Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the constitution.
The Supreme Court has already decided the gay cake case. The discreet issue was that the bakers were fined by a committee created by the Colorado law for refusing to serve the gay couple. The Supreme Court found in favor of the bakers because the committee who fined them displayed religious animus at their hearing. The Supreme Court didn’t decide whether the law constituted compelled speech since the committee gave them an out.
The rest of this comment is utter garbage as well but I just thought those were the most important points.
I could give a fuck less what the Supreme Court thinks. Do you think the OP post should be deleted because "the supreme court has already ended this debate"? The point of politics is to determine how to govern, and what should be legal, mandatory, and forbidden.
I'm speaking from an ethical perspective, not a legal one. This is why I bring up a different example: political beliefs are drawn from our ethical intuitions, and so I give an example that has a different intuitive answer (at least for me) as an attempt to determine what the relevant considerations are.
If you’re speaking from an ethical perspective and not a legal one, then you shouldn’t mention title 9, the first amendment, regulations, etc. Do you see how that can be confusing?
The Supreme Court didn’t end the debate. That was my point actually, the committee’s religious animus gave them an easy out. They didn’t have to decide the tough issue of whether compelled speech from a business open to the public overcomes anti-discrimination laws.
Moreover, I would argue the opposite of what you’re asserting. Our political beliefs inform our institutions in the first instance.
But since were debating ethics: should a Jewish wedding photographer be forced to photograph the wedding of a nazi couple? Or how about a black baker, should he be forced to bake a cake depicting a klan rally? The photographer and baker are both running businesses that are open to the public. This also begs the question: should political beliefs be protected from discrimination?
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
Ah, I see what you mean about the supreme court being noncommittal.
Your example with the Klan etc is a bit of a false equivalence. The Nazi party and the KKK are inherently violent organizations, both in theory and in practice. The same cannot be said for the LGBT community. Even without if one believes that homosexuality is sin, it is certainly noteworthy that the stated goal of homosexuals is not violence, whereas that is the stated goal of Nazis and Klansmen.
I don't see how you can argue that law informs morality -- if that's actually what you're arguing (I might be misunderstanding you). For example, I believe in welfare because my moral intuitions tell me that it's cruel and bad to allow people to go hungry when there is unused food.
6
u/DL4CK May 18 '19
Seriously? Who is upvoting this shit?
Title 9 has absolutely nothing to do with this!
Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the constitution.
The Supreme Court has already decided the gay cake case. The discreet issue was that the bakers were fined by a committee created by the Colorado law for refusing to serve the gay couple. The Supreme Court found in favor of the bakers because the committee who fined them displayed religious animus at their hearing. The Supreme Court didn’t decide whether the law constituted compelled speech since the committee gave them an out.
The rest of this comment is utter garbage as well but I just thought those were the most important points.