thesometimesaint Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 In your example of the Gay bakers it is still irrelevant. No one is demanding that Gay bakers who don't ordinarily make and sell cakes with Anti-gay writing on them must make and sell pro-Gay written cakes.
Anijen Posted June 6, 2017 Author Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: In your example of the Gay bakers it is still irrelevant. No one is demanding that Gay bakers who don't ordinarily make and sell cakes with Anti-gay writing on them must make and sell pro-Gay written cakes. No, your reading comprehension skills might be as low as mine if you are getting that out of what I wrote. Point: (1) Religious Baker > refuses to bake a wedding cake> is sued > loses the suit > because a same-sex-couple is a protected class under Supreme Court Decisions (2) Same-sex-couple > refuses to bake a wedding cake > is sued > wins the suit > because a heterosexual religious man is not a protected class under Supreme Court Decisions The under lying issue I am trying to make and failing so gravely at is; First, I feel the wedding cake for the religious Baker was an individual artistic expression and the message on the cake would go against his religious principles thus he too, should have been given the same standard of review (due process) for his fundamental religious right to not to go against something he personally felt would be against his religious beliefs (i.e. endorse gay marriage). Second, The issue is the First Amendment right is to protect the freedom of speech and it is also a protection against compelled speech. Edited June 6, 2017 by Anijen
Anijen Posted June 6, 2017 Author Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: No one is demanding that Gay bakers who don't ordinarily make and sell cakes with Anti-gay writing on them must make and sell [said] cakes. Yes, there are cases of this happening and I quoted one such case. Edited to add: The gay bakers won their suit. In other words, they are allowed to discriminate against religious zealots. Edited June 6, 2017 by Anijen
thesometimesaint Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 14 hours ago, Anijen said: Yes, there are cases of this happening and I quoted one such case. Edited to add: The gay bakers won their suit. In other words, they are allowed to discriminate against religious zealots. No one is being forced to make and/or sell a product they don't normally make or sell. I've said this before. Say I'm a grocer, and I hate green beans. There is no law requiring me to carry or sell them. What the law does say is that if I carry and sell green beans I can't refuse to sell them to you. Secondly the First Amendment is not a get out of jail free card for those that want to illegally discriminate. You give up certain rights when you go into business dealing with the public.
Anijen Posted June 7, 2017 Author Posted June 7, 2017 10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: No one is being forced to make and/or sell a product they don't normally make or sell. I've said this before. Say I'm a grocer, and I hate green beans. There is no law requiring me to carry or sell them. What the law does say is that if I carry and sell green beans I can't refuse to sell them to you. Secondly the First Amendment is not a get out of jail free card for those that want to illegally discriminate. You give up certain rights when you go into business dealing with the public. I do not see or understand how you can write this. Baker makes wedding cakes, if he refuses to bake the cake for the couple he is fined 135K how is that not being forced (compelled)? There are laws. Laws can and is labeled Statutes, Acts, or Ordinances, a violation of a Law, Statute, Acts, or Ordinance. The Colorado Baker was fined (and other punishments) for violating Colorado's Federal Anti-Discrimination Law known as CADA (Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act). Basically it is a Civil-Rights Act written just for the State of Colorado. When the federal government, in this case Congress legislates a new law, the states are bound to follow that law. However, any state, if they choose can enact regulations that are stronger than federal regulations. For example if there is a federal law on pollution containing the order for industries to keep emmissions from exceeding .008% of a certain gas all states need to comply. If a particular state desires it can legislate to make the regulation in that state to say the state cannot exceed .01%. This is what Colorado did with CADA. Long story short, (1) it is force if you do not comply, you will be punished. In fact that is the manner that all laws are enforced in our country, by fines, incarceration, performance, or all three. (2) There is a law (CADA).
Anijen Posted June 7, 2017 Author Posted June 7, 2017 11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: What the law does say Your very first sentence says there is no law. Quote is that if I carry and sell green beans I can't refuse to sell them to you. That is a law, and you have misinterpreted it too. And with laws that violate Civil-Rights you must have standing to sue. Any baker, gay or straight, cannot discriminate against a suspect class, that means the baker by law cannot refuse to bake a wedding cake for a customer on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. However, If the customer is not a member of a suspect class then the baker may refuse service. I have referenced many cases to that issue. In other words, a baker can refuse service on the basis of the customer is a KKK member, heterosexual, etc. Quote Secondly the First Amendment is not a get out of jail free card for those that want to illegally discriminate. I agree, and I never said or implied that it was.
Gray Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 On 6/6/2017 at 2:07 PM, Anijen said: (2) Same-sex-couple > refuses to bake a wedding cake > is sued > wins the suit > because a heterosexual religious man is not a protected class under Supreme Court Decisions I think that's false any way you look at it.
Anijen Posted June 8, 2017 Author Posted June 8, 2017 3 hours ago, Gray said: I think that's false any way you look at it. Sad, that it seems to be a double standard, but it did happen.
