(03-31-2015 01:29 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 01:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 11:55 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Since there are many businesses that would give the gay couple a cake, they are still being provided a service. If the market decides to not support the person who refused, then so be it. That is a neutral punishment that isnt supported by a government that is required to defend the rights of that business owner.

In short laymens terms... the gay people may want a cake but they have no damn right to walk into anybodies business and tell them how they have to run it. Just like they have no right to walk into a church and demand to be married by them. Both are PRIVATE entities that use federally funded infrastructure. All have rights to use infrastructure without strings.

BINGO!!!! THIS^^^ is why these cases are completely different than gov't supported racism that was seen in the south. Back then the gov't actually separated blacks and whites in schools, buses and other public facilities. Not the same as what's happening with so-called "gay rights" issues of today.

Not true at all. Blacks were refused services at hotels, restaurants etc. Again, in every scenario in which a person was refused a service because they are gay, the courts have sided with the gay person based on state and federal civil rights precedent. Now if you are claiming that you know better than the 1,000's of legal scholars that have sided with the consumer in these cases, then congrats on that.....the courts are very comfortable with the idea that owning a business in America doesn't give the business own carte blanche to do whatever they please, it's really that simple. I am largely libertarian but draw the line when it comes to discrimination, just as the courts have said over and over and over again.

How is what I said not true? The gov't endorsed it so obviously the private businesses were going to follow suit.

(03-31-2015 01:26 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 01:04 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  I am not reaching. The same scriptures that you just debunked (rather well IMO) were used to justify not allowing marriages between different races in this country.

The point is even in allowing religious freedom, there has to be some limit to keep some "fringe" beliefs in check.

I'm sure they were used, but that doesn't mean that they were right. There's a LONG history of injustice that was supposedly done in the name of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

I agree with the second point too but a business owner not wanting to perform a service for a ceremony that specifically violates his religion is not exactly what I'd call a "fringe belief". That's simply being consistent with one's religious convictions so long as he / she is not inflicting harm on the other individual. If a gay individual simply wants a planner, cake, flowers or whatever they're not being locked out of the market by the government here. That's exactly what was happening to blacks in the deep south.

You are over simplifying the issue and ignoring the precedent your POV sets. A gay person shouldn't be forced to travel 2 hours outside of his or her rural town to get a cake cause the local baker refuses to serve them based on the person and not the service being provided. It's a blatant assault on the individuals civil liberties. Baking a cake is baking a cake, it is not endorsing anything.

(03-31-2015 01:31 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 01:29 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 01:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 11:55 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Since there are many businesses that would give the gay couple a cake, they are still being provided a service. If the market decides to not support the person who refused, then so be it. That is a neutral punishment that isnt supported by a government that is required to defend the rights of that business owner.

In short laymens terms... the gay people may want a cake but they have no damn right to walk into anybodies business and tell them how they have to run it. Just like they have no right to walk into a church and demand to be married by them. Both are PRIVATE entities that use federally funded infrastructure. All have rights to use infrastructure without strings.

BINGO!!!! THIS^^^ is why these cases are completely different than gov't supported racism that was seen in the south. Back then the gov't actually separated blacks and whites in schools, buses and other public facilities. Not the same as what's happening with so-called "gay rights" issues of today.

Not true at all. Blacks were refused services at hotels, restaurants etc. Again, in every scenario in which a person was refused a service because they are gay, the courts have sided with the gay person based on state and federal civil rights precedent. Now if you are claiming that you know better than the 1,000's of legal scholars that have sided with the consumer in these cases, then congrats on that.....the courts are very comfortable with the idea that owning a business in America doesn't give the business own carte blanche to do whatever they please, it's really that simple. I am largely libertarian but draw the line when it comes to discrimination, just as the courts have said over and over and over again.

How is what I said not true? The gov't endorsed it so obviously the private businesses were going to follow suit.

You stressed public, blacks were not allowed in private business's just as this law could result in for gays (if the language is not changed). In the south the gov't didn;t endorse it, they said nothing either way. They did endorse public segregation, in that sense you are correct that this is different in that situation. But as far as a post civil rights act comp, this situation is very similar.

Topic is long past the point of needing moved IMO

I think Connecticut should invade Indiana and force them to change their laws.

Sneak attack.

(03-31-2015 03:23 PM)shere khan Wrote:  I think Connecticut should invade Indiana and force them to change their laws.

Sneak attack.

Our Governor is so inept, he'd screw it up spectacularly!!

Back to Topic...

