Supreme Court seems divided in case of baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

How many Muslim taxi-drivers have refused, on the basis of their religion, to accept potential passengers who are obviously carrying alcoholic beverages?  Is this excusable?

 

Same questions regarding Hindu taxi-drivers and passengers with beef.

 

If these tip-of-the-forebrain hypothetical examples aren't parallel to the case in question, suggest some that are.

I've never heard of either thing happening?

 

I would say a taxi-driver has no right to dictate what their customers are carrying. Why would they even know? If I had a bottle of wine in a paper bag they would have no idea what it is? I lived in NYC for 3 years and never heard of this happening.

 

Same with the beef one. When I used a taxi with groceries (it wasn't often, mostly when I wanted to go to Trader Joe's which was on the West Side and I lived on the East side) I never had a taxi driver ask me "What kind of groceries do you have?". I honestly can't recall if I ever had a Hindu driver for any of those journeys. 

 

I'm not saying these don't happen. Just never heard of them. I would say both are inappropriate.

 

EDIT:

 

I would say a taxi driver has the right to refuse an obviously intoxicated person if they are rowdy and the taxi driver is concerned for their safety. But they would have to apply that rule across the board regardless of the person (They can't say "Well I'll take a rowdy dangerous white drunk person, but not a black one or gay one"). They can't be forced to endanger themselves.

Edited December 8, 2017 by bcking

[yuna628 9,726]

2 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

How many Muslim taxi-drivers have refused, on the basis of their religion, to accept potential passengers who are obviously carrying alcoholic beverages?  Is this excusable?

 

Same questions regarding Hindu taxi-drivers and passengers with beef.

 

If these tip-of-the-forebrain hypothetical examples aren't parallel to the case in question, suggest some that are.

Hypotheticals can happen. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/magazine/is-it-ok-to-fire-a-muslim-driver-for-refusing-to-carry-wine.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-muslims-taxis/minnesotas-muslim-cab-drivers-face-crackdown-idUSN1633289220070417 Did these Minnesota drivers sue under religious discrimination in being forced to comply?

 

In this other example from the UK - the man refused to take the dog in his cab, but claimed it was because he neither knew the law and was afraid of it - not due to a religious reason. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-38745910

 

I don't believe we have a surge of Muslim and Hindu cab drivers refusing customers though as a whole though. There are however, a lot of these similar type cases regarding Christians refusing service making their way through the court system, typically defended by the ADF and other groups. Would they be willing to defend a Muslim man's right to refuse? Somehow I don't think so..

 

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Hypotheticals can happen. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/magazine/is-it-ok-to-fire-a-muslim-driver-for-refusing-to-carry-wine.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-muslims-taxis/minnesotas-muslim-cab-drivers-face-crackdown-idUSN1633289220070417 Did these Minnesota drivers sue under religious discrimination in being forced to comply?

 

In this other example from the UK - the man refused to take the dog in his cab, but claimed it was because he neither knew the law and was afraid of it - not due to a religious reason. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-38745910

 

I don't believe we have a surge of Muslim and Hindu cab drivers refusing customers though as a whole though. There are however, a lot of these similar type cases regarding Christians refusing service making their way through the court system, typically defended by the ADF and other groups. Would they be willing to defend a Muslim man's right to refuse? Somehow I don't think so..

 

That first story (The NYTimes one) is pretty horrible. The guy wasn't fired because he refused to drive someone, he was fired just because he refused to help the guy carry the wine into the house. That isn't in the job requirements. He may not deserve a reasonable tip for not assisting, but it isn't a requirement. 

I had taxi drivers refuse to help me with bags all the time.

[TBoneTX 46,176]

Interesting -- thanks.

[Ban Hammer 13,586]

16 hours ago, jayjayj said:

Who likes rainbow colored cake anyway?

 

unicorns, so they can fart rainbows.

[smilesammich 10,727]

6 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

unicorns, so they can fart rainbows.

unicorns don't need cake to fart rainbows. they fart rainbows by default.

[Ban Hammer 13,586]

10 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

unicorns don't need cake to fart rainbows. they fart rainbows by default.

you didn't read the user's manual "care and feeding of your unicorn" did you? 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

How many Muslim taxi-drivers have refused, on the basis of their religion, to accept potential passengers who are obviously carrying alcoholic beverages?  Is this excusable?

 

Same questions regarding Hindu taxi-drivers and passengers with beef.

 

If these tip-of-the-forebrain hypothetical examples aren't parallel to the case in question, suggest some that are.

 

   Some Hindu's eat beef, while many don't. I have never heard of anything that indicates you cannot have or eat beef in the presence of Hindu's and I've never met one who objcted to others eating it, although I'm sure it's possible.

