View Full Version : Gay Marriage
It doesn't matter which side you are on no one should tolerate people who simply make up lies in order to rile people up, that absolutely ruins any chance at any meaningful conversation.
kirakonstantin
07-09-2015, 10:18 AM
It doesn't matter which side you are on no one should tolerate people who simply make up lies in order to rile people up, that absolutely ruins any chance at any meaningful conversation.
Calling people lunatics, loons and bigots isn't helping establish meaningful conversation either.
A lie is not something that disagrees with your opinion. A lie would be stating that the cake was already baked and the bakers refused to hand it over. That's just not true. Or that the BOLI commissioner called the Kliens bigoted assbags. Never happened.
A different interpretation is not a lie and interpreting the law can be quite difficult, which is why lawyers pay a lot of money for their college degrees and passing the bar exam is so difficult. This thread, while littered with other people's legal opinions and each posters understanding of that, this is nothing more than the conjecture and point of view of each contributing poster.
As I said earlier, I'm extremely thankful that we can have this discussion in the open, with no fear of government censure or abuse. There are still parts of the world where people don't.
A lie is stating that there is a gag order when there is nothing of the sort. You or I could make a wrong interpretation when looking at a case, although to be quite honest it is fairly clear cut and not open to misunderstanding, but to claim people who should know better are simply interpreting things wrong or "differently" is extremely naive. They are lying to get the exact reactions we saw here and people really should know better than to believe stuff that is so obviously outrageous.
kirakonstantin
07-09-2015, 10:29 AM
There is differing opinion between lawyers involved in this case as to whether the Cease and Desist order constitutes a gag order. It's not surprising that there's a differing opinion here, as we're laypersons who likely have little legal education.
Truly, there is nothing clear cut about this case and I'm certain that this will drag on for some time.
Eric Stoner
07-09-2015, 10:39 AM
It doesn't matter which side you are on no one should tolerate people who simply make up lies in order to rile people up, that absolutely ruins any chance at any meaningful conversation.
Wait a minute. Nobody made up the wording of the Order issued by the Oregon Dept. Of Labor. It says what it says.
Obviously there are respective rights that are ( somewhat ) in conflict. Generally , federal rights trump state rights. First Amendment vs. state protection for COMMERCIAL transactions = the First Amendment ought to win ; First Amendment vs. a state order limiting speech = the First Amendment ought to prevail even if we do not like the outcome or the speech that is being protected. That is what the First Amendment is for ; to protect speech and speakers that we do not like and do not agree with. Likewise the gay couple involved took full advantage of a law that promotes victimhood. Yes, they were rejected. Maybe even got their feelings hurt. Certainly didn't like the position taken by the Kleins. But so much that they were bedridden ????? What poor little girls. Let's see. How can we bubble wrap them so that nothing else they encounter in life will ever hurt or offend them ?
The Supreme Court decision ( rightfully imho ) said that STATES may not discriminate against gay people by not permitting them to get married. It does not require anyone to preside at a gay wedding or for anyone to attend one. It also does not compel approval of gay marriage by any private citizen. It only requires certain public officials to do the necessary to permit and accommodate gay weddings. Does anyone support such compulsion as I have outlined ? If so, why ? On what basis ? Trem ?
A public official who does not want to perform a gay wedding has a choice. They can resign, retire or quit rather than do so because they are PUBLIC officials. The Kleins are not. It is worth noting that a bakery is NOT one of the facilities and institutions specifically covered by Federal Civil Rights legislation BUT there are Supreme Court decisions that applied same to restaurants . I have to admit it is a tough call as to how "public" the Klein's behavior was. They are certainly choosing to hurt their own business but there are businesses that cater to bigots. I am struggling to find a harm from their behavior other than some hurt feelings. I am also struggling to see wedding cake as an essential good or service . It's not like they were denied medical treatment because they were gay. Why didn't one of those gals just learn how to bake ? Or why didn't the other one do a search for a more accommodating bakery ? Just asking.
To me there is a righteous objection to the conferring of special status to gays or any other group. Their feelings should not count for more than anyone else's. Just as they have equal rights under the law that should not be converted to or perverted into special privileges or greater rights than anyone else..
Wait a minute. Nobody made up the wording of the Order issued by the Oregon Dept. Of Labor. It says what it says.
It says what it says, what it doesn't say is anything that article melonie posted claims it does. Under oregon law businesses may not “publish, circulate, issue or display” any “communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind” that suggests they will turn someone away because of their identity. After losing the case the Kleins continued to state they would not serve gay couples and instead of fining them again the judge told them they couldn't do that. They can talk about their beliefs or the case to anyone and everyone anywhere they feel like, what they cannot do is continue claiming they will still discriminate against gays.
HoolaTwister
07-09-2015, 10:53 AM
If the gay community thinks this is how they will win hearts and minds, they are wrong. I already feel completely alienated from the mainstream LGBT community. Good job guys.
That's alright, we already won.
HoolaTwister
07-09-2015, 10:57 AM
That's right, you've "won" by getting the government goons on your side, ready to ruin anyone who "offends" you. You don't tolerate, you don't believe in equality, you've got the power now and you're so proud. March on soldier.
Eric Stoner
07-09-2015, 11:04 AM
That's right, you've "won" by getting the government goons on your side, ready to ruin anyone who "offends" you. You don't tolerate, you don't believe in equality, you've got the power now and you're so proud. March on soldier.
Come on. Stop taking the bait and stop the personalizing. There is no need for it.
Eric Stoner
07-09-2015, 11:12 AM
That's alright, we already won.
That's fine . Now would you please answer my questions ? How much compulsion are you willing to support ? To what end ? To avoid any hurt feeling whatsoever ?
You do acknowledge that the Kleins are running a PRIVATE business ; not a public facility or even a place of public accommodation, don't you ? Do you support the position of some that the Catholic Church and other religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status unless they agree to perform gay marriages ? If so, how do you square that with the First Amendment ? We can have free exercise of religion so long as no one feels excluded and no one's feelings get hurt ? You tell me.
kirakonstantin
07-09-2015, 11:19 AM
Yes and no. There is a statute in the State of Oregon that does state that a place of public accommodation cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation and states do have the right to their own laws, provided they don't deny constitutional rights. Gun laws are a great example. The constitution says that we have the right to bear arms, but the state tells us that we can't have a gun in a government building or a bar.
This is really a matter or how far each right extends and clearer definition of things like the free exercise of religion. What is it? How far does it go? How does it intersect with opposing viewpoints? Right now, the concept of "four walls" freedom semi to be in vogue. A person can practice their beliefs in their home or church, but outside of that, they have restricted religious freedom. SCOTUS will eventually get a hold of this case and figure those things out. The only other time that religion intersected with other rights so fundamentally was Roe V. Wade and there's still some debate about it.
It's also a matter of what discrimination is and how it intersects into the case. Things such as whether refusal to serve an event is the same as blanket discrimination. Or if a baker, who doesn't necessarily have to attend the event is different from a photographer, who does. Interesting things are going to happen.
Trem, you may have won a fight to get same sex marriage legalized, but that doesn't take rights away from anyone else. Trumpeting that everyone has to agree with you now is extremely foolhardy and a sure way to increase what amounts to a small backlash into a tidal wave of discrimination and legal pushback. At this point, this thread has managed to alienate two people who fall under the LGBTQ umbrella.
It's impossible to get the entire country to agree on something. Anything. Even what appears to be extremely basic. Nobody has been promised a life with no opposing viewpoints or hurt feelings. Everybody has had people treat them like shit for things they can't control, such as height, body proportions, hair color. That's life. The ability to destroy a family because they said no is a pretty incredible power and in extreme, especially when the rest of us have no other options but to say Fuck You in our heads and keep going. I've cried pitifully when I can't find a bra or a bathing suit to accommodate my chest size. It hurts and it sucks, but that's life. I thank my parents for teaching me early on that life is not and never will be fair.
That's fine . Now would you please answer my questions ? How much compulsion are you willing to support ?
What does compulsion mean? I fully support the penalty the Kleins received, if they continue to discriminate the next one should be bigger.
To what end ? To avoid any hurt feeling whatsoever ?
To end discrimination, hurt feelings are not part of the equation.
You do acknowledge that the Kleins are running a PRIVATE business ; not a public facility or even a place of public accommodation, don't you ?
Sure, i don't see what that has to do with anything.
Do you support the position of some that the Catholic Church and other religious institutions should lose their tax exempt status unless they agree to perform gay marriages ?
I don't think they should have to perform gay marriages at all.
We can have free exercise of religion so long as no one feels excluded and no one's feelings get hurt ? You tell me.
You can have the free exercise of religion as long as you are not harming anyone else. This should be so obvious and uncontroversial that i honestly find it ridiculous anyone can argue against it.
Melonie
07-09-2015, 01:19 PM
You can have the free exercise of religion as long as you are not harming anyone else. This should be so obvious and uncontroversial that i honestly find it ridiculous anyone can argue against it.
yet another relevant news story ... from
(snip)CLEVELAND, July 8 (Reuters) - A northwest Ohio municipal judge assigned to a courtroom where civil marriages are performed refused to marry two women less than two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, the judge's office confirmed on Wednesday.
Toledo Municipal Judge Allen McConnell was on a three-week rotation assigned to perform civil ceremonies on Monday when Carolyn Wilson and her partner asked to be married. McConnell acknowledged the decision in a Wednesday statement.
"On Monday, July 6, I declined to marry a non-traditional couple during my duties assignment," he said. "The declination was based upon my personal and Christian beliefs established over many years. I apologize to the couple for the delay they experienced and wish them the best."(snip)
(snip)McConnell said he will continue to perform "traditional marriages" and is, "seeking an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court of Ohio" about whether he can "opt out of the rotation" that would have him perform civil marriages.(snip)
In the way of background, it should probably be pointed out that Judge McConnell is black, a 'liberal', and the former head of the Toledo NAACP chapter. Despite this, gay journalist Glenn Greenwald is already calling for the judge's impeachment.
Indeed the 'slippery slope' legal ramifications are becoming messier by the minute.
How is any of that is a slippery slope or messy? the guy is refusing to do his job and should be impeached. The fact that he is black or liberal has absolutely no bearing on the issue.
