-
Livin the dream -
What ever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?" -
This wasn't a decision many were expecting. SCOTUS didn't really offer any insight on gay rights vs. religious rights. They just kicked the can down the road a little. If memory serves, there's some other similar pending cases at lower levels that are likely to make their up the chain in time."It's amazing to watch Ron slide into that open area, Fred will find him and it's straight cash homie."--HCGMComment
-
There’s a fundamental conflict between anti-distcrimination laws and free market property rights. These are difficult to discern ethically within the framework of the constitution.Originally posted by rrshock View PostLivin the dreamComment
-
Assume for a minute that being over 6' tall is a protected class. If a proprietor wanted to refuse service to persons 6'2", he might be wise to refuse service to a person 5'8" so that when he encounters the 6'2" person he really wishes to refuse service to, he'll have established a basis for non-discrimination in practice. Turn away a little bit of business across non-protected classes so that when the occasion arises, the ability to turn-away a protected class is available.Originally posted by wufan View Post"I not sure that I've ever been around a more competitive player or young man than Fred VanVleet. I like to win more than 99.9% of the people in this world, but he may top me." -- Gregg Marshall 12/23/13 :peaceful:
---------------------------------------
Remember when Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare:
"We have to pass it, to find out what's in it".
A physician called into a radio show and said:
"That's the definition of a stool sample."Comment
-
Look for the under-40 person that gets terminated with all the senior employees during lay-offs.Originally posted by im4wsu View PostComment
-
-
My point with the prior post was that we don't have to resort to hypotheticals, since it happens all the time.
The broader point is that anti-discrimination laws aren't going away. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been around for decades, and we're not going to have a Supreme Court that says "actually, we've gotten that one wrong for years. It's definitely unconstitutional." If the baker had said he didn't believe in making cakes for black people, there would be no question that he was violating the law.
Yes, these laws are difficult to enforce. Yes, a truly malicious person could try to skirt the law in various ways. What's the alternative, though? Do you think someone could win running on a platform to repeal the Civil Rights Act?Comment
-
I don’t disagree with your first or second paragraph. As to your directed questions, “What's the alternative, though?”...the alternative would be to let the free market do away with discriminatory practices in favor of making a profit. “Do you think someone could win running on a platform to repeal the Civil Rights Act?”...no.Originally posted by jdshock View PostLivin the dreamComment
-
-
I do not believe that can happen without repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'll even go further to say that there's a serious possibility we see sexual orientation get covered under the Civil Rights Act in the next few years. There seems to be a growing minority of courts that are willing to say "you would hire a woman that's married to a man, but you won't hire a man that's married to a man. That is sex discrimination."Originally posted by wufan View Post
I get that it's a hard law to enforce 100% of the time. It does get enforced well sometimes. And, I believe, there are incredibly few situations where someone is found to have violated the act when they did not intend to discriminate. There appear to be significantly more instances of someone intending to discriminate but getting away with it.
I do not think I could even entertain the idea of repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even if the free market would do a pretty good job of punishing business owners that act with overt racism today, the free market would have done a terrible job at punishing those businesses in 1964.Comment
-
Most of you are refusing to see that the baker has rights too even though he would tell you that he isn't the only one with rights in this instance. He is not saying that he will refuse service to anyone, and he isn't saying that he won't hire a gay man or woman. He has said that he serves gays every day in his business. He has said that he is willing to do those things because those people have freedoms and rights too. The baker and the florist in Washington are saying that they will help them find bakers and florists who do believe in gay marriage even though their belief and their bible tell them that a "holy" marriage is between one man and woman. They do not see how they can maintain their faith and support these marriages.
There has to be a middle ground that allows everyone their first amendment beliefs.Comment
-
I think you may have missed the point of all the posts here (or I have). What is being discussed is how do you reach that middle ground legally without stepping on the other's "rights". From what I see, everyone here is in favor of that middle ground. I remember this particular case when it first came out and you have described it like I remember. I felt the baker should, an hopefully would, ultimately win this case. I was very pleased to see it was 7-2 and not 5-4 or worse.Originally posted by Shockm View PostComment
-
It seems to me if you are counseling them to other places where these services are given, there is no evidence of malice (there is even some evidence to the contrary that prejudice exists although less provable), thus middle ground is being served. There has to be an understanding from both sides that each has a personally justifiable view point.
-
-
Well, to be fair, I don't think anyone is really talking about the merits of this particular case since it basically just got punted. As far as I can tell, the most recent posts are discussing a broader philosophical question.Originally posted by Shockm View Post
But it's also definitely not that simple. During the civil war, many religious people were convinced of biblical support for slavery. That wouldn't fly today. I would bet dollars to donuts if the baker had said "I won't make cakes for any interracial marriages because of religious beliefs," it wouldn't have gotten to the Supreme Court.Comment
-
There are lots of issues that make same sex marriage different than inter-racial marriage. Under 50 years ago, homosexuality was considered a mental illness. There are a lot of biblical verses that point marriage as between a man and woman. From my reading of the "holy" book, there were a lot of mental gymnastics to make inter-racial marriage wrong (or that one race was superior to the other for that matter).
-
-
Shockm, but the test for religious belief isn't what you personally view as a reasonable interpretation of the Bible. If someone can refuse to serve a gay couple or hire a gay employee based on the manager/owner's religious beliefs, you have to also allow someone to deny service to people based on interracial marriages, etc. (Obviously, this is assuming that sexual orientation is a protected class)
Otherwise, you're trusting the federal government to determine how reasonable a person's religious beliefs are.Comment
Tweet
Comment