Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Gay and Lesbian Rights Gay and Lesbian Political Rights Forum - For topics and discussions about LGBT


Thanks Tree9Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 5th, 2017, 02:53 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nwolfe35 View Post
The connection is that the very people claiming that making a wedding cake for a same sex couple would violate their religion by “endorsing” homosexuality are going to be the ones voting for Roy Moore but are going to ignore the fact that they are “endorsing” a sexual predator.
I think a vote for Moore would excuse (or overlook) his being a sexual predator – but would not necessarily “endorse” it. “Endorse” carries a positive connotation, while “excuse” or “overlook” has more of a negative connotation. In any event I don’t see any support for a claim that supporters of Jack Phillips are also supporters of Roy Moore. And even if it were true, I don’t think that should have any bearing on his guilt or innocence. The facts of the case indicate that he only “discriminated” against a message – not against people.
Randomutation is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 04:15 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 9,739
Here's a wild idea--floated today by Jeff Flake:

COUNTRY OVER PARTY!
Clara007 is online now  
Old December 5th, 2017, 04:41 PM   #13
Banned
 
Kelvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: In
Posts: 585
Life over death. The Dim is an abortion supporter, Moore opposes baby killing. Now there's an idea.
Kelvin is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 05:11 PM   #14
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Between everywhere
Posts: 29,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelvin View Post
Life over death. The Dim is an abortion supporter, Moore opposes baby killing. Now there's an idea.
And idea which your SC and a majority of the people say is crap.
RNG is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 06:35 PM   #15
Banned
 
Kelvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: In
Posts: 585
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
And idea which your SC and a majority of the people say is crap.


Hitler was very popular in Germany.
Kelvin is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 06:35 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomutation View Post
I think a vote for Moore would excuse (or overlook) his being a sexual predator – but would not necessarily “endorse” it. “Endorse” carries a positive connotation, while “excuse” or “overlook” has more of a negative connotation. In any event I don’t see any support for a claim that supporters of Jack Phillips are also supporters of Roy Moore. And even if it were true, I don’t think that should have any bearing on his guilt or innocence. The facts of the case indicate that he only “discriminated” against a message – not against people.
Moore is a sexual predator, and Trump and the GOP are endorsing him.
Because one seat in the Senate outweighs any and all moral considerations.
Morality is just something they trot out when it's convenient, they count on a sleepy electorate, that they can easily fool.

But this shit is adding up, and even the dumbest voters are going to realize at some point that the mill ain't gonna reopen, and they are only getting a $12 tax cut, and losing their health insurance .
goober is offline  
Old December 5th, 2017, 07:31 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 11,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by tristanrobin View Post
The Supreme Court Wedding CakeCase Isn’t About Cake At All


When this story first started making the rounds several years ago, I was one of the ones who said that I felt that the baker had the right to refuse the couple - but for purely pragmatic reasons. One, I couldn't figure out why somebody would want to eat food made by somebody who didn't like them (that's scary to me) and I didn't know what made them think if he did do it, it would be his best work - or even his second-best work! It just seemed silly to me. However, legally, it seemed that if you can't disciminate, you can't discriminate. I didn't fall hard on either side - though I argued in favor of the legalities of no discrimination or legal prejudice.

But, I always felt it was about more than just legalities and religious rights and prejudices. This morning's opinion piece in the Washington Post actually clarified and neatly solidified what had been nagging me in the back of my mind all this time.


The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday in the case of a Colorado baker, Jack C. Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Although Colorado law bans discrimination in public accommodations, some may feel tempted to sympathize with Phillips, who argues that the First Amendment protects both his religious and expressive freedom to choose who buys his cakes.

Most commenters have focused on whether baking a cake is, in fact, a religious or artistic exercise, which is likely a stretch. But even if the court agrees with such claims, Phillips should still lose the case.

The reason is that the Constitution guarantees a right to equal dignity, and turning people away from public accommodations — or slicing up the public by granting individuals a license to “opt out” of the public weal — denies people that dignity. No constitutional right is entirely unrestricted, but in deciding the balance between First Amendment and equal protection claims, the courts have already distinguished between the right to hold or espouse a belief — considered “absolute” — and the right to act on it with impunity. The “free exercise of one’s belief,” the courts have said, is “subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to a society.”

While Phillips’s lawsuit is, strictly speaking, a public accommodations case, the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on same-sex marriage bolster the argument against his right to opt out of the public. In his eloquent 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that gay people are entitled to marry because the Constitution guarantees them “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

Access to marriage, he reasoned, is as much about equal dignity and public recognition as tangible rights or benefits. It’s a key point that ties together public accommodations and access to marriage: Neither is solely about enjoyment of material things; both are also about the dignity that comes with fully belonging to the broad public.

