It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

page: 44
59
<< 41  42  43    45  46 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Absolutely. They are the epitome of public figures.




posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Absolutely. They are the epitome of public figures.


I want to think you're exercising your very dry sense of humor because I know you know what public accomodation means in this context.

Good one.

edit on 7-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Do you think an actor taking a role is a public accomodation?


Considering you're defining privately owned businesses and their privately owned risks as "public accommodations," I don't think it's outside the pale to say actors services are "public accommodations" in your myopic world.


I'm not defining anything as anything. The status of ownership has nothing to do with businesses that provide services that are well established in law as public accommodations.

Yes, it's utterly absurd to claim that an actor taking a role or not is comparable to a citizen being refused service in a private venue.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Absolutely. They are the epitome of public figures.


You do know, now in Hollywood, you can not request a gay or straight actor for any part.

You can not discriminate. If a gay actor is best choice for the part of a straight man - - he is supposed to get the job.

And vice-versa a straight man playing a gay man.

Actors themselves have creative license on what parts they choose.

So, NO - - discrimination does not fall on the actor. It falls on the person doing the hiring.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The thing is, the civil rights act did not specify sexuality as a protected class. So in the context you are referring...there is no public accomodation.

And if there were, inalienable rights > civil rights, as the latter are a gift from the government, while the former are intrinsic to human existence.

ETA: Look, i don't disagree with the gist of your argument: that all people should be treated with dignity and respect. I think you need to examine the facts here, though. The baker didn't refuse to service gays. He refused to provide a specific service that violates his religious conviction. There is no discrimination here...gay people can still be served. However, they will not be served wedding cakes, nor will they be served Halloween cupcakes.


edit on 6/7/2018 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It's even logically simpler than that I think, Annee.

A movie theatre is a public accommodation; the movie itself is not.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Absolutely. They are the epitome of public figures.


You do know, now in Hollywood, you can not request a gay or straight actor for any part.

You can not discriminate. If a gay actor is best choice for the part of a straight man - - he is supposed to get the job.

And vice-versa a straight man playing a gay man.

Actors themselves have creative license on what parts they choose.

So, NO - - discrimination does not fall on the actor. It falls on the person doing the hiring.


But they'll happily discriminate against anyone for right of leftist opinions.

That's Hollywood for you. They proudly discriminate while telling everyone how they should not discriminate.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Absolutely. They are the epitome of public figures.


You do know, now in Hollywood, you can not request a gay or straight actor for any part.


Wow, that's gotta be a bit awkward in the porn industry...



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I bet that plays hell in the porn industry, where the actors/actresses can blacklist anyone they want from working with them...for any reason they want.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

The thing is, the civil rights act did not specify sexuality as a protected class. So in the context you are referring...there is no public accomodation.

And if there were, inalienable rights > civil rights, as the latter are a gift from the government, while the former are intrinsic to human existence.



Are you unaware that Colorado put the Anti-Discrimination Act in place and it is that law that the baker broke?

Are you unaware that 21 other states have placed the same protections on discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation?

Between inalienable rights and civil rights, the latter are recognized by a government not given.

Do you have a working list of all inalienable rights? I'd like to see the specifics of what we're talking about.

Addressing your edit in an edit:



ETA: Look, i don't disagree with the gist of your argument: that all people should be treated with dignity and respect. I think you need to examine the facts here, though. The baker didn't refuse to service gays. He refused to provide a specific service that violates his religious conviction. There is no discrimination here...gay people can still be served. However, they will not be served wedding cakes, nor will they be served Halloween cupcakes.


I'm not really arguing that all people should be treated with dignity and respect, though I wouldn't disagree with that maxim.

I have examined the facts specifically in regard to this case as well as the general subject area. You should know that.

Yes, the baker did refuse service to gays. I've repeatedly linked his comment that he refused to make the cake because being gay is a sin.

If his religious convictions prevent him from serving the public as the law allows, again, then he needs to structure his business differently.

Yes, there was discrimination against sexual orientation here, and SCOTUS not only acknowledged that fact, but also stated that States not only have the right to enforce laws like the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, but in some cases, have a duty to do so.
edit on 7-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

The thing is, the civil rights act did not specify sexuality as a protected class.