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Use the example that I used if you want to quote me. This gibberish about protect class is just that. As a citizen/resident of the US you are entitled to every protection every other citizen/resident is. A protect class is some minority group because of past discrimination is given extra scrutiny in claims of discrimination. IE; Can a white legally marry a nonwhite? According to the USSC reading of the 14th Amendment in Loving v Virginia yes they. This became the basis for the Obergefell v Hodges Decision. SEE http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/
Gray Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 On 6/7/2017 at 9:34 PM, Anijen said: Sad, that it seems to be a double standard, but it did happen. What happened?
Anijen Posted June 9, 2017 Author Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Use the example that I used if you want to quote me. Thank you so much for telling me how to do stuff. Quote This gibberish about protect class is just that. Then you know absolutely nothing about constitutional law. The "gibberish" about protected class is exactly one of the factors for how the Supreme Court decides a case. Quote A protect class is some minority group because of past discrimination is given extra scrutiny in claims of discrimination. Yes, but you just called that "gibberish." Your words, you wrote; "This gibberish about protect class is just that." If a "protect[ed] class" were truly "gibberish" as you have said (and I quoted you perfectly there), why the need for higher scrutiny? And to be more precise it is not "extra" scrutiny it is actually a different level of scrutiny. There are three levels of scrutiny. Did you not read my posts before you lashed out at me? I explained the different levels of scrutiny above. Quote IE; Can a white legally marry a nonwhite? According to the USSC reading of the 14th Amendment in Loving v Virginia yes they. This became the basis for the Obergefell v Hodges Decision. I am very familiar with both cases: In Loving the issue was; restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violated the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause and deprived appellants of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Obergefell Under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, and state laws excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage were held invalid; states cannot refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another state on the ground of its same-sex character. Loving decided that laws against interracial marriage were unconstitutional. Obergefell decided that Marriage was a Fundamental Right to all (and yes of course Loving was one of the cases the Supreme Court used in its decision). In both cases (supra) the plaintiffs were given a Strict Scrutiny Standard of Review. The government almost always losses when this level of scrutiny is applied. In Loving the State of Virginia lost. In Obergefell, Richard Hodges [Director, Ohio Department of Health], Bill Haslam, [Governor of Tennessee], Rick Snyder [Governor of Michigan], Steve Beshear [Govenor of Kentucky], and other official petitioners lost I am offering a legitimate argument. I am neither uninformed nor obtuse. To call my use of protected class gibberish insults me and tells me exactly your level of grasp you have on the topic. Edited June 9, 2017 by Anijen
Anijen Posted June 9, 2017 Author Posted June 9, 2017 35 minutes ago, Gray said: What happened? Before I write my answer, I just want to say I would have baked cakes for the gay couple and for the priest. I find discrimination to be ugly and uncalled for. In the Azucar Bakery case. The same court that decided the Masterchef (wedding cake case), ruled in favor of the Azucar Bakery. Here, a religious priest offended over the wedding cake case asked a gay friendly baker to make two cakes. His motive was to have the baker known for their risque cakes bake him a cake with two men holding hands with the red circle and slash over the two men (the "not allowed" symbol), and another cake with Ten Commandment type stones with bible verses which according to the baker denigrated the gay lifestyle. The Azucar Bakery, is favored and very popular with the LGBTQ community. Some people even claim that it was this bakery that enticed the two men to look for a bakery that would not sell to them, in hoping they could start litigation and to help make LGTBQ rights more in the public (plus it would have negative affect on one of her competitors). Azucar Bakery was also popular because they would bake custom cakes with some (in my opinion) designs and phrases that were very obscene (i.e. a sexual act between two men). The Azucar Bakery told the priest she would make a cake for him as he wanted, but he would have to do the writing as she found the words to be hateful and offensive. The priest declined and sued. The Court ruled in favor of the Bakery claiming that the message was hateful and offensive. I find the irony here is, the Bakery would make some pretty risque cakes, but found the words; “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2.” "hateful and offensive." The Colorado court in making their decision used among other factors that the Priest was not a protected class, therefore Strict Scrutiny was not used but only a Rational Basis standard of review was used, thus the government will almost always win when a Rational Basis standard is used.