UCONN President bars Kevin Ollie from traveling to Indianapolis for Final Four/National Association of Basketball Coaches convention.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca.../70747070/

(03-31-2015 01:29 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 01:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 11:55 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Since there are many businesses that would give the gay couple a cake, they are still being provided a service. If the market decides to not support the person who refused, then so be it. That is a neutral punishment that isnt supported by a government that is required to defend the rights of that business owner.

In short laymens terms... the gay people may want a cake but they have no damn right to walk into anybodies business and tell them how they have to run it. Just like they have no right to walk into a church and demand to be married by them. Both are PRIVATE entities that use federally funded infrastructure. All have rights to use infrastructure without strings.

BINGO!!!! THIS^^^ is why these cases are completely different than gov't supported racism that was seen in the south. Back then the gov't actually separated blacks and whites in schools, buses and other public facilities. Not the same as what's happening with so-called "gay rights" issues of today.

Not true at all. Blacks were refused services at hotels, restaurants etc. Again, in every scenario in which a person was refused a service because they are gay, the courts have sided with the gay person based on state and federal civil rights precedent. Now if you are claiming that you know better than the 1,000's of legal scholars that have sided with the consumer in these cases, then congrats on that.....the courts are very comfortable with the idea that owning a business in America doesn't give the business own carte blanche to do whatever they please, it's really that simple. I am largely libertarian but draw the line when it comes to discrimination, just as the courts have said over and over and over again.

For one, you question my knowledge on many areas on other posts...please dont worry about me. My LSAT scores were on point!

Second, it is you that is confused as to this arguments main difference. Homosexuality according to the bible is a sin. Therefore it falls within ones religious beliefs.
Denying someone service simply becuase they are black has no biblical standing and cant be argued that service to them would violate their 1st amendment rights.

Forcing someone to bake a cake to celebrate an action that is against the owners religious beliefs is a 1st amendment violation. I refer you to Burwel vs Hobby Lobby as the most recent case. The court clearly has upheld religious belief for a for-profit corporation. Furthermore the courts have upheld that for profit corporations do not have to provide coverage for abortions based upon religious beliefs.

For Profit entities have been recognized for years as being a representation of the ownership and an extension of their religious beliefs...as they should be. I personally am the owner of my own company (a small ABA therapy provider) and anyone that works for me signs a contract that has many of my personal beliefs in... because they represent me and my company. Unlike what Obama has said, I did build this business by myself (and educated myself, got certified myself, did my residency myself) and therefore I have the right to have my company reflect myself as I deem fit. In florida we are a right to work state, which essentially means that I can end someone employment without reason.

My company is not here to serve anything or anybody else then my own purposes. It supports my life, my donations, my community involvement and therefore is an extension of me and fortunately for me the courts have ruled in my favor.

(03-31-2015 01:32 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 01:26 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-31-2015 01:04 PM)uhmump95 Wrote:  I am not reaching. The same scriptures that you just debunked (rather well IMO) were used to justify not allowing marriages between different races in this country.

The point is even in allowing religious freedom, there has to be some limit to keep some "fringe" beliefs in check.

I'm sure they were used, but that doesn't mean that they were right. There's a LONG history of injustice that was supposedly done in the name of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

I agree with the second point too but a business owner not wanting to perform a service for a ceremony that specifically violates his religion is not exactly what I'd call a "fringe belief". That's simply being consistent with one's religious convictions so long as he / she is not inflicting harm on the other individual. If a gay individual simply wants a planner, cake, flowers or whatever they're not being locked out of the market by the government here. That's exactly what was happening to blacks in the deep south.

You are over simplifying the issue and ignoring the precedent your POV sets. A gay person shouldn't be forced to travel 2 hours outside of his or her rural town to get a cake cause the local baker refuses to serve them based on the person and not the service being provided. It's a blatant assault on the individuals civil liberties. Baking a cake is baking a cake, it is not endorsing anything.

No, not at all. The courts have ruled that a business owner has the right to extend their personal first amendment rights within their business. That is a case supported positon.
There is no case law that says there is a maximum driving distance to get something you want.

A gay persons desire to have a cake is a WANT. They have options. They can bake it themselves. They can travel to a location that will make it for them. They though do not have the right to impose their wants over the 1st amendment rights of a business owner.

Your essentially saying that one mans wants trumps one mans rights. The first amendment was put in first because of how massively important the founders felt it was. I highly suggest you read the Federalist Papers. Madison, John Jay and Hamilton give you a much deeper understanding of the true intent of the constitution they wrote.

(03-31-2015 02:39 PM)uccheese Wrote:  Topic is long past the point of needing moved IMO

Why? I am actually impressed with how civil the argument is so far. By far one of the most grownup and well thought out discussions this board has ever had.