Not yet. But, will happen someday.

It is currently by state/city, etc.

States denying cities to set their own LGBT rights - - - was shut down. Don't remember off hand which southern state that was.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You've obviously never heard of "gay for pay.'



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Too slow, old man.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

I bet that plays hell in the porn industry, where the actors/actresses can blacklist anyone they want from working with them...for any reason they want.


Would it surprise you if porn actors were Sexually fluid?

I doubt it.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You've obviously never heard of "gay for pay.'


I... I got nuthin'. No, I haven't heard of it and I'd rather remain blissfully ignorant of it, to be honest.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66



Are you unaware that Colorado put the Anti-Discrimination Act in place and it is that law that the baker broke?


I am.

However, the enforcement of that well intentioned law was deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS because it trampled his right to religious freedom.



Are you unaware that 21 other states have placed the same protections on discrimination against individuals based on sexual orientation?


I am.

Are you aware that the baker always has served gay people without issue, and doesn't refuse to serve anyone based on their sexual orientation?

He just doesn't make wedding cakes that he believes are mocking his religion. It offends him. He also won't make cakes with offensive wording on it, because he states he doesn't promote hate. The totality of the guy and the things he says and does is not congruent with the argument being offered here.



Between inalienable rights and civil rights, the latter are recognized by a government not given.

Do you have a working list of all inalienable rights? I'd like to see the specifics of what we're talking about.


Certainly. The US Constitution outlines the rights which the government is not allowed to abridge. Nevermind the fact that logical hurdles have been jumped to abridge some....the document is still there and still valid.
edit on 6/7/2018 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Annee

I bet that plays hell in the porn industry, where the actors/actresses can blacklist anyone they want from working with them...for any reason they want.


Would it surprise you if porn actors were Sexually fluid?

I doubt it.


Some may be. Some certainly are not. Like any batch of humans, there will be variations across the spectrum.



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Gryphon66



Are you unaware that Colorado put the Anti-Discrimination Act in place and it is that law that the baker broke?


I am.

However, the enforcement of that well intentioned law was deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS because it trampled his right to religious freedom.



Texan, you're not even close. The Anti-Discrimination Act was upheld in the text of the decision. The findings of the Civil Rights Commission were reversed, i.e. nullified, because they failed to act in a neutral manner toward Philips IN THIS CASE.




Are you aware that the baker always has served gay people without issue, and doesn't refuse to serve anyone based on their sexual orientation?



Sorry, you're absolutely wrong again. He's done this at least six other times.




He just doesn't make wedding cakes that he believes are mocking his religion. It offends him. He also won't make cakes with offensive wording on it, because he states he doesn't promote hate. The totality of the guy and the things he says and does is not congruent with the argument being offered here.


Wow, I'm really surprised at how few facts you seem to have in this case. It wasn't a wedding cake, it was for a party. If the work he has chosen to do offends him, he should find other work. Refusing a cake with offensive wording comes under freedom of expression, not freedom of religion.




Certainly. The US Constitution outlines the rights which the government is not allowed to abridge. Nevermind the fact that logical hurdles have been jumped to abridge some....the document is still there and still valid.


You're avoiding the question. I asked you about these "inalienable rights" you claim have superiority. What are they?
edit on 7-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted


Added in edit to back up my claim above:



Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”


ACLU Colorado
edit on 7-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

SCOTUS chastised Colorado for being openly hostile to his religious beliefs during the process, yes. Their actions in the enforcement of their law were bad.

However, they also found that he had apparently not acted outside his own rights as they found in his favor. They also were clear that this judgement didn't apply to any other potential cases in the future.

He likely did refuse to make gay wedding cakes in the past. He has been open in that statement.

Inalienable rights, based in natural rights, are primarily addressed in the bill of rights. that said, information:

www.docsoffreedom.org...

why are you asking me questions you know the answer to?



posted on Jun, 7 2018 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Absolutely. They are the epitome of public figures.


You do know, now in Hollywood, you can not request a gay or straight actor for any part.


Wow, that's gotta be a bit awkward in the porn industry...


My understanding is that a not so insignificant number of male porn stars are actually gay / bisexual.




top topics



 
59
<< 41  42  43    45  46 >>

log in

join