Author Topic: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker  (Read 21114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #300 on: June 05, 2018, 07:07:08 pm »
You are very kind @IsailedawayfromFR.  TBR got along fine before I ever showed up, and it gets along fine without me.  I appreciate having an opportunity to speak my mind when I have something to say and I hope my expression will be clear and fair-minded.  I've known people who said too much and I would rather err in the other direction.
Well, your namesake the Raven had no hesitation to speak his mind, so I do hope you keep yours open to the rest of us as often as possible.
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #301 on: June 05, 2018, 07:10:08 pm »
There was never any newly-constructed "right of gays to marry".  What was affirmed is the right of gay couples to the equal protection of the law.   The individual states remain able to deny all special rights to married couples, gay and straight.  What they cannot do is afford the special rights, benefits and obligations of civil marriage to straight couples but not to gay couples. 

What is in the Constitution is the 14th Amendment, on which the Court said this decision was based.  It promises that no “state [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Even there, Kennedy’s decision is awkward and unclear, claiming to base its decision on a deprivation of liberty, namely the fundamental right to marry the person you want.  Equal protection seems the less strained basis.

But then Kennedy, then writing for the majority, waxes eloquent about equal dignity, as he has done in the past.  It’s in many of his Supreme Court opinions, from the Casey abortion case to the Lawrence sodomy decision to his opinion in the Windsor Federal Defense of Marriage Act case.   So some kind of dignity right is in Kennedy’s mind and jurisprudence; the problem is that it is not in the Constitution.  And it is so broad and vague it shouldn’t be.

One unanswered question is what equal dignity, or even dignity itself, might mean under the law.  None of the cases attempts to answer that question.  Webster’s Dictionary says dignity is the “quality or state of being worthy, honored or esteemed.”  The Oxford Dictionary adds the term “respect.”  Does this mean, then, that when people in our litigious society feel disrespected, their constitutional rights are violated?  Or, with some limitation, if government is somehow involved in that disrespect, there is a legal cause of action?  In some countries and cultures, even jokes have prompted arrests and prosecution on similar grounds.  Will the First Amendment protection of free speech still win out over this new “constitutional right?”

and here's the other problem --- Although many religions, including conservative Christianity, Judaism and Islam, do not accept gay marriage, the Supreme Court’s opinion gave scant attention to their concerns.  Justice Kennedy said they may “continue to advocate” their view and “teach the principles…they have long revered.” 

But wait, isn’t the First Amendment stronger than that?  Doesn’t it protect free exercise of religion, not just advocacy and teaching? If a Christian or Muslim school or agency does not deal with same sex couples and their families in the same way as heterosexual couples, does that not violate Kennedy’s principle of “equal dignity?”  But at the same time, is that not protected by the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment.?  Or how about the bakers or florists or artists who feel they must exercise their religious beliefs and decline to participate in gay marriages?

Equal dignity looks like Pandora ’s box to me.  It is not in the Constitution and is ill-defined, vague and uncertain.  No one really knows what it means in a legal context.  It is overly broad—there is indignity everywhere in a crowded and busy world.  And it has now been attached to a new practice, same-sex marriage, that clashes and jars against other rights, most notably free speech and the free exercise of religion, also guaranteed by our Constitution.

This is what Justice Kennedy's decision has given us.

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #302 on: June 05, 2018, 07:10:32 pm »
That is the problem with 'legalese' in a nutshell.

Most people use morality guidelines when confronted with that choice.

The years of decline in morality is the reason we have these discussions.

When I grew up, I knew the moral thing to do and what others were expected to do.  Now, it is left to trying to figure out in legal texts.

@IsailedawayfromFR
On top of which the legal texts are now based on a "living" Constitution and are ever changing according to the whim of the well funded activists.

 
Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #303 on: June 05, 2018, 07:11:36 pm »
Well, your namesake the Raven had no hesitation to speak his mind, so I do hope you keep yours open to the rest of us as often as possible.

