What's Inside President Trump's New Religious Freedom Executive Order

[truth_seeker]

@truth_seeker

I am not aware of a single case where someone was denied the purchase of an available item because they were homosexual.  Can you cite such a case?

I am not making that claim. I am pointing out that equal rights, non-discrimination in housing have been around for a long, long time--with little fanfare.

There has apparently arisen a conflict, between "conservatism," of a libertarian variety, and "conservatism," of the Fundamentalist Christian variety.

I am curious how this plays out in real estate, in Fundamentalist communities? Do real estate agents/brokers tell homos to go elsewhere--that their lifestyles are abhorent, and they do not desire to provide them advertised services?

Or do the service providers attract/retain individuals that can separate their church lives, from their chosen professions, as regulated the the state and federal govts.?

As a WWII combat veteran, I know my builder father enjoyed custom design for disabled people, including vets. He incorprated elements, in design options for normally abled families, too. Lower breakfast bar heights, worked well with children, to cite an exmple from long ago.

I believe what I am talking about applies to many professions. I am not a lawyer, but common sense suggests that field would not dondone withholding service, on the basis or race, religion, sexual preference.

[roamer_1]

I suppose that the charitable way to look at all of these EOs that just "study" a problem is to have faith that after all these studies are done, we'll actually get some action, not just words and more spending.

OK, but I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for it...

[Hoodat]

I believe what I am talking about applies to many professions. I am not a lawyer, but common sense suggests that field would not dondone withholding service, on the basis or race, religion, sexual preference.

@truth_seeker

Again, I am not seeing anywhere where someone is advocating discrimination against anyone for being homosexual.

[Jazzhead]

@truth_seeker

Again, I am not seeing anywhere where someone is advocating discrimination against anyone for being homosexual.

The advertised service is wedding services.   The discrimination is with respect to homosexuals who seek to marry vs. straights who seek to marry.

No one forces a baker, photographer or facility to offer wedding services to the general public.   But if that's how you choose how you want to make your money, then you cannot discriminate.   

Simple concept.   Be true to your word.  Get off your religious high-horse and don't be a jerk.   

[truth_seeker]

@truth_seeker

Again, I am not seeing anywhere where someone is advocating discrimination against anyone for being homosexual.

Refusing to provide goods and services, is considered to be "discrimination," under federal and state laws.

I have never heard of an exemption or exeption, for religion or other reasons.

[SirLinksALot]

Nothing.  The victims of unlawful discrimination have the right to sue civilly.   The federal government can file amicus briefs to try to influence the result, but ultimately those hurt by discrimination have the right to their day in court. 

The solution?  Stop discriminating!   Provide the services you've advertised to provide!

If You advertise yourself ( as in the Christian lodge ) as a CHRISTIAN business. There has to be an expectation of discrimination based on religious grounds.

The  solution is to stop calling yourself a victim and go to ANOTHER place that will be willing to accept your business.

[Hoodat]

Refusing to provide goods and services, is considered to be "discrimination," under federal and state laws.

Yes, I know what discrimination is.  Again, can you provide a case where someone was denied goods and/or services because of their sexual preference? Because without that, all I am seeing here is fake outrage.

[truth_seeker]

Yes, I know what discrimination is.  Again, can you provide a case where someone was denied goods and/or services because of their sexual preference? Because without that, all I am seeing here is fake outrage.

The Oregon homosexual wedding cake customers, involved with recent case(s).

Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_v._Oregon_Bureau_of_Labor_and_Industries.

[Hoodat]

The Oregon homosexual wedding cake customers, involved with recent case(s).

Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_v._Oregon_Bureau_of_Labor_and_Industries.

Ah, but they were not denied service because they were homosexual.  The bakers refused to create a product that they did not offer - a cake for a same-sex wedding.  This refusal was done without regard to the sexual preference of the customer, as the court documents clearly show.  The heterosexual mother of one of the plaintiffs was also refused a request for a same-sex wedding cake.  At no time did the bakers refuse to sell them any product because of their sexual preference.  We have been over this again and again and again and again.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Legal/BOLI%20Final%20Orders%20issued%20in%202015/Sweet_Cakes_44-14_and_45-14.pdf

[Hoodat]

The advertised service is wedding services.

