Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, Truth Detector, canceled.2021.1, canceled.2021.2 and CFM


Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 55 of 55

Thread: The logical flaw in the SCOTUS cakeshop decision, according to 2 dissenting justices

  1. #46 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    7,950
    Thanks
    5,865
    Thanked 4,108 Times in 3,183 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 137 Times in 133 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    I wonder what would be the response if you went into a Muslim cake shop and asked for a cake to celebrate a gay wedding? There are several near me, maybe I should go in and ask?
    Please do, and let us know the results.

  2. #47 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Steeler Nation
    Posts
    64,534
    Thanks
    65,163
    Thanked 38,094 Times in 25,664 Posts
    Groans
    5,815
    Groaned 2,614 Times in 2,498 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    I wonder what would be the response if you went into a Muslim cake shop and asked for a cake to celebrate a gay wedding? There are several near me, maybe I should go in and ask?
    There are none that I know of here. But here's a perspective from a Muslim on the issue. I'm sure he doesn't speak for all but I like his opinion.

    "While there are Muslims who, like some Christians, view their faith as having a clear and restricting view of sexual behavior and identity, Islam does not permit one to discriminate in providing services to individuals because they believe or behave in a way counter to one’s understanding of Islamic teachings. Muslim professionals, for example, cannot and would not even consider denying service to a person because he or she drinks alcohol, eats pork, commits adultery or has premarital sex.

    American Muslims understand that in Islam, the government’s role is not to impose certain religious practices and beliefs on citizens, nor to choose which practices fall within religious freedom. Good governance in Islam establishes and protects equality under the law and can never determine a “right” religion versus “wrong” religion. Current events provide plenty of examples as to why government imposition of a particular religious view does grievous harm to a society. And there is no shortage of criticism by American Muslims of violations of human rights in the Muslim world under the guise of religious purity.

    Impositions of religious views are considered aberrations of the Islamic belief in God’s benevolence and the divine dignity inherent in every human being. American Muslims understand that religious liberty should be interpreted in ways that are equality-enhancing, not equality-denying, and that in order for America’s values of freedom and equality to prevail, our religious freedoms cannot come at the cost of another’s civil liberty.

    While the court seems to be divided on this case (with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy likely to cast the deciding vote), the perspective for American Muslims should be clear: The Masterpiece Cakeshop plaintiffs have twisted the meaning of religious freedom. They have attacked human dignity. Both in God’s world and in the United States, a person’s identity cannot be a justification for harassment, harm or discrimination."

    https://religionnews.com/2017/12/06/...cakeshop-case/


    “What greater gift than the love of a cat.”
    ― Charles Dickens

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to christiefan915 For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (06-06-2018)

  4. #48 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74,838
    Thanks
    15,266
    Thanked 14,432 Times in 12,044 Posts
    Groans
    18,546
    Groaned 1,699 Times in 1,647 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    ...Islam does not permit one to discriminate in providing services to individuals because they believe or behave in a way counter to one’s understanding of Islamic teachings. Muslim professionals, for example, cannot and would not even consider denying service to a person because he or she drinks alcohol, eats pork, commits adultery or has premarital sex...
    So all the public stoning's and the acts of throwing someone from a roof, while tied to a chair, were what...…………….Acts of compassion??
    SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.


  5. #49 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,855
    Thanks
    13,247
    Thanked 40,787 Times in 32,153 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911 View Post
    So all the public stoning's and the acts of throwing someone from a roof, while tied to a chair, were what...…………….Acts of compassion??
    educational tools.............

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to PostmodernProphet For This Post:

    USFREEDOM911 (06-06-2018)

  7. #50 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I think Ginsburg misses the point. Phillips would be expected to create and include a message that would celebrate gay marriage which is against his religious views and would suggest (he believes) would express his support. It does not matter what the specific message would be.
    Ginsburg needs to retire.

