Can the government make me decorate a cake?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If a business-owner's "ideals" are to discriminate against the classes included in the public accommodations laws, then he should find another business. He is obviously unable to conduct his business in the way that the law requires.

Or, let him deal with the consequences of being a bigot and a scofflaw.

Or find another country more compatible with religious beliefs that are antithetical to Americanism and its bedrock tenets.

It's like someone who can't resist stealing money working in a bank.

To make the analogy even more apt, let's add that his religion requires him to steal money. Does it matter if he objects to being fired and/or arrested for so doing, or calls it religious persecution?

Maybe the boundaries of what is meant by freedom of religion need to be discussed and specified more clearly.I would grant the religious the right to believe what they like, pray if they like, read their Bibles if they like, wear religious symbols if they like, ask others if they'd like to hear about their faith, and congregate in their private spaces to fellowship, sing hymns, listen to a sermon, etc.. Perhaps there would be more if I thought about it more.

But just about everything else that the religious claim for themselves as their rights because of their beliefs can still be called illegal or actionable. The state makes the rules, not the individual adherent or his church.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I find it pathetic that several decades ago we said "no discrimination" and made it clear that no excuse was valid (and indeed there was religious-based reasons for racial discrimination), but yet today we find these "special snowflake all about me" Christians who want to put the rights and liberties of other's legally beneath their religious-based hatred.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Christ, the Messiah to Christians, he turned no one away. Now, answer me this: Why do Christians feel it is their right, and obligation even, to turn certain people away?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I agree that it is a legal requirement to sell cakes to people who ask for them << not creative/expression
But how is it a legal requirement to create a design for something I disagree with?

In what sense is the baker creating a design making a cake? Just make one from his book of pictures of cakes already designed, or one according to the customer's specifications (customer's design), and put the words and the plastic couple the customer gives you on the cake. No creative decisions by the baker are needed.

This argument reminds me of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead.

 

[Nous]

It isn't a "government intrusion" into anyone's "life, worldview, ethics [or] beliefs" to have to abide by public accommodation anti-discrimination laws.

Yes, actually it is.

No, it isn't A bigot can have all of his bigotted beliefs while abiding by anti-discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services.

To be discriminated against in public accommodations is not merely a humiliating event where, for instance, one has to walk out of a restaurant after being publicly shamed ("We don't serve f*** like you"; We don't want any n****** in here"), it can lead to devastating consequences, such as in the case of Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US.

 

[Nous]

I find it pathetic that several decades ago we said "no discrimination" and made it clear that no excuse was valid (and indeed there was religious-based reasons for racial discrimination), but yet today we find these "special snowflake all about me" Christians who want to put the rights and liberties of other's legally beneath their religious-based hatred.

Indeed, it's kind of exhausting to have to fight the same battle decade after decade, one group after another.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Does one person's right to be offended about discrimination over a cake overrule another person's right to be offended by their lifestyle?

Legal right? Yes, at least in America. The law has spoken about which party has which rights.

You cannot force someone to go against their conscience or religious convictions....even legally.

You can't change their opinions legally or any other way, but you can force them to obey the law or suffer the consequences.

There might be penalties imposed, but that is why Christians chose martyrdom over compromise. It takes courage to have convictions.

There you go. If you put this issue to the test - and America is in the process of doing that right now - I'd bet you'd find that people martyr their businesses less often than they comply with the law. I suspect that these are not principles that people would die over or even lose a business over. Let's see how many more bakers are willing to fall on their swords now that they better understand the cost of so doing.

I think we'll find that this is a matter of ignorance and bigotry, not conscience. Muhammad Ali went to prison over his conscientious objection to military service. Will these bakers do the equivalent?

 

[Nous]

In what sense is the baker creating a design making a cake? Just make one from his book of pictures of cakes already designed, or one according to the customer's specifications (customer's design), and put the words and the plastic couple the customer gives you on the cake. No creative decisions by the baker are needed.

Good point. And regardless of what sort of artistic expression cake bakers, florists or wedding photographers claim to be engaging in, the fact is they are still providing a product to the public.

Interestingly, the claim of compelled expressive activity in defense of discriminating against same-sex couples cannot apply to venue-owners who have similarly discriminated.

In any case, unless something unforeseen happens, Masterpiece is going to be Kennedy's case. He has cast the deciding vote and delievered every opinion regarding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And this case is essentially a slam-dunk anyway. If there were a Free Exercise right to discriminate against same-sex couples in public accommodations, then there is a Free Exercise right to discriminate against Muslims at interstate motels. It isn't going to happen. To rule in favor of Phillips essentially invalidates all state and federal public accommodations laws. It isn't going to happen.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I was speaking about being forced to do something against your conscience. For example....if a government forced conscription on its 20 year olds and some because of conscience towards God refused to join the military, they cannot be forced to do something against their conscience

Actually, the law can penalize them for their actions whether they claim that the law violates their conscience or not.

