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

[Jose Fly]

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.

Another way to put it......to those in positions of privilege, equality seems like oppression.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Another way to put it......to those in positions of privilege, equality seems like oppression.

Pretty much. They feel threatened or inconvenienced, "let them eat cake" they tell us.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As a business owner, the cake owner should have the freedom to provide or not provide services to whom he wishes at the time of his choosing. While this might not be the best business decision from a profitability standpoint, it's not for the government to say who he has to serve or when.

Would your response about having freedom to provide or not provide services to whom he wishes at the time of his choosing remain the same if, for example, he turned down every black heterosexual couple that came to his shop looking for a cake, but accepted every white heterosexual couple?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"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.

I'll soon have my masters in clinical psychology. But, even if I held a Ph.D. in psychiatry, I still would be no more qualified to delve into saying someone has a mental illness, or that certain behaviors mean they have one. In all reality, the only person who can do so is the client's psychiatrist. But, everyone likes to pretend they're a doctor and that they have all the knowledge and schooling and they can diagnose something and offer medical advice. And plenty of anti-theists just love trying to claim religion is a form of mental illness, or that it displays symptoms of it, when clearly it doesn't. Without context, one might thinkg that speaking in tongues is a form of psychosis. However, we know that's not the case and really what's going on is people are falling in line with the mentality and behaviors exhibited by their group. Trying to dismiss religion as some sort of mental illness, it not only lumps all religious practices together, but it dismisses and ignores the psychosocial functions and purposes of religion. Karl Marx even gave it more consideration when he wrote it's the opium of the people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

It's made it to the Supreme Court because the guy has went through the chain of appeals. From Colorado on up, he has been denied again and again. It may be the Supreme Court is taking it up to put an end to it, like how the put an end to a few state laws banning same-sex marriage shortly before legalizing it in all 50 states.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You said: "As a business owner, the cake owner should have the freedom to provide or not provide services to whom he wishes at the time of his choosing." So is your opinion that businesses should be able to refuse service to people on the basis of race, religion, gender, and other bases, or is it just gay people who you think businesses should be allowed to discriminate against?

I stated my opinion quite clearly and have elaborated upon it in my responses to others. I have no intention on entertaining loaded questions. But thanks for playing.

Hospital corporations are businesses. Should they be allowed to refuse service to gay people, Latinos, Muslims?

Are you really comparing an entity that saves lives and is funded by federal and local government to a private cake maker?

Should restaurants be allowed to put signs in their windows "We Don't Serve Negros"? Or should business-owners just make them march out after they're seated?

I'm sorry. Please quote the part of the article that discusses where the owner posted a sign in the window that says "We don't make cakes for gay marriage".

Or do you make it a habit to compare apples to lumber?

In your opinion, why did the Court the emphasize in Roberts that there is a compelling governmental interest in equal access to the provision of goods and services?

Good question. I'll make it a point in the near future to read the opinions of the individual justices to give you an intelligent answer.

 

[Skwim]

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.

Regardless of the reason, be it a sense of religious morality or flat out prejudice, people want things because they need them. A trifle want equates with a trifle need. Small want equates with small need. Large want, such as a specific law, equates with large need. All want is inextricably tied to need. Most commonly, a need to personally satisfy. If you didn't need something why would you want it? And the need needn't be anything more than a sense of composure or rest.

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.

All speaking to the need to retain the status quo wherein they can exercise there need to have people personally behave as they see fit. People who insist that others act as they insist aren't stable people. And any sense of power they may have had is directly tied to their success in making sure others personally behave as they see fit. This is not a normal state of mind. Psychologically healthy people don't care about such things. It's no different than a stranger caring that I use a straight razor to shave with rather than an electric razor.

.

 

[idav]

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

.

ALL bakers will suffer the consequences of this travesty!!

 

[Skwim]

I'll soon have my masters in clinical psychology.

In other words you have a BA in psychology.

But, even if I held a Ph.D. in psychiatry, I still would be no more qualified to delve into saying someone has a mental illness, or that certain behaviors mean they have one.

Which is why I didn't, and instead said, "it smacks of."

Tell you what, this has been an interesting exchange, but I've grown a bit weary of it, so I'll give you the last word.

Have a good day.

 

[Jainarayan]

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

I gotta go with ya there.

 

[suncowiam]

On this topic I voted in favor of the baker. The reason I feel this way is that I feel it is not as much about discrimination as it is about forcing someone to manufacture something they do not feel right about. Example, someone comes into the store and wants to buy a dozen donuts and he refuses because he does not serve whatever group they happen to be. That would be a clear case of discrimination. I feel if the couple would have bought something he offered he would have sold it to them. They wanted something he did not offer because of his beliefs.

