US Supreme Court backs business that refused service to same-sex couple

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I was asked to provide some evidence (easy to do) where homosexuality is condemned in the Bible or other texts.

Nope. Sookie claimed that there was nothing in the Abrahamic texts that condemned female homosexuality.

You claimed otherwise, and have yet to provide a single citation backing up your position.

So, there is NOTHING - so far - in any of the Abrahamic texts that condemns female homosexual relations.

Easy as far as I am concerned.

Anything is easy when all you have to do is move the goalposts.

When homosexuality is condemned it's rather absurd to argue male homosexuality is what is condemned and female is allowed.

What is absurd is to claim that a text that specifically condemns male homosexuality and only male homosexuality magically applies to females as well.

The rest is mental gymnastics from your part and semantics.

Gymnastics? It is called simple reading comprehension.

You can argue as much as you like but the evidence is quite clear.

And yet you are unable to present any. Yep, it's clear all right - clear as mud.

I am afraid you're wrong again.

I was asked to provide some evidence much earlier than this on whether homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and I did. That's easy.

There is nothing in the Bible that celebrates homosexuality or endorses it. Either its male or female. I never made any distinction between male and female homosexuality. Nor I will ever do given the position of all major religions on the topic.

It's absurd to claim Christianity or Islam condemn male homosexuality and endorse and encourage female homosexuality. It's just laughable.

If you can find me any passage endorsing and encouraging female homosexuality or homosexuality in general.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I am afraid you've confused your arguments after following the ever expanding claims by other posters (moving the goalposts in a few words)

a reply to: tanstaafl

Sure... right after you,,,

I've already given you two examples of discrimination to show why certain groups of people require government protection in order to access public accommodations. They had to do with lunch counters and the location of seats on a bus. Are you advocating to going back to discrimination under the guise of "separate but equal"?

... provide the citation in the US Constitution that specifically delegates to the federal government the power to tell private businesses who they have to serve and/or hire.

Again, that would be the 14th Amendment and the "Equal Protection Clause".

But you have it backwards. The government doesn't dictate who a public accommodation has to serve or hire, it protects the members of the public who a public accomodation business owner would discriminate against.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I was asked to provide some evidence much earlier than this on whether homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and I did.

Irrelevant. I responded directly to your response challenging Sookie's claim that no Abrahamic texts included women in their condemnation of homosexuality.

So, it is actually you that is wrong, although I'm now quite certain you'll never concede the point. So what does that say about you?

There is nothing in the Bible that celebrates homosexuality or endorses it. Either its male or female.

True, but irrelevant.

There is also nothing condemning female homosexuality. Get over it.

I never made any distinction between male and female homosexuality.

Not until you challenged Sookie's claim that female homosexuality was not condemned in any of the Abrahamic texts.

It's absurd to claim Christianity or Islam condemn male homosexuality and endorse and encourage female homosexuality. It's just laughable.

Strawman much?

No one, myself included ever made such a claim.

If you can find me any passage endorsing and encouraging female homosexuality or homosexuality in general.

Why? I never claimed there were any, and I'm quite sure it doesn't exist - well, except maybe in some of the Church of Satan texts maybe...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
I've already given you two examples of discrimination

Both of which were the result of laws imposed by DEMOCRATS.

Again, that would be the 14th Amendment and the "Equal Protection Clause"

Nice try at deflecting..

The only pertinent text would e be:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I don't see anything there that delegates a federal power to 'regulate private businesses' with regard to who they can hire or serve, or refuse to hire and/or serve.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I was asked to provide some evidence much earlier than this on whether homosexuality is condemned in the Bible and I did.

Irrelevant. I responded directly to your response challenging Sookie's claim that no Abrahamic texts included women in their condemnation of homosexuality.

So, it is actually you that is wrong, although I'm now quite certain you'll never concede the point. So what does that say about you?

There is nothing in the Bible that celebrates homosexuality or endorses it. Either its male or female.

True, but irrelevant.

There is also nothing condemning female homosexuality. Get over it.

I never made any distinction between male and female homosexuality.

Not until you challenged Sookie's claim that female homosexuality was not condemned in any of the Abrahamic texts.

It's absurd to claim Christianity or Islam condemn male homosexuality and endorse and encourage female homosexuality. It's just laughable.

Strawman much?

No one, myself included ever made such a claim.

If you can find me any passage endorsing and encouraging female homosexuality or homosexuality in general.

Why? I never claimed there were any, and I'm quite sure it doesn't exist - well, except maybe in some of the Church of Satan texts maybe...