california boy Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Anijen said: Before I write my answer, I just want to say I would have baked cakes for the gay couple and for the priest. I find discrimination to be ugly and uncalled for. In the Azucar Bakery case. The same court that decided the Masterchef (wedding cake case), ruled in favor of the Azucar Bakery. Here, a religious priest offended over the wedding cake case asked a gay friendly baker to make two cakes. His motive was to have the baker known for their risque cakes bake him a cake with two men holding hands with the red circle and slash over the two men (the "not allowed" symbol), and another cake with Ten Commandment type stones with bible verses which according to the baker denigrated the gay lifestyle. The Azucar Bakery, is favored and very popular with the LGBTQ community. Some people even claim that it was this bakery that enticed the two men to look for a bakery that would not sell to them, in hoping they could start litigation and to help make LGTBQ rights more in the public (plus it would have negative affect on one of her competitors). Azucar Bakery was also popular because they would bake custom cakes with some (in my opinion) designs and phrases that were very obscene (i.e. a sexual act between two men). The Azucar Bakery told the priest she would make a cake for him as he wanted, but he would have to do the writing as she found the words to be hateful and offensive. The priest declined and sued. The Court ruled in favor of the Bakery claiming that the message was hateful and offensive. I find the irony here is, the Bakery would make some pretty risque cakes, but found the words; “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2.” "hateful and offensive." The Colorado court in making their decision used among other factors that the Priest was not a protected class, therefore Strict Scrutiny was not used but only a Rational Basis standard of review was used, thus the government will almost always win when a Rational Basis standard is used. What is written on a cake is considered free speech. No bakery is required to write anything that they don't want to on a cake. What they can not do is not bake a cake like they do for all of their other customers. They are not required to put two men as the cake topper. If they are open to the public is all they have to do is bake the cake no matter who asks for it. Your arguments are the same that people used to not serve blacks at the counter. The civil rights acts of the 60's made discrimination like that illegal. I am not sure this is of any help to you. You seem to have an agenda that is counter to what the federal law allows to those that are open to the public. If you wish to allow businesses to discriminate against who a person is, then you are going to have to repeal the civil rights laws of the 60's.
thesometimesaint Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 Why a "protected class" is gibberish. Every citizen/resident is entitled to equal protection under the law. SEE Amendment 14 of US Constitution. Because of past and present discrimination in the application of the 14th Amendment minority complaints of discrimination are given a closer look at. That is called scrutiny. Sure; in a ideal white male heterosexual only world there never was, never is, nor ever will be discrimination in the application of law. 1
Anijen Posted June 10, 2017 Author Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, california boy said: You seem to have an agenda that is counter to what the federal law allows to those that are open to the public. If you wish to allow businesses to discriminate against who a person is, then you are going to have to repeal the civil rights laws of the 60's. california boy, thank you for your participation and comments. I have always considered yours and Daniel' responses to be generally respectful and thought out. I would hope we can still maintain that level of consideration in this thread. I would like to clarify I have no agenda what-so-ever against blacks, gay, old, young, religious, atheists, etc. I find discrimination to be ugly and just downright hateful. I hold no respect for anyone who disparages anyone else for their religious beliefs, who they are attracted to, their age, skin color etc. I would report immediately if someone on this thread proceeded to do any such thing. I know it is rather cliche to claim friends and relatives, but I can truthfully relate. I have friends and close relatives who are gay. I myself had a gay roommate for two years and thought he was a pretty cool guy. I have a grandmother who is African-American, my brother-in-law is Hispanic, I myself have certain disabilities. The last thing I want to do is argue for discrimination. I am not doing that here, I hate, absolutely abhor all types and any form of discrimination! I believe we are all sons and daughters of God, and that makes all my brother or my sister. Either, I have not shown the acumen or practical knowledge on expressing my purposes for this thread or posters are reading my posts and then they speedily and wrongly presume what they think I am trying to communicate. Or, perhaps they have not read all that I have written, and just have the presumption I am a bigoted hater (I am not). By the amount of posters not understanding my intent or purpose, I will place the blame squarely on me and my failing to adequately express and explain my opinion of the Substantive Due Process Rights of the Baker who lost his case. It is my opinion that the courts will come to a point in the near future where they will have to set some type of border or bright-line rule or test, when one Fundamental Right goes up against another Fundamental Right. For example regarding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the balance between governmental interference and religion the Lemon-Test was created. It is my purpose and endeavor to show in this thread that the possibility of Due Process Violations between one fundamental right and another fundamental right will need to be examined in light of many new cases which seemingly put one right up against another right. Here, in this thread I used the Colorado Baker, because of his views that making a wedding cake for a gay couple violated his First Amendment Rights in both the freedom to refrain from compelled speech and the the First Amendment Right to exercise his religion how he believes. I also have been discussing the Substantive Due Process rights as regard to the highest level of scrutiny was afforded to one party and the lowest level of scrutiny given to the other party. It is my opinion, both party's have an argument under Due Process Rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The thread has digressed to me being a racist, homophobic rube, who has no idea of what I am talking about. And other posters are so quick to jump to that conclusion when all I really want to do is discuss if the baker had a fundamental right, and was the bakers due process rights were ignored. 