Absolutely serious. But if we’re going to be a Team for Centgov, you need to use the quote function. I know, I know, I fought it too until I was shamed into it.
Try Dress Barn, they specialize in petite.
Not on my phone…to much effort
Meh…not my style
Then ye shall be shunned.
Shrug…it happens
No, it’s a free speech issue because it is government attempting to coerce speech.
I read the NY times article on the issue. Now I have a better clear of what happened.
Basically a transgender woman named Autumn Scardina, a lawyer, wanted him to make her a blue and pink cake, celebrating her 7th year of transitioning from male-to-female. Phillips declined over religious objections. Now Phillips is suing the Colorado governor because he feels they are trying to target him.
Lets be clear here: Phillips IS discriminating against Scardina for her gender identity. His objection was NOT the design of the cake, but the PURPOSE of the cake. This is the same situation as before: Phillips does not want to create something for an activity/event he sees as sinful.
As far as I can see, I vehemently disagree with his views on homosexuality and gender identity, but it is HIS store, HIS products. If he’s uncomfortable creating a product, he shouldn’t be forced to make it. I would be all for Ms. Scardina, if he refused to sell her products already made or a plain white cake.
1 Like
Cakeshop did violate Colorado law.
Allan
so anyone can violate the law because of sincerely held religious beliefs?
why doesnt he move to a state in which he would not be violating the law.
Allan
Anyone can violate unconstitutional laws, they are invalid and unenforceable.
Your state has been doing it for years.
It has. why hasnt this been brought to the attention of the authorities.
the 3rd circuit ruled. and writ of Cert. was denied.
sorry sneak old boy.
Allan
The two highlighted parts are different things.
The first asserts discrimination against the person.
The second (which is accurate) asserts discrimination against activity/event.
They are different things, but too often people conflate what someone DOES with WHO that person is. It’s especially prevalent regarding gay and transgender topics.
I missed the SCOTUS opinion that this colorado state law was unconstitutional.
duh. its not.
all states have public accommodation laws.
Allan
quite correct and it was the action cakeshop took that violated colorado state public accommodation law.
Allan
Imdont need a SCOTUS decision to refuse to obey a law I deem unconstitutional. And while all states may have public accommodation laws it does not follow that the entirety of all states public accommodations laws are either constitutional as written or in their application. A state may not force me to speak, the precedent is crystal clear.
so, protesting a law or ruling via civil disobedience.
Roy Moore, George Wallace, and Rosa Parks have your back on this one
Allan
You have it backwards. If the belief is sincerely held and the state does not have an overriding interest, a law cannot force someone to surrender their 1st amendment right to the free exercise of their religion. Government has a duty to protect life, hence why one cannot get away with murder, using their religion as an excuse. Refusing to bake a cake for a ceremony that goes expressly against their religion and beliefs, especially when that same cake can be bought elsewhere, is not an overriding interest. The business owner has the right to refuse service.
If you actually bothered to read the Kennedy decision on the prior case, they covered this when they stated the commission did not consider whether Phillips beliefs were sincerely held as part of the legal test that was required when they made their ruling.
That’s how most unconstitutional laws end up being declared unconstitutional. Someone challenged them.
