So, you can bake a cake with child pornography dipicted on it?
I do know all that. Yes, if they rule the Colorado law is unconstitutional it might not have an effect on the California law but I highly doubt it. Same sex marrige is the law of the land. 21 states have added sexual orientation to their protected classes. The Supreme Court accepted this case and I highly doubt they did so to provide narrow judgement; I assume they did it to provide proper guidance and framework.
And overturning Colorado and adopting something like this idiotic judgement you’re defending is a recipe for more court cases, not guidance.
And your “only adult in the room” shtick is wearing real real thin.
“Edged out?” In what sense? Both were ratified at the same time. (Or do you argue that because it’s the First Amendment, the Framers thought it more important?)
I can’t bake for shit.
What if the tattoo artist is a Hasidic Jew? Could he draw on gentiles all day, yet draw the line at tattooing another Hasidic Jew?
One was number 1, the others weren’t.
Irregardlessly (heh, the 1st says I can use that), were you to have the ability to do so, would you be allowed to do so?
You said it yourself, your first amendment ends at the tip of my nose, which means that even you acknowledge that the fist does not give you license to do harm to others and claim it as “free speech.”
Of course not, I can’t bake for shit.
You failed to understand the issue of the 1st Amendment related to compelling an artist to create an artistic work that offends their moral character, in this case, a wedding case. That’s the issue here, not some minimum wage hire tossing pickles on a hamburger.
We don’t need to judge either party to look at what their respective rights are. And that’s what the discussion should be here, not moaning about a decision with undesirable consequences.
==========================
I’m no one to argue. But I would support the State distinguishing between acts and institutions which would cause at most fleeting inconvenience or emotional distress to one’s reasonable neighbor, of whatever sexual orientation as opposed to acts and institutions which place one’s neighbor and his eventual children into a state equivalent to penal servitude.
You don’t equate having to go elsewhere to order a cake with being chained to a gang laboring in the hot sun day in and day out, being screamed at and whipped by an overseer, with no hope of escape, and knowing this will be your lot for the rest of your life . . . do you?
I would support, for the sake of religious liberty, the State permitting the one, but not permitting the other.
And I believe most reasonable Americans would understand the distinction, and would support the State making the distinction.
Furthermore, I would support the State forbidding any harm or inconvenience to one’s neighbor that result from doing what is simply permitted by one’s religious beliefs vs. harm or inconvenience to one’s neighbor that result from avoiding the negative precept on the one hand, and obeying the positive precept on the other . . . precept being not that is permitted, but what is commanded.
I would support the State making that distinction, too, and I believe most Americans would understand and support the State making the distinction, and enacting it into law, accordingly.
========================================
===============================
(Look, I’m not a theologian, a philosopher, or an attorney. I have thought about this issue in general a great deal, but I’m not trained or that smart, and so I don’t know how to unpack what I think and believe part of the time. Plus people around me keep interrupting me, and I have to tear myself away to go shopping or make dinner or go to bed. So you are by no means getting the best quality thought on this matter from a person of traditional faith, is what I’m getting at.)
I don’t think so. And I don’t think that most Americans would agree with these statements, either, or most judges, nor do I think such claims could be enacted into law, even if I agreed with them, which I don’t.
Not anything the baker does, but anything the baker does that would (1) engage her artistic expression, which I think may be understood as a subspecies of speech, and that would (2) foreseeably and (3) specifically facilitate the (4) celebration of the union of two men or of two women, would be an unsuitable offering to the Name of Jesus Christ.
However, this would be in effect for the State to demand that she serve all comers in anything they may desire, . . . or close her business, which amounts, in her case, to a loss of her livelihood.
I don’t agree that the State has the right to demand that a business owner choose between violating her conscience or losing her livelihood. And I don’t believe many Americans would support such a position, either. And I don’t think that if such were to be enacted into a broader law, it could pass Constitutional muster.
==============================
Not so. My arguments are very much in keeping with the mainstream of most Americans, and laws enacted that reflect these views would very much be supported by most Americans.
It is your extremist views, which steadfastly refuse to admit of distinction or nuance in resolving these questions, that would turn any such laws into “Paradise for All Bigots.” I don’t advocate laws broad enough to accomodate any such thing.
But you continue to insist that either we have “Paradise for All Bigots” or “Reduce All Business Owners to Chattels of the State,” either . . . or; and that no distinctions are possible, because no one “has the right to decide” on such matters.
Yes, they do. That’s what public opinion is for. That’s what State legislatures are for. To consider laws that consider and make such distinctions, and enact them.
====================================
Since I’ve answered so many of your questions, I’ll ask you a question in return: Can a business owner operating in a remote area of fly-over country, require that his female Muslim receptionist remove her head scarf while she’s at work, after several customers confide to him that her head scarf makes them “uncomfortable,” on pain of termination?
And your point is?
I did not fail in anyway to understand this. What is at issue is that you are trying to say that someone cannot be compelled to do anything they don’t want to do, ever, for any reason.
Unless you are trying to say that the person making hamburgers doesn’t make enough money to be afforded the same protections as someone who makes more baking cakes, I do not think that you have anything to argue here.
You are correct, there is no juegment needed. Unfortunately, the baker is judging the SS couple as offensive to her god, and therefor discriminates against them.
In your opinion the 1st amendment protections for artistic expression is absolute?
Are there any limits to how the bakers handle themselves when expressing their rights?
Is there a level of meanness the 1st amendment would not protect?
Can they subject customers to humiliating rejections and film their reactions for U-tube stardom?
Should a baker be able to put rainbow flags or other signage up that might lead gay people to attempt to do business there? Can the do this for the sole pleasure or seeing the heartbroken faces of gay people when their orders are rejected? Can they lead people on that they will fulfill the order and have a crisis on conscience later, canceling their obligation?
What about unintentional conflicts of conscience. Wedding cerimony’s and cakes are often planned out months in advance. If a baker is planning to prepare the cake a few days before the wedding so it’s fresh, but doesn’t realize the Pat&Sue wedding is actually two men, is it right to tell them "Sorry I’m only giving you a days notice, but I can’t make your cake for religious reasons. You’ll have to find someone else’? How about in an instance where one of their staff takes the order, if the order has been placed and paid for, can the state still not compel the service of a binding contract?
Yeah, no worries. Niggling point, not worth pursuing. Suffice to say that the First, while certainly, well, first, holds no more force of law than the rest of the Constitution.
.
Did you have a question?
In Example 1. The two students are (correctly) stating that the America-hating fuckstick’s policies are metaphorically indistinguishable from deliberately lowering the American flag into a vat of raw sewage. That flag needs burning no less than the ground-touching one in Example 2.
Several actually. You quoted them.
Do you care to offer an answer for any of them? What’s your opinion of the various situations and how should our laws apply?
I really don’t want bother playing “what if.”
Sorry.
I understand.
Seems an odd position for you considering earlier in the thread you were comfortable asking others to answer your hypotheticals.
You might have gotten a bite if you hadn’t done a hypothetical question avalanche.
In English orthography, a sentence ending with this symbol – “”?" – denotes a question. There are several of these glyphs in boytyperanma’s post, so if the post uses traditionally-accepted orthgraphic rules, there are several questions contained in it. Hope that helps.
I’m envisioning a sheet cake tarted up to look like a cheap motel. On the base, you place little figurines of Chris Hansen and a camera crew knocking on the door of one of the rooms.
Would that count?