Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #751  
Old 02-13-2018, 09:29 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
As a Christian, I believe that most anger harms the angry person and offends God. And certainly in such a case as this, offends God, harms the angry person, and harms the entire human race.
What do you mean by "in such a case as this"? Are you saying that God is offended by humans being angry at injustice and bigotry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne
However, that's a topic for another thread. Please begin one if you wish.
It seems to me that the topic of the role of anger in response to discrimination against LBGQT people is eminently relevant to this thread. Of course, that doesn't mean that you have to go on talking about it here if you don't want to.
  #752  
Old 02-13-2018, 10:06 AM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post

I think all that can be said about the First Amendment rights of people of faith has been said.
That they have the rigth to believe what they want - that they do not have the right to force that belief on others - and further that there are laws/regulations that control how they should act (toward others) when running a public business.

They can have as much religious idolatry as they want in thier business - they cannot refuse service to members of protected classes.

yep -thats about it.

Last edited by simster; 02-13-2018 at 10:08 AM.
  #753  
Old 02-13-2018, 10:19 AM
John Mace John Mace is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 83,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
That they have the rigth to believe what they want - that they do not have the right to force that belief on others - and further that there are laws/regulations that control how they should act (toward others) when running a public business.

They can have as much religious idolatry as they want in thier business - they cannot refuse service to members of protected classes.

yep -thats about it.
Can to cite the federal law or SCOTUS decision that declares gays to be in a protected (i.e., suspect) class? See, that's the problem with your argument. You have not made the case for the gay couple. If anything, you just made the case for the baker. Not to mention that this case is about speech, not religion.

Last edited by John Mace; 02-13-2018 at 10:20 AM.
  #754  
Old 02-13-2018, 10:38 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
As a Christian, I believe that most anger harms the angry person and offends God. And certainly in such a case as this, offends God, harms the angry person, and harms the entire human race. However, that's a topic for another thread. Please begin one if you wish.
Did Jesus's anger at the money changers harm him and offend god?
  #755  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:06 AM
doreen doreen is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 5,570
I don't think anyone here believes that sexual orientation is a suspect class at the Federal level. But that's not really the question in any of these cases. The question is whether and to what extent state and local governments can prohibit discrimination against groups who are not suspect classes under Federal law. The thing is though, I don't think it makes much of a difference to the people on either side of the debate whether it's a free speech issue or a religious freedom issue or whether sexual orientation is a suspect class at the Federal level.

The free speech vs. religion issue might make a difference to some of those who believe the baker should not be able to refuse to bake a pre-designed cake for the gay couple because it's entirely possible for someone to believe that any speech is in the designing, not the baking. But I truly don't believe it matters to anyone whether sexual orientation is a suspect class for Federal purposes. It clearly doesn't matter to those who believe that state and local governments should be able to protect groups that aren't protected Federally. But I don't think for one moment that those who believe the baker's rights are being violated are going to suddenly be OK with it if SCOTUS decides anything other than that these bakers do not have to bake these cakes.

It doesn't matter what SCOTUS decides- if they decide that the situations in these cases don't qualify as speech, if they decide that the state/local governments have a compelling interest in ending discrimination on this basis, whatever - those people are not just going to say " Well, now that SCOTUS has said it's legal for a state to require a baker not to discriminate against same-sex couples, I'm fine with it."
  #756  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:11 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Not to mention that this case is about speech, not religion.
Sort of. IANAL, but the OP's description of the judge's decision made it sound to my layperson's ears like a rather weird-ass melange of artistic expression and commercial nondiscrimination.

Namely, the baker's refusal was ruled legally permissible merely because the desired cake had not yet been made, and thus requiring the baker to make it for the gay couple would have been "forcing an act of artistic expression".

However, if the gay couple had decided that what they wanted was a cake that the baker had already made, using that very same artistic expression, and put in the display case for sale, it would have been considered an entirely different situation. In that case the couple could have said to the baker "We would like to buy your lovely artistic cake for our gay wedding, and consume it together with our gay-marriage-supporting friends and family and officiating clergy in celebration of our gay union, and save a couple slices for our wedding night in order to lick the frosting off each other's gay penises", and the baker could not legally have refused to sell them the cake.

That strikes me as an extremely weird distinction to draw. If something is a form of artistic expression, you get to control its use even after you've created it. For instance, if you offer your movie screenplay for sale to Hollywood producers, or your book manuscript to publishers, you can refuse to sell it to a buyer you don't happen to like.

The cake decision just seems like a tangled conflation of the concepts of creative work and commercial product. If the gay couple had requested the baker to make them a cake exactly like one that was already for sale in the display case, which according to the judge's decision they would have been fully entitled to buy, could the baker have refused to do so? What's the "artistic expression" justification for that?

Likewise, if I go to my hairdresser with a very specific hairstyle request, is she legally allowed to refuse to serve me on ideological grounds? If she's selling in her shop a wig she made with that exact same hairstyle, is she legally required to let me buy it? In terms of artistic expression, what's the difference?

ISTM that by this reasoning, pretty much any form of individualized service or product could be considered a form of "artistic expression" and denied to specific customers on ideological grounds. Suppose I'm running a lunch counter and am really fussy about the plating and presentation of my hotdogs. And I happen to be ideologically opposed for religious reasons to black people eating in the same establishments as white people. Why can't I just refuse to serve black customers on the grounds that I shouldn't be compelled to engage in the artistically expressive act of preparing and plating a hotdog for customers of whom I disapprove?
  #757  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:41 AM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Can to cite the federal law or SCOTUS decision that declares gays to be in a protected (i.e., suspect) class? See, that's the problem with your argument. You have not made the case for the gay couple. If anything, you just made the case for the baker. Not to mention that this case is about speech, not religion.
::sigh::

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." Unruh Civil Rights Act in California

I am pretty sure the baker and the couple suing are both in California and thus subject to California's laws which make homosexuals a protected class in that state.

