T shirt maker has gay customers, gay employees, still sued

[LittleNipper]

7 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Ummmmm..... "Sexual behavior" IS "behavior." Is anyone saying otherwise? If so, whom?

What does that have to do with anything?

What do facial features and body build have to do with anything? (Both of which can be altered, either surgically or through diet/exercise).

Religious affiliation can be controlled, like any habit (whether positive or negative, depending on your belief system)... so, again, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here or adding to the conversation... 

EXACTLY!  Protecting  behavior patterns has nothing to do with racial anti discriminatory laws... Baking a wedding cake for a gay marriage is above and beyond common logic and infringes on religious priorities. The issue with Christianity is that the Bible never supported hatred of individuals because of color as some primarily southern denomination purported. It was commonly understood that GOD created physical  diversity. However, GOD did stipulate that certain behavior patterns were unwise at best and downright evil at the worse.  The T-shirt issue is the very same. Christians presently live in the AGE of GRACE. We are not to hate individuals; however, we are not to support behavior that is an abomination to GOD. We are to spread the Gospel message; however, that doesn't at all make Christianity popular. Very often it means that Christians will have to separate themselves from those insisting on embracing WORLDLY PLEASURES.

However, today, those engaged in self fulfillment are more and more insisting that everyone conform to providing the means to support their personal choices. That means trying to force private businesses to fulfill every notion that the WORLD deems satisfactory. This is an obvious infringement of freedom of religion. Religion is not just a way of thinking, but a way of living. Thoughts can be hidden and suppressed; however, living according to one's beliefs cannot ------ especially as the WORLDLY drift more and more towards separation from GOD...

Edited September 30, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

On ‎09‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 7:05 AM, LittleNipper said:

EXACTLY!  Protecting  behavior patterns has nothing to do with racial anti discriminatory laws... 

Actually, that's not correct. The law has held that some behaviors are so closely linked to innate self-identity that to discriminate against the behavior has been ruled to be unjust discrimination, whether by race or gender.

The prime example of this is interracial marriage. While one's race isn't a matter of choice, the act of marrying someone of another race IS a chosen behavior.  Loving vs. Virginia ruled it's unconstitutional to discriminate based on individuals' CHOICE of the race of one's spouse.  Even when religious bakers view the BEHAVIOR of interracial marriage to be a violation of God's will, they cannot deny creating a custom wedding cake for an interracial couple. 

The same is true of religion. It's a BEHAVIORAL CHOICE to marry another Latter-day Saint, or another Jew, or another Catholic, or Wiccan, or to have a completely atheistic, non-religious wedding ceremony. The religious (or non-religious) ceremonies in each case are CHOSEN BEHAVIORS, but bakers who hold different religious beliefs cannot refuse to provide custom wedding cakes based on the CHOSEN religious BEHAVIOR dictating the type or location of wedding ceremony being performed.  Such religious behaviors are tied to religious identity and cannot be discriminated against in the public square.

Obergefell held that the government cannot treat citizens' marriages differently based on the gender of ones' spouse; that laws must treat marriages between same-sex couples the same as it treats the marriages of different-sex couples..

Edited October 1, 2017 by Daniel2

[LittleNipper]

9 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Actually, that's not correct. The law has held that some behaviors are so closely linked to innate self-identity that to discriminate against the behavior has been ruled to be unjust discrimination, whether by race or gender.

The prime example of this is interracial marriage. While one's race isn't a matter of choice, the act of marrying someone of another race IS a chosen behavior.  Loving vs. Virginia ruled it's unconstitutional to discriminate based on individuals' CHOICE of the race of one's spouse.  Even when religious bakers view the BeHAVIOR of interracial marriage to be a violation of God's will, they cannot deny creating a custom wedding cake for an interracial couple. 

The same is true of religion. It's a BEHAVIORAL CHOICE to marry another Latter-day Saint, or another Jew, or another Catholic, or Wiccan, or to have a completely atheistic, non-religious wedding ceremony. The religious (or non-religious) ceremonies in each case are CHOSEN BEHAVIORS, but bakers who hold different religious beliefs cannot refuse to provide custom wedding cakes based on the CHOSEN religious BEHAVIOR dictating the type or location of wedding ceremony being performed.  Such religious behaviors are tied to religious identity and cannot be discriminated against in the public square.

Obergefell held that the government cannot treat citizens' marriages differently based on the gender of ones' spouse; that laws must treat marriages between same-sex couples the same as it treats the marriages of different-sex couples..

