• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Supreme Court to rule on baker refusing to make cake for gay couple

WakeBDer said:
In your eyes. This is why you're intolerable. You are right. Everyone else is wrong and there is no in between.

Race is a visible difference. There are still plenty of people who believe that sexual orientation is a choice. That is a difference; whether you choose to recognize it or not.
Click to expand...

You can't use your religion to discriminate based on race using 1st amendment grounds. You shouldn't be able to use religion to discriminate based on sexual orientation using 1st amendment grounds. Believing sexual orientation is a choice has nothing to do with it.
 
Let's even think that sexual orientation is a choice. Without question, religion is a choice. People change religions every day. Why is whom you love a more important "choice" than faith?

Also, where does the "faith" based discrimination end? Can Muslims deny service to Christians?
 
DeaconSig said:
You can't use your religion to discriminate based on race using 1st amendment grounds. You shouldn't be able to use religion to discriminate based on sexual orientation using 1st amendment grounds. Believing sexual orientation is a choice has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything that you say here.
 
RJKarl said:
Let's even think that sexual orientation is a choice. Without question, religion is a choice. People change religions every day. Why is whom you love a more important "choice" than faith?

Also, where does the "faith" based discrimination end? Can Muslims deny service to Christians?
Click to expand...

Those are great questions and considerations. It's like...it's not a simple issue. Weird.
 
WakeBDer said:
I agree with everything that you say here.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I said, but you say is intolerable. I guess Sig saying something and me the exact same thing is different. :tard:
 
Talk about hypocrisy and laziness.

But thanks for proving my point again! So often it's not about what I say. It's that I said it. Hilarious and very sad.
 
Hilarious. You post on the thread, say you substantially agree with my position, yet I "bring zero value". I guess that means you bring that as well.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. :)
 
WakeBDer said:
I'm fine if the bakers have a religious objection. However, they should have to designate so publicly i.e. a cross in the window, a rainbow with a slash through it, etc. Something to publicly designate their business practices.
Click to expand...





riscdeac said:
Go to another water fountain. Geez. I know I know it's the point but come on man.
Click to expand...

Fixed.

 
RJKarl said:
Hilarious. You post on the thread, say you substantially agree with my position, yet I "bring zero value". I guess that means you bring that as well.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel. :)
Click to expand...

A key word in what Sig said was "shouldn't." He wasn't insisting that his belief was 100% right and the way every justice or human being should think. As I read what he posted, he seemed to acknowledge that what he felt should/could be the case wasn't guaranteed.
 
PhDeac said:






Fixed.

Click to expand...

Again, I think the idea is terrible. It is discrimination through and through. I also believe that businesses that used those signs in today's setting would quickly go out of business in most parts of the country. Thus, individuals are welcome to hold their beliefs, but when they are going to use their beliefs to influence their business they become vulnerable to the market. A market that is arguably much more tolerant.
 
WakeBDer said:
Again, I think the idea is terrible. It is discrimination through and through. I also believe that businesses that used those signs in today's setting would quickly go out of business in most parts of the country. Thus, individuals are welcome to hold their beliefs, but when they are going to use their beliefs to influence their business they become vulnerable to the market. A market that is arguably much more tolerant.
Click to expand...

So, you oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Supreme Court rulings that ban discrimination in public accommodation and would rather "let the market decide".
 
RJKarl said:
So, you oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Supreme Court rulings that ban discrimination in public accommodation and would rather "let the market decide".
Click to expand...

Of course not. I want bigots to go out of business if they choose to discriminate through their business practices.

I'd also like to save myself the embarrassment of walking into a bakery and asking for a wedding cake and then being denied.
 
Last edited:
WakeBDer said:
Of course not. I want bigots to go out of business if they choose to discriminate through their business practices.
Click to expand...

It's not an apples to apples comparison, but Chick-Fil-A says hello.

You're right though, it's a very complicated issue with Constitutional guarantees being weighed against one another. Should be some great arguments, from a law nerd perspective
 
WFUtoUSC said:
It's not an apples to apples comparison, but Chick-Fil-A says hello.

You're right though, it's a very complicated issue with Constitutional guarantees being weighed against one another. Should be some great arguments, from a law nerd perspective
Click to expand...

Right. Cathy had strongly held beliefs but they weren't reflected in the business practices of CFA. Merely the owner holding the beliefs is enough for some to boycott and some to celebrate. That's fine.
 
WakeBDer said:
Of course not. I want bigots to go out of business if they choose to discriminate through their business practices.
Click to expand...

But you want them to be allowed to discriminate. What if they don't go out of business?
 
RJKarl said:
But you want them to be allowed to discriminate. What if they don't go out of business?
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. He wants the SCOTUS to rule on the legality of it by weighing the constitutional rights of each party involved.
 
WFUtoUSC said:
It's not an apples to apples comparison, but Chick-Fil-A says hello.

You're right though, it's a very complicated issue with Constitutional guarantees being weighed against one another. Should be some great arguments, from a law nerd perspective
Click to expand...

I guess if you're a law nerd, but the vote is going to be 5-4 with Kennedy probably siding for the gays. They'll just argue for what they believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top