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.
On March 26 2018 12:51 Sermokala wrote: I'm reading through the cspan link now they're basically having the same argument we're having outside of the "you're just trying to justify your bigotry" nonsense.
Kagan makes some werid arguments about a chef being the same no idea where that was going.
Around 55 minutes the nazies come into the argument.
I am rather interested in what they come up for as the last line for art vs just general services. That part of the oral argument (just from transcript) I found fascinating. If a baker, why not a hairdresser? Florist? Chef? These are important lines to examine after concluding that at least a baker putting time and consultation into a custom cake for a marriage is protected by the constitution.
So that part's interesting in its own right, even if some absurdity came up haha.
On March 26 2018 13:29 Sermokala wrote: So I finished the arguments and I got some interesting observations. To start out there was no discussion on the cake the cake maker just heard it was for a gay wedding and said no. They didn't attempt to buy a premade cake and were requesting a custom cake with a rainbow on it.
Basically the court opens the door for a cake maker to refuse to make a cake that has designs or a message that is pro gay marriage as it would be compelling the cake maker to express speech in support of gay marriage. However if a cake maker would make a cake for a straight marriage they would have to make the same cake for the gay marriage. They do not have to participate in the ceremony which might create an sliver of the gay couples having to pick up the cake vs a straight marriage being able to have delivery.
There was some odd bits were the court admitted that the only reason why this was being discussed was because gay people are a federally protected class. If they weren't the cake maker could refuse all service. Religious accommodation was the term the court used instead of religious discrimination. I would request people use that term instead as its less hostile.
Also pre made cakes you have to sell regardless as you're opening your store to an open market.
And in the case of custom speech and custom art, it takes out his whole argument that "what I design is not just a tower of flour and sugar, but a message tailored to a specific couple and a specific event — a message telling all who see it that this event is a wedding and that it is an occasion for celebration." If he's making two identical custom cakes, it's not all that tailored since they ended up with the same message.
Kennedy's speech on the state civil rights commission that had ruled against the baker had “neither been tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs.” was pretty good too. It really hits at the heart at what wrong with the majority of arguers here.
Addenda, Jack Phillips, alleged discriminatory bigot worthy of government compulsion, in his own words
What I didn’t say was that I wouldn’t sell them a cake.
I’m happy to sell a cake to anyone, whatever his or her sexual identity. People should be free to make their own moral choices. I don’t have to agree with them.
But I am responsible for my own choices. And it was that responsibility that led me to decline when two gentlemen came into my shop and invited me to create a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony.
Designing a wedding cake is a very different thing from, say, baking a brownie. When people commission such a cake, they’re requesting something that’s designed to express something about the event and about the couple.
What I design is not just a tower of flour and sugar, but a message tailored to a specific couple and a specific event — a message telling all who see it that this event is a wedding and that it is an occasion for celebration.
In this case, I couldn’t. What a cake celebrating this event would communicate was a message that contradicts my deepest religious convictions, and as an artist, that’s just not something I’m able to do, so I politely declined.
But this wasn’t just a business decision. More than anything else, it was a reflection of my commitment to my faith. My religious convictions on this are grounded in the biblical teaching that God designed marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Obviously, not everyone shares those convictions. I don’t expect them to. Each of us makes our own choices; each of us decides how closely we will hold to, defend and live out those choices.
The two men who came into my shop that day were living out their beliefs. All I did was attempt to live out mine. I respect their right to choose and hoped they would respect mine.
They did not. And, considering all of the hate mail, obscene calls and death threats my family has received since I was sued, a lot of other people don’t see tolerance as a two-way street, either.
But the Constitution does. The First Amendment defends my right to create custom cake art that is consistent with my faith, while declining requests that ask me to celebrate events or messages that conflict with my faith. As a cake artist, I can live out my faith in my day-to-day life, and make that faith the basis for my creative decisions.
We live in a big, diverse nation. We don’t all have to agree on religion. We don’t have to agree on questions of sexual morality. We don’t even have to agree on the meaning of marriage.
What we should be able to agree on is our mutual freedom, as Americans, to live out the ideals that are most important to us.
Just as I shouldn’t be able to use the law to force others to design something that promotes my beliefs, others shouldn’t be able to force me to design a cake that celebrates theirs.
That, for me and those at Alliance Defending Freedom who are defending me, is what this case is about. I hope the U.S. Supreme Court affirms that basic freedom.
And if those who oppose me would grant me a certain measure of respect — not as someone they agree with, but as a fellow citizen free to stand by my own moral choices, well … that would be icing on the cake.
On March 26 2018 12:51 Sermokala wrote: I'm reading through the cspan link now they're basically having the same argument we're having outside of the "you're just trying to justify your bigotry" nonsense.
Kagan makes some werid arguments about a chef being the same no idea where that was going.
Around 55 minutes the nazies come into the argument.
