Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #901  
Old 02-15-2018, 04:30 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
What's your point?
Maybe she thought she was being edgy, or something?
  #902  
Old 02-15-2018, 04:31 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
1) You don't understand either the situation or the case under discussion and quite literally have no idea what the hell anyone in this thread is talking about.
She has made multiple posts in this thread that have led me to believe she hasn't read the court decision this thread is about. So option 1 seems likely.

Last edited by boytyperanma; 02-15-2018 at 04:35 PM.
  #903  
Old 02-15-2018, 04:32 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
I think a few posters are sticking strictly to the facts of this particular case; a number of others are speaking of hypothetical cases; others have been attempting to indoctrinate all of us what horse-hockey religious beliefs are, and especially religious beliefs that restrict us and others.
In general we try to stick to the topic the thread is based on. In this case it is, " California Judge Rules Making a Cake is "Artistic Expression" - Denies LGBT Discrimination Claim". So we discuss that case and note that it is a free speech case.

Of course the discussions can drift and we could talk about whether this is better done as a free exercise case but mostly it'll drift back to the case at hand because we can point to the ruling.

If you want to talk about this in the context of religious freedom how it touches on the "free exercise" portion of the constitution and if these cases are better argued on that standard you may get better results in a new thread dedicated to that discussion.

Most of the hypotheticals thrown out so far are merely meant to illustrate how bizarre things can get if this judge's ruling stands.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-15-2018 at 04:33 PM.
  #904  
Old 02-15-2018, 04:32 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
What's your point?
Two points, above the u.
  #905  
Old 02-15-2018, 04:38 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
Sure, which is why, on the whole, I disagree with this decision. But I see it more as a "there's a difficult line to draw and the world is complex and, from the information I have, I think the judge got this one wrong, but I'm not an expert" than "OMG this is the first step to a theocracy" or "as soon as Alabama hears about this it will be legal to ban gay people from restaurants", if you see the distinction I'm making.

(Edited to add: granted, that's easy for me to say as a married straight guy...)
I do think that as soon as some restaurant owner in alabama hears about this, he will take it as a right to start holding out his strongly held religious convictions that white people shouldn't eat in the same room as black people. Not Alabama the state, but individuals who will take any excuse they can take to discriminate against those they hate.

If this decision is held up, then the next step is to push one step further and further. I do think the entire point of these cases is to try to pick holes in the Civil Rights Act.
  #906  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:03 PM
simster simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Two points, above the u.
that's, umm, alot!
  #907  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:05 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
that's, umm, alot!
Now someone has to feed it and care for it. Thanks for bringing another Alot to the world.
  #908  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:13 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Now someone has to feed it and care for it. Thanks for bringing another Alot to the world.


But they are so cute!
  #909  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:54 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 47,598
Be alert. The world needs more lerts.
  #910  
Old 02-15-2018, 07:46 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If this decision is held up, then the next step is to push one step further and further. I do think the entire point of these cases is to try to pick holes in the Civil Rights Act.
This wasn't a final decision. The judge just denied a preliminary injunction.
  #911  
Old 02-15-2018, 08:28 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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.
There have been posts in this thread that have led me to believe that this was the case. I'd be very grateful for a citation as to whether or not this is so.

Because if it IS so, then THIS
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.”
strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme.
  #912  
Old 02-15-2018, 08:38 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
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?
Hmm. Maybe they should have told her that one of them is really a transgendered MAN, so it's not a SSM.
  #913  
Old 02-15-2018, 09:05 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 34,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
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?
You are mixing up multiple different disconnected concepts.

There is fluidity in sexual orientation, yes. But that basically* refers to individuals who are not usually attracted to one gender finding exceptions. For example, a girl who is usually straight may find this one girl they think is so hot that they'd have sex with her. That's fluid sexuality.

What it is not is the ability to willfully change one's sexual orientation. All current attempts at such have failed, and instead seem to actually harm the participants' mental wellbeing. It is conceivably possible this could change, but all signs point that this sexual orientation is immutable.

But, even if it isn't entirely immutable, it's still an inherent characteristic. People do not choose their orientation. It's conceivable that a black person could paint their skin to look like a white person and pretend to be white, and thus not face anti-black racism. But that doesn't make it okay to discriminate based on race. You can't tell black people that they have to change into white people to get civil rights. Nor can you tell a gay person they have to become straight to get civil rights.

