DeSantis passes Trump in latest round of polls...

Huh? Which is it? For someone who pretty much bases everything on this one issue, you sure are wishy washy.

 

Because of anti-discrimination laws. You're claiming those laws are "authoritarian."

Because that is the outcome you're arguing for. As the woman's attorney conceded before SCOTUS, if she wins the case, a different website designer can post on their site that they won't wedding design sites for interracial couples.

A Jewish baker cannot refuse to serve Muslims.

A Black butcher can decide what products he'll carry. He cannot refuse to serve Jewish people.

Obese people aren't a protected class. (Excepting any issues under the ADA.)

Klansmen aren't a protected class.

Unless it's segregationists or Nazis, right?

I would absolutely oppose Jewish people discriminating against Muslims in public accommodations.

You're classifying anti-discrimination laws as "authoritarian" and then backpedaling faster than a CB in Todd Grantham's defense on third down when it is pointed out that your nonsense claim would also apply to laws prohibiting racial discrimination.

 

Yes, anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary and abhorrent.

 

Is it a human at conception or a heartbeat?

 

That's part of discussion in the 303 Creative LLC case.

303 does not seem to dispute that a business cannot refuse to provide chairs for a gay wedding or that a hotel cannot refuse lodging. Similarly, I don't think a store can refuse to sell a couple flowers because those flowers will be used at a wedding or other event the owner doesn't like. But what if the couple wants those same exact flowers arranged in a particular way? Does that request automatically turn it into expressive speech? From what I gathered in this case, 303 is saying it can refuse the service even if its design/content of the announcement/invitation were identical in every other way. So, for example, if Pat and Chris are getting married, one would have to go behind the actual content to even know if the couple is heterosexual or homosexual. I'm not sure that's the same as requiring a baker to artistically write with frosting "God loves gay marriage" on a cake.

 

That sounds right to me. I would just note that I do think the same arguments would apply whether the couple is same sex or interracial. The Court has noted that it's not fair to compare those who oppose interracial marriages to those who oppose same sex marriages. Maybe not. But I'm not sure there is a good legal reason to draw a line there, so I tend to think the race analogies are valid to that extent.

 

I am not sure I understand that counter-argument. The only thing that makes a wedding "gay" is the respective sexes of the people getting married, and sex (like race and disability) is expressly a protected class. If a particular anti-discrimination statute were to include political ideology as a protected class, that adds another layer of complexity which gets interesting. I think one of the justices alluded to such a hypothetical, but I'm not aware which jurisdictions may include political ideology as a protected class.

 

One party was smart about Covid. The other wasn't. Guess which one wasn't smart???

 

As you indicate, it is a belief, likely based upon your faith. And just like islamists you want to legislate your faith based beliefs and force them on the majority.

 

No, you're the one being obtuse. You asked if a Jewish baker can refuse to "promote a Muslim event." I'm not sure how a baker promotes an event. But to the extent he refuses to serve a person because he is a Muslim, no, he can't do that.

You asked about kosher meats. I answered your question directly. The Black butcher can choose not to order a product, but he can't deny service to a Jewish person because they're Jewish.

Segregationists argued that forcing them to serve Black people violated their free exercise rights. If you're going to make arguments, don't get upset when I explain to you the implications of them. There is no "gay exception." If you clear the way for these claims to be made against anti-discrimination laws protecting gay people, you do the same for anti-discrimination laws protecting Black people, Christians, and other protected classes.

Do you think the woman in this case has a right to refuse to design wedding sites for Black couples or interracial couples? What if she sincerely believes that her religion forbids Black people from accessing the institution of marriage because they're a lesser race or that her religion forbids the races from mixing? Does she then have a valid free exercise claim?

Yet again, we see the obtuseness. You are rejecting the work based on the content of the request, not based on a protected characteristic. That's the distinction! Nobody in "authoritarian" Colorado is going to run afoul of the law by making decisions based on content. If this woman said she wasn't going to work on wedding sites period or sexually explicit sites, she wouldn't run afoul of the law.

