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

[Jose Fly]

Apparently, the cake people are running this trial on the idea that the cake is an artistic expression.

I don't see how they can make that argument, given that the baker and the couple never even got the point of discussing potential cake designs.

 

[Jose Fly]

Marriage, however, is, be it homosexual, heterosexual, or otherwise.

Whether the trait being discriminated against is a choice or innate is irrelevant. Religion is also a choice, yet it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion.

How viable do you think a "heterosexuals only" business would fair in today's society with the change in tolerance along with the ACLU and other equal rights institutions?

The question before the court is not one of business viability; it's one of discrimination against a class of people.

However, I don't believe it's the government's right to tell a business owner that s/he is required to act against his/her religious beliefs.

They do all the time. "It's against my religion" is not a universal get out of jail free card.

Third, I must have missed where the cake maker said that he refused to make the cake because homosexuality is immoral. It's my understanding that his beliefs didn't advocate gay marriage. I don't even see the word "immoral" anywhere in the linked article except in the comments. Am I missing something here?

The facts of the case clearly indicate that the entire reason for his refusal to provide services to the couple was their sexual orientation. Whether he thought their orientation was "immoral" or not is irrelevant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see how they can make that argument, given that the baker and the couple never even got the point of discussing potential cake designs.

The idea is that if their cake is art, then not only would they have a religious ground for opposition, they could somehow have more control over their art. But it's an absurd claim, not because they didn't reach the point of cake designs, but because the artist has no control over their art once it's out of their hands. An author can't control how someone will interpret their works, nor can a painter determine what sort of emotional reaction a viewer will have. Record producers certainly never intended for records to be smashed, but it's happened plenty of times in protest anyways.

 

[Jose Fly]

The idea is that if their cake is art, then not only would they have a religious ground for opposition, they could somehow have more control over their art. But it's an absurd claim, not because they didn't reach the point of cake designs, but because the artist has no control over their art once it's out of their hands. An author can't control how someone will interpret their works, nor can a painter determine what sort of emotional reaction a viewer will have. Record producers certainly never intended for records to be smashed, but it's happened plenty of times in protest anyways.

I think our two points are complimentary. Yours is entirely valid from an artistic POV, and mine is valid from a pragmatic POV.

 

[Phil25]

Its off topic but I think its cases like these that makes the appointment to SCOTUS so politicized even though its supposed to be impartial. Nine people(but in most cases one person as the decisions of the other eight are predictable) have the power to set a precedent for generations. And because of life tenure these justices can serve for three or four decades. I think its high time for a reform in the structure of SCOTUS. In many other countries their Supreme Court justices have to retire by a certain age(usually 70 or 75) and there are 20 or 30 justices in total. So open positions occur frequently and judicial appointments are a lot less politicized.

 

[Windwalker]

You misquote me. I said

"Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long."

.​

I didn't misquote you. I quoted your actual quote. My response before is the same I'd make now. You may wish to look at it again.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'll concede that not all consumers are "responsible consumers" but I believe taking public actions as previously mentioned could deal a critical blow to such a business.

Could be. As I pointed out earlier, it can also bring in support. They'd probably wither and die out very quickly in coastal California. In a state like Alabama, it's reasonable to assume it would have the opposite effect and attract new customers for "bold" and so "godly."

 

[Jose Fly]

Could be. As I pointed out earlier, it can also bring in support. They'd probably wither and die out very quickly in coastal California. In a state like Alabama, it's reasonable to assume it would have the opposite effect and attract new customers for "bold" and so "godly."

Beyond that, the proposition @SalixIncendium is presenting is absurd on its face. Basically it's "let's leave civil rights up to popular opinion".

 

[Skwim]

I didn't misquote you. I quoted your actual quote. My response before is the same I'd make now. You may wish to look at it again.

I said: "Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long."

You said I said: "I Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long."
..........................

As much as I dislike answering a question with a question, do you think a business that turns away 2/3 of its potential clientele is viable?

Yeah, and before I answer, I will need your answer to my question.