Again you're wrong. I never made any distinction between male or female homosexuality. I stated that in all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin and I gave some passages from the Bible. I don't think I will make any distinction because I don't see any and the position of all three religions are known.

The question asked by someone else much earlier. I gave examples. Then Sookie came across and asked about female homosexuality. But I never made any distinction. I don't think there is any passage endorsing or accepting homosexuality, especially female homosexuality.

You have got your arguments confused.

Adding something more. After condemnation of male homosexuality in the passages I gave given (including calls for the death of participants) then the logical conclusion is to assume female homosexuality is fine?!

You may want to see this kind of absurdity crested by these flawed logic...

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: Sookiechacha
The protected class status only protects the right to have reasonable services offered.

I would only add that, even allowing that there is a Constitutionally delegated power - which I dispute - as long as there are other insert-business-class-here businesses offering said services to some so-called protected class, then there is no basis to enforce anti-discrimination laws against any business owner engaging in such discrimination.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Both of which were the result of laws imposed by DEMOCRATS.

LOL Nice try at deflecting!

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Who do you think enforced segregation at that infamous privately owned, "Whites Only" lunch counter?

Isn't it wonderful how the Supreme Court works? That we don't necessarily leave our fate in 200 or 2,000 year old documents. But instead use a group of contemporary learned individuals to interpret what those texts mean to us in contemporary society.

In the last decade the Supreme Court ruled on cases in favor of the LGBTQ community and made clear how they should be protected from the teriony of the majority.

Now they ruled on a case in favor of the religious comunity and are making it clear that they should also be protected from the teriony of the majority.

Seems consistent and a moraly correct set of decisions to me.

And here we have individuals on ATS complaining that the Supreme Court does not rule in lock step with their personal individual opinions. SMH.

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
Again you're wrong.

About what, exactly?

You do realize that failure to quote precisely and specifically is a great way to try to muddy the waters and hide your failed arguments, right?

I never made any distinction between male or female homosexuality.

You never offered it, but you argued that they were both included in the meaning of the condemnations in the Abrahamic texts... which you have now been proven to be wring about.

I don't think there is any passage endorsing or accepting homosexuality, especially female homosexuality.

There doesn't have to be.

There are also no passages endorsing or accepying basket weaving as being moral. Does that mean all basket weavers are sinning and should be put to death?

You have got your arguments confused.[/quote[
You are the confused one my friend.

After condemnation of male homosexuality in the passages I gave given (including calls for the death of participants) then the logical conclusion is to assume female homosexuality is fine?!

Seeing as it was not condemned, yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

You may want to see this kind of absurdity crested by these flawed logic...

The flawed logic is all yours.

originally posted by: dandandat2
Isn't it wonderful how the Supreme Court works? That we don't necessarily leave our fate in 200 or 2,000 year old documents. But instead use a group of contemporary learned individuals to interpret what those texts mean to us in contemporary society.

In the last decade the Supreme Court ruled on cases in favor of the LGBTQ community and made clear how they should be protected from the teriony of the majority.

Now they ruled on a case in favor of the religious comunity and are making it clear that they should also be protected from the teriony of the majority.

Seems consistent and a moraly correct set of decisions to me.

And here we have individuals on ATS complaining that the Supreme Court does not rule in lock step with their personal individual opinions. SMH.

My stance is that they should not be making those decisions because even they are a polarized entity.

Dark Money and the Courts, an interesting read.

www.acslaw.org...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

You're clutching at the straws again.

I didn't make any distinction as it's clear what the passages say. Condemnation and even the death penalty. It will be absurd to make distinctions. No evidence exists anywhere in the scriptures that female homosexuality is allowed, endorsed, or encouraged.

Your logic is flawed or the attempts let's say to argue about matters that are not correct by any standards.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dandandat2
Isn't it wonderful how the Supreme Court works? That we don't necessarily leave our fate in 200 or 2,000 year old documents. But instead use a group of contemporary learned individuals to interpret what those texts mean to us in contemporary society.

In the last decade the Supreme Court ruled on cases in favor of the LGBTQ community and made clear how they should be protected from the teriony of the majority.

Now they ruled on a case in favor of the religious comunity and are making it clear that they should also be protected from the teriony of the majority.

Seems consistent and a moraly correct set of decisions to me.

And here we have individuals on ATS complaining that the Supreme Court does not rule in lock step with their personal individual opinions. SMH.

My stance is that they should not be making those decisions because even they are a polarized entity.

