Why not do business with another baker?

It's the same track. The track is discrimination and intolerance. Gay people are less deserving of equal treatment than Black people?

 

You never answered the question: Why would you want a baker begrudgingly making your wedding cake just because the law requires him to?

 

We’re in a culture war.

Yes it’s probably true that this was a set up lawsuit. But that’s like complaining about Ukrainian war crimes. They do exist but they’re far less in number and they are not the aggressor party.

The other side is trying to conquer our culture and dictate to everyone, using force of law. They have multiple special interest law groups, well funded without any financial pressure other than to please their funders, operating with legal and illegal coordination with sitting members of the federal judiciary, who are acting as unprincipled policy makers. The movement is looking to impose its will. Dobbs was the beginning, not the end.

That’s the reality of the world we are currently living in. To deny it is to simply close one’s eyes.

 

I wouldn't, but that's not the point. Why would a Black person want to eat a whites only restaurant or stay at a whites only hotel?

What I would like is for more bigots like this baker to get called out for their bigotry.

 

Yep, and they use religion as an excuse for their bigotry and authoritarianism.

 

It sounds like you can't make a decent argument about this without turning it into a racial issue, which it's clearly not. As if we're not going to notice the 7th time you attempt to play the race card on a topic that has nothing to do with race.

 

And it sounds like you are unable to understand that it's a discrimination issue and that comparing it to other examples of discrimination is totally valid and shows how ridiculous your argument is.

 

If religious beliefs allows this baker to opt out of Colorado's version of the Civil Rights Act, that means white supremacists can just claim their religious beliefs allow them to opt out of the federal Civil Rights Act. Thankfully, Employment Division v. Smith (authored by Antonin Scalia) is quite clear that's not how it works. Unfortunately, this far-right Supreme "Court" may overrule that opinion in the future.

The better argument is the compelled speech argument. Of course, anti-discrimination laws might be able to pass strict scrutiny (as eliminating discrimination is a compelling interest, the question often comes down to narrow tailoring).

 

That's what he said. I will directly quote him: "Well if there was a valid religious reason then let them." That was in response to my comment of: "Your content protections would apply just as much as to a racist baker refusing to bake cakes for interracial weddings or even just Black people's weddings."

Tilly then argued that he doesn't believe it would be valid because he doesn't think the scripture supports their religious claims. But that's not the test courts use. They're not allowed to determine what is and isn't a valid interpretation of a religious text. They're only allowed to analyze whether the person genuinely BELIEVES what he's saying. I'm not twisting his argument into anything. I'm simply telling him (and you) what the actual implications are of what you're proposing.

 

This topic has everything to do with race. You don't want to make it about race because there are still people who are quite comfortable with discrimination directed at LGBTQ people. Conversely, there aren't many people comfortable with racial discrimination. So once people start making the comparison, the side willing to accept LGBTQ discrimination starts looking a whole lot worse.

But that, of course, doesn't even get into the significance of what's happening here. If bigoted Christians can use their religious beliefs to opt out of a Civil Rights Act equivalent that protects LGBTQ people, they can do the same thing with the Civil Rights Act and all of its equivalents that protect Black people and other people of color. That religious belief opt out doesn't just end with bakers who discriminate against gay people. And I'm not going to let people like you hand wave that reality away when we have this discussion.

If you want to overrule Employment Division v. Smith and allow for that opt out, you need to be honest about what it means and what will happen. If you don't know about these major implications, that's fine. But don't lecture those of us who do for informing you about them and accuse us of playing the "race card." If you want to advocate for the gutting of the Civil Rights Act, I'm going to call out how dangerous that is.

 

Both sides are equally doing this and to deny that is just closing one's eyes.

 

Wrong. Not even close

 

Just look at this case. Both sides are funded by deep pockets and law groups that are specifically set up to pursue these types of cases. They just needed to line up their pawns.

 

I don't know about this case but I am well versed in Leonard Leo and the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Beckett Fund and the Federalist Society, all of which we try to solicit funds to counter but have so much less. There's a big difference between some personal entry lawyers and maybe limited local groups and gigantic national dark money funding that works handing love with the federal judiciary. It's not even close in comparison.

Our side is trying to catch up but we're 30 years behind and we don't have near the money from our funders. We have some but not near near as much. It's sad that it's become an arms race trying to catch up but that is what it is. The alternative is to unilaterally disarm.

 

To my original statement, both sides have national networks to support their agendas, one is just better funded than the other.

 

This all just proves to me the trans agenda can't press forward on its own merit. It has to hijack a totally unrelated issue in racial justice and equality.

The courts are not going to treat this like an overt case of racism. There are good reasons for that.

 

How can you deny the equivalence between being born black and amputating one's genitals? There's pretty much no difference between those two actions.

 

Both Texas A&M and Valdosta State have NIL opportunities for their athletes. One is just better funded.

Both the USA and The Maldives spend money on the military. One is just better funded