Merit matters

[Scouts Honor]

yeah, nothing since then about a fake case

but you ignored the point i made. 

 

[DJT]

The decision really has nothing to do with her religious faith. It found the state can’t compel one to speak (in this case, creatively express) a message with which one disagrees. The reason for disagreeing with the message does not matter, because the speaker has the inherent right, as outlined by the first amendment, to control his/her message. This decision was a first amendment reaffirmation.

Edited July 12, 2023 by DJT

[VakAttack]

6 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

yeah, nothing since then about a fake case

but you ignored the point i made. 

 

...it's from June 30.  Twelve days ago.

I didn't ignore it, you made no real point.  Not producing imaged of Mohammed is a widespread tenet of practitioners of Islam.  There's nothing in the Bible that says you can't make website for gay people, and you can see that from the number of Christian people throughout the country and the world that both accept gay people and provide them services.

[mspart]

Vak, would you hold it against a Muslim if he/she wouldn't make a website for gay people?   Using your example, I'm sure there's nothing in the Koran that says they can't do that.  

mspart

[VakAttack]

11 minutes ago, mspart said:

Vak, would you hold it against a Muslim if he/she wouldn't make a website for gay people?   Using your example, I'm sure there's nothing in the Koran that says they can't do that.  

mspart

Is that a serious question?  Yes, I would have a problem if anybody, Muslim or not, discriminated against another group.  If anybody has the idea that I prefer any organized religion over another, please allow me to dissuade you.

[mspart]

2 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Is that a serious question?  Yes, I would have a problem if anybody, Muslim or not, discriminated against another group.  If anybody has the idea that I prefer any organized religion over another, please allow me to dissuade you.

OK, but you excused a Muslim but not the Christian in your earlier post.   If you hold both to the same standard, that is at the very least consistent.  

mspart

[DJT]

Once again, it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with compelled speech. The baker must bake the cake, but the state cannot make the baker decorate it with a message he disagrees with. The act of decorating (or creating a website) is expression, which is speech, that is protected by the first amendment. I don’t know how dumb one must be to think it would be a good idea to allow the government to compel speech. That is the hallmark of facism. 

[VakAttack]

6 minutes ago, mspart said:

OK, but you excused a Muslim but not the Christian in your earlier post.   If you hold both to the same standard, that is at the very least consistent.  

mspart

Where did I exclude a Muslim?  Are you talking about comparing producing an image of Mohammed, a well-known central tenet of Islamic practitioners no no, vs. this woman's wish not to provide services to gay people?  Should are laws be subjected to each individual's sincerely held religious belief, even if that doesn't conform w/ the widespread practice of that religion?  Where does that stop?  What if this same person claims she truthfully believes based on previous interpretations of Genesis 9:18-27 that black people are inferior to white people, should she be allowed to discriminate against them as well in terms of making a wedding web site?

[Scouts Honor]

56 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

...it's from June 30.  Twelve days ago.

I didn't ignore it, you made no real point.  Not producing imaged of Mohammed is a widespread tenet of practitioners of Islam.  There's nothing in the Bible that says you can't make website for gay people, and you can see that from the number of Christian people throughout the country and the world that both accept gay people and provide them services.

but before this decision.. the jewish customer could have sued the muslim baker to have it made...

they dont object to making the cake... 

the baker from colorado objected to what was on the cake... you should look it up.

this is a trans rant below... but it's part of the slope we have been on 

"we just want to be seen

we just want equality

we just want marriage

we just want your children"

i was fine with all of it

until the last one.

the baker in colorado was sued and won... at least twice...and they still wont leave him alone

[Scouts Honor]

1 hour ago, DJT said:

The decision really has nothing to do with her religious faith. It found the state can’t compel one to speak (in this case, creatively express) a message with which one disagrees. The reason for disagreeing with the message does not matter, because the speaker has the inherent right, as outlined by the first amendment, to control his/her message. This decision was a first amendment reaffirmation.

yes this exactly this

[Scouts Honor]

3 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Where did I exclude a Muslim?  Are you talking about comparing producing an image of Mohammed, a well-known central tenet of Islamic practitioners no no, vs. this woman's wish not to provide services to gay people?  Should are laws be subjected to each individual's sincerely held religious belief, even if that doesn't conform w/ the widespread practice of that religion?  Where does that stop?  What if this same person claims she truthfully believes based on previous interpretations of Genesis 9:18-27 that black people are inferior to white people, should she be allowed to discriminate against them as well in terms of making a wedding web site?

one tenet>another tenet? 