7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Why a "protected class" is gibberish. Every citizen/resident is entitled to equal protection under the law. You are not following my argument. What you are doing is inserting what you think is my argument. Not "Every citizen/resident is entitled to equal protection" Here are some examples; Aliens with permanent legal status are entitled to equal protection, while illegal aliens are not. Illegal aliens are not entitled, but their children are entitled to an intermediate level of scrutiny standard of review.(I wish this were different) Illegitimate children do not get the same standard of review as legitimate children. (I wish this was different) A KKK member will not get the same Standard of review as an African- American (I am glad for this) Same-sex-attraction couples will always get the highest standard of review. (I am glad for this) African-Americans will always get the highest standard of review. (I am glad for this) Hetero-sexual couples will get a different standard of review depending on the issue. Cases with gender as an issue (i.e. women v. men) will only get an Intermediate Standard of review, while cases for a racial issue will always get the highest level of review (Strict Scrutiny) (I am glad for the racial issue, but ambivalent with the gender issue, but could change my mind on a case by case issue) A private college has more liberty to enact their recruiting policies than a State college. A State college/university may discriminate for diversity purposes in their admission practices. (I am ambivalent on this, lean toward glad) A State or local Police Force may discriminate and hire only African-Americans until a certain percentage is reached, to right past discriminatory practices. (I am glad for this) A gay baker may refuse the service of a religious man ( am glad for this) A religious baker may not refuse the patronage of a gay couple. (I am glad for this, but I am not for this, if the religious baker has a reasonable religious basis for his refusal, and not an anti-gay basis or reason, then I think it needs more discussion because now you have one Fundamental Right going up against another Fundamental Right) Quote SEE Amendment 14 of US Constitution. You do not need to continue to direct me to the Constitution. I am very much aware of what it says. Quote Because of past and present discrimination in the application of the 14th Amendment minority complaints of discrimination are given a closer look at. That is called scrutiny. All cases going to the appellate courts are given a closer look and use a de novo standard (fresh look, they start new). Not just the cases of complaints of discrimination by Minorities. All cases are given scrutiny. Scrutiny is a Standard of Review (meaning a level of review). There are three (3) different levels of review. These levels of review are NOT equal (nor should they be). Minorities or cases involving the issue of race will always get the highest level of scrutiny (and they should). The highest level is called Strict Scrutiny. Of course, I explained all of this in an earlier post. Please, before you denigrate my knowledge of the Constitution perhaps you should gain a little yourself. Quote Sure; in a ideal white male heterosexual only world there never was, never is, nor ever will be discrimination in the application of law. I find this post particularly distasteful and personally offensive. you have not mentioned my name here, but you imply that I have posited an "ideal white male heterosexual only world..." and you imply by your statement that, that is my argument. I ask you for an apology and or retraction. No where in my postings have I ever advocated such a position or idea. No where in my postings have I even implied that I agree with this. This thread is not asking for anyone or have I implied that advocating against gay couples is okay. I am not for discrimination against a same-sex-couple, and this thread is not about that. Repetition might produce understanding: This thread is not based on or anything about the subject-matter of race or gay discrimination. If anything it is on why a religious baker has had his due process rights lowered to the lowest standard of review, when the issue arising was from a violation of the First Amendment and because of this should have been awarded a higher level of scrutiny. In other words what happens to due process when a Fundamental Right goes up against another Fundamental Right? Edited June 10, 2017 by Anijen
Anijen Posted June 10, 2017 Author Posted June 10, 2017 8 hours ago, california boy said: Your arguments are the same that people used to not serve blacks at the counter. The civil rights acts of the 60's made discrimination like that illegal. California boy, I would like to address these concerns that you bring up. I am not using the same arguments because I am not making the same argument. I would like to make clear that I am NOT arguing that the Baker (not I, not me personally) will not serve Blacks at the counter. I am not arguing that the Baker will not serve a gay couple at the counter. I am arguing that the Fundamental Right of the gay couple and the Fundamental Right of the Baker have conflicted and that the courts used the highest level of scrutiny for one party's Rights (and they should have), but used the lowest level of scrutiny in regards to the Bakers Rights (why not use the same level?). The whole subject-matter of this thread is not gay discrimination, it is; (1) why did one party get the lowest level of scrutiny when two fundamental Rights conflict? and (2) could this be considered a Substantive Due Process violation? Nothing to do with gay discrimination or racial discrimination. Quote I If you wish to allow businesses to discriminate against who a person is, then you are going to have to repeal the civil rights laws of the 60's. First, I do NOT "wish to allow businesses to discriminate against who a person is." I think discrimination is a terrible thing, (discrimination, racism both have a deeper connection to other evils, such as pride, envy, hate, and jealousy). Second, I could go further back than the Civil Rights laws of the 1960's. World War II, Civil War, Slavery during the Colonial period, etc. Thanks again for your input. I value your opinion. Your posts give cause for me to inspect and reflect on my own ideas of tolerance and respect. I hope that I will never offend you or I hope I have never have in the past. Your views, judgments, and opinions are important to me, they help me to better understand something that I am not familiar with. Always best to go directly to a source that has personal knowledge and live in that reality. So again, I greatly appreciate your perspective and I recognize and give your views its full worth. 1