 

   One of my good friends growing up was Hindu and he was the guy usually having the double cheesburger when we were at a fast food place.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 hours ago, jayjayj said:

Because that would have been obsurd back then. 

 

 

  If it's not in there, then it's an interpretation. Most likely a cultural one. 

[jayjayj 571]

12 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Hypotheticals can happen. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/magazine/is-it-ok-to-fire-a-muslim-driver-for-refusing-to-carry-wine.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-muslims-taxis/minnesotas-muslim-cab-drivers-face-crackdown-idUSN1633289220070417 Did these Minnesota drivers sue under religious discrimination in being forced to comply?

 

In this other example from the UK - the man refused to take the dog in his cab, but claimed it was because he neither knew the law and was afraid of it - not due to a religious reason. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-38745910

 

I don't believe we have a surge of Muslim and Hindu cab drivers refusing customers though as a whole though. There are however, a lot of these similar type cases regarding Christians refusing service making their way through the court system, typically defended by the ADF and other groups. Would they be willing to defend a Muslim man's right to refuse? Somehow I don't think so..

 

How many cases? 

 

Perhaps the disproportionate amount is due to the current liberal bias against Christians.  Please don't attempt to say that bias doesn't exist.  I don't want to fall out of my chair laughing.

8 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  If it's not in there, then it's an interpretation. Most likely a cultural one. 

You think gay people were allowed to marry back when the bible was written and someone left it out on purpose?

[jayjayj 571]

19 hours ago, bcking said:

You're right I can't dismiss it. But I can call it extremely hypocritical for supreme Court justices and citizens who would try to be "textualists" or limit themselves to a strict reading of the amendments in some situations.

 

This would not have limited his ability to practice or exercise his religion. His religion is not about who he decorates a cake for. He can continue to hold his own beliefs, attend his church, pray. He has not sinned just because he made a cake.

 

As I also said before - Jesus would be ashamed. As would the founding fathers. This isn't about protecting his religion. His religion isn't under attack. It is about protecting a group of people that many would prefer to marginalise in the name of "religious freedom". I absolutely know who Jesus would support if he were around.

 

Yes the SC mat very well rule in the baker's favour. It will make several of things (if the vote goes down the line we all expect) hypocrites. You can't argue for literal readings one day and then loose interpretation the next. I guess the SC isn't excluded from the rest of government in that regard anymore.

You can call it whatever you want.  Which amendments are being argued by me for strict reading and interpretations and which are being argued by me for loose fluid interpretations?  If you want to talk about hypocrites on the SC, let's start with liberal justices who use political motivations to make rulings when they should be impartial and apolitical.  Let's state with Ruth Ginsburg attacking a politician she doesn't agree with during an active Presidential election.  Did you call out that hypocrisy when it happened or do you avoid calling out hypocrisy when it aligns with your political beliefs.         

 

This absolutely limits his rights to live freely in accordance with his religious beliefs - we disagree.  Freedom of religion isn't simply about being able to go to your house of worship, own the books of your faith, or pray in private.  Cue the arguments of religious people causing harm to others while living in accordance to their religion.  There was no harm in this case, which is what the SC ruling will likely confirm.  The gay couple might have been shocked or had their feelings hurt, but they were not harmed in a legal sense.  They weren't banned from getting a cake from someone else.  The baker didn't follow them around and force all the other bakers to not back them a cake.  The baker didn't disparage them with any slurs or hateful speech.  The baker didn't crash their wedding and destroy the cake they bought somewhere else.  The person who would have been harmed in this case, is the person who would be forced to do something that they disagree with on their own religious ground - the baker.  Freedom to exercise religion is not equatable with the false notion that people are free to not have their feelings hurt.      

 

You have no idea what Jesus would think about this issue.  That is ludicrous.  Making those kind of statements in an attempt to patronize, shame, and belittle Christians is borderline hateful, whether intended or not.       

 

The fact that at least half of the Supreme Court agrees with me, means my argument is valid and based on legal opinions.  The same goes for you and the half of the Supreme Court who agree with you.  I'm sure the SC will issue a well written legal argument explaining their decision, not simply a statement saying "religious freedom".  Let's wait and see what they have to say and then debate the ruling.  Neither of us is going to change the other's mind.    

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, jayjayj said:

 

You think gay people were allowed to marry back when the bible was written and someone left it out on purpose?

     

      It's been around since the old testament. Why do you think it wasn't?

 

             A History of Same Sex Marriage

[jayjayj 571]

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

     

      It's been around since the old testament. Why do you think it wasn't?

 

             A History of Same Sex Marriage

I can't open that link for some reason.  Do you have any other examples?