Sex and sexuality are not being conflated. It is just that a lot of the rules about not discriminating based on sex can be applied in such a way that discriminating against someone for their sexual orientation is actually discriminating against them because of their sex. With gay marriage, it's easy: if the sex of the participants were different, the marriage would be acceptable.

Finally, sex, as it is usually defined, is basically immutable. Sex is defined by genetics: whether one is XX, XY, or something else. Barring some alteration in the future that can change genetics, sex is immutable. It is gender, both in the form of gender roles and gender identity, that is not immutable.

So, while sexuality can be fluid, it is still immutable for all intents and purposes.

*Yes, I know it's more complicated than that, but I'm keeping things simple here. The following paragraph is strictly correct.

Last edited by BigT; 02-15-2018 at 09:07 PM.
  #914  
Old 02-15-2018, 09:12 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,911
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.
But if they HAD already designed it, the issue of compulsory acts of artistic expression ought to be rendered irrelevant. As a non-law-talking guy, my sense is that the judge should explain why he believes it hasn’t been.

Any law-talking guys care to do me a solid and educate me on whether I’m mistaken, and if so, why?
  #915  
Old 02-15-2018, 09:35 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post

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.
Point of Order: There’s no such thing as an undecorated peanut butter cookie. Flattening them with the back of a dinner fork is, per se, decoration.
  #916  
Old 02-16-2018, 07:30 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
A new low for Left.
Waitaminute--did you think I was comparing you to Nazis? You really really misunderstood the analogy, then: I was helping you out by putting your position (i.e., the baker) in the position of resisting Nazis. My analogy is problematic in huge part because it analogizes happy gay couple to a Neonazi, which is a shitty comparison.

Seriously, is this what you thought was going on, that I was comparing you to a Nazi? If not, why on earth do you think this was a mean thing for me to do?
  #917  
Old 02-16-2018, 07:44 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 30,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
That's what this case is about.

Many persons of faith do seek to offer all that they say and do as an offering to God. This precept may be found in the Bible, in Colossaians 3. And persons who do this cannot offer to God that which God has forbidden. And God has forbidden same-sex sexual acts, and by extension, same-sex marriages. (Multiple texts may be found in the Bible. Check Google.) Therefore persons of faith, in using their artistic expression to decorate a wedding cake for the union of two men or of two women, are being coerced by the State to undertake an act which may not legitimately be offered to the Name of God - thus, a clear coercion of conscience.

I would support a law that provides for the requirement of legal tests for the basis of conscientious objections to the provision of some - not all - services. (Please see my post #793, in which I discussed this at some length.)

If business owners who assert their conscientious objections to the provision of some - not all - services based on the fact that one member of the couple is of race A, and the other member of the couple is of race B, can meet the tests decided upon by the Congress, then I would (very reluctantly) support them in doing so.

I doubt that Congress could come up with such a law. For which I am very glad.
So you admit here that you'd trade away the right of interracial couples to be served without regard to their race in order to protect bakers from the horrors of selling a cake to gay people. I'm not willing to risk a return of sundown towns, even for "non-vital" services, for this indecipherable (to me, at least) concern by bakers that selling cakes to certain couples violates their conscience. It's not even a hard decision for me. Maybe it's because my wife and I aren't the same race, and had we married a handful of decades before, we could have been jailed.

On a moral and philosophical note, any deity who would punish you or anyone for selling a cake to a gay couple is not a deity worth respecting, much less obeying and worshiping.
  #918  
Old 02-16-2018, 08:14 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
So. Say I lived near Kiryas Joel, NY and went across the eruv, and walked into one of the bakeries owned and operated by Yiddish-speaking Hasidim. And I told the proprietor: "I want to order a cake to celebrate my friend's ordination as a Catholic priest. Can you please put a rosary made of those little silver BBs, and also can you make a nice crucifix on the end of it, with the figure of Christ on the cross? I'll pick it up next Thursday."

If the proprietor told me, "Christ on a cake? No. We don't make such a cake here. You go back to some goyim bakery where you live; they'll help you.

So. Am I now a second-class citizen?

