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

[Poisonshady313]

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.

What is and what should be aren't always congruent.

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?
.

Yes. But when it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, it shouldn't be a federal case.

Nobody has a right to anyone else's labor. And nobody has a right to a wedding cake.

 

[Skwim]

What is and what should be aren't always congruent.

Right, and your "should" has been found to be lacking, and by better minds than ours.

But when it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, it shouldn't be a federal case.

Contrary to what our Supreme Court believes.

.

.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Right, and your "should" has been found to be lacking, and by better minds than ours.

Isn't it wonderful that we each get to have our own opinion?

Contrary to what our Supreme Court believes.
.

What our Supreme Court believes isn't always right.

 

[Skwim]

What our Supreme Court believes isn't always right.

In this case, might makes right.

.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nobody has a right to anyone else's labor. And nobody has a right to a wedding cake.

If somebody offers a service in exchange for money, they are required by law not to offer that service in a way that is unjustly discriminatory. By your logic, services that refused to serve black people in the fifties were perfectly justified.

Consumers do have rights. They have the right not be to unjustly discriminated against by being denied a service based purely on their gender, race or sexuality.

 

[Stevicus]

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.

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.

 

[Akivah]

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

​

I predict the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the gays. SCOTUS has wrongly fully embraced the perverse idea that same-sex people should be allowed to marry.

 

[Nous]

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 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?

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.

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.

The fact is that there is simply no question that Kennedy--who delivered Romer v. Evans back in 1996--will vote to uphold CADA. And, again, I think there is good reason to expect that Roberts will join also, as he at least didn't join the dissent in Parvan v. Smith. The rationale of this per curiam rests on the "equal benefits" dictum in Obergefell. Non-discrimination in the provision of goods and services is not among those "equal benefits" that Obergefell referred to, but there is a vague parallel.

But more importantly, there is simply no case law whatsoever for striking down public accommodations laws or for singling out a particular group or basis that should not be included in the law. If there were a valid argument for either a Free Exercise or Free Expression right for businesses to ignore public accommodations laws on the basis of sexual orientation, then the same argument would be valid for discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender, age, disability, and any other basis.

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.

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.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes. But when it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, it shouldn't be a federal case.

Nobody has a right to anyone else's labor. And nobody has a right to a wedding cake.

So you're saying gays have no right to public accommodation? They have no right to walk into a public business and be served like any other citizen? If they happen to live in an area where every business, bank, rental, etc. refuses services to gays, they're just out of luck?

That's sick.

 

[Nous]

Public accommodations laws are valid laws, according to the Court. In Roberts v. US Jaycees, the Court held that there is a compelling governmental interest in prohibiting discrimination against certain classes of people.

I understand this. I was stating my personal opinion here, not interpreting law.

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?

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

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?

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?

 

[Nous]

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.

As that will require a constitutional amendment, it won't be happening anytime soon. I don't think it will solve any problems anyway. Thank God Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens and many other were not forced to retire at 70. These days, I know so many people in their 80s who are just as sharp and more knowledgeable than they were when at 70.

Also, forced retirement at 70 will just make Presidents appoint younger Justices. Frankly, to my mind, any federal judge less than 45 years old is still an apprentice. And there seems to be a tendency (depending on how one measures) for Justices to become more "liberal" as they become older. Supreme Court Justices Get More Liberal As They Get Older

So open positions occur frequently and judicial appointments are a lot less politicized.

How did you conclude that high court judges in other countries are "a lot less politicized"? What makes them "a lot less politicized"?

I think Justice Roberts said something clever such as, "Our robes are not red or blue, they're black."

 

[Nous]

I predict the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the gays. SCOTUS has wrongly fully embraced the perverse idea that same-sex people should be allowed to marry.

Jews, too. Go figure.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

​

I predict the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the gays. SCOTUS has wrongly fully embraced the perverse idea that same-sex people should be allowed to marry.

Wrong why? Because you say so?

 

[Nous]

It's not apples to oranges. Homosexuality is a disgusting and immoral thing. A person should have a right to have nothing to do with them in any situation.

Thank God that homophobia such as yours is going the way of racism--but much faster. Do you agree with all of the positions of the KKK?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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?

How is that discrimination? No one is being denied service, being ushered to the front or back of the line, or being harassed for who they are. Military, police, and firefighter discounts are also common. You can also get a discount in many places for being a AAA member.
Though, I do admit it's odd they legally allow it in some places but not in others. Seems rather arbitrary to me.

Should Jewish bakers or WW2 veterans be forced to bake a cake for Hitler or Tojo?

Yes. If you serve the public, you serve the public. If I had a bakery and the WBC or Focus on the Family wanted me to make them a cake, I'd do it with a smile and after the financial transaction is complete thank them on the behalf of the Indiana Youth Group (a pro-LBGT group), Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, or Wounded Warriors for their generous donation. From the Neo-Nazis, I'd let them know their money is going to Holocaust memorials.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

​

I predict the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the gays. SCOTUS has wrongly fully embraced the perverse idea that same-sex people should be allowed to marry.

Fortunately, religious sentiments are prohibited from being established as public law per the Establishment Clause.
Why not just go on about your own life, mind your own business, and let those not harming you go about their lives? It's not like no one is forcing you, under penalty of law, to reject your religious views and embrace homosexuality.

 

[Revoltingest]

How is that discrimination? No one is being denied service, being ushered to the front or back of the line, or being harassed for who they are. Military, police, and firefighter discounts are also common. You can also get a discount in many places for being a AAA member.
Though, I do admit it's odd they legally allow it in some places but not in others. Seems rather arbitrary to me.

To charge a higher price to a group is indeed discrimination.
What if the bakery charged an extra 20% to gays?

Yes. If you serve the public, you serve the public. If I had a bakery and the WBC or Focus on the Family wanted me to make them a cake, I'd do it with a smile and after the financial transaction is complete thank them on the behalf of the Indiana Youth Group (a pro-LBGT group), Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, or Wounded Warriors for their generous donation. From the Neo-Nazis, I'd let them know their money is going to Holocaust memorials.

Not everyone is as enlightened as you are.
Laws must be written with the unwashed masses in mind.

 

[Jose Fly]

To charge a higher price to a group is indeed discrimination.
What if the bakery charged an extra 20% to gays?

You have it precisely backwards. Businesses don't add an extra surcharge to certain groups. They charge everyone the same, but give a discount to groups they want to incentivize or reward.

Try and understand the difference.

 

[Kemosloby]

Thank God that homophobia such as yours is going the way of racism--but much faster. Do you agree with all of the positions of the KKK?

I believe the KKK is there to give a black eye to righteousness. Righteousness such as quoting the scriptures that homosexuality is immoral behavior...sin and not of any small variety.

 

[Nous]

Should Jewish bakers or WW2 veterans be forced to bake a cake for Hitler or Tojo?

How many times is someone going to irrelevantly say something about Hitler on this one thread?

The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), CRS § 24-34-601, states in relevant part:

2 (a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation . . .​

Obviously the law does not protect Hitler or Tojo by name. So what the hell are you asking?

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.

Not if WBC wants a cake celebrating Hitler.

What is it that someone from WBC wants from the bakery? How does the baker know that a person is from or associated with WBC?