Freeman,
Great post. That is my point completely. The discrimination is based upon the views of gay marriage, not a person being gay.

It took a few pages, but I think we have worked this one out.

If the baker is not wanting to make a cake for a political view that they don't agree with is ok, but it is not ok to prohibit service because the person is gay.

The baker refused to provide services to a wedding because the people getting married were gay. It had nothing to do with political opinions.

Actually, I don't think we agree on this, Brad. My conclusion was that a business was mostly likely not going to able to decline business to a gay person based on an ostensible difference in political views any more than southern states got away with claiming poll taxes or literary tests were ostensibly non-discriminatory.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303722104579242750485975452

Mr. Phillips told them, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you brownies and cookies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings," according to Judge Spencer's opinion. Mr. Phillips later explained that, as a devout Christian, creating such a cake would "displease God" and be "contrary to the teachings of the Bible," according to the opinion.

It is only because of the opinion of same-sex marriage in both cases.

How else is the hairdresser willing to provide service?

I am sure that you think that I am deliberately being difficult, but I truly do not see a difference between the hairdresser and the baker.

You can bring in all sorts of other types of discrimination (bi-racial marriage, race, sex etc.), but this is not a race or gender issue.

bbauska

The discrimination is based upon the views of gay marriage, not a person being gay.

The discrimination is that the gay person is being treated differently because they are gay. When you treat marriage between two consenting adults differently because of some condition that is defined at birth .... then the discrimination is against the entire class.
If the same baker decided his religion didn't condone interracial marriage and he refused to provide wedding cakes it would be clear case of racial discrimination.
What the baker who won't serve the inter-racial wedding is saying is, I'll treat that black person equally until and unless they want to marry a white person. Then they've crossed a line.
Simiilarily he's saying I'll treat homosexuals equally until and unless they decide to get married, then they've crossed a line.
Its the same thing.

Society has increasingly decided that you can't do business publicly or conduct yourself in the public square and draw lines like this.... and the constitution protects minorities from those who decide they want to start drawing these lines... Because if you don't stop the lines being drawn, they soon start to imprison the minorities in a circle of hate.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

The discrimination is based upon the views of gay marriage, not a person being gay.

The discrimination is that the gay person is being treated differently because they are gay. When you treat marriage between two consenting adults differently because of some condition that is defined at birth .... then the discrimination is against the entire class.
If the same baker decided his religion didn't condone interracial marriage and he refused to provide wedding cakes it would be clear case of racial discrimination.
What the baker who won't serve the inter-racial wedding is saying is, I'll treat that black person equally until and unless they want to marry a white person. Then they've crossed a line.
Simiilarily he's saying I'll treat homosexuals equally until and unless they decide to get married, then they've crossed a line.
Its the same thing.

Society has increasingly decided that you can't do business publicly or conduct yourself in the public square and draw lines like this.... and the constitution protects minorities from those who decide they want to start drawing these lines... Because if you don't stop the lines being drawn, they soon start to imprison the minorities in a circle of hate.

Nice speech... Was that from Red Dawn?

I disagree. You are allowed to have a contrary opinion.

I read the case about the baker. It is worth reading (thanks for the cite, Brad)

I'll try my best to summarize it:

(1) The court found that the baker violated a Colorado law that prohibited discrimination by a public accomodation based on sexual orientation. "The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation."

(2) The court then addressed the baker's argument that application of the law violated his free speech rights.

a. Court found that preparing a cake was not free speech since there was no discussion between the parties as to how the wedding cake was to be made and that therefore the baker was not asked to put any message or symbol advocating same sex marriage.
b. Even if preparing the cake involved free speech, the affect on free speech was incidental (and therefore justified) to Colorado's right to regulate discrimination.

(3) The court found that application of the law did not violate the baker's freedom of religion.

(a) The state was not regulating what the baker believes but conduct "The types of conduct the United States Supreme Court has found to be beyond government control typically involve activities fundamental to the individual’s religious belief, that do not adversely affect the rights of others, and that are not outweighed by the state’s legitimate interests in promoting health, safety and general welfare."

(b) Conduct, even if religiously based, is subject to the state power's to promote health, safety and general welfare. "To excuse all religiously-motivated conduct from state control would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”

(c) In general when courts have found religious conduct to be free from regulation it involved instances where the conduct did not violate the law or affect the rights of other individuals. In this case, the baker violated a Colorado law against discrimination and his conduct negatively affected the rights of the gay couple. "Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage."
(d) The court also held that since the law was neutral and was of general applicability it need not meet strict scrutiny (due to its alleged affect on religion) and need only be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The law met the rational basis test.

One last note: the Baker conceded that he would have refused to make a cake for a gay couple to use at a commitment ceremony or at a civil union.

Thanks, freeman. That does very clearly break down the reasoning of the court and also the facts of the case.

That the couple were refused before the baker even knew what they wanted on the cake and would have done for a civil union does counter some of the speculation here.

danivon wrote:Thanks, freeman. That does very clearly break down the reasoning of the court and also the facts of the case.

That the couple were refused before the baker even knew what they wanted on the cake and would have done for a civil union does counter some of the speculation here.

This is clearly discrimination. Just for clarification, though... If the baker would have baked a cake for a Civil Union ceremony that would not be discrimination?

I think that it is still unfair discrimination, yes.

danivon wrote:I think that it is still unfair discrimination, yes.

So you think it is discrimination against gays to bake a cake for civil unions, but not for a wedding. If they were homo-phobic why would they bake a cake for a civil union?

To me this is very similar to the hairdresser. They are choosing to refuse service based upon a political position of same-sex marriage, not a sexual orientation.

danivon wrote:So still you are misrepresenting what I have written.

for the third and final time...

Enough.

No, I'm not misrepresenting what you've written. You believe someone should be forced to violate their conscience.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:I think that it is still unfair discrimination, yes.

So you think it is discrimination against gays to bake a cake for civil unions, but not for a wedding. If they were homo-phobic why would they bake a cake for a civil union?

To me this is very similar to the hairdresser. They are choosing to refuse service based upon a political position of same-sex marriage, not a sexual orientation.

If this sort of thing stands, I am confident we will soon see the elimination of tax-exempt status for churches. We are heading for a redefinition of "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech."

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:I think that it is still unfair discrimination, yes.

So you think it is discrimination against gays to bake a cake for civil unions, but not for a wedding. If they were homo-phobic why would they bake a cake for a civil union?

Because they are fine with the second-class status that a civil union holds?

To me this is very similar to the hairdresser. They are choosing to refuse service based upon a political position of same-sex marriage, not a sexual orientation.

it's not the 'political position' really. if same-sex marriage is legal, the political argument is over. They just want to get married in accordance with the law.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So still you are misrepresenting what I have written.

for the third and final time...

Enough.

No, I'm not misrepresenting what you've written. You believe someone should be forced to violate their conscience.

I believe that they should not be projecting their 'conscience' on to other people. But this does not equate to the things you have accused me of.

An apology would be nice, if you could stop rationalising your mendacity for long enough to notice what you are doing.

Until then, I will not be responding to your cheap jibes or misrepresentation of my words or opinions on this thread.