This would be like a person going into a book store and asking for pornography, the store owner says we do not sell that here. Is he discriminating because the store owner does not order it for him. I feel a store owner should have the right to sell what ever offering they want to carry. I know this is a bit different because he can make the cake an does make cakes complicating the matter. But in this case I think the basis of the suit is, if I remember correctly is that what is being asked is for him to artistically make something he feels is wrong. Can he be made to use his artistic talents to produce something he does not believe in. In this case being more lake a portrait photographer being asked to do a nude photo shot when they do not feel comfortable doing that.

How about a cancer specialist who is religiously anti-gay being asked to treat gay patients?

 

[Poisonshady313]

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".

You posted a quote that supports my position, not yours.

I said: 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.

You posted a quote that says: he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.

You said: it was "I object to providing you any sort of cake because you're a same-sex couple"

Your words don't add up with what you bring to attempt to support them.

I said: I believe people who create custom goods or provide customized services ought to have some veto power over what they create.

You posted a quote that says: 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

What you claim is the key point is actually entirely irrelevant. The key point is, the baker refused to customize and design a cake for an event he doesn't believe in. Is it a poor business decision? Yes. Is it a poor decision as a human being? Yes. The market should punish him for these poor decisions, not the government.

 

[Misunderstood]

You sound so very reasonable. You're a person who can change his mind about something on the basis of the facts--what planet are you from?

Thank you, I will be reasonable when someone listens to my side as I listen to theirs, and reasonable arguments are made. I feel your arguments are on point to what I am saying (proving you have listened) and have given reasonable argument in response. I may not always change my mind to the opposing view, but may if I feel their argument is valid. In this case, I am not sure if my views will change completely in the end of this discussion, but I am sure I will respect you and your opinions as I feel they are valid even if I might not agree, and especially for being respectful and not getting personal and insulting to prove a point. So far you have given very reasoned arguments.

No, that isn't true. It only takes 4 Justices to vote to take a case, and these cases have been appealed to the Court for years now. There hasn't been a split among the Circuits or state courts on this issue, but the Court deciding the issue will put an end to the same case after case after case being heard and appealed in state courts.

I partially disagree here. Even though it is possible that only 4 Justices chose to take on the case, it could have been more. But the fact is at least 4 thought there was either a flaw in the COA ruling, or like you said they just want to put an end to the whole thing.

The most disappointing part for me is, if like you say the artistic creativity part has been removed from the case. Because if that is the case, the case most likely will be affirmed. But that will not be the end of it I feel. That part will come back sometime later, not in this case but in some other way. I would rather the whole thing is decided once and for all.

Your scenarios of businesses of "pro-homosexual speakers" and sculptures are simply not analogous to anything related to public accommodations laws.

Briefly: Phillips claims that CADA compels speech, in violation of the First Amendment. But CADA literally says nothing about speech; it regulates conduct. CADA does not compel Phillips to either speak or host the government's message. Phillips claims that CADA compels him to speak a celebratory message about the marriage of same-sex couples or about same-sex marriage. But the law does not achieve that effect. As the Colorado court explained, Phillips remains free to express his views about same-sex marriage. Moreover, the idea that someone who sees one of Phillips' cakes will somehow understand it as Phillips' message celebrating same-sex marriage (or a particular marriage between a same-sex couple) is patently absurd: in the unlikely case that anyone would even know who baked the cake, people do not attribute a celebratory message to the baker. If any celebratory message is inferred from a wedding cake, the message is assumed to be that of the purchaser of the cake, not the baker (unless they are the same person).

Even if it were true that baking and selling wedding cakes is something other than what public accommodations laws refer to as “goods [and] services,” i.e., even if it were true that baking and selling wedding cakes are expressive activities such as generally protected by the First Amendment, that doesn't mean that the government cannot regulate such activity. If a law that burdens expressive activity meets the requirements of strict scrutiny, it's a constitutional law. The government regulates many forms of speech and expression. The requirements of strict scrutiny are that a law has a compelling governmental purpose, is narrowly tailored and is the least restrictive means for achieving that compelling governmental purpose. The anti-discrimination provisions of public accommodations laws have repeatedly been held to have a compelling governmental purpose--see Roberts v. Jaycees (e.g., “. . . the State's strong historical commitment to eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services . . . which is unrelated to the suppression of expression, plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order.”). In pertaining to only businesses open to the public, and specifically exempting “places principally used for religious purposes,” CADA is narrowly tailored; and it's difficult to imagine a less restrictive way to achieve the desired goal than outlawing discrimination in the offerings of public goods and services. CADA fulfills the demands of strict scrutiny stipulated in the case law.

No I agree the two scenarios are not directly part of the public accommodations laws, but as I had mentioned I thought they were in the case before discussing this with you, and felt if it was still in the case, it would be the only merit to the case. So this may not be a relevant argument anymore. But I am only discussing this as I feel it is the only portion I feel there was a case.

