Posts by Hisclarkness

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

Hi Jehalepeno,

I would say it depends. Are the Islamic web designers only offering Islamic web services? If so, then no, they wouldn’t have to make a Christian site. That’s just like asking an Islamic meat shop to sell pork. If they don’t offer pork to begin with then you can’t compel them to sell pork products.

If they are simply web designers that are Islamic, and if they are offering a general service to the public, then that could get a bit fishy.

The gay web designer could refuse serving Westboro Baptist Church based on their hateful rhetoric. He is not discrimating against the baptist church at large; he is refusing this congregation specifically based on their hateful message.

Even if it wasn’t the Church but simply a member who wanted something innocent like a birthday design, the designer might choose to do business with the individual but if he chose not to serve that person based on their association with westboro, he would still legally be in the right. That may or may not be the right thing to do but legally it’s fine.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

Morpheus, you said,

“In the end, the red hen will lose buissness from some and maybe gain from others. People will vote with their wallets, for and against.”

Don’t you think it should be a little more than that? I mean, yes, what you say is true but our laws are set up to ensure that the voices and rights of the minority are not simply washed away. It doesn’t seem sufficient to say, for example, let a business be free to discriminate and simply let the chips fall where they may, good or bad. Shouldn’t the goal of society be to eradicate all forms of discrimination? It is often laws that are put in place first and eventually hearts change as well.

But a government for all people should be just as interested in protecting the rights of the minority and that would require stepping in and enforcing measures against discrimination.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

Hi simon,

What you said with religion is precisely why the baker is wrong. Anybody could use religion as a shield to what really amounts to discriminatory behavior. Which is why there has to be a line drawn between your personal life and interacting in a commercial setting. Which is why the baker is entitled to his religious beliefs but they shouldn’t have to adversely affect others in a commercial (neutral) setting. If the baker chooses to open a business then he is choosing to interact with the general public and should not be able to bring his religious beliefs into the picture. Otherwise, he should decide not to offer certain services that he knows might cause potential conflicts with his personal beliefs.

According to the law, you are either married or single. You are not “gay” married or “straight” married. You are just married. A person’s religious beliefs might not recognize that and that’s fine. But businesses will have a hard time in the future defending these discriminatory actions in the future.

I know you feel differently. I love the discussion. I just hate the anger, sarcasm, ridicule, etc that often accompany these discussions.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

On another side note, I find it very interesting that opinions are so varied here on this site where we mostly all come from a JW background.

As Witnesses, and as strongly as we held our beliefs, we would never have forced our beliefs on to others in a commercial setting. A witness doctor would not turn away patients because he didn’t believe in blood transfusions; he would simply get a colleague to do it. A witness waiter in a restaurant would simply ask his fellow waiters to sing happy birthday to his customers; he wouldn’t refuse the customers’ business.

We always sought to find alternatives.

I know. I know. The baker didn’t refuse service to the couple. I wonder if there was someone else he could have gotten to do the cake instead of himself?? Though I fear this still would have been an issue because he spoke of being concerned that the name of his business would have been affiliated with the wedding.

I just feel like there could have been many alternatives in this situation that should have resolved both the baker’s conscience and the couple’s desire for a custom cake.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

For the record, I think it was wrong for sanders not to have been served regardless of her political beliefs. However, this isn’t the same issue.

Businesses can refuse service to anyone they want for whatever reason as long as it’s not discriminating based on a protected class.

The issue of whether or not the baker discriminated against the gay couple has already been discussed at length. But sexual orientation is a protected status. Political belief is not. So while I disagree with it, there is no legal issue here.

On on a side note, it can be difficult to have these discussions where we have real differences of opinion on issues that affect real people in real situations and then just pretend everything is normal and we can sit and eat together.

It can be difficult for someone who has family members that are directly affected by certain laws and policies to treat those who support and are affiliated with said policies as if everything is peachy. I’m not saying that we should be hating each other but we should keep in mind that at the end of the day it’s more than just policies and ideals; it’s actual people and lives.

Just saying.

12

Serana Williams coginative dissonance.

by blownaway in

i just heard her on the news saying how much time it takes for her to play tennis.

lmfao she thanks "jehovah" and seems to think in her pea mind that she is a "good jw" i bet the gb does not mess with her because they want the positive attention.

but she is about as far from a "good jw" as one could get.

Hisclarkness

Hi Carla,

i agree that to the outside world, for all intents and purposes, she is a JW. The point that I was trying to make is that as former JWs we all know that she was never “truly” a JW so we all should know that it is silly to try and find some double standard/hypocrisy/greed from the WT in this case.

Nobody is giving her a pass because she is a celebrity. Since she’s not officially a JW then she is technically not accountable to the organization or any congregation.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

But I will acknowledge that the whole argument of forcing an artist to create art is a compelling one. But does a custom cake meet the threshold of artistry? That’s actually what the court spent most of their time pondering over. Because then where would you draw the line?

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

Freemindfade,

its not about events. The government doesn’t recognize events. They recognize services. If you offer a service, you have to offer a service to all.

Morpheus,

offering a generic cake doesn’t solve the issue if you offer custom cakes as a service and the gay couple wants a custom cake. That’s basically a separate but equal argument.

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

Simon, you’re right. And that’s why he won the case. And that’s why the court said future cases might be different

286

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker Who Refused to Bake Cake for Gay Couple

by Simon in

seems like such an obviously correct decision to overturn the previous overreach - it should never have been necessary to go to the supreme court but happened because the rights of the religious were being ignored.. as the fundamental level, no one should be able to compel you to work for them or to provide services that go against your beliefs, and certainly not have the government be able to force you to comply.. if this was allowed there would be so many unreconcilable situations that would clog up courts over nonsense.. i also have little patience for these activists that intentionally look to be offended.

it really doesn't do their cause any good to go round looking to make trouble for people.

it's also misguided because it ends up strengthening religious rights over effectively stupid issues.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

Hisclarkness

And I’m not saying the baker is hateful. I completely accept that he may have no problem with the gay couple other than his sincerely held religious beliefs. But it’s still discrimination. And this is why the court cautioned that this ruling was case specific to his situation and alluded that future similar cases would have a different outcome.