Melonie
07-09-2015, 01:46 PM
^^^ It's legally 'messy' because yet another court decision ( by the Ohio Supreme Court ) will now be required to determine whether or not the judge's personal religious convictions will allow him to 'opt out' of performing gay marriages, thus 'trumping' what would otherwise be considered a responsibility of his job as a judge. And in this particular case, distracting factors such as 'conservatism' aren't present.
It's arguably a slippery slope because, if the judge IS allowed to 'opt out', the same criteria can be used by many others to similarly 'opt out' where personal religious convictions are involved. On the 'flip' side, if the Ohio Supreme Court decides that the judge must perform gay marriages despite his personal religious convictions ( versus resigning ), the same criteria can potentially be applied to other circumstances ... such as forcing doctors to perform abortions despite their personal religious convictions ( which, as kirakonstantin already alluded to, is an unsettled remnant of Roe V Wade ).
Oh, yeah i agree that if he was allowed to opt out that would make things quite messy. Hopefully that does not happen.
Melonie
07-09-2015, 01:58 PM
^^^ arguably, this will be 'messy' no matter what the Ohio Supreme Court decides. The point is that this will officially raise the legal question of the 'right' of an individual to follow personal religious convictions versus the 'right' of others to receive equal treatment ... even if providing said equal treatment goes against the personal religious convictions of another. Again, as kirakonstantin already pointed out, there are a whole lot of unresolved controversies in the area of religious rights versus other rights which have been side-stepped / ignored over the years. It would appear that those unresolved controversies cannot be side-stepped / ignored any longer.
No they cannot, the sooner we get all this resolved the better. We are obviously way past the point were avoiding/side stepping is a viable alternative.
kirakonstantin
07-09-2015, 03:27 PM
Compulsion, in this case, means something that's mandatory, with consequences for not doing it. Kind of like compulsory exercises in figure skating or gymnastics competition. You perform the element or you get points taken away.
SCOTUS really needs to take this on. The only thing that's going to present a clear path is a clear cut ruling on how to proceed and where the lines are drawn. I did sidestep the issues with Roe V. Wade, as I really didn't want to start yet another debate, but Melonie did mention one of the biggest ones. That law was passed in 1973, several years before I was born, and there are STILL questions. I do remember a lot of the arguments from when I was young and they're similar to the current discussions about same sex marriage.
In the situation with the Judge, I don't see why that exact Judge had to do the ceremony, other than that it was requested while he happened to pull that rotation. Why wasn't another Judge, who was comfortable performing the ceremony, brought in? Courthouse weddings take like... 10 minutes. Seriously, if this was handled properly, the couple would have had their ceremony and not even known that there was an issue. But, as this legislation is so new, a lot of jurisdictions haven't had time to put plans into place or haven't had reason to consider it yet.
Granted, sometimes we have to do things we'd rather not do, but I can think of situations in my current field of study that I'd morally object to participating in. I should have the right to say no.
The mentality of "I should get exactly what I want, when I want it and, if anyone disagrees with me or doesn't give it to me, I have the right to shout them down" is dangerous and destructive to any cause. There are examples in feminism, animal rights and environmental rights, most obviously and they've made it a great deal harder to get legislation through because they're so radical that they drown out more reasonable voices.
Working together and finding ways to compromise is truly the best way to get through this transitional time. Society will grow and adapt, as it always has, if we just have the patience and wisdom to let it happen, rather than forcing it. We're taking some legendary steps right now that future generations will read about in history books, like they read about the Civil Rights movement. How are we, as a society, going to write this history? Is this going to be the time when same sex couples rights were upheld? Or is this going to be the end of the First Amendment? We have choices here and history will judge us for what we do. I sincerely hope that we can work together to make our section of the history books a positive one.
eagle2
07-09-2015, 05:23 PM
You're conflating employment law with Constitutional protections here, but I'm going to ignore that because you are making my point. The employer and employee both possess the ability to withdraw from the employment arrangement, either by dismissal or by quitting. Under your reasoning, the party providing the payment should be the exclusive decision maker for both parties as to whether the employment (or service) contract should go forward. Your friend was not forced to work on the Sabbath. She was well within her rights to remove herself from such a situation. You are insisting the bakers be denied any such option.
The government denied businesses that option a long time ago, when the first civil rights legislation was passed. Businesses cannot refuse to serve customers based on their race or religion. Some states have added sexual orientation to the list of protected groups. You, and a few of the others here supporting the bakery can correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be okay with the fact that bakeries cannot legally refuse to serve African-Americans or Jews, even if they have sincerely held beliefs against serving these groups. You only seem to be okay with bakeries being able to legally refuse to serve gay people because of sincerely held beliefs. I don't see a difference between the two. I see certain groups of people that are specifically targeting gays for discrimination. I've never heard of any Christian businesses unwilling to serve unmarried couples living together,even though it goes against Christian beliefs. As someone who is Jewish, I can tell you that worshiping Jesus goes just as much against Jewish religious beliefs, as homosexuality goes against Christian beliefs (for some Christians), yet I never hear of Jewish bakers refusing to cater to Christian weddings, because "it violates their religious freedom". The only people that I hear talking about all of these new "religious freedom" laws are people who don't want to serve gays. I've never heard of Christian bakers refusing to bake cakes for Hindu weddings, even though the ceremony involves worshiping gods other than the Christian god, which goes against Christianity just as much, or more than gay marriage. The only group of people that these Christian businesses want the right to refuse to serve are homosexuals. The fact that they're specifically targeting homosexuals leads me to believe that the reason they want the right to not have to serve gay people is because of prejudice rather than religious beliefs.
eagle2
07-09-2015, 05:30 PM
Eagle, what do you think of escorts and same sex? Let's say a straight escort gets a call for a lesbian and she turns it down is she wrong? There's no wrong answer, just something I thought of.