Try this: say I enter a bakery and tell the proprietor I want a wedding cake — you know, the sort of cake that’s actually a tall stack of cakes, and I want each of those cakes festooned with little red frosting roses hinting at the strawberry filling inside, with icing used to write on top: WALDO AND ASHLEY.

Is it your assertion that the baker gets to reply “I’ll make that exact cake for you if Ashley is a woman, but not if Ashley is a man; is Ashley a woman?”

Is it your assertion that the baker gets to reply “I’ll make that exact cake for you if Ashley is white, but not if Ashley is black; is Ashley white?”
  #919  
Old 02-16-2018, 08:22 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
This wasn't a final decision. The judge just denied a preliminary injunction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

If this decision is held up, then the next step is to push one step further and further. I do think the entire point of these cases is to try to pick holes in the Civil Rights Act.
If your point is that a preliminary injunction isn't a "decision", then that's a semantic quibble about terms of art. The judge made a decision in denying an injunction in this case. He also expressed an opinion and reasonings in his "decision" to deny a preliminary junction.
  #920  
Old 02-16-2018, 08:24 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
that's, umm, alot!
At least it's not umlaut.
  #921  
Old 02-16-2018, 08:52 AM
IvoryTowerDenizen's Avatar
IvoryTowerDenizen IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
Nope! I said stop!
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 19,037
California Judge Rules Making a Cake is "Artistic Expression" - Denies LGBT Discrimination Claim

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
So. Say I lived near Kiryas Joel, NY and went across the eruv, and walked into one of the bakeries owned and operated by Yiddish-speaking Hasidim. And I told the proprietor: "I want to order a cake to celebrate my friend's ordination as a Catholic priest. Can you please put a rosary made of those little silver BBs, and also can you make a nice crucifix on the end of it, with the figure of Christ on the cross? I'll pick it up next Thursday."

If the proprietor told me, "Christ on a cake? No. We don't make such a cake here. You go back to some goyim bakery where you live; they'll help you.

So. Am I now a second-class citizen?


I’m confused why you think that’s how. Jewish baker would behave. You don’t think Jewish diamond sellers ask if the engagement ring they’re making is for a Christian wedding? I seriously doubt any Jewish baker (that has a store as a public business) really believes that if they put a rosary on a cake they’re now participating in a Catholic service.

My nephew’s bar mitzvah last summer was held in a church function room with a big crucifix on the wall. Didn’t make our service a Christian one. My mother was a hairdresser and had clientele of all types- she did artistic hair styles for confirmations or weddings and never thought to deny a Christian her artistic services, because reasons?

Last edited by IvoryTowerDenizen; 02-16-2018 at 08:54 AM.
  #922  
Old 02-16-2018, 08:59 AM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
But if they HAD already designed it, the issue of compulsory acts of artistic expression ought to be rendered irrelevant. As a non-law-talking guy, my sense is that the judge should explain why he believes it hasn’t been.

Any law-talking guys care to do me a solid and educate me on whether I’m mistaken, and if so, why?
I really don't like what if questions because they inevitably lead to a slew of more what if questions. But, as to your question...

The artistic endeavor appears to be a pretty wide concept.

Suppose a guy walks into the bakery and orders a cake for his sister's wedding. He and the baker design it, and they agree it's perfect. Now... the brother says "Oh, by the way, my sister is marrying her long time girlfriend." The baker says, "Sorry, I do not do LGBT because I am a artist and a diva and being a diva I can't do art when I don't approve of the wedding."

Any difference here?
  #923  
Old 02-16-2018, 10:01 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,742
*ahem* Euphrosyne, this one was for you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
May the state prohibit a baker from refusing to make a cake for an interracial wedding if her religious beliefs are incompatible with interracial marriage? If so, how is that distinguishable from a same-sex wedding with regard to the First Amendment?
  #924  
Old 02-16-2018, 10:22 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
I really don't like what if questions because they inevitably lead to a slew of more what if questions. But, as to your question...
It's not really a "what if" question, as it is what actually happened.
Quote:

The artistic endeavor appears to be a pretty wide concept.

Suppose a guy walks into the bakery and orders a cake for his sister's wedding. He and the baker design it, and they agree it's perfect. Now... the brother says "Oh, by the way, my sister is marrying her long time girlfriend." The baker says, "Sorry, I do not do LGBT because I am a artist and a diva and being a diva I can't do art when I don't approve of the wedding."