I am rather interested in what they come up for as the last line for art vs just general services. That part of the oral argument (just from transcript) I found fascinating. If a baker, why not a hairdresser? Florist? Chef? These are important lines to examine after concluding that at least a baker putting time and consultation into a custom cake for a marriage is protected by the constitution.
So that part's interesting in it's own right, even if some absurdity came up haha.
Of course that parts interesting. As I said, if you can refuse to make a wedding cake for a wedding because of religion, what's to stop a muslim doctor from not treating a christian? It's a slippery slope, and I don't think christians really want to set the precedent that a religion can be an excuse to discriminate.
On March 26 2018 13:24 patrick321 wrote: Maybe there's something in that 10 minute youtube video i haven't finished yet but you made a claim that my source disproves and your newspaper sources doesn't support. The gay couple asked for nothing on their cake but were still refused.
That's not quite right either. They asked for a "wedding cake." What's the difference between a "wedding cake" and a "cake?" Could it be the artistic decoration?
Why do you think the couple themselves care so much that its a wedding cake? This case isn't about a case. It's about a crafted, individual expression encoded in socially symbolic terms.
Maybe there's no difference at all other then the price. It certainly doesn't seem to be "images symbolic of a gay wedding" as you claimed, though. This is the post you accused somebody else of being sloppy in, btw.
I'm not really sure what you think "images symbolic of a gay wedding" means, but it would seem to include the elements of a customized wedding cake for a gay wedding. So yeah, that is the post I said that. This isn't about a cake. It's about a wedding cake, and according to multiple accounts that I've read the baker says he would have been happy to sell them anything else in the shop.
Yes, i think 'images symbolic of a gay wedding' seems to be my major riff. To me it is very odd to describe a blank wedding cake as being "[decorated] with images symbolic of a gay wedding." One might argue that the cake itself is symbolic of a gay wedding but you said 'decorated with' which to me indicates something extra. I'm not particularly interested in whether he would sell other objects to the couple. We both seem to agree that this is about the wedding.
On March 26 2018 13:24 patrick321 wrote: Maybe there's something in that 10 minute youtube video i haven't finished yet but you made a claim that my source disproves and your newspaper sources doesn't support. The gay couple asked for nothing on their cake but were still refused.
That's not quite right either. They asked for a "wedding cake." What's the difference between a "wedding cake" and a "cake?" Could it be the artistic decoration?
Why do you think the couple themselves care so much that its a wedding cake? This case isn't about a case. It's about a crafted, individual expression encoded in socially symbolic terms.
Maybe there's no difference at all other then the price. It certainly doesn't seem to be "images symbolic of a gay wedding" as you claimed, though. This is the post you accused somebody else of being sloppy in, btw.
I'm not really sure what you think "images symbolic of a gay wedding" means, but it would seem to include the elements of a customized wedding cake for a gay wedding. So yeah, that is the post I said that. This isn't about a cake. It's about a wedding cake, and according to multiple accounts that I've read the baker says he would have been happy to sell them anything else in the shop.
Yes, i think 'images symbolic of a gay wedding' seems to be my major riff. To me it is very odd to describe a blank wedding cake as being "[decorated] with images symbolic of a gay wedding." One might argue that the cake itself is symbolic of a gay wedding but you clearly said decorated which indicates something extra. I'm not particularly interested in whether he would sell other objects to the couple. We both seem to agree that this is about the wedding.
What makes a "blank" wedding cake a "wedding cake" though?
On March 26 2018 12:51 Sermokala wrote: I'm reading through the cspan link now they're basically having the same argument we're having outside of the "you're just trying to justify your bigotry" nonsense.
Kagan makes some werid arguments about a chef being the same no idea where that was going.
Around 55 minutes the nazies come into the argument.
I am rather interested in what they come up for as the last line for art vs just general services. That part of the oral argument (just from transcript) I found fascinating. If a baker, why not a hairdresser? Florist? Chef? These are important lines to examine after concluding that at least a baker putting time and consultation into a custom cake for a marriage is protected by the constitution.
So that part's interesting in it's own right, even if some absurdity came up haha.
Of course that parts interesting. As I said, if you can refuse to make a wedding cake for a wedding because of religion, what's to stop a muslim doctor from not treating a christian? It's a slippery slope, and I don't think christians really want to set the precedent that a religion can be an excuse to discriminate.
What part of medically treating a human could be construed as "artistic expression" or "speech"? I don't see how this is a slippery slope at all.
Separately, I'm a bit confused at how anyone who (correctly, imo) finds injury for the gay couple in the baker's refusal to sell a wedding cake on the basis of sexual orientation simultaneously finds no injury on the part of the baker who, under the presently proposed solution, would be forced to endorse an action that he may genuinely believe may send the gay couple to hell. I could very easily imagine how baking such a cake, given such a belief, could cause significant emotional anguish.