But you wanted a SCOTUS decision and I am sure it is no surprise to you that they have never explicitly held homosexuals to be a protected class. That said they are tiptoeing mighty close to that:

Quote:
Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions have undermined the reasoning of both lines of cases and, as a result, recent cases have held that LGBT people may be entitled to protection under Title VII in some circumstances. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), the Supreme Court held that Title VII was not limited to discrimination on the basis of one’s biological status as a man or a woman but instead prohibits the “entire spectrum” of discrimination on the basis of sex, including discrimination on the basis of gender stereotypes. In Price Waterhouse, plaintiff Ann Hopkins was denied a partnership at an accounting firm because she was deemed to be insufficiently “feminine.” Id. at 234–35. To improve her chances for partnership, Hopkins was told she should “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.” Id. at 235. The employer argued that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination based on gender stereotypes. The Supreme Court disagreed. “As for the legal relevance of sex stereotyping, we are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group, for ‘in forbidding employers to discriminate against individuals because of their sex, Congress intended to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.’” Id. at 251 (internal citations omitted). Nine years later, in Oncale v. Sundowner, 523 U.S. 75 (1998), the Supreme Court removed another barrier when it held that a plaintiff could state a Title VII claim where sexual harassment was perpetrated by a person of the same sex.

Based on these Supreme Court decisions, courts across the country have held that LGBT people may be entitled to protection under Title VII. For example, in Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002), the district court denied summary judgment for an employer in a Title VII suit brought by a lesbian employee. The plaintiff presented evidence that throughout her employment, her female supervisor made disparaging and harassing comments based on gender stereotypes, including: “Oh, I thought you were a man”, “Do you wear the dick in the relationship?” and, “I thought you wore the pants.” In ruling in favor of the employee, the court relied upon a recent Ninth Circuit case— Nicholas v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001)—abrogating its earlier decision in DeSantis and holding that a male employee is entitled to redress under Title VII if he can prove that he was discriminated against for failing to comport with stereotypical notions of how men should appear and behave. Similarly, a concurring opinion in the en banc decision Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002), revived a Title VII claim brought by a gay male plaintiff who had presented evidence that his former coworkers taunted him by calling him feminine names and endearments, and ridiculed him for walking in a feminine manner.

SOURCE: https://www.americanbar.org/publicat...otectlgbt.html
And of course when you look at the reasoning the SCOTUS uses to determine a protected class you are pretty much forced to conclude that homosexuals meet the requirements since sexuality is an immutable characteristic (which is one reason conservatives cling so zealously to the notion that being gay is a choice when it manifestly is not).

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-13-2018 at 11:45 AM.
  #758  
Old 02-13-2018, 11:45 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
As a Christian, I believe that most anger harms the angry person and offends God. And certainly in such a case as this, offends God, harms the angry person, and harms the entire human race.
I'm not a Christian, but when I think about this desire to situation merchant activities within a church setting, I imagine Jesus reacting to your proposal like this.
  #759  
Old 02-13-2018, 12:08 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Can to cite the federal law or SCOTUS decision that declares gays to be in a protected (i.e., suspect) class? See, that's the problem with your argument. You have not made the case for the gay couple. If anything, you just made the case for the baker. Not to mention that this case is about speech, not religion.
Where did I state they were? IMHO, they should be, and 'on the basis of sex' should include them 'by definition' - but that is not settled yet.
  #760  
Old 02-13-2018, 01:53 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Sort of. IANAL, but the OP's description of the judge's decision made it sound to my layperson's ears like a rather weird-ass melange of artistic expression and commercial nondiscrimination.

Namely, the baker's refusal was ruled legally permissible merely because the desired cake had not yet been made, and thus requiring the baker to make it for the gay couple would have been "forcing an act of artistic expression".

However, if the gay couple had decided that what they wanted was a cake that the baker had already made, using that very same artistic expression, and put in the display case for sale, it would have been considered an entirely different situation. In that case the couple could have said to the baker "We would like to buy your lovely artistic cake for our gay wedding, and consume it together with our gay-marriage-supporting friends and family and officiating clergy in celebration of our gay union, and save a couple slices for our wedding night in order to lick the frosting off each other's gay penises", and the baker could not legally have refused to sell them the cake.

That strikes me as an extremely weird distinction to draw. If something is a form of artistic expression, you get to control its use even after you've created it. For instance, if you offer your movie screenplay for sale to Hollywood producers, or your book manuscript to publishers, you can refuse to sell it to a buyer you don't happen to like.
If you opened a store open to the public and held your manuscripts out for sale and you sold to the straight dude but refused to sell to the gay dude, then the judge would probably say that is different than writing a romantic comedy for the straight dude but not one for the gay dude.

Quote:
The cake decision just seems like a tangled conflation of the concepts of creative work and commercial product. If the gay couple had requested the baker to make them a cake exactly like one that was already for sale in the display case, which according to the judge's decision they would have been fully entitled to buy, could the baker have refused to do so? What's the "artistic expression" justification for that?
So why not just buy the one in the display case?

Quote:
Likewise, if I go to my hairdresser with a very specific hairstyle request, is she legally allowed to refuse to serve me on ideological grounds? If she's selling in her shop a wig she made with that exact same hairstyle, is she legally required to let me buy it? In terms of artistic expression, what's the difference?
I think you are picking up on a distinction that the court did not address because it was not necessary to address it. If the baker had a catalog of cake designs, they would have to make one for the gay couple as well, they wouldn't have to put a gay topper on it or say "god bless the union between Adam and Steve" but they would have to make the cake.

"The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.

Quote:
ISTM that by this reasoning, pretty much any form of individualized service or product could be considered a form of "artistic expression" and denied to specific customers on ideological grounds. Suppose I'm running a lunch counter and am really fussy about the plating and presentation of my hotdogs. And I happen to be ideologically opposed for religious reasons to black people eating in the same establishments as white people. Why can't I just refuse to serve black customers on the grounds that I shouldn't be compelled to engage in the artistically expressive act of preparing and plating a hotdog for customers of whom I disapprove?
I think you are misreading the article.
  #761  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:01 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
::sigh::

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever." Unruh Civil Rights Act in California

I am pretty sure the baker and the couple suing are both in California and thus subject to California's laws which make homosexuals a protected class in that state.
::sigh::

I am pretty sure that state law can never trump the first amendment.

