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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: AlienBorg

Homosexuality is a sin. Male or female it doesn't matter.

Maybe in your mind, and in your church community, but there is nothing in the Abrahamic text that condemns lesbianism. For heaven's sake, there were to many "sister wives" and harems for that!

Now Paul condemned all sex, and basically held his nose while sanctioning the marriage bed, if one MUST have sex. But he sure did love the doctrine silencing and oppressing women! So, there's THAT religious proclivity that business owners are now free to apply to their female clients and employees too!

But the point made in this conversation is that anyone can refuse to provide services on religious grounds.

No, I don't think so.

I think you took this out of context. And I ve seen you making claims with no basis.

Homosexuality is a sin in all Abrahamic religions regardless of who is participating. It will be absurd by your logic to condemn male homosexuality and allow female homosexuality.

And yes anyone can refuse to provide services on the basis of religious grounds. This case proves it. But it's not the only one. They have been cases in the past and there will be cases in the future.

Please try not to debate whether lesbianism is allowed in Christianity or Islam or Judaism. You can ask members of all three religions and I am sure of the answer you will get.

originally posted by: tgidkp
a reply to: AlienBorg

"protected characteristic"

i would like for you to justify your use of this language. it sounds very legal-istic, like it appears in some law or constitution (or even the SCOTUS decision from your OP).

but as far as i can tell you just made it up on the spot to make your argument sound more legit.

please, tell me more about "protected characteristic" ?

It is and it is used by lawyers in these cases.

Page 1 with link given (see my posts)

If you're wondering, "is sexual orientation a protected class," the answer is yes. Sexual orientation is a personal quality that is protected from discrimination. The Federal Government's equal opportunity employment policy was amended in 1998 by President Clinton to include sexual orientation as a protected class.

And under federal law

Under federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected class, however, many state and local laws consider it to be.

The supreme court used the first amendment in this case btw.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
The protected class status only protects the right to have reasonable services offered. Lets say the person who wants nuke the whales is themselves gay. Now you are telling me the animal rights activist still has to print shirts, signs, and a website that says nuke the whales, because the person requesting it is gay.

That is not equal protection under the law, that is using the law to force the denial of anothers rights to their own personal beliefs.

The web designer does not openly state with their business " we refuse to do ANY work for ANY homosexual." No, they have said no such thing. They in fact could agree to do work about a craft piece of jewelry for sale, but deny a project for the same clients homosexual wedding.

Their right to service has not been denied. Should the web designer be forced to make a website praising Donal Trump as the Messiah because the client is a homosexual even if the designer personally abhors POTUS ??

Your refusing to acknowledge that service was not denied because the person was homosexual, only the content they were being asked to produce.

Or maybe this non-existent fake Supreme court case has a testimony to the designer saying "i refuse to serve any homosexual for any reason or project!" Maybe we all missed this defense? Is this the defense presented??

Can you show me if this is the case with any statement during these years long hearings?

originally posted by: AlienBorg
It is and it is used by lawyers* in these cases**.

*citation needed
**citation needed

EDIT:

your sources both use "protected class", NOT "protected characteristic".

legal language is extremely specific for a reason. please justify your use of the term "protected characteristic".

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

The right to have a religion and religious beliefs is itself a human right. You can be as religious as you want or an atheist/agnostic.

What you said isn't correct that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. In several passages it condemns homosexual practices and calls it an abomination. In all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin.

No the Bible condemns lust and debauchery not people loving each other, it's mentioning of love one another does not exclude same sex love only sexual lust as undesirable behaviour not as a sin. The sins are in the ten commandments whereas cultural values and changing norms are not.

Yes, religion based on subjective interpretations of the Bible is a human right, but that should never be a basis for enacting laws affecting others that don't buy into that interpretation.

a reply to: PorkChop96
I recall the wording says not homosexuality, but something like "if a man lays with another man as he would with a woman, he has committed some serious affront and is punishable by death. This may have been leviticus?? And yes, I am paraphrasing from recent memory, as I looked it up when we were all talking about the Zimbabwe (or Uganda?) death penalty for homosexuals thread.

So yes, we can still enjoy our chicks and their sloppy delicious tongue and lips on each other. LOL. Maybe...?

a reply to: PorkChop96

Why does the couples' rights trump the business owners right to choose not to serve?

A business owner has the right to refuse service for any reason, except an illegal reason. It's It was illegal for a business owner to refuse service to an individual based on their race, skin color, disability, religion or sex. Now, a person's individual religious beliefs supersede another person's rights to protection against discrimination based on their race, skin color, disability, religion or sex.

originally posted by: dandandat2
Why would a Gay person want to have their wedding website (that's a thing now?) designed by a person who hates them?

