Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1051  
Old 12-23-2017, 06:04 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,030
And yet bakers have found secular reasons to refuse to decorate cakes a certain way. A Wal-mart refused to make a pro-police cake, another Colorado baker refused to make a cake with an anti-gay message.

So you're argument is that they should have made the cakes as requested? Well, I'd think we'd agree on the Wal-mart, since that was rogue employees and not Wal-mart's official policy.
  #1052  
Old 12-23-2017, 06:14 AM
adaher adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,030
The key question here is, "can bakers refuse to make custom cakes with decorations they object to?" The Colorado civil rights commission says yes. So even if the baker "loses" the case, he still doesn't have to provide anything but pre-made cakes for gay weddings. Or a "custom" cake that's indistinguishable from the cakes he makes for straight weddings.
  #1053  
Old 12-23-2017, 08:12 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by drachillix View Post
I seriously doubt any religious laws/texts have anything to say about wedding cake decorating.
A couple asks for a cake decorated in fancy script with the words, "May our love be blessed by God."

Might any religious laws or texts forbid that?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #1054  
Old 12-23-2017, 08:23 AM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 76,114
Quote:
Quoth adaher:

The key question here is, "can bakers refuse to make custom cakes with decorations they object to?" The Colorado civil rights commission says yes. So even if the baker "loses" the case, he still doesn't have to provide anything but pre-made cakes for gay weddings. Or a "custom" cake that's indistinguishable from the cakes he makes for straight weddings.
Which is exactly what the "Gay Lobby" wants: To be treated the same way as everyone else.
  #1055  
Old 12-23-2017, 09:57 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
A couple asks for a cake decorated in fancy script with the words, "May our love be blessed by God."

Might any religious laws or texts forbid that?
Apparently only if the love is between two of the same sex.
  #1056  
Old 12-23-2017, 10:09 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Apparently only if the love is between two of the same sex.
No, factually incorrect.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 12-23-2017 at 10:09 AM.
  #1057  
Old 12-23-2017, 10:13 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
No, factually incorrect.
Oh, then you should go tell that baker and the supreme court that.


On second thought, you may be implying that there is some religion or sect that has a problem using those words at all. If that is the case, why don't you just go ahead and say that, rather than trying to get us to guess what religion you happen to be thinking of?
  #1058  
Old 12-23-2017, 10:15 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 82,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Oh, then you should go tell that baker and the supreme court that.


On second thought, you may be implying that there is some religion or sect that has a problem using those words at all. If that is the case, why don't you just go ahead and say that, rather than trying to get us to guess what religion you happen to be thinking of?
I think he means that there are some religious laws against incest or underage marriages or polygamy or stuff like that. Some even forbid "mixed" marriages between the correct religion and "those other folks".

Last edited by John Mace; 12-23-2017 at 10:15 AM.
  #1059  
Old 12-23-2017, 12:54 PM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 46,258
What's next? Banning "To The Happy Couple"? After all, it doesn't say the "Happy Couple" isn't a gay one, too.
  #1060  
Old 12-23-2017, 01:16 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 76,114
A baker could claim that "May our marriage be blessed by God" is against his religious beliefs, but in order to make that claim, he would have to deny that message to all customers, not just to some of them.
  #1061  
Old 12-23-2017, 01:20 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
I think he means that there are some religious laws against incest or underage marriages or polygamy or stuff like that. Some even forbid "mixed" marriages between the correct religion and "those other folks".
That's a good guess I suppose.

So, are there any legally recognized marriages that that phrase would be legally acceptable to be forbidden for religious reasons, other than SSM?



Not quite ETA: (And other than that one state where you can marry your sister if she is over childbearing age or otherwise infertile.)
  #1062  
Old 12-23-2017, 02:34 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
On second thought, you may be implying that there is some religion or sect that has a problem using those words at all. If that is the case, why don't you just go ahead and say that, rather than trying to get us to guess what religion you happen to be thinking of?
My point was not to identify the religion specifically, but to point out the factual error in the claim, "No religious laws/texts have anything to say about wedding cake decorating."

Of course, technically, drachillix merely expressed "serious doubt," that such religious rules exist. So I offered up an example, or more specifically a question designed to highlight the example.

You chimed in with a statement that also suggested error, "Apparently only if the love is between two of the same sex."

That was neither apparent, or factually accurate.

Observant Jewish practice includes essentially never writing the name of God. (Again technically, the prohibition is not against writing it, but against writing in when the writing may subsequently be defaced or destroyed; see the Rambam's Sefer Ha-mitzvot (lo ta'aseh 65), for example). The Rambam did not discuss eating the name, to be sure, but we may safely observe that eating it would in fact destroy it.

So now, no one should entertain doubt, serious or otherwise, that religious rules or texts exist that are relevant to cake decoration. And no one, you included, you believe that these rules apply only "if the love is between two of the same sex."
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.