As long as two people of two different sexes (as created by GOD) are getting married that is acceptable.  I'm not interested in what Will and Grace think marriage entails nor the President for that matter --- only as defined by GOD in HIS Word. Thank the Good Lord that the Law was never based on Phrenology, otherwise they would have locked up "possible criminals" based upon scientifically counting the bumps on one's head. Public is not private --- never was ---  until it became convenient for LIBERALS. Obergefell is a LIBERAL.https://www.charismanews.com/politics/opinion/65953-texas-rules-same-sex-benefits-not-required-by-law-setting-stage-to-repeal-obergefell

English philosopher Edmund Burke once said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’

Edited October 1, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

21 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

As long as two people of two different sexes (as created by GOD) are getting married that is acceptable.  I'm not interested in what Will and Grace think marriage entails nor the President for that matter --- only as defined by GOD in HIS Word. Thank the Good Lord that the Law was never based on Phrenology, otherwise they would have locked up "possible criminals" based upon scientifically counting the bumps on one's head. Public is not private --- never was ---  until it became convenient for LIBERALS. Obergefell is a LIBERAL.https://www.charismanews.com/politics/opinion/65953-texas-rules-same-sex-benefits-not-required-by-law-setting-stage-to-repeal-obergefell

English philosopher Edmund Burke once said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’

I understand the above reflects your religious beliefs, and we all will have our own views and beliefs about whether or not the love and intimacy shared and expressed between a same-sex couple is inherently worthy.  No one's brought up Will or Grace, nor the President, so I'm confused by some of your comments above.  By the same token, not everyone finds value in what any given religion believes God says about the matter. 

That being said, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about counting bumps or that public wasn't private... feel free to clarify what relevance you feel it has to the topic of this thread.

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I understand the above reflects your religious beliefs, and we all will have our own views and beliefs about whether or not the love and intimacy shared and expressed between a same-sex couple is inherently worthy.  No one's brought up Will or Grace, nor the President, so I'm confused by some of your comments above.  By the same token, not everyone finds value in what any given religion believes God says about the matter. 

That being said, I'm not sure what you're trying to say about counting bumps or that public wasn't private... feel free to clarify what relevance you feel it has to the topic of this thread.

I'm someone and I brought up Will and Grace. The show reflects an attitude pervasive throughout today's society. It makes light of a serious subject casting a normalcy on gay behavior while trivializing heterosexuality.   If one doesn't like my beliefs one is free to attend another church, just like there is more than one bakery. As for the bump reading (Phrenology). It was once actually believed that the criminal mind was scientifically discernible by checking out the bumps on one's head.  It was an accepted study. THEY WERE WRONG ---- THOSE doctors were full of bunk. When all the hype is over, I personally feel that there are multiple influences that can corrupt or restrain an individual and one of them is obviously one's personal faith, another  --- friends and relatives, and another can involve money or even attention. I do not believe that a babyish boy is deffinetly going to be gay, anymore than a girl who likes baseball is going to be a lesbeian. And there are absolutely instances where homosexual have changed. Just as there are times when a macho man has found his "significant other." The frightening reality is EVERYONE is capable of engaging in salacious sex of one sort of another for any number of reasons ------- and I've even heard boredom given as a reason. Sorry, but people have little control over their natural looks, but EVERYONE can say no --- unless they cannot speak. Only someone raped can claim to be the victim.

Edited October 2, 2017 by LittleNipper

[california boy]

5 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I'm someone and I brought up Will and Grace. The show reflects an attitude pervasive throughout today's society. It makes light of a serious subject casting a normalcy on gay behavior while trivializing heterosexuality.   If one doesn't like my beliefs one is free to attend another church, just like there is more than one bakery. As for the bump reading (Phrenology). It was once actually believed that the criminal mind was scientifically discernible by checking out the bumps on one's head.  It was an accepted study. THEY WERE WRONG ---- THOSE doctors were full of bunk. When all the hype is over, I personally feel that there are multiple influences that can corrupt or restrain an individual and one of them is obviously one's personal faith, another  --- friends and relatives, and another can involve money or even attention. I do not believe that a babyish boy is deffinetly going to be gay, anymore than a girl who likes baseball is going to be a lesbeian. And there are absolutely instances where homosexual have changed. Just as there are times when a macho man has found his "significant other." The frightening reality is EVERYONE is capable of engaging in salacious sex of one sort of another for any number of reasons ------- and I've even heard boredom given as a reason. Sorry, but people have little control over their natural looks, but EVERYONE can say no --- unless they cannot speak. Only someone raped can claim to be the victim.

You are writing as if everyone has to conform to your opinion.  Well they don't.  Will and Grace was a very popular TV program.  Many people like the humor and are not threatened by how they portrayed the characters.  I personally identified much more with that program than many others on TV.  So there we are.  Do you think I should demand that TV not show programs that I personally don't relate to?  I certainly hope you are not suggesting that.

As far as studies go, I couldn't care less.  I am gay.  How I became gay is irrelevant to me.  Was it bumps on my head or lipstick my mother wore when she was pregnant or there is some genetic factor is not relevant to me either.  None of that changes the fact that I am gay.  And there is not one personality type that makes someone gay.  Yes some gays are babyish boys as you call them, but others are total jocks or total macho men.  Has anyone suggested that if a girl plays baseball she is going to be a lesbian?  I don't see the point of your remark except you showing a complete ignorance about gay people.

And yes everyone has complete control over who they have sex with.  So What!  You choose who you have sex with,  So do I.  I don't care who you have sex with.  Why would you care who I have sex with.  The fact that some desire the same gender is exactly the reason why someone is gay.  I have absolutely no interest or desire to have sex with the gender you want to have sex with.  Duh!