Actually in the news that never happened and the couple in question are heterosexual, so you tell me what's going on here, really?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here is how Muslims view homosexuality

islamqa.info...

They regard it as a grave sin according to the article. There is no distinction between male and female homosexuality. But that's besides the point.

The US Supreme Court took a decision that can have many consequences in the future. But it's not the first decision of this kind as someone else note a few pages back.

originally posted by: tgidkp

originally posted by: AlienBorg
It is and it is used by lawyers* in these cases**.

*citation needed
**citation needed

EDIT:

your sources both use "protected class", NOT "protected characteristic".

legal language is extremely specific for a reason. please justify your use of the term "protected characteristic".

Same thing. It can be used as protected class or characteristic. Citation in page 1.

You can't come late and demand citations...

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here is how Muslims view homosexuality

islamqa.info...

They regard it as a grave sin according to the article. There is no distinction between male and female homosexuality. But that's besides the point.

The US Supreme Court took a decision that can have many consequences in the future. But it's not the first decision of this kind as someone else note a few pages back.

Here are the five commandments of Islam but Islamic law does not apply here nor is any sin regarding homosexuality within any commandments. It's societal/cultural interpretations thereafter and we cannot go back and add it to the commandments. Stop grasping at straws or strawmen.

www.metmuseum.org...

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Lets say the person who wants nuke the whales is themselves gay. Now you are telling me the animal rights activist still has to print shirts, signs, and a website that says nuke the whales, because the person requesting it is gay.

No. I'm saying that he animal rights activist never had an obligation to endorse a "nuke the whales" theme. However, if he was promoting nuking whales, and a gay whale nuker wanted his services, and he refused him based on his sexual orientation, that would have been illegal. Today it's not.

Your refusing to acknowledge that service was not denied because the person was homosexual, only the content they were being asked to produce.

Exactly, except no. In this case there was no wedding website business. Just a lady thinking she'd like to start one, if only she didn't have to serve gays! In this case, there were no gay customers being refuse, only hypothetical gay clients that she couldn't refuse, hypothetically.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

The right to have a religion and religious beliefs is itself a human right. You can be as religious as you want or an atheist/agnostic.

What you said isn't correct that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. In several passages it condemns homosexual practices and calls it an abomination. In all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin.

No the Bible condemns lust and debauchery not people loving each other, it's mentioning of love one another does not exclude same sex love only sexual lust as undesirable behaviour not as a sin. The sins are in the ten commandments whereas cultural values and changing norms are not.

Yes, religion based on subjective interpretations of the Bible is a human right, but that should never be a basis for enacting laws affecting others that don't buy into that interpretation.

Condemnation of homosexuality is quite common. There are so many passages.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Not that I am in agreement with what religions say on this topic but for the benefit of the conversation.

But we shouldn't go off topic.
Clearly the case in hand shows a person can refuse services on the basis of their religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: PorkChop96

Not in the Bible, it's not.

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

See, the bible looks at it like I do. Two dudes sucking yuk. two hot chicks tongue kissing each other=hotness.
I am fully aware of the double standard, the irony, and all other aspects of it, yet, my position remains unchanged.

LOL
Exactly!

Besides, those men were sometime gone for a long time, fighting wars, or out on hunting excursions....as long as nobody's getting knocked up, no harm no foul!

LOL, you can offer many "excuses" as to why one dude would smooch another dude, but in my eyes, it comes down to they are gay. I could be stuck with another dude for a long time, and while we may become good friends, I cannot imagine any scenario that would make me want to bump uglies. I'm a staunch lesbian.

a reply to: AlienBorg

I am aware that Muslims and Christians, especially evangelical, think all homosexuality is a sin. But there is no lesbian condemnation in the Abrahamic texts.

As a matter of fact, the oath of love between 2 women is still used today in Christians heterosexual wedding ceremonies.

Ruth 1:16
But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.”

a reply to: Sookiechacha
lol, this reply is a bit comical. I have yet to see the statements in the defense that "I allegedly refuse to serve any homosexual for any project because homosexual!" I don't follow these cases, I only discuss them occasionally on the internet, so I don't have pages of transcripts that may prove statements or defenses like this. You seem a bit invested, so maybe you have citations in this regard for us. Again, for this alleged non-existent SCOTUS case from fairytale land.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: PorkChop96

Not in the Bible, it's not.

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

See, the bible looks at it like I do. Two dudes sucking yuk. two hot chicks tongue kissing each other=hotness.
I am fully aware of the double standard, the irony, and all other aspects of it, yet, my position remains unchanged.

LOL
Exactly!

Besides, those men were sometime gone for a long time, fighting wars, or out on hunting excursions....as long as nobody's getting knocked up, no harm no foul!

