It was pretty much covered early on, with the concept of Equal Treatment as per the 14th Amendment giving grounds for gay marriage being legal (and bans on it being illegal). And the 1st Amendment should still mean religions who want to can eschew it.

Problem is, some people think their religion "owns" marriage, and to them the Scripture "proves" it.

The difference of opinion on this issue is exactly what Danivon said regarding the 1st v 14th Amendments. However, his opinion on what that means we do not agree. If a baker is willing to make a birthday cake for a homosexual, but is not willing to make them a cake for for a wedding he considers that discrimination based on the 14th Amendment. I call that his religious right via the 1st Amendment.

If you want the legal ruling, that has already been decided. It does not mean it has to be agreed with.

bbauska wrote:The difference of opinion on this issue is exactly what Danivon said regarding the 1st v 14th Amendments. However, his opinion on what that means we do not agree. If a baker is willing to make a birthday cake for a homosexual, but is not willing to make them a cake for for a wedding he considers that discrimination based on the 14th Amendment. I call that his religious right via the 1st Amendment.

If you want the legal ruling, that has already been decided. It does not mean it has to be agreed with.

Frankly, I care more about the rights of people to marry who they want to legally, than the rights of people to withhold the baking of cakes.

And in reality they are completely separate issues. I don't know why every time we talk about gay marriage someone has to bring up bakers...

So you are willing to agree that each can do as they wish?

The homosexual can marry, and someone can choose to not provide a cake? If so, we agree.

The decision was based on two grounds :

(1) Justice Kennedy found that not permitting gays to marry violated their due process (substantive) rights. The right to marry is a fundamental right like other right of privacy/ personal autonomy rights such as contraception,procreation, child rearing and family relationships. Kennedy mentioned the prior Supreme Court case Loving that invalidated laws preventing racial inter-marriage as explicitly finding that individuals have a right to marry. Of course opponents of Kennedy's decision have argued that he made up a right. Not at all. The right to marry was already there. The only thing that previously prevented gays from marrying was the view that their behavior was aberrant (Kennedy cited that the fact that it used to be classified in psychiatry as a mental disorder). Justice Kennedy mentioned a few times that it was an immutable part of a person. Once there reached a tipping point in society that homosexuality was not aberrant behavior but an immutable part of the human condition there was no basis for denying them the fundamental right which had been already been found in prior Supreme Court jurisprudence. Just as when segregation laws were struck down because societal views had changed or evolving views led to the court finding that laws discriminating against women were not permissible. As Justice Kennedy wrote: "The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may have long seemed natural and just but it's inconsistency with the the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest." A new right was not created--once society reached a consensus that homosexuality was not aberrant behavior then there was simply no justification in denying gays access to a fundamental right. It becomes rather circular to say that societal norms against homosexuality should be respected when those norms are based in substantial part on religion. As Ricky has stated discrimination against gays will at some point seem no different than it now seems for women and minorities.

(2) Laws not allowing gays also violates their equal protection rights in infringing their fundamental right to marry. Kennedy did not get into detailed analysis here. He could have discussed the grounds for finding gays a suspect class (history of discrimination, immutable characteristic, cannot change law through political process because a minority,etc.)and that laws directed against them have to be looked at a higher level of scrutiny (most laws are assessed are under a rational basis test where a basis for the law can nearly always be found; laws relating to race are subject to strict scrutiny which is almost impossible to meet; laws treating sexes differently have an intermediate level of scrutiny). The reason that you need a tiered- level of scrutiny for suspect classes is due to the laws can many times be found to disproportionately affect different groups in society so unless the group is classified as suspect those laws will generally be found to be valid. But Kennedy did not delve into that kind of analysis here. He mainly based his decision on gays having a fundamental substantive due process right to marry.

Kennedy also that there had been many decision at the federal district court and appellate level and the majority of those decisions held that gays had the right to marry. So many other judges had applied similar legal principles to the issue and came up with the same result as Kennedy. This was a decision in line with current legal thinking.

bbauska wrote:So you are willing to agree that each can do as they wish?

No. Try reading what I wrote. I said they were totally separate issues.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:So you are willing to agree that each can do as they wish?

No. Try reading what I wrote. I said they were totally separate issues.

