quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

The Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Association arguments should be equally dismissed. Public businesses must treat all customers equally. So the choice for them is all or nothing. Don't sell wedding cakes at all if you can't bake them for people of a protected class. Don't professionally photograph weddings at all, if you aren't available for people of all religions, races, and sexual orientations. Don't provide any sort of service for anyone that you cannot, in good faith, do for every customer that comes along.

quote:

I work on guitars, on the side, for friends. I wouldn't call it a "business", but word gets around ...

quote:

I realize it's a bit of a stretch, but it isn't that far removed from a cake decorator who believes homosexuality is a sin, putting two little men cake toppers on top of a cake. It's that decorator saying/being forced to say: "Same-sex marriage is okay/acceptable/not a sin"

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
I read your points of view with interest. Here, imo, you are hedging your bets. Either you are a public accommodation or you are not. You decide for the sake of argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
How would this apply to more personal services? You are a barber or a manicurists but you are uncomfortable (unschooled) in black nails or hair, for example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Or, you are a doctor. Well, word gets around anyway. You have two injured patients at your doorstep. . . . a white man and a black man. The black man has potentially fatal injuries; the white man does not. You don't like blacks. Word gets around and before you know it they would be lined up at your door. Can you argue you were not schooled in black anatomy or that your biblical beliefs prohibit you tending to the "inferior" race? In other words, I am asking you to consider the consequences to the body politic your choices may have.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
it really all comes down to one of the essential differences between left and right. the former wanting to use government to force people, and the latter wanting people to be free.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
you cant really---its putting words into the scripture that simply are not there. yes "second death" or "spiritual death" or "eternal separation" from god is mentioned repeatedly throughout the bible. however, that theme is not yet developed by Leviticus, and even if it were, the language and context are wholly and only consistent with death by stoning. theres no question over what the words mean.
what youre wanting to do in a sense is say that people wrote things down other than what god intended for them to write down. that's a view, that on the whole isn't accepted by most of the church, and is ultimately dangerous.
you can indeed carry on the spiritual exposition of what happens, or what might happen to people who are "put to death" for breaking the law, but you cant take away the literal, physical death sentence when you do it.

Right. Because everyone who ever interpreted the Bible was correct; even when it conflicted with the interpretation of someone else was correct.
Have you read the original Hebrew text? If not, you're reading a translation that may or may not have been correct (personally, I like the King James Version, though I can't exactly explain why). Every translation comes down to the interpretation by the translator, doesn't it? As I pointed out to JVoV regarding the passages used to rationalize slavery as acceptable, some things twisted upon interpretation.

I think the most pressing matter of this case is can the State show compelling interest in protecting gays and gay marriage.

quote:

It has already been decided by previous courts that government may interfere with religious practices if it has a compelling interest to do so. Human sacrifice is not tolerated by our law. Parents can be charged with murder (or manslaughter, depending on the state & situation) if they fail to provide medical treatment due to religious beliefs and it results in the death of their child.
I believe that just two years ago, the Supreme Court mandated that States take a compelling interest in allowing and protecting gay marriage. Colorado had already done so, being ahead of that curve.
There is no religious belief or practice being interfered with by Colorado law. No one is being forced to suddenly believe that gay marriage has been accepted by God, only to acknowledge that it is accepted by the State.
The Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Association arguments should be equally dismissed. Public businesses must treat all customers equally. So the choice for them is all or nothing. Don't sell wedding cakes at all if you can't bake them for people of a protected class. Don't professionally photograph weddings at all, if you aren't available for people of all religions, races, and sexual orientations. Don't provide any sort of service for anyone that you cannot, in good faith, do for every customer that comes along.
The free market often backfires in many cases such as this. White people certainly enjoyed their segregated movie theaters and restaurants, whereas they may not have returned to a place that welcomed all races before the law made it mandatory.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

The Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Association arguments should be equally dismissed. Public businesses must treat all customers equally. So the choice for them is all or nothing. Don't sell wedding cakes at all if you can't bake them for people of a protected class. Don't professionally photograph weddings at all, if you aren't available for people of all religions, races, and sexual orientations. Don't provide any sort of service for anyone that you cannot, in good faith, do for every customer that comes along.