And we're back to you calling anti-discrimination laws "authoritarian." There is no world where the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is "authoritarian." You can keep getting mad that my view is bigoted Christians no more have a right to discriminate against gay people than they have the right to discriminate against Black people. If that's "authoritarian" in your world, no wonder you love Ron DeSantis.

 

I continue to stand on my answer, then. Do you think a white baker known for baking wedding cakes would not run afoul of the Civil Rights Act if he refused to bake wedding cakes for Black and interracial couples?

Where is the line between "freedom of content" and "basic services"?

But I hope you can see there's a difference between refusing content on the basis that it is antisemitic and refusing content on the basis that you have objections to Muslims being able to get married.

That's exactly what I said. (And to be clear, plenty of Jewish people eat food that's not kosher.) Lorie Smith and 303 Creative can choose not to make wedding sites. What she can't do is choose to make wedding sites and then discriminate against people based on a protected characteristic.*

* - At least until Republican SCOTUS starts the gutting of anti-discrimination laws by allowing her to do so. And they're going to do so by accepting recycled arguments once used by segregationists against the CRA.

Yet, the distinction you're drawing doesn't apply to Lorie Smith or 303 Creative. She's not rejecting people based on content. She's rejecting them based on a protected characteristic. She is arguing that she has the right to move her business into the wedding-site sector and essentially put a "no gays allowed" notice on her website.

Do you think she could refuse to serve Black couples or interracial couples in the same way without running afoul of the anti-discrimination laws? If no, does that also make those laws "authoritarian"?

 

I would also add that although that ship has sailed with Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, supporters of Jim Crow segregation rationalized their position through religion even citing scripture.
How White Southern Christians Fought to Preserve Segregation
It Wasn’t Abortion That Formed the Religious Right. It Was Support for Segregation.
There’s a straight line from US racial segregation to the anti-abortion movement | Randall Balmer

 

Top pollsters: Trump as 'strong as ever' (wnd.com)

Their newest poll shows Trump leading a widely promoted possible GOP challenger for the White House, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, 48%-23%, and leading Joe Biden in a potential 2020 rematch 48%-45%.
"Here at Secrets, we write a lot about polls and have highlighted many about the DeSantis surge, especially after his blockbuster reelection last month. While it’s still over a year before the first caucus or primary, they all give a suggestion for how the candidates are doing among voters but shouldn’t be taken as the last word," Bedard wrote.

The poll showed 61% of Republican primary voters want Trump on the ballot again, and only 27% saying no.

John McLaughlin told Bedard, "First you have to look at the quality of the poll and the source. Most published polls are from the liberal, anti-Trump media, and they do backflips to create biased surveys to suppress the Trump voters and donors. Many of the biased media polls are diluted with nonvoters and have samples of adults and do not reflect actual voters as likely voter polls do. They also bias the sample asking anti-Trump questions."

Their analysis explained, "Once again we see the media using polls to discourage and suppress supporters and donors of President Trump. Why? Because it’s very clear that the Republican establishment, the Washington, D.C. establishment, and the media establishment do not want to see him elected president again."

 

Medically speaking that would be at 17-20 weeks according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

"But defining a heartbeat is tricky even after 10 weeks, said Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB/GYN who spoke on behalf of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, because the heart continues to develop over the course of the pregnancy.

It’s not until around 17 to 20 weeks, when the four chambers of the heart have developed and can be detected on an ultrasound, that the term heartbeat is accurate, according to ACOG.

"In fact, the sound pregnant people hear during ultrasounds at six weeks is entirely manufactured by the ultrasound machine, Verma said. “It’s an electrical pulse that’s translated into the sound we’re hearing from the ultrasound machine.”
‘Heartbeat bills’: Is there a fetal heartbeat at six weeks of pregnancy?