The GLBT and GSA Thread

[Annoyed]

I doubt he'll be heartbroken.
To be fair, I haven't seen him around much lately. Perhaps, I should stick my head back in the Political thread.

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy

[Falcon Horus]

You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy

The Political thread or Soul?

[thekillman]

G -- Gay
Q -- Queer

Uhm... aren't those synonyms?

Personally, the less complicated the better, but that's probably asking too much. Hey, even I get lost here.

Which is my point.

[jelgate]

The Political thread or Soul?

I thought he was talking about shippers

[Falcon Horus]

Uhm... aren't those synonyms?

I found this, to explain it.

What’s the difference between gay and queer?

I thought he was talking about shippers

Also possible... or that Stargate Command message feed...

[Annoyed]

This little firefight just keeps getting better and better.

Restaurant owner says she asked Sarah Sanders to leave over her defense of Trump transgender military ban

Yet another private business owner exercising their right to serve whom they choose.

Don't get me wrong; they have the right to serve whom they choose to. No question. But it's hilarious watching people trying to say businesses such as cake shops can't. How can they condone this, and then insist the bakery serve all comers? The level of hypocrisy needed to do that is beyond my ken. And forget about Barbie.

[Falcon Horus]

I'm more amused Sarah Sanders got a piece of her own bosses pie.

[Annoyed]

SCOTUS just does not want to rule on this issue, do they?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/u...er-courts.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday told a lower court to reconsider the case of a florist in Washington State who had refused to create a floral arrangement for a same-sex wedding. The justices vacated a decision against the florist from the Washington Supreme Court and instructed it to take a fresh look at the dispute in light of this month’s ruling in a similar dispute involving a Colorado baker.

It seems clear which way they view the matter, having upheld the baker, and now telling the lower court to review their decision in this case. But why can't they just put their foot down and make a decision?

[Gatefan1976]

SCOTUS just does not want to rule on this issue, do they?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/u...er-courts.html



It seems clear which way they view the matter, having upheld the baker, and now telling the lower court to review their decision in this case. But why can't they just put their foot down and make a decision?

Laws need to be basic at their core, then cases get dealt with. Castle law breaks the law of murder because of justification (same thing that protects abortion law) You want the right to kill a intruder into your home with no consequence *because they cost you* or *threaten your way of life*.
Having a baby fits both exceptions.
You know, for someone who rails against double standards, you often apply them to yourself under "but this is different, cause it affects me"

[Annoyed]

Laws need to be basic at their core, then cases get dealt with. Castle law breaks the law of murder because of justification (same thing that protects abortion law) You want the right to kill a intruder into your home with no consequence *because they cost you* or *threaten your way of life*.
Having a baby fits both exceptions.
You know, for someone who rails against double standards, you often apply them to yourself under "but this is different, cause it affects me"

Huh? How is your response in any way related to what I posted?

[Gatefan1976]

How simple are you?
Killing people is bad, so the law should step in, but there are exceptions to the basic position of killing is bad.
Castle laws are an exception to "killing is bad", So to are abortion laws because they both affect quality of life.
You call castle laws your "right"
I say abortion is a right under the exact same premise.
If killing -period- is criminal, then neither stand your ground exceptions, nor Abortion exceptions should exist.
Neither action should be undertaken lightly, and I do actually believe that in -private citizen- cases they are not, but their are extremes on both sides, and they should both be recognized as wrong.

[Annoyed]

How simple are you?
Killing people is bad, so the law should step in, but there are exceptions to the basic position of killing is bad.
Castle laws are an exception to "killing is bad", So to are abortion laws because they both affect quality of life.
You call castle laws your "right"
I say abortion is a right under the exact same premise.
If killing -period- is criminal, then neither stand your ground exceptions, nor Abortion exceptions should exist.
Neither action should be undertaken lightly, and I do actually believe that in -private citizen- cases they are not, but their are extremes on both sides, and they should both be recognized as wrong.

The article I was posting about regarded another situation of a business being forced to serve customers that it didn't want to serve, rather than abortion.
It would seem the court doesn't want to set a clear standard for that issue. It keeps kicking the can down the road.

[Falcon Horus]

It seems clear which way they view the matter, having upheld the baker, and now telling the lower court to review their decision in this case. But why can't they just put their foot down and make a decision?

First of all, the case of the baker and this florist-case are two different things. In the case of the baker, it was about the "unfairness" of he was treated in the lower courts. He claimed bias and SCOTUS agreed with him.

The florist-case, is about whether the florist has a right to refuse service to the couple -- not supplying flowers to their wedding -- on grounds of his moral/religious views. Back to lower courts to revew the case and see if any of the civil laws were handled incorrectly, which was what happened in the baker's case.

