It does? Atheism is the non belief in God. I could see how religious people are following scripture/etcetc, but atheists have no such belief set to pull from in a legal battle.
This IS the flipping of the position? Otherwise Obama would have had the first spot, and Trump would have had this one
Atheists do not automatically oppose religious imagery. Where does he come up with this crap?
I don’t. There is a whole world of wrongs and new ones every day that we don’t have to experience to know that they are wrong.
We’re human. Not the cast of “Sens8”.
Hell if I know. I’ve never really been able to grasp Pat’s power of whataboutism. Second only to Zeb and my wife’s uncle
Agree about parts of Berkeley and other militant liberal areas.
The call was to to publicly shame ELECTED OFFICIALS for certain voting records. Not private citizens for personal views. Very large difference. Still not a big fan.
I have no doubt that the very large majority of folks supporting the baker in this case are doing so strictly because they believe homosexuals to be lesser… Not because the have a philosophical issue with the constitutionality of the law.
A Nazi baker wouldn’t put a star of David on a cake, and a bigot wouldn’t put to brides on a cake. Both may be protected under the law, both are objectively bigots that I don’t want in my country.
Aww, my feelings are hurt. Still here, though.
It is tough to get rid of scum. Gotta scrub hard.
We can be rather difficult.
In my opinion, the key difference in this case is not the customers, but the product or message that they are asking to be produced. To protect religious freedom and also non-discrimination a ruling could have been made that you must serve any customer regardless of protected status despite your religious objections, but you do not need to make a product that violates your beliefs, and/or freedom of speech.
It is also important to clarify that the state of Colorado has specifically made this kind of discrimination illegal and given protected status to gays which is not the case federally. There will probably be key SCOTUS cases in the next decade that will push for that. That means that there is a plausible argument today that the right that is protected at the federal level has higher standing than the one that is protected merely at the state level.
That’s not true. Most Christian denominations hold that heterosexual marriage is allowed by “natural law” outside of the Church.
The case actually didn’t really rule on gay marriage or religious freedom. Lower court was overturned because of obvious and public bias by a county commissioner in the very early ruling on the matter.
FWIW, I was speaking more towards the large majority of people that are celebrating the decision to over turn. It just so happens that a legit constitutional argument aligns with their bigotry, similar to Nazi Marchers using freedom of speech to hide behind.
There are some differences.
Not saying that those differences make a case, but they are substantial. Consider for example, should someone be able to discriminate in hiring based on someone’s choice to be abstinant/celebate or sexually active regardless of sexual orientation? I believe that there have been higher court rulings that in certain cases an employer can rightfully chose to only hire abstinant individuals.
I agree, it was overturned based on state bias and only applies to this case, however this did not affirm that the law will stand a future challenge along one of two lines: 1) That federal protections supercede state protections or 2) That refusal to make a product or message is not equivalent to refusal to serve someone of a certain group. This would be similar to someone asking a Muslim baker to make a cake that disparages the prophet for example. I tend to agree that someone has a right to deny production of a particular product.
But it did rule on religious freedom in a sense as it affirmed that the state must show no bias in these matters which would apply to lawmaking in the first place. Since protected status of homosexuals is not present at the federal level they could negate the law itself on the grounds that the state had a biased intention.
Agreed with this analysis. Hardly anybody reads past headlines anymore. The ruling wont really be used as precedent because it basically said that those ruling need to be unbiased… Duh!
Religion is different that “innate traits” but is explicitly listed in the constitution. Relative to other “innate” traits, homosexuality is not self evident, and the innateness is not testable. We can not say at this point that a given person has the “innate trait” of homosexuality.
Not true. Discrimination by private citizens was allowed under the constitution but the magnitude of the institutional discrimination against blacks required the federal government to infringe on peoples right to discriminate (free association). Magnitude matters. African Americans literally couldn’t find lodging across large stretches of the country. If 99 hotels served African Americans and 1 did not, there is a good chance that the civil rights act would be very different on restricting the right to discriminate.
If people are at higher risk of health issues due to voluntary practices, discrimination is allowed. If you can discriminate against someone for their political views (which I believe you can) then you can discriminate against them for not taking a bath or wearing shoes.
Not trying to derail, so keep going guys, but what added health risks are gays exposed to?
I don’t know 100% but my wife is a cardiologist and she is required to recommend HIV testing once per year with every patient who is gay, but not with those who are not.
Does that also allow for discrimination against heterosexuals for the added health risks they expose themselves to by choice?
Yes, I think so in general though there might be exception. It depends on how inextricable that behavior is to a protected status, but for sure even in some cases where that choice is based on religious reasons.