california boy Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 5 hours ago, Anijen said: California boy, I would like to address these concerns that you bring up. I am not using the same arguments because I am not making the same argument. I would like to make clear that I am NOT arguing that the Baker (not I, not me personally) will not serve Blacks at the counter. I am not arguing that the Baker will not serve a gay couple at the counter. I am arguing that the Fundamental Right of the gay couple and the Fundamental Right of the Baker have conflicted and that the courts used the highest level of scrutiny for one party's Rights (and they should have), but used the lowest level of scrutiny in regards to the Bakers Rights (why not use the same level?). The whole subject-matter of this thread is not gay discrimination, it is; (1) why did one party get the lowest level of scrutiny when two fundamental Rights conflict? and (2) could this be considered a Substantive Due Process violation? Nothing to do with gay discrimination or racial discrimination. First, I do NOT "wish to allow businesses to discriminate against who a person is." I think discrimination is a terrible thing, (discrimination, racism both have a deeper connection to other evils, such as pride, envy, hate, and jealousy). Second, I could go further back than the Civil Rights laws of the 1960's. World War II, Civil War, Slavery during the Colonial period, etc. Thanks again for your input. I value your opinion. Your posts give cause for me to inspect and reflect on my own ideas of tolerance and respect. I hope that I will never offend you or I hope I have never have in the past. Your views, judgments, and opinions are important to me, they help me to better understand something that I am not familiar with. Always best to go directly to a source that has personal knowledge and live in that reality. So again, I greatly appreciate your perspective and I recognize and give your views its full worth. First, I want to say that I haven't seen anyone call you a racist or bigot or prejudice against gay. What I have seen is that you are suggesting the legalization of discriminating because of religious beliefs. As the law stands now, a business owner is required by law to serve anyone, no matter who they are or what they believe. Sometimes that person may have completely different beliefs than the store owner. Sometimes that store owner may find those beliefs to be against their religious beliefs. But right now, what a customer believes has no relivance. The store owner is still required to serve them. I personally don't have a problem with those civil rights laws. I feel that society is best served when we serve everyone. I don't think a store owner needs to make judgements about every customer and whether that customer is living the same values as the store owner. Quite honestly, I do find the baker incidences to be without merit. Unless that baker is also not serving anyone who is living together without being married. Or single mothers that never married. Or a divorce person. Or someone who has had an abortion, Or, well you get the point. When a baker only refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple and not for anyone else that goes against their moral beliefs, then it just looks like bigotry.
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 10 hours ago, Anijen said: california boy, thank you for your participation and comments. I have always considered yours and Daniel' responses to be generally respectful and thought out. I would hope we can still maintain that level of consideration in this thread. I would like to clarify I have no agenda what-so-ever against blacks, gay, old, young, religious, atheists, etc. I find discrimination to be ugly and just downright hateful. I hold no respect for anyone who disparages anyone else for their religious beliefs, who they are attracted to, their age, skin color etc. I would report immediately if someone on this thread proceeded to do any such thing. I know it is rather cliche to claim friends and relatives, but I can truthfully relate. I have friends and close relatives who are gay. I myself had a gay roommate for two years and thought he was a pretty cool guy. I have a grandmother who is African-American, my brother-in-law is Hispanic, I myself have certain disabilities. The last thing I want to do is argue for discrimination. I am not doing that here, I hate, absolutely abhor all types and any form of discrimination! I believe we are all sons and daughters of God, and that makes all my brother or my sister. Either, I have not shown the acumen or practical knowledge on expressing my purposes for this thread or posters are reading my posts and then they speedily and wrongly presume what they think I am trying to communicate. Or, perhaps they have not read all that I have written, and just have the presumption I am a bigoted hater (I am not). By the amount of posters not understanding my intent or purpose, I will place the blame squarely on me and my failing to adequately express and explain my opinion of the Substantive Due Process Rights of the Baker who lost his case. It is my opinion that the courts will come to a point in the near future where they will have to set some type of border or bright-line rule or test, when one Fundamental Right goes up against another Fundamental Right. For example regarding the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the balance between governmental interference and religion the Lemon-Test was created. It is my purpose and endeavor to show in this thread that the possibility of Due Process Violations between one fundamental right and another fundamental right will need to be examined in light of many new cases which seemingly put one right up against another right. Here, in this thread I used the Colorado Baker, because of his views that making a wedding cake for a gay couple violated his First Amendment Rights in both the freedom to refrain from compelled speech and the the First Amendment Right to exercise his religion how he believes. I also have been discussing the Substantive Due Process rights as regard to the highest level of scrutiny was afforded to one party and the lowest level of scrutiny given to the other party. It is my opinion, both party's have an argument under Due Process Rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The thread has digressed to me being a racist, homophobic rube, who has no idea of what I am talking about. And other posters are so quick to jump to that conclusion when all I really want to do is discuss if the baker had a fundamental right, and was the bakers due process rights were ignored. You are not following my argument. What you are doing is inserting what you think is my argument. Not "Every citizen/resident is entitled to equal protection" Here are some examples; Aliens with permanent legal status are entitled to equal protection, while illegal aliens are not. Illegal aliens are not entitled, but their children are entitled to an intermediate level of scrutiny standard of review.