Let's see the ad.  Oh, that's right.  You don't have any such ad.  You simply made it up out of thin air.

The discrimination is with respect to homosexuals who seek to marry vs. straights who seek to marry.

Uh, no.  The bakers did nothing to stand in the way of anyone getting married.  However, it should be noted that if a homosexual man chose to marry a homosexual woman, then the bakers would have made them a cake.  But then you knew that already.

No one forces a baker, photographer or facility to offer wedding services to the general public.   But if that's how you choose how you want to make your money, then you cannot discriminate.

No one forces Burger King to sell beef.  But since they do sell beef, then I can sue them for discrimination if they refuse to sell me chateaubriand.  Right?  Because that is EXACTLY what you are saying here.

Your argument is essentially that a customer can define his/herself as a protected class, can re-define the meaning of the word 'wedding' as they see fit, and then sue the baker if he does not accept that person's self-invented definition.

Simple concept.   Be true to your word.  Get off your religious high-horse and don't be a jerk.   

Religious high horse?  Moi?  Sorry pal, once again, I am not the one injecting religion into this.  You are, Mr. Bigot.  And you double down on your bigotry by elevating one class at the expense of others with zero regard for equal protection.  Religious high-horse?  Bah!

[truth_seeker]

Ah, but they were not denied service because they were homosexual.  The bakers refused to create a product that they did not offer - a cake for a same-sex wedding.  This refusal was done without regard to the sexual preference of the customer, as the court documents clearly show.  The heterosexual mother of one of the plaintiffs was also refused a request for a same-sex wedding cake.  At no time did the bakers refuse to sell them any product because of their sexual preference.  We have been over this again and again and again and again.

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/Legal/BOLI%20Final%20Orders%20issued%20in%202015/Sweet_Cakes_44-14_and_45-14.pdf

You parse it anyway that suits you. I must, on the other hand, deal with reality. When I renew my real estate license, I am not granted the latitude of interpreting things such that I can refuse services/products to racial and/or sexual orientation minorities.

You are playing the game of.... "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is." The customer went to a custom bakery, and were denied the cake of their choice.

[GrouchoTex]

Bakers, photographers and facilities owners can all freely decide whether to participate in the market for wedding services.   But if they do decide, then they are obliged to not discriminate.  That obligation to serve the general public on a non-arbitrary basis, as TS has pointed out, has existed for decades.   Why does it suddenly have some "conservatives" up in arms?   What saddens me is that it makes all of us who self-identify as conservatives look bad.   

@Jazzhead

I disagree. The problem isn't discrimination, it is the lack of consistency in these laws.Do you really believe a Muslim baker would be sued for not baking a wedding cake for a gay couple? What if it where a straight Christian couple who was refused a cake from a Muslim, or an Athiest?

@roamer_1 is correct.some pigs are more equal than others, apparently.

[Hoodat]

You parse it anyway that suits you. I must, on the other hand, deal with reality. When I renew my real estate license, I am not granted the latitude of interpreting things such that I can refuse services/products to racial and/or sexual orientation minorities.

<sigh>

Yet again, no one is refusing services/products to sexual preference minorities.

You are playing the game of.... "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is."

You are playing the game of making up your own facts.  I posted the actual court record.  You clearly ignored it.

The customer went to a custom bakery, and were denied the cake of their choice.

My cake of choice is one made out of sawdust with dogshit icing.  Do you think the bakers have the right to refuse that?  Or can I sue them for discrimination because I claim to want sex with people of my gender?  Seriously, where do you get off dictating what a baker has to make?

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1 is correct.some pigs are more equal than others, apparently.

What next will government impose and dictate to private citizens on private property. It will by no means end here.

[GrouchoTex]

What next will government impose and dictate to private citizens on private property. It will by no means end here.

Without our watchful vigilance, I have no doubt that you would be correct.
I am convinced that are some in both parties that would try to do just that.

[Victoria33]

It means one can make political statements from the pulpit, praise Trump or any Democrat without the government taking away their tax exempt status.  I recall years ago they were not allowed to say anything political at any time.