  8. #51 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bourbon View Post
    GOP Hypocrisy: Guns vs. Cakes


    guy: hey can i buy this gun?

    gop: sure

    guy: im gay.

    gop: doesn't matter, buy the gun

    guy: okay, when can i pick it up?

    gop: you can take it right now

    guy: aweeeesome, so happy this was quick. i have such a busy day, i have to go pick up a cake next.

    gop: say what?
    LOL

  9. #52 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,288
    Thanks
    3,870
    Thanked 5,011 Times in 3,467 Posts
    Groans
    1,286
    Groaned 494 Times in 452 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Just signed a lease! Opening a new bakery specializing in gay themed confections. We're calling it "The Cake Hole"

  10. #53 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,303
    Thanks
    145,721
    Thanked 82,529 Times in 52,746 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by christiefan915 View Post
    No one wants to address this?

    In her dissent, Ginsburg points out that the cases offered as evidence of discrimination aren’t actually comparable to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Philips refused to bake any cake whatsoever for any same-sex marriage rather than a particular cake with a single offensive message. Ginsburg explains:

    Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakes where their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the requested product would literally display.
    I'm sorry I missed your well-written post last night.

    The decision in favor of the cake shop was extremely narrow and based mostly on the way the law was written -- not on his discrimination that he claims was "religious freedom". I predict that Colorado will re-write the anti-discrimination law and if another case like this comes to SCOTUS, the bigots will lose... as they should.

    I'm kind of libertarian Nazi when it comes to this stuff. If you're in business to make $$ off of the public, and granted a license in your state to do such business, then you must not be allowed to use specious reasons to discriminate against potential customers. I don't care if you are a Jewish tailor asked to custom-fit a Nazi uniform for some JPP tard; I don't care if you are a proud black web designer asked to create a white supremacist web page for another JPP tard; I don't care if you're a lonely Ohio tutor asked to teach Yaya how to comprehend the written word -- if you're in business to serve the public, you serve the public. Period. If you don't like that, quit and find something else to do.

  11. #54 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    The decision in favor of the cake shop was extremely narrow and based mostly on the way the law was written -- not on his discrimination that he claims was "religious freedom".

    I'm kind of libertarian Nazi when it comes to this stuff. If you're in business to make $$ off of the public, and granted a license in your state to do such business, then you must not be allowed to use specious reasons to discriminate against potential customers.
    It wasn't about how the law was written but the actions of the commissioners applying the law and its exceptions.

    A libertarian (Nazi) would not put government regulations above individual liberties.

  12. #55 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    8,490
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 3,180 Times in 2,409 Posts
    Groans
    376
    Groaned 244 Times in 225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    I'm sorry I missed your well-written post last night.

    The decision in favor of the cake shop was extremely narrow and based mostly on the way the law was written -- not on his discrimination that he claims was "religious freedom". I predict that Colorado will re-write the anti-discrimination law and if another case like this comes to SCOTUS, the bigots will lose... as they should.

    I'm kind of libertarian Nazi when it comes to this stuff. If you're in business to make $$ off of the public, and granted a license in your state to do such business, then you must not be allowed to use specious reasons to discriminate against potential customers. I don't care if you are a Jewish tailor asked to custom-fit a Nazi uniform for some JPP tard; I don't care if you are a proud black web designer asked to create a white supremacist web page for another JPP tard; I don't care if you're a lonely Ohio tutor asked to teach Yaya how to comprehend the written word -- if you're in business to serve the public, you serve the public. Period. If you don't like that, quit and find something else to do.
    Actually you are not a libertarian Nazi at all if you think only one side of the transaction enjoys freedom. You are a statist democrat.

Similar Threads

  1. Constitution Check: Do SCOTUS Justices have a right to comment on politics?
    By christiefan915 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-13-2016, 06:07 PM
  2. Fox news flat out fucking lying about a scotus decision
    By evince in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-17-2012, 12:40 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-07-2012, 08:01 PM
  4. two different opinions by scotus justices
    By Schadenfreude in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-18-2011, 08:38 AM
  5. Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 03:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •