Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7
Results 121 to 130 of 130
  1. #121
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    If you are retracting your agreement with Cowboy, that's fine. I doubt he'll be able to support his claims either.
    I'm not retracting anything. I'm saying that I only have the burden to support claims that I actually made. I didn't say either of the two things you challenged be to support. But nonetheless, support is coming.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Okay then, again, where does that civil right come from? If you're not agreeing with Cowboy anymore, then offer your own source for the civil right involved. Otherwise your "ought" claim is unsupported.
    Well, I can consider this a challenge to the position that it's a constitutional issue and therefore will support it.

    "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States[5] that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It prohibited unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations.

    Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment."


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I've bought an awful lot of cakes, and they nearly all had some effort at artistry. You need to find a better bakery. And the cake in question was for a wedding. Have you ever seen a wedding cake that wasn't artistic in nature?
    If you mean that the cake is decorated in an aesthetically pleasing manner which clearly took some level of artistic talent, I would say wedding cakes usually are "artistic". But making something look pretty is not "art" as in something that is sending a message and therefore can reasonably be considered "speech". Again, most cakes, even if they look pretty, have no message behind them as in are a communication from the baker. Even those that have messages aren't a message from the baker but a message from the person that hired to baker (it's not the baker who is wishing your daughter a happy 7th birthday). Really, it's more like a boss having his secretary type a letter - she's the one who typed in the words but it's a message from her boss, not her. So typically, a cake is not a message from its creator while art typically is a message from the creator.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Beyond that, let's consider what else happens at a wedding cake purchase. If the seller normally says "Congratulations" to a heterosexual buying a wedding cake, must he say the same to a homosexual couple, even if it goes against his religious beliefs? You would prohibit him from making disapproving comments, right? So you don't just think the "ought" is in buying the cake, but also in getting verbal approval and affirmation during the purchase, to get the exact same experience as a heterosexual couple, correct? Wouldn't that compel actual speech that is in conflict with the baker's religious beliefs?
    First off, the message is not coming from the baker just like the baker is not wishing your daughter a happy birthday when he writes that on the cake. Secondly, I don't believe the issue in this cake is refusing to write something on the cake but refusing to make and sell the cake in general. And thirdly, if the baker really doesn't want to have to write "congratulations" on a gay person's wedding cake, he can easily institute a policy that will allow him to refuse to write that and still be in compliance of anti-discrimination laws - he just has a policy that he won't write on wedding cakes. Likewise, he can legally refuse to make wedding cakes for gay marriages by refusing to make wedding cakes in general. It's not a problem to say "I won't do that at all". It's a problem to say "I won't do that for gay clients but I will do that for straight clients".


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I'm NOT arguing for all bakers, so stop pushing me down that road. I'm saying that the Colorado law, or other state laws similar to it, cannot apply to private business owners when it would suppress the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech.
    But again, that is not an argument for religious exemption. IF a law does indeed violate one's right to free speech, you don't give religious exemptions - you just don't have the law. You either don't create the law in the first place or if it already exists, you overturn it due to it being unconstitutional.

    That's why I keep bringing up all bakers. If the law violates the rights of all bakers (and if I accept your argument, that would be conclusion), then the law is not a valid example of something that deserves a religious exemption but instead a law that shouldn't exist at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    There are other effects, yes, but the ruling was clearly a religious exemption for Amish on the issue of compulsive secondary schooling.
    And the legal reasoning of this ruling applies ONLY to the Amish? Of course not. This ruling applies to everyone and nowadays EVERYONE has the right to take their children out of public schools in order to homeschool them.

    The only reason the Amish get singled out is because they were the ones to raise the issue first. But their victory applies to everyone.

  2. #122
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,963
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States[5] that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[6] It prohibited unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations.

    Powers given to enforce the act were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years. Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8), its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment."


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
    Okay, I'll accept that as your basis for an "ought" in your mind.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    [I]If you mean that the cake is decorated in an aesthetically pleasing manner which clearly took some level of artistic talent, I would say wedding cakes usually are "artistic". But making something look pretty is not "art" as in something that is sending a message and therefore can reasonably be considered "speech". Again, most cakes, even if they look pretty, have no message behind them as in are a communication from the baker. Even those that have messages aren't a message from the baker but a message from the person that hired to baker (it's not the baker who is wishing your daughter a happy 7th birthday). Really, it's more like a boss having his secretary type a letter - she's the one who typed in the words but it's a message from her boss, not her. So typically, a cake is not a message from its creator while art typically is a message from the creator.
    This all just seems like BS.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, the message is not coming from the baker just like the baker is not wishing your daughter a happy birthday when he writes that on the cake.
    Yes, it is. In a small privately owned bakery shop, the owner is often the baker and the person who rings up the order and talks to the customer. And the actual verbal exchange is what I meant when he says "Congratulations". Or maybe he often says "I hope you have a long and wonderful marriage" personally to each wedding couple.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Secondly, I don't believe the issue in this cake is refusing to write something on the cake but refusing to make and sell the cake in general.
    I'm asking about an expanded hypothetical. If a baker/seller normally has affirmative interactions with heterosexual couples buying a wedding cake, you would require him to have the same interactions with homosexual couples, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, the issue is the baker being forced act in support of a homosexual wedding.
    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And thirdly, if the baker really doesn't want to have to write "congratulations" on a gay person's wedding cake, he can easily institute a policy that will allow him to refuse to write that and still be in compliance of anti-discrimination laws - he just has a policy that he won't write on wedding cakes. Likewise, he can legally refuse to make wedding cakes for gay marriages by refusing to make wedding cakes in general. It's not a problem to say "I won't do that at all". It's a problem to say "I won't do that for gay clients but I will do that for straight clients".
    Exactly, you want him to do everything the same as for heterosexual customers or get out of the business. So you would burden him with a choice between engaging in speech that violates his religious beliefs, loss of substantial sales, or going out of business.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But again, that is not an argument for religious exemption. IF a law does indeed violate one's right to free speech, you don't give religious exemptions - you just don't have the law. You either don't create the law in the first place or if it already exists, you overturn it due to it being unconstitutional.

    That's why I keep bringing up all bakers. If the law violates the rights of all bakers (and if I accept your argument, that would be conclusion), then the law is not a valid example of something that deserves a religious exemption but instead a law that shouldn't exist at all.
    And I don't agree with you. For example, it is probably a good idea to have compulsory education beyond the 8th grade. I wouldn't eliminate that, just because it violated the Amish religious beliefs. Would you?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And the legal reasoning of this ruling applies ONLY to the Amish?
    As a religious exemption, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    This ruling applies to everyone and nowadays EVERYONE has the right to take their children out of public schools in order to homeschool them.
    Later rulings declared a fundamental right to education one's child applies to all parents. But those had no religious basis.

    The only reason the Amish get singled out is because they were the ones to raise the issue first. But their victory applies to everyone.
    NO. The ruling was an exemption for 9th-12th grade schooling specifically and ONLY for Amish families. Today, all children under age 18 (in every state I'm aware of) EXCEPT THOSE CHILDREN IN AMISH FAMILIES are required to to attend school. If you have a sixteen year old kid, for example, you MUST send that child to school, EXCEPT if you are Amish. There were later court decisions that allowed everyone to home school, etc, but the religious exemption for grades 9-12 is ONLY for people for the Amish religion.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  3. #123
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Okay, I'll accept that as your basis for an "ought" in your mind.
    Do you disagree with it? This is why a restaurant cannot turn away black customers for being black. I think it's not only legally solid rationale but also very right.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    This all just seems like BS.
    That's not a rebuttal. My argument stands until you provide a rebutall.