All of this is irrelevant to the discussion we are having about the bake.  The issue that are before the court are legal issues.  They are based on law and rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws passed by the government.  It has nothing to do with tradition or your personal belief or what is popular on television.  Your posts are just rambling on about things that are completely relevant to the legal issues being discussed.  

 

[LittleNipper]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

You are writing as if everyone has to conform to your opinion.  Well they don't.  Will and Grace was a very popular TV program.  Many people like the humor and are not threatened by how they portrayed the characters.  I personally identified much more with that program than many others on TV.  So there we are.  Do you think I should demand that TV not show programs that I personally don't relate to?  I certainly hope you are not suggesting that.

As far as studies go, I couldn't care less.  I am gay.  How I became gay is irrelevant to me.  Was it bumps on my head or lipstick my mother wore when she was pregnant or there is some genetic factor is not relevant to me either.  None of that changes the fact that I am gay.  And there is not one personality type that makes someone gay.  Yes some gays are babyish boys as you call them, but others are total jocks or total macho men.  Has anyone suggested that if a girl plays baseball she is going to be a lesbian?  I don't see the point of your remark except you showing a complete ignorance about gay people.

And yes everyone has complete control over who they have sex with.  So What!  You choose who you have sex with,  So do I.  I don't care who you have sex with.  Why would you care who I have sex with.  The fact that some desire the same gender is exactly the reason why someone is gay.  I have absolutely no interest or desire to have sex with the gender you want to have sex with.  Duh!

All of this is irrelevant to the discussion we are having about the bake.  The issue that are before the court are legal issues.  They are based on law and rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws passed by the government.  It has nothing to do with tradition or your personal belief or what is popular on television.  Your posts are just rambling on about things that are completely relevant to the legal issues being discussed.  

 

I'm saying in kind, "Go to another bakery, photographer, T- shirt vendor, card dealer, bed and breakfast ---- it's just like changing the channel ----- But if you and those you agree with are going to make issues for those that do not hold to your choices ---- you are the one who is being one sided. How you became gay should be as relevant to you as how someone became a drunk or some other addict.  And if you don't care --- that doesn't seem to fit any wholesome value that I ever encountered. ALL legal issues are either based on someone's opinion and they might just as well be GOD's as opposed to YOURS. TV at one time had to be family responsible. It you would feel uncomfortable with a 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 year old child watching so called entertainment along side of you, likely it is inappropriate for anyone. All this is one more step down the ladder. And responsible citizens can not just sit around and hand society over to you and be considered blameless.

Edited October 2, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

14 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I'm someone and I brought up Will and Grace. The show reflects an attitude pervasive throughout today's society. It makes light of a serious subject casting a normalcy on gay behavior while trivializing heterosexuality.   If one doesn't like my beliefs one is free to attend another church, just like there is more than one bakery. As for the bump reading (Phrenology). It was once actually believed that the criminal mind was scientifically discernible by checking out the bumps on one's head.  It was an accepted study. THEY WERE WRONG ---- THOSE doctors were full of bunk. When all the hype is over, I personally feel that there are multiple influences that can corrupt or restrain an individual and one of them is obviously one's personal faith, another  --- friends and relatives, and another can involve money or even attention. I do not believe that a babyish boy is deffinetly going to be gay, anymore than a girl who likes baseball is going to be a lesbeian. And there are absolutely instances where homosexual have changed. Just as there are times when a macho man has found his "significant other." The frightening reality is EVERYONE is capable of engaging in salacious sex of one sort of another for any number of reasons ------- and I've even heard boredom given as a reason. Sorry, but people have little control over their natural looks, but EVERYONE can say no --- unless they cannot speak. Only someone raped can claim to be the victim.

Hi, LittleNipper,

Yes, I understand that you are the one who brought up Will and Grace, as well as Phrenology.

You've also brought up several gay stereotypes and seem very focused on sexual behavior and/or identity, which isn't really what this thread is even about.  Whether or not someone chooses to be sexually active based on their sexual orientation is entirely beside the point here.  And whether or not a couple is sexually active is entirely beside the point here.  This point involves civil marriage and how it's treated in the public realm, specifically in regards to business' ability/inability to refuse services.  Sexual behaviors aren't a required aspect of any marriage, and many couples don't engage in sexual behaviors due to age, disability, disease, etc.  Yet marriage serves an important aspect for all couples, even those that aren't sexually active, especially because marriage creates familial bonds involving caregiving and being able to provide for and protect one's chosen family members including financial, legal, and physical actions.

As referenced above, ultimately this thread is about whether or not businesses should have a legal right to discriminate against same-sex couples' marriages by refusing to provide them with goods and services, while, at the same time, remain legally prohibited from discriminating against the marriages of interracial couples, atheist couples, Jewish couples, Muslim couples, Mormon couples, Church of Satan couples, Wiccan couples, infertile couples, veteran couples, mixed-Faith couples, couples of divergent national origins,  etc. 