(I wish this were different) Illegitimate children do not get the same standard of review as legitimate children. (I wish this was different) A KKK member will not get the same Standard of review as an African- American (I am glad for this) Same-sex-attraction couples will always get the highest standard of review. (I am glad for this) African-Americans will always get the highest standard of review. (I am glad for this) Hetero-sexual couples will get a different standard of review depending on the issue. Cases with gender as an issue (i.e. women v. men) will only get an Intermediate Standard of review, while cases for a racial issue will always get the highest level of review (Strict Scrutiny) (I am glad for the racial issue, but ambivalent with the gender issue, but could change my mind on a case by case issue) A private college has more liberty to enact their recruiting policies than a State college. A State college/university may discriminate for diversity purposes in their admission practices. (I am ambivalent on this, lean toward glad) A State or local Police Force may discriminate and hire only African-Americans until a certain percentage is reached, to right past discriminatory practices. (I am glad for this) A gay baker may refuse the service of a religious man ( am glad for this) A religious baker may not refuse the patronage of a gay couple. (I am glad for this, but I am not for this, if the religious baker has a reasonable religious basis for his refusal, and not an anti-gay basis or reason, then I think it needs more discussion because now you have one Fundamental Right going up against another Fundamental Right) You do not need to continue to direct me to the Constitution. I am very much aware of what it says. All cases going to the appellate courts are given a closer look and use a de novo standard (fresh look, they start new). Not just the cases of complaints of discrimination by Minorities. All cases are given scrutiny. Scrutiny is a Standard of Review (meaning a level of review). There are three (3) different levels of review. These levels of review are NOT equal (nor should they be). Minorities or cases involving the issue of race will always get the highest level of scrutiny (and they should). The highest level is called Strict Scrutiny. Of course, I explained all of this in an earlier post. Please, before you denigrate my knowledge of the Constitution perhaps you should gain a little yourself. I find this post particularly distasteful and personally offensive. you have not mentioned my name here, but you imply that I have posited an "ideal white male heterosexual only world..." and you imply by your statement that, that is my argument. I ask you for an apology and or retraction. No where in my postings have I ever advocated such a position or idea. No where in my postings have I even implied that I agree with this. This thread is not asking for anyone or have I implied that advocating against gay couples is okay. I am not for discrimination against a same-sex-couple, and this thread is not about that. Repetition might produce understanding: This thread is not based on or anything about the subject-matter of race or gay discrimination. If anything it is on why a religious baker has had his due process rights lowered to the lowest standard of review, when the issue arising was from a violation of the First Amendment and because of this should have been awarded a higher level of scrutiny. In other words what happens to due process when a Fundamental Right goes up against another Fundamental Right? Illegal aliens are not citizens. Certain rights may be withheld from them. IE; The right to vote. They retain certain rights IE; The Bill of Rights
Anijen Posted June 10, 2017 Author Posted June 10, 2017 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: Illegal aliens are not citizens. They are not citizens, but they are residents. You put citizens and residents get equal protection. Children of illegal aliens (who were not born here) do get rights, they will get the same level of protection (they same same level of scrutiny) as a illegitimate child (who is a citizen) This thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? Quote Certain rights may be withheld from them. IE; The right to vote. They retain certain rights IE; The Bill of Rights Correct. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws. What they will not get is Strict Scrutiny, they will get either a Rational Basis, or Intermediate Scrutiny. In my scenario (and in real life) the same-sex-couple got Strict Scrutiny (and they should have) and the Baker did not. This is the basis for my entire thread. Why is it, the Baker did not get Strict Scrutiny? This thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? 5 hours ago, california boy said: What I have seen is that you are suggesting the legalization of discriminating because of religious beliefs. This thread is not about discrimination. I have not suggested the legalization of discrimination in ANY way. Careful reading shows the thread is about; why didn't the Baker get the highest level of scrutiny, as did the customer (forget that they are gay, for right now, it is not relevant, thus this is not about discrimination). The Baker's Due Process Rights were withheld from him when he did not receive Strict Scrutiny when his cause of action arose under a First Amendment issue. This thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? Quote As the law stands now, a business owner is required by law to serve anyone, no matter who they are or what they believe. This is correct, a business person cannot refuse service for prejudicial reasons. However a business still can refuse service. Since this thread is not about discrimination (it is about due process). I'll list some legal ways business owners can refuse service. A business or a business owner can refuse service if: The customer is too rowdy and causing a scene. The customer threatens an employee or the business owner, making that party feel like they are in danger. The customer does not meet the company’s clothing or health requirement. (i.e. “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”) The customer breaks the lawful rules of the establishment; for example, if a tenant breaches the “no-pet policy” for the housing they are trying to acquire. The customer would overfill the establishment’s capacity. The customer requests service when the establishment is not open. This thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? Quote Sometimes that person may have completely different beliefs than the store owner. Sometimes that store owner may find those beliefs to be against their religious beliefs. But right now, what a customer believes has no relivance. The store owner is still required to serve them. I agree, no argument for me. This thread is not about a business refusing service. This thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? Quote I personally don't have a problem with those civil rights laws. I feel that society is best served when we serve everyone. I don't think a store owner needs to make judgements about every customer and whether that customer is living the same values as the store owner. I 100% agree Quote Quite honestly, I do find the baker incidences to be without merit. Unless that baker is also not serving anyone who is living together without being married. Or single mothers that never married. Or a divorce person. Or someone who has had an abortion, Or, well you get the point. When a baker only refuses to bake a cake for a gay couple and not for anyone else that goes against their moral beliefs, then it just looks like bigotry. I would have baked the cake as well. No matter which side is chosen, this thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? Not if he is a bigot. 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 No I didn't make them equal under the law. Under our laws we can't inflict cruel or unusual punishment on them just like every other person in he US. We can deny them the right to vote. Some laws apply while others don't. The Baker was using his religion as a basis to discriminate against Gays. "All animals are created equal, some are just more equal than others". Animal Farm.