    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Yes, it is. In a small privately owned bakery shop, the owner is often the baker and the person who rings up the order and talks to the customer. And the actual verbal exchange is what I meant when he says "Congratulations". Or maybe he often says "I hope you have a long and wonderful marriage" personally to each wedding couple.
    While a baker can choose to personally offer his sincere congratulations to people when he makes and sells a cake, he is not required to do so in order to make and sell a cake. So the act itself does not inherently send a message. Again, most cake transactions don't contain such a thing. The baker makes a cake because he's paid to do so and if he writes something on the cake, it has nothing to do with what he's thinking - he's not wishing your daughter a happy birthday when he writes that on the cake; he likely doesn't even know your daughter.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I'm asking about an expanded hypothetical. If a baker/seller normally has affirmative interactions with heterosexual couples buying a wedding cake, you would require him to have the same interactions with homosexual couples, right?
    Absolutely not. In fact, if the baker wants to be jerk to gay couples and even tell them that he does not approve of gay marriage as he sells them the cake they ordered, I see no reason for legal intervention (which is not to say I would disapprove of consequences from the general public such as bad word of mouth or boycotts).

    He just can't deny service to a gay couple for being gay.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, the issue is the baker being forced act in support of a homosexual wedding. Exactly, you want him to do everything the same as for heterosexual customers or get out of the business. So you would burden him with a choice between engaging in speech that violates his religious beliefs, loss of substantial sales, or going out of business.
    That argument is based on the premise that baking and selling a cake is "speech". I made an argument in my last post that it does not qualify as speech and you waived off the argument by saying that you think it's BS. That is not a valid rebuttal t so my argument that it's not speech stands until you do effectively rebut it.

    So as it stands in this debate, making a cake is not speech and therefore a claim that I am for forcing someone to engage in speech or face some kind of legal penalty (I never said that I actually want someone to go out of business so your argument is also a straw-man) is not accepted.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I don't agree with you. For example, it is probably a good idea to have compulsory education beyond the 8th grade. I wouldn't eliminate that, just because it violated the Amish religious beliefs. Would you?
    The issue is not compulsory education but compulsory PUBLIC education. So I agree that the Amish can take their children from public school as long as the children receive an education at home. And I likewise think the same goes for everyone else.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    NO. The ruling was an exemption for 9th-12th grade schooling specifically and ONLY for Amish families. Today, all children under age 18 (in every state I'm aware of) EXCEPT THOSE CHILDREN IN AMISH FAMILIES are required to to attend school.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that nowadays only Amish families are exempt from compulsory public education.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you have a sixteen year old kid, for example, you MUST send that child to school, EXCEPT if you are Amish. (I don't know how you keep failing to understand. Is it deliberate?)
    Do you understand the difference between failing to understand someone's argument and disagreeing with someone's argument? If so, that should explain why I keep "failing" to understand (hint: I actually just disagree).

    And I personally know someone (who's not Amish) who took her teenage daughter out of public schools and home-schooled her. So quite simply, I KNOW you are wrong about this. So again, please support your assertion regarding this being Amish-only or drop this assertion.
    Last edited by mican333; July 8th, 2017 at 08:09 AM.

  4. #124
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,963
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    This is why a restaurant cannot turn away black customers for being black.
    And are you familiar with the Denny's class action lawsuit, in which Denny's was accused of rude and slow service towards black customers? That is exactly what we should expect, if private bakeries are required to give the exact same service to homosexual couples. They would get sued when they are not friendly enough, and don't offer the same verbal affirmations to customers that they give to heterosexual couples.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    That's not a rebuttal. My argument stands until you provide a rebutall.
    Well, you can stand in your own sh1t, if you want to. Doesn't bother me, because all you have is your personal opinion, which we both know counts for zilch.

    Mican, why do you think the bakery is named Masterpiece Bake Shop? The word "masterpiece" should be a clue that the owner believes he is creating art. If you're not willing to accept that obvious piece of evidence, then watch the video on his company website: http://masterpiececakes.com/



    And here is a book titled "Wedding Cake Art and Design": https://www.amazon.com/Wedding-Cake-...dding+cake+art


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    While a baker can choose to personally offer his sincere congratulations to people when he makes and sells a cake, he is not required to do so in order to make and sell a cake. So the act itself does not inherently send a message. Again, most cake transactions don't contain such a thing. The baker makes a cake because he's paid to do so and if he writes something on the cake, it has nothing to do with what he's thinking - he's not wishing your daughter a happy birthday when he writes that on the cake; he likely doesn't even know your daughter.
    The successful 1994 class action against Denny's wasn't about getting to buy a meal. It was about getting equal service in all regards. Isn't the Colorado law about the same thing, requiring equal service in all regards?