I see injury on both sides here, and it's not clear to me how I or anyone else examining the matter is supposed to confidently decide which party should be forced to suffer.
On March 26 2018 12:51 Sermokala wrote: I'm reading through the cspan link now they're basically having the same argument we're having outside of the "you're just trying to justify your bigotry" nonsense.
Kagan makes some werid arguments about a chef being the same no idea where that was going.
Around 55 minutes the nazies come into the argument.
I am rather interested in what they come up for as the last line for art vs just general services. That part of the oral argument (just from transcript) I found fascinating. If a baker, why not a hairdresser? Florist? Chef? These are important lines to examine after concluding that at least a baker putting time and consultation into a custom cake for a marriage is protected by the constitution.
So that part's interesting in it's own right, even if some absurdity came up haha.
Of course that parts interesting. As I said, if you can refuse to make a wedding cake for a wedding because of religion, what's to stop a muslim doctor from not treating a christian? It's a slippery slope, and I don't think christians really want to set the precedent that a religion can be an excuse to discriminate.
The main thrust is still basically unanswered in this post of mine to you. He's not creating custom messages in his surgery that could offend religion. You earlier tried to argue that cake-making was just a procedure like a surgery was a procedure, but cake making is an act of artistic expression in a way that a surgical procedure is most definitely not.
Your point was false. The true slope to stick a line in is with other people that might legitimately view their tradecraft as art conveying a message ... florists, chefs, hairdressers ...
On March 26 2018 13:24 patrick321 wrote: Maybe there's something in that 10 minute youtube video i haven't finished yet but you made a claim that my source disproves and your newspaper sources doesn't support. The gay couple asked for nothing on their cake but were still refused.
That's not quite right either. They asked for a "wedding cake." What's the difference between a "wedding cake" and a "cake?" Could it be the artistic decoration?
Why do you think the couple themselves care so much that its a wedding cake? This case isn't about a case. It's about a crafted, individual expression encoded in socially symbolic terms.
Maybe there's no difference at all other then the price. It certainly doesn't seem to be "images symbolic of a gay wedding" as you claimed, though. This is the post you accused somebody else of being sloppy in, btw.
I'm not really sure what you think "images symbolic of a gay wedding" means, but it would seem to include the elements of a customized wedding cake for a gay wedding. So yeah, that is the post I said that. This isn't about a cake. It's about a wedding cake, and according to multiple accounts that I've read the baker says he would have been happy to sell them anything else in the shop.
Yes, i think 'images symbolic of a gay wedding' seems to be my major riff. To me it is very odd to describe a blank wedding cake as being "[decorated] with images symbolic of a gay wedding." One might argue that the cake itself is symbolic of a gay wedding but you clearly said decorated which indicates something extra. I'm not particularly interested in whether he would sell other objects to the couple. We both seem to agree that this is about the wedding.
What makes a "blank" wedding cake a wedding cake though?
I believe you want me to say that the difference between a wedding cake and a normal cake is its use. The baker clearly objects to the use of the cake. This seems to be a separate issue to 'decorated with images symbolic of a gay wedding' and so i'm unsure why you repeatedly bring it up.
To me your wording was highly misleading. It seemed to claim that the gay couple had requested things which they clearly did not. If this is what you meant then i suppose i'm fine with it but it seems sloppy. Thanks for walking through your thinking with me.
No I don't think it has anything necessarily to do with use, although it could. Do you not know what a "wedding cake" looks like? I think it has entirely to do with representation. I was making a point about expression and speech, remember?
In any case I'm not sure what would have happened if they had walked in and asked for 50 cupcakes or "three concentric circular cakes" that were frosted in "blank" white. The reality is further tainted by the fact that the gay couple apparently knew they were going in to push the limit to bring a court case, and the baker knew they were coming in to push the limit, so it's a bit of an open question what he thought they wanted, what they asked for, and what he might have sold them if they had gone in with the intention to actually negotiate for a wedding cake.
On March 26 2018 14:02 patrick321 wrote: Typically three concentric circular cakes, each placed atop the other. But as i said, i'm not sure where you're going with this.
Interestingly, the last wedding i went to used cupcakes.
The last wedding I went to used meat. like three circles of pork beef and chicken.
Basically I think the current legal status is that the person making the cake can refuse if the requested cake includes an expression that supports gay marriage or something against their religion.
Legally the government can force you to make a cake for nazies if they want to celebrate the night of the long knives if the message on the cake only refers to something such as "happy (insert date of long knives here)".
On March 26 2018 12:51 Sermokala wrote: I'm reading through the cspan link now they're basically having the same argument we're having outside of the "you're just trying to justify your bigotry" nonsense.
Kagan makes some werid arguments about a chef being the same no idea where that was going.
Around 55 minutes the nazies come into the argument.