However, as much as you like to think so, the did not rule in favor of discrimination in the baker's case. He cannot refuse service to LGBTQ stating his religious or moral views as reason.

From another article, regarding the florist's case:

"“The Supreme Court has simply asked the lower court to take another look at this case in light of their recent decision in Masterpiece, but they did not indicate there was anything wrong with the ruling,” said a statement issued by Human Rights Campaign legal director Sarah Warbelow. “In Masterpiece, the Supreme Court found that the state of Colorado’s enforcement of its civil rights law was flawed due to perceived bias in the process, however, there is no indication that there were flaws in the application of civil rights law in Arlene’s Flowers. We view this decision as encouraging news that justice will prevail and the Washington State Supreme Court will again uphold the state’s nondiscrimination laws ensuring LGBTQ people cannot be turned away from a business open to the public.”

“Opponents of LGBTQ equality have asked the Supreme Court for a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBTQ people, and the court has refused to do so on two separate occasions -- first in Masterpiece, and now in Arlene’s Flowers,” said Masen Davis, CEO of Freedom for All Americans, in a press relase. “Earlier this month, the Supreme Court reaffirmed our nation’s long-standing promise of equal opportunity for all, making clear that all business owners and all customers should be treated with respect. The Washington Supreme Court ruling in Arlene’s Flowers unanimously upheld that very same promise, and we are confident that they will continue to do so.”"

SCOTUS Punts Case on Florist Who Refused to Serve Same-Sex Couple

[Annoyed]

The funny thing is, religion doesn't play any part in it.

And people on the left are reinforcing that view over and over as of late.

A few weeks back, a NY court said it was perfectly fine for a business (a bar) to refuse to serve a man wearing a MAGA hat because of his political beliefs.

And just last week, a restaurant refused to serve Sarah Sanders because she works for the Trump administration. Over and over, it is being decided that businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. And this has been established in the past as well. Religion, orientation or whatever, a business clearly has the right to serve whom it wants to.

You can't have it both ways. Unless you're vying for the title of world's biggest hypocrite, that is.

[aretood2]

First of all, the case of the baker and this florist-case are two different things. In the case of the baker, it was about the "unfairness" of he was treated in the lower courts. He claimed bias and SCOTUS agreed with him.

The florist-case, is about whether the florist has a right to refuse service to the couple -- not supplying flowers to their wedding -- on grounds of his moral/religious views. Back to lower courts to revew the case and see if any of the civil laws were handled incorrectly, which was what happened in the baker's case.

However, as much as you like to think so, the did not rule in favor of discrimination in the baker's case. He cannot refuse service to LGBTQ stating his religious or moral views as reason.

From another article, regarding the florist's case:

"“The Supreme Court has simply asked the lower court to take another look at this case in light of their recent decision in Masterpiece, but they did not indicate there was anything wrong with the ruling,” said a statement issued by Human Rights Campaign legal director Sarah Warbelow. “In Masterpiece, the Supreme Court found that the state of Colorado’s enforcement of its civil rights law was flawed due to perceived bias in the process, however, there is no indication that there were flaws in the application of civil rights law in Arlene’s Flowers. We view this decision as encouraging news that justice will prevail and the Washington State Supreme Court will again uphold the state’s nondiscrimination laws ensuring LGBTQ people cannot be turned away from a business open to the public.”

“Opponents of LGBTQ equality have asked the Supreme Court for a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBTQ people, and the court has refused to do so on two separate occasions -- first in Masterpiece, and now in Arlene’s Flowers,” said Masen Davis, CEO of Freedom for All Americans, in a press relase. “Earlier this month, the Supreme Court reaffirmed our nation’s long-standing promise of equal opportunity for all, making clear that all business owners and all customers should be treated with respect. The Washington Supreme Court ruling in Arlene’s Flowers unanimously upheld that very same promise, and we are confident that they will continue to do so.”"

SCOTUS Punts Case on Florist Who Refused to Serve Same-Sex Couple

I debated on whether or not to post a response because I never interpreted this thread to be a dabte type thread but just to dump some more information with one question.

The florist and the gay man who originally asked for the flowers were friends...well probably still are friends. She's done other events, even their anniversary. A random social media post from the guy's husband lead to the state Attorney General prosecuting the flower shop without any real input from the couple nor a complaint. He is also going full blown suing her in a personal sense, not just the shop, but her herself.

Then there's a seattle cafe that discriminated against Christians which doesn't seem to be facing any state lawsuits. Yes, they sent him a letter, and he said he would not change, and no action to speak of beyond that has been taken.

A case for hostility to religion can be made here. If the AG is so bent on stopping discrimination, then why just target this one case if not for its religious nature? Equal protection clause would demand equal treatment of the flower shop and the cafe, so far both have been treated differently.