USA Religous right to Refuse Service to a Customer

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by RainbowSingularity, Jun 5, 2018.

  1. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,976
    Separate but equal, right? Welcome to ignore.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. gamelord Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    542
    Unlike you I do not believe in government interference in every aspect of American lives.

    It is up to the Americans whether or not they seperate or integrate and if that makes you irritated then that is not my fault, your quarrel should be taken up with the mindless masses of the American people who are your enemy, before you throw a hissy fit upon me in indignance.
    I am not your enemy.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    sexual imagery is not inherantly damaging to children, UNLESS they have been systematically bullied & brainwashed and Pre-conditioned to accept inequality between the genders as normal.
    it is just funny and strange.
    they laugh at it, have no interest, run off and continue doing what they were doing.

    The atmospheric distortion and overt manipulation of power and control to assert punishment by adults is swung over their heads making them feel fear and terrifying them.
    THAT is the primary process.

    that is why there is soo much domestic homicide.
    men murdering their female partner that they have sex with.
    millions of supposed civilised office worker men mercilesly beating their female sexual partner every day of the week.

    main stream religion said it was expected behaviour for men to beat their female sexual partner regularily up until only a decade or 2 ago.
    "rule of thumb" ...

    all built under the overt brain washing of puratin sexual power and control dysfunction.

    there should be no surprise of the cataclismic dissasters that are encountered through male late puberty emotional collapse response to brainwashing and bullying and self idiation conflict.


    humans can fly into space, but they certainly do not comprehend 20th century psychology.
    on the whole society is still cavemen grunting and hitting each other with sticks.
    regardles of how many shiny objects they have around them or cult like followers in their cult.

    global communication allows people to find and interact with more civilised people who also hide their violent tendencys behind the internet.
    normalised violence and desensatisation of violence is a cultural norm in all cultures.

    remember roughly half the species think it is ok to kill someone as a form of punishment regardles of them being able to prevent that person from re-offending.
    this is ritualised killing normalised into a social moral culture.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,952
    Well, see, we had this thing called slavery. So we made that illegal, even thought it was a HUGE government interference into many aspects of slaveowner's lives. Why, some of them even lost their plantations due to government meddling!

    Then we had this thing called segregation; black children were not allowed, by the government, to go to the same schools as whites. So we made that illegal, even though it was a huge government interference into the lives of bigots and racists.

    I think that was a good thing, overall. Sorry if you disagree.
     
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,131
    Back to the subject of this thread.
    The supreme court sided with the baker.
     
  9. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,936
    My take (thousands of klms away on a little island)

    Supreme Court agreed baker was within his rights to refuse to sell his ARTISTIC talents

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    who decides if customer service is an art form ?
    can a state employee refuse to serve someone because in that service process is an expresion of their artistic ability ?
    can the court make a descision to declare a role of customer service is devoid of artisitic ability ?
     
  11. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    emergency services can also refuse service ?
     
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,131
    Now, you're just being silly.

    If you want to read the supreme court's decision and opinion, it is a simple matter to find it online, then download.
    Caveat, knowledge may do your prejudices harm.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2018
  13. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,936
    Customer service was not in play

    Baker was willing to sell a cake

    What he refused to do was decorate cake using his TALENT in the form the customer requested

    State employee's are required to be neutral - if you recall the one who refused to issue a marriage license

    My take - she would be setting government policy way way above her pay scale

    Customer service does not contain artistic talents - unless you are something like a singing waiter

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    "required"
    is "talent" required to deliver a cake or a service ?
    surely the "service" is the talent "requirement" rather than the product.

    thus is it legal to refuse to provide a service based on religion ? answer = yes it is legal to refuse to provide a service based on religion in the usa.
    is a license process a product ?
    maybe... can the license be provided as a product without any talent through service ?
    does the contract of employment define that service must be delivered purely without any talent involved ?
    more soo would any employer employ a person who refused to expres their talent through delivery of customer service ? no they would decline to employ the person based on their refusal to deliver "talent".

    if you can prove otherwise please show your working
     
  15. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    ?
    back again around in a circle
    does a court define what "artistic" is ?
    is the service offfered, offered as an art ?
    thus interpretation is defined AS the service, rather than a "product" natured to the process OF the service ?

    lets see the US courts declare engineers as being talentless trades.
    is a lawyer required to expres artistic process by representing a person ?
    thus all court appointed lawyers can refuse to represent someone based on religion.

    if you can prove otherwise please show your working through the equation.
     