I say the escort has the right to turn down a female, because for the escort, there is a big difference between providing a service to a male and providing a service to a female. Baking a cake for a same-sex couple is exactly the same as baking a cake for an opposite couple, so I don't see any legitimate reason for the baker to refuse. I don't see baking a cake as having anything to do with religion. Christian clergy do have the right to not marry same-sex couples in a religious ceremony because that would be considered religion.
kirakonstantin
07-09-2015, 05:46 PM
The government denied businesses that option a long time ago, when the first civil rights legislation was passed. Businesses cannot refuse to serve customers based on their race or religion. Some states have added sexual orientation to the list of protected groups. You, and a few of the others here supporting the bakery can correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be okay with the fact that bakeries cannot legally refuse to serve African-Americans or Jews, even if they have sincerely held beliefs against serving these groups. You only seem to be okay with bakeries being able to legally refuse to serve gay people because of sincerely held beliefs. I don't see a difference between the two. I see certain groups of people that are specifically targeting gays for discrimination. I've never heard of any Christian businesses unwilling to serve unmarried couples living together,even though it goes against Christian beliefs. As someone who is Jewish, I can tell you that worshiping Jesus goes just as much against Jewish religious beliefs, as homosexuality goes against Christian beliefs (for some Christians), yet I never hear of Jewish bakers refusing to cater to Christian weddings, because "it violates their religious freedom". The only people that I hear talking about all of these new "religious freedom" laws are people who don't want to serve gays. I've never heard of Christian bakers refusing to bake cakes for Hindu weddings, even though the ceremony involves worshiping gods other than the Christian god, which goes against Christianity just as much, or more than gay marriage. The only group of people that these Christian businesses want the right to refuse to serve are homosexuals. The fact that they're specifically targeting homosexuals leads me to believe that the reason they want the right to not have to serve gay people is because of prejudice rather than religious beliefs.
None of these businesses are refusing to serve homosexuals completely, for any reason. They're refusing to provide service to same sex weddings. Is there a difference? Maybe, maybe not. I see both sides of it, which is why I don't think these businesses should be so harshly punished until there's specific legislation. There's a huge legal gray area between where a Christian's rights end and a same sex couples rights begin.
I suspect that the reason we hear little about Jews being turned away from a Muslim business is because they're likely avoiding them to begin with or are specifically looking for a Jewish business. It's easier to ensure kosher dietary laws are being upheld if those providing the service are upholding it themselves.
There's only been a dozen or so cases involving same sex couples being denied service. Most people would just shake their heads and go elsewhere, like the rest of us without protected status do, rather than sue. This may be an enormous problem, or it could just be a few vocal people making a fuss over nothing. Perhaps that's why SCOTUS hasn't accepted these cases yet. Time is going to tell if this is temporary backlash that will fix itself or an epidemic that needs resolving.
Dirty Ernie
07-09-2015, 08:44 PM
None of these businesses are refusing to serve homosexuals completely, for any reason. They're refusing to provide service to same sex weddings. Is there a difference? Maybe, maybe not...
There is a difference between public accommodation and contracting for personal services. The couple was not denied the opportunity to enter the business, nor to buy any goods being sold in the bakery, but what they wanted to do was hire the baker to create a cake. That falls under personal services contracts and not public accommodation and requires the consent of both parties. Could the Court rule one cannot decline such an agreement if the other party is a protected class? Perhaps. Should the Constitutionally protected right of one party be abridged due to the other party's statutory standing? I don't see how the Court could allow that, but if that were the case then the party disinclined to engage in the contract will merely have to come up with a secondary reason to decline, which happens everyday. "Sorry, I'm too busy", "Sorry I'm booked past your date", or whatever. You cannot force someone into performing a service simply because there is a buyer.
"...certain classes of contracts are inherently nonassignable in their character, such as promises to marry, or engagements for personal services, requiring skill, science, or peculiar qualifications. When rights arising out of contract are coupled with obligations to be performed by the contractor, and involve such a relation of personal confidence that it must have been intended that the rights should be exercised and the obligations performed by him alone, the contract, including both his rights and his obligations, cannot be assigned without the consent of the other party to such contract.
"That certain contractual rights and duties, such as those typically found in personal services contracts, cannot be assigned without the consent of the other party is a well-established rule of law."