A higher law applies here...the law of God.

America recognizes no such law. Does Australia?

In America, one is free to blaspheme, be an atheist, disobey parents, covet your neighbor's wife, and work on the Sabbath. Those are all violations of biblical commandments, and all perfectly legal.

I have no problem with gay people doing whatever they wish, as long as they don't interfere with my right to believe that what they are doing is a violation of God's law regarding marriage.

Feel free to believe that. Act on it at your own risk.

He will never sanction their "marriages" no matter what human laws are passed to legalize them.

Once again, that is irrelevant to many if not most people. These are marriages, not "marriages." Your religious beliefs simply don't matter to anybody but you.

What would you say if you learned that Zeus didn't sanction your marriage? That's what non-Christians say to your comment.

 

[icehorse]

Indeed, it's kind of exhausting to have to fight the same battle decade after decade, one group after another.

So do you agree with the Hobby Lobby decision, I certainly do not.

 

[Nous]

So do you agree with the Hobby Lobby decision, I certainly do not.

No, I don't. That case is unrelated to Masterpiece Cakeshop. The controlling case law is different in the two cases--as you know if you were to read and understand the decisions I provided links to.

Nevertheless, in his 10th Circuit concurrence, Gorsuch makes a very succinct argument as to why that provision of the ACA did not survive strict scrutiny, one reason being that there is a less burdensome means to bring about the same result: the government can provide those types of post-implantation contraceptives that owners of closely-held businesses object to funding. And as far as I have been able to discover, Hobby Lobby and Mardel are the only companies that have objected to providing such contraceptives.

 

[icehorse]

No, I don't. That case is unrelated to Masterpiece Cakeshop. The controlling case law is different in the two cases--as you know if you were to read and understand the decisions I provided links to.

Nevertheless, in his 10th Circuit concurrence, Gorsuch makes a very succinct argument as to why that provision of the ACA did not survive strict scrutiny, one reason being that there is a less burdensome means to bring about the same result: the government can provide those types of post-implantation contraceptives that owners of closely-held businesses object to funding. And as far as I have been able to discover, Hobby Lobby and Mardel are the only companies that have objected to providing such contraceptives.

I'm surmising that you're either a lawyer, or you've studied law. I really have not, so I don't have to credentials to understand the links you provided.

That said, what I take away from this post is that in the Hobby Lobby case the court didn't directly address the question of separation of church and state, instead they found a technicality that would be less momentous to rule on?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There you go. If you put this issue to the test - and America is in the process of doing that right now - I'd bet you'd find that people martyr their businesses less often than they comply with the law. I suspect that these are not principles that people would die over or even lose a business over. Let's see how many more bakers are willing to fall on their swords now that they better understand the cost of so doing.

Or they just get a crap ton of money from supporters when they boast they aren't going to serve ****.

 

[Nous]

I'm surmising that you're either a lawyer, or you've studied law. I really have not, so I don't have to credentials to understand the links you provided.

That said, what I take away from this post is that in the Hobby Lobby case the court didn't directly address the question of separation of church and state, instead they found a technicality that would be less momentous to rule on?

Did you actually try to read those decisions? I know lots of people who aren't lawyers yet who can understand court opinions such as those. And the syllabus always provides a good summary. In this case:

Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49.​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

There's nothing difficult to understand about that sentence, is there?

If you actually read the decisions, you will have noticed that none of them mentioned the phrase "separation of church and state". Right?

 

[chickenranch]

So much here to digest - many good questions and input as well - thanks especially to @Nous for providing a legal perspective. I have to read everything now!

 

[Deeje]

If you put this issue to the test - and America is in the process of doing that right now - I'd bet you'd find that people martyr their businesses less often than they comply with the law. I suspect that these are not principles that people would die over or even lose a business over. Let's see how many more bakers are willing to fall on their swords now that they better understand the cost of so doing.

I think we'll find that this is a matter of ignorance and bigotry, not conscience. Muhammad Ali went to prison over his conscientious objection to military service. Will these bakers do the equivalent?

If the bakers have a love of God and a respect for his laws, then nothing will induce them to go against it. If they ignore God's laws to avoid punishment, then they have a lot to learn about the Christian martyrs who chose death rather than to put a pinch of incense on the alter as an act of worship to the emperor. God's laws are not negotiable.

America recognizes no such law. Does Australia?

In America, one is free to blaspheme, be an atheist, disobey parents, covet your neighbor's wife, and work on the Sabbath. Those are all violations of biblical commandments, and all perfectly legal.

