"Is Religious Freedom in the U.S. Broken Beyond Repair?"

[Jainarayan]

Two witnesses. I have myself and God testifying that it is sin.

But US law doesn't recognize your God or the concept of sin. For that matter neither does this US taxpayer.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I can see what you're saying, and I agree that both sides could have taken a more reasonable path and not waste the Court's time.

But I was addressing the point that the US government is causing "damage" or imposing "hardship" on the private sector, which doesn't appear to be true. As I wrote above, it may be a bit ego-deflating for a business owner to be ordered to do something that he does every day anyway, but is it any great "hardship"? I don't think so. Is there any "damage" to the baker? Of course not. Just because he chooses to be offended, that's on him, but as I said, "being offended" does not cause any damage or hardship.

I can also understand the arguments related to free markets, business owners, and property rights, but philosophically, I don't entirely agree with the idea that just because someone owns a business, it becomes their own personal fiefdom. No man is an island, and sometimes we have to go along to get along.

Thank you for being so agreeable.

I think where we see things differently on this issue is twofold:
1. The distinction between one's religious principles being violated and "being offended"
2. I stand by my belief that as long as an owner is obeying the law, he ought to be able to run his business in whatever way he sees fit, and if he refuses to "go along to get along", he'll feel the pain of customers not spending money in his establishment.

 

[Jose Fly]

Civil Rights Act of 1964

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.


Nothing in the above text suggests a cakeshop that is not also a restaurant, cafe, or otherwise a "facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises" would be subject to section 201 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Thanks for looking that up. From what I've read on the subject, the interpretation of that law has been that "most public accommodations include almost any business that is open to the public, especially in the context of enforcing anti-discrimination laws."

For example, a bank that refused to serve interracial couples......would it be charged with violating the Civil Rights Act?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your example deals with a type of discrimination which is legal in many jurisdictions.

It's not discrimination. Are employee discounts discrimination, or a benefit? If someone wants to give a discount to a certain group, such as veterans, students, company employees, or coupon holders, big whoop. No one is being charged extra. However, if the sign says $30 but someone is charged $40 because they dropped out of high school that is discrimination.

And this is exactly the problem. Religious fundies and their ilk continually insist on sticking their noses into personal issues that don't affect them one bit. It's an arrogant, self centered attitude that smacks of a psychological disorder: "I need people to behave as I see fit."

.

.

No, it doesn't "smack of a psychological disorder." Arrogance, yes, self-centered, yes, a feeling of undue superiority, yes, but your armchair diagnosis has no basis in psychiatry or fact. A child isn't mentally ill because they have not yet learned that they cannot always have their way. But, in this case, Conservative Christians are finding their influence and control over society after over a century of having such control over to be diminishing, and, yes, it's coming as a shock to them. They are very used to running the show, and are having difficulty acknowledging that society is changing, America is swinging back towards its secular roots, and they having to share society with those they disagree with. It doesn't mean they have anything that resembles or suggests a psychological disorder, rather, they are reflecting the old adage that those in power don't like giving it up.

I can almost understand a baker not wanting to put Best Wishes to Sean & Jeremy on Their Wedding on a cake.

If you go into such a business that would take special requests, oh well. That is a part of their service to the public, so they have no excuse for refusing to do that. They shouldn't punish others over their own lack of foresight that they may be put into such a position, and it most certainly is not Sean & Jeremy's fault, and they shouldn't be refused service because the baker failed to realize when they open shop they serve the public. By its very nature, servicing the public means you are going to be serving, probably on a daily basis, people who hold positions, lifestyles, beliefs, and other features and characteristics you don't like or agree with. But when you open shop, your job isn't that of a moral judge, it's to serve the public, your customers who patronize your shop.

 

[Jainarayan]

If you go into such a business that would take special requests, oh well. That is a part of their service to the public, so they have no excuse for refusing to do that. They shouldn't punish others over their own lack of foresight that they may be put into such a position, and it most certainly is not Sean & Jeremy's fault, and they shouldn't be refused service because the baker failed to realize when they open shop they serve the public. By its very nature, servicing the public means you are going to be serving, probably on a daily basis, people who hold positions, lifestyles, beliefs, and other features and characteristics you don't like or agree with. But when you open shop, your job isn't that of a moral judge, it's to serve the public, your customers who patronize your shop.

