On the surface, no. But if you use those protections as an excuse to discriminate, they now become unjust. They also inhibit freedoms in what is supposed to be a free society. This is why I think they are at best poor in practice and at worst unjust laws.

You have still yet to tell me why the baker should be forced to bake the cake other than "anti-discrimination laws say so."

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 6:51:00 PM (view original):
On the surface, no. But if you use those protections as an excuse to discriminate, they now become unjust. They also inhibit freedoms in what is supposed to be a free society. This is why I think they are at best poor in practice and at worst unjust laws.

But those protections aren't being used to discriminate.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 6:52:00 PM (view original):
You have still yet to tell me why the baker should be forced to bake the cake other than "anti-discrimination laws say so."

Personally? I don't give a **** who the baker bakes for.

But the role of government is to provide equal protection to all citizens. Allowing businesses to refuse service on the basis of race, for example, goes against that. Regardless of whether or not it would become a widespread issue, it can't be allowed.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 6:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 6:51:00 PM (view original):
On the surface, no. But if you use those protections as an excuse to discriminate, they now become unjust. They also inhibit freedoms in what is supposed to be a free society. This is why I think they are at best poor in practice and at worst unjust laws.

But those protections aren't being used to discriminate.

This addresses both of your last two posts. I have already showed you how anti-discrimination laws are being used to discriminate and how they violate our constitution. The baker's religious freedom was infringed upon by our government in the name of anti-discrimination. This is very unconstitutional and very dangerous for our country's future.

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 7:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 6:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 1/29/2019 6:51:00 PM (view original):
On the surface, no. But if you use those protections as an excuse to discriminate, they now become unjust. They also inhibit freedoms in what is supposed to be a free society. This is why I think they are at best poor in practice and at worst unjust laws.

But those protections aren't being used to discriminate.

This addresses both of your last two posts. I have already showed you how anti-discrimination laws are being used to discriminate and how they violate our constitution. The baker's religious freedom was infringed upon by our government in the name of anti-discrimination. This is very unconstitutional and very dangerous for our country's future.

You have not showed me how anti-discrimination laws are used to discriminate or how they are unconstitutional. You claimed it, but it wasn't very convincing.

The baker is free to practice his religion. Just like a hotel owner is free to practice his anti-christianity religion. What neither is correctly allowed to do is to demand that their customers adhere to their religious beliefs in order to receive service.

The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

I say that immediately after saying that strikeout didn't show how the laws are used to discriminate. My bad. It does look that this was a case where the state did discriminate.

I still argue that laws themselves are good, just, and necessary. They just need to be applied that way.

B_L is right. We're talking in generalities using the case as a basis for the argument. You can replace this case with any similar case. We are specifically speaking about freedoms and government's role in private business.

B_L is also right that case went in the baker's favor in this situation. Kennedy gave a bullshit, cop out ruling but that is besides the point.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

I say that immediately after saying that strikeout didn't show how the laws are used to discriminate. My bad. It does look that this was a case where the state did discriminate.

I still argue that laws themselves are good, just, and necessary. They just need to be applied that way.

Yes, that it why I brought up this specific case. Laws are mistreated all the time. Some laws are obviously necessary. Some are not. Anti-discrimination laws are not. They are even less necessary now than they were 45-50 years ago. I typically don't like using the calendar as justification for an argument, but in 2019 if a company truly discriminates it will be ripped to shreds with the massive number of information outlets we have today.

"They just need to be applied that way." This line sums up everything that I have been saying. The intent of the law is benevolent. It's application has proven to be shady on numerous occasions. As i've said, the market does a good job of policing true discrimination. There is not a need add unwarranted government infringement.

Posted by bad_luck on 1/29/2019 7:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 1/29/2019 7:11:00 PM (view original):
The baker baked the cake but would not decorate it. Seems like the plaintiffs were just looking for trouble.

I don't think we're really getting into the specifics with that case, I think we're talking more in generalities. That case actually went to SCOTUS and the baker prevailed in a narrow ruling (narrow in the scope of the opinion, not the votes, it was 7-2). It certainly didn't reverse the civil rights act. It just said that The Colorado commission acted with hostility towards the baker.

The opinion stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution

I just think there are dozens of other bakers...see how I did that? People who want to force their way on some who
are not as open minded are just seeking trouble IMO.

In this specific case, there was actually another baker's shop literally right across the street who I am sure would have loved the couple's business and money.

so, what is the answer? If the baker refuses to make the cake (or decorate the cake, as the case may be) he is discriminating against the same sex couple. If the baker is forced to bake (or decorate) the cake, he is being discriminated against by being forced to go against his religious beliefs. Couldn't that same logic be applied to almost any case?

The answer is pretty obvious according to our constitution. People are not protected from discrimination by other private citizens in our constitution. People's religious beliefs and freedom of expression are protected from our government.