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Beyond that, the proposition @SalixIncendium is presenting is absurd on its face. Basically it's "let's leave civil rights up to popular opinion".

I'm not sure if it's over-confidence in consumers, or over-confidence in how far civil rights have progressed, but it's a fairly common argument and it has no basic in historic fact. Every other group has needed government intervention for protection, because businesses and their costumers were not. It's no different today with LBGT rights.

 

[Stevicus]

That's a rather groupthink view which somewhat justifies whatever government does as OK.
The individual cannot choose one government over another (without emigrating).
In this case, I'd prefer to limit government's authority.

I can understand that, but no one is saying that whatever the government does is okay. People just need to be more proactive and take control of their government through the means provided in our Constitution. I happen to be against the government's propensity to impose drug laws or other "morals" on people, but if I go waving a bag of illegal narcotics in front of a police officer, then I would expect to be arrested.

What's "wrong" to one person might be right to another.
And this is often a very gray area.

True, although if the government writes a law and says not to do something, then we're kind of stuck with it until the law can be challenged in court (which is what is happening in this case).

Sure there's an interest in prohibiting discrimination.
But discrimination against whom, discrimination in what manner, & to what extent is it sanctioned?
This is not something clear or widely agreed upon when looking at actual application.

And that's why it's in court, so the legal beagles can figure it all out.

Example:
My town, Ann Arbor, allows discrimination based upon age & educational affiliation when the "public accommodation" involves discounts for movies & food. But it prohibits it for leasing real estate.
Are senior & student discounts wrong or right?
What is the extent of the harm?
Should punishment for discrimination be severe if they're so willy nilly about where its allowed & where it isn't?
Complicated, eh?

Or, what about "ladies' night" at the bars? I can see what you're saying, although discounts are a different matter, since it doesn't actually deny any services to people willing to pay full price. I don't know if anyone has made any complaints or filed lawsuits over senior and student discounts.

The 'justice' system cuts cops far more slack than is appropriate.
Some of this is systemic (giving more weight to cops' testimony),
& some of it is corruption of the "blue wall" variety. But it's all
tolerated by government.

Well, no one should give more weight to cops' testimony, so I agree with you there. I think that's more of a philosophical viewpoint held by mindless conformists within society itself (and they abound), but theoretically, the government isn't really supposed to do that. Likewise for "blue wall" corruption.

I would say it's also the result of not having sufficient checks and balances within the system.

Another large part of the problem is that state and local police departments demand that they be "independent" and separate agencies. I don't agree with that philosophy. They need to have a proper chain of command. They need to have someone to answer to, and that's what is missing in the system.

There are people who provoke cops, & do so with cause,
eg, people who record brutality or corruption, people who are vocal about their rights.
I don't think they should be punished for this "choice", despite the fact that cops have
the authority to do so, albeit by stretching the law (with tacit governmental approval).

Well, there are smarter ways of going about it, though. A little advanced preparation might be in order, if one has any intention of provoking a cop (with or without cause).

Buying a cake at one bakery instead of another isn't much damage.

No, but then again, neither is baking a cake for a paying customer. How much damage can that cause? Even if one had a court order demanding that someone bake a cake, even that doesn't really cause much harm to comply with that order. Maybe it's a bit ego-deflating, to be ordered to bake a cake, but hardly much damage.

Should Jewish bakers or WW2 veterans be forced to bake a cake for Hitler or Tojo?
The question about Westboro Baptist Church is more compelling cuz Hitler is a person
rather than a protected group, but WBC is a all about religion, & therefore protected.

Celebrating Hitler's or Tojo's birthday would be an exercise in free speech, which is also protected by the same Amendment.

The question points out the difficulties of the larger picture of bakeries, discrimination,
& compelled speech.

But whose speech is it? If a TV station sells a 30-minute slot of time for an infomercial, they typically put a disclaimer informing viewers that it's a paid advertisement and that the station does not endorse any opinions or claims made by the advertiser. The same principle could apply to bakeries. Just because someone is baking a cake for a gay wedding, it does not constitute an endorsement of gay weddings.