I am rather interested in what they come up for as the last line for art vs just general services. That part of the oral argument (just from transcript) I found fascinating. If a baker, why not a hairdresser? Florist? Chef? These are important lines to examine after concluding that at least a baker putting time and consultation into a custom cake for a marriage is protected by the constitution.
So that part's interesting in it's own right, even if some absurdity came up haha.
Of course that parts interesting. As I said, if you can refuse to make a wedding cake for a wedding because of religion, what's to stop a muslim doctor from not treating a christian? It's a slippery slope, and I don't think christians really want to set the precedent that a religion can be an excuse to discriminate.
The main thrust is still basically unanswered in this post of mine to you. He's not creating custom messages in his surgery that could offend religion. You earlier tried to argue that cake-making was just a procedure like a surgery was a procedure, but cake making is an act of artistic expression in a way that a surgical procedure is most definitely not.
Your point was false. The true slope to stick a line in is with other people that might legitimately view their tradecraft as art conveying a message ... florists, chefs, hairdressers ...
And as I said, he is not artisitcally expressing himself by baking a cake. He is creating a product that he sells as a business, the same way that a hair dresser creates a product, the same way a lawyer creates a product, the same way a doctor creates a product. No one asked him to paint them a life size painting of two dudes banging. No one asked him to go to the wedding and tell everyone that he loves buggering. They asked him to simply bake a cake, which he as a business, sells.
On March 26 2018 12:51 Sermokala wrote: I'm reading through the cspan link now they're basically having the same argument we're having outside of the "you're just trying to justify your bigotry" nonsense.
Kagan makes some werid arguments about a chef being the same no idea where that was going.
Around 55 minutes the nazies come into the argument.
I am rather interested in what they come up for as the last line for art vs just general services. That part of the oral argument (just from transcript) I found fascinating. If a baker, why not a hairdresser? Florist? Chef? These are important lines to examine after concluding that at least a baker putting time and consultation into a custom cake for a marriage is protected by the constitution.
So that part's interesting in it's own right, even if some absurdity came up haha.
Of course that parts interesting. As I said, if you can refuse to make a wedding cake for a wedding because of religion, what's to stop a muslim doctor from not treating a christian? It's a slippery slope, and I don't think christians really want to set the precedent that a religion can be an excuse to discriminate.
The main thrust is still basically unanswered in this post of mine to you. He's not creating custom messages in his surgery that could offend religion. You earlier tried to argue that cake-making was just a procedure like a surgery was a procedure, but cake making is an act of artistic expression in a way that a surgical procedure is most definitely not.
Your point was false. The true slope to stick a line in is with other people that might legitimately view their tradecraft as art conveying a message ... florists, chefs, hairdressers ...
And as I said, he is not artisitcally expressing himself by baking a cake. He is creating a product that he sells as a business, the same way that a hair dresser creates a product, the same way a lawyer creates a product, the same way a doctor creates a product. No one asked him to paint them a life size painting of two dudes banging. No one asked him to go to the wedding and tell everyone that he loves buggering. They asked him to simply bake a cake, which he as a business, sells.
Woah chief. A baker baking a custom cake is not artistically expressing himself, just like a lawyer creates a product and a doctor creates a product? You're really, and I mean REALLY glossing over some big differences in trades here.
This is the second time you've chosen to use non descriptive terms like "business" and "product," as if using non descriptive terms means what's being described are so similar that no useful differences in this case can be pointed to. Whereas here, there are useful differences. "Products" does not come close to answering
Moving on, the muslim doctor is not drawing hearts and flowers and scriptural passages on a Christian man's chest. It isn't religious free expression. It isn't free speech. It's a procedure.
An ER doctor that refuses to treat someone of a different faith (say, coming in with a yarmulke) does not argue that he's right to discriminate against them because his medical practice is artwork protected by the first amendment. It's not the same situation.
What part of medically treating a human could be construed as "artistic expression" or "speech"? I don't see how this is a slippery slope at all.
I suggest you think about telling the forum why all products are the same, and baking a cake is not artistic expression, rather than repeating everything is a product every time someone points out a useful difference. You're doing an excellent job convincing people that you know the differences, and know they matter, but know admitting to them absolutely demolishes your argument.
On March 26 2018 12:51 Sermokala wrote: I'm reading through the cspan link now they're basically having the same argument we're having outside of the "you're just trying to justify your bigotry" nonsense.
Kagan makes some werid arguments about a chef being the same no idea where that was going.
Around 55 minutes the nazies come into the argument.
I am rather interested in what they come up for as the last line for art vs just general services. That part of the oral argument (just from transcript) I found fascinating. If a baker, why not a hairdresser? Florist? Chef? These are important lines to examine after concluding that at least a baker putting time and consultation into a custom cake for a marriage is protected by the constitution.
So that part's interesting in it's own right, even if some absurdity came up haha.