This is to just convey my feeling on this part of the discussion. Lets go with a card shop on this scenario. A guy goes into a card shop and wants to buy a card for an straight couple, the card shop does not have any on that subject, but does have cards for gay couples. Is he guilty of a violation of discrimination or PAL (Public Accommodation Laws) because he did not carry any cards on that subject? I think that a person can carry a lineup of products they feel will sell well, be profitable and maybe even fitting to their beliefs. If the card shop was made to carry cards on a subject by the customer, then should a butcher be made to carry kosher meats for the Jewish? Lets say the card shop also makes custom cards and is asked to make one that is very derogatory to gays and they refuse. Would that be a violation? If the card shop would not normally carry any cards on a certain subject anyway and custom cards are sold should they be made to sell one even if they normally would not offer it?

I feel with creativity, it is so personal and covers so many areas, we need to be careful. One side my be happy in one case but unhappy in another. I feel in most cases compelling someone to do something creativity is wrong, as art will send a message, it is not only a freedom of religion issue, but a freedom of speech issue as well. As you said a cake for the most part is not conveying a message for the baker. but you do not know what it will be used for. What if it was used in a smear add against the card shop. I just think what ever side you are on would need to be careful if a case like this ever comes up.

 

[Stevicus]

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"

I think it comes down to the same thing, unless someone is making a definitive claim that God will send them to Hell if they sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. Apart from that, at least from a secular viewpoint, there's no measurable "damage" or "hardship" caused by one's religious principles being violated.

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.

I see this as a somewhat circular argument, since the law itself is under scrutiny.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I think it comes down to the same thing, unless someone is making a definitive claim that God will send them to Hell if they sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. Apart from that, at least from a secular viewpoint, there's no measurable "damage" or "hardship" caused by one's religious principles being violated.

Violating someone's first amendment right to freely exercise his religion isn't measurable hardship?

 

[Stevicus]

Violating someone's first amendment right to freely exercise his religion isn't measurable hardship?

No one is being prevented from freely exercising their religion.

 

[Poisonshady313]

No one is being prevented from freely exercising their religion.

If the baker's religious beliefs preclude him from designing and creating cakes for a gay wedding, then he might indeed claim that forcing him to bake such a cake (or otherwise punishing him for refusing to do so) would be preventing him from freely exercising his religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the baker's religious beliefs preclude him from designing and creating cakes for a gay wedding, then he might indeed claim that forcing him to bake such a cake (or otherwise punishing him for refusing to do so) would be preventing him from freely exercising his religion.

A possible political compromise.....
Make refusing gay wedding cakes a crime, but with only a small fine.
Having to buy a cake elsewhere is de minimis harm.
It's an incentive to avoid discrimination, but it won't break the bank.

 

[Jose Fly]

You posted a quote that supports my position, not yours.

No. Remember, I noted that they didn't even get to the point of discussing the design of the cake before they were refused service. That's exactly what the record shows.

I said: 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 the excerpt I quoted: "Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings".

Note that he didn't say "I won't create that cake", but instead said that he would not create any wedding cake for their wedding.

Also from the excerpt: "The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings "

Again, same thing. They clearly stated that they do not make any wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, which would obviously include a "cake #6 from the catalog".

You posted a quote that says: he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.

Right, just not for their wedding. So if they wanted to buy a cake just to take home and eat, he'd sell it to them. But as he and his mother made absolutely clear, they would not sell them anything for their wedding.

You said: it was "I object to providing you any sort of cake because you're a same-sex couple"

Your words don't add up with what you bring to attempt to support them.

I think you need to go back and re-read the part I posted. I'm not sure what part of "don't make cakes for same-sex weddings" you're not understanding.

I said: I believe people who create custom goods or provide customized services ought to have some veto power over what they create.

You posted a quote that says: 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

Right. He didn't say "I refuse because of the design you're requesting" (he couldn't, because they never even discussed what the cake would look like), he said he doesn't make cakes for same-sex weddings at all, no matter what the cake looks like.

What you claim is the key point is actually entirely irrelevant. The key point is, the baker refused to customize and design a cake for an event he doesn't believe in.

Exactly....his refusal was based on the event, not the cake itself. That's why this is a pretty easy case from a legal perspective.

Is it a poor business decision? Yes. Is it a poor decision as a human being? Yes. The market should punish him for these poor decisions, not the government.

I don't believe in leaving people's civil rights up to "the market". I certainly wouldn't accept that if I were in the group being discriminated against. I would expect my government to protect my civil rights, not just shrug its shoulders and say "we'll just leave that up to the market".

 

[Jose Fly]

I think it comes down to the same thing, unless someone is making a definitive claim that God will send them to Hell if they sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.

That's a good question. Since when is discriminating against gays in one's business practices a core tenet of the Christian religion?

If it's merely because of "sin", that leads to some obvious questions....do they check the background of every potential customer to ensure they're sin free? Or if this is about some sort of obvious sin, do they refuse to sell baked goods to obese people, lest they support gluttony? What about second marriages?

From a practical standpoint it's clear that these Christian business owners serve and sell to sinners every day, yet this one sin has somehow been singled out as being uniquely unacceptable. Why? I have a feeling in the long run, this is going to do far more harm than good to the state of Christianity in the US.