When two parties enter a contract, there is no difference whether one is a baker or an escort. That is why Lady Justice is blindfolded. The law must be applied equally. If we use your (eagle's) perspective, if a stripper approached a customer and announced she was a lesbian, ie belonged to a protected class, she could insist you buy dances from her because refusing to do so is discriminatory as she witnessed you buying dances from straight women. This is what happens when you strip the consent from one of the parties in a contract of services situation.
Melonie
07-10-2015, 02:41 AM
We're taking some legendary steps right now that future generations will read about in history books, like they read about the Civil Rights movement. How are we, as a society, going to write this history? Is this going to be the time when same sex couples rights were upheld? Or is this going to be the end of the First Amendment? We have choices here and history will judge us for what we do
Indeed !!!
I don't see why that exact Judge had to do the ceremony, other than that it was requested while he happened to pull that rotation. Why wasn't another Judge, who was comfortable performing the ceremony, brought in?
Unfortunately, this is yet another legal issue where court decisions presently conflict. In the Conestoga case, the Supreme Court referenced the widespread availability of contraceptives from sources other than the Mennonite employer's health insurance as a mitigating factor ... i.e. that Conestoga's employees would not actually be 'denied' access to contraceptives if Conestoga was allowed to exclude contraceptives from their health plan coverage. Logically speaking, the same doctrine could be applied to allow the Toledo judge to 'opt out' of performing gay weddings, since the gay couple would not actually be 'denied' access to marriage because they could still be married by another judge. But, by the same logic, if gay couples are able to obtain wedding services from any number of other bakeries / photographers, why shouldn't a Christian bakery / photographer be similarly allowed to 'opt out' ?
Please note that I'm not voicing any personal opinion one way or the other in this regard, but merely pointing out that legal inconsistencies presently exist. And that brings us back around to an earlier point ... what happens when maintaining legal consistency isn't compatible with a court ruling favoring a 'protected class' ? In Conestoga, only the employer was a 'protected class'. With the Toledo judge, both parties are a 'protected class'. With a Christian bakery, only the customer is a 'protected class'. I guess only the SCOTUS can resolve that question via future decisions!
threlayer
07-10-2015, 02:22 PM
It should be added that race is also an artificial construct. Redheads aren't a race, Swedes aren't a race. White is as much a genetic defect[lack of pigmentation] as it is anything.
NO. White or black is an environmental Adaptation. Sexual preference is not.
eagle2
07-11-2015, 12:20 AM
There is a difference between public accommodation and contracting for personal services. The couple was not denied the opportunity to enter the business, nor to buy any goods being sold in the bakery, but what they wanted to do was hire the baker to create a cake. That falls under personal services contracts and not public accommodation and requires the consent of both parties. Could the Court rule one cannot decline such an agreement if the other party is a protected class? Perhaps. Should the Constitutionally protected right of one party be abridged due to the other party's statutory standing? I don't see how the Court could allow that, but if that were the case then the party disinclined to engage in the contract will merely have to come up with a secondary reason to decline, which happens everyday. "Sorry, I'm too busy", "Sorry I'm booked past your date", or whatever. You cannot force someone into performing a service simply because there is a buyer.
You're trying to stretch this into something that it isn't. A bakery is a public business, and is required to follow the laws that apply to public businesses. If a baker bakes specific wedding cakes for one group of people, he cannot refuse to bake wedding cakes for a different group of people, if that other group of people is protected against discrimination, by law. There is no question that if every time an African-American couple went to a specific baker and asked him to bake a wedding cake and the baker refused, but he was willing to do it for every white couple, the baker would be in violation of civil rights laws. He could not say that he chose not to enter into a contract with those African-American couples. The same applies to gay couples in states that have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
It's no different than a restaurant which prepares food for customers, and also has pre-made meals available for take-out. The restaurant cannot legally refuse to wait on African-Americans who want to sit down and eat, and as a defense say, "we choose not to enter a contract with these people to prepare food for them, but they are allowed to enter the restaurant and buy our pre-made meals for take-out, so we're not discriminating against them".
Melonie
07-11-2015, 02:30 AM
^^^ your analogies would appear to be accurate ... but they are all based on the classic definition of 'equal treatment' discrimination based on 'race, creed, color, etc.' and now sexual orientation. However, we now have a NEW question thrown into the mix regarding the 'right' of free exercise of religion by the business owner which isn't involved in any of your analogies.
Going back to the Supreme Court cases, the ACA law mandated that ALL employers must provide ACA compliant health insurance coverage to employees ... including contraceptive drugs. This is roughly equivalent to laws which apply to public businesses being required to serve everyone regardless of 'race, creed, color, etc.' and now sexual orientation. However, the Supreme Court allowed the Mennonite owners of Conestoga to NOT provide ACA compliant health insurance coverage for their employees as otherwise required by law because ... in the court's opinion ... the business owner's 'right' to exercise personal religious convictions superseded the employees' 'right' to equal treatment.
As stated earlier, this would appear to be a legal / logical contradiction. However, it does mean that none of these cases can truly be resolved until the Supreme Court makes a final decision regarding the 'right' of free exercise of religion, versus the 'right' to equal treatment by a member of a 'protected class', in other cases such as the Toledo judge or a gay wedding cake bakery.
However, in the meantime, the 'real world' result appears rather clear. Fines will be leveed, resignations will be requested, etc. see
(snip)Kentucky’s governor told a county court clerk Thursday that he should either issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or resign. But Casey Davis, who is elected, said he would go to jail first.
(snip)The issue of religious freedom will be before U.S. District Judge David Bunning on Monday when he hears arguments in another case involving Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis. She refused to issue marriages licenses to two gay couples and two straight couples after the Supreme Court’s ruling, prompting the American Civil Liberties Union to seek an injunction forcing her to do it.
If a court was to issue such an injunction and Kim Davis or Casey Davis defied it, they could be thrown in jail. But removing them from office would be difficult: As elected officials, they would have to be impeached by the General Assembly, which is unlikely.(snip)
Will the federal judge cite the SC Conestoga decision, and refuse to issue an injunction ? Will the federal judge issue the injunction based on the SC Obergefell decision ? Will the federal judge side-step the issue of religious 'rights' altogether and issue the injunction based solely on a gov't official refusing to follow the Gov's order ? We'll find out on Monday ! After that, will whatever decision the federal judge arrives at be appealed to a higher federal court ? We'll find out on Tuesday !
the legal 'mess' continues to spread ...
HoolaTwister
07-11-2015, 04:40 AM
You're trying to stretch this into something that it isn't. A bakery is a public business, and is required to follow the laws that apply to public businesses. If a baker bakes specific wedding cakes for one group of people, he cannot refuse to bake wedding cakes for a different group of people, if that other group of people is protected against discrimination, by law. There is no question that if every time an African-American couple went to a specific baker and asked him to bake a wedding cake and the baker refused, but he was willing to do it for every white couple, the baker would be in violation of civil rights laws. He could not say that he chose not to enter into a contract with those African-American couples. The same applies to gay couples in states that have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
It's no different than a restaurant which prepares food for customers, and also has pre-made meals available for take-out. The restaurant cannot legally refuse to wait on African-Americans who want to sit down and eat, and as a defense say, "we choose not to enter a contract with these people to prepare food for them, but they are allowed to enter the restaurant and buy our pre-made meals for take-out, so we're not discriminating against them".
And why is it that in every one of your scenarios a white person is discriminating against a non white person. Have you been anywhere, like, ever? Have you met many people?
HoolaTwister
07-11-2015, 04:45 AM
I've never been more discriminated against than in a Hasidic neighborhood. Boy! They cross the street just so they don't have to walk next or by you! I'm seriously considering asking them to bake me a same sex marriage cake, eage, what do you think? Will they do it? Nah. And I'm 100% sure it won't make the news and nobody will care.
HoolaTwister
07-11-2015, 04:49 AM
Actually, you know what? In gonna do an experiment. I'm gonna find and call up a Hasidic bakery and ask of they will get me a cake for a gay wedding. I'll report back!
eagle2
07-11-2015, 08:56 AM
And why is it that in every one of your scenarios a white person is discriminating against a non white person. Have you been anywhere, like, ever? Have you met many people?
I only used that example because civil rights laws were written specifically because white businesses in the South refused to serve African-Americans. I'm not trying to imply that no other ethnic group discriminates.
eagle2
07-11-2015, 09:02 AM
I've never been more discriminated against than in a Hasidic neighborhood. Boy! They cross the street just so they don't have to walk next or by you! I'm seriously considering asking them to bake me a same sex marriage cake, eage, what do you think? Will they do it? Nah. And I'm 100% sure it won't make the news and nobody will care.
I can't answer for them. If you live in a state where it is illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation and they refuse to serve you because you tell them you're a lesbian, I would support you in any legal action you take against them. I have just as low of an opinion of any Hasidic Jews who discriminate against others, as I do of anyone else who discriminates against gays or anyone, just because of who that person is.
kirakonstantin
07-11-2015, 12:00 PM
Again, Federal ACA laws are different than State anti discrimination laws. Comparing the two is apples and a salami sandwich. Not paying for certain types of contraceptives is different than refusal to extend service for a specific type of event.
It's easy to compare same sex weddings to Jim Crow laws, because that's where anti discrimination laws came from and that's what we have experience with. But this is different. There really is no parallel because this is an extremely unique situation. Kind of like a woman wanting an abortion and her doctor refusing to do it, due to religious convictions, but expressing a willingness to extend her care for any other medical concerns. And that's not even a perfect analogy, but merely the closest thing we have.
A business like a bakery, with a brick and mortar retail location that customers are welcome in... the private contract notion could go either way, although I can definitely see the rationale behind it. A photographer without a studio location that takes commissions... Ernie most certainly has a point there.
Eric Stoner
07-13-2015, 09:40 AM
The Ohio judge has a simple choice - perform the marriage or resign. If his personal beliefs and PREJUDICES ( because that is what they are ) prevenI
It him from performing his duties then he really has no choice and must leave the bench. What ? He's not going to hear divorce cases involving same sex couples ; custody disputes ; adoption proceedings ; anything involving a same sex couple ? Where can we draw a line ? How about where his official duties begin and end ?