I agree. I think it's reprehensible. When I said I can almost understand, that's only from his perspective as a closed-minded bigot. I don't agree with it at all. Although the 1964 CRA doesn't seem to include small businesses I'll bet that either through this case or another in the very near future, this type of discrimination will become a thing of the past. Though not without challenges. The most blatant and defiant example was Kim Davis... I mean, she's a public servant in a government job, and she defied the government.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Thanks for looking that up. From what I've read on the subject, the interpretation of that law has been that "most public accommodations include almost any business that is open to the public, especially in the context of enforcing anti-discrimination laws."

For example, a bank that refused to serve interracial couples......would it be charged with violating the Civil Rights Act?

I believe it would, and I believe it should, and while I grant you that it's not explicitly written into the text of the law and would be the result of interpretation of the law, (and I'm not even going to focus on the fact that sexual orientation isn't included in section 201 at all) we have to come face to face with the word "almost".

I believe people who create custom goods or provide customized services ought to have some veto power over what they create.
If an African American cakeshop owner refused to customize a birthday cake for David Duke, I would be ok with that.
If a Native American cakeshop owner refused to customize a Columbus Day celebration cake, I would be ok with that.
If a homosexual cakeshop owner refused to customize a wedding cake for a Catholic wedding, I would be ok with that.
If a Mexican cakeshop owner refused to customize any sort of a cake for Donald Trump, I would be ok with that.

And if I get married one day and any cakeshop owner refuses to customize a cake for me because I'm Jewish, I'll write the guy a negative review wherever I think such a review will be seen, and I'll take my business elsewhere.

 

[Skwim]

No, it doesn't "smack of a psychological disorder." Arrogance, yes, self-centered, yes, a feeling of undue superiority, yes, but your armchair diagnosis has no basis in psychiatry or fact. A child isn't mentally ill because they have not yet learned that they cannot always have their way.

"No basis in psychiatry or fact" you say, which implies your qualified to make such a assessment, meaning that either you're a psychiatrist or have a PhD in social psychology. Neither of which I'd bet any money on.

In any case I gotta disagree. I see their attitude as "I need people to behave as I see fit," and as such it does smack of a psychological disorder. Ask yourself, is it at all normal to need people to behave as one sees fit? I say it isn't---it's abnormal---and anyone who does seems to have (smacks of) a psychological disorder. It may not seem that way to you, and that's quite alright, but let's not be pulling pretentious stuff like "your armchair diagnosis has no basis in psychiatry or fact" when we both know you know no such thing.


.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not discrimination.

Any kind of intentional disparate effect is discrimination.
Much discrimination is legal.
Some is illegal.

Are employee discounts discrimination, or a benefit?

This benefit is a kind of discrimination which is legal because non-employees are not a protected group.

If someone wants to give a discount to a certain group, such as veterans, students, company employees, or coupon holders, big whoop.

I infer that you're saying such discrimination doesn't matter.
That's not really the driving issue here.
But even de minimis discrimination is illegal everywhere if based upon federal criteria.

No one is being charged extra. However, if the sign says $30 but someone is charged $40 because they dropped out of high school that is discrimination.
No, it doesn't "smack of a psychological disorder." Arrogance, yes, self-centered, yes, a feeling of undue superiority, yes, but your armchair diagnosis has no basis in psychiatry or fact. A child isn't mentally ill because they have not yet learned that they cannot always have their way. But, in this case, Conservative Christians are finding their influence and control over society after over a century of having such control over to be diminishing, and, yes, it's coming as a shock to them. They are very used to running the show, and are having difficulty acknowledging that society is changing, America is swinging back towards its secular roots, and they having to share society with those they disagree with. It doesn't mean they have anything that resembles or suggests a psychological disorder, rather, they are reflecting the old adage that those in power don't like giving it up.

