Supreme Court to weigh free speech, discrimination in wedding cake casce

Eilzel wrote:His free speech isn't being infringed upon at all. The only people who have to see the cake beyond him are the buyers and wedding guests. He is just making a cake, that's his job.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:His free speech isn't being infringed upon at all. The only people who have to see the cake beyond him are the buyers and wedding guests. He is just making a cake, that's his job.

Would you agree with that statement if a gay Baker in Australia was asked to make a "vote not to gay narriage"  cake??

Or are we in for a slice of your famous "but that's different" logic ??

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Would you agree with that statement if a gay Baker in Australia was asked to make a "vote not to gay narriage"  cake??

Or are we in for a slice of your famous "but that's different" logic ??

I'd ask what on earth anyone would want such a cake for. I'd also ask if they wanted me to remove a 't' and change an 'n' to an 'm' but that's besides the point I think

I suppose, since the law is what it is there (not every country is as advanced as others) it would be impossible not to allow them such a cake.

Eilzel wrote:I wouldn't be 'ok' with it, but I'd legally have to do it.

I'd still ask what the point was though lol

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I wouldn't be 'ok' with it, but I'd legally have to do it.

I'd still ask what the point was though lol

Why wouldn't you be ok with it??

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Why wouldn't you be ok with it??

The cake would obviously be declaring its support of a vote to deny my rights to marriage. As mentioned in my lovely rant... well you know what I think of those people

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Why wouldn't you be ok with it??

The cake would obviously be declaring its support of a vote to deny my rights to marriage. As mentioned in my lovely rant... well you know what I think of those people

So if a Christian Baker who wanted to vote no, was forced to make a cake saying vote yes, would you understand his feelings of anamosity towards gays??

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

So if a Christian Baker who wanted to vote no, was forced to make a cake saying vote yes, would you understand his feelings of anamosity towards gays??

I'd understand why they wouldn't like it, but they still have to do it.

veya_victaous wrote:businesses are not people, protections for personal beliefs do NOT extend to them. No one is forced to run a business.

open and shut case under UK and Australian law.

If you have a problem and think the British law is Wrong then argue with you MP

veya_victaous wrote:That's the LAW
and it is NOT discrimination because they are BUSINESSES not people.
If you think it wrong go speak with your MP

Stop ruining yet another thread with your ignorance

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I'd understand why they wouldn't like it, but they still have to do it.

You should never force anyone promote ideas that go against their wishes.

Are you seriously telling me you would force a gay baker to make a cake against their wishes, say one that deemed homosexuality as a sin using a biblical verse?

How about Muslims being forced to print pictures of Muhammad?

How about Jews being forced to print the book of a holocaust denier?

A Republican baker being asked to make a celebratory Democrat cake and visa versa.

A Mexican immigrant being forced to build a cake for Trump saying "build a wall"

I could go on the list is endless.

There is a fine line here.

Its wrong to discriminate against people because of who they are, but this is also wrong in forcing people to go against their beleifs and they thus end up being discriminated against themselves. No matter that I disagree with them on their views on gay marriage or their partiular belief. As marriage is a belief whether for hetrosexuals or homosexuals. 

Yes its wrong to deny adults the same rights under law as anyone else, but you cross over to very dangerous grounds here that could see many people forced to promote beliefs that go against their beliefs.

So is it right to force a buisness to promote the idea of something they object to?

So you would force all the people within buisnesses I have stated to promote ideas that go against their beliefs.

Thus discriminating against them.

Again a business does not have a right to deny a service to someone who is gay, simple because they are gay and wanted just a cake.

That is discrimination.

To force the buisness to promote an idea on that cake, they are against is also discrimination.

Eilzel wrote:I wouldn't be 'ok' with it, but I'd legally have to do it.

I'd still ask what the point was though lol

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

So if a Christian Baker who wanted to vote no, was forced to make a cake saying vote yes, would you understand his feelings of anamosity towards gays??

I'd understand why they wouldn't like it, but they still have to do it.

veya_victaous wrote:You can't make a debate based on your own ignorance.
I like many other posters are sick of it, as this is your usual MO.

why don't you try doing some basic research before attempting to create 'debate' by which I mean 'argue for no reason using the same lame techniques that in no way qualify as debating'

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I'd understand why they wouldn't like it, but they still have to do it.

The point I'm getting at, is do you understand and accept how this action could cause anamosity towards the gay community and cause others who are undecided about gay marriage and homosexuality in general could be pushed into the no camp??

