One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Conservatives Appear to Want it Both Ways
Page <<first <prev 5 of 13 next> last>>
May 24, 2020 00:00:30   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
He serves the general public. He was prejudice, which was against a constitutional right, the fourteenth amendment. This religious clause is BS simply put, it opens the pandora's box to allow people to defy that right any time they choose for any reason they choose. It is clearly undermining our constitution, and the only reason you're all for it is that you are just as prejudice. It makes me feel that Christians should not be served under the atheist's right against religion... that work for ya?
He serves the general public. He was prejudice, wh... (show quote)

You're right. And atheist baker should not be forced to bake a religious cake for Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any other religion.
If you wish to force a Christian baker bake a custom cake for a gay wedding, why not try go force a Muslim baker to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding?

Reply
May 24, 2020 00:14:26   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Regardless of new laws or SCOTUS' ruling one way or the other, Article I, section 9, clause 3 of theU.S. Constitution specifically forbids Ex Post Facto federal laws.

But at the state level Ex Post Facto is regularly used to decriminalize some actions (like possession of small amounts of marijuana) that occurred in the past when the actions were illegal.

An interesting use at the state level.

Even the federal government can do this by, saying for example the possession of small amounts of marijuana are no longer illegal. Then choosing not to prosecute those who were charged prior to the change in law. Even states are prohibited from changing the law to make a legal activity illegal, then retroactively prosecuting anyone for that activity before it became illegal.

Reply
May 24, 2020 02:25:42   #
WEBCO
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Lynching is illegal, regardless of the religious views of the proprietor of the bakery. In any case, if the baker made lynching cakes for white people they would be obligated to make them for everyone, people of color, Muslims, Neo-N**is. That is what is at issue under public accommodation laws.

What Masterpiece cake could have done is hire someone else to bake and decorate the cake, thereby absolving himself of participation. He even could have donated the proceeds of that cake to a charity.
Lynching is illegal, regardless of the religious v... (show quote)

Or they could have gone to a different bakery, one that wasn't owned by someone with religious convictions. This bakery has been targeted to try and force him to either give up his own religious beliefs or put him out of business. He has been asked to violate his beliefs on three separate occasions now. He won the first two attacks and will win this one as well. It would be nice if the courts started to put the people fileing these frivolous lawsuits in jail for contempt of court.
I have ask why do you think someone has the right to force this person to do something that they obviously have a moral and religious objection to?

Reply
 
 
May 24, 2020 03:42:05   #
Cuda2020
 
dtucker300 wrote:
I agree with your analysis 100%. However, in reference to the Phillips case, how can a law that retroactively makes something illegal be applied to something that was legal when it occurred? How will this apply to the bakers since the SCOTUS has already ruled?



It is shall we say a sticky situation, I believe due to the timing. When the order was placed in 2012, the state legally did not recognize gay marriages, which they do now, but nevertheless the baker was still fundamentally biased. The supreme court majority is presently more conservative, so who knows the end result based on appeals.

The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."

But...The Court issued its ruling on June 4, 2018, ordering a reversal of the decision made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. There you have it, a decision based mostly from a republican based rule.

This will be a landmark mistake. IMO This religious complaint will be used every time as an excuse to allow people to be prejudice.

Reply
May 24, 2020 03:53:31   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
It is shall we say a sticky situation, I believe due to the timing. When the order was placed in 2012, the state legally did not recognize gay marriages, which they do now, but nevertheless the baker was still fundamentally bias. The supreme court majority is presently more conservative, so who knows the end result based on appeals.

The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."

But...The Court issued its ruling on June 4, 2018, ordering a reversal of the decision made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. There you have it, a decision based mostly from a republican based rule.

This will be a landmark mistake. IMO
It is shall we say a sticky situation, I believe d... (show quote)

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found in favor of the plaintiffs. They are an activist commission working on an agenda. Not to say the ideals are not admirable, but they are not impartial arbiters. Regulations and laws passed by legislative bodies cannot trump the Constitution.