In EVERY one of those 'other' types of marriage, business owners are NOT free to withhold goods and services based on any religious objections:

• It doesn't matter whether a Christian baker's "deeply held religious beliefs" disagree with The Church of Satan (or Islam, or Judaism, or Mormonism, or Wiccanism)--he CANNOT refuse to bake a wedding cake for a wedding between members of The Church of Satan (or Islam, or Judaism, or Mormonism, or Wiccanism). 
• It doesn't matter whether a religious baker's "deeply held religious beliefs" compel him to object to marriage between Caucasians and African-Americans--he CANNOT refuse to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple. 
• It doesn't matter whether a religious baker's "deeply held religious beliefs" compel him to object to killing in war--he CANNOT refuse to bake a wedding cake for a military wedding of two veterans getting married. 
• It doesn't matter whether a religious baker's "deeply held religious beliefs" compel him to object to marriage between disabled individuals (whether they're able to procreate or not)--he CANNOT refuse to bake a wedding cake for a disabled couple. 
• It doesn't matter whether a religious baker's "deeply held religious beliefs" compel him to object to intergenerational marriages (of legal age)--he CANNOT refuse to bake a wedding cake for a wedding between an octogenarian and a 19-year-old.

And when it comes down to it, I truly haven't seen any evidence as to why, in this case, marriage between a same-sex couple shouldn't be protected on the basis of prohibitions against discrimination based on GENDER, rather than sexual orientation.  Sexual orientation really doesn't even have to factor into this, because at the end of the day, refusing to bake a cake for a same-gender couple is a refusal to bake based on the GENDER of the couple, period, because the reality is that whether the couple is privately sexually active or not (as per my previous post about age, disability, disease, etc.), if one member of the couples' gender was different, the baker WOULD sell them the cake.  And if a gay man who converted to Christianity and a lesbian woman who converted to Christianity decided to get married in their new Christian Faith, I'd be willing to bet the baker WOULD sell them the cake--so it's really discrimination based on gender, not sexual orientation.  Given that, I'm genuinely not sure how a business owner can suggest that this isn't discrimination based on gender, and not really sexual orientation.

[Daniel2]

5 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I'm saying in kind, "Go to another bakery, photographer, T- shirt vendor, card dealer, bed and breakfast ---- it's just like changing the channel ----- But if you and those you agree with are going to make issues for those that do not hold to your choices ---- you are the one who is being one sided. How you became gay should be as relevant to you as how someone became a drunk or some other addict.  And if you don't care --- that doesn't seem to fit any wholesome value that I ever encountered. ALL legal issues are either based on someone's opinion and they might just as well be GOD's as opposed to YOURS. TV at one time had to be family responsible. It you would feel uncomfortable with a 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 year old child watching so called entertainment along side of you, likely it is inappropriate for anyone. All this is one more step down the ladder. And responsible citizens can not just sit around and hand society over to you and be considered blameless.

While you're free to advocate for that view, the law currently doesn't allow business owners to refuse services to anyone they want to.  Public Accommodations Laws are not widely regarded to be "one-sided," but have been found to be constitutional and were established for the good of all citizens.  I am advocating for nothing more than equal protection and application of those laws for all.

To be blunt: for my husband's and my wedding, if any business owners had refused to rent tuxes or sell us our wedding cake, food, decorations, or flowers, or photograph our wedding, I would have simply gone and found another business who was willing to sell us what we're looking for.  I don't have time, energy, effort, funds, or a desire to pursue these types of actions, not to mention I value my privacy.  But I understand others will and should.  I absolutely support individuals like those suing 'Masterpiece Cakes' and other discriminating businesses like them; individuals and couples who are pursuing due process of law as per the equal protections guaranteed to all citizens by our constitution. 

And I adamantly believe that "freedom of religion" is best protected by not allowing businesses to discriminate against others based on the "deeply-held religious beliefs" of said business owners/workers.  As I've said repeatedly, nothing would undermine the protections from discrimination given to religion more than allowing people to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

And while finding out and understanding why any of us are gay/straight/bisexual/something-else is, in my view, a very important and worthwhile personal pursuit to find an answer to, it's ultimately not as significant to the legal question at hand.  It does inform the level of scrutiny (if any) that sexual orientation should/will be afforded, but thus far, judges have ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation doesn't even pass the lowest/loosest level of scrutiny.  And as I said in the post I made just prior to this one, I'm not sure how the types of discrimination being made here can't/shouldn't be decided solely on the basis of gender, rather than sexual orientation--at least, in so far as the specific questions being posed about the constitutionality of public accommodations laws. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Daniel2

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

While you're free to advocate for that view, the law currently doesn't allow business owners to refuse services to anyone they want to.  Public Accommodations Laws are not widely regarded to be "one-sided," but have been found to be constitutional and were established for the good of all citizens.  I am advocating for nothing more than equal protection and application of those laws for all.

To be blunt: for my husband's and my wedding, if any business owners had refused to rent tuxes or sell us our wedding cake, food, decorations, or flowers, or photograph our wedding, I would have simply gone and found another business who was willing to sell us what we're looking for.  I don't have time, energy, effort, funds, or a desire to pursue these types of actions, not to mention I value my privacy.  But I understand others will and should.  I absolutely support individuals like those suing 'Masterpiece Cakes' and other discriminating businesses like them; individuals and couples who are pursuing due process of law as per the equal protections guaranteed to all citizens by our constitution. 