Even if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to buy 30 minutes of airtime from a TV station which is in the business of selling airtime for infomercials, then they should have to accommodate that. Or, they can stop showing infomercials and have actual TV shows on instead. They have infomercials simply because they want to make more money, and if money is all they care about, then they've made their choice.

Likewise, the bakery could simply choose to not sell wedding cakes at all, neither for straight or gay couples, and then they wouldn't be considered guilty of discrimination. I guess it's a matter of knowing why someone decides to go into the bakery business in the first place. Do they do so to make money? Or do they do so to spread Christian values to the community? I see an inherent conflict in trying to do both at the same time.

But if they face difficulties because they have other priorities more important than the business they've chosen, then they've brought those difficulties upon themselves.

It's ridiculous to many, but not to a business faced with prosecution & tort remedies.

Yeah, but in this case, the remedy is just so simple: Bake the damn cake and be done with it. It's what the baker does anyway. That's his job. Why should a business owner even care at all? I thought the conventional wisdom these days was to not mix business with personal matters.

That's a valid perspective.
But it's also a valid question about how far government should go in requiring service
which runs counter to the provider's values. Does it really advance social good to
require bakers to write messages which offend them so?

It's not the government's fault that they choose to be offended. In any case, I don't see that "being offended" amounts to any great hardship.

How far would you have
government extend this authority, & over which groups?

Not sure. There was once a time when it was considered a valid use of governmental authority to outlaw homosexuality outright. Nowadays that's no longer the case, but there is still lingering discrimination which might need to be addressed at a governmental level.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Are you suggesting we should say to gays, you don't have the right to marry someone of the same gender?

Not in the least. I support gay rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can understand that, but no one is saying that whatever the government does is okay. People just need to be more proactive and take control of their government through the means provided in our Constitution. I happen to be against the government's propensity to impose drug laws or other "morals" on people, but if I go waving a bag of illegal narcotics in front of a police officer, then I would expect to be arrested.

No matter how proactive an individual is, one has no control over government.

True, although if the government writes a law and says not to do something, then we're kind of stuck with it until the law can be challenged in court (which is what is happening in this case).

When the area is gray, I'd prefer that government simply leave people to their own devices.
An example is abortion.
Some say it's murder.
Others say it's not.
So government should stay out as much as practical.
Setting a legal abortion limit on development stage is such a compromise.

And that's why it's in court, so the legal beagles can figure it all out.

I'd prefer that public policy be made by elected representatives
than by lawyers & judges, who are the lease accountable of all.

Or, what about "ladies' night" at the bars?

Technically illegal here, but tolerated.
(Powerful ladies lobby, eh?)

I can see what you're saying, although discounts are a different matter, since it doesn't actually deny any services to people willing to pay full price. I don't know if anyone has made any complaints or filed lawsuits over senior and student discounts.

I wonder if the city would be so tolerant if I offered white male discounts?

Well, no one should give more weight to cops' testimony, so I agree with you there. I think that's more of a philosophical viewpoint held by mindless conformists within society itself (and they abound), but theoretically, the government isn't really supposed to do that. Likewise for "blue wall" corruption.

I would say it's also the result of not having sufficient checks and balances within the system.

Another large part of the problem is that state and local police departments demand that they be "independent" and separate agencies. I don't agree with that philosophy. They need to have a proper chain of command. They need to have someone to answer to, and that's what is missing in the system.



Well, there are smarter ways of going about it, though. A little advanced preparation might be in order, if one has any intention of provoking a cop (with or without cause).

This is detente....the idea that someone committing some legal offense should only endure commensurate sanction.
Refusing to sell someone a cake should be on the order of a $100 ticket.

No, but then again, neither is baking a cake for a paying customer. How much damage can that cause? Even if one had a court order demanding that someone bake a cake, even that doesn't really cause much harm to comply with that order. Maybe it's a bit ego-deflating, to be ordered to bake a cake, but hardly much damage.

The specific performance remedy, eh?