Any difference here?
That's not really an answer, more of a "what if".
  #925  
Old 02-17-2018, 09:05 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
But if they HAD already designed it, the issue of compulsory acts of artistic expression ought to be rendered irrelevant. As a non-law-talking guy, my sense is that the judge should explain why he believes it hasn’t been.

Any law-talking guys care to do me a solid and educate me on whether I’m mistaken, and if so, why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
I really don't like what if questions because they inevitably lead to a slew of more what if questions. But, as to your question...

The artistic endeavor appears to be a pretty wide concept.

Suppose a guy walks into the bakery and orders a cake for his sister's wedding. He and the baker design it, and they agree it's perfect. Now... the brother says "Oh, by the way, my sister is marrying her long time girlfriend." The baker says, "Sorry, I do not do LGBT because I am a artist and a diva and being a diva I can't do art when I don't approve of the wedding."

Any difference here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
It's not really a "what if" question, as it is what actually happened.


That's not really an answer, more of a "what if".
Oh, are you a law-talking guy, Morgenstern? Cool, I didn't know that.

Anyway, in light of k9bfriender's input, do you suppose you could take a stab at answering my "what actually happened" question with something that ISN'T a "what if?"

TIA.
  #926  
Old 02-26-2018, 11:26 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,366
Hawaii appeals court sides with lesbian couple denied B&B:
Quote:
A Hawaii bed and breakfast discriminated against a couple by denying a room to two women because they’re gay, a state appeals court affirmed.

Aloha Bed & Breakfast owner Phyllis Young had argued she should be allowed to turn away gay couples because of her religious beliefs. She appealed a 2013 lower court ruling that ordered her to stop discriminating against same-sex couples.

Last week’s ruling supported the 2013 decision.
The story:
Quote:
Diane Cervelli and Taeko Bufford of Long Beach, California tried to book a room there in 2007 because it’s in Hawaii Kai, the same east Honolulu neighborhood where the friend they were visiting lived. When they specified they would need just one bed, Young told them she was uncomfortable reserving a room for lesbians and canceled the reservation.

Cervelli and Bufford filed complaints with the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission.

Young told the commission she is Catholic and believes that homosexuality is wrong, according to the appeals court ruling. The commission found that the business illegally discriminated against the couple and issued Cervelli and Bufford “right to sue” notices.

Cervelli and Bufford filed their lawsuit in 2011.
Will this impact or be impacted by the California cake case at all?
  #927  
Old 02-27-2018, 01:26 AM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Will this impact or be impacted by the California cake case at all?
Eventually the Supreme Court will need to weigh in. They could keep ignoring the issue but it leaves the country fractured with laws impacting people differently depending on what district they reside in.

Also in the news today the Second Circuit ruled discrimination based on sexual orientation is discrimination based on sex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judge Katzmann
Sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination because sexual orientation is defined by one’s sex in relation to the sex of those to whom one is attracted, making it impossible for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without taking sex into account.
NY Times article

So if you are in the 2nd or 7th district sexual orientation is protected under the Civil Rights Act. If you are in the 3rd or 11th it isn't
  #928  
Old 02-27-2018, 07:43 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Not sure you follow. The judge said that the baker did not need to make a new cake, even if it was exactly the same as the one on display.
Do you have a cite for that?

The article seem to imply the opposite. That it is the creative process and not the manufacture process that I protected.
  #929  
Old 02-27-2018, 07:49 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
That's a good question, and one that has been bandied about quite a bit in this thread.

The facts of the matter is that they were not asking her to make a unique cake, but one directly from their "catalogue" of cakes.

You'll need to ask the judge who made the ruling why he called following directions "designing and creating"

And the design is already done. The couple was not asking for a new design. The manufacture was specifically the part that was being denied.
Do you have a cite readily available? I can try to search for it but all I see is the cite in the OP.

Quote:
No, it seems you are missing the entire point of this thread.

Take it you are a fan of gay conversion thearapy, then?
I take it you don't believe in gender fluidity.