And I adamantly believe that "freedom of religion" is best protected by not allowing businesses to discriminate against others based on the "deeply-held religious beliefs" of said business owners/workers.  As I've said repeatedly, nothing would undermine the protections from discrimination given to religion more than allowing people to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

And while finding out and understanding why any of us are gay/straight/bisexual/something-else is, in my view, a very important and worthwhile personal pursuit to find an answer to, it's ultimately not as significant to the legal question at hand.  It does inform the level of scrutiny (if any) that sexual orientation should/will be afforded, but thus far, judges have ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation doesn't even pass the lowest/loosest level of scrutiny.  And as I said in the post I made just prior to this one, I'm not sure how the types of discrimination being made here can't/shouldn't be decided solely on the basis of gender, rather than sexual orientation--at least, in so far as the specific questions being posed about the constitutionality of public accommodations laws. 

Ok, so a Christian goes into an "ADULT BOOK" store seeking a Christian book on love, marriage, and finding GOD's will in marriage. The owner says, "Look buddy we don't sell "Christian" books here.

The customer says, "Your sign reads that you deal in books with "Adult" themes. God, marriage and love are certainly "Adult " themes."

The owner says, "Look buddy, we only sell HEDONISTIC books here -- you know, PORNAGRAPHY...  Now just 2 blocks from here is a nice religiosity book store for people like you."

However the customer reiterated, "But sir, your sign reads ADULT BOOK STORE! All I see are toys, and comics and books that have no more depth than a couple of adolescents playing doctor. That doesn't seem very ADULT to me!

The frustrated shop owner retorted, "I don't care what the  ____ you think! I don't care what the ____ you want! and I don't want your business! Now get the _____ out of my store and take your stupid god talk with you!" 

SO NOW, what should the courts say? Is the customer correct? Should ADULT BOOK STORES accommodate CHRISTIAN ADULT reading material?  Should "GAY" tea rooms have to allow copies of  "The JOYS  of Christian Living"?  Gay does actually mean happy and joyous.  Are there in fact 2 interpretations of the Constitution --- a positive one for Secular Liberals and another undermining one aimed at Christian Conservatives? 

Edited October 3, 2017 by LittleNipper

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Ok, so a Christian goes into an "ADULT BOOK" store seeking a Christian book on love, marriage, and finding GOD's will in marriage. The owner says, "Look buddy we don't sell "Christian" books here.

The customer says, "Your sign reads that you deal in books with "Adult" themes. God, marriage and love are certainly "Adult " themes."

The owner says, "Look buddy, we only sell HEDONISTIC books here -- you know, PORNAGRAPHY...  Now just 2 blocks from here is a nice religiosity book store for people like you."

However the customer reiterated, "But sir, your sign reads ADULT BOOK STORE! All I see are toys, and comics and books that have no more depth than a couple of adolescents playing doctor. That doesn't seem very ADULT to me!

The frustrated shop owner retorted, "I don't care what the  ____ you think! I don't care what the ____ you want! and I don't want your business! Now get the _____ out of my store and take your stupid god talk with you!" 

SO NOW, what should the courts say? Is the customer correct? 

That's not a good comparison.  The bookstore sells no one those books.  So it's not a case of discrimination.

If he carried those books, but wouldn't sell them to Christians when he sold them to all of his other customers, then he'd be guilty of discrimination.  Do you see the difference?  That's what the baker did.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Ok, so a Christian goes into an "ADULT BOOK" store seeking a Christian book on love, marriage, and finding GOD's will in marriage. The owner says, "Look buddy we don't sell "Christian" books here.

The customer says, "Your sign reads that you deal in books with "Adult" themes. God, marriage and love are certainly "Adult " themes."

The owner says, "Look buddy, we only sell HEDONISTIC books here -- you know, PORNAGRAPHY...  Now just 2 blocks from here is a nice religiosity book store for people like you."

However the customer reiterated, "But sir, your sign reads ADULT BOOK STORE! All I see are toys, and comics and books that have no more depth than a couple of adolescents playing doctor. That doesn't seem very ADULT to me!

The frustrated shop owner retorted, "I don't care what the  ____ you think! I don't care what the ____ you want! and I don't want your business! Now get the _____ out of my store and take your stupid god talk with you!" 

SO NOW, what should the courts say? Is the customer correct? Should ADULT BOOK STORES accommodate CHRISTIAN ADULT reading material?  Should "GAY" tea rooms have to allow copies of  "The JOYS  of Christian Living"?  Gay does actually mean happy and joyous.  Are there in fact 2 interpretations of the Constitution --- a positive one for Secular Liberals and another undermining one aimed at Christian Conservatives? 