LOL, you can offer many "excuses" as to why one dude would smooch another dude, but in my eyes, it comes down to they are gay. I could be stuck with another dude for a long time, and while we may become good friends, I cannot imagine any scenario that would make me want to bump uglies. I'm a staunch lesbian.

LOL

I was making excuses for the sister wives and harem women, being left alone while their husbands were out warring, hunting or scoring new wives!

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here is how Muslims view homosexuality

islamqa.info...

They regard it as a grave sin according to the article. There is no distinction between male and female homosexuality. But that's besides the point.

The US Supreme Court took a decision that can have many consequences in the future. But it's not the first decision of this kind as someone else note a few pages back.

Here are the five commandments of Islam but Islamic law does not apply here nor is any sin regarding homosexuality within any commandments. It's societal/cultural interpretations thereafter and we cannot go back and add it to the commandments. Stop grasping at straws or strawmen.

www.metmuseum.org...

What you've written doesn't address whether homosexuality is accepted In Islam. In fact it doesn't address anything. It speaks of nothing other than one God, how many times you need to pray, and a few other.

wikiislam.net...

Practicing homosexuality is considered a sin in Islam and is punishable under Islamic law, which is derived from the Quran and Hadith

But again not the point of the conversation. Point is made in my OP. Religion and free speech were used to deny services for this gay couple.

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: AlienBorg

This can also be used against that same Christian woman for her religious beliefs and LGBTQ people can also refuse her service for insert biased reason here.

It could be used if she was demanding or asking a gay person to go about her beliefs. Bearing in mind that religion is a protected characteristic but sexual orientation or gender identity are not. But yes, depending on the state and court, anything can happen.

Religious bias is based on personal interpretation and or following others' interpretations of passages from the Bible. The Bible does not mention anything specific about loving couples of the same sex, only those that engage in lust and debauchery, which can also be applied to heterosexuals. Religious people can pick and choose Bible passages to fit any discrimination of their choosing. It's a choice.

Religious beliefs that rely on various interpretations should not be the basis to enact laws that trample on others' human rights.

The right to have a religion and religious beliefs is itself a human right. You can be as religious as you want or an atheist/agnostic.

What you said isn't correct that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. In several passages it condemns homosexual practices and calls it an abomination. In all Abrahamic religions homosexuality is a sin.

No the Bible condemns lust and debauchery not people loving each other, it's mentioning of love one another does not exclude same sex love only sexual lust as undesirable behaviour not as a sin. The sins are in the ten commandments whereas cultural values and changing norms are not.

Yes, religion based on subjective interpretations of the Bible is a human right, but that should never be a basis for enacting laws affecting others that don't buy into that interpretation.

Condemnation of homosexuality is quite common. There are so many passages.

Leviticus 20:13 ~ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

Not that I am in agreement with what religions say on this topic but for the benefit of the conversation.

But we shouldn't go off topic.
Clearly the case in hand shows a person can refuse services on the basis on their religious beliefs and freedom of speech.

It's not off topic to deep dive into the underlying reasons for this legal decision and that being interpretation of the Bible. ...they have created an abomination according to the cultural norms, not a sin, just condemnation or in other words subjective judgement.

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

originally posted by: AlienBorg

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AlienBorg
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Here is how Muslims view homosexuality

islamqa.info...

They regard it as a grave sin according to the article. There is no distinction between male and female homosexuality. But that's besides the point.

The US Supreme Court took a decision that can have many consequences in the future. But it's not the first decision of this kind as someone else note a few pages back.

Here are the five commandments of Islam but Islamic law does not apply here nor is any sin regarding homosexuality within any commandments. It's societal/cultural interpretations thereafter and we cannot go back and add it to the commandments. Stop grasping at straws or strawmen.

www.metmuseum.org...

What you've written doesn't address whether homosexuality is accepted In Islam. In fact it doesn't address anything. It speaks of nothing other than one God, how many times you need to pray, and a few other.

wikiislam.net...

Practicing homosexuality is considered a sin in Islam and is punishable under Islamic law, which is derived from the Quran and Hadith

But again not the point of the conversation. Point is made in my OP. Religion and free speech were used to deny services for this gay couple.

Nope, again open to interpretation.

The above discussion was based on the assumptions that both verses 15 and 16 relate to the fornication or adultery committed between men and women. However, some commentators of the Holy Qur'an, including Qadi Thanaullah Panipati, are of the view that verse 16 refers to homosexual act committed between two males. Verse 16 is translated as follows:

"And those two of you who commit it (the shameful act), torture them both".

quran.com...:16/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran

The interpretation of the text here is based on assumptions and presumptions.