Quote:
But you wanted a SCOTUS decision and I am sure it is no surprise to you that they have never explicitly held homosexuals to be a protected class. That said they are tiptoeing mighty close to that:

And of course when you look at the reasoning the SCOTUS uses to determine a protected class you are pretty much forced to conclude that homosexuals meet the requirements since sexuality is an immutable characteristic (which is one reason conservatives cling so zealously to the notion that being gay is a choice when it manifestly is not).
We are pretty close to the day when we might conflate sexual orientation with sex. You sure sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic? There is no fluidity to sexual orientation?
  #762  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:04 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So why not just buy the one in the display case?
May I hazard a guess that you've never been intimately involved in the planning of a wedding, either because you're not married or because you let your spouse handle the lion's share of the planning? May I further hazard a guess that you've eaten cake but are otherwise not very familiar with the logistics of cake?

Because if you'd planned a wedding, or if you'd spent much time working with cake, you'd know that cakes, unlike spatulas or Precious Moments figurines or American flags or doorknobs, are both biodegradable and ephemeral. If you'd been involved with wedding planning, you'd know that most weddings are planned months in advance. And you'd know that buying a wedding cake out of a case is a terrible idea for almost all weddings, because the time between planning the cake's acquisition and the consumption of the cake is far too long for a cake to last.

That sets aside things like folks who have color themes for their wedding, and who want the cake to be a nice lemon yellow to match their linens, or whatever.

The idea that they should have just bought the one in the case is a ludicrous idea.
  #763  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:07 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
::sigh::

I am pretty sure that state law can never trump the first amendment.
Are you under the understanding that federal law, unlike state law, can trump the first amendment? Are you under the understanding that federal law has an easier time trumping the first amendment?

If so, you need to explain yourself, because I think you're wrong on that.

If not, it's completely goddamned irrelevant whether it's a state protection or a federal protection, except that it determines where the suit is happening.
  #764  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:11 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
If you opened a store open to the public and held your manuscripts out for sale and you sold to the straight dude but refused to sell to the gay dude, then the judge would probably say that is different than writing a romantic comedy for the straight dude but not one for the gay dude.
I do not know why people keep going here. Cake is not the same thing as an original manuscript.

To be apples to apples it would be like going in to a store which had twenty paragraphs on display in a display case and then you ask the merchant to give you paragraphs 2, 3, 12 and 17. They then run to the back and print them out for you.

The cake maker is doing much the same. The case says the couple looked at options available in the display case and made their choice from that. The baker was not being asked to invent a whole new cake recipe and design from scratch. The baker is closer to a cake assembler than a cake artist.


Quote:
So why not just buy the one in the display case?
Maybe the right size cake for the wedding was not on display.

Maybe they want a fresh cake for their wedding and not one sitting around a few days.

Maybe the exact cake was not on display. So they choose vanilla cake from one option and chocolate frosting from another option.

Maybe on their wedding day they do not want to be arsed running around collecting cakes and transporting them.

There are many possible reasons. They have other things on their mind that day.

The weird thing here is the judge says she would have to sell a display cake so the only difference is whether the baker knows ahead of time who will buy the cake. If she does she can refuse but if she only learns of it at the point of sale then she cannot. How does that make sense?

Quote:
I think you are picking up on a distinction that the court did not address because it was not necessary to address it. If the baker had a catalog of cake designs, they would have to make one for the gay couple as well, they wouldn't have to put a gay topper on it or say "god bless the union between Adam and Steve" but they would have to make the cake.
The couple did not ask for any message or anything that was not on offer from the baker on their cake.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-13-2018 at 02:14 PM.
  #765  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:18 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So why not just buy the one in the display case?
Why not buy a display cake that is probably already stale from sitting in the case for weeks for a wedding that takes place in several more weeks? Is that really your question?
Quote:
I think you are picking up on a distinction that the court did not address because it was not necessary to address it. If the baker had a catalog of cake designs, they would have to make one for the gay couple as well, they wouldn't have to put a gay topper on it or say "god bless the union between Adam and Steve" but they would have to make the cake.
My understanding is that is exactly what happened. They asked for a cake that was identical to the one that was already made.
Quote:
"The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.
Yeah that's what the judge said, and that was one of the main arguments of this thread is whether making something from a catalogue counts as artistic expression.
Quote:

I think you are misreading the article.
I don't think that's the case.


Quote:
We are pretty close to the day when we might conflate sexual orientation with sex. You sure sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic? There is no fluidity to sexual orientation?
So, you are saying that the baker would have been happy to make them a cake if they had changed their orientation to something more acceptable?
  #766  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:30 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
::sigh::

I am pretty sure that state law can never trump the first amendment.
Yeah...we know. We have discussed this earlier in this thread.

Yes the judge made it a free speech issue. Many here disagree with the judge and feel if this counts as speech then there is no meaningful limit. The guy making your sandwich at Subway is engaging in speech and can deny you service for whatever reason pops into his/her head.


Quote:
We are pretty close to the day when we might conflate sexual orientation with sex. You sure sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic? There is no fluidity to sexual orientation?
It is possible a given person's sexuality may change over time but it is never a "choice". Assuming you are heterosexual do you think it is trivial for you to choose, right now, to be homosexual? Not that you could go engage in homosexual sex but that you could change your personal sexuality to be a homosexual on a whim?
  #767  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:44 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Maybe they want a fresh cake for their wedding and not one sitting around a few days.
Just to make sure I wasn't high, I looked for a proposed schedule for planning a wedding. Given the difficulty in scheduling a wedding cake, this website suggests starting your taste-tests four to five MONTHS before the wedding.

Choosing the display case cake ain't a real option .
  #768  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:48 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Just to make sure I wasn't high, I looked for a proposed schedule for planning a wedding. Given the difficulty in scheduling a wedding cake, this website suggests starting your taste-tests four to five MONTHS before the wedding.

Choosing the display case cake ain't a real option .
Not if it's a Havisham cake.
  #769  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:49 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
...