Of course that parts interesting. As I said, if you can refuse to make a wedding cake for a wedding because of religion, what's to stop a muslim doctor from not treating a christian? It's a slippery slope, and I don't think christians really want to set the precedent that a religion can be an excuse to discriminate.
The main thrust is still basically unanswered in this post of mine to you. He's not creating custom messages in his surgery that could offend religion. You earlier tried to argue that cake-making was just a procedure like a surgery was a procedure, but cake making is an act of artistic expression in a way that a surgical procedure is most definitely not.
Your point was false. The true slope to stick a line in is with other people that might legitimately view their tradecraft as art conveying a message ... florists, chefs, hairdressers ...
And as I said, he is not artisitcally expressing himself by baking a cake. He is creating a product that he sells as a business, the same way that a hair dresser creates a product, the same way a lawyer creates a product, the same way a doctor creates a product. No one asked him to paint them a life size painting of two dudes banging. No one asked him to go to the wedding and tell everyone that he loves buggering. They asked him to simply bake a cake, which he as a business, sells.
I don't know why you are so hung up on the baking of the cake. Its not the issue anyone is having a problem with at all. Its the decoration on the cake that the whole discussion is about. If the baker can be forced to decorate a cake for a gay wedding is what everyone is talking about when it comes to making a wedding cake.
On March 26 2018 12:05 hunts wrote: I just fail to see how religious people are being persecuted by being told that they as a business can't discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. Furthermore, I really don't think that christians want to bark up this tree, given how many people in the fields of law, health care, and other services are not christian. If you get to not sell a cake to a gay couple, then why does a muslim doctor have to treat a christian who he may see as an infidel? Why should a Jewish lawyer have to represent a neo nazi who he may see as an imbecile? Why would a gay accountant have to file taxes for a priest? Do you really want to start down the path of everyone being able to deny service to any group of people they dislike? Or should only christians get that privilage?
They're discriminating against their wedding ceremony on the basis that historically religions have treated them as major religious events. That's why it's a normal thing to have a religious exemption for. Sexual orientation or identity isn't very important, it's the religious ceremony that arises out of it. The pastor might speak to any homosexual person that comes by, and have a very different reason for not speaking at their gay wedding.
Moving on, the muslim doctor is not drawing hearts and flowers and scriptural passages on a Christian man's chest. It isn't religious free expression. It isn't free speech. It's a procedure.
The same doctor that would refuse to abort a baby because it goes against his religious beliefs would be one among millions of like-minded individuals that have done this for years. And hospitals staff accordingly.
An ER doctor that refuses to treat someone of a different faith (say, coming in with a yarmulke) does not argue that he's right to discriminate against them because his medical practice is artwork protected by the first amendment. It's not the same situation.
Baking a cake is also a procedure. No one asked the baker to come to the wedding, to bless the couple, or to have gay sex with them. No one asked him to say that gay marriage was ok, that gay sex was great, or that he worshipped satan the gay loving devil. He was asked to bake a cake, which was simply his job, and is a fairly simple procedure.
He wasn't just asked to bake a cake. You don't do yourself any favors with this sloppy, lazy arguing. He was asked to bake a cake and then decorate it with images symbolic of a gay wedding. He was happy to sell them an undecorated cake.
Was this a hypothetical you're talking about and i missed the opening of it? What you described is not at all how the supreme court case went.
The reason the nation’s high court is giving the case a second glance is Phillips’s First Amendment claim that he was not, in fact, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but on the basis of a particular message: endorsement of same-sex marriage. Phillips made it clear to the gay couple that he would happily sell them other items: birthday cakes, cookies, and so on. He welcomes LGBT customers; he is simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deems immoral.
Yet by all accounts, the happy couple did not ask Mr. Phillips for a cake bearing a message with which the baker might disagree — such as “God Bless This Gay Marriage,” as a group of First Amendment scholars hypothesized, or a rainbow flag. That could make for a harder case. Instead, the would-be customers stated only that they were seeking a wedding cake before Mr. Phillips said he could not serve them.
I'm sure i read a first-person breakdown of the event from one of the two defendants which confirms but this was the first google result. The first-person one that i recall basically went: 'we'd like to buy a cake' 'who's it for?' 'us!' 'no can do'
Your own supporting evidence even affirms that the 'message' the cake artisan disagreed with was the wedding itself and not anything about the cake.
So you think he is lying and wouldn't have sold them any cake that they could decorate themselves?
I'm curious as to why the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" on the door of all these places hasn't really been discussed. Could the baker have just refused services on that stance, as opposed to making it open that the reason for refusal of service was that the couple was gay?
Because all the liberals fell into Danglars rhetorical trap and refuse to remove themselves from it (and IgnE is having his usual fun).
The last 5+ pages were over an argument Danglars wasn't really making.
