to refuse service to a gay person should be heralded the same. If a business owner doesn't want to serve all citizens equally in regards to inherent characteristics, then they are free to start a member's only private club and lose the opportunity to earn monies from the general public, or find another line of work. There is no "right" to own a business, just like no one has the "right" to be an astronaut.

For the natural law detractors, this is a nation of laws, either deal with it or garner enough support to change them.

They are not plaintiffs, and has been discussed to death, he just wouldn't do a custom wedding cake for them.

[Dr. Who]

They are not plaintiffs, and has been discussed to death, he just wouldn't do a custom wedding cake for them.

As far as I can see, Phillips is basing his case on freedom of speech and religion:

In the past, the Supreme Court has set limits on freedom of speech and religion. The court has repeatedly ruled that constitutional rights do not nullify neutral laws on everything from racial equality to taxes. An Amish farmer, for example, refused to pay Social Security taxes for workers based on his religious belief that the community and not the government should care for the elderly and needy. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1982 that by becoming an employer, the farmer freely entered into commercial activity and accepted certain limits on the exercise of his beliefs.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/04/supreme-court-baker-case-not-first-amendment-editorials-debates/911452001/

[Kacper]

As far as I can see, Phillips is basing his case on freedom of speech and religion:

In the past, the Supreme Court has set limits on freedom of speech and religion. The court has repeatedly ruled that constitutional rights do not nullify neutral laws on everything from racial equality to taxes. An Amish farmer, for example, refused to pay Social Security taxes for workers based on his religious belief that the community and not the government should care for the elderly and needy. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 1982 that by becoming an employer, the farmer freely entered into commercial activity and accepted certain limits on the exercise of his beliefs.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/12/04/supreme-court-baker-case-not-first-amendment-editorials-debates/911452001/

As the Supreme Court ruled in Yoder that Amish children were exempt from compulsory education laws past the 8th grade as the Amish parents' right to oversee their children's religious education trumped the state's interest in educating them. It didn't strike down the education law. It just carved out an exception, giving rise to the modern lucrative Christian homeschooling craze of the day.

[Common]

Great find, yes this should be pretty cut and dry for the plaintiffs. There have been too many times that people use religion as a shield to hide behind their bigotry. Just like people would find no trouble in denouncing a religion that would allow necrophilia, to attempt to use religion to refuse service to a gay person should be heralded the same. If a business owner doesn't want to serve all citizens equally in regards to inherent characteristics, then they are free to start a member's only private club and lose the opportunity to earn monies from the general public, or find another line of work. There is no "right" to own a business, just like no one has the "right" to be an astronaut.

For the natural law detractors, this is a nation of laws, either deal with it or garner enough support to change them.

Fantastic argument against sanctuary cities and a host of other liberal clusterf**cks

[DGUtley]

@DGUtley? What’s your take?

I'm not a civil rights lawyer.

I believe that homosexuality is not a protected class. Race, sex, religion and age are what I believe have been held to be protected classes. The SC would have to find that homosexuality is a protected class to afford them the same rights as race, age, sex and religion -- and it may do so. It has not yet. That's the legal distinction here to me btw the case in the OP and this one. Again, I'm not a civil rights lawyer, this takes me back to law school and I'm really just thinking off the cuff here. How do you legally trump a non-protected class over a constitutionally defined right?

Putting aside my personal beliefs, let me ask a serious question that I hope will provoke thoughtful, not hateful, replies: if the Bible states that certain types of conduct constitute "sin", and that concept includes --according to the Bible-- homosexual sex as well as other things such as greed, sloth, drunkenness, witchcraft, adultery, prostitution, and a bunch of other things, AND if we freely acknowledge that all of us humans are sinners in countless ways, how do we respond to those Christians who embrace this Biblical view of homosexuality as sin? Do we write them all off as vile bigots? Do we "educate" them i.e., persuade them that certain parts of the Bible --the divine word of God for them-- are just wrong and should be ignored?