The couple did not ask for any message or anything that was not on offer from the baker on their cake.
Which is totally immaterial. The court held that the baker was within her rights to refuse to serve the couple as her trade was one of applying her artistic talents to all her creations, and as such, she can't be compelled to perform herein. Good luck if you think this applies to a Subway sandwich or pickles on a hamburger. The fact that the couple choose to order a wedding cake is where it ends. No one had to actually design the cake before the 1st Amendment applies.
  #770  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:56 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Which is totally immaterial. The court held that the baker was within her rights to refuse to serve the couple as her trade was one of applying her artistic talents to all her creations, and as such, she can't be compelled to perform herein. Good luck if you think this applies to a Subway sandwich or pickles on a hamburger. The fact that the couple choose to order a wedding cake is where it ends. No one had to actually design the cake before the 1st Amendment applies.
Which means the baker could refuse any order from the couple for something 'in advance' - be it cupcakes, donuts, pastries, birthday cakes, etc and so on.
  #771  
Old 02-13-2018, 02:59 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
Which means the baker could refuse any order from the couple for something 'in advance' - be it cupcakes, donuts, pastries, birthday cakes, etc and so on.
No, it means the baker was within her rights to refuse to bake a wedding cake for this couple. That's all.
  #772  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:02 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Which is totally immaterial. The court held that the baker was within her rights to refuse to serve the couple as her trade was one of applying her artistic talents to all her creations, and as such, she can't be compelled to perform herein. Good luck if you think this applies to a Subway sandwich or pickles on a hamburger. The fact that the couple choose to order a wedding cake is where it ends. No one had to actually design the cake before the 1st Amendment applies.
There are more forms of food than subways and hamburgers. There are chefs who have spent their entire lives creating artistic dishes, and anything you have seen on Cake Boss happens in many kitchens as well. I don't think that they would agree with you that only cakes can be art.

But, even still, outside of the fact that you are wrong on the point that only cakes can be art, can you tell me why it would not apply to someone who is asked to apply their artistic talents to create a subway sandwich for your enjoyment? This was no cake boss cake, this place was more the subway of wedding cake bakers. They didn't have any real original designs, and they didn't even take commissions for unique designs. The only "art" that they could demonstrate is the "art" of following a recipe and following instructions for decoration, no different than someone making your sandwich.
  #773  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:03 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Which is totally immaterial. The court held that the baker was within her rights to refuse to serve the couple as her trade was one of applying her artistic talents to all her creations, and as such, she can't be compelled to perform herein. Good luck if you think this applies to a Subway sandwich or pickles on a hamburger. The fact that the couple choose to order a wedding cake is where it ends. No one had to actually design the cake before the 1st Amendment applies.
I think it's ridiculous to apply it to a wedding cake, for the reasons stated ad nauseum. We know what the court held; nobody is disputing that the court made this decision. What's being disputed is that it's a reasonable decision, or that there's a reasonable bright line which puts cake-baking on one side and sauce-garnishing on the other--and especially no bright line that puts cake-baking on the side of speech, and speaking to the customer on the other side.

If this ruling holds, it eviscerates anti-discrimination law, because of course I may not be compelled to speak to customers, and by this simple expedient may discriminate to my heart's content.

k9bfriender, I don't know what the hell that cake's supposed to be, but I dare you to take that picture to Ms. Miller and ask her to bake it.
  #774  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:03 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
No, it means the baker was within her rights to refuse to bake a wedding cake for this couple. That's all.
You just stated -

Quote:
The court held that the baker was within her rights to refuse to serve the couple as her trade was one of applying her artistic talents to all her creations, and as such, she can't be compelled to perform herein.
Now - tell me that the cupcakes, birthday cakes, donuts, etc are not applying the bakers 'artistic talents'? Especially if the order is something 'in advance' (vs picking up a dozen glazed on the way to the office).

as stated - that ruling can be applied to anything someone does - and that is the issue with it - 'Wedding Cakes' may be unique in the sense that they define the event they are headed for - but they are not neccisarily any more 'artistic' than a birthday cake.
  #775  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:04 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
No, it means the baker was within her rights to refuse to bake a wedding cake for this couple. That's all.
So, she can be compelled to make a cupcake for them, but not a wedding cake?
  #776  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:08 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
No one said only cakes can be art. If you read it carefully you'll see that I said; this cake, this baker, this couple, this result = art. Would wedding cookies, cupcakes be covered? Are they artistic or is that minimum wage hire just following the directions on the box? I don't know. I'm sure everyone here has an opinion, but I don't know.
  #777  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:09 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
k9bfriender, I don't know what the hell that cake's supposed to be, but I dare you to take that picture to Ms. Miller and ask her to bake it.
Great Expectations, Miss Havisham gets left at the alter, and leaves the wedding banquet, along with the cake to rot. For decades.

I'm sure you've heard of this, I suppose I was too subtle. I think that was a still from one of the film adaptations.
  #778  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:13 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
...

Now - tell me that the cupcakes, birthday cakes, donuts, etc are not applying the bakers 'artistic talents'? Especially if the order is something 'in advance' (vs picking up a dozen glazed on the way to the office).

....
And that, my friend, is why lawyers love courts so much. All they have is one court order with respect to a wedding cake (etc.) that says she can't be compelled to bake that cake. They would need another order to expand that to wedding cupcakes and wedding cookies. It may be that they are deemed to be an artistic expression too and if they were, then you might expect the same result.

(Of course, someone with such a shitty business model probably won't be in business long enough to ever find out.)
  #779  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:13 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
No one said only cakes can be art. If you read it carefully you'll see that I said; this cake, this baker, this couple, this result = art. Would wedding cookies, cupcakes be covered? Are they artistic or is that minimum wage hire just following the directions on the box? I don't know.
So this case will not establish a precedent and each item of food that someone refuses to make will need to be taken to court individually?

My suspicion is the courts will say (if this stands) that making a doughnut or sandwich amounts to the same thing as making a cake. To not have the case dismissed someone would need to show why baking a cake amounts to a substantially different thing than making a doughnut for the purposes of free speech.

So far those defending the baker have not been able to make that distinction and is why I suspect you are dancing around it too.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-13-2018 at 03:15 PM.
  #780  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:15 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
No one said only cakes can be art. If you read it carefully you'll see that I said; this cake, this baker, this couple, this result = art. Would wedding cookies, cupcakes be covered? Are they artistic or is that minimum wage hire just following the directions on the box? I don't know. I'm sure everyone here has an opinion, but I don't know.
Yes, we're clear on what you, and the judge, said. That's not what's in question.

The question is, what non-arbitrary criteria, if any, do you offer to distinguish this from other efforts, such that we may establish a consistent legal principle? And can we establish a consistent legal principle by which anti-discrimination laws fail to meet the strict scrutiny test for overcoming first amendment protections?

Because I've let folks slide on claiming that federal or state law can't trump the first amendment, but depending on how you establish the principle, that becomes a significant instead of a technical error. Of course law can trump the first amendment, if there's a compelling state interest in doing so.