[Silver Pines]

Shop owners who post that sign discriminate against people who dress--or don't dress---in a certain manner.  (Remember, "discrimination" only recently took on a completely negative meaning).  The prospective customers who are turned away can go to another store, just as gays can go elsewhere for a cake.

[libertybele]

libertybele asked:
"The big question that immediately entered my mind is what does the E.O. mean for Sharia law and Islamic religious tradition?"

Well, it could pose a problem for those of us who are opposed to islam in all its forms.

And that's why this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Must be changed to read thus:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The followers of muhammed are specifically excluded and denied the protections of this amendment along with any and all other Constitutional protections. Neither the United States nor the Several States will offer such protections or liberties to the followers of muhammed."

Agreed; but unfortunately I see Trump's e.o. as opening a can of worms, though I definitely don't see that as his intent.

[Jazzhead]

<sigh>

Yet again, no one is refusing services/products to sexual preference minorities.

Of course they are.  The product is wedding services.   Homosexual couples cannot get the same wedding services as straight couples.   That's textbook illegal discrimination.   Same sex weddings are legal in this country.   One cannot offer wedding services - for profit to the general public - and discriminate arbitrarily.   

I understand the objection is religious.  But these are not religious marriages, only civil ones.   Again,  the refusal to provide the same services you generally provide to gay couples as you do for straight couples is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.     

My cake of choice is one made out of sawdust with dogshit icing.  Do you think the bakers have the right to refuse that?  Or can I sue them for discrimination because I claim to want sex with people of my gender?  Seriously, where do you get off dictating what a baker has to make?

There is zero logic in this statement.    This is not a demand to make a cake not otherwise on the baker's menu.   The gay couple wants the same exact wedding cake the straight couple standing ahead of them in line just ordered and the baker gladly provided.  In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case before the Supreme Court,  service was refused before there was any discussion about the design or customization of the cake.  This isn't about having to inscribe the cake with an offensive message.   This is about textbook discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.   

[Jazzhead]

Shop owners who post that sign discriminate against people who dress--or don't dress---in a certain manner.  (Remember, "discrimination" only recently took on a completely negative meaning).  The prospective customers who are turned away can go to another store, just as gays can go elsewhere for a cake.

What is proscribed is arbitrary discrimination.  A restaurant can always require its customers to wear shoes and shirts.  Indeed, a baker can refuse to inscribe a cake with an offensive message.   But you cannot refuse to offer the same product/service you generally provide to one customer as opposed to another on the basis of a proscribed arbitrary characteristic.   

[GrouchoTex]

Let see what happens when a religious baker ( Could be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim), refuses to bake a cake for an IRS or Planned Parenthood retirement party.

Should they be sued?

If so, why?

If not, neither should the baker in the gay wedding fiasco.

BTW, this is SWJ nonsense.
Does anyone think for a minute that these people weren't sought out by The SWJ types, just to be sued?

Does anyone really believe that the gay community doesn't already know which bakers and florist are gay, or at least, sympathetic to them?

Nonsense, and a violation of their first amendment rights.

[Victoria33]

Shop owners who post that sign discriminate against people who dress--or don't dress---in a certain manner.  (Remember, "discrimination" only recently took on a completely negative meaning).  The prospective customers who are turned away can go to another store, just as gays can go elsewhere for a cake.

@CatherineofAragon

Cake story:
My father was always making jokes.  He was also a good cook.  When I was a child, there was a gathering at the church and people were to bring food.  He baked a beautiful cake with fantastic icing- with dried beans in it.  We went to the gathering, and people would start to eat the cake, then try to dump it without others seeing.  He had a great time watching his cake getting dumped.  No one spoke up about the cake, they just dumped it.

[INVAR]

But you cannot refuse to offer the same product/service you generally provide to one customer as opposed to another on the basis of a proscribed arbitrary characteristic.

I do so in my business at least once, sometimes twice a week.

I retain the liberty to refuse service to anyone I choose to refuse to serve, with whatever it is they want that I provide in service to someone else.