If you go into such a business that would take special requests, oh well. That is a part of their service to the public, so they have no excuse for refusing to do that. They shouldn't punish others over their own lack of foresight that they may be put into such a position, and it most certainly is not Sean & Jeremy's fault, and they shouldn't be refused service because the baker failed to realize when they open shop they serve the public. By its very nature, servicing the public means you are going to be serving, probably on a daily basis, people who hold positions, lifestyles, beliefs, and other features and characteristics you don't like or agree with. But when you open shop, your job isn't that of a moral judge, it's to serve the public, your customers who patronize your shop.

Rats....your purple font is corrupting my response.
(An old problem which is rearing its ugly head again.)
I can't fully edit this response anymore.
But at this point I think we'd be re-covering well trod ground anyway.

 

[Kemosloby]

But US law doesn't recognize your God or the concept of sin. For that matter neither does this US taxpayer.

Sure it does. Why else did Clinton put a "Sin tax" on cigarettes?

Sin tax - Wikipedia

 

[Poisonshady313]

Rats....your purple font is corrupting my response.
(An old problem which is rearing its ugly head again.)
I can't fully edit this response anymore.

Be careful. You might get sued for discrimination for refusing to fully edit a response towards someone who uses a color that doesn't conform to your bigoted font-normative standards.

 

[Jose Fly]

I believe it would, and I believe it should, and while I grant you that it's not explicitly written into the text of the law and would be the result of interpretation of the law, (and I'm not even going to focus on the fact that sexual orientation isn't included in section 201 at all) we have to come face to face with the word "almost".

Agreed. And as I said, from my reading on this it seems the courts have generally interpreted "public accommodation" to include pretty much any public business.

I believe people who create custom goods or provide customized services ought to have some veto power over what they create.
If an African American cakeshop owner refused to customize a birthday cake for David Duke, I would be ok with that.
If a Native American cakeshop owner refused to customize a Columbus Day celebration cake, I would be ok with that.
If a homosexual cakeshop owner refused to customize a wedding cake for a Catholic wedding, I would be ok with that.
If a Mexican cakeshop owner refused to customize any sort of a cake for Donald Trump, I would be ok with that.

IMO, it depends on the specific circumstances. If a racist baker refuses to provide "cake #6" from his catalog to an interracial couple, I believe that should be illegal. OTOH, if the same baker were asked to make a cake with the words "Interracial marriage is God's way", I believe he should be able to refuse. It's the difference between general services and specified speech.

And if I get married one day and any cakeshop owner refuses to customize a cake for me because I'm Jewish, I'll write the guy a negative review wherever I think such a review will be seen, and I'll take my business elsewhere.

I believe it hinges on what is and isn't a "customized cake".

The important thing to note about the case in the OP is that it isn't about a specific cake design. The baker refused to make any type of cake for the couple's event. They didn't even get to the point of discussing potential cake designs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Be careful. You might get sued for discrimination for refusing to fully edit a response towards someone who uses a color that doesn't conform to your bigoted font-normative standards.

On top of that, @Shadow Wolf has a perfect storm of protected group status.....trans, female, aspie, nerd.
OK, nerd isn't protected....but it should be!

 

[Poisonshady313]

IMO, it depends on the specific circumstances. If a racist baker refuses to provide "cake #6" from his catalog to an interracial couple, I believe that should be illegal. OTOH, if the same baker were asked to make a cake with the words "Interracial marriage is God's way", I believe he should be able to refuse. It's the difference between general services and specified speech.


I believe it hinges on what is and isn't a "customized cake".

The important thing to note about the case in the OP is that it isn't about a specific cake design. The baker refused to make any type of cake for the couple's event. They didn't even get to the point of discussing potential cake designs.

I don't see any reason to believe the Colorado baker wouldn't have sold the couple cake #6 from the catalog. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to consider it.

From what I read, they refused to customize a cake for a gay wedding (which includes not getting to the point of discussing potential designs).

 

[Jainarayan]

Sure it does. Why else did Clinton put a "Sin tax" on cigarettes?

Sin tax - Wikipedia

Certainly you can do better than that.

 

[Kemosloby]

Certainly you can do better than that.

Don't need to. It's always good enough to make fun of a Clinton.