Australia is probably more secular than America. Religion is all but dead here. It is perfectly legal to do all kinds of things and will soon, no doubt, have SSM. The legality of something doesn't mean its a good idea.....only to some. We have taken the UN's "International Rights of the Child" charter and created a whole generation of spoiled brats that no one can discipline. Young teens can leave the safety of their parents' home and live in a drug den if they choose to. Parents have no rights and no say. These kids have all the rights and no responsibility for anything they do. What a great law! It was originally designed to protect exploited children in third world nations......but the exploitation continues almost 40 years after the charter was ratified. The only children who benefited were the ones who learned how to abuse their new rights.

Once again, that is irrelevant to many if not most people. These are marriages, not "marriages." Your religious beliefs simply don't matter to anybody but you.

"Marriage" is God's arrangement and it will never be allowed to be tainted by those who believe that what they want overrides what God's word says. People are free to ignore all of God's laws for now....but I believe that the day of reckoning is fast approaching. You can choose not to believe that.....we all have free will and can exercise it any way we want. That is how we demonstrate who we really are.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If the bakers have a love of God and a respect for his laws, then nothing will induce them to go against it. If they ignore God's laws to avoid punishment, then they have a lot to learn about the Christian martyrs who chose death rather than to put a pinch of incense on the alter as an act of worship to the emperor. God's laws are not negotiable.

They aren't having homosexual sex themselves, they aren't even giving the wedding their blessing. I do not understand how making a cake for a particular group violates god's laws.

We have taken the UN's "International Rights of the Child" charter and created a whole generation of spoiled brats that no one can discipline. Young teens can leave the safety of their parents' home and live in a drug den if they choose to. Parents have no rights and no say.

UN stuff has no legal binding powers.

"Marriage" is God's arrangement and it will never be allowed to be tainted by those who believe that what they want overrides what God's word says.

Cool! Now just treat those who believe differently with the same basic level of dignity and respect that people deserve (it's certainly far more Christ-like than judging them, turning away, and knocking things off you shelf with that mote in your eye).

 

[Deeje]

They aren't having homosexual sex themselves, they aren't even giving the wedding their blessing. I do not understand how making a cake for a particular group violates god's laws.

It's offering tacit consent to the "marriage". I for one could not do that. That is what my conscience would dictate. I do not care what lifestyle homosexuals choose because it has nothing to do with me....but if they involve me in it by demanding that I do something that indicates that I condone their "marriage".....then that is something I could not consent to.

Romans 1: 24, 26,27,32..... "Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. . . .
That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error. . . .
Although these know full well the righteous decree of God—that those practicing such things are deserving of death—they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them."

It's not just that you are making a special cake to celebrate a union that God would never condone, but giving tacit consent to their partnership by giving them something to mark the occasion. It would look like approval and my conscience would be bothered. But since I don't own a bakery, its not my problem.

It is different if someone buys a cake and then decorates it at home with whatever they like....but to ask someone to violate their conscience by threatening them with the full weight of the law if they refuse to do something that makes them feel uncomfortable.....how can you make up for one person's discomfort by forcing someone else to do something equally uncomfortable for them?

Let them look for another baker who has no qualms about SSM. There is even a career opportunity for gays catering to the needs of other gays....wouldn't that solve the problem more amicably? Better than bullying people into submission isn't it?

UN stuff has no legal binding powers.

AFAIK If a member nation has ratified a UN Charter, it is legally binding.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's not just that you are making a special cake to celebrate a union that God would never condone, but giving tacit consent to their partnership by giving them something to mark the occasion. It would look like approval and my conscience would be bothered. But since I don't own a bakery, its not my problem.

Guess what? When you serve the public, there are going to be those you disagree with and do things you find questionable and immoral. You still have to serve them.You don't get to pick and choose whom you serve. Plus there is also the issue that Jesus not once turned anyone away, but rather to the contrary he humbled himself before the sinners and society's lowest and washed their feet. What about saying "we don't serve your kind here" reflects Jesus' ways and teachings?

It is different if someone buys a cake and then decorates it at home with whatever they like....

It's no different because they would still be giving the person the same exact things, except the added bonus of very terrible customer service.

Let them look for another baker who has no qualms about SSM. There is even a career opportunity for gays catering to the needs of other gays....wouldn't that solve the problem more amicably? Better than bullying people into submission isn't it?

Except that's a terrible idea. Society works better when people put aside their differences and work together.

AFAIK If a member nation has ratified a UN Charter, it is legally binding.

UN charters are not legally binding, not for members, not for non members.

 

[Nous]

So much here to digest - many good questions and input as well - thanks especially to @Nous for providing a legal perspective. I have to read everything now!

You're welcome. Obviously you will have no problem understanding the court opinions.