Judge: Baker can refuse to make gay wedding cake

[shabby 1,958]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Who is allowing discrimination? The judge decided the case based on artistic freedom under the First Amendment. Also, by your own standard, wouldn't it then turn into, "not protecting artistic freedom is immoral" ? Do you see what I am getting at?

i am stating that if you feel something is discriminatory then supporting that practice or law is immoral. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

9 minutes ago, shabby said:

the only difference in the wedding scenario is one is gay and one is straight. you are trying to add other criteria that is based on bigoted view points. 

First of all, back off the "bigoted" talk.  I'm no more bigoted for my beliefs on homosexual conduct than I am for believing it's a sin for unmarried people of any orientation having sex. It's inflammatory language that gets us nowhere and hinders good conversation.

And yes, there is a difference, but it is still based on the event in question.  If I were one to just discriminate against gay people, I'd refuse to serve them at all.  And I'm not discriminating against them as people anymore than I would if I refused to make a cake for a wedding of two people whom I knew had divorced and left their previous spouses to marry their partner in adultery.  The nature of the wedding is the problem.  I can and should serve people of all races, colors, creeds, and orientations.  But I should not be compelled to serve any of them for any event they choose, if that event violates my beliefs.

[shabby 1,958]

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

First of all, back off the "bigoted" talk.  I'm no more bigoted for my beliefs on homosexual conduct than I am for believing it's a sin for unmarried people of any orientation having sex. It's inflammatory language that gets us nowhere and hinders good conversation.

And yes, there is a difference, but it is still based on the event in question.  If I were one to just discriminate against gay people, I'd refuse to serve them at all.  And I'm not discriminating against them as people anymore than I would if I refused to make a cake for a wedding of two people whom I knew had divorced and left their previous spouses to marry their partner in adultery.  The nature of the wedding is the problem.  I can and should serve people of all races, colors, creeds, and orientations.  But I should not be compelled to serve any of them for any event they choose, if that event violates my beliefs.

wake me up when you start justifying declining services to unmarried couples having sex. you added a criteria to the situation. comparing this situation to someone declining services to someone promoting violence and thug culture. how is that relevant to this topic? are we sssigning a trait to a whole class of people. the very definition of prejudicedo you yourself see homosexuality as a moral failing? do you believe it is okay to discriminate against a class of person if they believe that class to be less moral. I find that a reprehensible viewpoint full of false equivelencies. 

[TitanTiger 20,511]

And just to expound, this doesn't just apply to gay weddings.  I might provide goods or services for various political events, but refuse some based on what the content of them.  I shouldn't have to facilitate or help promote with my time and talents a pro-choice rally.  A black-owned sign making shop shouldn't be compelled to print signs or banners helping a group bringing Richard Spencer in to speak.  A gay-owned catering company shouldn't have to use their time and talents to serve dinner for an event promoting gay conversion therapy.

[shabby 1,958]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And just to expound, this doesn't just apply to gay weddings.  I might provide goods or services for various political events, but refuse some based on what the content of them.  I shouldn't have to facilitate or help promote with my time and talents a pro-choice rally.  A black-owned sign making shop shouldn't be compelled to print signs or banners helping a group bringing Richard Spencer in to speak.  A gay-owned catering company shouldn't have to use their time and talents to serve dinner for an event promoting gay conversion therapy.

gay people are a class of people. yiur denial of that changes nothing from the reality of that

[TitanTiger 20,511]

1 minute ago, shabby said:

wake me up when you start justifying declining services to unmarried couples having sex. you added a criteria to the situation. comparing this situation to someone declining services to someone promoting violence and thug culture. how is that relevant to this topic?

It's relevant because in both situations what is being objected to is the content or nature of the event or project, not the person.  If it helps you, take out violence or thug culture and let's just say the lyrics were vulgar and sexually explicit.  Nothing changes.

 

1 minute ago, shabby said:

do you yourself see homosexuality as a moral failing? do you believe it is okay to discriminate against a class of person if they believe that class to be less moral. I find that a reprehensible viewpoint full of false equivelencies. 

