The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Exo]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I'm building my whole argument on the **** laws of our country.

Well stop arguing with me because I think they're sh*t too lol.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

Well stop arguing with me because I think they're sh*t too lol.

I figured. Still though, you said that he was in the legal clear and I showed how it violates two constitutional amendments. He's in the legal murky at best.

[Exo]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I figured. Still though, you said that he was in the legal clear and I showed how it violates two constitutional amendments. He's in the legal murky at best.

I just don't think the establishment clause applies to this particular case because it's about a cake shop. And the discrimination laws still exclude sexuality from their language for the most part. We're chipping that away by way of same sex marriage but there's still a lot of things that fall under the old umbrella.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Exo

I just don't think the establishment clause applies to this particular case because it's about a cake shop.

They've provided a religion with the freedom to discriminate based on sexuality. Are religions that don't bar homosexuality allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexuality?

And the discrimination laws still exclude sexuality from their language for the most part.

Leaving them unprotected under the law where other groups have protections in place. What does the 14th amendment say again?

[Exo]

Legally murky might be a better description for this.

[Ninetales]

seems like this verdict had more to do with the civil rights commission fucking up more than the actual defense of discrimination/religious rights, no?

either way this case is interesting albeit incredibly specific. nothing here looks like it could set precedent for a grocery store banning black people or a dog breeder refusing to allow gays to adopt - but also who the hell knows anything anymore

[Anteater]

Narrow-viewed or not, they sincerely hold to their interpretation of Christianity. They can choose to serve or not serve anyone they want to. It's their right and they shouldn't have been made a political target by the SJW "woe is me" fascists.

You can make the argument that its wrong or whatever, but be aware that at some point your own beliefs could be squashed for some arbitrary reason if the courts had decided to rule in favor of the couple. It sets a precedent for lawsuits that could unfairly target all kinds of businesses in a culture that's already trigger happy with litigation.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Anteater

You can make the argument that its wrong or whatever, but be aware that at some point your own beliefs could be squashed for some arbitrary reason if the courts had decided to rule in favor of the couple. It sets a precedent for lawsuits that could unfairly target all kinds of businesses in a culture that's already trigger happy with litigation.

If I'm using my beliefs as a justification to discriminate, I'd hope that they'd be quashed. Woe is who?

[Anteater]

Originally Posted by Frownland

If I'm using my beliefs as a justification to discriminate, I'd hope that they'd be quashed. Woe is who?

If I walk into a BBQ place run by Muslims and they won't serve me pulled pork when the same franchise in other places has pulled pork on the menu, should I sue them because they believe pork is unclean?

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Anteater

If I walk into a BBQ place run by Muslims and they won't serve me pulled pork when the same franchise in other places has pulled pork on the menu, should I sue them because they believe pork is unclean?

Not sure what that has to do with this case since the gay couple in question asked for a cake that the baker was already offering...

You'd be able to sue the Muslims if you went into their establishment for some halalBQ and they refused service on suspicion of you liking pork.