Thanks again @IsailedawayfromFR.  You might notice I *did* speak my mind again just a bit farther down this thread, and perhaps I said too much.  Maybe like The Raven himself when he spoke against secession.

Be that as it may, I appreciate your charitable description of my thoughts and contributions, and I'll strive to live up to that expectation.
James 1:20

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #304 on: June 05, 2018, 07:16:16 pm »
That is the problem with 'legalese' in a nutshell.

Most people use morality guidelines when confronted with that choice.

The years of decline in morality is the reason we have these discussions.

When I grew up, I knew the moral thing to do and what others were expected to do.  Now, it is left to trying to figure out in legal texts.

So how do you propose to address discrimination with respect to public accommodation in a "moral" fashion?    Is there, for example, a moral basis for the owner of Piggie Park to deny seating in his restaurant to black persons on the basis of his religion?   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #305 on: June 05, 2018, 07:25:54 pm »

When I grew up, I knew the moral thing to do and what others were expected to do.  Now, it is left to trying to figure out in legal texts.

@IsailedawayfromFR that's because in the decades since we were kids the left and all their offshoots have decided there are no absolutes...no right and wrong...no good and evil...just millions of shades of gray....and who are we to judge.

It's allowed them to make heroes out of cop killers...saints out of sinners...and via judicial fiats and contorted legislative doctrine take the most perverted things people can come up with and rationalize it as normal behavior and anyone who objects is simply bigoted.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Offline HoustonSam

  • "That'll be the day......"
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,982
  • Gender: Male
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #306 on: June 05, 2018, 07:29:11 pm »
What is in the Constitution is the 14th Amendment, on which the Court said this decision was based.  It promises that no “state [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  Even there, Kennedy’s decision is awkward and unclear, claiming to base its decision on a deprivation of liberty, namely the fundamental right to marry the person you want.  Equal protection seems the less strained basis.

But then Kennedy, then writing for the majority, waxes eloquent about equal dignity, as he has done in the past.  It’s in many of his Supreme Court opinions, from the Casey abortion case to the Lawrence sodomy decision to his opinion in the Windsor Federal Defense of Marriage Act case.   So some kind of dignity right is in Kennedy’s mind and jurisprudence; the problem is that it is not in the Constitution.  And it is so broad and vague it shouldn’t be.

One unanswered question is what equal dignity, or even dignity itself, might mean under the law.  None of the cases attempts to answer that question.  Webster’s Dictionary says dignity is the “quality or state of being worthy, honored or esteemed.”  The Oxford Dictionary adds the term “respect.”  Does this mean, then, that when people in our litigious society feel disrespected, their constitutional rights are violated?  Or, with some limitation, if government is somehow involved in that disrespect, there is a legal cause of action?  In some countries and cultures, even jokes have prompted arrests and prosecution on similar grounds.  Will the First Amendment protection of free speech still win out over this new “constitutional right?”

and here's the other problem --- Although many religions, including conservative Christianity, Judaism and Islam, do not accept gay marriage, the Supreme Court’s opinion gave scant attention to their concerns.  Justice Kennedy said they may “continue to advocate” their view and “teach the principles…they have long revered.” 

But wait, isn’t the First Amendment stronger than that?  Doesn’t it protect free exercise of religion, not just advocacy and teaching? If a Christian or Muslim school or agency does not deal with same sex couples and their families in the same way as heterosexual couples, does that not violate Kennedy’s principle of “equal dignity?”  But at the same time, is that not protected by the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment.?  Or how about the bakers or florists or artists who feel they must exercise their religious beliefs and decline to participate in gay marriages?

Equal dignity looks like Pandora ’s box to me.  It is not in the Constitution and is ill-defined, vague and uncertain.  No one really knows what it means in a legal context.  It is overly broad—there is indignity everywhere in a crowded and busy world.  And it has now been attached to a new practice, same-sex marriage, that clashes and jars against other rights, most notably free speech and the free exercise of religion, also guaranteed by our Constitution.