I thought I already addressed this when I said that "I can and should serve people of all races, colors, creeds, and orientations.  But I should not be compelled to serve any of them for any event they choose, if that event violates my beliefs" and when I pointed out that if a gay person wanted to have a birthday cake made, that would not fall under reasons for being able to turn down the business.

Do I believe same-sex sexual activity is morally wrong?  Yes.  But I would not advocate for allowing someone to refuse service simply because they do something I believe is wrong.  And I have not suggested anything such thing here.  But if my time and talents are going to be used for certain events that convey a certain message about things, there should be some discretion where I can back out.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

1 minute ago, shabby said:

gay people are a class of people. yiur denial of that changes nothing from the reality of that

Being a class of people changes nothing about what I said.  Being a class of people doesn't entitle anyone to run roughshod over the sincerely held beliefs of others.  Being a class of people doesn't negate another person's rights under the First Amendment.  It's not a trump card to be be played anytime their wishes collide with the rights of another.

 

[shabby 1,958]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Being a class of people changes nothing about what I said.  Being a class of people doesn't entitle anyone to run roughshod over the sincerely held beliefs of others.  Being a class of people doesn't negate another person's rights under the First Amendment.  It's not a trump card to be be played anytime their wishes collide with the rights of another.

 

you are contradicting yourself. You stated that this is not discriminating against the class of people. However it is. It's a refusal of a service into a whole class of people not based upon one person's character. But what you perceive as a character of all the people in that class. That is a very definition of prejudice

[TitanTiger 20,511]

4 minutes ago, shabby said:

you are contradicting yourself. You stated that this is not discriminating against the class of people. However it is. It's a refusal of a service into a whole class of people not based upon one person's character. But what you perceive as a character of all the people in that class. That is a very definition of prejudice

I'm not and it isn't.  I'm saying that declaring yourself a "class of people" doesn't mean everyone else rights get abolished.  It isn't anymore discriminating against a "class" than refusing a black rappers sexually explicit music is discriminating against black people as a class.  Being gay doesn't mean anything you wish to do is untouchable.  You don't get to compel others to materially participate in your celebrations anymore than I get to make someone promote/celebrate my religious beliefs and practices against their will.

[shabby 1,958]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm not and it isn't.  I'm saying that declaring yourself a "class of people" doesn't mean everyone else rights get abolished.  It isn't anymore discriminating against a "class" than refusing a black rappers sexually explicit music is discriminating against black people as a class.

 you're discriminating against all black people because some are black rappers then you certainly are Prejudice. Again this isn't about a baker refusing services to one specific person in a group. They're refusing services to all and that group. The entire class of people. Because they feel all of them are immoral. That is the very essence of prejudice and discrimination. I do not know how you cannot see that. It might have to do with your personal belief that homosexuality is immoral.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Shabby, I think you’re under some misunderstanding, but I can’t talk more right now. I’ll have to pick this back up later this evening. Peace

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, shabby said:

i am stating that if you feel something is discriminatory then supporting that practice or law is immoral. 

You're entitled to feel that this holding is discriminatory - though I think you'll be hard pressed to substantiate such a feeling based on the legal reasoning. Re-read what Titan is saying, it's good stuff. 

[shabby 1,958]

14 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You're entitled to feel that this holding is discriminatory - though I think you'll be hard pressed to substantiate such a feeling based on the legal reasoning. Re-read what Titan is saying, it's good stuff. 

i read it clearly. it's not. the argument that equates to this situation is not refusing to sell to a black person who is living a violent life because you disagree with that culture. It would be equivalent to I will not sell any services to any black people because all of them are thuggish in culture. that's the argument that most closely equates to the baker.  People arent obejecting to providing a good to a specific gay person or gay couple getting married. They are refusing an  entire class of  people a service. They are assigning an attribute to an entire class of people simply because they are that class of person. How does that not Define prejudice.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, shabby said:

i read it clearly. it's not. the argument that equates to this situation is not refusing to sell to a black person who is living a violent life because you disagree with that culture. It would be equivalent to I will not sell any services to any black people because all of them are thuggish in culture. that's the argument that most closely equates to the baker.  People arent obejecting to providing a good to a specific gay person or gay couple getting married. They are refusing an  entire class of  people a service. They are assigning an attribute to an entire class of people simply because they are that class of person. How does that not Define prejudice.