The baker was perfectly within their rights not to sell a gay couple a custom cake for their gay wedding. Which should be the starting point of this conversation. Instead, inexplicably everyone has accepted the false premise that the baker is being forced to provide his service for gay weddings he thinks binds the participants to hell (which outside of established religion would get you committed).
The baker CAN LEGALLY REFUSE to provide his service to gay couple's weddings. We really shouldn't have another post presuming the opposite as a starting point.
On March 26 2018 12:05 hunts wrote: I just fail to see how religious people are being persecuted by being told that they as a business can't discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. Furthermore, I really don't think that christians want to bark up this tree, given how many people in the fields of law, health care, and other services are not christian. If you get to not sell a cake to a gay couple, then why does a muslim doctor have to treat a christian who he may see as an infidel? Why should a Jewish lawyer have to represent a neo nazi who he may see as an imbecile? Why would a gay accountant have to file taxes for a priest? Do you really want to start down the path of everyone being able to deny service to any group of people they dislike? Or should only christians get that privilage?
They're discriminating against their wedding ceremony on the basis that historically religions have treated them as major religious events. That's why it's a normal thing to have a religious exemption for. Sexual orientation or identity isn't very important, it's the religious ceremony that arises out of it. The pastor might speak to any homosexual person that comes by, and have a very different reason for not speaking at their gay wedding.
Moving on, the muslim doctor is not drawing hearts and flowers and scriptural passages on a Christian man's chest. It isn't religious free expression. It isn't free speech. It's a procedure.
The same doctor that would refuse to abort a baby because it goes against his religious beliefs would be one among millions of like-minded individuals that have done this for years. And hospitals staff accordingly.
An ER doctor that refuses to treat someone of a different faith (say, coming in with a yarmulke) does not argue that he's right to discriminate against them because his medical practice is artwork protected by the first amendment. It's not the same situation.
Baking a cake is also a procedure. No one asked the baker to come to the wedding, to bless the couple, or to have gay sex with them. No one asked him to say that gay marriage was ok, that gay sex was great, or that he worshipped satan the gay loving devil. He was asked to bake a cake, which was simply his job, and is a fairly simple procedure.
He wasn't just asked to bake a cake. You don't do yourself any favors with this sloppy, lazy arguing. He was asked to bake a cake and then decorate it with images symbolic of a gay wedding. He was happy to sell them an undecorated cake.
Was this a hypothetical you're talking about and i missed the opening of it? What you described is not at all how the supreme court case went.
The reason the nation’s high court is giving the case a second glance is Phillips’s First Amendment claim that he was not, in fact, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but on the basis of a particular message: endorsement of same-sex marriage. Phillips made it clear to the gay couple that he would happily sell them other items: birthday cakes, cookies, and so on. He welcomes LGBT customers; he is simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deems immoral.
Yet by all accounts, the happy couple did not ask Mr. Phillips for a cake bearing a message with which the baker might disagree — such as “God Bless This Gay Marriage,” as a group of First Amendment scholars hypothesized, or a rainbow flag. That could make for a harder case. Instead, the would-be customers stated only that they were seeking a wedding cake before Mr. Phillips said he could not serve them.
I'm sure i read a first-person breakdown of the event from one of the two defendants which confirms but this was the first google result. The first-person one that i recall basically went: 'we'd like to buy a cake' 'who's it for?' 'us!' 'no can do'
Your own supporting evidence even affirms that the 'message' the cake artisan disagreed with was the wedding itself and not anything about the cake.
So you think he is lying and wouldn't have sold them any cake that they could decorate themselves?
I'm curious as to why the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" on the door of all these places hasn't really been discussed. Could the baker have just refused services on that stance, as opposed to making it open that the reason for refusal of service was that the couple was gay?
Because all the liberals fell into Danglars rhetorical trap and refuse to remove themselves from it (and IgnE is having his usual fun).
The last 5+ pages were over an argument Danglars wasn't really making.
The baker was perfectly within their rights not to sell a gay couple a custom cake for their gay wedding. Which should be the starting point of this conversation. Instead, inexplicably everyone has accepted the false premise that the baker is being forced to provide his service for gay weddings he thinks binds the participants to hell (which outside of established religion would get you committed).
The baker CAN LEGALLY REFUSE to provide his service to gay couple's weddings. We really shouldn't have another post presuming the opposite as a starting point.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that it was not legal for the baker to refuse. Then the Colorado Court of Appeals also upheld the lower courts decision. Now the case is in front of the Supreme Court. You can't say that the baker can legally refuse when it was ruled twice against him that he cannot.
On March 26 2018 12:16 Danglars wrote: [quote] They're discriminating against their wedding ceremony on the basis that historically religions have treated them as major religious events. That's why it's a normal thing to have a religious exemption for. Sexual orientation or identity isn't very important, it's the religious ceremony that arises out of it. The pastor might speak to any homosexual person that comes by, and have a very different reason for not speaking at their gay wedding.
