Forcing bakers to make gay wedding cakes violates free speech, California judge rules

If a baker actually brought a cake to a wedding, would you call that participating?

Yes but I have already acknowledged that marriage law makes same sex marriage equal to male/female marriage. However, it does not make the weddings the same and you have failed to explain how it does.

You're actually still confused? I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it but I'll give it a whirl: Obviously you realise that the baker would've eventually found out the sexual orientation of the couple, once he knew that they were getting married! At this point, why did he agree to serve them at all? Why not immediately tell them to leave the shop?

Again, I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it but I'll give it a whirl: You're asking me to read the laws, which I assume means that you have read them. My understanding of the laws are that they say that businesses are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation? Now, am I correct, or is there anything extra which I have missed?

 

Which customers? All customers?

Why do you keep coming back to that they want an exemption? NO! They just want their day in court! Do you think murder suspects are arguing for an exemption from the law so that they are free to murder?

Okay, I'll state it: There is NO LAW which someone could ignore simply by stating that the basis for breaking the law is personal religious belief. Didn't you get my last reply? Here it is: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ia-judge-rules.525648/page-87#post-1068763101

 

Yes

Yes, it makes them the same.

Irrelevant to the issue.

Depends on the state

 

I had gone to a printer to get a book done. They said they didn't approve of the content and refused the job. (I think they were Mennonites?)

I guess a queer would have sued them. The homosexuals demand approval of their lifestyle or they will sue. That is the sick legacy Obama left us.

 

Then, what is the basis for the baker refusing to bake that wedding cake?

If you say it's just "free speech" then why wouldn't that mean I can ignore numerous laws that say I need to do something (or not do something), with my argument being that, hey, "compelled speech," go pound stand!

I keep handing you religion, because there has to be something at the root that is stronger than "I don't want to". Also, religion takes on a broad range that is difficult for courts to evaluate. You should see it as a gift!


In that post you referred me to you suggest that Kim Davis could have quit if she was so adamant about not issuing marriage licenses. But, that's true for the baker, too. And, Davis (who you called names!!!) did that.

 

So that means that your definition of "participation" in something is actually being at the event. Correct?

But you called them a "bigot." If they are actually bigots, then what would you call a business who doesn't serve gay customers at all?

Well when you told me to read the law, you didn't specify a state. Anyway, lets make it the state which this case is from, California. My understanding of the laws in California are that they say that businesses are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation? Now, assuming that you know the laws in California, am I correct, or is there anything extra which I have missed?

 

As they have all stated - not wanting to play any part in a gay wedding. Something which I can't identify with but can understand.

Well how many laws are there which say that you "need to do something?"

Look, If the law was that businesses need to provide all products to all people, then I would have to admit that these bakers have broken the law. The other bakers have been found guilty of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation but I don't believe that the law was applied correctly in those cases. The laws should be applied strictly only to prevent genuine discrimination. And again, if these bakers had anti-gay policies where they won't do any business with people who are gay, then I would also have to admit that they are clearly breaking the law and even though I disagree with the law I would have VERY little sympathy for them given their horrific bigotry. I also very much doubt that the supreme court would take a case such as these.

Why?

Which is why religion is irrelevant to the courts! Weren't you saying that earlier in the thread?

You don't see a difference between a government official and a private business?

What, quit? Actually, she somehow managed to not get fired and continued working I think. I think she just gave the marriage license signing job to one of her staff.

 

yes

also a bigot

read the law in California

 

No, you're trying to answer my question by just restating what they want. They want to not abide by the law, because (as you say) they don't want to abide by the law.

That's not a reason. I'm asking for the reason. I was just responding to you suggestion that it wasn't religion. But, I doubt you on that.

There are a lot of laws that require people to do or not do stuff.

Each of these bakers discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. None of them have claimed they didn't. Their arguments have been that they should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, because of their religious beliefs.

Religion in general is definitely something our courts care about. The intent is to allow religious belief of a broadly defined nature. But, there are always conflicts, as people want to express their religion in ways that impact others. But, a court can't tell whether you "really believe" and has trouble should the court attempt to judge whether a religion meets some sort of measure of legitimacy.

Of course I do. I presented that BECAUSE it is a different circumstance. My point is that we keep having to say "don't discriminate" in each of many different cases. We have a real problem getting the point - don't discriminate on these factors. It would be great if we could say it once, but the human desire to discriminate is strong enough that we have to say it over and over and over again.

Yes. They changed her job description. Her other choices were to abide by the law or quit.

(That is a profoundly disgusting resolution that should not have been accepted, but that's off topic.)

BTW: The bakers have the same choices - abide by the law, change their job description or quit.

 

I have read the law! Now its up to you to tell me if there is something extra which I have missed. That is, if you're capable, which you're demonstrating that you're not.

 

No. Just read the law. It’s perfectly clear. Stop trolling.

 

How am I trolling? Again, I've read the laws and you're right, they're perfectly clear. So why the hell can you not confirm that this is also your understanding?

Here's another chance for you to prove that YOU'RE not trolling - My understanding of the laws in California are that they say that businesses are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation? Now, assuming that you know the laws in California, am I correct, or is there something which I have missed?

 

What they want? They don't want anything! All I did was restate their position in response to you asking "what is the basis for the baker refusing to bake that wedding cake?" What the hell else could the basis be other than what they actually said?

What are you talking about? When did I say that they don't want to abide by the law?

Of course its a reason, its THEIR reason. Do you mean legitimate reason?