Reply
May 24, 2020 04:06:38   #
Cuda2020
 
Kickaha wrote:
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found in favor of the plaintiffs. They are an activist commission working on an agenda. Not to say the ideals are not admirable, but they are not impartial arbiters. Regulations and laws passed by legislative bodies cannot trump the Constitution.


If you look at the case both sides have advocates representing them.

We are a country of many religions, if we start putting religious beliefs above our laws we're going down a rabbit hole I don't think we want to go down.

For me, this goes to, since when does a personal belief, religious or otherwise, go along as an attachment to a good/product being sold? Personally, if someone didn't want to make me a cake I'd say F'em.

I believe the colorado commissioners were going by the letter of the law, to not be biased, unlike the SCOTUS, in favor of Christianity. Will they be as generous if something arises with say a Muslim?

A line is being crossed here that I see will later bite them in the arse.

Reply
May 24, 2020 04:27:57   #
Cuda2020
 
Kickaha wrote:
You're right. And atheist baker should not be forced to bake a religious cake for Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any other religion.
If you wish to force a Christian baker bake a custom cake for a gay wedding, why not try go force a Muslim baker to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding?


What your missing here is you're in the business of baking a cake and selling to the public, and not putting moral judgments on your customers. If he is a Christian, he is not promoting a gay wedding by selling a cake, he is simply selling a cake. Is his deranged thinking going to dictate to the rest of us? If he is obeying the law then how would God judge him? He will judge the gay couple, not the baker. JMO

Reply
 
 
May 24, 2020 05:10:44   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
What your missing here is you're in the business of baking a cake and selling to the public, and not putting moral judgments on your customers. If he is a Christian, he is not promoting a gay wedding by selling a cake, he is simply selling a cake. Is his deranged thinking going to dictate to the rest of us? If he is obeying the law then how would God judge him? He will judge the gay couple, not the baker. JMO


He didn't say he wouldn't bake a cake for them. He said he wouldn't do a custom cake for them. I don't know your occupation, but let's say you are a baker. Would you bake a custom cake celebrating Trump's ree******n? How about one celebrating Hitler's birthday? If you are selling a product I would expect you to treat all customers equally. As someone who does custom work along with generic work, I would expect you to sell a generic product to everybody but that would would have the right to refuse custom products.

Reply
May 24, 2020 10:12:20   #
Rose42
 
Since the OP meme is disingenuous to begin with here is one in the same vein.



Reply
May 24, 2020 10:30:52   #
Cuda2020
 
Rose42 wrote:
Since the OP meme is disingenuous to begin with here is one in the same vein.


Perfect, this is the epitome of the right and you, once again, not getting it.

Reply
May 24, 2020 10:32:12   #
Rose42
 
Barracuda2020 wrote:
Perfect, this is the epitome of the right and you, once again, not getting it.


You are too much. People get it but it looks like you don't. Get over yourself.

Reply
 
 
May 24, 2020 10:33:45   #
Cuda2020
 
Lt. Rob Polans ret. wrote:
He (Phillips) didn't have billions of dollars they did. That simple.


Yeah he did, he had a Christion group advocate.

Reply
May 24, 2020 10:34:05   #
Seth
 
Kickaha wrote:
He didn't say he wouldn't bake a cake for them. He said he wouldn't do a custom cake for them. I don't know your occupation, but let's say you are a baker. Would you bake a custom cake celebrating Trump's ree******n? How about one celebrating Hitler's birthday? If you are selling a product I would expect you to treat all customers equally. As someone who does custom work along with generic work, I would expect you to sell a generic product to everybody but that would would have the right to refuse custom products.
He didn't say he wouldn't bake a cake for them. He... (show quote)


Very well said.

Reply
May 24, 2020 10:34:45   #
Seth
 
Rose42 wrote:
Since the OP meme is disingenuous to begin with here is one in the same vein.



Reply
May 24, 2020 10:38:09   #
Cuda2020
 
Rose42 wrote:
You are too much. People get it but it looks like you don't. Get over yourself.


No, you don't, and neither does the dumbass actor. Wearing a mask during a p******c has nothing to do with being bias under race, religion, g****r, or homosexuality or t*********r who are protected under our constitutional rights.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 13 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.