If you can establish such a narrow legal principle that baking custom wedding cakes is the only public accommodation covered, then you might be able to say that there's no compelling state interest in overcoming the first amendment. But I don't think there's a rational principle you can establish that makes that nice a distinction.

Instead, any legal principle that treats customized cake-baking for hire as free speech is, if reasonably applied, going to include such a wide swath of mercantile activity that anti-discrimination laws will be rendered obsolete. And the state can make a very powerful case that it has a compelling interest in keeping the teeth in anti-discrimination laws.

So it's not enough to refer to the judge's vacuous reasoning about why wedding cakes are speech, but other speech ("May I take your order?") isn't speech. If you want to defend this decision, you need to set out a legal principle far clearer than what this fool of a judge has set out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Great Expectations, Miss Havisham gets left at the alter, and leaves the wedding banquet, along with the cake to rot. For decades.
Thanks--I did wonder what the Dickens you were talking about.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 02-13-2018 at 03:16 PM.
  #781  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:15 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
No one said only cakes can be art. If you read it carefully you'll see that I said; this cake, this baker, this couple, this result = art. Would wedding cookies, cupcakes be covered? Are they artistic or is that minimum wage hire just following the directions on the box? I don't know. I'm sure everyone here has an opinion, but I don't know.
What about this cake and this baker make it into art? The couple doesn't have anything to do with the cake, so that's not part of the art.

Is the cake unique? Does it have features on it that the baker creatively designed specifically for this cake? If not, then why is this cake art, but cupcakes are not?

Why is this baker, or baking in general, maybe, unique? Do bakers posses some creativity that no one else does?

I am not sure that anyone has said that only cakes can be art, but you have denied everything else as art that has been offered as an example. You say that a subway sandwich cannot be art, but do not say how that unique creation that is crafted according to custom specifications from the customer is less artistic and creative from a baker following a recipe and directions.

Art is, quite literally, anything that is called art.
  #782  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:23 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So, she can be compelled to make a cupcake for them, but not a wedding cake?
Let's look at what might happen. Another baker on the other side of town gets a request, from another LGBT couple, requesting 2 wedding cookies, each sculptured as a caricature of one of the wedding partners. Probably this is clearly an artistic endeavor by the baker.

If the cookies are nothing more than a standard recipe, round, undecorated peanut butter cookies, baked per the instructions on the box, then maybe not.

You know how to know for sure? Right, wait for it to happen, then read the ruling.
  #783  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:32 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Let's look at what might happen. Another baker on the other side of town gets a request, from another LGBT couple, requesting 2 wedding cookies, each sculptured as a caricature of one of the wedding partners. Probably this is clearly an artistic endeavor by the baker.

If the cookies are nothing more than a standard recipe, round, undecorated peanut butter cookies, baked per the instructions on the box, then maybe not.

You know how to know for sure? Right, wait for it to happen, then read the ruling.
That's the worst way ever to run a country. Judges need to issue rulings that establish principles, not just say, "I rolled my secret judge Boggle dice and got A R T, so this one's art, stay tuned next time!"

If there's no clear rationale that allows the judge to call this one speech but not that one, what's the point?
  #784  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:44 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Let's look at what might happen. Another baker on the other side of town gets a request, from another LGBT couple, requesting 2 wedding cookies, each sculptured as a caricature of one of the wedding partners. Probably this is clearly an artistic endeavor by the baker.

If the cookies are nothing more than a standard recipe, round, undecorated peanut butter cookies, baked per the instructions on the box, then maybe not.
And what if the cookies are made according to her own recipe, and decorated according to her instructions, even using the custom cookie cutters she had specially made to cut cookies out in the shapes of people, exactly as she does for every other couple coming in getting wedding cookies?
Quote:
You know how to know for sure? Right, wait for it to happen, then read the ruling.
Then of course, read the appeal, the overturn, and so on and so forth.
  #785  
Old 02-13-2018, 03:52 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And what if the cookies are made according to her own recipe, and decorated according to her instructions, even using the custom cookie cutters she had specially made to cut cookies out in the shapes of people, exactly as she does for every other couple coming in getting wedding cookies?
Then the baker's attorney would argue it applied, and the couple's attorney would argue that there was no artistic endeavor involved therefore it did not apply.
  #786  
Old 02-13-2018, 04:00 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Then the baker's attorney would argue it applied, and the couple's attorney would argue that there was no artistic endeavor involved therefore it did not apply.
I get that, same as I would argue it would apply, and you would argue that it doesn't.

Man, it seems so much work to hate people. Did they realize that when they signed up to be bigots?

"You can treat everyone equally and fairly, but you will have to treat everyone that way, even the people that you don't really like." or "You can discriminate against anyone you want to, but in order to do so, you need to hire a lawyer to argue that your form of discrimination was an artistic expression."

Seems if people actually realized that was their choice, they'd realize they'd rather deal with people of ethnicities, religions, genders, and even sexual orientations that they disapprove of than to deal with lawyers.
  #787  
Old 02-13-2018, 04:06 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 10,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Let's look at what might happen. Another baker on the other side of town gets a request, from another LGBT couple, requesting 2 wedding cookies, each sculptured as a caricature of one of the wedding partners. Probably this is clearly an artistic endeavor by the baker.

If the cookies are nothing more than a standard recipe, round, undecorated peanut butter cookies, baked per the instructions on the box, then maybe not.

You know how to know for sure? Right, wait for it to happen, then read the ruling.
I don't believe that the ruling says that creativity or uniqueness have anything to do with anything. All arguments from the position that the first amendment speech comes from creativity strike me as goalpost movement and invalid argument.

It's my understanding that the judge's "argument" was that the weddingness of it all imparts sacredness which, by unexplained methods, makes wedding cakes the most speechy things ever - but creativity isn't part of that process. It literally has nothing to do with the case and any arguments made based on creativity can be mocked and dismissed summarily.

So if "wedding cookes" are "sacred" like wedding cakes are (which is impossible to determine because the judge's ruling relies on 'logic' with no relation to reality) then they too would be considered first amendment speech, even if they are cranked out by exactly the same machine that cranks out all their non-wedding cookies that may or may not also be sacred speech depending on how gay the customer is.

There is only one thing that reliably stops these mass-produced cookies from being too sacred to sell to gay people, according to this dipshit judge: being put in a display case. Because, of course, display cases are magic!
  #788  
Old 02-13-2018, 04:21 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I get that, same as I would argue it would apply, and you would argue that it doesn't.