Nofear Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 Not much into legalese myself but for clarity of the interlocutors with Anijen: Strict Scrutiny: A standard of judicial review that requires the government prove that the means chosen to achieve a compelling governmental objective is narrowed designed to avoid violation of the right to equal protection under the laws. (https://legaldictionary.net/strict-scrutiny/, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) In this context I understand Anijen's request to be along the lines of why did one baker's refusal to meet the criteria of "compelling government objective..." with respect to a same-sex couples right to equal protection but in other scenarios the "compelling government objective..." with respect to the religious convictions was not met. In my untrained and generally ignorant understanding of legalese it seems to me that there are times when "compelling government objective..." is met in religious cases, such as with the Little Sisters of the Poor and abortion support. But why is "compelling government objective..." denied review if a religious perspective/right is in potential conflict with same-sex perspectives/rights? Irrespective of the "correct" legal answer, why, in your view, in the several examples given by Anijen, is "compelling government objective..." not met (and hence no Strict Scrutiny). Though discussion of this topic on a small little board in a small corner of the internet is moot, I see the failure to understand Anijen's query the very answer he is seeking. That answer, unfortunately, is not encouraging for the future of religious liberty in the United States. Hence the bite of parody articles like this one: It Is Perfectly OK For Public Servants To Be Christians, As Long As They Do Not Believe Christian Things. 2
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 Heck; not even all Christians believe the same things. Just ask Evangelicals if Mormons are Christians.
california boy Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 8 hours ago, Anijen said: They are not citizens, but they are residents. You put citizens and residents get equal protection. Children of illegal aliens (who were not born here) do get rights, they will get the same level of protection (they same same level of scrutiny) as a illegitimate child (who is a citizen) This thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? Correct. In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the term “person” under the Fifth Amendment applied to aliens living in the U.S. In Fong Yue Ting v. U.S.,the court held that Chinese laborers, “like all other aliens residing in the United States,” are entitled to protection of the laws. What they will not get is Strict Scrutiny, they will get either a Rational Basis, or Intermediate Scrutiny. In my scenario (and in real life) the same-sex-couple got Strict Scrutiny (and they should have) and the Baker did not. This is the basis for my entire thread. Why is it, the Baker did not get Strict Scrutiny? This thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? This thread is not about discrimination. I have not suggested the legalization of discrimination in ANY way. Careful reading shows the thread is about; why didn't the Baker get the highest level of scrutiny, as did the customer (forget that they are gay, for right now, it is not relevant, thus this is not about discrimination). The Baker's Due Process Rights were withheld from him when he did not receive Strict Scrutiny when his cause of action arose under a First Amendment issue. This thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? This is correct, a business person cannot refuse service for prejudicial reasons. However a business still can refuse service. Since this thread is not about discrimination (it is about due process). I'll list some legal ways business owners can refuse service. A business or a business owner can refuse service if: The customer is too rowdy and causing a scene. The customer threatens an employee or the business owner, making that party feel like they are in danger. The customer does not meet the company’s clothing or health requirement. (i.e. “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”) The customer breaks the lawful rules of the establishment; for example, if a tenant breaches the “no-pet policy” for the housing they are trying to acquire. The customer would overfill the establishment’s capacity. The customer requests service when the establishment is not open. This thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? I agree, no argument for me. This thread is not about a business refusing service. This thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? I 100% agree I would have baked the cake as well. No matter which side is chosen, this thread is; why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? Not if he is a bigot. Perhaps you could tell us what you think Strict Scrutiny means. Because I am a big confused of what you are trying to establish as being unfair to the Baker. Strict Scrutiny does not mean getting away with something that is illegal.
thesometimesaint Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 Anijen: It is not illegal to be a bigot. It is illegal to discriminate in a business based on that bigotry.