This is what Justice Kennedy's decision has given us.

Very well-stated @SirLinksALot.  Your statement of our case is extremely effective.  "Dignity" seems to be the legal trump card now, but no one really knows what that means.  Nevertheless, we seem to have a right to it, except when we don't.  The Ten Commandments were carved into stone; the Federal Judiciary should issue copies of the US Constitution engraved in Silly Putty.
James 1:20

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #307 on: June 05, 2018, 07:32:59 pm »
Quote
What was affirmed is the right of gay couples to the equal protection of the law.

There is no "right" marry.  They weren't being denied any kind of equal protection under the law.

When are you going to get it through your brain that the 14th Amendment was never meant to be used and abused by you Liberals in the manner that it has?

It was meant to protect freed slaves...NOT to invent special carve outs for gays that straight couples don't have...and pave the way for disastrous legislation like Obamacare.

Liberal slip and fall lawyers like you and your brethren on capitol hill have been misusing the equal protection clause for almost 50 years now.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,869
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #308 on: June 05, 2018, 07:33:41 pm »
So how do you propose to address discrimination with respect to public accommodation in a "moral" fashion?    Is there, for example, a moral basis for the owner of Piggie Park to deny seating in his restaurant to black persons on the basis of his religion?   

Sounds like all discrimination is "bad."  Should we eliminate all forms of discrimination?
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #309 on: June 05, 2018, 07:34:33 pm »
One unanswered question is what equal dignity, or even dignity itself, might mean under the law.  None of the cases attempts to answer that question.  Webster’s Dictionary says dignity is the “quality or state of being worthy, honored or esteemed.” The Oxford Dictionary adds the term “respect.”  Does this mean, then, that when people in our litigious society feel disrespected, their constitutional rights are violated?  Or, with some limitation, if government is somehow involved in that disrespect, there is a legal cause of action?  In some countries and cultures, even jokes have prompted arrests and prosecution on similar grounds.  Will the First Amendment protection of free speech still win out over this new “constitutional right?”

Bingo!  You nailed the crux of what what now governs our society: the right not to be offended if you are a protected class by grant of government or the courts.   

'Dignity' is now a 'right' to be extended to perverse behaviors society once considered abominable and heinous.  "Normal" behaviors are to be eschewed and penalized. 

It's all part of the remaking of society.   A civil society is not possible in this environment, and the protected behaviors will seek to punish and abolish anyone or any belief that they feel does not condone and celebrate their behavior, due dignity.

Equal dignity looks like Pandora ’s box to me. 

It's worse.  It becomes the fulcrum and sledgehammer by which any thought or belief contrary to the the special protected class of behaviors, will be made illegal.  Because some animals are more equal than others.

'Dignity' is just code for 'Respect and Acknowledge without causing any offense'.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline WingNot

  • Resident TBR Curmudgeon
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,659
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #310 on: June 05, 2018, 07:35:07 pm »
Sounds like all discrimination is "bad."  Should we eliminate all forms of discrimination?

I see what you are doing.   :cool:
"I'm a man, but I changed, because I had to. Oh well."

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #311 on: June 05, 2018, 07:54:14 pm »
Sounds like all discrimination is "bad."  Should we eliminate all forms of discrimination?

No.  I am speaking of arbitrary discrimination, in the context of public accommodations,  based on a customer's immutable characteristics as identified by the legislature.    What is different between the plaintiff's claimed right to discriminate based on religion in Piggie Park and the plaintiff's claimed right to discriminate based on religion in Masterpiece Cakeshop?   What is the moral difference?   

I'm not speaking of discrimination on the lines of "no shirt, no service" - but of course you know that.   *****rollingeyes*****
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #312 on: June 05, 2018, 07:58:21 pm »
There is no "right" marry.


Correct.

Quote
  They weren't being denied any kind of equal protection under the law.

Incorrect. 