Eagle has made a very good argument against the Kleins. They may be a private business but just as they are barred from refusing to serve blacks , Jews or Muslims maybe they ought to be barred from treating gay couples as second class citizens. The ONLY place where one ought to be able to cloak prejuidice with religious belief is in a private home or place of worship. If the Kleins don't like it they can stop making wedding cakes altogether . Just sell cakes and let whoever put whatever they want on the cakes themselves.
My sister's pastor has said he will not perform any weddings for people who do not belong to his church. Not to be exclusive but to avoid having to perform gay weddings. I tried to tell him that there was no legal requirement that he perform gay weddings. NONE ! He thinks this will help him avoid the problem. I can't wait for a gay couple who do belong to his church to ask him to marry them. I'd love to see the look on his face when he realizes that they couldn't "pray away the gay " lol.
HoolaTwister
07-13-2015, 10:14 AM
Called a Kosher bakery. Asked if they would get me an assortment for my gay wedding. Not even a cake. But an assortment for different pastries. I was very polite. I got hung up on. So there is that. I won't say which bakery this was obviously.
Uh ok, not sure what you were hoping to prove. You should sue them.
kirakonstantin
07-13-2015, 12:21 PM
The Judge, as he is acting as an agent of the government, gets a lot less leeway in same sex marriage. As it stands, the situation was dealt with, the couple was married after a short wait and all was well. It really depends on what the individual state wants to do with the situation and how judges are put on the bench (elected or appointed.) It may be a situation where impeachment would be an option or a situation where voters need to decide whether he stays in his position. As this is a very new and unique situation, the court needs to put temporary policies in place, at the very least. If they're required to issue licenses and facilitate same sex marriage by federal law, they need to ensure that it happens.
Prejudice, in all its forms, is a truly awful thing although the human race will never do away with it completely. At this point, the pendulum is swinging towards putting Christians in the unenviable position of societal pariah. As it was not ok to alienate homosexuals, it's just as not ok to do the same thing to religion. While I ignore most rumblings about wars on Christianity, there is now a call to remove tax exempt status to churches and other religious organizations who oppose same sex marriage. For reals. http://fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/
I'm not a fan of anyone losing their business/income over such a widely debated topic. I don't want to see it happening to Christian business person any more than I want to see it happen to.a homosexual Hobby Lobby employee who comes out of the closet. There is space in the world for everyone, so long as everyone is willing to compromise to serve the greater good. Same sex couples may not get the photographer of their dreams and Christians can't kick out a same sex couple from their business. But if everyone, no matter where they stand on the issue, actually shows the tolerance that's so loudly shouted about, society will get through these growing pains without making complete asses of our collective selves.
eagle2
07-18-2015, 08:46 PM
I saw this on a Christian's blog regarding Jesus and serving homosexuals:
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/persecution-complex
As Christians, our most “deeply held religious belief” is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for sinful people, and that in imitation of that, we are called to love God, to love our neighbors, and to love even our enemies to the point of death. And yet right now, the prevailing perception of American Christians is that baking a cake for a gay couple is too much to ask.
As I’ve made it clear in the past, I support marriage equality and affirm my gay and lesbian friends who want to commit themselves to another person for life. But over and beyond my beliefs regarding homosexuality is my most deeply-held conviction that I am called to love my neighbor as myself…even if it costs me something, even if it means walking a second mile. And I know many of my fellow Christians who hold a more conservative view of sexuality share that conviction too.
I've been watching people with golden crosses around their necks and on their lapels shout at the TV about how serving gay and lesbian people is a violation of their “sincerely-held religious beliefs.” And I can't help but laugh at the sad irony of it. Two-thousand years ago, Jesus hung from that cross, looked out on the people who put him there and said, "Father, forgive them." Jesus served sinners all the way to the cross.
threlayer
07-19-2015, 08:33 AM
... I have just as low of an opinion of any Hasidic Jews who discriminate against others, as I do of anyone else who discriminates against gays or anyone, just because of who that person is.
In their millennial legends, there are the "chosen people", so why wouldn't they feel special over all others?
audritwo
07-19-2015, 10:33 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJRymwScKe0
kirakonstantin
07-19-2015, 02:10 PM
I saw this on a Christian's blog regarding Jesus and serving homosexuals:
http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/persecution-complex
As Christians, our most “deeply held religious belief” is that Jesus Christ died on the cross for sinful people, and that in imitation of that, we are called to love God, to love our neighbors, and to love even our enemies to the point of death. And yet right now, the prevailing perception of American Christians is that baking a cake for a gay couple is too much to ask.
As I’ve made it clear in the past, I support marriage equality and affirm my gay and lesbian friends who want to commit themselves to another person for life. But over and beyond my beliefs regarding homosexuality is my most deeply-held conviction that I am called to love my neighbor as myself…even if it costs me something, even if it means walking a second mile. And I know many of my fellow Christians who hold a more conservative view of sexuality share that conviction too.
I've been watching people with golden crosses around their necks and on their lapels shout at the TV about how serving gay and lesbian people is a violation of their “sincerely-held religious beliefs.” And I can't help but laugh at the sad irony of it. Two-thousand years ago, Jesus hung from that cross, looked out on the people who put him there and said, "Father, forgive them." Jesus served sinners all the way to the cross.
Personally, I agree with this and take it a step further. If God created homosexuality as a natural, biological trait... God doesn't make mistakes.