You said on the "women got fired" thread that actions have consequences

Do you stand  by that statement and accept that this action could result in a consequence of increased negativity and hostility towards the gay community, and if so is it self imposed??

Or is this a case of "fuck them they are homophobes burn them at the stake"

Eilzel wrote:This whole debate devolves into pointlessness anyway. Veya has made my view on this clear. And it is pointless because all these nonsense cakes (from a cake saying vote no the gay marriage to a wall) would NEVER be requested. A wedding cake obviously would.

But in the ridiculous hypothetical event someone asked for a cake that said vote no then YES it would have to be made.

Eilzel wrote:This whole debate devolves into pointlessness anyway. Veya has made my view on this clear. And it is pointless because all these nonsense cakes (from a cake saying vote no the gay marriage to a wall) would NEVER be requested. A wedding cake obviously would.

But in the ridiculous hypothetical event someone asked for a cake that said vote no then YES it would have to be made.

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:You can't make a debate based on your own ignorance.
I like many other posters are sick of it, as this is your usual MO.

why don't you try doing some basic research before attempting to create 'debate' by which I mean 'argue for no reason using the same lame techniques that in no way qualify as debating'

I could care less what you think, stop spoiling the debate and allow others to debate this.

All can see you are acting like a child.

At no point have you even attempted to tackle my points.

Now allow others to have their opinions and debate this.

You have made your points, I have adressed them, you repeated the same poor claim on law, which would mean using such  stance, its okay to stone people in certain countries, never seeing whether a law is right or not. Its not even about the law here, as its a civil case being taken up by the gay couple. Whether they law has been broken or not, thus having the Supreme court decide.

So I have heard your views, which are not even reasoned and do nothing to tackle my points and like I say would force Muslims to make a cake, with pictures of Muhammad. Would force an African American to make a cake celebrating the KKK. It would force a Mexican immigrant to build a cake of the US and Mexico, with a wall deviding the two etc.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I could care less what you think, stop spoiling the debate and allow others to debate this.

All can see you are acting like a child.

At no point have you even attempted to tackle my points.

Now allow others to have their opinions and debate this.

You have made your points, I have adressed them, you repeated the same poor claim on law, which would mean using such  stance, its okay to stone people in certain countries, never seeing whether a law is right or not. Its not even about the law here, as its a civil case being taken up by the gay couple. Whether they law has been broken or not, thus having the Supreme court decide.

So I have heard your views, which are not even reasoned and do nothing to tackle my points and like I say would force Muslims to make a cake, with pictures of Muhammad. Would force an African American to make a cake celebrating the KKK. It would force a Mexican immigrant to build a cake of the US and Mexico, with a wall deviding the two etc.

No You haven't addressed any point
Address the point. it is the LAW, the one and only point of any relevance

YES all your 'points' have to do it if they want to run a business, not a debate it's not discrimination because they are a business not a person in the transactions. AGAIN, BASIC research and understanding of discrimination laws would have totally closed all those 'points' you think you have made.
Don't like it?  SPEAK TO YOUR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVE

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

So if a Christian Baker who wanted to vote no, was forced to make a cake saying vote yes, would you understand his feelings of anamosity towards gays??

I'd understand why they wouldn't like it, but they still have to do it.

The point I'm getting at, is do you understand and accept how this action could cause anamosity towards the gay community and cause others who are undecided about gay marriage and homosexuality in general could be pushed into the no camp??

You said on the "women got fired" thread that actions have consequences

Do you stand  by that statement and accept that this action could result in a consequence of increased negativity and hostility towards the gay community, and if so is it self imposed??

Or is this a case of "fuck them they are homophobes burn them at the stake"

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:This whole debate devolves into pointlessness anyway. Veya has made my view on this clear. And it is pointless because all these nonsense cakes (from a cake saying vote no the gay marriage to a wall) would NEVER be requested. A wedding cake obviously would.

But in the ridiculous hypothetical event someone asked for a cake that said vote no then YES it would have to be made.

So what about the Muslim. Checkout attendant that won't sell customers their booze??

Legal or illegal??

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

So what about the Muslim. Checkout attendant that won't sell customers their booze??

Legal or illegal??

Shouldn't be allowed. It's his job.