 

[idav]

"If you’re secular or a progressive religious person, you might be thinking “yes”—especially in view of a high-profile case that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday (Dec. 5). Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission pits the anti-gay-marriage beliefs of a cake baker against the rights of a same-sex couple to live and marry free of discrimination.

​

It rightly irritates liberals to witness a conservative Christian merchant seeking exemption from laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating against gay people. But even though this and other recent invocations of religious freedom taste bad in progressive mouths, the long view — backward and forward — suggests that religious freedom still has much to recommend it, regardless of how the high court rules on the Colorado baker.

Technically, free speech is the issue in the baker’s case. But there’s no separating Jack Phillips’ anti-homosexuality religious views from the heart of this matter. Indeed, it’s his religious belief that motivated Phillips to say “no” to a gay couple who sought to employ his services for their wedding cake, putting the legal wheels in motion.

To liberal sensibilities, Phillips seems the epitome of an unsympathetic character. The religious group he’s part of — conservative Christians — remains the segment of the population most outside of society’s growing and commendable acceptance of same-sex relationships. Moreover, Phillips is part of a religious demographic that wields outsized power in politics and aligns most closely with a president who is every liberal’s nightmare.

It seems ridiculous to think that this evangelical baker in Colorado is somehow beleaguered and oppressed, in need of constitutional protection if he’s to continue living and believing — and discriminating — as he sees fit. Really, isn’t he the one who’s oppressing?

There’s something valid in this sentiment. It’s true that over the course of our history, vulnerable religious minorities — including nonbelievers — have often been the ones seeking protection under religious freedom and the principle that all citizens should be free to believe, or not, in accordance with their own consciences. Several landmark Supreme Court cases follow this storyline, from Amish people appealing for exemption from mandatory school attendance to conscientious objectors seeking to avoid military combat."
source​

Place your bets on the Supreme Court's ruling, and let's hear your reason.

I'm really shocked this kind of thing had to go to the Supreme Court. What if I want to play devils advocate and impose a discriminatory tax on all sales of wedding cakes?

 

[Skwim]

I'm really shocked this kind of thing had to go to the Supreme Court. What if I want to play devils advocate and impose a discriminatory tax on all sales of wedding cakes?

You have that kind of power? Really? My hat's off to you.

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I see their attitude as "I need people to behave as I see fit,"

There is a difference between wanting your own religious sense of morality enforced as state law and needing people to behave as you see fit. And it's not much different than when I was saying people need to quit armchair diagnosing Trump (and, in that case, there was an APA statement telling people to knock it off).
And you ignored my point that those in power don't like giving it up. Of course they feel threatened. They've been calling the shots for over a century, and now it's becoming unacceptable to huge chunks of society to speak poorly of homosexuals in the same way it was just 3 and 2 decades ago. Now their power is dwindling, people aren't listening to them as much, and god doesn't hold the moral sway over society like he used to. We in America are killing god, and they are terrified.

Be careful. You might get sued for discrimination for refusing to fully edit a response towards someone who uses a color that doesn't conform to your bigoted font-normative standards.

It wouldn't be fun if we agreed on everything. Too much agreement puts my commie status and his libie status at risk.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

On top of that, @Shadow Wolf has a perfect storm of protected group status.....trans, female, aspie, nerd.
OK, nerd isn't protected....but it should be!

It probably would be if we didn't run the world. Gates and Jobs, the legions of scientists inspired by Star Trek, and now me deciding if people get their kids back. And then of course when our machines take over, they'll think you're the Grand Architect with your collection of antique machinery and stone-age computers for work.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't see any reason to believe the Colorado baker wouldn't have sold the couple cake #6 from the catalog. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll be happy to consider it.

From what I read, they refused to customize a cake for a gay wedding (which includes not getting to the point of discussing potential designs).

CLICK HERE

"In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake. The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages."​

The key point being that Phillips and Munn did not refuse based on any concerns about the design or nature of the cake, but rather refused simply because the people requesting it were a same-sex couple. IOW, it wasn't "I object to the design of the cake you're requesting", it was "I object to providing you any sort of cake because you're a same-sex couple".