Celebrating Hitler's or Tojo's birthday would be an exercise in free speech, which is also protected by the same Amendment.

But should someone be compelled to perform this speech for another?
I don't think so.

But whose speech is it? If a TV station sells a 30-minute slot of time for an infomercial, they typically put a disclaimer informing viewers that it's a paid advertisement and that the station does not endorse any opinions or claims made by the advertiser. The same principle could apply to bakeries. Just because someone is baking a cake for a gay wedding, it does not constitute an endorsement of gay weddings.

A disclaimer on the cake perhaps?
Creative!
I suspect it wouldn't fly.

Even if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to buy 30 minutes of airtime from a TV station which is in the business of selling airtime for infomercials, then they should have to accommodate that. Or, they can stop showing infomercials and have actual TV shows on instead. They have infomercials simply because they want to make more money, and if money is all they care about, then they've made their choice.

Likewise, the bakery could simply choose to not sell wedding cakes at all, neither for straight or gay couples, and then they wouldn't be considered guilty of discrimination. I guess it's a matter of knowing why someone decides to go into the bakery business in the first place. Do they do so to make money? Or do they do so to spread Christian values to the community? I see an inherent conflict in trying to do both at the same time.

But if they face difficulties because they have other priorities more important than the business they've chosen, then they've brought those difficulties upon themselves.



Yeah, but in this case, the remedy is just so simple: Bake the damn cake and be done with it. It's what the baker does anyway. That's his job. Why should a business owner even care at all? I thought the conventional wisdom these days was to not mix business with personal matters.

It's not the government's fault that they choose to be offended. In any case, I don't see that "being offended" amounts to any great hardship.

Not sure. There was once a time when it was considered a valid use of governmental authority to outlaw homosexuality outright. Nowadays that's no longer the case, but there is still lingering discrimination which might need to be addressed at a governmental level.

At this point, I've no new ground to cover.
But dang...you put a lot of effort in to posts!

 

[Windwalker]

I said: "Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long."

You said I said: "I Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long.

.

It was fricking keyboard error when I copied and pasted. It of course was not intentional. But did you care to respond to what I was replying to you with, sans the added character that got itself into there?

 

[Misunderstood]

That scenario isn't analogous to this case in any way. Phillips didn't offer to create or sell Craig and Mullins a wedding cake. Phillips refused them service as soon as he learned that the cake they were inquiring about was to be served at their wedding reception.

If you were to read the petition and briefs in this case, you would discover that the compelled speech claim has been mostly abandoned. Courts have repeatedly held--as the Colorado Court of Appeals (COA) did--that such accommodations laws regulate conduct, not speech. The COA made clear that Phillips remained free to express his opinions about the law, about the rulings in regard to it, about same-sex couples getting married, etc. Colorado's public accommodations law (CADA) does not require Phillips to speak or host the government's message. What CADA forbids is for him to discriminate on the basis of the listed characteristics such as race, gender, religion, sexual orientation.

Moreover, as the COA also made clear, Phillips himself undermined any claim of compelled expressive activity, by the fact that he refused service to Craig and Mullins as soon as he learned that the cake would be served at their wedding reception (which was hundreds of miles away from their wedding). He did not seek to find out what sort of cake Craig and Mullins wanted. He refused them service for no other reason than their sexual orientation, not because of any expressive activity they requested of him.

I will admit that I have not read the briefs in the case before the Supreme Court and do not know what arguments have survived and made it into the case. I did read some from the original case, and from what I remember it had and argument about compelling someone to use their artistic talents against their beliefs. I do not remember how long ago it was that I read this and I have not read anything since. Who knows I could be getting details mixed up as I will say my memory is not as good as it used to be. But with the details you have given, in the fact he refused service before determining what they wanted, I would say they were discriminated against and the baker will lose the case, if those are truly the facts.

You (and everyone else here) need to read the COA opinion. You can't get the facts or the relevant arguments from the stupid little articles such as the OP gives.

