Maybe she thought she was being edgy, or something?
She has made multiple posts in this thread that have led me to believe she hasn’t read the court decision this thread is about. So option 1 seems likely.
In general we try to stick to the topic the thread is based on. In this case it is, " California Judge Rules Making a Cake is “Artistic Expression” - Denies LGBT Discrimination Claim". So we discuss that case and note that it is a free speech case.
Of course the discussions can drift and we could talk about whether this is better done as a free exercise case but mostly it’ll drift back to the case at hand because we can point to the ruling.
If you want to talk about this in the context of religious freedom how it touches on the “free exercise” portion of the constitution and if these cases are better argued on that standard you may get better results in a new thread dedicated to that discussion.
Most of the hypotheticals thrown out so far are merely meant to illustrate how bizarre things can get if this judge’s ruling stands.
Two points, above the u.
I do think that as soon as some restaurant owner in alabama hears about this, he will take it as a right to start holding out his strongly held religious convictions that white people shouldn’t eat in the same room as black people. Not Alabama the state, but individuals who will take any excuse they can take to discriminate against those they hate.
If this decision is held up, then the next step is to push one step further and further. I do think the entire point of these cases is to try to pick holes in the Civil Rights Act.
that’s, umm, alot!
Now someone has to feed it and care for it. Thanks for bringing another Alot to the world.
But they are so cute!
Be alert. The world needs more lerts.
This wasn’t a final decision. The judge just denied a preliminary injunction.
There have been posts in this thread that have led me to believe that this was the case. I’d be very grateful for a citation as to whether or not this is so.
Because if it IS so, then THIS
strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme.
Hmm. Maybe they should have told her that one of them is really a transgendered MAN, so it’s not a SSM. :dubious:
You are mixing up multiple different disconnected concepts.
There is fluidity in sexual orientation, yes. But that basically* refers to individuals who are not usually attracted to one gender finding exceptions. For example, a girl who is usually straight may find this one girl they think is so hot that they’d have sex with her. That’s fluid sexuality.
What it is not is the ability to willfully change one’s sexual orientation. All current attempts at such have failed, and instead seem to actually harm the participants’ mental wellbeing. It is conceivably possible this could change, but all signs point that this sexual orientation is immutable.
But, even if it isn’t entirely immutable, it’s still an inherent characteristic. People do not choose their orientation. It’s conceivable that a black person could paint their skin to look like a white person and pretend to be white, and thus not face anti-black racism. But that doesn’t make it okay to discriminate based on race. You can’t tell black people that they have to change into white people to get civil rights. Nor can you tell a gay person they have to become straight to get civil rights.
Sex and sexuality are not being conflated. It is just that a lot of the rules about not discriminating based on sex can be applied in such a way that discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation is actually discriminating against them because of their sex. With gay marriage, it’s easy: if the sex of the participants were different, the marriage would be acceptable.
Finally, sex, as it is usually defined, is basically immutable. Sex is defined by genetics: whether one is XX, XY, or something else. Barring some alteration in the future that can change genetics, sex is immutable. It is gender, both in the form of gender roles and gender identity, that is not immutable.
So, while sexuality can be fluid, it is still immutable for all intents and purposes.
[sub]*Yes, I know it’s more complicated than that, but I’m keeping things simple here. The following paragraph is strictly correct.[/sub]
But if they HAD already designed it, the issue of compulsory acts of artistic expression ought to be rendered irrelevant. As a non-law-talking guy, my sense is that the judge should explain why he believes it hasn’t been.
Any law-talking guys care to do me a solid and educate me on whether I’m mistaken, and if so, why?
Point of Order: There’s no such thing as an undecorated peanut butter cookie. Flattening them with the back of a dinner fork is, per se, decoration.
Waitaminute–did you think I was comparing you to Nazis? You really really misunderstood the analogy, then: I was helping you out by putting your position (i.e., the baker) in the position of resisting Nazis. My analogy is problematic in huge part because it analogizes happy gay couple to a Neonazi, which is a shitty comparison.
Seriously, is this what you thought was going on, that I was comparing you to a Nazi? If not, why on earth do you think this was a mean thing for me to do?
So you admit here that you’d trade away the right of interracial couples to be served without regard to their race in order to protect bakers from the horrors of selling a cake to gay people. I’m not willing to risk a return of sundown towns, even for “non-vital” services, for this indecipherable (to me, at least) concern by bakers that selling cakes to certain couples violates their conscience. It’s not even a hard decision for me. Maybe it’s because my wife and I aren’t the same race, and had we married a handful of decades before, we could have been jailed.
On a moral and philosophical note, any deity who would punish you or anyone for selling a cake to a gay couple is not a deity worth respecting, much less obeying and worshiping.
Try this: say I enter a bakery and tell the proprietor I want a wedding cake — you know, the sort of cake that’s actually a tall stack of cakes, and I want each of those cakes festooned with little red frosting roses hinting at the strawberry filling inside, with icing used to write on top: WALDO AND ASHLEY.
Is it your assertion that the baker gets to reply “I’ll make that exact cake for you if Ashley is a woman, but not if Ashley is a man; is Ashley a woman?”
Is it your assertion that the baker gets to reply “I’ll make that exact cake for you if Ashley is white, but not if Ashley is black; is Ashley white?”
If your point is that a preliminary injunction isn’t a “decision”, then that’s a semantic quibble about terms of art. The judge made a decision in denying an injunction in this case. He also expressed an opinion and reasonings in his “decision” to deny a preliminary junction.
At least it’s not umlaut.