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Absolutely not. In fact, if the baker wants to be jerk to gay couples and even tell them that he does not approve of gay marriage as he sells them the cake they ordered, I see no reason for legal intervention (which is not to say I would disapprove of consequences from the general public such as bad word of mouth or boycotts).

    He just can't deny service to a gay couple for being gay.
    False. Public Accommodation isn't just about the end result of getting served. It includes HOW the service is provided. The 1994 Denny's lawsuit was about slow and rude service. Just last year, Denny's settled another lawsuit out of court, after one of it's managers made a black couple pay in advance: http://mynewsla.com/crime/2016/02/04...ation-lawsuit/



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    That argument is based on the premise that baking and selling a cake is "speech". I made an argument in my last post that it does not qualify as speech and you waived off the argument by saying that you think it's BS. That is not a valid rebuttal t so my argument that it's not speech stands until you do effectively rebut it.

    So as it stands in this debate, making a cake is not speech and therefore a claim that I am for forcing someone to engage in speech or face some kind of legal penalty (I never said that I actually want someone to go out of business so your argument is also a straw-man) is not accepted.
    Baking, selling, speed and friendliness of service are all parts of the "public accommodation" covered by 14th amendment cases, as demonstrated by the Denny's lawsuits.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The issue is not compulsory education but compulsory PUBLIC education. So I agree that the Amish can take their children from public school as long as the children receive an education at home. And I likewise think the same goes for everyone else.
    I believe you are conflating 9th-12th grade compulsory education with all education and all grades. Amish families can stop educating their children after the eighth grade, Mican. That is a special religious accommodation only they are allowed.




    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that nowadays only Amish families are exempt from compulsory public education.
    I've given you the court ruling name. Read the text. Or go to the wiki page on "Compulsory Education" and scroll down to the line for the United States. It reads "Ages vary between states. Beginning age varies 5-8, ending age varies 15-18.[46] In case Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court determined in 1972 that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education laws past the 8th grade." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_education



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Do you understand the difference between failing to understand someone's argument and disagreeing with someone's argument? If so, that should explain why I keep "failing" to understand (hint: I actually just disagree).
    Oh, I understand. I realize that you refuse to accept facts and logic that are harmful to your argument, so you pretend to not understand, and you twist the details to allow you to just disagree. Although that is a fundamentally dishonest approach to debate, you're pretty good at it, because you've practiced it so much.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I personally know someone (who's not Amish) who took her teenage daughter out of public schools and home-schooled her.
    yes, Mican, home schooling is legal for everyone. This is an example of how you argue an irrelevant tangent in an effort to win dishonestly. It's rather childish.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  5. #125
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    And are you familiar with the Denny's class action lawsuit, in which Denny's was accused of rude and slow service towards black customers? That is exactly what we should expect, if private bakeries are required to give the exact same service to homosexual couples. They would get sued when they are not friendly enough, and don't offer the same verbal affirmations to customers that they give to heterosexual couples.
    Actually Denny's was accused of refusing to serve black customers

    "The firm was accused in the lawsuits of fostering a discriminatory corporate culture and refusing to serve blacks at some of its 1,400 Denny's restaurants across the country."

    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-05-...ghts-advocates


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Well, you can stand in your own sh1t, if you want to. Doesn't bother me, because all you have is your personal opinion, which we both know counts for zilch.
    Ignoring my arguments won't make them go away. My argument stands until you forward a rebuttal to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Mican, why do you think the bakery is named Masterpiece Bake Shop? The word "masterpiece" should be a clue that the owner believes he is creating art. If you're not willing to accept that obvious piece of evidence, then watch the video on his company website: http://masterpiececakes.com/