Didge, Tatchell I think. Not my spokesman.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:This whole debate devolves into pointlessness anyway. Veya has made my view on this clear. And it is pointless because all these nonsense cakes (from a cake saying vote no the gay marriage to a wall) would NEVER be requested. A wedding cake obviously would.

But in the ridiculous hypothetical event someone asked for a cake that said vote no then YES it would have to be made.

So what about the Muslim. Checkout attendant that won't sell customers their booze??

Legal or illegal??

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

So what about the Muslim. Checkout attendant that won't sell customers their booze??

Legal or illegal??

Shouldn't be allowed. It's his job.

Didge, Tatchell I think. Not my spokesman.

He is not my spoke person on certain things either, but you are away from the points and have gone from being tolerant to become like smelly intolerant.

And where does the word intolerant deride from?

Totalitarianism

Is that the line you want to go down?

Like i said I gave valid cases of what can easily happen and you now seemed to be promoting a privildge to homosexuals above all others, when all should have equality under the law. As you want to force people to go against their beliefs.

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

He is not my spoke person on certain things either, but you are away from the points and have gone from being tolerant to become like smelly intolerant.

And where does the word intolerant deride from?

Totalitarianism

Is that the line you want to go down?

Like i said I gave valid cases of what can easily happen and you now seemed to be promoting a privildge to homosexuals above all others, when all should have equality under the law. As you want to force people to go against their beliefs.

How on earth is it privilidge when it applies to all?

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I could care less what you think, stop spoiling the debate and allow others to debate this.

All can see you are acting like a child.

At no point have you even attempted to tackle my points.

Now allow others to have their opinions and debate this.

You have made your points, I have adressed them, you repeated the same poor claim on law, which would mean using such  stance, its okay to stone people in certain countries, never seeing whether a law is right or not. Its not even about the law here, as its a civil case being taken up by the gay couple. Whether they law has been broken or not, thus having the Supreme court decide.

So I have heard your views, which are not even reasoned and do nothing to tackle my points and like I say would force Muslims to make a cake, with pictures of Muhammad. Would force an African American to make a cake celebrating the KKK. It would force a Mexican immigrant to build a cake of the US and Mexico, with a wall deviding the two etc.

No You haven't addressed any point
Address the point. it is the LAW, the one and only point of any relevance

YES all your 'points' have to do it if they want to run a business, not a debate it's not discrimination because they are a business not a person in the transactions. AGAIN, BASIC research and understanding of discrimination laws would have totally closed all those 'points' you think you have made.
Don't like it?  SPEAK TO YOUR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVE

Show me the law within the US?

You just keep regurgiating the same drivel never tackling the points.

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

He is not my spoke person on certain things either, but you are away from the points and have gone from being tolerant to become like smelly intolerant.

And where does the word intolerant deride from?

Totalitarianism

Is that the line you want to go down?

Like i said I gave valid cases of what can easily happen and you now seemed to be promoting a privildge to homosexuals above all others, when all should have equality under the law. As you want to force people to go against their beliefs.

How on earth is it privilidge when it applies to all?

Right well lets put it this way.

Should a priest be forced to marry you in your wedding to come?

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

He is not my spoke person on certain things either, but you are away from the points and have gone from being tolerant to become like smelly intolerant.

And where does the word intolerant deride from?

Totalitarianism

Is that the line you want to go down?

Like i said I gave valid cases of what can easily happen and you now seemed to be promoting a privildge to homosexuals above all others, when all should have equality under the law. As you want to force people to go against their beliefs.

How on earth is it privilidge when it applies to all?

Right well lets put it this way.

Should a priest be forced to marry you in your wedding to come?

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Right well lets put it this way.

Should a priest be forced to marry you in your wedding to come?

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

and with that you are wrong again it is NOT SOMEONE it is a company not a person

a Priest only can because religious institutions do not fall under the category of corporations, if they did(arguably should) then they could not refuse.

So NO, not a privilege all PEOPLE have the same right, COMPANIES do not as they are not people.

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Right well lets put it this way.

Should a priest be forced to marry you in your wedding to come?

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

Not a priest no. Religious institutions are not the same as secular businesses.

Thorin wrote:So when asked to show me the law.

You failed to do so.

Thus easily debunking your claim on law.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.

So, no matter where you live, you cannot deny service to someone because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin or disability. In some states and cities, you also cannot discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. If there is no state, federal or local law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations against a particular group of people, then you can legally refuse to serve that group of people.

Thorin wrote:The Supreme Court has a tough question ahead: Where do you draw the line between free speech and discrimination?