Moving on, the muslim doctor is not drawing hearts and flowers and scriptural passages on a Christian man's chest. It isn't religious free expression. It isn't free speech. It's a procedure.
The same doctor that would refuse to abort a baby because it goes against his religious beliefs would be one among millions of like-minded individuals that have done this for years. And hospitals staff accordingly.
An ER doctor that refuses to treat someone of a different faith (say, coming in with a yarmulke) does not argue that he's right to discriminate against them because his medical practice is artwork protected by the first amendment. It's not the same situation.
Baking a cake is also a procedure. No one asked the baker to come to the wedding, to bless the couple, or to have gay sex with them. No one asked him to say that gay marriage was ok, that gay sex was great, or that he worshipped satan the gay loving devil. He was asked to bake a cake, which was simply his job, and is a fairly simple procedure.
He wasn't just asked to bake a cake. You don't do yourself any favors with this sloppy, lazy arguing. He was asked to bake a cake and then decorate it with images symbolic of a gay wedding. He was happy to sell them an undecorated cake.
Was this a hypothetical you're talking about and i missed the opening of it? What you described is not at all how the supreme court case went.
The reason the nation’s high court is giving the case a second glance is Phillips’s First Amendment claim that he was not, in fact, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but on the basis of a particular message: endorsement of same-sex marriage. Phillips made it clear to the gay couple that he would happily sell them other items: birthday cakes, cookies, and so on. He welcomes LGBT customers; he is simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deems immoral.
Yet by all accounts, the happy couple did not ask Mr. Phillips for a cake bearing a message with which the baker might disagree — such as “God Bless This Gay Marriage,” as a group of First Amendment scholars hypothesized, or a rainbow flag. That could make for a harder case. Instead, the would-be customers stated only that they were seeking a wedding cake before Mr. Phillips said he could not serve them.
I'm sure i read a first-person breakdown of the event from one of the two defendants which confirms but this was the first google result. The first-person one that i recall basically went: 'we'd like to buy a cake' 'who's it for?' 'us!' 'no can do'
Your own supporting evidence even affirms that the 'message' the cake artisan disagreed with was the wedding itself and not anything about the cake.
So you think he is lying and wouldn't have sold them any cake that they could decorate themselves?
I'm curious as to why the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" on the door of all these places hasn't really been discussed. Could the baker have just refused services on that stance, as opposed to making it open that the reason for refusal of service was that the couple was gay?
Because all the liberals fell into Danglars rhetorical trap and refuse to remove themselves from it (and IgnE is having his usual fun).
The last 5+ pages were over an argument Danglars wasn't really making.
The baker was perfectly within their rights not to sell a gay couple a custom cake for their gay wedding. Which should be the starting point of this conversation. Instead, inexplicably everyone has accepted the false premise that the baker is being forced to provide his service for gay weddings he thinks binds the participants to hell (which outside of established religion would get you committed).
The baker CAN LEGALLY REFUSE to provide his service to gay couple's weddings. We really shouldn't have another post presuming the opposite as a starting point.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that it was not legal for the baker to refuse. Then the Colorado Court of Appeals also upheld the lower courts decision. Now the case is in front of the Supreme Court. You can't say that the baker can legally refuse when it was ruled twice against him that he cannot.
No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. What makes it illegal is rubbing their face in it.
He just as easily could have just said "No, I chose not to provide you/them service" and it would be over and done with.
On March 26 2018 12:51 Sermokala wrote: I'm reading through the cspan link now they're basically having the same argument we're having outside of the "you're just trying to justify your bigotry" nonsense.
Kagan makes some werid arguments about a chef being the same no idea where that was going.
Around 55 minutes the nazies come into the argument.
I am rather interested in what they come up for as the last line for art vs just general services. That part of the oral argument (just from transcript) I found fascinating. If a baker, why not a hairdresser? Florist? Chef? These are important lines to examine after concluding that at least a baker putting time and consultation into a custom cake for a marriage is protected by the constitution.
So that part's interesting in it's own right, even if some absurdity came up haha.
Of course that parts interesting. As I said, if you can refuse to make a wedding cake for a wedding because of religion, what's to stop a muslim doctor from not treating a christian? It's a slippery slope, and I don't think christians really want to set the precedent that a religion can be an excuse to discriminate.
What part of medically treating a human could be construed as "artistic expression" or "speech"? I don't see how this is a slippery slope at all.
Separately, I'm a bit confused at how anyone who (correctly, imo) finds injury for the gay couple in the baker's refusal to sell a wedding cake on the basis of sexual orientation simultaneously finds no injury on the part of the baker who, under the presently proposed solution, would be forced to endorse an action that he may genuinely believe may send the gay couple to hell. I could very easily imagine how baking such a cake, given such a belief, could cause significant emotional anguish.
I see injury on both sides here, and it's not clear to me how I or anyone else examining the matter is supposed to confidently decide which party should be forced to suffer.
