So the Supreme Court decides in favor of the baker...

2»

Replies

  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,171 Senior Member
    Well, this is my first post on this forum. Didn't think I'd use it on a political thread, but here goes...

    I am a self employed electrician living in Colorado.  This story, as you can imagine, was a big deal here, and was all we heard about for a long time when it first took place.  Most people forgot about it till it came time for the SCOTUS decision, then it was all over the place again. 

    My wife and I started our own business in January of 2017.  I have refused services to people on two occasions, and both were because of conflicts with my religious beliefs.  My father was a pastor for 30+ years till he retired 6 years ago.  I was raised in the church, and stand with my convictions, no matter what it may cost me.  One job I passed on would have paid a bit over $11,000 had I taken it.  It's pretty hard for a young business to stare $11,000 right in the eye, and walk away from it.  But I can still sleep at night.  We have been in business 18 months as of today, and we have still been able to make ends meet, and put food on the table. 

    It's not always about the money.

    As a fellow contractor, I turn down customers all the time. While it has absolutely nothing to do with my religious beliefs, I do not feel obligated to work for every person that calls my phone. I will go on record saying that I support gay rights 110%-- homosexuals should not be treated like second class citizens. Like it or not, they are Americans just like straight people and deserve to be treated with some dignity.

    That said, I should not be forced to give service to any customer that I do not want to serve-- for any and all reasons. I think that Christians making this into their own personal holy war is silly. This is basic property rights and we don't even need to go there. If I don't like the tone of your voice? No soup for you! In a free society, I am not obligated to give you service. Christian beliefs are irrelevant.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 16,558 Senior Member

    That said, I should not be forced to give service to any customer that I do not want to serve-- for any and all reasons. I think that Christians making this into their own personal holy war is silly. This is basic property rights and we don't even need to go there. If I don't like the tone of your voice? No soup for you! In a free society, I am not obligated to give you service. Christian beliefs are irrelevant.
    Agreed all around.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    My Karma ran over your Dogma!
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,559 Senior Member
    If a Muslim refugee barber refuses to cut a transgendered lesbian's hair for religious reasons, which side is the liberal on?

    This ruling does nothing to empty this can of worms, and just like recent 2nd Amendment rulings fails to finally and conclusively decide the issue. Constitutional phrases like "no law" and "free exercise" and "shall not be infringed" are meaningless to the men and women in black.

    I don't want my country further fractured into a multitude of mini-apartheids where adherents of any religion use that religion as an excuse to discriminate against assorted races, orientations, or even other religions. I was outraged when I heard that Somali Muslim cabdrivers in Minnesota were refusing to pick up fares from grocery stores if the customer had purchased alcohol. This is bullsh!t and it's got to stop.

    The conflict between the Constitution and the general direction of society seems unsolvable at first. We have an immovable object standing against an irresistible force. But, for the courts, even the Supreme Court, insuring domestic tranquility is not the issue, and it's not their job. It's actually a simple thing for the good Justices - obey your oath of office and rule according to the Constitution as it's written, and the consequences for society be damned. That puts the issue squarely where it belongs - out of the judicial branch of government, and in the legislative and executive branches. After all, they're supposed to write the frigging laws, not the poor judges.

    If, in the confusing wisdom of our elected representatives, the Constitution has become at best obsolete and at worst embarrassing to their notion of the progress of our civilization, let them amend it, if they dare. But I would urge them to consider this before they act - the very idea that even the best and brightest of us, however well educated and well intentioned, could measure up to the inspired genius of the Founding Fathers is impossible by any rational measure.

    I stand with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, as originally conceived, written, and enacted. Those who don't, stand against legitimate authority, and the revealed will of the one true God.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 1,456 Senior Member
    The black robes of the royal court have historically been uncooperative and autonomous of your requests.

    Sayin'.
  • TrueTone911TrueTone911 Senior Member Posts: 6,022 Senior Member
    cpj said:
    Here is what PISSES ME OFF. 

    Gay couple asks sumdood to make a cake. He refuses on religious grounds. Gay couple  sues. 


    Why not.....just go elsewhere? 

    Because they probably wanted to go to THAT particular baker...looking to force an issue, make a point and have their 15 minutes of fame.
    I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.
    Groucho Marx
  • RaptortrapperRaptortrapper Posts: 74 Member
    ... Christian beliefs are irrelevant. 
    Maybe for you.  Not for me.  Doesn't mean either of us are wrong though!
    Some people are like a slinky-- not much fun till you push them down the stairs!
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 14,171 Senior Member
    Let me clarify-- of course a person's religious beliefs are important. I also have very strong opinions supporting religious freedom. I do not see this case as a First Amendment case though. Or at least not directly. I see the primary issue as one having the right to do with their private property (their business) as they see fit.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,068 Senior Member
    We are living in radical times, in which reasonable and equitable compromise are rarely even possible. Good manners and ethics, that used to keep this sort of issue within the realm of reality, are mostly gone. They have been replaced by political activism, often practiced by those who seek to stifle any opposition, with the un-expressed intent of rendering the Constitution irrelevant.