[Scouts Honor]

i know why most people feel comfortable excusing one and not the other

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, DJT said:

Once again, it has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with compelled speech. The baker must bake the cake, but the state cannot make the baker decorate it with a message he disagrees with. The act of decorating (or creating a website) is expression, which is speech, that is protected by the first amendment. I don’t know how dumb one must be to think it would be a good idea to allow the government to compel speech. That is the hallmark of facism. 

and SCOTUS had ruled that way.  But they purposely mischaracterized to reach their desired outcome.  Prioviding someone a service is not the same thing as adopting that speech and thus forcing them to speak.  If I hire a painter to put a mural on the side of Willie's house saying "VakAttack is the greatest internet poster in the world" that does not mean the painter of said mural has adopted that speech as his own.  For a more real world example, if a restaurant owner ordered a sign made that said "John's Restaurant: World's Best Hamburger" the sign-maker does not necessarily believe that John's Restaurant makes the world's best hamburger, he's providing a service.  This woman wanted to be able to deny her (at the time fictional) services to an apparently fictional gay couple.

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said:

one tenet>another tenet? 

Yes.  If one is a widespread religious belief and one is an individual person's belief, that holds more weight with me as to the allowances I'm willing to make to organized religions which I don't believe in.  The tenet of "not making websites for gay people" is made up.

[Scouts Honor]

the right is finally playing the lefts game

the means justify the ends..

is that what you are saying?

 

[Scouts Honor]

Just now, VakAttack said:

Yes.  If one is a widespread religious belief and one is an individual person's belief, that holds more weight with me as to the allowances I'm willing to make to organized religions which I don't believe in.  The tenet of "not making websites for gay people" is made up.

wait, you mean the bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin? 

thats not just an individual person's belief 

[VakAttack]

Just now, Scouts Honor said:

wait, you mean the bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin? 

thats not just an individual person's belief 

What does that have to do with refusing to provide a service?  If she made the website for the fictional gay couple's wedding, is she now gay?  What part of her religion allows for this discrimination.  Near as I can tell, prior to her sudden desire to make wedding websites, she was working on political campaign websites.  You telling me none of those folks ever committed a sin?

[Scouts Honor]

none of your points are the point and you know it.

 

[Scouts Honor]

compelled speech is a problem. 

 

[BobDole]

7 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

wait, you mean the bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin? 

thats not just an individual person's belief 

The bible I read said to forgive those who are sinners not to discriminate against them. 

[DJT]

7 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

and SCOTUS had ruled that way.  But they purposely mischaracterized to reach their desired outcome.  Prioviding someone a service is not the same thing as adopting that speech and thus forcing them to speak.  If I hire a painter to put a mural on the side of Willie's house saying "VakAttack is the greatest internet poster in the world" that does not mean the painter of said mural has adopted that speech as his own.  For a more real world example, if a restaurant owner ordered a sign made that said "John's Restaurant: World's Best Hamburger" the sign-maker does not necessarily believe that John's Restaurant makes the world's best hamburger, he's providing a service.  This woman wanted to be able to deny her (at the time fictional) services to an apparently fictional gay couple.

So if I go to a gay painter and tell him I want “God Hates F*gs” painted on my garage door, you think it would be ok for the government to force him to do it? 

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said:

compelled speech is a problem. 

 

It's not compelled speech is the problem, it's discriminating in who you offer your services to based on sexual orientation.

[VakAttack]

2 minutes ago, DJT said:

So if I go to a gay painter and tell him I want “God Hates F*gs” painted on my garage door, you think it would be ok for the government to force him to do it? 

No, because if the painter refuses to work with you, they're not discriminating against you based on a protected class.

[DJT]

1 minute ago, VakAttack said:

It's not compelled speech is the problem, it's discriminating in who you offer your services to based on sexual orientation.

The service is the cake. The speech is the decorating. One can’t deny the service (making a cake), but they can deny the decorating (expression of a message).

[WrestlingRasta]

1 minute ago, VakAttack said:

It's not compelled speech is the problem, it's discriminating in who you offer your services to based on sexual orientation.

Just for clarification, the ruling does not say the owner is allowed to refuse service because they are gay, they are just not forcing the owner to decorate the message.  In other words, if the (fake) customers decided okay just bake the cake and icing, we'll worry about the decoration....the owner would not have been able to legally refuse.