EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 250
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45022 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Another indication of hostility is the difference in treat- ment between Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers who objected to a requested cake on the basis of conscience and prevailed before the Commission. As noted above, on at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refus- ing service. It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included “word- ing and images [the baker] deemed derogatory,” Jack v. Gateaux, Ltd., Charge No. P20140071X, at 4; featured “language and images [the baker] deemed hateful,” Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., Charge No. P20140070X, at 4; or displayed a message the baker “deemed as discriminatory, Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No. P20140069X, at 4. The treatment of the other cases and Phillips’ case could reasonably be interpreted as being inconsistent as to the question of whether speech is involved, quite apart from whether the cases should ultimately be distinguished. In short, the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of these other objections. These quotes are a little more to the point to why religious liberty was (in other aspects still is) in peril. This government was quite willing to afford other exemptions to bakers in discriminating against the person requesting a custom wedding cake. Except where matters of a sincere Christian believer were used, it repeatedly judged the bakers were justified in discriminating against the purchaser. Where religion was involved, nope. Zero fucks given for religious liberty. That’s why I watched this case with interest, since it was obvious my fellow citizens were highly unconcerned and never grasped the religious liberty stakes involved. I wish it went further towards the heart of his argument about how far the first amendment goes in his protections, but this is a start. There are more cases regarding religious liberty around the bend. | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37043 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Out of curiosity, has a baker ever declined to make a Jesus cake (or some other explicitly pro-Christian cake) because it didn't match with the baker's religious beliefs? I would be surprised if such a "refusal to make a Jesus cake" situation ended up on the news and conservatives were consistent with their "well it's the baker's beliefs, period". I would imagine that there would be a double standard and outrage about "Well Christianity is good and correct/ this baker is just trying to be difficult". We'll see how that dissonance plays out when/if SCOTUS uses Trump's words as a basis for ruling against the Muslim ban. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45022 Posts
Remember the 9/11 community center/ "mosque" drama? The anti-Muslim rhetoric and the Muslim ban? The insistence that other religions and non-religious traditions can't be in the same shared public space during Christmas? The insistence that other religions and non-religious beliefs can't be displayed on billboards if they disagree with Christianity? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:16 Jockmcplop wrote: Yeah no-one has been proven right or wrong here.. There's been a few debates that's all. I will say that as danglars says, people are very quick to ridicule or minimize the importance of religious beliefs. I think it was made worse in this case because the immediate reaction is normally to think "Its just a cake". There's actually a legitimate debate to be had here, with legitimate points on both sides. It really comes down to whether or not you see a cake as a commissioned piece of art or just a product in a store. I know that, as a musician, I wouldn't play a benefit for a cause I disagreed with. I don't know if that's comparable though. Would you afford a Christian musician the right to accept wedding gigs as a regular part of his business, but refuse to perform at gay weddings solely because his religious beliefs say that is sinful endorsement contrary to God’s decrees? I’m a musician that has done weddings and religious events and nonprofit events, but that is not my main employment. I ask because I think it’s a very short hop from “a cause I disagree with” and “a religious ceremony I disagree with.” | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:08 mozoku wrote: Who thought it possible that so many of our thread experts could be wrong? Shocking. be more specific please; which thread experts, and what exactly did they actually claim. with cites to back it up. | ||
|
Howie_Dewitt
United States1416 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:32 zlefin wrote: be more specific please; which thread experts, and what exactly did they actually claim. with cites to back it up. His comment was snark, experts was used in an insulting tone because he thought you guys were so sure of yourselves and acted like you were experts. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:35 Howie_Dewitt wrote: His comment was snark, experts was used in an insulting tone because he thought you guys were so sure of yourselves and acted like you were experts. I'm aware of that possibility; and it doesn't change the validity of my queries to dissect and potentially demonstrate that his post was nonsense. | ||
|
ThaddeusK
United States233 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:30 Danglars wrote: Would you afford a Christian musician the right to accept wedding gigs as a regular part of his business, but refuse to perform at gay weddings solely because his religious beliefs say that is sinful endorsement contrary to God’s decrees? I’m a musician that has done weddings and religious events and nonprofit events, but that is not my main employment. I ask because I think it’s a very short hop from “a cause I disagree with” and “a religious ceremony I disagree with.” I recommend you try being a vaguely polite person and tell them you can't play their wedding cause you are busy instead of telling them you can't play their wedding cause they are evil and are gonna burn in hellfire for all eternity. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:16 Jockmcplop wrote: There's actually a legitimate debate to be had here, with legitimate points on both sides. It really comes down to whether or not you see a cake as a commissioned piece of art or just a product in a store. This I agree with, and had (loosely) been my position when I opined in this discussion. My comment was in reference to the fact that the predominant view here earlier (though many are now singing an amusingly different tune) refused to even acknowledge the baker's case had any legitimacy, that SCOTUS was only even hearing the case because the Colorado court didn't have the authority to make the ruling nationally, and that anyone who didn't see that was unreasonable. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45022 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:45 ThaddeusK wrote: I recommend you try being a vaguely polite person and tell them you can't play their wedding cause you are busy instead of telling them you can't play their wedding cause they are evil and are gonna burn in hellfire for all eternity. I think that's a much better and more professional way of dealing with the situation. Politely decline (be it playing at a wedding or making a cake) with the excuse that you're fully booked and have no current availability, so that it's clearly seen as an unbiased business decision and not a personal religious contrast. I would even apologize for the inconvenience, but that's just me hoping that I'm not burning a bridge by turning down a potential client. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:45 ThaddeusK wrote: I recommend you try being a vaguely polite person and tell them you can't play their wedding cause you are busy instead of telling them you can't play their wedding cause they are evil and are gonna burn in hellfire for all eternity. Oh yeah, let your concepts of civility dictate your actual behavior. I’m wondering about the legal rights at the bottom ... if Jockmcplop extends his personal convictions on declining benefits for causes (where he discriminates between gigs) to a more religious question that confronts other musicians. There’s a great deal of impolite behavior that I don’t subscribe to that I also think shouldn’t land one in legal jeopardy. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9715 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:30 Danglars wrote: Would you afford a Christian musician the right to accept wedding gigs as a regular part of his business, but refuse to perform at gay weddings solely because his religious beliefs say that is sinful endorsement contrary to God’s decrees? I’m a musician that has done weddings and religious events and nonprofit events, but that is not my main employment. I ask because I think it’s a very short hop from “a cause I disagree with” and “a religious ceremony I disagree with.” Of course I would afford them that right. There's a difference here in perception between the selling of a cake and the commissioning of a piece of art. The baker could well insist that he/she are making art, and the fact that these cakes are personalized and commissioned in advance certainly adds weight to that point of view. There's a big difference here though, and its another subtle point. Are the bakers expected to bake a cake for 2 people, or for a specific ceremony? I can't see how they would get away with refusing to serve the customers, but I can understand why they wouldn't want to specifically be involved in the promotion or celebration of a certain type of ceremony. Put another way, I wouldn't play a benefit for a cause I didn't agree with, but I wouldn't kick a tory out of the audience of my band's gig either. The question then becomes whether or not there is a difference between a marriage and a gay marriage, if in law they are the same thing. The more I think about this question, the more I come down on the conservative side of the argument, despite the fact that my intuition tells me the opposite. Also you can call me naive but when it comes to the discrimination faced by some groups in the US, having to walk another 2 blocks to get your wedding cake from a baker who supports you isn't really that bad. On June 05 2018 00:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Out of curiosity, has a baker ever declined to make a Jesus cake (or some other explicitly pro-Christian cake) because it didn't match with the baker's religious beliefs? I would be surprised if such a "refusal to make a Jesus cake" situation ended up on the news and conservatives were consistent with their "well it's the baker's beliefs, period". I would imagine that there would be a double standard and outrage about "Well Christianity is good and correct/ this baker is just trying to be difficult". I don't think you can use the hypothetical reactions of your opponents to a hypothetical situation as an argument :D | ||
|
ThaddeusK
United States233 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:16 Jockmcplop wrote: There's actually a legitimate debate to be had here, with legitimate points on both sides. It really comes down to whether or not you see a cake as a commissioned piece of art or just a product in a store. It's more like is providing cakes for gay weddings a different service than providing cakes for straight weddings, the bakers were not objecting to the content of the cake they were to make but to the purpose the cake was for. If they are the same service than the bakers are refusing to provide the service based on the sexual orientation of the customer, if they are different services then it's just a service they choose not to provide. One is clearly discrimination and the other isn't. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 05 2018 01:04 ThaddeusK wrote: It's more like is providing cakes for gay weddings a different service than providing cakes for straight weddings, the bakers were not objecting to the content of the cake they were to make but to the purpose the cake was for. If they are the same service than the bakers are refusing to provide the service based on the sexual orientation of the customer, if they are different services then it's just a service they choose not to provide. One is clearly discrimination and the other isn't. The ruling in question also cited that the baker was willing to back for gay couples for any other type of event. Had that not been the case, I doubt the court would have ruled in his favor. And they service being requested was a cake made by him. The ruling draws a line between the creation of a thing and a business owner denying all gay couples cakes, even if they were made by employees. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9715 Posts
On June 05 2018 01:04 ThaddeusK wrote: It's more like is providing cakes for gay weddings a different service than providing cakes for straight weddings, the bakers were not objecting to the content of the cake they were to make but to the purpose the cake was for. If they are the same service than the bakers are refusing to provide the service based on the sexual orientation of the customer, if they are different services then it's just a service they choose not to provide. One is clearly discrimination and the other isn't. Yeah I touched on this in the post above. I don't know if US law sees gay marriage as identical to non gay marriage. Certainly in the eyes of the baker it would be different. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 05 2018 00:52 mozoku wrote: This I agree with, and had (loosely) been my position when I opined in this discussion. My comment was in reference to the fact that the predominant view here earlier (though many are now singing an amusingly different tune) refused to even acknowledge the baker's case had any legitimacy, that SCOTUS was only even hearing the case because the Colorado court didn't have the authority to make the ruling nationally, and that anyone who didn't see that was unreasonable. are you going to backup your assertion on what others' positions were, as requested? (and in particular cite those others, rather than vaguely disparaging many people without being specific as to who you're disparaging it to) | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18112 Posts
On June 05 2018 01:04 ThaddeusK wrote: It's more like is providing cakes for gay weddings a different service than providing cakes for straight weddings, the bakers were not objecting to the content of the cake they were to make but to the purpose the cake was for. If they are the same service than the bakers are refusing to provide the service based on the sexual orientation of the customer, if they are different services then it's just a service they choose not to provide. One is clearly discrimination and the other isn't. One wedding cake has a little sugar figurine of a man and a woman. The other has a little sugar figurine of two men. Clearly completely different services. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
On June 05 2018 01:08 Jockmcplop wrote: Yeah I touched on this in the post above. I don't know if US law sees gay marriage as identical to non gay marriage. Certainly in the eyes of the baker it would be different. Under Obergefell, gay marriage and non gay marriage are supposed to be treated as equal institutions. | ||
| ||