Sorry, but you're going to have to provide evidence for that because I've not seen ANYWHERE where they have admitted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I've note seen ANYWHERE where they have said that they should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because of their religious beliefs and I've done ALOT of reading on these cases believe me.
So if you're able to, provide evidence - if you're correct, it should be easy. However, I'm so sure that you've jumped to conclusions and are completely wrong - and I'm more than happy to be proven wrong! I'll confess to it as well if you are successful!

Perhaps I've not fully understood your position. Are you saying that the ONLY way that these bakers can be found innocent by the Supreme Court
is if they are given an exemption from the anti-discrimination laws? And if the Supreme Court sides with the bakers, will you accept the verdict?

You really do think that these laws are the only thing stopping widespread discrimination don't you? What evidence do you have for this? What evidence do you have that it is a "human desire to discriminate?"

Of course they had those choices. The bakers HAVE abided by the law! Even to the point where at least one has stopped selling wedding cakes,
which I assume is what you mean by "change their job description." And why the hell would a business owner quit?

 

very obviously.

 

This is getting really really boring.

Bakers in OR, CO, and CA refused to follow the law and ended up before the courts.

The CO case is before the SC. Their ruling in that case is highly likely to be the final decision on all these cases.

You haven't produced any justification that would be satisfactory to the higher courts for ruling the law unconstitutional. One judge out of the many who have heard these cases ruled in favor of the bakers, but that is clearly a minority opinion.

I am absolutely and totally uninterested in all the BS about word definitions and excuses.

And yes, this CO ruling can't help but have a broad affect on civil rights law. If personal belief trumps civil rights law, that decision will be far more widely felt than at bakeries. In fact, people will wonder if personal belief shouldn't trump more law than it already does today.

The bakers in these cases do have a prayer, as the current SC is highly conservative and mostly Catholic. But, if they follow the law and consider civil rights, if they notice that they've already ruled in favor of marriage equality, if they notice that the world, let alone the USA is moving in the direction of equality for LGBTQ individuals in a surprisingly rapid, strong and inexorable way, if they notice what America stands for in terms of all being created equal, if they notice that what these bakers are asking for is preposterous in its particulars and wide ranging in total effect, these bakers have no chance.

 

And as for backing up your wild assertion that the bakers admitted discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and said that they should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? I note that you conveniently failed to provide anything.

 

Oh, come on!!!

I gave you the link to the SCOTUS oral argument. You can see for yourself that what the bakers did is not in contention.

This is one reason why this is getting boring.

If you want to discuss this further, read the law, read the argument and cut the trolling.

 

The far left pretends the term bigot only applies to people they dont like and not themselves by the very definition of the word. When you start seeing that word thrown around, you've already won because they've run out of any ability to have an intellectual debate on the facts.

Pages and pages and nothing has changed.

State law does not trump federal law. Period.

Religious freedom is protected under federal law. There is no federal law for public accommodation of gay marriages.

None of these bakeries or photographers said they would not serve because they were gay and most are on record serving gays making that idiotic argument fall down in flames as well.

It doesn't matter what you think of their religion or how its practiced. The reality hasn't changed. Freedom of religion is protected under federal law. Public accomodation for homosexuals is not. Its time to deal with that reality.

 

Isn't Colarado baker Jack fighting it in the Supreme Court based on freedom of speech rather than freedom of religion?

 

Just on the law itself, I HAVE read it. I'll ask you the same question that I have asked @rahl a million times and we'll see if you are able to answer what they cannot. My understanding of the laws in California are that they say that businesses are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation? Now, assuming that you know the laws in California, am I correct, or is there something which I have missed?

 

You didn't quote the law. So, obviously there is stuff you missed. Besides, trying to discuss the full ramifications of the law in its entirety is ridiculous. That would go on forever. And, surely the bakers hope their argument will change all that, so why bother?

Just state what the baker's excuse should be.

In the CO case, the bakers stated that their cakes are speech and their cakes should come under 1st amendment speech protection. See? It's not hard to state these things.

 

I've already been through that! It doesn't have anything directly from Jack! Where in that does he admit that he discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation?
To confirm, it is this link right?: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf

Well you've certainly done better than what @rahl has been able to manage! Anyway, I acknowledge that there is more to the law than this, but can't you simply tell me what you think the relevant parts of the law is to these baker cases? Surely you can manage that. Can't you?

Yes and the reason they are invoking free speech and the 1st Amendment is because they don't want to play any part in a gay wedding.

 

Again, I've read the laws and you're right, they're perfectly clear. So why the hell can you not confirm that this is also your understanding?

Here's another chance for you to prove that YOU'RE not trolling - My understanding of the laws in California are that they say that businesses are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation? Now, assuming that you know the laws in California, am I correct, or is there something which I have missed?

 

It's assumed without objection.

Never does the baker's lawyer suggest it isn't the case.

I did and Rahl did as well.

These bakers discriminated against their customers based on their sexual orientation.

The question the oral argument addresses is whether there is an adequate reason he should be allowed to do that, even though it is against the law. That could get the law tossed or whatever.

Yes.

But, there are lots of things we "don't want to play any part in". I don't want to play a part in paying for the military to drone weddings in the ME, for example. Civilians get killed from that.

So, take it from there. What's your argument?

 

Well I have to admit that I am stunned that the lawyer hasn't explicitly said that he was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. They only addressed that he was happy to sell the couple everything else in the shop which would prove to anyone with half a brain that he was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. However, I will say that it is VERY early in the case and perhaps the legal team was focusing on the 1st Amendment, because lets face it - even if the baker did discriminate of the basis of sexual orientation, the lawyer would still be invoking the 1st Amendment. It could just be the case that they don't see much of a need in going down this path, even though I think that is stupid and isn't communicating the full story.

Just answer me this question: why do you think they might have discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation?

drone weddings?