What I won't do is tell other people that they're wrong for thinking differently than I do. That's thought policing and it always ends badly. Much better to let them come to the conclusion themselves, maybe with some gentle encouragement. Bashing them over the head, shouting bigot is only going to cement their beliefs further and create more of a divide, which is totally counterproductive.
The insistence that everyone agree or be silenced is going too far. I rarely discuss my views on marijuana and alcohol, the fact that I generally dislike Caitlyn Jenner for reasons unrelated to her gender identity, second amendment rights and other issues, because I'm automatically labeled a bigot, intolerant, a prude or other epithets. But... scientifically, I'm 110% correct about everything that can be based in science and gender identity isn't a shield against being called out on shitty behavior. But, the vocal majority thinks otherwise and thinks that it's ok to shout people down who don't agree with or validate their beliefs. I'm sick of it and I suspect it's getting to a point where others are as well.
If you want tolerance and acceptance, the first step is to give it to others, even if they don't return the favor. A main tenet of Christ's teachings was to turn the other cheek. Rather than screaming about big o tree and throwing a tantrum because someone dares to disagree with me, no matter how right I am, I thank them for their opinion, respectfully disagree with them and usually change the subject. At the very least, there usually isn't a high volume, pointless argument. But there's also a very strong chance that they're thinking about what I said, which is a step in the right direction. We don't always get to choose how God works in the lives of others. All I can do is set a good example, offer up the knowledge that I gave and let the Spirit do the rest.
Another teaching that I live by is throwing the first stone. Better to just put it down and walk away, rather than to attack someone or something that I'm just as guilty of.
Kellydancer
07-19-2015, 02:33 PM
Great post. I dislike bigotry but it goes both ways. Many people think those who have different views should be silenced. That to me is the sane thing as someone being a bigot.
If you want tolerance and acceptance, the first step is to give it to others, even if they don't return the favor.
No, the first step towards tolerance and acceptance is STANDING UP AGAINST INTOLERANCE. This idea that if we don't tolerate the bigots and the hateful we are just intolerant ourselves is downright silly, we shouldn't be tolerant of EVERYTHING just for the sake of being "tolerant". You have to stand up to those doing evil, not simply treat their desire to discriminate against others as an equal and valid desire to the people who don't want to be discriminated against.
kirakonstantin
07-19-2015, 05:16 PM
I'm sorry, Trem, but you're showing just as much bigotry as you claim to be decrying. By calling others hateful and evil, you're being equally hateful and evil. People discriminate against me too, as a member of three protected classes, as well as being a sex worker. But, rather than stoop to their level, I rise above it, show myself to be a better person and let others decide who the asshole really is.
This "shout it down" bullshit is why most positive movements lose steam and become annoyances before their work is done.
I'm sorry, Trem, but you're showing just as much bigotry as you claim to be decrying. By calling others hateful and evil, you're being equally hateful and evil. People discriminate against me too, as a member of three protected classes, as well as being a sex worker.
No i am not, it is in fact the complete opposite of this. If someone discriminates against gays they ARE hateful bigots, there is absolutely nothing hateful or bigoted about pointing this out, it is in fact the very meaning of those words. Wanting to discriminate against others for their sexual preference IS evil, there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing this out and doing my best to stop them. This is the only way things get better, we would never be where we are today if we simply adopted this mentality of "if you want to fight intolerance you have to tolerate the intolerant or you are just like them", that makes ZERO sense.
kirakonstantin
07-19-2015, 05:33 PM
It's not that you're wanting to point out intolerance or bigotry. It's the fact that you're using intolerance and bigotry to do it that is a problem. Being bigoted towards Christians because they're bigoted against same sex marriage does nothing. The end result is two bigots screaming at eachother. It accomplishes nothing but making both parties look stupid.
It's not that you're wanting to point out intolerance or bigotry. It's the fact that you're using intolerance and bigotry to do it that is a problem. Being bigoted towards Christians because they're bigoted against same sex marriage does nothing. The end result is two bigots screaming at eachother. It accomplishes nothing but making both parties look stupid.
I'm not bigoted against Christians. There are millions of good Christians who have absolutely nothing against gay people. There are millions of good Christians who believe being gay is a sin but realize their personal beliefs are not a license to discriminate. There are millions of good Christians who are against gay marriage but are smart enough to know baking a cake is not participating in a gay marriage. There are also millions of bigots from almost every single other religion who are just as hateful or more as the Christians who want to discriminate against gays, as Hoolas... experiment? showed. If every Christian was a bigot this country would be far far away from accepting gay marriage. I'm against bigots, of every religion, and if you put a sign outside your business that says "we don't serve gays" you are a bigot not a Christian.
miss.a.p1600
07-19-2015, 06:14 PM
Trem its one way to THINK how ever the hell you want to think. Discrimination is actually acting on irrational thoughts in a way that harms or oppresses other. One harms others, the other does not. Big difference. You can't change the way people think, only how you react to them.
audritwo
07-19-2015, 06:53 PM
I cannot believe this is still going on. What on earth happened to celebrating gay marriage?
God, can we please stop talking about these hateful people.
YAY GAY MARRIAGE.