Man, it seems so much work to hate people. Did they realize that when they signed up to be bigots?

"You can treat everyone equally and fairly, but you will have to treat everyone that way, even the people that you don't really like." or "You can discriminate against anyone you want to, but in order to do so, you need to hire a lawyer to argue that your form of discrimination was an artistic expression."

Seems if people actually realized that was their choice, they'd realize they'd rather deal with people of ethnicities, religions, genders, and even sexual orientations that they disapprove of than to deal with lawyers.
If you allow the state to chip away at anyone's Constitutional rights, you're allowing the state to chip away at yours. To that extent, this case was a victory for all, because the Constitution was protected, but also it was a loss to all, because an ugly side of America is free to continue being as they are.
  #789  
Old 02-13-2018, 04:37 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
If you allow the state to chip away at anyone's Constitutional rights, you're allowing the state to chip away at yours. To that extent, this case was a victory for all, because the Constitution was protected, but also it was a loss to all, because an ugly side of America is free to continue being as they are.
Thing is forcing people who run a business to treat all customers the same is just society at work and not an infringement on the person.

If the person wants to be a racist or bigot they are still free to be a racist or bigot. Just not in their business. When they go home or to the bar they are free to be themselves.

If they are so racist/bigoted that they just cannot abide selling a cake to someone they disagree with then they probably should not go into a cake selling business.
  #790  
Old 02-13-2018, 05:20 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
If you allow the state to chip away at anyone's Constitutional rights, you're allowing the state to chip away at yours. To that extent, this case was a victory for all, because the Constitution was protected, but also it was a loss to all, because an ugly side of America is free to continue being as they are.
I have absolutely no problem with the state chipping away my "right" to have a public buses at which I discriminate against people for being a member of a protected class. The only problem I have with such laws, in fact, is that I don't think that they cover enough people with protected classes.

Same as when the state chips away at my right to commit murder, I don't really have a problem with that either.
  #791  
Old 02-13-2018, 10:58 PM
Saint Cad Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 12,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Then baking a cake for a same sex marriage shouldn't be all that hard to do.
Before or after you stone your disobedient children to death?
__________________
If all else fails, try S.C.E. to Aux.
  #792  
Old 02-15-2018, 04:13 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
I'm jumping in here with an answer, and quoting myself from earlier today (#602): Regarding the question of Christian bakers who agree to sell to any and all comers of any description any goods they may require which the bakers customarily purvey to the public, except in those cases which may arise in which the customer requests that the baker exercise his or her artistic expression in a manner that violates her conscience, it would seem that there's a distinction between religious precept and religious counsel, and also between negative and positive directions from God.

A precept is a commandment: each Christian must obey a precept in its fullness as soon as he is old enough to be responsible for his actions. A positive precept is something the Christian must do: ("Keep holy the Sabbath day.") A negative precept is something he must not do. ("Thou shalt not kill.")

A counsel is advice which the Christian must treat with reverence from his earliest age of reason, but which not every Christian is morally bound to observe. And the counsels may also be positive ("Go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and follow me" - which only some are called to do, not all) or negative, for example, to refrain from embracing the goods of marriage and family life for the sake of the Kingdom, which only some, not all, are called to do.

No Christian may intentionally excuse himself from the words of Saint Paul, "And whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Colossians 3:17) This is a matter of precept.

Also of precept is the First Commandment which requires Jews and Christians to honor God above all things, and which would forbid them placing before God an offering of that which He has forbidden.

Among the things which God has forbidden are homosexual relationships, and by extension, homosexual marriages.

Therefore, in fulfilling the precept given by the Apostle to do all in the Name of the Lord Jesus, which is of precept, the baker offends God if she voluntarily undertakes any action that which she cannot lawfully offer to God in Jesus' name.

And for the State to attempt to compel her to do so, is for the State to compel her to violate her conscience.
I missed this earlier.

To a non-believer like me, this is gobbledygook. I'm sure it means something to you, but to me it's not possible to distinguish it from other claims that their religion genuinely forbids baking cakes for interracial couples. If I can't tell the difference, how is a secular government supposed to tell the difference?
  #793  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:40 AM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I missed this earlier.

To a non-believer like me, this is gobbledygook. I'm sure it means something to you, but to me it's not possible to distinguish it from other claims that their religion genuinely forbids baking cakes for interracial couples. If I can't tell the difference, how is a secular government supposed to tell the difference?
Thank you, iiandyiiii, for your question.

Those classes of persons to which the State wishes to attach a special attentiveness to the protection of their civil rights, would, indeed, enjoy special protections under the law (people of various races, ages, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.). Most persons of religious faith would agree that, in theory, and in general, such protections are legitimate up to a point that their observance wouldn't require persons of faith to violate their consciences.

So there's a balance here: the rights of the business owner vs. the rights of the various couples who enjoy government-protected status.

An analogy might be the Constitutional rights of protesters peaceably to assemble vs. the rights of victims facing illness, injury, or facing imminent threats to life and limb or potential loss of their homes, or businesses who have a right to timely assistance from the public authorities commissioned to address these emergencies. (The analogy isn't perfect; it fails insofar as victims of emergencies aren't a protected class. But I think most reasonable people can get the idea.)

How this plays out: A friend who is an anarchist explained to me that his band of anarchists feel that shutting down traffic is an important means of protest for them, and they are committed to doing so. Otherwise, he says, they won't get the attention and the media coverage they need to get their message out there.

He claims that when the police, with horseback mounted officers, and officers in riot gear force the protesters off the roadway and onto the sidewalk or onto grassy areas, that the police are (and thus the State is) denying the anarchists their Constitutional right peaceably to assemble.

But victims in need of police assistance, or firetrucks or ambulances also have a right to timely assistance from the public authorities commissioned to address these emergencies. Police cars responding to emergency calls, firetrucks, ambulance need to be able to get through. When protesters are blocking the main roadways in and out of an area, police and other emergency vehicles are impeded from going where they need to go quickly and safely.

So the State must balance the Constitutional right to free assembly of the protesters against the rights of those in need of timely emergency assistance.

The answer, the State has decided, is to permit peaceable assembly almost anywhere, but not in locations that would jeopardize the safety of any local resident(s).