I'm just curious about how we reconcile tolerance for one oppressed group (homosexuals) with tolerance for another group (Christians), without turning that second group into an equally oppressed, vilified community. I don't think this controversy speaks to free speech as much as it begs a discussion of what freedom of religion truly means in our country in the 21st century. When we start marginalizing biblical-based views as ignorant bigotry and people who espouse those views as dimwits, aren't we treading on dangerous ground? There's a difference between showing love for all people --sinners included-- and force deeply religious people to condone (through their conduct) certain conduct as "okay". How can we force Christians who believe in the Biblical definitions of sin to say that what the Bible identifies as sin really isn't?

I think it's a difficult issue that requires patience and genuine attempts at honest discussion and understanding on all sides. I expect the SCOTUS to find a narrow ruling. I don't know how they'll hold.

[Safety]

I'm not a civil rights lawyer.

I believe that homosexuality is not a protected class. Race, sex, religion and age are what I believe have been held to be protected classes. The SC would have to find that homosexuality is a protected class to afford them the same rights as race, age, sex and religion -- and it may do so. It has not yet. That's the legal distinction here to me btw the case in the OP and this one. Again, I'm not a civil rights lawyer, this takes me back to law school and I'm really just thinking off the cuff here. How do you legally trump a non-protected class over a constitutionally defined right?

Putting aside my personal beliefs, let me ask a serious question that I hope will provoke thoughtful, not hateful, replies: if the Bible states that certain types of conduct constitute "sin", and that concept includes --according to the Bible-- homosexual sex as well as other things such as greed, sloth, drunkenness, witchcraft, adultery, prostitution, and a bunch of other things, AND if we freely acknowledge that all of us humans are sinners in countless ways, how do we respond to those Christians who embrace this Biblical view of homosexuality as sin? Do we write them all off as vile bigots? Do we "educate" them i.e., persuade them that certain parts of the Bible --the divine word of God for them-- are just wrong and should be ignored?

I'm just curious about how we reconcile tolerance for one oppressed group (homosexuals) with tolerance for another group (Christians), without turning that second group into an equally oppressed, vilified community. I don't think this controversy speaks to free speech as much as it begs a discussion of what freedom of religion truly means in our country in the 21st century. When we start marginalizing biblical-based views as ignorant bigotry and people who espouse those views as dimwits, aren't we treading on dangerous ground? There's a difference between showing love for all people --sinners included-- and force deeply religious people to condone (through their conduct) certain conduct as "okay". How can we force Christians who believe in the Biblical definitions of sin to say that what the Bible identifies as sin really isn't?

I think it's a difficult issue that requires patience and genuine attempts at honest discussion and understanding on all sides. I expect the SCOTUS to find a narrow ruling. I don't know how they'll hold.

How did we overcome the use of the bible to support slavery or using the bible to support the idea that the normal status of the $#@! is to be a servant race to white people?

[DGUtley]

How did we overcome the use of the bible to support slavery or using the bible to support the idea that the normal status of the $#@! is to be a servant race to white people?

I'm sorry, @Safety, I thought I explained that in my first paragraph -- Race is a protected class.

[Safety]

I'm sorry, @Safety, I thought I explained that in my first paragraph -- Race is a protected class.

Ok, race is a protected class, but based upon the DOI where "all men are created equal", we still needed a "law" to ensure race is protected.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.[1]

The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause.[2] The majority opinion in Romer stated that the amendment lacked "a rational relationship to legitimate state interests", and the dissent stated that the majority "evidently agrees that 'rational basis'—the normal test for compliance with the Equal Protection Clause—is the governing standard".[2][3] The state constitutional amendment failed rational basis review.[4][5][6][7]

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

So based upon that, people still used the bible as a source to say $#@! bondage was good (took an emancipation to reverse that), then used the bible to support segregation (took the CRA to reverse it), but you think a law would not help homosexuality and equal protection?