Last edited by Bricker; 12-23-2017 at 02:37 PM.
  #1063  
Old 12-23-2017, 02:39 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
A baker could claim that "May our marriage be blessed by God" is against his religious beliefs, but in order to make that claim, he would have to deny that message to all customers, not just to some of them.
That's an awfully confident claim. It's almost like you are announcing a rule.

Can you explain why that wouldn't constitute compelled speech under the First Amendment's precedents?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #1064  
Old 12-23-2017, 02:55 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
My point was not to identify the religion specifically, but to point out the factual error in the claim, "No religious laws/texts have anything to say about wedding cake decorating."

Of course, technically, drachillix merely expressed "serious doubt," that such religious rules exist. So I offered up an example, or more specifically a question designed to highlight the example.

You chimed in with a statement that also suggested error, "Apparently only if the love is between two of the same sex."

That was neither apparent, or factually accurate.

Observant Jewish practice includes essentially never writing the name of God. (Again technically, the prohibition is not against writing it, but against writing in when the writing may subsequently be defaced or destroyed; see the Rambam's Sefer Ha-mitzvot (lo ta'aseh 65), for example). The Rambam did not discuss eating the name, to be sure, but we may safely observe that eating it would in fact destroy it.

So now, no one should entertain doubt, serious or otherwise, that religious rules or texts exist that are relevant to cake decoration. And no one, you included, you believe that these rules apply only "if the love is between two of the same sex."
And this baker would not write those words on any cake, for any couple, for any reason, right?

Not discrimination.

I apologize, I was mistaken in that I thought that your example was relevant in dealing with the issue of discrimination, and not just a potential score on my next game of trivial pursuit.

So, to be relevant to this thread, are there any examples of religious rules that would cause a baker that would write those words for one legal marriage, but not for another, other than SSM or that one state that allows incest?

You did pick out one line of drachillix's post out of context, I did not realize that in doing so you were also going to change the intent of the words that drachillix used.

Your example was not of a religious text about wedding cake decorating, it was an example of words that cannot be used on anything that is consumable. It had nothing to do with wedding cakes, other than that you could theoretically use it on wedding cakes.

You may as well have rebutted the argument by saying "A couple asks for a cake with the face of mohammed on it", might there be any religious texts/laws about that?" At least then it wouldn't appear as though you were going for obscure.

IOW, your rebuttal had nothing at all to do with wedding cakes, weddings, discrimination, SSM, or anything else relevant to the thread.

Do agree that if the baker was going to put those words on any cake, he would have to put them on all cakes if requested?
  #1065  
Old 12-23-2017, 10:51 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

IOW, your rebuttal had nothing at all to do with wedding cakes, weddings, discrimination, SSM, or anything else relevant to the thread.
To the contrary, the rebuttal served a valuable purpose: to stigmatize this unfortunate tendency people have of announcing, in tones of certainty that rival Moses at Sinai, some kind of rule - a rule that doesn't actually exist.

Quote:
Do agree that if the baker was going to put those words on any cake, he would have to put them on all cakes if requested?
No. I think that would constitute compelled speech, in violation of the First Amendment.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #1066  
Old 12-24-2017, 01:59 AM
Iggy Iggy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
...
Do agree that if the baker was going to put those words on any cake, he would have to put them on all cakes if requested?
Justice Alito clearly showed the problem with the idea of requiring a baker to duplicate any message that had previously be provided to a different customer. In short, whatever ruling the court fashions will not require such a simplistic rule.


And any notion that a person offering a religious objection must be able to point to some written command in whatever text his faith adheres to is one huge No True Scotsman argument. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

A court may examine if the religious belief of a single individual is sincerely held. But courts will not put an entire religion on trial to determine if a particular belief corresponds to a professed faith or decide which version of a particular belief system is the "right" one.
  #1067  
Old 12-24-2017, 03:49 AM
crowmanyclouds crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
{...} to stigmatize this unfortunate tendency people have of announcing, in tones of certainty that rival Moses at Sinai, some kind of rule - a rule that doesn't actually exist. {...}
Like the Biblical "rule" that Christians aren't allowed to make cakes for "gay" weddings?

CMC fnord!
  #1068  
Old 12-24-2017, 09:06 AM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 82,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
And any notion that a person offering a religious objection must be able to point to some written command in whatever text his faith adheres to is one huge No True Scotsman argument. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

A court may examine if the religious belief of a single individual is sincerely held. But courts will not put an entire religion on trial to determine if a particular belief corresponds to a professed faith or decide which version of a particular belief system is the "right" one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Like the Biblical "rule" that Christians aren't allowed to make cakes for "gay" weddings?

CMC fnord!
Read up.
  #1069  
Old 12-25-2017, 03:05 AM
crowmanyclouds crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Read up.
Fortunately, for me, I'm not "a court".