This comparison tells me that you are completely clueless about what the issue is and you haven't made the slightest effort to understand what the legal issues are.  At this point, I am seriously doubting that you even want to understand the issues.  I haven't seen any desire on your part to even try to understand what is being decided by the courts and why they have ruled against the baker in every court he has presented his case.  Sometimes it is just better to walk away from a discussion.  I think at this point, I am ready to let you have your prejudices and just step back from trying to help you understand what accomocaton laws in this country require of a store owner and what laws the Supreme Court will be basing their decision on.

BTW. gay didn't mean happy or joyous, it meant care free.

Edited October 3, 2017 by california boy

[LittleNipper]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

This comparison tells me that you are completely clueless about what the issue is and you haven't made the slightest effort to understand what the legal issues are.  At this point, I am seriously doubting that you even want to understand the issues.  I haven't seen any desire on your part to even try to understand what is being decided by the courts and why they have ruled against the baker in every court he has presented his case.  Sometimes it is just better to walk away from a discussion.  I think at this point, I am ready to let you have your prejudices and just step back from trying to help you understand what accomocaton laws in this country require of a store owner and what laws the Supreme Court will be basing their decision on.

BTW. gay didn't mean happy or joyous, it meant care free.

Gay in the old days did mean happy, lively, or cheerful. Then it moved on to be known as two men who choose to have sex with other men. However, there were always underground usages of the term. It was first used in a sexual context among female prostitutes as confirmed by posters which predate the gay movement. Nowadays, in addition to the sexual orientation meaning, some people use the term gay as synonymous with stupid, eg., "That was a gay movie! It had no plot, no good actors in it, and I feel I just wasted $8 to see it."

Anyone can see from your posts that you only care about YOUR lifestyle and not at all willing to see that it is not victimless with regard to those among the general public are concerned. 

"Pride cometh before the fall!"

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

That's not a good comparison.  The bookstore sells no one those books.  So it's not a case of discrimination.

If he carried those books, but wouldn't sell them to Christians when he sold them to all of his other customers, then he'd be guilty of discrimination.  Do you see the difference?  That's what the baker did.

You don't get it because you have been indoctrinated to believe "Adult" means sexually explicit and X rated. Just like the term gay and now marriage, it has been corrupted. The way a way a marriage was once anuled was to prove that it was never consummated. Consummate meant only male and female coupling. Now even that word is being abused!

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

You don't get it because you have been indoctrinated to believe "Adult" means sexually explicit and X rated.

Except that it does in fact actually mean this.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adult

It's hard to imagine that Webster's dictionary is really some sort of partisan tool (in disguise). This is how language changes, it's not indoctrination. When language shifts like this, it's not really about corruption in the language either. The fact that you want to identify these normal kinds of changes as "corruption" says more about you than about language more generally. Linguistics (as a field of study) denies this label for two reasons. First, because from the perspective of the study of language, this concept argues that changes are bad (and linguistics doesn't view changes as either good or bad - just as a rather constant ), and second, it would require that we would need to identify some point in time as the "original" language from which all changes are corruptions. Of course, the problem that I find personally, is that individuals who want to complain (as you do) about the corruption of language only do so in very narrow areas, where they have an ideological claim involved. The vast majority of language changes that occur quite naturally are completely ignored. It isn't the language change that is offending, but rather societal shifts that offend, and the claim of corruption is simply a way of further expressing distaste over societal shifts. After all, there are further developments in the use of the word "adult" as an adjective that move beyond the definition you refer to, and apply the same sort of euphemistic meaning to non-sexual contexts (as identified in the OED). Are these developments also corruptions?

[Amulek]

34 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

You don't get it because you have been indoctrinated [...]

You should probably consider asking her where she received her indoctrination then, because she is 100% right. 

A bookstore isn't required to purchase every book that is in publication. That seems like a sensible enough state of affairs, right? After all, books aren't free, and there are lots and lots of them in existence. How is a bookstore going to stay in business if they aren't able to make money from - you know - the sale of books? So, given this reality, bookstores have to pick and chose which ones they are going to carry.

And maybe there are some books that they just don't want to carry at all. For example, I have been in Christian bookstores that refuse to sell Harry Potter books. That's perfectly fine though, because we don't have laws saying that bookstores have to sell Harry Potter books (thank goodness). 

However, if you own a bookstore that does sell Harry Potter books, then you can't refuse to sell them to certain customers based on the color of their skin, or their religion, etc. So if a Baptist and a Wiccan both want to purchase a copy then you have to sell to both of them - even if you think the Baptist shouldn't be reading it. To do otherwise would be an example of unlawful discrimination. 

 

[california boy]

Fortunately there is only one poster who is clueless as to how accommodation laws are written and enforced in this country.  It has been clearly explained to him multiple times.  When you want to distort reality to fit your own paradigm than facts really don't matter do they.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Anyone can see from your posts that you only care about YOUR lifestyle...

If you think this, you aren't comprehending what he's stating or you're not reading many of california boy's posts.  This does not describe him at all.  

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Ok, so a Christian goes into an "ADULT BOOK" store seeking a Christian book on love, marriage, and finding GOD's will in marriage. The owner says, "Look buddy we don't sell "Christian" books here.