I do not give two shits who some bureaucrat of government agency says I have to serve.  I'm not a slave of the state.  I choose not to serve homos or their agenda; or Leftists and their agenda; SJWs and their agenda; or anyone I simply do not want to do business with - even if it is simply the fact I don't like their attitude or the way they dress.

I refuse to comply with tyrants and thugs making demands.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Shop owners who post that sign discriminate against people who dress--or don't dress---in a certain manner. 

If people who do not dress in a certain manner were a protected class under the law, then "yes" those shop owners would be guilty of discrimination.  But as of today, the sign can stay without risk of penalty.

[Hoodat]

Of course they are.  The product is wedding services.   

Oh stop it already.  You have been asked for MONTHS to provide evidence of this.  MONTHS!  Yet you fail again and again and again to produce said evidence.  The truth of the matter is that you simply made it up out of thin air.  And by repeating this claim again and again against challenge after challenge, knowing full well that you don't have a shred of evidence to back it up, it makes you a liar.

Homosexual couples cannot get the same wedding services as straight couples.

Homosexual individuals can indeed get the same wedding cakes as heterosexual individuals.  And cakes not offered to homosexual individuals are also not offered to heterosexual individuals.  But then you knew that  already.

Same sex weddings are legal in this country.

They weren't in Colorado at the time.  But then you knew that already.  Yet here you are again giving an entirely false account.  There's a word for people who say things they know not to be true.

One cannot offer wedding services - for profit to the general public - .  .  .

The baker does not offer wedding services.  He bakes cakes.

I understand the objection is religious. 

The objection is Constitutional.  It has zero to do with the religious affiliation of the customers.  It has everything to do with freedom

But these are not religious marriages, only civil ones.

You do not get to decide my viewpoint.

Again,  the refusal to provide the same services you generally provide to gay couples as you do for straight couples is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Again, homosexual individuals can indeed get the same wedding cakes as heterosexual individuals.  And cakes not offered to homosexual individuals are also not offered to heterosexual individuals.  There are no 'couples' rights defined under the Constitution.

There is zero logic in this statement.    This is not a demand to make a cake not otherwise on the baker's menu.

This absolutely positively IS a demand to make a cake not otherwise on the baker's 'menu'.  The baker has been adamant about that.  He is on the record expressing this FACT to both heterosexual and homosexual customers alike.  The court records are crystal clear on that.  Yet here you are once again giving a false portrayal of events - a portrayal that you know in advance to be false.

The gay couple wants the same exact wedding cake the straight couple standing ahead of them in line just ordered and the baker gladly provided.

No, they most certainly do not.  They want the baker to sanction their event by baking a cake for a ceremony that not only does the baker not honor, but one that the State of Colorado does not sanction.  This has nothing to do with getting a cake for an event.  if that had been the case, one individual could have simply placed the order without running their mouth about having to have their same-sex marriage sanctioned in Massachusetts because of the injustice of Colorado law.

This case has never been about cakes.  This case is about forcing others to sanction something they do not believe in.  And your viewpoint on this has been clear.  If a baker wants to sell cakes for profit, then he must sanction 'gay' marriage at the point of a gun.

In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case before the Supreme Court,  service was refused before there was any discussion about the design or customization of the cake.

Service was never refused.  Never.  Only the request for a same-sex wedding cake was refused.  That request was equally refused for both a homosexual and a heterosexual individual.  But then you knew that already.

This isn't about having to inscribe the cake with an offensive message.

Congratulations.  It looks like you finally read what I posted to you EIGHT FRIGGIN' MONTHS AGO!  Of course it has nothing to do with the cake's inscription.  It has to do with the cake's purpose.

Let's say that I am a fertilizer dealer who sells ammonium nitrate fertilizer.  I sell NH₄NO₃ to farmers who want to add nitrogen to their soil in order to increase their crop yield.  One day, someone comes into my store and says they want to by some of my fertilizer in order to build an ANFO bomb.  Do I have the right to refuse to sell them NH₄NO₃ because I do not agree with the purpose for which they intend to use it?

This is about textbook discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Nope.  The court records clearly show that a request by heterosexual for a same-sex wedding cake was also refused.  Shall I post it again?