Quote:
People find their religions to be fairly important and immutable, and I have no idea how you think that national origin is something that you can change. You are born where you are born, you can't change that without a time machine.
Its called religious conversion for religion.

I should have said citizenship to avoid confusion with national origin. Citizenship is mutable.
  #930  
Old 02-27-2018, 08:22 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Do you have a cite for that?

The article seem to imply the opposite. That it is the creative process and not the manufacture process that I protected.
Quote:
His distinction, he said, is between the act of selling a product to a same-sex couple and creating a product for the same couple.

“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” Lampe wrote. “The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Do you have a cite readily available? I can try to search for it but all I see is the cite in the OP.
It's in the OP.

Here's another cite for them, and another couple, who were turned away before or during the tasting.
Quote:
Ted G. Freitas said Miller suggested he and fiancé Adam Ramos visit a different area bakery during a recent cake tasting. “So the fiancé and I are out cake tasting in Bakersfield for our big day,” Freitas wrote Aug. 26, according to The Bakersfield Californian. “And the lady helping us — I have another name for her — asks, ‘So this is for the bride and groom?’ ‘Uh, no it says Adam and Ted on your form!’ When we let her know, that it’s for us, she quickly, without hesitation, replies, ‘Well I’m going to transfer your order to Stephanie at Gimme Some Sugar Cakes.’”

Meanwhile, KGET-17 cited a second Facebook post by Eileen Del Rio, who also said that she and her fiancée were similarly denied service at Tastries Aug. 26. “So we go to this bakery a week ago to sign up for tasting and choose our wedding cake. The owner met with us today to set up the process,” Del Rio wrote. She went on to note the owner “refused to make our wedding cake and set up our order. She wanted all our information to send to another bakery so they could make it.”
Quote:
I take it you don't believe in gender fluidity.
That would be a very incorrect statement on your part, and only would make sense that you would think that if you are a fan of gay conversion therapy.
Quote:

Its called religious conversion for religion.
Yes, some people do change their religion for personal reasons. You are expecting them to change their religion to not be discriminated against.
Quote:
I should have said citizenship to avoid confusion with national origin. Citizenship is mutable.
Yes, you should have, but then you wouldn't have been able to try to make the point that you failed to make, as one is protected, and the other is not.
  #931  
Old 02-27-2018, 08:40 AM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Hawaii appeals court sides with lesbian couple denied B&B:The story:Will this impact or be impacted by the California cake case at all?
Bo, the CA case is not a "Freedom of religion" case, it's an "Artistic expression" (free speech) case. Big difference.
  #932  
Old 02-27-2018, 08:45 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Bo, the CA case is not a "Freedom of religion" case, it's an "Artistic expression" (free speech) case. Big difference.
Doesn't the case have to be actually argued in court and decided on before we know that?

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-27-2018 at 08:45 AM.
  #933  
Old 02-27-2018, 08:53 AM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Doesn't the case have to be actually argued in court and decided on before we know that?
Nope. The judge already ruled. (in the restraining order ruling) Now their burden (for the appeal if one comes) has increased to one of defeating the artistic expression part of the First Amendment as it applies to a cake designer/creator/baker.
  #934  
Old 02-27-2018, 08:58 AM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 29,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Doesn't the case have to be actually argued in court and decided on before we know that?
You have a point, but the judge, in denying the preliminary injunction, invoked his opinion that artistic expression was at the bottom of his reasoning, and he declined to address a free exercise basis.
  #935  
Old 02-27-2018, 09:15 AM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Interesting that the underlying case was not dismissed by the Plaintiff (unless it subsequently has been) given the strongly worded judicial opinion . The pro-bono attorneys probably have no desire to take on a freedom of expression case, that would be beyond steep for them. They came in looking for an easy win under civil rights legislation, and got a 1st Amendment case handed to them by the judge. Any way they look at it, they have a Constitutional issue to dance around now, as far as wedding cake bakers go.
  #936  
Old 02-27-2018, 09:21 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Interesting that the underlying case was not dismissed by the Plaintiff (unless it subsequently has been) given the strongly worded judicial opinion . The pro-bono attorneys probably have no desire to take on a freedom of expression case, that would be beyond steep for them. They came in looking for an easy win under civil rights legislation, and got a 1st Amendment case handed to them by the judge. Any way they look at it, they have a Constitutional issue to dance around now, as far as wedding cake bakers go.
What makes you think this will stand up on appeal (assuming the order on the merits mirrors the injunction ruling)?
  #937  
Old 02-27-2018, 09:33 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Interesting that the underlying case was not dismissed by the Plaintiff (unless it subsequently has been) given the strongly worded judicial opinion . The pro-bono attorneys probably have no desire to take on a freedom of expression case, that would be beyond steep for them. They came in looking for an easy win under civil rights legislation, and got a 1st Amendment case handed to them by the judge. Any way they look at it, they have a Constitutional issue to dance around now, as far as wedding cake bakers go.
I don't know, the whole raison d'etre of the pro bono lawyers is "provide pro bono legal services and spearheads educational initiatives on issues related to religious freedom, bioethics, and family values. Specifically, we defend the conscience rights and constitutional liberties of people of all or no faith — free of charge." The OP's article says
Quote:
In court her attorney, Charles LiMandri, made the argument that Miller’s free speech rights and her right to free expression of religion trump the state’s arguments that she violated a law against discrimination.