No system or law can be perfect.

When the many sides of the country have honest differences of opinion something needs to arbitrate; a body made of 9 individuals opinionated to the postion by the multiple representatives elected by the people is one of the better systems humans have invented.

No ruling can be perfect eather; the system is designed to creat a more perfecr union over time ... a fact we seem to forget in our increasingly "me" oriented and instant gratifying society.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dandandat2
Isn't it wonderful how the Supreme Court works? That we don't necessarily leave our fate in 200 or 2,000 year old documents. But instead use a group of contemporary learned individuals to interpret what those texts mean to us in contemporary society.

In the last decade the Supreme Court ruled on cases in favor of the LGBTQ community and made clear how they should be protected from the teriony of the majority.

Now they ruled on a case in favor of the religious comunity and are making it clear that they should also be protected from the teriony of the majority.

Seems consistent and a moraly correct set of decisions to me.

And here we have individuals on ATS complaining that the Supreme Court does not rule in lock step with their personal individual opinions. SMH.

My stance is that they should not be making those decisions because even they are a polarized entity.

No system or law can be perfect.

When the many sides of the country have honest differences of opinion something needs to arbitrate; a body made of 9 individuals opinionated to the postion by the multiple representatives elected by the people is one of the better systems humans have invented.

No ruling can be perfect eather; the system is designed to creat a more perfecr union over time ... a fact we seem to forget in our increasingly "me" oriented and instant gratifying society.

Yes, I agree but there may be more than meets the eye here. Please read what this Senator suspects is going on.

www.acslaw.org...

a reply to: quintessentone

Liberal politicians don't like the "current" more conservative make up of the SCOTUS and are bemoaning that fact?

"Dog bights man" is not a news worthy headline... neither is "Liberal Politician pontificating over Conservative judges"

The liberals will have another bite at the apple; thats one of the benefits of our system of governance. Individuals just need to get over themselves and accept that they live in a society made up of a lot of different opinions.

originally posted by: dandandat2
a reply to: quintessentone

Liberal politicians don't like the "current" more conservative make up of the SCOTUS and are bemoaning that fact?

"Dog bights man" is not a news worthy headline... neither is "Liberal Politician pontificating over Conservative judges"

The liberals will have another bite at the apple; thats one of the benefits of our system of governance. Individuals just need to get over themselves and accept that they live in a society made up of a lot of different opinions.

Imagine letting the people decide and not the supreme court as in a referendum.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dandandat2
a reply to: quintessentone

Liberal politicians don't like the "current" more conservative make up of the SCOTUS and are bemoaning that fact?

"Dog bights man" is not a news worthy headline... neither is "Liberal Politician pontificating over Conservative judges"

The liberals will have another bite at the apple; thats one of the benefits of our system of governance. Individuals just need to get over themselves and accept that they live in a society made up of a lot of different opinions.

Imagine letting the people decide and not the supreme court as in a referendum.

We allow for referendums. But our system does not seek to serve only the majority opinions, which is what you get with referendums. Our system also seeks to protect the minority from the teriony of the majority; which is why we have all the other checks and balances.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

LOL Nice try at deflecting!

Are you denying that the democrat controlled governments in the southern states did not have Jim Crow laws mandating segregation?

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Who do you think enforced segregation at that infamous privately owned, "Whites Only" lunch counter?

The local, democrat controlled state/municipal governments that were enforcing State laws passed by democrat controlled State and local governments.

To quote yourself...

a reply to: tanstaafl

Are you denying that the democrat controlled governments in the southern states did not have Jim Crow laws mandating segregation?

You're deflecting.

But sure, good for you! Jim Crow Laws are a good example of why the 14th Amendment is important, and how some groups of people need to be protected from those who would violate their basic Constitutional rights.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: dandandat2
a reply to: quintessentone

Liberal politicians don't like the "current" more conservative make up of the SCOTUS and are bemoaning that fact?

"Dog bights man" is not a news worthy headline... neither is "Liberal Politician pontificating over Conservative judges"

The liberals will have another bite at the apple; thats one of the benefits of our system of governance. Individuals just need to get over themselves and accept that they live in a society made up of a lot of different opinions.

Imagine letting the people decide and not the supreme court as in a referendum.

We allow for referendums. But our system does not seek to serve only the majority opinions, which is what you get with referendums. Our system also seeks to protect the minority from the teriony of the majority; which is why we have all the other checks and balances.

I guess you are right neither way works, either the majority rule or the SCOTUS are bought and the minority rule.