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

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: tanstaafl
I didn't make any distinction

No, you didn't, you incorrectly ass-u-me-d that the condemnation of homosexual acts included homosexual acts between two women, when in fact they expressly didn't even though they easily could have.

as it's clear what the passages say.

Correct. It is crystal clear.

Condemnation and even the death penalty.

Yep.

It will be absurd to make distinctions.

Yeah... except, each and every one of the numerous passages that condemn it do precisely that.

Here, I'll make it easy for you. in that link, I challenge you to find me one - just one - example of where it does [b[]u]not make a crystal clear distinction that the only thing being condemned is male homosexuality, but expressly avoids condemning female homosexuali8ty, where it easily could have condemned them both simultaneously.

They expressly forbid male homosexuality, while expressly differentiating between men and women by including the word "woman" within the texts (man shall not lie with a man as with a woman

No evidence exists anywhere in the scriptures that female homosexuality is allowed, endorsed, or encouraged.

You are correct that nowhere in the scriptures does it endorse, encourage or expressly allow it - just like it doesn't endorse, encourage or expressly allow basket weaving.

You are absolutely and demonstrably 100% wrong that there is no evidence that it doesn't allow it. The proof does require some minimal capacity for rational, logical thought, so you may not be able to grasp the following, but what the hell, give it a try.

There is a legal maxim that says "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed."

The fact that every single reference in all of the Abrahamic/Biblical references condemning homosexuality condemn only male homosexuality, even going so far as using women in the texts as a reference only to make it clear they are talking about sexual acts, while clearly and expressly not condemning female homosexuality very clearly means that female homosexuality is not condemned, therefore it is allowed, and is not sinful.

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

Rotflmao! As usual, you have it backwards... you are the one clutching at strawmen... and you know something else? I'm beginning to suspect that you are just jealous that women can engage in homosexual acts with impunity (not be committing a sin), but you can't.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
You're deflecting.

You're confused....

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.

Nope. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply against private people and/or businesses, it only applies to State and local governments.

However, you would be correct that it has been mis-applied so as to appear to be legitimately applicable to private people/businesses.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Nope. The 14th Amendment doesn't apply against private people and/or businesses, it only applies to State and local governments.

Dude! If that were true, then there wouldn't be bakers, florists, photographers and website designers going to the Supreme Court with reasons why they should be exempt from enforcement of the law.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

Dude! If that were true, then there wouldn't be bakers, florists, photographers and website designers going to the Supreme Court with reasons why they should be exempt from enforcement of the law.

Dudette! They are being sued because anyone can sue for anything, and the courts aren't tossing them out on their ear because the government doesn't want to admit that their real Constitutionally delegated power and authority doesn't extend to private people/businesses.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Americans need to pat ourselves on the back for electing a president who delivered a supermajority conservative Supreme Court.

And be thankful seriously ill Ruth bader Ginsburg did not retire while Barack Obama was president... As Democrats with common sense were urging her to do.

a reply to: tanstaafl

They are being sued because anyone can sue for anything

No individual is being sued in the case we're discussing here in this thread.
This thread is about a person who would like to open a wedding website service, but doesn't want to have to serve gay or lesbian couples, as the law required. She wanted to post a notice declaring, essentially, "No Homosexual will Be served", which is illegal. "So, she sued the State of Colorado.

The Justices in this case didn't rule that there are no protected classes and that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply. They ruled that the person who wants to someday open a business making wedding websites, and who wants to put the public on notice that no homosexuals will be served at her wedding website business, is also protected by the 14th Amendment, and that her religious rights make her rights more special than those that came before her.

a reply to: tanstaafl

The point is, not all closely held religious beliefs are backed up in scripture, and not all people of the same religion even hold the same beliefs of sin and what it is.

The point is, anyone can claim anything is against their religion, i.e. personally held beliefs, to make excuses as to why some people (sinners) don't deserve equal protection under the law.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And what is wrong with that? Its called freedom.

Freedom of association if not religion.

Why does that scare you so?

It doesn't bother me in the least if someone doesn't like me and doesnt want to do business with me. Their loss of a good customer.

Live and let live goes both ways.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

The point is, not all closely held religious beliefs are backed up in scripture, and not all people of the same religion even hold the same beliefs of sin and what it is.

The point is, anyone can claim anything is against their religion, i.e. personally held beliefs, to make excuses as to why some people (sinners) don't deserve equal protection under the law.

Very well explained and that is exactly what I see happening, religious scripture interpreted in such a way as to step on the rights of others as their conscious or unconscious bias' dictate.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

No one is threatening your freedom of association.

It doesn't bother me in the least if someone doesn't like me and doesnt want to do business with me. Their loss of a good customer.

A business can refuse service for any or no reason at all, as long as their reason isn't based on race, skin color, religion, disability or sex.

In a civil society we make compromises in order to live in peace, and some of those compromises includes allowing equal access to public accommodations.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Conversely, in a civil society, we make compromises in order to live in peace. And some of these compromises include allowing equal protections of the first amendment: freedom of speech, association and religion for the majority as well as minorities.... ALL people. Including straight white Christians.


ETA: just like the first guarantees freedom FROM religion, we also have freedom FROM association. And that is indeed being threatened the minute anyone is forced to do business with anyone else.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Conversely, in a civil society, we make compromises in order to live in peace. And some of these compromises include allowing equal protections of the first amendment: freedom of speech, association and religion for the majority as well as minorities.... ALL people. Including straight white Christians.


ETA: just like the first guarantees freedom FROM religion, we also have freedom FROM association. And that is indeed being threatened the minute anyone is forced to do business with anyone else.

I went through this refusal of service with a disabled mom (polio) in the 50s. And don’t tell me that’s different.

People have their prejudices, businesses should not.

If you sell cakes, you sell cakes equally.

Except for writing on a cake. Written expression is protected.

Dominionism is in full force in the USA.

a reply to: Annee

Asking an artist to produce a one-of-a-kind creation is not the same as mass producing.

Why on Earth would someone refuse service to someone with polio, unless it was a safety issue. Did this happen more than once? Most people I have encountered in my life go out of their way to assist those less fortunate. Where on earth did you live?

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

Asking an artist to produce a one-of-a-kind creation is not the same as mass producing.

Why on Earth would someone refuse service to someone with polio, unless it was a safety issue. Did this happen more than once? Most people I have encountered in my life go out of their way to assist those less fortunate. Where on earth did you live?

Oh my goodness!

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects people with disabilities from discrimination.
Disability rights are civil rights. From voting to parking, the ADA is a law that protects people with disabilities in many areas of public life.

The ADA wasn't adopted in 1990 because people were tripping all over themselves to find a way to make sure disabled people, including veterans, could access their businesses. "Handrails and wheelchair ramps are expensive, dammit!"

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

Asking an artist to produce a one-of-a-kind creation is not the same as mass producing.

Why on Earth would someone refuse service to someone with polio, unless it was a safety issue. Did this happen more than once? Most people I have encountered in my life go out of their way to assist those less fortunate. Where on earth did you live?

Oh my goodness!

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects people with disabilities from discrimination.
Disability rights are civil rights. From voting to parking, the ADA is a law that protects people with disabilities in many areas of public life.

This act wasn't adopted in 1990 because people were tripping all over themselves to find a way to make sure disabled people, including veterans, could access their businesses. "Hand rails and ramps are expensive, dammit!"

Thanks Sookie

I “love” when people deny prejudice of the disabled.

Out of their kindness and generosity the Disabled Act had to be FORCED.

Just like all the other Equality Acts.

Did you know churches are exempt?

a reply to: Annee

Yeah I remember the 50s and 60s how the disabled and mentally ill people were treated or anyone that acted in any manner different from the 'norm'. Terrible times back then.

ETA:

Now that I recall those eras, the Catholics and Protestants had their little war going on too.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

Asking an artist to produce a one-of-a-kind creation is not the same as mass producing.

A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

Were they asking for rainbows and special writing?

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

Yeah I remember the 50s and 60s how the disabled and mentally ill people were treated or anyone that acted in any manner different from the 'norm'. Terrible times back then.

ETA:

Now that I recall those eras, the Catholics and Protestants had their little war going on too.

Thank you.

Yes. Still the era of hide them in the closet.

But my mom was a single mom of 3 (dad ran off with a sympathetic “mommy”).

She had to get out and do things. No online bill paying/or banking back then. Minimal delivery services.

We were once thrown out of a restaurant— mid meal —because another customer complained.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

But this isn't a refusal to do business.

We cannot make the world perfect for everyone. It's not possible to do so, and it's often prohibitively expensive.

Lack of accommodation is not discrimination.

In the 90s, many of the possibilities for access did not exist. Today we have delivery service, web sites (which have ADA requirements for business sites, to various degrees of compliance, but the standards are there), that allow for far more access than anti-discrimination laws did.

a reply to: Annee

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Annee

Asking an artist to produce a one-of-a-kind creation is not the same as mass producing.


A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

Probably selected from a catalogue of wedding cake designs to choose from at various price points. Even each of the cake topper figurines are probably ordered through a catalogue.