The customer says, "Your sign reads that you deal in books with "Adult" themes. God, marriage and love are certainly "Adult " themes."

The owner says, "Look buddy, we only sell HEDONISTIC books here -- you know, PORNAGRAPHY...  Now just 2 blocks from here is a nice religiosity book store for people like you."

However the customer reiterated, "But sir, your sign reads ADULT BOOK STORE! All I see are toys, and comics and books that have no more depth than a couple of adolescents playing doctor. That doesn't seem very ADULT to me!

The frustrated shop owner retorted, "I don't care what the  ____ you think! I don't care what the ____ you want! and I don't want your business! Now get the _____ out of my store and take your stupid god talk with you!" 

This is not even close to being what took place with the bakery.  What you describe above is not discrimination and well within the rights of any bookstore owner.  

If the adult bookstore stocked books on love and marriage, but only sold them to customers who were not Christians (refusing to sell the identical book to a Christian customer), then that's an accurate comparison to what the baker did.

I'm not sure if you simply can't see the difference or if you are purposely being obtuse here?

Edited October 3, 2017 by ALarson

[LittleNipper]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Except that it does in fact actually mean this.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adult

It's hard to imagine that Webster's dictionary is really some sort of partisan tool (in disguise). This is how language changes, it's not indoctrination. When language shifts like this, it's not really about corruption in the language either. The fact that you want to identify these normal kinds of changes as "corruption" says more about you than about language more generally. Linguistics (as a field of study) denies this label for two reasons. First, because from the perspective of the study of language, this concept argues that changes are bad (and linguistics doesn't view changes as either good or bad - just as a rather constant ), and second, it would require that we would need to identify some point in time as the "original" language from which all changes are corruptions. Of course, the problem that I find personally, is that individuals who want to complain (as you do) about the corruption of language only do so in very narrow areas, where they have an ideological claim involved. The vast majority of language changes that occur quite naturally are completely ignored. It isn't the language change that is offending, but rather societal shifts that offend, and the claim of corruption is simply a way of further expressing distaste over societal shifts. After all, there are further developments in the use of the word "adult" as an adjective that move beyond the definition you refer to, and apply the same sort of euphemistic meaning to non-sexual contexts (as identified in the OED). Are these developments also corruptions?

 Well you seem like a very gay sort of person: I hope you enjoy the following: 

 

[Daniel2]

23 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Ok, so a Christian goes into an "ADULT BOOK" store seeking a Christian book on love, marriage, and finding GOD's will in marriage. The owner says, "Look buddy we don't sell "Christian" books here.

The customer says, "Your sign reads that you deal in books with "Adult" themes. God, marriage and love are certainly "Adult " themes."

The owner says, "Look buddy, we only sell HEDONISTIC books here -- you know, PORNAGRAPHY...  Now just 2 blocks from here is a nice religiosity book store for people like you."

However the customer reiterated, "But sir, your sign reads ADULT BOOK STORE! All I see are toys, and comics and books that have no more depth than a couple of adolescents playing doctor. That doesn't seem very ADULT to me!

The frustrated shop owner retorted, "I don't care what the  ____ you think! I don't care what the ____ you want! and I don't want your business! Now get the _____ out of my store and take your stupid god talk with you!" 

SO NOW, what should the courts say? Is the customer correct? Should ADULT BOOK STORES accommodate CHRISTIAN ADULT reading material?  Should "GAY" tea rooms have to allow copies of  "The JOYS  of Christian Living"?  Gay does actually mean happy and joyous.  Are there in fact 2 interpretations of the Constitution --- a positive one for Secular Liberals and another undermining one aimed at Christian Conservatives? 

Hi, LittleNipper,

As others have said, the example you provided isn't analogous to either the T-shirt case nor the wedding cake case.  Here's how the law sees and treats them differently than what you wrote above:

a) In the T-shirt case, the company was asked to print a specific message (an example of what the law views as "inherently expressive speech") on T-shirts.  Freedom of speech protects business owners from having to create a product that has "inherently expressive speech" to which they personally object, find offensive, disagree with, etc. 

b) In the cake case, the company was asked to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in the same way it creates wedding cakes for opposite-sex couples.  Thus far, courts have ruled that customized cakes are not "inherently expressive" forms of speech, unless there is speech (letters or symbols) on the cake itself.  If the cake company routinely carries, sells or creates specific wedding decorations for it's customers (icing colors, flavors, flowers, birds, bells, etc.), it cannot refuse to sell those same decorations it sells to different-gendered couples that it sells to same-gendered couples.  A same-sex couple cannot force a cake company to carry same-sex wedding toppers if they don't already carry them, but anything the store does carry, the company must sell to any of it's customers, regardless of gender.  (this is true in states that have passed anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation... the question hasn't yet been posed as to whether it would view this as discrimination based on gender).

c) In the hypothetical adult bookstore example you provided, it doesn't matter how one defines "adult" or not... that's completely irrelevant to the legal points outlining the differences.  What matters is any store cannot be 'forced' by it's customers to carry a product it doesn't choose to carry.  However, once a store decides to carry any product it wishes, it can't decide to sell it's product to certain types of customers while simultaneously refusing to sell it to other customers based on said customers' status as a member of a protected class.  Meaning, a company can refuse service to anyone who isn't wearing socks, shoes, or a shirt (because none of those are protected classes), but a store CAN'T refuse to service or sell the same products it sells to everyone else but refuse to sell it to Mormons, Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Caucasians, African-Americans, veterans, the disabled, etc. (in other words, to people because of their religion, race, gender, veteran's status, disability, etc.)