CMC fnord!
  #1070  
Old 12-25-2017, 05:23 AM
Iggy Iggy is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Fortunately, for me, I'm not "a court".

CMC fnord!
I agree.

Fortunately there is sufficient jurisprudence to establish that no one must be perfect to be able to raise the issue of a right of religious expression or conscientious objection. In fact a person's sincerely held beliefs need not arise from organized religion at least in the case of conscientious objection. That could be extended beyond the context of a military draft.

There was even a rather famous person whose case made its way to the high court in which the justices granted him conscientious exemption from the draft since "beliefs are founded on tenets of the Muslim religion as he understands them."

emphasis mine.

So Jack Phillip's personal beliefs may be assessed, but only as to whether he sincerely holds those beliefs about marriage as he understands that his faith requires.
  #1071  
Old 12-25-2017, 11:54 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
A baker could claim that "May our marriage be blessed by God" is against his religious beliefs, but in order to make that claim, he would have to deny that message to all customers, not just to some of them.
That wouldn't be an accurate statement. That implies all marriages are approved by said religious belief or for that matter any belief system.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #1072  
Old 12-25-2017, 01:28 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
Fortunately, for me, I'm not "a court".

CMC fnord!
Fortunately for ME, it's a court that decides the issue, not you.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #1073  
Old 12-25-2017, 02:36 PM
crowmanyclouds crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Fortunately for ME, it's a court that decides the issue, not you.
Good that you know exactly how I would rule on this case . . . since I, actually, don't know!

CMC fnord!
  #1074  
Old 12-25-2017, 03:30 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 55,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Fortunately for ME, it's a court that decides the issue, not you.
Fortunately for all of us, personal opinions are still allowed.

Aren't they?
  #1075  
Old 12-25-2017, 03:41 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Fortunately for all of us, personal opinions are still allowed.

Aren't they?
Sure, in fact, I hear tell of an entire forum on this site dedicated to their exchange.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #1076  
Old 12-25-2017, 03:47 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Sure, in fact, I hear tell of an entire forum on this site dedicated to their exchange.
The implication being, that matters of opinion are not suited to this forum?

Because that's also wrong.
  #1077  
Old 12-25-2017, 07:14 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
The implication being, that matters of opinion are not suited to this forum?

Because that's also wrong.
I notice that you did not speak as a moderator, but I nonetheless am concerned about contradicting you. So I'll just say nothing.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #1078  
Old 12-25-2017, 07:35 PM
crowmanyclouds crowmanyclouds is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ... hiding in my room ...
Posts: 4,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
Sure, in fact, I hear tell of an entire forum on this site dedicated to their exchange.
I hear tell of only one forum on this site not dedicated to the exchange of personal opinions, GQ, and even it's infested with them.

Are you, a 99er, under the impression that "IMHO" is special???

CMC fnord!
  #1079  
Old 12-25-2017, 07:39 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by crowmanyclouds View Post
I hear tell of only one forum on this site not dedicated to the exchange of personal opinions, GQ, and even it's infested with them.

Are you, a 99er, under the impression that "IMHO" is special???

CMC fnord!
I, a 99'er, am an incurable optimist in this regard. But I certainly admit you have the realistic side of this exchange.
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #1080  
Old 12-25-2017, 08:48 PM
Miller Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
I notice that you did not speak as a moderator, but I nonetheless am concerned about contradicting you. So I'll just say nothing.
I was speaking as a poster, and not a moderator. But you've been here how many years, and never noticed the forum description for GD?

"For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for religious debates and (if you feel you must) witnessing."

The forum was initially conceived for "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type questions. Obviously, objective facts are welcome when they're applicable, but the only forum here that's specifically supposed to only be about factual matters is GQ.
  #1081  
Old 12-25-2017, 09:35 PM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 55,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I was speaking as a poster, and not a moderator. But you've been here how many years, and never noticed the forum description for GD?

"For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for religious debates and (if you feel you must) witnessing."

The forum was initially conceived for "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type questions. Obviously, objective facts are welcome when they're applicable, but the only forum here that's specifically supposed to only be about factual matters is GQ.
What, in your view as a poster then, is the substantive difference between IMHO and GD?
__________________
It was always the Doctor and Sarah.
  #1082  
Old 12-25-2017, 10:01 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 33,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
[My bolding]. Um, what? The couple were surprised to be turned away, by their own admission.
My mistake. Seems I myself wound up believing one of the rumors instead of getting the facts. I definitely remember people claiming that they deliberately singled this guy out, and I guess I got that lumped into the group of things I knew for sure instead of things to check.
  #1083  
Old 12-28-2017, 04:12 PM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 25,064
Tangentially relevant to this, but the Oregon Court of Appeals just upheld a fine against the bakery "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" after they refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple:

http://www.kptv.com/story/37153906/a...melissa-owners
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017