    And here is a book titled "Wedding Cake Art and Design": https://www.amazon.com/Wedding-Cake-...dding+cake+art
    One can consider whatever they make "art" if they want but either a cake fits the legal definition of art or it does not. And it doesn't. Just believing otherwise does not change that.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    The successful 1994 class action against Denny's wasn't about getting to buy a meal. It was about getting equal service in all regards. Isn't the Colorado law about the same thing, requiring equal service in all regards?
    I have supported that not being served was very much part of that lawsuit.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    False. Public Accomodation isn't just about the end result of getting served. It includes HOW the service is provided. The 1994 Denny's lawsuit was about slow and rude service. Just lasts year, Denny's settled another lawsuit out of court, after one of it's managers made a black couple pay in advance: http://mynewsla.com/crime/2016/02/04...ation-lawsuit/
    If a store has a policy that black people must pay first and white people do not, then the policy is indeed discriminatory against blacks in regards to public accommodations.

    Saying that this will lead to something like certain people get a friendly "hello" and others do not will lead to a successful discrimination lawsuit is just engaging in a slippery slope fallacy.



    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Baking, selling, speed and friendliness of service are all parts of the "public accommodation" covered by 14th amendment cases, as demonstrated by the Denny's lawsuits.
    Please show me a successful discrimination lawsuit based on speed and/or friendliness. "Pay first" is not speed/friendliness but a policy regarding transactions.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I believe you are conflating 9th-12th grade compulsory education with all education and all grades. Amish families can stop educating their children after the eighth grade, Mican. That is a special religious accommodation only they are allowed.
    Yep. I misunderstood the ruling. But it's certainly not one that I am obliged to agree with. Education is for the CHILD'S benefit so just because someone rules that a child can be denied a proper education because of a religious objection does not make it so.

    And also you can't say that no one else is entitled to that kind of exemption. If a group of atheists formed a community similar to the Amish and had a sincerely held non-religious ethos that required children to work in the community after a certain age, they would probably be just as eligible for such an exemption.

    A primary reason that only the Amish have such an exemption is because only the Amish have asked for such an exemption. That doesn't mean that people of other faiths, or atheists, would not qualify if they sought the same exemption.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Oh, I understand. I realize that you refuse to accept facts and logic that are harmful to your argument, so you pretend to not understand, and you twist the details to allow you to just disagree. Although that is a fundamentally dishonest approach to debate, you're pretty good at it, because you've practiced it so much.
    That's a completely false accusation based on an honest misunderstanding on my part. You're just spewing a bunch of bull**** here. Seriously, it's pretty much flaming which is against the rules at ODN and is a really poor method of debate.
    Last edited by mican333; July 8th, 2017 at 10:25 AM.

  6. #126
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,963
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually Denny's was accused of refusing to serve black customers
    Among other things, which included being forced to wait while white customers were seated, rude service, allowing white customers to yell racial slurs, and many more. It wasn't just a refusal to serve.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    One can consider whatever they make "art" if they want but either a cake fits the legal definition of art or it does not. And it doesn't. Just believing otherwise does not change that.
    Show me the "legal definition of art" and support your claim that wedding cake art doesn't fit that definition.

    Here are some more bakery art businesses:
    https://saweddings.com/Cakes-and-Sweets/Cake-Art
    http://www.marcakeart.com/index.html
    I could probably give you dozens more, but that should be sufficient to convince any honest debater that cakes can be and often are, works of art.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I have supported that not being served was very much part of that lawsuit.
    One part, yes. But the issue I'm presenting is that denial of service is not the only provision covered by public accommodation laws preventing discrimination. Here is text from the Colorado law which Masterpiece Cake Shop is required to follow: "Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation." https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dor...discrimination