That may be true, but in this thread the OP has set the argument as to what they want to discuss and the facts they want to use in that discussion. With that I actually may have brought the discussion off of topic by bringing into the discussion outside information. But in a discussion I do not feel it wrong to use the the facts the OP sets out for their discussion. However, I do feel it would be a good idea to read the COA, and I may do so sometime, I also think it would be good to read the whole case before the Supreme Court before making a binding decision. If the Supreme Court thought that the case was without merit and the COA ruling is on solid ground, they would not have taken the case. There must be something in the Bakers appeal to cause the Supreme Court to question the COA's ruling and to take the case for review.

As I said, with the facts you have just provided I do agree that the baker is not allowed to discriminate in the way he did. With the details in the original case as I remember them I feel he should prevail. Artistic expression has almost always been considered a free speech issue and has been allowed even when controversial or seen to be without any artistic value. With this I feel it would be wrong for any government or person to compel someone to write, say, or create something that they do not believe in. Say the tables were turned and a pro-homosexual speaker were asked to create and give a speech against homosexuality. He is a regular speaker and hires himself out to do this service, should he be made to do this? Or an artist compelled to do a sculpture that that repulses them, or a writer to write something they find repulsive? I just feel it is not a good idea to make someone create something they are against, no matter what side you are on, it may come back to bit you.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I guess it's a matter of knowing why someone decides to go into the bakery business in the first place. Do they do so to make money? Or do they do so to spread Christian values to the community? I see an inherent conflict in trying to do both at the same time.

But if they face difficulties because they have other priorities more important than the business they've chosen, then they've brought those difficulties upon themselves.



Yeah, but in this case, the remedy is just so simple: Bake the damn cake and be done with it. It's what the baker does anyway. That's his job.

In my opinion, this section of your post would apply if the baker in question was an employee, not an owner.

An employee should be expected to do what he is told, and if he doesn't like it he can apply elsewhere.

As long as he is following the law, an owner who decides to go into business for himself shouldn't be made to compromise his principles.

(I know the baker refusing to bake the cake is against Colorado law. I am opposed to how strict Colorado's public accommodation law is compared to the federal public accommodation law.)

And if his principles are socially abhorrent, let the market, not the government, deal with it.

Let the customer buy the cake elsewhere, post a negative yelp review for the baker who wouldn't bake the cake, and everyone gets to move on with their lives without wasting the Supreme Court's time.

 

[Skwim]

It was fricking keyboard error when I copied and pasted. It of course was not intentional.

Whoa! Take it easy. I only pointed out that you misquoted me, not that you drown puppies or voted for Trump.

But did you care to respond to what I was replying to you with, sans the added character that got itself into there?

No, I didn't care to. I didn't find it particularly comment-worthy. But, your misquote, "I Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long." odd as it is, made it look as if I was supporting the cake baker, which I felt should be brought to your attention. Too bad you didn't catch on quicker, but no big deal. We're good.

.

 

[Skwim]

Let the customer buy the cake elsewhere, post a negative yelp review for the baker who wouldn't bake the cake, and everyone gets to move on with their lives without wasting the Supreme Court's time.

Of course they could have bought a cake elsewhere; however, if I remember correctly, they wanted to correct what they feel is unjust discrimination. As for wasting the Supreme Court's time, it's the Supreme Court that decides what to do with its time, which cases it will hear and which it won't, not any litigant.

.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Of course they could have bought a cake elsewhere; however, if I remember correctly, they wanted to correct what they feel is unjust discrimination.

Let them picket the store, organize a rally to spread awareness of what jerks own the store, organize a boycott of the store. Let them freely express themselves without using the government to force a person to do something he isn't inclined to do because of his religious principles.

 

[Skwim]

Let them picket the store, organize a rally to spread awareness of what jerks own the store, organize a boycott of the store. Let them freely express themselves without using the government to force a person to do something he isn't inclined to do because of his religious principles.

The government, through the justice system, has already decided it will be used, so your protest is in vain. Its involvement is a fait accompli.

Besides, as everyone knows, what people do because of their religious principles isn't always right and shouldn't be freely expressed. You do know that, don't you?

.