Dude.. please read the ruling carefully. You need to read this for the sake of the thread - in addition to reading all that's below, click on what's linked in blue. 

"The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment outweighs the state's interest in ensuring a freely accessible marketplace," Lampe wrote in his ruling. "A wedding cake is not just a cake in free speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct."

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Shabby, I think you’re under some misunderstanding, but I can’t talk more right now. I’ll have to pick this back up later this evening. Peace

I posted the entire ruling. I think it'll help if Shabby reads it before he tries to analogize the case with other hypotheticals. His analogy divorces from the ruling.  

[shabby 1,958]

3 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Dude.. please read the ruling carefully. You need to read this for the sake of the thread - in addition to reading all that's below, click on what's linked in blue. 

"The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment outweighs the state's interest in ensuring a freely accessible marketplace," Lampe wrote in his ruling. "A wedding cake is not just a cake in free speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct."

You asked for a response to tighten tigers explanation. I did. I responded to his view as to why this is not discrimination and he based upon an analogy of refusing to serve a black person. I responded to that. If you want me to respond to the Free Speech aspect I'll simply say this. It's no longer Free Speech when you're charging for it. It's a service. You are discriminating against who you will provide a service for to. not based on an an individual but based upon a whole class. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 minute ago, shabby said:

You asked for a response to tighten tigers explanation. I did. I responded to his view as to why this is not discrimination and he based upon an analogy of refusing to serve a black person. I responded to that. If you want me to respond to the Free Speech aspect I'll simply say this. It's no longer Free Speech when you're charging for it. It's a service. You are discriminating against who you will provide a service for to. not based on an an individual but based upon a whole class. 

I'm going with Nola in this argument.

[shabby 1,958]

i rrad the case. good read and thx. stand by my viewpoint. that said i will reiterste. I am trying to stay focused Less on the legality of it and more of the ethical nature of what is Prejudice bigotry and discrimination. If you refuse a good to an entire class of people simply because they belong to that entire class of people do you not consider that discrimination? I await your answer

[shabby 1,958]

5 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I'm going with Nola in this argument.

cause you are unable to have an original thought of your own to post?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, shabby said:

I am also trying to stay focused Less on the legality of it and more of the ethical nature of what is Prejudice bigotry and discrimination. If you refuse a good to an entire class of people simply because they belong to that entire class of people do you not consider that discrimination? I await your answer

You're engaging in circular logic by affirmatively denying the legality issue - after all "discrimination" has an array of legal definitions. Back to your logic - i'll point out my issue with it... when it's engaged, then it allows me to respond simply by saying "if you force one to sell a good while eradicating their First Amendment right of artistic freedom do you not consider that discrimination" ? It's circular. I don't have much more to say. I hope you read the ruling. It will help the thread stay on point. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

I'm going with Nola in this argument.

Shabby is just stirring the gravy. I'm starting to wonder if he is even being serious. 

 

[AUDub 11,184]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

When does Colorado's anti-discrimination law preempt my First Amendment Right to artistic freedom? I.e., is it artistic freedom or discrimination? 

These are hard cases man!!

At what point does a service constitute art? That's the big question. 

[AUDub 11,184]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Ok, well for starters, the legal issue before the SCOTUS in Newman was entirely different. Thus, the Court won't be bound by its holding or stare decisis. So to use that opinion, a FOOTNOTE at best, really is irrelevant and will not bare on the Court's decision. 

Hell of a handwave. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

At what point does a service constitute art? That's the big question. 

Ya know what I've found - notwithstanding briefs, you sometimes never really know what the big issue issue is before the Supreme Court until after the opinion is published (unless you catch some live action on CSPAN). The opinion in this case will be a very interesting read. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

8 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Hell of a handwave. 

Thanks BB