    Note the inclusion of "unequal treatment" as a prohibited discriminatory practice. This supports my claim that the Masterpiece Bake Shop, and other businesses, must provide the same friendliness and speed of service to homosexuals as it does to others. And lawsuits would logically follow if it does not provide service that is equal in all regards.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Saying that this will lead to something like certain people get a friendly "hello" and others do not will lead to a successful discrimination lawsuit is just engaging in a slippery slope fallacy.
    No, because the basis for such cases is already in the Colorado law, and has been demonstrated in the class-action suit against Denny's. Service must be equal in all respects, or there will be lawsuits. And if it didn't hurt your argument, I'd expect you to say such lawsuits would be appropriate in order to force equal service for all gay customers. But...you don't want to hurt your argument here, right? So instead you disingenuously say "I see no need for legal intervention".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Please show me a successful discrimination lawsuit based on speed and/or friendliness.
    Denny's was forced to pay $54M. That's pretty damn successful. This NYT article says that Denny's was accused of discriminating against blacks, including "by treating them rudely" and forcing them to "wait longer". http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/25/us...pagewanted=all There were some 4000+ complaints, Mican, and I doubt very many of them were for total denial of service.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Yep. I misunderstood the ruling. But it's certainly not one that I am obliged to agree with. Education is for the CHILD'S benefit so just because someone rules that a child can be denied a proper education because of a religious objection does not make it so.
    Of course you don't like it. But I've proven SCOTUS has given a religious exemption from what is generally accepted to be beneficial state law (compulsory education).
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  7. #127
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Among other things, which included being forced to wait while white customers were seated, rude service, allowing white customers to yell racial slurs, and many more. It wasn't just a refusal to serve.
    But you don't know if the lawsuit would have been successful without the refusal to seat. In other words, you can't say that there would have been a successful lawsuit if there was one instance where a white person got his food faster than a black person. This lawsuit was likely based on a pattern of discriminatory behavior, including refusal to seat, which indicated an institutional prejudice against black people which did effect their access to the accommodation. If a restaurant intentionally behaves poorly to certain minorities for the sake of discouraging them to go to the establishment, that likewise is a denial of access to the establishment.

    And also, do you disagree with this ruling? Your argument clearly indicates that there's something wrong here. So if you were on the jury and saw all of the evidence, would you choose to render a different verdict?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Show me the "legal definition of art" and support your claim that wedding cake art doesn't fit that definition.
    Shifting the burden. It's your argument that this is a free speech issue and therefore your burden to show that a wedding cake does legally qualify as art.

    If you don't care to continue arguing that, then the notion is dropped.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I could probably give you dozens more, but that should be sufficient to convince any honest debater that cakes can be and often are, works of art.
    And I can give you a bunch of examples of cakes that would not be reasonably considered works of art. So the issue is whether cakes are inherently works of art. And they aren't. Chairs are not inherently works of art either but that doesn't mean that one can't put the kind of craftsmanship into a chair so it would reasonably fit the definition of "artistic" in people's mind. Since the items in question are not inherently works of art, before one can say that any specific example of the item should legally qualify as art, they would need to identify where the item goes from not being art to being art and likewise where the legal rationale to consider such a thing "art" is. Because as it stands, cakes and chairs are not legally considered "art".


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    One part, yes. But the issue I'm presenting is that denial of service is not the only provision covered by public accommodation laws preventing discrimination. Here is text from the Colorado law which Masterpiece Cake Shop is required to follow: "Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation." https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dor...discrimination

    Note the inclusion of "unequal treatment" as a prohibited discriminatory practice. This supports my claim that the Masterpiece Bake Shop, and other businesses, must provide the same friendliness and speed of service to homosexuals as it does to others. And lawsuits would logically follow if it does not provide service that is equal in all regards.
    If you are using the Denny's case as an example where a lawsuit is likely to occur, you can't forward that just one instance of a straight person getting faster or friendlier service than a gay person would result in a successful lawsuit. That's not what happened in the Denny's lawsuit. There were clearly many instances of discrimination including refusal to seat (and you can't say for sure the the lawsuit would have been successful if the issue of refusal to seat was not part of the lawsuit).





    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    No, because the basis for such cases is already in the Colorado law, and has been demonstrated in the class-action suit against Denny's. Service must be equal in all respects, or there will be lawsuits. And if it didn't hurt your argument, I'd expect you to say such lawsuits would be appropriate in order to force equal service for all gay customers. But...you don't want to hurt your argument here, right? So instead you disingenuously say "I see no need for legal intervention".
    I'm very much tempted to not respond to any argument of yours that results to making such personal comments. I will respond this time but you have been warned in case you are going to resort to this kind of crap in the future. If you want me to respond to your point, don't resort to this kind of thing.