These restrictions make the anarchists very angry, and they continue to insist that their Constitutional rights are being violated by the rules against blocking certain public roadways during protests.

The State also has had to balance the right of free speech and assembly on public sidewalks by protesters at abortion clinics against the civil right of women to obtain abortions without being physically blocked and without undergoing a gauntlet of disapproving displays and speech. In many states, "bubble zones" have been created on the public sidewalks nearest the entrances to the clinic, which protesters may not enter. Thus by increasing the distance of the protesters from the clinic entrances the women entering don't have to experience blocked entrances or protesters getting right in their faces.

Some abortion protesters have been angered by the "bubble zone" restriction, and have claimed that this law violates their constitutional right freely to assemble on public spaces, and their rights to free expression. The State counters that their right to assemble and to express their protest has not been violated, but has had limits placed around it. To these limits these protesters have sometimes very strenuously objected.

In the case of businesses claiming a religious exemption for the provision of certain special order services to certain couples vs. the civil right of persons of all classes not to experience discrimination because of their class or status, many people of traditional faith believe that the State can and should develop a few simple tests by which to balance these competing claims. One test for claims of religious exemption from providing certain services to certain couples (interracial couples; LG couples, or other couples) would be for the State to discover whether there are specific verses in the relevant Sacred text that expressly forbid a particular way of relating (sexually) to one another. Or whether there are verses specifically, expressly forbidding certain people marrying one another.

The relevant Sacred texts would be the Old and New Testament in the case of Christians; the Koran in the case of Muslims; the Torah in the case of Jews, and whatever additional sacred texts that the religious body categorically include as authoritative.

I don't want to dive into an exploration of the relevant Christian precepts contained in the texts. That the precepts are expressly and indisputably present isn't much denied; whether they remain in force in modern times is a matter of intense debate. If you google the question, you'll find millions of results; the first ones will give several of the relevant verses, and some will discount these verses using other verses, exegesis (a study of the text beyond its meaning on the face), or both.

I would argue that if the State, having identified the relevant texts, should then attempt to establish whether a specific, expressly stated, relevant precept set forth in Sacred Scripture is no longer in force, and on that basis, deny the claim, then that would be an instance of the State establishing a religion. This the State may not do.

If the State, however, having identified the relevant texts, decides that the requirement for the Scripture test has been simply met in the case of a claimant for a religious exemption, then I believe that the State will have acted properly, justly, and well within Constitutional limits.

Last edited by Euphrosyne; 02-15-2018 at 05:45 AM.
  #794  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:48 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
One test for claims of religious exemption from providing certain services to certain couples (interracial couples; LG couples, or other couples) would be for the State to discover whether there are specific verses in the relevant Sacred text that expressly forbid a particular way of relating (sexually) to one another. Or whether there are verses specifically, expressly forbidding certain people marrying one another.

The relevant Sacred texts would be the Old and New Testament in the case of Christians; the Koran in the case of Muslims; the Torah in the case of Jews, and whatever additional sacred texts that the religious body categorically include as authoritative.
But this is a terrible and unfair idea. What about non-Abrahamic religions, who don't emphasize their books as much? What about neopagans, Wiccans, animists, who don't have a sacred book at all? And what about atheists who nonetheless have a strong conscience--is the fact that I can't point to a supernatural source for my conscience going to disqualify my conscience from government recognition?

And even if we had this test, you'd be out of luck, as no translation of the Bible has "verses specifically, expressly forbidding" baking a wedding cake for a gay couple. (In fact, I'm unaware of any Biblical verse that is "specifically, expressly forbidding" gay marriage--but given that nobody is being compelled to enter into a gay marriage, that's a tangent).

This test not only shouldn't be the main determinant: it has no role whatsoever in determining governmental relationship to religion.
  #795  
Old 02-15-2018, 06:26 AM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
But this is a terrible and unfair idea. What about non-Abrahamic religions, who don't emphasize their books as much? What about neopagans, Wiccans, animists, who don't have a sacred book at all? And what about atheists who nonetheless have a strong conscience--is the fact that I can't point to a supernatural source for my conscience going to disqualify my conscience from government recognition?

And even if we had this test, you'd be out of luck, as no translation of the Bible has "verses specifically, expressly forbidding" baking a wedding cake for a gay couple. (In fact, I'm unaware of any Biblical verse that is "specifically, expressly forbidding" gay marriage--but given that nobody is being compelled to enter into a gay marriage, that's a tangent).

This test not only shouldn't be the main determinant: it has no role whatsoever in determining governmental relationship to religion.
There needn't to be a test concerning "verses specifically, expressly forbidding baking a wedding cake for a gay couple."

Because no one is refusing "to bake the cake."

The conscience objections do not concern whether "to bake a cake."

To produce a bare, unfrosted, undecorated cake would probably represent no difficulty to the consciences of Christian baker.

But a bare, unfrosted cake would not satisfy the requirements of any couple ordering a wedding cake. There must be the artistic expression, as well: the icing and decorating of the cake.

The question is whether the State can compel a business owner to take a special order to provide artistic expression for the celebration of a union of two men or two women - which union is forbidden according to Judaeo-Christian Scripture - on the basis of equal protection for a particular class of persons (i.e., gay couples.)

And because by precept, Christians are to offer everything they say and do in the Name of God, and because Christians cannot offer to God an act that facilitates the celebration of that which God forbids, the Christian who claims that such a requirement by the state would force him to violate his conscience would meet at least one test, that is, the one I specified.

That I have proposed one possible test doesn't rule out that alternative, additional tests may be developed and applied to accommodate the conscience requirements of persons of other faiths, or of no faith at all.

This is simply one test.
  #796  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:08 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
There needn't to be a test concerning "verses specifically, expressly forbidding baking a wedding cake for a gay couple."

Because no one is refusing "to bake the cake."

The conscience objections do not concern whether "to bake a cake."

To produce a bare, unfrosted, undecorated cake would probably represent no difficulty to the consciences of Christian baker.

But a bare, unfrosted cake would not satisfy the requirements of any couple ordering a wedding cake. There must be the artistic expression, as well: the icing and decorating of the cake.
This is a twiddlingly ridiculous objection. Obviously when I talk about baking a wedding cake, I'm talking about the icing and decorating of the cake. Don't be absurd.