Quote
When are you going to get it through your brain that the 14th Amendment was never meant to be used and abused by you Liberals in the manner that it has?

It was meant to protect freed slaves...NOT to invent special carve outs for gays that straight couples don't have...

The 14th amendment right of equal protection extends to all, not just freed slaves.   It is a fundamental bulwark against government tyranny.   

And it has nothing whatsoever to do with "special rights" for gays.   
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,818
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #313 on: June 05, 2018, 08:05:15 pm »
What is in the Constitution is the 14th Amendment, on which the Court said this decision was based.  It promises that no “state [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

@SirLinksALot

Clearly, you misquoted.  I have it on good authority here that Amendment XIV actually says, "No “state [shall] deprive any couple of life, liberty, or marriage  .  .  .
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline txradioguy

  • Propaganda NCOIC
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,534
  • Gender: Male
  • Rule #39
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #314 on: June 05, 2018, 08:08:34 pm »

Incorrect.

Really?  What Constitutional right were/are gays being denied?  the right to vote?  right to employment?  are there poll taxes or reading tests being required of them before they vote?

Is there some part of the Bill of Rights that gays are being denied equal protection under?

Please tell me where gays are not being taken care of under the 14th or any of the other amendments. 

The 14th amendment right of equal protection extends to all, not just freed slaves.   It is a fundamental bulwark against government tyranny.   

Quote
And it has nothing whatsoever to do with "special rights" for gays.   

The hell it doesn't.  Gays now have a "right" to marry that straight couples don't have.  Therefore they've been given a special provision.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Here lies in honored glory an American soldier, known but to God

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE PROBLEM...NOT THE SOLUTION

Republicans Don't Need A Back Bench...They Need a BACKBONE!

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,869
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #315 on: June 05, 2018, 08:10:06 pm »
@SirLinksALot

Clearly, you misquoted.  I have it on good authority here that Amendment XIV actually says, "No “state [shall] deprive any couple of life, liberty, or marriage  .  .  .

No, it says "This Amendment can be construed to allow leftists to bastardize the Constitution any way they see fit.  This elasticity only applies to Socialists."  All that is required is clever use of the English language, and application of any foreign law a fellow named "Breyer" wants to employ.
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,818
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #316 on: June 05, 2018, 08:15:32 pm »

Quote from: txradioguy
They weren't being denied any kind of equal protection under the law.

Incorrect.     

How so?  Can you name a single class for which this bake will create a cake for a same-sex wedding?

The answer is a resounding "no".  As you know already, equal protection already exists.  And as everyone else knows already, you don't like it.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #317 on: June 05, 2018, 08:16:14 pm »
I am speaking of arbitrary discrimination, in the context of public accommodations,  based on a customer's immutable characteristics as identified by the legislature.

Yes.  Exactly.

You just admitted the fact that Government and their courts have now created and given preferential rights to persons based on behaviors/characteristics that make them a government-recognized special class superior to other classes of citizens and beliefs that have made inferior, and therefore not entitled to the same special protections.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline driftdiver

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,897
  • Gender: Male
  • I could eat it raw but why when I have fire
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #318 on: June 05, 2018, 08:21:09 pm »
Really?  What Constitutional right were/are gays being denied?  the right to vote?  right to employment?  are there poll taxes or reading tests being required of them before they vote?

Is there some part of the Bill of Rights that gays are being denied equal protection under?

Please tell me where gays are not being taken care of under the 14th or any of the other amendments. 

The 14th amendment right of equal protection extends to all, not just freed slaves.   It is a fundamental bulwark against government tyranny.   

The hell it doesn't.  Gays now have a "right" to marry that straight couples don't have.  Therefore they've been given a special provision.

@txradioguy
Worse then that, this is basically a right to marry anyone and anything they want.   Want to marry your sister, have at it.  Want 3 wives, go for it.  How about your dog, yep. 