    Whether I think there is a need for legal intervention in any specific incident is based on the incident itself. No, I do not think that the smallest of infractions is worthy of punishment or a lawsuit nor do I think would result in a successful lawsuit if pursued. And I also think that a clear pattern of discriminatory behavior that makes people of a certain protected class feel unwelcome in an establishment, such as what happened in the Denny's case, is worthy of a successful lawsuit.

    So again, pointing to a clear and severe violation of these laws in the Denny's case does not mean that any and all instances of unequal treatment, no matter how minor, will or should result in a lawsuit.

    I see no reason to think that a pattern that is different from the current pattern will result. It seems that large lawsuits only happen when there is a large and flagrant violation of these laws and there is no reason to think the bar will drop significantly in the future. If you want a quick assessment of where I stand, you can assume that I'm pretty much alright with these laws as they are currently practiced (which doesn't mean that there might not be an example that I'm not aware of that I wouldn't approve but generally I'm not aware of any judgments that I reject). Since there have not been lawsuits (that I know of) over minor instances, you cannot reasonably say that I think there should be lawsuits for minor instances. Nor do I accept a slippery slope argument that the Denny's ruling will lead to successful lawsuits over minor infractions.



    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Of course you don't like it. But I've proven SCOTUS has given a religious exemption from what is generally accepted to be beneficial state law (compulsory education).
    And as I said, this kind of exemption is not necessarily only accessible to the religious. If there's an atheist group who is living a lifestyle similar to the Amish and their sincerely-held philosophy required them to cease education at the same age, they could theoretically get the same results if they wanted to do the same thing. The reason that the Amish got this exemption was based on more than just religion (which is why other faiths don't have access to this exemption) - it has a lot to do with their community and lifestyle. So again, another group with a similar lifestyle and a sincere belief in principles that would require children to cease education could get the same exemption.

    ---------------------------

    Well, I guess we are done here. I'm happy to see that you signed off of this debate with such class and good sportsmanship. Cheers!
    Last edited by mican333; July 8th, 2017 at 06:06 PM.

  8. #128
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,866
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Show me some evidence that the 14th Amendment applies to private business transactions, rather than protects against discrimination by the government.

    Support the claim that the 13th Amendment has anything to do with the cake baker case.

    The Civil Rights Acts specifically list areas of protection, and do not imply other coverage. Sexual orientation is not mentioned. If a new Civil Rights Act is passed by congress, then it could apply, but right now, the existing Acts do not.
    *ugh* You asked where those rights originated. Beyond being "self-evident" those amendments are where the power comes from to enforce the laws over what you're arguing..."It's my private property, I don't have to have anyone icky on it" such as blacks, Mexicans, or gays.

    The baker is protesting against gay marriage which has already been decided by the court as being valid.
    Last edited by mican333; July 12th, 2017 at 05:10 AM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #129
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,963
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    With a little more reading on religious exemptions, I found a case that could well be used as precedent by the Supreme Court. In Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, finding that

    It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended.... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling"–permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself,"–contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense. To adopt a true "compelling interest" requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy.

    So if the current court follows that previous ruling, then a state law which doesn't target the cake baker's religion specifically and only effects him incidentally would be ruled constitutional. I anticipate that is what will likely happen.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  10. #130
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,866
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Indeed, it doesn't impact his religion, it would impact his business, yes, but offending his religious beliefs doesn't prohibit him from practicing his religion.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7

Similar Threads

  1. Abortion is not a constitutional right
    By theophilus in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 31st, 2015, 12:04 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2010, 11:39 AM
  3. Home schooling not a constitutional right in California
    By MindTrap028 in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 5th, 2008, 02:01 PM
  4. Another Constitutional Convention?
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 6th, 2007, 04:07 PM
  5. Goldphoenix, on Constitutional Issues
    By Netopalis in forum General Debate
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 18th, 2007, 10:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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