    The Supreme Court understands this. A few members even encourage it. The others, out of some sort of 'greater loyalty' to their fellow jurists, occasionally seem to be attempting to bend a little, only to later walk back a poor decision...just enough to keep the 1st Amendment relevant, for the day when political correctness might not be so strident.

    This case has done nothing to clarify freedom of religion, with regard to the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" part of it. It simply avoids it, by saying that in this particular case, the plaintiffs were just too mean about the way they went about their encroachment upon the rights of the baker.

  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 31,707 Senior Member
    Seems the Gender Benders/LBGTXXXs/Diversity/Progressive crowd has had a good run to make their lifestyles seem normal and accepted in our society. With policies and laws and propaganda forced on us to accept it starting with the very young in the education system.

    Like the term 'Racist', 'Homophobic' has been used and abused to try and make us all feel guilty for having a differing opinion or belief that doesn't agree with their lifestyles.

    It is one thing to offer protections for them under the laws and treat them equal, but now they are a 'Special' class and sometimes the majority is silenced/ridiculed to offer special protections to them which ignores the rights of the majority. 

    Me thunks that the pendulum has swung too far, too fast in that direction and will make corrections to one degree or another. 




    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 16,558 Senior Member
    Big Chief said:

    Like the term 'Racist', 'Homophobic' has been used and abused to try and make us all feel guilty for having a differing opinion or belief that doesn't agree with their lifestyles.

    Don't forget 'Islamophobic'.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    My Karma ran over your Dogma!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 31,707 Senior Member
    zorba said:
    Big Chief said:

    Like the term 'Racist', 'Homophobic' has been used and abused to try and make us all feel guilty for having a differing opinion or belief that doesn't agree with their lifestyles.

    Don't forget 'Islamophobic'.
    Yep, I'm Islamophobic toward Islamofacists and proud of it............been around too many of them Jabber Jabbering Rascals around the world not to be.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 31,707 Senior Member
    A saying used by Michael Savage, a talk show host. It refers to a person who believes in the hardcore islamic religion. It commonly refers to Muslims because of their hatred for any race except themselves, and facist opinions of the world.

    Islamofascism


    The political ideology of militant Islamists viewed as an agency of oppression or hostility toward democracy.







    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,388 Senior Member

    Big Chief said:
    Seems the Gender Benders/LBGTXXXs/Diversity/Progressive crowd has had a good run to make their lifestyles seem normal and accepted in our society. With policies and laws and propaganda forced on us to accept it starting with the very young in the education system.

    Like the term 'Racist', 'Homophobic' has been used and abused to try and make us all feel guilty for having a differing opinion or belief that doesn't agree with their lifestyles.

    It is one thing to offer protections for them under the laws and treat them equal, but now they are a 'Special' class and sometimes the majority is silenced/ridiculed to offer special protections to them which ignores the rights of the majority. 

    Me thunks that the pendulum has swung too far, too fast in that direction and will make corrections to one degree or another. 




    A tangled web has been woven. I call them "Protected Species" and have always found it sad that it took an act of congress to enforce the equal rights they already possessed. I consider using that act to deny another citizen's Constitutional rights for the purpose of ensuring certain protected groups of citizens having more than equal rights a travesty. What's next? Priests and other members of the clergy being forced by "law" to perform same sex marriage ceremonies?
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,388 Senior Member
    A tangled web has been woven. I call them "Protected Species" and have always found it sad that it took an act of congress to enforce the equal rights they already possessed. I consider using that act to deny another citizen's Constitutional rights for the purpose of ensuring certain protected groups of citizens having more than equal rights a travesty. What's next? Priests and other members of the clergy being forced by "law" to perform same sex marriage ceremonies?
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 22,978 Senior Member
    There IS a way out for bakeries, and others caught up in this mess, to head it off at the counter. A sign clearly stating what can and can not be put on the cake would do that. Rules is rules and the customer has to order the cake within the rules.
    As to suing churches for not doing a same sex wedding ceremony, that is also easy to head off. Just make it a hard and fast rule that ONLY church members can use the church for weddings, as in at least ONE, either bride or groom, is a member in good standing in the church.
    Both rules would be challenged, but with an IMPARTIAL jury, the challenges would fail. Trying to force one's beliefs on others, and then rubbing their noses in it is a good way to do nothing more than create hatred where none existed before.
    Bottom line, for ME, is that person A's rights to throw a punch end where person B's nose begins.
    If a Liberal throws a hand grenade at you, pick it up, pull the pin, and throw it back at them.



  • RaptortrapperRaptortrapper Posts: 74 Member
    edited June 6 #47
    Let me clarify-- of course a person's religious beliefs are important. I also have very strong opinions supporting religious freedom. I do not see this case as a First Amendment case though. Or at least not directly. I see the primary issue as one having the right to do with their private property (their business) as they see fit.
    Now THAT, I will agree with 100%.
    Some people are like a slinky-- not much fun till you push them down the stairs!
  • Wambli SkaWambli Ska Moderator Posts: 26,673 Senior Member
    Thanks for the very thoughtful posts.  You have given me a lot of points to think about.
    "Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching." General George S. Patton
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.