Additionally, the bookstore in your example (which carries so-called 'adult' items, which in this case means items that are sexually-explicit in nature) doesn't routinely stock religious books.  Because no customer can successfully sue said store to carry any items it doesn't want to carry, no customer can force a store to carry anything to which it objects.  That same principle applies as to why a non-Mormon customer can't go into Deseret Book and force it to carry porn.  But, businesses cannot refuse to sell what they already carry to customers based on the customers' status as a member of a protected class.

There's no "two interpretations of the Constitutions--a positive one for secular liberals and another undermining one aimed at Christian Conservatives"--the law equally protects all.  In fact, our constitution MANDATES that all are equally treated, protected, and must abide by the same rules.  That's why business can't refuse service on the basis of customers' status as a member of a protected class.

I hope this helps clarify.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Daniel2

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

If you think this, you aren't comprehending what he's stating or you're not reading many of california boy's posts.  This does not describe him at all.  

I'm sorry. California boy wants to marry a nice girl someday and he has no problem with people refraining from involving themselves in ceremonies they find offensive --- this would include bakers, photographers, bed and breakfast owners, florists, etc... I must have misunderstood. The government isn't here to make laws it exists to regulate the ones the citizens themselves establish. Today liberals government officials are asserting their own power in order to influence and intimidate the citizens they should be protecting. California is one of the states that voted against supposed "gay" marriage. It was the State supreme court that ruled that illegal. 

This Orthodox priest was once a practising Jew: http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=808

Edited October 3, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

11 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

 Well you seem like a very gay sort of person: I hope you enjoy the following: 

 

Who wouldn't enjoy "The Flintstones"?  LOVED that show as a kid.... <nostalgic sigh>

Yes, "gay" has meant a variety of different things over the years, from "easy going" to "happy" and "carefree" and "attracted to others of one's same gender."  And it's still in use today in all of those different meanings (several Christmas Carols come to mind that preserve it's use as "happy/carefree").

Not sure that that's relevant to the thread's topic of religious liberty, freedoms of speech, and the public square... it seems like this tangent may be tilting at windmills...

[Daniel2]

9 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

I'm sorry. California boy wants to marry a nice girl someday and he has no problem with people refraining from involving themselves in ceremonies they find offensive --- this would include bakers, photographers, bed and breakfast owners, florists, etc... I must have misunderstood. The government isn't here to make laws it exists to regulate the ones the citizens themselves establish. Today liberals government officials are asserting their own power in order to influence and intimidate the citizens they should be protecting. California is one of the states that voted against supposed "gay" marriage. It was the State supreme court that ruled that illegal. 

This Orthodox priest was once a practising Jew: http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=808

LittleNipper, it sounds as if you're upset that businesses are being required to treat same-gender couples the same way that they're required to treat their customers based on religion, race, gender, national origin, ability-status, and veteran-status. 

Are you equally upset that businesses can't refuse to serve people based on their religion? or race? or gender? or any other protected category?

Public accommodations laws have been around for over 50 years.  Why are you only expressing outrage now that businesses can't refuse services?  Or have you been vocally opposing public accommodations laws the last 50 years...?

Do you mean to suggest that it's only a "liberal" value and that the government shouldn't prohibit discrimination based on religion? or race? or gender? or the other protected categories? 

Or are you only angry that the government is saying businesses have to treat gay and lesbian couples like every other protected class?

 

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

LittleNipper, it sounds as if you're upset that businesses are being required to treat same-gender couples the same way that they're required to treat their customers based on religion, race, gender, national origin, ability-status, and veteran-status. 

Are you equally upset that businesses can't refuse to serve people based on their religion? or race? or gender? or any other protected category?

Public accommodations laws have been around for over 50 years.  Why are you only expressing outrage now that businesses can't refuse services?  Or have you been vocally opposing public accommodations laws the last 50 years...?

Do you mean to suggest that it's only a "liberal" value and that the government shouldn't prohibit discrimination based on religion? or race? or gender? or the other protected categories? 

Or are you only angry that the government is saying businesses have to treat gay and lesbian couples like every other protected class?

 

No one should be made to attend or visit or deliver something to somewhere they find abhorrent and disgusting. I remember the following song well. A lot of us at that time believed we would all be blown up in a terrible war. Oddly, I feel we are indeed on the eve of destruction but it is going to come during the GREAT TRIBULATION and it will come because of the acceptance of SIN as righteousness.  https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=yfp-t&p=Barry+Mcguire+Eve+of+Destruction#id=5&vid=90b2c0f41db851bddfb61a53236a8935&action=view

Edited October 3, 2017 by LittleNipper