“It’s a work of art as far as my client is concerned,” LiMandri said. “In my client’s mind this is a free exercise case."
  #938  
Old 02-27-2018, 10:03 AM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
What makes you think this will stand up on appeal (assuming the order on the merits mirrors the injunction ruling)?
California is pretty protective of 1st. Amendment rights.

Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927): Anita Whitney did not base her defense on the First Amendment, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) upheld her conviction of being found guilty under the California’s 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act for allegedly helping to establish the Communist Labor Party, a group the state argued taught the violent overthrow of government

She failed to mutter the magic words, Free speech/expression. Interesting that the issue of free speech was never raised for her.

Anyone interested, Notable First Amendment Court Cases.
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreed...hip/courtcases
  #939  
Old 02-27-2018, 10:37 AM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
There have been posts in this thread that have led me to believe that this was the case. I'd be very grateful for a citation as to whether or not this is so.

Because if it IS so, then THIS

strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme.
I agree but otherwise the statement above about artistic expression seems reasonable to me.
  #940  
Old 02-27-2018, 12:05 PM
Damuri Ajashi Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 19,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
It's in the OP.

Here's another cite for them, and another couple, who were turned away before or during the tasting.
Neither of these tell us anything about what facts the judge was presented with.

Quote:
That would be a very incorrect statement on your part, and only would make sense that you would think that if you are a fan of gay conversion therapy.
Fine then sexual fluidity.

I'm not a fan of gay conversion therapy, I'm not even sure what it is. Why would you think I am a fan?

Quote:
Yes, some people do change their religion for personal reasons. You are expecting them to change their religion to not be discriminated against.
Bullshit.

You said that if something is immutable it might be something we should turn into a protected class and I said immutability is not a necessary criteria and questioned whether sexual preference were really immutable (like sex/race/national origin).

Quote:
Yes, you should have, but then you wouldn't have been able to try to make the point that you failed to make, as one is protected, and the other is not.
Citizenship is a protected class for several federal purposes. The only citizen the federal government can favor are American citizens.
  #941  
Old 02-27-2018, 12:30 PM
Hiero Hiero is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 15
It was his right of free speech. It's in our rights that we are allowed to declare our beliefs. I do not hold anything against the baker.
  #942  
Old 02-27-2018, 12:55 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiero View Post
It was his right of free speech. It's in our rights that we are allowed to declare our beliefs. I do not hold anything against the baker.
Say a baker declares his belief about refusing to make a cake for people because they’re black: would you hold anything against him? Say a baker declares his belief about refusing to serve a woman — and declares, too, his belief that he’d serve her if only she were a man — would you hold that against him?

How far do you think this declare-a-belief bit goes? Where does it stop?
  #943  
Old 02-27-2018, 01:10 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Neither of these tell us anything about what facts the judge was presented with.
They are facts of the case. Tell you what, you show me where the couple was requesting a unique creation, rather than one that was already "on the menu" as it were.
Quote:

Fine then sexual fluidity.

I'm not a fan of gay conversion therapy, I'm not even sure what it is. Why would you think I am a fan?
Because you are insisting that people should be able to change their sexual orientation to better fit in. That you claim to not have heard of gay conversion therapy and the damage it has done to people may be why you think that people can just change their sexual orientation whenever they see fit.