This argument is interesting, especially in light of:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

There are two aspects of the baker's job. One is simply to make generic pastries. The other is to custom decorate cakes.

https://youtu.be/SFuDukk_A30

Skip to 6:17 for this guy's opinion on the matter (it's a <2 minute segment that makes an awful lot of sense to me). His argument is that it isn't really a religious liberty issue. He thinks it comes down to "public accommodation" vs. "contracted work for hire." The public accommodation part is the walk-in business. The contracted work for hire is the cake decorating, and he should have the right to decide to accept the work or not.

I work on guitars, on the side, for friends. I wouldn't call it a "business", but word gets around ...

I work on maybe ten guitars a month, mostly, it's simple things, but I just had a guy contact me, wanting me to do some custom work on a guitar. He wants me to strip it, sand it, paint it and re-finish it.

In light of the second quote I re-posted, I started thinking: What if this guy had asked me to paint "Satan is Lord" on his guitar? I'll do his set up, adjust his Floyd Rose, do all the customizing work, but I'm not painting that.

I realize it's a bit of a stretch, but it isn't that far removed from a cake decorator who believes homosexuality is a sin, putting two little men cake toppers on top of a cake. It's that decorator saying/being forced to say: "Same-sex marriage is okay/acceptable/not a sin"

So, neither one of us should be allowed to earn a little extra cash? That seems like a rather extreme punishment for not spouting the party line.

I wonder ... if a Christian couple came to a gay cake decorator and wanted a Leviticus quote (you know which one) put on their cake, should the decorator be forced to do it?

I wouldn't want him forced to do it. I can imagine how hurtful/stressful it would be, asking that decorator to do something that makes their entire inner being scream out in disdain.

I guess that's the difference; one side wants to force their way of life on people with whom they disagree. The other side just wants to not be forced to listen to their inner being scream out in disdain.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

In a lot of ways, I agree with you. Especially when it concerns forcing businesses to stock items that go against their beliefs, such as a cake topper in this case or ham for a Kosher deli. That's not who we are as a country, nor who we want to be.

And as you say, there may be artistic elements that in and of themselves go against the cake decorator's beliefs, which can be outright rejected.

But these are all things that can be discussed and negotiated. A couple usually does have ideas about what their cake should look like, and the decorator can then bring them back to reality with what they're willing and able to do.

And that's exactly what did not happen in this case. The couple was just flat out refused service, because of who they are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

The gay couple did not pursue a civil suit against the bakery, but took the issue to the State agency that handled this sort of thing. From there, the State took over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Reasonably? It is "rape" of a spiritual sort, as I explained.

It's Christians, being forced into participating in what they consider to be a sin at the point of a gun, not unlike forced sodomy.

When you can listen, reasonably, perhaps the nation can start to heal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

The gay couple did not pursue a civil suit against the bakery, but took the issue to the State agency that handled this sort of thing. From there, the State took over.

Only if the ACLU is a state agency, now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

The gay couple did not pursue a civil suit against the bakery, but took the issue to the State agency that handled this sort of thing. From there, the State took over.

Here's an interesting little nugget: in 2012, the couple married in Massachusetts because Colorado did not recognize same-sex unions, at the time.

So, the cake shop is being sued for an incident that happened before 2014, when Colorado started recognizing gay marriage.

Retroactive justice, it would seem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
I think given today's environment, rape is a word that should not be used lightly, or wrongly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
If any part of baking a cake goes against a person's spiritual beliefs, then that person should not be own a bakery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
If there is a requested design that goes against a person's beliefs, then they should be free to refuse to do that, and then tell the customer what they are willing and able to do. And if the customer is really set on the particular design, then they are free to look for another bakery to do it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
No one has forced the bakery to create and design wedding cakes at all. But Colorado law does require that such services be provided equally to all customers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the actual name of the case. Please stop lying.