Fools mock, tongues wag, babies cry and goats bleat.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,869
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #319 on: June 05, 2018, 08:28:58 pm »
I'm not speaking of discrimination on the lines of "no shirt, no service" - but of course you know that.   *****rollingeyes*****

No, I have no idea what you mean by "discrimination," you throw the word around like manhole covers.  And, for your information, I still don't know what you mean because your definition continues to be twisted beyond recognition.

 *****rollingeyes***** backatcha.

Added: 

Quote
based on a customer's immutable characteristics

Unless you've twisted the plain meaning of "immutable," there is nothing "immutable" about homosexuality, unless "gaydar" is really a thing.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2018, 08:31:17 pm by Cyber Liberty »
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 79,869
  • Gender: Male
  • 🌵🌵🌵
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #320 on: June 05, 2018, 08:35:09 pm »
Yes.  Exactly.

You just admitted the fact that Government and their courts have now created and given preferential rights to persons based on behaviors/characteristics that make them a government-recognized special class superior to other classes of citizens and beliefs that have made inferior, and therefore not entitled to the same special protections.

Homosexuality is not an "immutable" trait.  In fact, it's the first protected class ever added to the civil rights statues that is not.  It's a "behavior."
For unvaccinated, we are looking at a winter of severe illness and death — if you’re unvaccinated — for themselves, their families, and the hospitals they’ll soon overwhelm. Sloe Joe Biteme 12/16
I will NOT comply.
 
Castillo del Cyber Autonomous Zone ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline INVAR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,961
  • Gender: Male
  • Dread To Tread
    • Sword At The Ready
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #321 on: June 05, 2018, 08:42:49 pm »
Homosexuality is not an "immutable" trait.  In fact, it's the first protected class ever added to the civil rights statues that is not.  It's a "behavior."

Of course it is.

But now, thanks to the Courts of men, BEHAVIORS are now immutable Rights that must be afforded 'Dignity" and "Respect".  Since behaviors are now classified as identifying immutable "traits", and the behaviors themselves are the identifying factor - one may not discriminate against another's behavior - even when that behavior is perverse, wicked, depraved and perverted.

We are now told, that we must afford protected behaviors, 'dignity' and we may not discriminate against them by refusing to promote and serve those behaviors.
Fart for freedom, fart for liberty and fart proudly.  - Benjamin Franklin

...Obsta principiis—Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud, is the only maxim which can ever preserve the liberties of any people. When the people give way, their deceivers, betrayers and destroyers press upon them so fast that there is no resisting afterwards. The nature of the encroachment upon [the] American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer, it eats faster and faster every hour." - John Adams, February 6, 1775

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #322 on: June 05, 2018, 08:43:41 pm »
So how do you propose to address discrimination with respect to public accommodation in a "moral" fashion?    Is there, for example, a moral basis for the owner of Piggie Park to deny seating in his restaurant to black persons on the basis of his religion?   
Whence did that come from?

Reading the bible often instead of legal texts will give one the sense of knowing when it doubt what is 'The Right thing to do'.

No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,746
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #323 on: June 05, 2018, 08:48:37 pm »
The 14th amendment right of equal protection extends to all, not just freed slaves.   It is a fundamental bulwark against government tyranny. 
Let's turn back to the case at hand. 

Since in this court case referred to in this thread it was determined that a Civil Rights Commission engaged in violating the civil rights of a citizen, how does that get reconciled?
No punishment, in my opinion, is too great, for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin~  George Washington

Offline Jazzhead

  • Blue lives matter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11,593
  • Gender: Male
Re: BREAKING>> SCOTUS rules in favor of Colorado baker
« Reply #324 on: June 06, 2018, 04:18:12 am »
Yes.  Exactly.

You just admitted the fact that Government and their courts have now created and given preferential rights to persons based on behaviors/characteristics that make them a government-recognized special class superior to other classes of citizens and beliefs that have made inferior, and therefore not entitled to the same special protections.

No preferential rights.  Whites,  straights and Christians are similarly protected against arbitrary discrimination in public accommodations.

 
It's crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide