-
Of course. We already allow some amount of bigotry. I can have a “no white people allowed” policy in my home or private club. Perfectly legal. Your argument is the slippery slope fallacy in that if we permit bakers to discriminate against gays, it will be like the 1950 Jim Crow south again.
-
A bit more than hurt feelings? Not really. That’s the only issue I can see. Nothing at all stopped those guys from getting a cake elsewhere.
-
The 14th amendment only applies to government action, not to this type of private action.
-
Of course it is special treatment. I can exclude child molesters, convicted felons, fat people, skinny people, ugly people, Cleveland fans, and none of those people can complain even though they will have been treated unfairly and their dignity will be impacted. It’s only when you are on the list of favored groups can you complain.
And just what groups would be on this “list”?
Bonus if you include the legislation / SCotUS rulings that created this “list”.
CMC fnord!
No, it’s recognizing the reality of “public accommodations” under the law. You wish to allow bigotry to return to public accommodations. The law has been against you for over half a century, though, and it may be time to reflect upon why.
Unless the next bakery, and the next, etc. decided to indulge bigotry too. The Civil Rights Act was passed for real reasons, including that one.
Irrelevant; already established (well-established) that a commercial establishment is a place of public accommodation, and the relevant laws apply.
For a group to be treated the same as those whom you are *not *bigoted against is *special *treatment? :dubious: Um, no, that ain’t how it goes. Nice shot comparing gays to child molesters, btw - it helps illustrate the reasons we have the laws we do.
There are those who would very much like to return to the 1950’s, and it does require constant vigilance on the part of those who do not want that sort of return. Equality is an uphill battle. In order to slide down that slope, we just have to stop fighting for it. The bigots are treating this court case as a win.
That’s a good enough reason to not have any public accomodation laws, isn’t it? Just because I refuse to serve you, doesn’t mean that there is anything stopping you from going somewhere else, right?
Special treatment is when you treat someone differently, whether for better or for worse, not when you treat someone the same as you would treat all others. It is not because someone is on the list of protected classes that they can complain, it is that they were discriminated against because they were in a protected class that they can complain.
You can refuse to serve a black female homosexual because she is a cleveland fan, but not because she is black, female, or homosexual. I can even complain if I am discriminated against for being a straight white male, unlikely as that is. I don’t have to be “on the list” to complain.
I think UltraVires that you are completely missing the point. The ruling was NEVER about the law but about the process. Think of it this way, suppose I refuse to put my kids in public school* because of my religious beliefs. Did I violate the law? Maybe yes maybe no (1st Amendment protection?). But if in the trial the Judge goes on a tirade about my religious beliefs calling them despicable and that by beliefs condone the Holocaust then it is fair to say I did not get a fair trial from the State because of my religious beliefs and thus that my conviction should be overturned without even addressing did I violate the law or not.
*And do not homeschool them as an alternative.
I’m uncertain whether he believes that non-discrimination only applies to minorities or not. He kind of appears to be suggesting that but it doesn’t seem definite from what he’s posted.
He’d be right if the government as government were mandating that he, has a private citizen, do this.
But the government AS EMPLOYER has the legitimate power to require this of their employees.
But this is not 100%. For example, when questioning employees about criminal acts, a school district still acts as a government agency and because of this needs to follow the Constitution as per Garrity.
From your link:
:dubious: So now “religious freedom” demands that a school employee be allowed to ignore the students’ and their parents’ choices about the students’ name/identity?
I thought US conservatives were so about schools’ respecting the rights of parents to maintain control over their children’s school environment? When it’s a question of keeping kids out of sex education or evolution classes, for instance, conservatives sure do make a big old fuss about how parental authority should be paramount.
But when what the parents want is recognition of the kid’s preferred gender identity, all of a sudden disregarding the parents’ decisions is an unassailable religious liberty? LOL yeah okay.
Can you explain a bit more what you mean by this? I don’t understand how an employer can force an employee to do something that goes against their religious beliefs.
South Dakota lawmaker endorses turning customers away because of their race.
Just examples of what can happen when you let people claim a right to act as they please because of a commandment from their deeply held religious belief in the Church of Me.
They can’t force you to violate your religious beliefs because you can always quit the job. But they can absolutely force you to choose between your religious beliefs and your job. Religious beliefs of employees have to be accommodated to a certain extent which depends on factors such as how large a burden will the accomodation place on the business, will the accommodation violate other people’s rights etc.
Let’s change the teacher’s religious belief to a different one. Let’s say his religious beliefs prohibit him from being in a room with a woman who is menstruating. How does a high school accommodate that for a music teacher without causing an undue burden or infringing on anyone else’s rights?
Even in the case of the same-sex wedding vendors , there's a reason it's always the photographer or the baker vs a government agency. It's never the baker suing the guy who owns the bakery - because if I own the bakery, I am not required to refuse to sell wedding cakes to same sex couples because of the baker's religious beliefs. If I have multiple bakers and at least one is willing, I may have to assign all of those cakes to the willing bakers, but if I have only one baker, I don't have to change my business to accommodate him.
Theocracy is an evil concept. It doesn’t matter how good your god is, it doesn’t matter how benevolent your religion is. The desire to see your religion enacted by others IS the evil.
The gay guys don’t want you to participate in their religion, or in their bedroom. It’s exactly the same as “I’m sorry, we don’t serve black people” - “That’s OK, I don’t eat black people, I’d just like a piece of chicken”.
“We don’t want your kind around here” is a direct contradiction of what the United States is all about.
That’s why I asked … and it’s tiring to see the sheer number of people that need to have it explained to them that they are a part of every protected group.
It isn’t blackness that’s protected, it’s race, everyone has a race.
It isn’t womaness that’s protected, it’s gender, everyone has a gender.
It isn’t Jewishness that’s protected, it’s religious belief, everyone has a protected one…even atheists.
And one day soon it won’t be ‘gayness’ that’s protected, it’ll will be sexual orientation, and everyone has one of those too.
CMC fnord!
Thanks for the reply. I was thinking of cases I heard of where Muslims didn’t have to drive an a truck with alcohol in it (not picking on Muslims or anything, just one that I had heard of). I don’t understand how that is different than this teacher.
I don’t believe this is correct (Bricker can correct me if I’m wrong). The government can create generic rules that incidentally affect religious people, but it can’t make rules targeted at religious people. The rule about names and pronouns are not aimed at religious people, but if the government made a rule that no crucifix-type jewelry was allowed, that would target Christians and would not be allowed. The usually “unless there is a compelling interest” rule applies, too. Any law or rule that targets religion would have pass strict scrutiny, just like any rule or law that targeted race.
But it can be a demonstrable potential harm. It doesn’t have to have happened yet. It is not necessary for someone to be murdered first before murder is deemed to be a bad thing that should be illegal. And as already has been shown, your approach leads directly and immediately to much greater demonstrable harms, so there is already a strong justification for it.
I agree. Too bad this has nothing to do with the situation. No one is legally requiring the baker to be nice or tolerant.
Thank you for providing a textbook example of “special pleading”. By your argument petty theft shouldn’t be illegal because the harm done is minimal.
For that matter, who are you to say what level of harm has been done to homosexual couples being discriminated against? Doesn’t the harm done to the baker equate to mere “hurt feelings” far more than the harm done to customers actively denied service?
Er, no. You are arguing that X amount of discrimination is fine, and Y amount of discrimination is not fine, even though X and Y are on the same continuum and there is no clear delineation between the two except in degree, and you are blatantly avoiding providing your own arbitrary line. The law is more consistent; protected classes are discrete and clearly defined. They are not comparable arguments.
So I will ask you again:
-
Where do you draw the boundary that says “Past this point - but no closer - your rights have been violated”?
-
Should we have a government-approved list of essentials that store owners are required to sell to everyone, and anything else is discretionary?
Until you can answer these questions, your argument has no merit.
I thought in Locke v. Davey the supreme court said not all religious questions before the court require strict scrutiny?
Ah, good point. In that case there was tension between the Free Exercise and the Establishment clauses.