The case headed to the high court in the new term that begins next month centers on Jack Phillips, the owner of the Colorado-based Masterpiece Cakeshop who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Phillips claims he shouldn’t be forced to under the state’s anti-discrimination law and gained a strong ally this week when the Trump administration filed a friend of the court brief on his behalf.
Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall and DOJ attorneys claim there is no clear line between Phillips’s speech and that of his clients when he designs and creates a custom wedding cake.

“He is not merely tolerating someone else’s message on his property; he is giving effect to their message by crafting a unique product with his own two hands,” the administration said in its 41-page brief.

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.


SOURCE THE HILL

Thorin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Right well lets put it this way.

Should a priest be forced to marry you in your wedding to come?

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

Not a priest no. Religious institutions are not the same as secular businesses.

But to force religious people is okay with you. Thus you discriminating against them.

Like I said, the tolerant now becomes the intolerant.

Eilzel wrote:

Thorin wrote:

But to force religious people is okay with you. Thus you discriminating against them.

Like I said, the tolerant now becomes the intolerant.

I'd be forcing myself in the reverse situation. So not intolerant, just fair.

Thorin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Right well lets put it this way.

Should a priest be forced to marry you in your wedding to come?

Its is a priviladge, when you are protected by the law from discrimination but saying others do not have that right of protection.

Again its wrong to discriminate against a person for who they are or what they believe, but you cannot then force someone to promote something they do not believe. As you would be discriminating against them.

To force them, places them being discriminated against.

Hence homosexuals become privildged over others.

and with that you are wrong again it is NOT SOMEONE it is a company not a person

a Priest only can because religious institutions do not fall under the category of corporations, if they did(arguably should) then they could not refuse.

So NO, not a privilege all PEOPLE have the same right, COMPANIES do not as they are not people.

So self employed people do not constitute as a company?

Since when?

There we go religious institutions and religious people you will find under EU law cannot be discriminated against their beliefs.

So again a homosexual has a right to be served by a buisness, but can be rightly refused by an employee if that gay person wants that him to promote something that goes against their beliefs. Now if the buisness has other employees, then no problem, that company would have someone else do the buisness transaction. If it is the owner of a family buisness, then they all have a right to refuse to promote a view against their belief.
That means the homosexual would need to shop elsewhere. Of which they should of here and that clearly the couple is out to make a view bucks out of trying to discriminate against somone else belief

As both have rights within the law on discrimination.

Eilzel wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Eilzel wrote:His free speech isn't being infringed upon at all. The only people who have to see the cake beyond him are the buyers and wedding guests. He is just making a cake, that's his job.

Would you agree with that statement if a gay Baker in Australia was asked to make a "vote not to gay narriage"  cake??

Or are we in for a slice of your famous "but that's different" logic ??

I'd ask what on earth anyone would want such a cake for. I'd also ask if they wanted me to remove a 't' and change an 'n' to an 'm' but that's besides the point I think

I suppose, since the law is what it is there (not every country is as advanced as others) it would be impossible not to allow them such a cake.

veya_victaous wrote:businesses are not people, protections for personal beliefs do NOT extend to them. No one is forced to run a business.

open and shut case under UK and Australian law.

If you have a problem and think the British law is Wrong then argue with you MP

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So self employed people do not constitute as a company?

Since when?

There we go religious institutions and religious people you will find under EU law cannot be discriminated against their beliefs.

So again a homosexual has a right to be served by a buisness, but can be rightly refused by an employee if that gay person wants that him to promote something that goes against their beliefs. Now if the buisness has other employees, then no problem, that company would have someone else do the buisness transaction. If it is the owner of a family buisness, then they all have a right to refuse to promote a view against their belief.
That means the homosexual would need to shop elsewhere. Of which they should of here and that clearly the couple is out to make a view bucks out of trying to discriminate against somone else belief

As both have rights within the law on discrimination.

Self Employed ARE a company, which is what they LEGALLY are in the transaction which is EXACTLY why they in that transaction they are NOT covered by Discrimination laws  

NO, an employee DOES NOT have the legal right to refuse service based on a personal stance, as they are not a  'person' in the transaction with the customer they are legally the representative of the company and must comply with the relevant law. The Employee can not be directly sued since they are covered by legal 'agency' for the company they represent, the customer however can sue the  company the employee represents.

religious institutions are not companies, so it des not apply to them.