Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case. (Part 2)

I don’t see how their reasoning is relevant, we’re talking about the potential consequences of discrimination regardless of why it happens.

 

What KIND of discrimination? We discriminate all of the time, its how we make decisions!

 

So we’re shifting on to yet another tangent? You know perfectly well the context in which we’re talking about discrimination here and I don’t think playing word games in beneficial to anyone.

Let’s play along this once; It’s about either treating individuals differently due to their membership of defined groups that are irrelevant to the matter in hand or stereotypical presumptions about members of that group rather than actual assessment of the characteristics of an individual.

 

Potential consequences of PERCEIVED discrimination.

Exactly, and where this is obvious, it makes sense for the anti-discrimination laws to be used. However, this sort of discrimination is SO RARE that it is barely worth discussing. It is rare even in states that don't have the same anti-discrimination laws as other states. And I am not including wedding services cases, which are clearly discrimination on the basis of the event.

 

No, we were talking about the potential consequences of actual discrimination. They are the reasons for laws and regulations against actual discrimination. Whether a specific incident of perceived discrimination actually is discriminatory is a separate matter.

I think discrimination is more common than you give credit for, though it’s often low-level habitual things people might not even realise they’re doing. The kind of incident that kick off this thread is probably quite rare but I’m not sure that in itself makes it, or the various topics surrounding it, unworthy of discussion. If it’s not worthy of discussion though, why did you start two threads about it in the first place?

It’s easy to say something is rare if you’re going to ignore entire subsets out of hand.

You’re wrong though. There’s nothing unique about wedding services that excludes incidents involving them. If a business refused to provide services for any wedding you might have a point. If a business provided services to some weddings but not others, based on the gender or sexual orientation of the participants, you would not.

 

Did the guy say that he abides by levitical law? For all you know, he could dismiss levitical law entirely. In which case, he wouldn't be a hypocrite would he?

 

Actually, I was talking about THIS particular case with this baker, which is not definitely "ACTUAL" discrimination. What do you actually think the "potential consequences" are from someone politely saying that they would rather not participate in a couple's gay wedding?

I challenge you to find just one case of non-wedding services discrimination against gay people.

I'm talking about blatant acts of discrimination directed at someone due to their membership of defined groups - 'no gays allowed' policies and the like. This is what is not worth discussing. Also, the first thread was started by @goofball but I can certainly see how you thought that it was me!

Actually, it is still pretty rare even WITH wedding services cases.

Oh but there is, because there is more than one possibility of the basis on which the person has discriminated. In this case, the event of a gay wedding has come about from the couple's sexual orientation and so the two things get conflated. So then the baker's objection of the event gives idiotic people the impression that he is DEFINITELY discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation with no other possibility. This really is highly unintelligible. So there is ABSOLUTELY something unique about wedding services, because they are being asked to cater for an event that is tied to a sexual orientation. Why do you suppose that the only time state anti-discrimination laws are invoked is in wedding services cases?

If they state that they didn't want to serve the customers because they are gay, you would have a point. Given that this baker didn't state this, you do not.

 

Yet again, you can’t talk about any single case in isolation because we’re talking about interpretation of laws that apply to everyone. Whichever way this case ultimately goes has much wider implications and the question of how all the interacting laws should actually be interpreted has to be viewed in that context. And also yet again, the reason this is significant, the reason for all anti-discrimination laws, including the ones you’d defend, aren’t about single incidents but about not allowing (or even promoting) a wider culture of discrimination against certain groups. You had that in living memory in the US against non-whites so it really shouldn’t be a difficult concept.

I’ve witnessed first-hand friends of mine being violently assaulted because they were gay. If you’re suggesting there is no discrimination against homosexuals in any of our societies, you’re being grossly naïve or grossly dishonest. Most examples won’t get any kind of legal or regulatory attention or any media coverage (not least because a major element of that discrimination is institutional). I’m not wasting time searching for cases we both know exist.

I’m sure it is but that’s not the point. You can’t just dismiss cases because you’ve decided they don’t count. You could simply declare the number of examples are zero on that basis (in fact you’ve almost implied that in your “challenge” above).

The only difference between a mixed-sex wedding and a same-sex wedding is the gender (and generally sexual orientation) of the couples involved. There are literally no other factors to base an objection to one but not to the other. There is no question that this is discriminatory, even if you frame it as “discriminating against the event”, the only questions are whether that discrimination does and should fall foul of the law or not.

We’ve been over this as well. They don’t have to state it, they only have to mean it. Otherwise nobody could be convicted of anything without a confession.

 

Isn't it sad that these mentally ill gender confused people take up so much of our time.

 

Are you in the right thread?

 

My view is simple the Freedom of Religion which is a Constitutional Protection the highest law of our land and its an original amendment the Founding Fathers agreed to and among the oldest parts of the document. Now to me your arguing a local to State laws not even a Federal Protection such as the ADA trumps the US Constitution itself which since it is the supreme of laws should always come first and any consideration should weigh to the US Constitution. If a church considers disabled people sinners they should be free to discriminate since Federal Law can't trump Supreme Law. The only correction would be a Constitutional Amendment or a Ratified Treaty I'm not aware we ratified treaties

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which we ratified covers many important rights for example a Right to Privacy covering sexuality but it doesn't offer protections for gender identity in any form so doesn't apply. I'm not aware any other treaty we ratified that does. If so let me know.

 

Isn't it the case that any freedom that is extended to a religious person, also has to be extended to a non-religious person?

 

The guy is a raging hypocrite even if he wasn't referring to levitical law .. but he was.

Just like this guy...

 

How?

How do you know?

We've certainly been down that road before haven't we!

 

Yes .. so I should not have to restate the obvious. Where on earth do you think Pizza guys religious belief comes from ?

 

The Bible? What about it?

 

As in leviticus which is part of the Bible.

How about instead of asking nonsense questions .. You tell me where in the Bible it says "thou shalt not serve Pizza to gay people" ?

 

Christians do not ground their faith in Leviticus. Given how educated you are on Christianity, I'd be highly surprised if this is news to you.

Nowhere. Does it need to be somewhere in order to not want to participate in a gay wedding?

 

What do you actually think the "potential consequences" are from someone politely saying that they would rather not participate in a couple's gay wedding?

Sorry, I meant non-wedding services public accommodation discrimination against gay people.

Correct. How does this prove that the discrimination was based on their sexual orientation?

So you admit that is only "GENERALLY" sexual orientation?

Correct. I never said that it wasn't.

How do we know that they "mean it" unless they say it?

Literally EVERY OTHER case where someone is convicted of doing something, the case against them is
based on actual physical/forensic evidence and eye witness accounts. There is simply no comparison to this case.

 

Who said their faith was grounded in Leviticus ? Now you are moving the goal posts. It is a fact that some Christians - in particular the religious right cling to at least some levitical law as part of their religious beliefs and cite Leviticus in support of their religious hate for homosexuals.

Darn tootin it has to be somewhere in the Bible if someone is claiming "religious belief" as justification for discrimination against gays.

There is also the problem of the fundamentalist inerrancy/infallibility claim. If one truly believes that God hates Homosexuals - such that they should be put to death - and this is the God on which one bases one's religious beliefs ... do the math.

And do not give me any of the new covenant" BS. 1) NC theology was invented a couple of centuries ago 2) even if one agreed with it it does not resolve the problem of inerrancy/infallibility.

 

EVERYONE on the religious right? What is your evidence for this? You might want to state your definition of "religious right." I consider myself on the right and I'm a Christian, but I don't hate homosexuals, much less "cling" to Levitical law and "cite" it in "support" of anything. Your generalisations are simply ridiculous. I love how you THINK you know what you're talking about!

That is your opinion. The fact is, you said that this guy is a hypocrite and you haven't provided evidence to support your assertion.
Nor have you said how you know that he was referring to Levitical law. It is all assumption.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ake-case-part-2.537942/page-5#post-1069444412

 

Miss something @HonestJoe?

 

One business saying it would be a minor inconvenience for that couple. Ten businesses saying it could be a major inconvenience. A hundred businesses saying it could make it effectively impossible for the couple to get married. The moment you determine such discrimination is legal and socially acceptable, you’re accepting the possibility of the latter outcome, especially when we know there are people out there who would actively push for that to be the ultimate outcome.

Discrimination is discrimination and it happens constantly. It isn’t always obvious or in your face and it rarely receives any media or legal attention. If you believe nobody out there would discriminate against customers on the basis of (perceived) sexual orientation, especially if they can get away with it, you’re living in a fantasy world.

We’ve been over this, twice I think. As a general legal principle, you obviously can’t definitively prove motive so the standard practice is to assess the facts, circumstances and statements of those involved to reach a conclusion. Typically that needs to be “beyond reasonable doubt” but sufficient circumstantial evidence and self-incrimination can meet that test. Note that I’m not saying that test was legitimately met in this case.

There is loads of evidence in this case. Significantly, the baker openly admits refusing the make the cake for the couple and admits his reason was that it was for a same-sex wedding. The only question is whether those mutually recognised actions meet the criteria laid down in the law. It isn’t a matter of determining what actually happened, only one of interpreting the law.

 

Any evidence that couple's have encountered discrimination on a second occasion after being rejected at the first place? I'll be highly surprised if you find any.

Is that all that you think that marriage means to people? That they cannot have the wedding without a cake? I think you'll find that love can get past things like a cake and if it can't, then it's probably not genuine love and the couple probably shouldn't be getting married!

Where are all of the cases then? There is this one and maybe 4 or so others! You call that widespread?

Interesting. I thought that you approved of the baker being found guilty. When talking about the baker's restriction of freedom and after calling it an "unavoidable consequence", you said that you, "think this is the least worst option available." If you're going to say that, then don't you have to be 100% confident that the "test was legitimately met in this case?"

And by the way, if the law allowed this sort of discrimination and it was the couple's freedom that was being restricted, would you refer to it simply as an "unavoidable consequence?"

Of course! He admitted that his reason was that it was for a same sex wedding, not that it was for two gay customers! How are you not getting it? Are you saying that he incriminated himself?

How the hell can the law be applied without determining what actually happened? Are you being serious?