If you don't even know what conversion therapy is, then you are extremely unqualified to talk about anything remotely related to gender or orientation "fluidity".
Quote:

Bullshit.

You said that if something is immutable it might be something we should turn into a protected class and I said immutability is not a necessary criteria and questioned whether sexual preference were really immutable (like sex/race/national origin).
Not so bullshit. One, it was not I that made that claim, of course, your habit of picking up a conversation from 2 weeks ago does mean that you may have missed that.

And two, the only way that your statement can be parsed is that you expect people to to be able to change to whatever sexual orientation is most convenient to themselves and to society.
Quote:

Citizenship is a protected class for several federal purposes. The only citizen the federal government can favor are American citizens.
No, citizenship is not a protected class in the same way as origin, they are very distinct and different, and a big one of those is that citizenship is mutable. If someone becomes eligible for citizenship, but does not apply to do so for 6 months, they are no longer protected, and obviously, if someone is not authorized to work in the US, it's not discrimination to not hire them either.

So, basically, as long as citizenship is something that you cannot change, it is protected, but, as soon as you do have the ability to change it, it no longer is.


In any case, what it boils down to is that people do not pick their orientation for convenience's sake, it is not as mutable as you would like it to be.
  #944  
Old 02-27-2018, 01:12 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiero View Post
It was his right of free speech. It's in our rights that we are allowed to declare our beliefs. I do not hold anything against the baker.
I assume you approve of this B&B owner too.
  #945  
Old 02-27-2018, 01:19 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I assume you approve of this B&B owner too.
Define approve. One may approve of a specific application of a free exercise protection, yet find the results of that application distasteful and discriminatory.
  #946  
Old 02-27-2018, 01:35 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
That should be free expression, not free exercise. Sry.
  #947  
Old 02-27-2018, 02:05 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Define approve. One may approve of a specific application of a free exercise protection, yet find the results of that application distasteful and discriminatory.
You'd have to ask the person I was replying to, as he says he holds nothing against the baker that refused to bake a cake because the clients were gay, that's approval.

Does he hold nothing against the B&B owner, who refused to let people stay at their public accommodation because they were gay?
  #948  
Old 02-27-2018, 02:12 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 23,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Bo, the CA case is not a "Freedom of religion" case, it's an "Artistic expression" (free speech) case. Big difference.
I knew that. A lot of this thread is centered on that. Mea culpa. Thanks for the gentle reminder.
  #949  
Old 02-27-2018, 02:27 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 39,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Neither of these tell us anything about what facts the judge was presented with.
From the "FACTS" section of the ruling:
Quote:
A Tastries employee named Rosemary met with the couple, showed them wedding cakes on display in the bakery, and recorded the details of the cake they wanted. Eileen and Mireya selected a design based on a display cake. The couple did not want or request any written words or messages on the cake.
Terms here are a little ambiguous, but put together it's either poor writing or it's unambiguous.

When you "select" something, you're choosing among several options. When something is "based on" something else, it uses the something else as a jumping-off point and hews to that something else with more or less fidelity. But "a display cake" indicates taht they weren't mixing and matching design elements from several cakes; rather, they looked at a single cake and used that to select a design.

If they'd veered too far afield in any measure, this finding of fact is incorrect. If there was any design that they asked the baker to do that would build on what was already done, this finding of fact is incorrect. It only is a correct statement if they were selecting a design based on the choices inhered to a single cake.

Now, I suspect there may be some inaccuracy there--maybe they said, "Like that cake, only we'll be inviting 100 people, not 200, so can you take out two layers?" or "Like that cake, only can the icing be a little more ivory in color?" But if there were any design choices they were asking the baker to make that were more expressive than what yer average linoleum installer would be making, that should have been mentioned in the finding of fact.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 02-27-2018 at 02:27 PM.
  #950  
Old 02-27-2018, 02:36 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 11,866
The baker refused to "bake" them a cake. Baking begins her artistic expression. I don't think it makes a difference if she had been asked to bake a cake that is exactly like the one in the display case.

Last edited by Morgenstern; 02-27-2018 at 02:38 PM.
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 03:51 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.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017