  16. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,936
    How long would the public service last if every single person was free to practice their own bias (claim it as their religion)?
    2 minutes? 5 minutes?

    No and baker was agreeable to serve a cake

    No - the service is providing a cake from his shop which is available to all, again a service baker was agreeable to provide
    Talent is the bakers ability to make a unique decoration. That was the aspect withheld

    I'm (was) a Royal Australian Air Force radio technician
    I don't think the knowledge I have would be called a talent
    I doubt engineers consider their knowledge as talent. I'm guessing at karaoke night they might show talent in other fields

    I doubt very much any lawyer would be required to express talent in representation, a good knowledge of law yes, how to sing or dance no

    The closest I can come to calling someone with great knowledge and knowing how to use it - "flair"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,952
    They can't refuse service to specific groups of people, no.

    However, if you have a heart attack, and you call EMS, and they come, and you demand they change into pink coveralls before treating you - then they may well refuse THAT service.
    Courts.
    Again, if a DMV employee likes drawing, and a customer comes in and says "draw me a picture of a fairy!" and they refuse - then yes, they are fully within their rights.
     
  18. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    "serve" Vs "sell" Vs Customer "service" Vs Product access ...
    your playing with semantics dancing around the core issue to pretend there is something different.

    simply replace the cake picture with a cake with a white Bride & White Groom and another cake with a Black Bride & a Black Groom.
    then tell the customer, no i wont decorate the cake with a bi-racial coup0le because it is against my religous beleifs....
    ...you can choose from one of those.
    ..after the customer has asked you to make a cake with a black groom and a white bride.

    ... when "cake decorating" is advertised as part of their service.

    ... and you are ignoring the very premise of the shop employee being legally allowed to refuse service at their own discretion with or without explanation.

    bi racial cake complex ?
     
  19. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    949
    is that written into their contract ?
    using the word "again" does not suddenly change the content and examples that have previousely been used and defined.

    it clearly defines you have normalised facist power structures and bullying and think shouting the same word over and over will suddenly change the facts and make others agree with you to abide by the bullying.

    sad !

    asking a state appointed licensing agent to perform services that they are not employed for, as a private personal service, while at work, without permission of their employer...
    is clearly in breach of ALL basic employment contracts.

    are you trying to sell adverts to idiots ?
    your doing a good job.
     
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,952
    Nope, written into federal law.
    Correct. It merely serves to get you to look at the previous explanation, thus saving typing. Looks like you didn't do that; too bad.
    There is nothing wrong with asking. The employee is always free to say no.

    Fortunately, there is no law that mandates he do anything like that.
    Nope. The media does a fine job of that.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,952
    (duplicate)
     
  22. Michael 345 Looking for Bali in Nov Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,936
    I dug a bit deeper into this particular case. However the information is lacking in this part of the world as to exactly what was being refused

    If they requested something which he would refuse to make for any customer - as I understand - he is within his rights as he is not discriminating against particular group

    It might help, if you have the details, of what particular decoration were they requesting

    A wrinkle I noted, if he was being asked to make a artistic decoration which was against his religion (although - again as I understand - it need not be religious. It could be his personal sensitivity). Forcing him to comply with such a request violates his rights of freedom of expression by forcing him to express something he disagrees with

    Also my take - it is not like there are no other cake shops they could buy (obtain service) from

    So if you do know the fine details of what he was refusing to do exactly it would help me understand (perhaps) the reasoning behind the ruling

    Thanks

    Understand there is a similar case coming up with a florists

    Cheers

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,131
    It seems that the supreme court's decision was directed more against the Colorado civil rights commission's disrespect for the constitution and Phillips.
    ...
    read more here:
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

    "some of the commissioners... disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust" .... and no other commissioners objected...
    WOW
    One wonders if the Colorado civil rights commission is intentionally staffed with ignorant bigots, or if this is a one of situation.
    Maybe these commissioners spent too much time on line in rooms such as this where some people feel that they can say anything about someone else and call them any name they want, often without objection and/or with the support of others therein.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018

Share This Page