SCOTUS update on Masterpiece Cakeship case

[renoskier]

Just jumping back in, might have to re-think my earlier comment.. Was this already covered?

Would we allow the baker to discriminate based upon race?

If not, then why do would we allow them to discriminate based upon sexual orientation?

 

[sactowndog]

4 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

They both do have rights.  But people are more important. People exist without organized businesses.  Businesses are nothing more than inventions - tools of people.  What's next, are we going to give rights to inanimate objects?

They have legislative rights in terms of the direct operation of their business.   They aren’t people and should not have constitutional rights.   Constitutional rights should be absolute and not infringed by a business claiming constitutional rights of equal standing.   

A business doesn’t have a religious right and should be compelled to serve the gay couple, but a person does and can not be compelled even if they are an employee of the business.   The business must make other arrangements but are free to pass along the reasonable costs associated with those arrangements.  

[pokebball]

7 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

They both do have rights.  But people are more important. People exist without organized businesses.  Businesses are nothing more than inventions - tools of people.  What's next, are we going to give rights to inanimate objects?

Businesses are inventions provided by government for various reasons, including legal, tax and other.  In pretty simple practical terms, the baker is the business and the business is the baker.  The business owner is the owner.  The business owner has religious rights, the business doesn't because as you say,it is simply an invention.

[NorCalCoug]

Just now, renoskier said:

Just jumping back in, might have to re-think my earlier comment.. Was this already covered?

Would we allow the baker to discriminate based upon race?

If not, then why do would we allow them to discriminate based upon sexual orientation?

 

Better argument IMO...  protected classes should be universal.  But then again, religion is one of those protected classes as well.  It almost seems like a no win situation.

[Boise fan]

26 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

No. You're missing my point completely as usual. You and the Saudis are two sides of the same totalitarian coin trying to legislate and impose your "morality" upon the populace whether they want it or not. 

I didn't miss your point.  It's shallow and stupid.  And it was poorly structured.  How are you not trying to impose your "morality" on others by promoting Libertarianism?  This isn't about morality.  This is about human rights.  Discrimination is wrong.  If you have a society that discriminates, you are closer to the totalitarian government you keep alluding others want while ignoring your own contributions that led directly to it.  Read up on history.  All totalitarian governments discriminate.

 

[SharkTanked]

Just now, NorCalCoug said:

Better argument IMO...  protected classes should be universal.  But then again, religion is one of those protected classes as well.  It almost seems like a no win situation.

Very true. Which protected class trumps the other?

[pokebball]

3 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

The voters limit the government's power. That's our role.

Actually, I would take this further and say we give the government it's power.  That's were govt begins.

[SharkTanked]

Just now, Boise fan said:

I didn't miss your point.  It's shallow and stupid.  And it was poorly structured.  How are you not trying to impose your "morality" on others by promoting Libertarianism?  This isn't about morality.  This is about human rights.  Discrimination is wrong.  If you have a society that discriminates, you are closer to the totalitarian government you keep alluding others want while ignoring your own contributions that led directly to it.  Read up on history.  All Totalitarian governments discriminate.

 

In this case, someone is getting discriminated against no matter what. Either you are discriminating against the business owner's religious beliefs or discriminating against the sexual orientation of the customers. Who decides which trumps the other?

[NorCalCoug]

1 minute ago, SharkTanked said:

Very true. Which protected class trumps the other?

Go with the bigger majority, religion wins!

[NorCalCoug]

1 minute ago, pokebball said:

Actually, I would take this further and say we give the government it's power.  That's were govt begins.

In theory....  LOL

[SharkTanked]

Just now, NorCalCoug said:

Go with the bigger majority, religion wins!

But which one?

[sactowndog]

7 minutes ago, pokebball said:

I think you're confusing your utopia world with reality.  Businesses have rights.  Businesses pay taxes.

Hypothetical for you...the baker sells to anyone and everyone that walks in the door, selling them anything that is on his racks for sale.  He doesn't refuse those sales to anyone.  But, he refuses to make a tailor-made same sex cake, or a cake in the shape of the nazi symbol, or a cake in the shape of a middle finger.  You don't think he should have the right to not do that?

I don’t think businesses should have constitutional rights or pay income taxes.

And yes to your hypothetical, the business should though the business can’t compel any single employee to do so.   If the business made reasonable accommodations to find a supplier and can’t only then could they decline.    The alternative too many on this board are willing to make is we make the business owner the arbitrar of our rights.   In short we have become an Oligarchy.   Sadly business owners on the right and left feel they have that right and duty. 

[SharkTanked]

6 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

They have legislative rights in terms of the direct operation of their business.   They aren’t people and should not have constitutional rights.   Constitutional rights should be absolute and not infringed by a business claiming constitutional rights of equal standing.   

A business doesn’t have a religious right and should be compelled to serve the gay couple, but a person does and can not be compelled even if they are an employee of the business.   The business must make other arrangements but are free to pass along the reasonable costs associated with those arrangements.  

What if every person, from owner to each employee, has their own religious rights infringed on and refuses to serve? The "business" can't do anything. It a non entity. 

[renoskier]

5 minutes ago, NorCalCoug said:

Better argument IMO...  protected classes should be universal.  But then again, religion is one of those protected classes as well.  It almost seems like a no win situation.

Obviously, there has to be a pecking order. Otherwise a religion could decide it didn't like black folks and could claim it was within their religious rights to discriminate.

[sactowndog]

7 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Businesses are inventions provided by government for various reasons, including legal, tax and other.  In pretty simple practical terms, the baker is the business and the business is the baker.  The business owner is the owner.  The business owner has religious rights, the business doesn't because as you say,it is simply an invention.

Right but to often we now extend rights to the business and the business has become an extension of the owner to impose their beliefs on others. 

[SharkTanked]

Just now, sactowndog said:

Right but to often we now extend rights to the business and the business has become an extension of the owner to impose their beliefs on others. 

And how successful do you think that business will be in doing so?

[sactowndog]

2 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

What if every person, from owner to each employee, has their own religious rights infringed on and refuses to serve? The "business" can't do anything. It a non entity. 

True.  If the business has shown it tried to make reasonable accommodations and can’t then it’s allowed to deny.  But they would have to show every attempt was made including outsourcing.   I don’t know all the facts in this case. 

[sactowndog]

2 minutes ago, SharkTanked said:

And how successful do you think that business will be in doing so?

Done every day today.   Nazi’s are denied jobs on the coast and I’m certain gays are surreptitiously denied jobs in Alabama. 

[Boise fan]

3 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Businesses are inventions provided by government for various reasons, including legal, tax and other.  In pretty simple practical terms, the baker is the business and the business is the baker.  The business owner is the owner.  The business owner has religious rights, the business doesn't because as you say,it is simply an invention.

I'd disagree with your statement that the baker is the business and the business is the baker.  The baker is far more than a baker.  Limiting ourselves to job titles is wrong.  It's oversimplified. 

Even if you grant rights to a business, those rights shouldn't infringe on the rights of others.  And in our society (given its history), civil rights became necessary to stop not only prejudice, but enslavement of others.  Discrimination should never be allowed.  Christians should serve Muslims and vice versa.  Even if in their private lives they want nothing to do with each other. A business is supposed to serve an area, not a particular group.  Denying service to another based on gender, race, sexual orientation or religion is wrong.  

Discrimination has been the tool of oppressive government and people.  It should have no part in a civilized society.

 

[NorCalCoug]

It all comes down to accountability...  at some point people/businesses need to be accountable for the decisions they make. If you want to be a discriminatory ass that’s your right but deal with the consequences of that.