This means not only that individuals can’t be denied access to public accommodations (in commerce) and recognition (in marriage) but also that individuals who offer such accommodations and recognition can’t selectively exempt themselves from belonging to that public based on who seeks their service. If the Supreme Court were to find a constitutional right to discriminate, virtually any business could claim exemption from federal and state civil rights laws, shattering protections not just for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, but also racial minorities, women, the disabled and others.

Indeed, Kennedy’s opinion rested on and expanded decades of legal reasoning that has made the right to equal dignity a central guarantee of our Constitution and has established the role of a robust public in making that possible. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, declared a Senate committee, to prevent the “deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies denials of equal access to public establishments.” Discrimination, it continued, “is not simply dollars and cents, hamburgers and movies; it is the humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment that a person must surely feel when he is told that he is unacceptable as a member of the public.” As a Supreme Court opinion stated in upholding the law, its main purpose was “the vindication of human dignity and not mere economics.”

The role of a cohesive public in conferring that dignity is especially pronounced when it comes to marriage. By definition, marriage is a private union that’s sealed by public action. Any two people can pledge a commitment to each other, but it’s the recognition of their community and state that makes it a marriage. Granting individual exemptions erodes that public recognition.

This is why the government’s approval was central to gay people’s quest for marriage equality — for reasons that went beyond simply financial and legal benefits. (Otherwise “civil unions” would have sufficed, offering the same rights without the word “marriage.”) Gay people sought legal marriage because full access to this fundamental American institution was integral to enjoying the equal dignity of first-class citizenship.

And this is why Jim Obergefell went to court: to ensure that his name appeared on his husband’s death certificate. He stood to gain nothing material — just the dignity of having his 20-year commitment recognized by the state instead of wiped into oblivion. It was a case, his lawyer said, about “love surviving death.”

Equal access to the public sphere means equal access to the full public. Nothing less guarantees full dignity. Yet Phillips seeks to opt out of the public in “public accommodations,” something not essential to expressing a religious belief or artistic impulse. Marriage, like commerce, requires a public, and the public is all of us.

By Nathaniel Frank December 4 at 6:08 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...pinions&wpmm=1
The wedding cake dispute is monumental in scope and the decision doesn't come until next June. It pits freedom of religion against freedom of speech.

The wedding cake artist has suffered a serious drop in revenue for refusing to create a wedding cake for the two gay men. The Colorado wedding cake artist should pull up stakes and move to Kansas rather than causing such a fuss.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old December 6th, 2017, 05:48 AM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Moore is a sexual predator, and Trump and the GOP are endorsing him.
Because one seat in the Senate outweighs any and all moral considerations.
Morality is just something they trot out when it's convenient, they count on a sleepy electorate, that they can easily fool.

But this shit is adding up, and even the dumbest voters are going to realize at some point that the mill ain't gonna reopen, and they are only getting a $12 tax cut, and losing their health insurance .
Whether you call it "endorsing" crime (as nwolfe called it) or "excusing" crime (the more accurate term) has nothing whatsoever to do with the case against Jack Phillips. I don't know whether Jack Phillips is a Trump supporter. I doubt that he could be a Roy Moore supporter. And I don't know what percentage of Jack Phillips supporters are Roy Moore supporters. But it has nothing to do with the discrimination case against him. It's a distraction. A smokescreen. I said that I failed to see the connection. And your response fails to make that connection. A court case is decided on the basis of relevant facts. Nothing about Roy Moore or Donald Trump is relevant.
Randomutation is offline  
Old December 6th, 2017, 05:54 AM   #19
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,454
I learned something the last couple of days about this case.

1. the owner did NOT repeat NOT refuse to sell them a cake
2. The owner said he would sell them a cake but would not decorate the cake.
3. The owner also refused to do cakes for divorced couples remarring.

He didn't refuse product he refused to create something that violated his religious beliefs.
Thanks from webguy4 and Randomutation
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2017, 05:59 AM   #20
Mayor of Realville
 
webguy4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,598
If this guy can’t refuse to do his art for something he disagrees with, then no performing artist should have been allowed to refuse to perform at the Trump inauguration.
webguy4 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights > Gay and Lesbian Rights

Tags
cake, case, court, isn’t, supreme, wedding



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More Bakeries Refusing "Gay" Wedding Cake Requests excalibur Current Events 166 April 7th, 2015 06:58 AM
1OO,OOO Co-Sponsors Needed means more than a "Gay" Wedding Cake intangible child Current Events 0 April 5th, 2015 07:53 PM
Cake Shop Faces Legal Action For Refusing to Make Anti LGBT Cake catus felis Current Events 32 January 21st, 2015 02:17 PM
Denver Bakery Refuses to make Homosexual Wedding Cake garysher Current Events 1 August 5th, 2012 11:08 AM
Iowa Christian Wedding Cake Baker Refuses Service To Lesbian Couple tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 58 November 16th, 2011 09:27 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.