Anijen Posted June 11, 2017 Author Posted June 11, 2017 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Heck; not even all Christians believe the same things. Just ask Evangelicals if Mormons are Christians. Scratches head. I agree, but is this relevant? What is your point? 2 hours ago, california boy said: Perhaps you could tell us what you think Strict Scrutiny means. When considering cases for appellate review, the justices must determine the "standing" of a plaintiff. For example; is the cause of action justiciable, does the plaintiff even have the cause of action to take to a federal court or must it remain in a state court, is the cause of action ripe or moot, can the plaintiff show damages (has he/she been harmed) etc. Once standing has been determined, the court looks at the plaintiff and assigns a level of scrutiny to him or her or it, (i.e. corporation, a local, state, or federal government). The level of scrutiny is not by random, is not "willy-nilly," it is not based on any of the judges bias. Standing is determined by the type of plaintiff, or the issue in which the case arose. If the case arose under a protected class (race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, age, citizenship, familial status... and others). Now, the court will determine what level of scrutiny to assign to that protected class. It may not even be a protected class, but the court still must determine by cause of action or class of plaintiff to determine what level of scrutiny they will apply. This determination has rules and priorities, once again the judges do not get to allow their personal feelings or biases to determine what level of scrutiny to use. It has been set. For example, imagine the cause of action is the freedom of speech, a lower court judge ordered the press out of the court room because he feared since the crime happened in such a small town, the reporting of it would bias the small jury pool that town pulls from. Because it is a First Amendment issue (freedom of the press and speech), this case will automatically get a Strict Scrutiny level. When a Strict Scrutiny level is used the burden of proof is always on the government, and it is a very difficult level of scrutiny for the government to prevail. When a Strict Scrutiny is used the government almost always loses. Here, in my example the Supreme Court would find the lower courts ruling of ejecting the press a violation of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Thus, the reporters will win. The lowest level of scrutiny is called Rational Basis. When a Rational Basis level of scrutiny is used the government will almost always win. (there is also a middle level, hence the name Intermediate Scrutiny. To move along... A Protected Class may get different levels of scrutiny, for example an African-American will get a different level of scrutiny than a disabled person (both are protected classes, but only the African-American falls into the suspect-Class category. A Suspect Class (i.e. based on race, national origin, religion, sexual attraction) will always get Strict Scrutiny. I hope that helps. Quote Because I am a big confused of what you are trying to establish as being unfair to the Baker. The Baker, a religious man who believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. This belief is still the majority of the opinion with people of the Christian religion. The Baker, NOT out of discrimination, but from his religious beliefs felt that making a wedding couple would express an endorsement of a change to his religious beliefs. This argument is stronger than accusations of discrimination because the Baker, said he would make the couple any other cake, but not the wedding cake because the Baker's own religious beliefs. After the lower courts ruling, the Baker appeals because he feels the forced order to comply is the government (the lower court) is an entanglement in his religion by forcing him to make an expression against his religious beliefs. The Baker also appeals on that it is a violation of his right to freedom to refrain from speech. The Bakers issue is of religious and speech freedoms, both protected under the First Amendment. Because his cause of action arose under a First Amendment violation, is not assigning his issue under a level of Strict Scrutiny a Constitutional violation, and because all First Amendment issues based on religion have almost every single time recieved a standard of review of Strict Scrutiny. Note: I am not arguing from a discrimination issue. I am also not saying the couple should not of received Strict Scrutiny (yes, they should have, and I agree with it). My argument is; because it is a First Amendment Issue (mainly under the religious clauses of that amendment), the Baker too, should have received a Strict Scrutiny standard of review. Hence, a conflict of the battle of Fundamental Rights arises. I think we will see more of these cases until a bright-line rule is made. I am for giving service to the couple, I am against refusal of service for the couple, but I am also for the Fundamental religious Right (1st Amendment) for the Baker. Quote Strict Scrutiny does not mean getting away with something that is illegal. I agree, and I have never implied otherwise. 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Anijen: It is not illegal to be a bigot. It is illegal to discriminate in a business based on that bigotry. Can a state college refuse to accept a certain class of people? Yes, they can for diversity purposes. Can a Police Force only hire African Americans? Yes, they can, for a reasonable amount of time, to redeem for bad past hiring practices. Legalized discrimination is all around us. Immigration law is based on discriminating who we let in, how many we let it. I hate any type of prejudice. I hate that people hate other people. I hate discrimination!!!! But this thread IS NOT ABOUT DISCRIMINATION Sometimessaint Professor Umbridge here (of Hogwarts and of the Ministry of Magic), Please take this pen and write 100 times the phrase; This thread is not about discrimination, this thread is about why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? 1
Recommended Posts