Right. I was agreeing that homosexuals can marry to employ their perception of the 14th. Can a religious person choose to not participate is what they consider an irreligious ceremony?

Apparently the ability to cooperate is one-sided, or can you agree to allow others to not to have to participate in a ceremony they don't agree with?

bbauska

Apparently the ability to cooperate is one-sided, or can you agree to allow others to not to have to participate in a ceremony they don't agree with

They aren't being asked to participate in the ceremony.
They are being asked to bake a cake. Which they willing do for anyone else.
If the gay people asked for a cake for a birthday, and the baker refused, would that be alright?

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Apparently the ability to cooperate is one-sided, or can you agree to allow others to not to have to participate in a ceremony they don't agree with

They aren't being asked to participate in the ceremony.
They are being asked to bake a cake. Which they willing do for anyone else.
If the gay people asked for a cake for a birthday, and the baker refused, would that be alright?

They DID make a cake for the homosexual couple. It was for the lesbian's mother's wedding. They served the lesbian couple.

To not make that cake would be wrong. To not make a cake for a ceremony the don't religiously agree with is the issue. The baker feels that they are part of the ceremony by making the cake.

It is not discrimination. The lesbian couple was sold a cake. They were served. They were not served because of the ceremony, not their sexual orientation.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:So you are willing to agree that each can do as they wish?

No. Try reading what I wrote. I said they were totally separate issues.

Right. I was agreeing that homosexuals can marry to employ their perception of the 14th.

The homosexual "perception of the 14th is not the issue: SCOTUS has already ruled on its application.

Can a religious person choose to not participate is what they consider an irreligious ceremony?

Sure, but making a cake is not partipating. Officiating is, attending is, but not baking.

Apparently the ability to cooperate is one-sided, or can you agree to allow others to not to have to participate in a ceremony they don't agree with?

Apparently you still don't understand when I say the two things are totally separate.

Well then I don't understand you. You said the 1st Amendment; well here it is directly from you:

And the 1st Amendment should still mean religions who want to can eschew it.

What rights does the 1st Amendment give religious people according to you? Try to tell what they should be able to do, not what they can't do. Speak to the affirmative.

bbauska

And the 1st Amendment should still mean religions who want to can eschew it.

The baker feels that they are part of the ceremony by making the cake

.
But they baked a cake for the lesbians birthday party.
Did they enjoy participating in the birthday party?
This is so feeble.
if this is the extent of the War on Chrisitianity we'll never get those Christians rounded up...

rickyp wrote:bbauska

And the 1st Amendment should still mean religions who want to can eschew it.

The baker feels that they are part of the ceremony by making the cake

.
But they baked a cake for the lesbians birthday party.
Did they enjoy participating in the birthday party?
This is so feeble.
if this is the extent of the War on Chrisitianity we'll never get those Christians rounded up...

The baker does not have a problem with homosexual birthdays. They have a religious concern about homosexual marriage. Please note the difference. They are willing to make a cake for homosexuals, just not go against their religious beliefs. They do not have a problem serving homosexuals (which would be discriminatory if they did!). They have a problem with homosexual marriage.

What does the 1st Amendment mean to you? What does the 1st Amendment religiously allow according to you?

bbauska wrote:Well then I don't understand you. You said the 1st Amendment; well here it is directly from you:

And the 1st Amendment should still mean religions who want to can eschew it.

What rights does the 1st Amendment give religious people according to you? Try to tell what they should be able to do, not what they can't do. Speak to the affirmative.

Good grief, you are like a dog with a bone. One that you dig up every week...

They can choose not to enter into a gay marriage. They can choose not to hold gay marriages in their churches and temples. They can choose not to go to someone's gay marriage ceremony. They cam choose not to run a business where discrimination against homosexuals might be a problem. They could move to a country which has stronger religion and where gays know their place, like Russia. That last one is sarcasm, with a hint of irony given what right wingers used to say to lefties 30 years ago

Thank you for your attempt at open discourse.

Re the dog/bone comment. I feel the same about others and the push for more and more tolerance of "progressive" positions w/o tolerance for an alternative opinion.

If there are many bakeries in the Portland area who will gladly make a cake for a homosexual wedding, why the need to go where to this specific baker?