That's not quite how the slippery slope functions. You're thinking in too narrow a manner.
If we accept that deeply held religious beliefs are an excuse not to do your job which you earn money for in the public sphere, it is - potentially - applicable to far more situations than a baker. This has a real life example; the woman in America who refused to give a marriage license to a gay couple. Kim Davis, was it? Now let's hypothetically say every single employee of every single office in that state is as religiously dedicated as her. No gay couples in that state could ever get a marriage license, because every single employee would refuse to serve them.
Now the court ruled firmly against her, but had they not, that's the slippery slope case you're potentially looking at. And what could anyone do? They would be legally permitted, on grounds of their religion, to refuse service. Doesn't matter that it would amount to state-authorised wide scale discrimination.
If the logic did work for Davis - it did not - then you could theoretically make the same argument if you're a Doctor.
One of the main issues you run into in these scenarios is religious people often forgetting that laws favouring them don't only work in favour of their religion, but someone else's as well, and not all religions are very nice, or have some odd edges. I remember getting into a discussion with a UK Christian about why he felt it was unfair to prevent certain rules being applied in majority Christian areas since it would have no impact on anyone but Christians (and therefore a wholly positive impact), he had an 'ooooooh' moment when I pointed out the same argument would allow Muslims to apply Sharia Law in Muslim neighbourhoods.
Baking a cake is also a procedure. No one asked the baker to come to the wedding, to bless the couple, or to have gay sex with them. No one asked him to say that gay marriage was ok, that gay sex was great, or that he worshipped satan the gay loving devil. He was asked to bake a cake, which was simply his job, and is a fairly simple procedure.
He wasn't just asked to bake a cake. You don't do yourself any favors with this sloppy, lazy arguing. He was asked to bake a cake and then decorate it with images symbolic of a gay wedding. He was happy to sell them an undecorated cake.
Was this a hypothetical you're talking about and i missed the opening of it? What you described is not at all how the supreme court case went.
The reason the nation’s high court is giving the case a second glance is Phillips’s First Amendment claim that he was not, in fact, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, but on the basis of a particular message: endorsement of same-sex marriage. Phillips made it clear to the gay couple that he would happily sell them other items: birthday cakes, cookies, and so on. He welcomes LGBT customers; he is simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deems immoral.
Yet by all accounts, the happy couple did not ask Mr. Phillips for a cake bearing a message with which the baker might disagree — such as “God Bless This Gay Marriage,” as a group of First Amendment scholars hypothesized, or a rainbow flag. That could make for a harder case. Instead, the would-be customers stated only that they were seeking a wedding cake before Mr. Phillips said he could not serve them.
I'm sure i read a first-person breakdown of the event from one of the two defendants which confirms but this was the first google result. The first-person one that i recall basically went: 'we'd like to buy a cake' 'who's it for?' 'us!' 'no can do'
Your own supporting evidence even affirms that the 'message' the cake artisan disagreed with was the wedding itself and not anything about the cake.
So you think he is lying and wouldn't have sold them any cake that they could decorate themselves?
I'm curious as to why the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" on the door of all these places hasn't really been discussed. Could the baker have just refused services on that stance, as opposed to making it open that the reason for refusal of service was that the couple was gay?
Because all the liberals fell into Danglars rhetorical trap and refuse to remove themselves from it (and IgnE is having his usual fun).
The last 5+ pages were over an argument Danglars wasn't really making.
The baker was perfectly within their rights not to sell a gay couple a custom cake for their gay wedding. Which should be the starting point of this conversation. Instead, inexplicably everyone has accepted the false premise that the baker is being forced to provide his service for gay weddings he thinks binds the participants to hell (which outside of established religion would get you committed).
The baker CAN LEGALLY REFUSE to provide his service to gay couple's weddings. We really shouldn't have another post presuming the opposite as a starting point.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that it was not legal for the baker to refuse. Then the Colorado Court of Appeals also upheld the lower courts decision. Now the case is in front of the Supreme Court. You can't say that the baker can legally refuse when it was ruled twice against him that he cannot.
No, he was within his rights to refuse, and within his rights to refuse on the basis of not providing their service for a gay couple's wedding. What makes it illegal is rubbing their face in it.
He just as easily could have just said "No, I chose not to provide you/them service" and it would be over and done with.
Just because you don't provide a reason for refusing to provide service does not mean that it's not illegal. This is a myth. Yes, not providing a reason makes it a lot harder to prove that you're discriminating, but if for instance a dentist only ever refuses his services to black people, even if he never states why, he's going to lose that case.
You are allowed to refuse services to anyone for any non discriminatory reasons tho. So it all comes back to having to prove it was discrimination, which quickly becomes difficult if he/she refuses to say why.
Of course the baker in this case made it all that much easier by admitting to it.
EPT