Instead, consider this: for whatever pedantic hairsplitting definition you'd like to give for what the happy couple is asking the baker to do, there are no Bible "verses specifically, expressly forbidding" that behavior.

You've tried to duck and weave around what you said by going back to the "precept" business--but what you've not done is to show the verses that specifically, expressly forbid" baking that cake.
  #797  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:20 AM
Euphrosyne Euphrosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Wash, D.C. metro area
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This is a twiddlingly ridiculous objection. Obviously when I talk about baking a wedding cake, I'm talking about the icing and decorating of the cake. Don't be absurd.
If you're talking about the legalities of things, Left Hand, then you're getting into "it all depends on what your definition of is, is" territory.

If you believe that my discussion around the legalities of these matters is absurd, then perhaps a discussion around the legalities of these matters is not for you.

Quote:
Instead, consider this: for whatever pedantic hairsplitting definition you'd like to give for what the happy couple is asking the baker to do, there are no Bible "verses specifically, expressly forbidding" that behavior.

You've tried to duck and weave around what you said by going back to the "precept" business--but what you've not done is to show the verses that specifically, expressly forbid" baking that cake.
On the contrary, it's clear that Christians are bound by precept found in the Sacred and expressly set forth therein that we are to offer all that we say and do to God's holy name. And we cannot offer to God that which God forbids. To do so would be contrary to reason.

Sexual relations between men or between women are also expressly forbidden in numerous passages of sacred Scripture, and therefore by extension, is marriage of two men or of two women forbidden.

Therefore, since the persons of faith cannot legitimately offer to God the artistic expression present in decorating a wedding cake for the celebration of the union of two men or of two women, the State cannot compel this artistic expression.

Last edited by Euphrosyne; 02-15-2018 at 07:22 AM.
  #798  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:23 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
May I hazard a guess that you've never been intimately involved in the planning of a wedding, either because you're not married or because you let your spouse handle the lion's share of the planning? May I further hazard a guess that you've eaten cake but are otherwise not very familiar with the logistics of cake?

Because if you'd planned a wedding, or if you'd spent much time working with cake, you'd know that cakes, unlike spatulas or Precious Moments figurines or American flags or doorknobs, are both biodegradable and ephemeral. If you'd been involved with wedding planning, you'd know that most weddings are planned months in advance. And you'd know that buying a wedding cake out of a case is a terrible idea for almost all weddings, because the time between planning the cake's acquisition and the consumption of the cake is far too long for a cake to last.

That sets aside things like folks who have color themes for their wedding, and who want the cake to be a nice lemon yellow to match their linens, or whatever.

The idea that they should have just bought the one in the case is a ludicrous idea.
You're right. It is a ludicrous idea to buy the one that is ACTUALLY in the display case. The cake would go bad before the wedding.

But what do you say to the notion that the article says that the opinion seems to be saying that you are entitled to a cake that is EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE in the display case?

Or are you just nitpicking?
  #799  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:23 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 38,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
If you're talking about the legalities of things, Left Hand, then you're getting into "it all depends on what your definition of is, is" territory.

If you believe that my discussion around the legalities of these matters is absurd, then perhaps a discussion around the legalities of these matters is not for you.
Uh, yeah, the problem isn't that I don't care about the legalities.
Quote:
On the contrary, it's clear that Christians are bound by precept found in the Sacred and expressly set forth therein that we are to offer all that we say and do to God's holy name. And we cannot offer to God that which God forbids. To do so would be contrary to reason.

Sexual relations between men or between women are also expressly forbidden in numerous passages of sacred Scripture, and therefore by extension, is marriage of two men or of two women forbidden.

Therefore, since the persons of faith cannot legitimately offer to God the artistic expression present in decorating a wedding cake for the celebration of the union of two men or of two women, the State cannot compel this artistic expression.
I note the continued lack of verses.
  #800  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:25 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
There needn't to be a test concerning "verses specifically, expressly forbidding baking a wedding cake for a gay couple."

Because no one is refusing "to bake the cake."

The conscience objections do not concern whether "to bake a cake."

To produce a bare, unfrosted, undecorated cake would probably represent no difficulty to the consciences of Christian baker.

But a bare, unfrosted cake would not satisfy the requirements of any couple ordering a wedding cake. There must be the artistic expression, as well: the icing and decorating of the cake.

The question is whether the State can compel a business owner to take a special order to provide artistic expression for the celebration of a union of two men or two women - which union is forbidden according to Judaeo-Christian Scripture - on the basis of equal protection for a particular class of persons (i.e., gay couples.)

And because by precept, Christians are to offer everything they say and do in the Name of God, and because Christians cannot offer to God an act that facilitates the celebration of that which God forbids, the Christian who claims that such a requirement by the state would force him to violate his conscience would meet at least one test, that is, the one I specified.

That I have proposed one possible test doesn't rule out that alternative, additional tests may be developed and applied to accommodate the conscience requirements of persons of other faiths, or of no faith at all.

This is simply one test.
On the face of it (and based on googling of biblical restrictions on marriage), this standard would appear to allow bakers to refuse service to intermarriages between Christians (or Jews) and idol-worshipers/unbelievers, to marriages involving women who do not intend to submit to their husbands, and to marriages between believers and the descendants of Moabites.

That does not seem reasonable to me.

Baking and frosting a cake is not a religious act by any definition that I can see. Wedding cakes exist as a cultural construct, not a religious one -- a couple can get married with or without a cake.

That doesn't mean that I think bakers should be forced to submit to any act -- rather, I think they must treat every respectful and law-abiding customer the same. If they would bake and frost a "standard" wedding cake for couple A, they must do so for couple B. If they would bake and frost a cake that said "Pat and Leslie" for couple A, they must do so for couple B. They can feel free to refuse to include imagery and artistry they find offensive, or ugly, or just prefer not to include, for all cakes and all customers, IMO.

I see no way to determine whether your religious beliefs are more or less genuine than a baker who insists her religion bars her from making cakes (or a clerk from issuing wedding certificates, or florist from delivering flowers) for interracial couples. If businesses are allowed to refuse service based on sexual orientation, then what would stop the possible return of "sundown towns", except for gay couples, such that gay travelers could find themselves in a place in which they were unable to safely get a hotel room, a meal, automotive service, etc., just like so many black travelers were unable to safely get service from hundreds of places in America in much of the 20th century?
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 07:31 PM.

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