Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:26 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
He never offered to sell them pre-made goods. There are no pre-made goods to sell. Mastepiece Cakeshop does NOT have pre-made goods laying around to sell.
Looks like you’re right. Per SCOTUSBlog, from the original court case:

Quote:
In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods.
I’m not sure, however, why you are so emphatic about this point...?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #152  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:29 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Please cite where I said anything about a federal law.
But state officials cannot trump the First Amendment.
  #153  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:30 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I’m not sure, however, why you are so emphatic about this point...?
Because this is GQ and facts matter.
  #154  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:46 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
But state officials cannot trump the First Amendment.
And this has to do with having a conversation with your pastor about the legal difficulties in discriminating against a potential client how exactly?
  #155  
Old 06-14-2018, 06:54 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And this has to do with having a conversation with your pastor about the legal difficulties in discriminating against a potential client how exactly?
What are you talking about, exactly?
  #156  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:58 PM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
He never offered to sell them pre-made goods. There are no pre-made goods to sell. Mastepiece Cakeshop does NOT have pre-made goods laying around to sell.
bolding mine

While the bakery does not have pre-made wedding cakes, it does have lots of other pre-made cakes and other baked goods to sell.

Jack Phillips has been interviewed on video in his shop. There are cakes and other baked goods clearly visible in display cases as well as on the back wall.
  #157  
Old 06-14-2018, 09:41 PM
Lance Turbo Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 3,189
My knowledge was first hand and appears to be out of date.

The back wall items are for display and not for sale, but there does appear to be for sale items in the case. I was last in the shop in 2012.

I concede this point.
  #158  
Old 06-15-2018, 08:25 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
What are you talking about, exactly?
You asked the questions. How did you manage to confuse yourself? Impressive.
  #159  
Old 06-15-2018, 09:16 AM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,072
A similar topic - religion vs. rights in Canada:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trin...sion-1.4707240
Quote:
Trinity Western loses fight for Christian law school
Supreme Court of Canada rules that limits on religious freedom 'reasonable' to protect LGBT rights

Trinity Western University has lost its legal battle for a new evangelical Christian law school, with a Supreme Court of Canada ruling today that calls it "proportionate and reasonable" to limit religious rights in order to ensure open access for LGBT students.
In a pair of 7-2 rulings, the majority of justices found the law societies of British Columbia and Ontario have the power to refuse accreditation based on TWU's so-called community covenant.
Basically, Trinity is a religious college that wanted to start a law school. The law societies of some provinces said they would not accredit law graduates from any such school because the students have to sign a statement affirming Christian values which included that marriage was only between a man and a woman. The law societies claimed that a lawyer must accept the law of the land in Canada, discrimination against LGBTQ is illegal and gay marriages are legal, and questioned how such a law school could honestly teach this.

Trinity sued, this is the outcome.
  #160  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:14 AM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
And this has to do with having a conversation with your pastor about the legal difficulties in discriminating against a potential client how exactly?
You said:

Quote:
The law states that you are supposed to make the cake...
There is no law that states that. GQ is supposed to be for factual answers, not hypotheticals.
  #161  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:17 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 29,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
There is no law that states that. GQ is supposed to be for factual answers, not hypotheticals.
21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.171(d)
  #162  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:31 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
You said:



There is no law that states that. GQ is supposed to be for factual answers, not hypotheticals.
There is no law that says that you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in Colorado?

Then what did this baker spend so much time, effort, and money fighting? He should have just said, "Some guy on the internet said, 'There is no law that states that.'" then he could have gone back to his normal bigoted day.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 06-15-2018 at 11:31 AM.
  #163  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:30 PM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.171(d)
I thought you were making a joke the first time. Now I think you do not know what those mean.

21 USC §461 is a federal law defining the penalty for various offences related to mishandling, mislabeling, or impermissible processing of poultry products. It also defines assaulting or murdering a poultry inspector in the course of his duties as a federal offence.

9 CFR §381.171(d) is in a regulation providing Definition and standard for “Turkey Ham.”
Quote:
(federal d) The product name on the label shall show the word “Turkey” in the same size, style, color, and with the same background as the word “Ham” and shall precede and be adjacent to it.
So Turkey Ham is ok on a food label.
But Ham Turkey is not - wrong word order.
And Turkey Ham is not - different fonts


Neither have anything to do whatsoever with the issues at hand in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
  #164  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:52 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy View Post
I thought you were making a joke the first time. Now I think you do not know what those mean.

21 USC §461 is a federal law defining the penalty for various offences related to mishandling, mislabeling, or impermissible processing of poultry products. It also defines assaulting or murdering a poultry inspector in the course of his duties as a federal offence.

9 CFR §381.171(d) is in a regulation providing Definition and standard for “Turkey Ham.”


So Turkey Ham is ok on a food label.
But Ham Turkey is not - wrong word order.
And Turkey Ham is not - different fonts


Neither have anything to do whatsoever with the issues at hand in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
This is true, but I think he was responding to D'Anconia's posts, wherein D'Anconia claimed that government officials cannot "trump the first amendment". Not that D'anconia's posts had anything at all to do with the issues at hand in the case at hand, but I believe that kayaker was just pointing out that yes, yes indeed government officials *can* "trump the first amendment", and provides these as his cite.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 06-15-2018 at 12:54 PM.
  #165  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:56 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 29,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
This is true, but I think he was responding to D'Anconia's posts, wherein D'Anconia claimed that government officials cannot "trump the first amendment". Not that D'anconia's posts had anything at all to do with the issues at hand in the case at hand, but I believe that kayaker was just pointing out that yes, yes indeed government officials *can* "trump the first amendment", and provides these as his cite.
If I could speak half as eloquently as that, I'd never stop talking.

Now, back to my delicious Turkey Ham Angelfood cake.
  #166  
Old 06-15-2018, 01:16 PM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
This is true, but I think he was responding to D'Anconia's posts, wherein D'Anconia claimed that government officials cannot "trump the first amendment". Not that D'anconia's posts had anything at all to do with the issues at hand in the case at hand, but I believe that kayaker was just pointing out that yes, yes indeed government officials *can* "trump the first amendment", and provides these as his cite.
This I assume was a way to set out what the law requires to avoid deceptive labelling. Truth in labelling and advertising is in the public interest. The first amendment is not absolute, or there wouldn't be a law against perjury. The government can describe what it takes to accurately label a product, or any other activity where dishonesty is a crime. (Including playing font games to mislabel something).

I think it was Robert Heinlein who said if you want to see what people were in the habit of doing, look at what they have laws against.
  #167  
Old 06-15-2018, 01:28 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
This is true, but I think he was responding to D'Anconia's posts, wherein D'Anconia claimed that government officials cannot "trump the first amendment". Not that D'anconia's posts had anything at all to do with the issues at hand in the case at hand, but I believe that kayaker was just pointing out that yes, yes indeed government officials *can* "trump the first amendment", and provides these as his cite.
Commercial speech is not held to the same level of Constitutional scrutiny as Free Exercise of religion is. As business owners, both you and kayaker should already know that.
  #168  
Old 06-20-2018, 12:00 AM
AWB AWB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,538
Since the reason he didn't make the cake was that it was for the wedding of a gay couple (a legal act in the entire USA since Obergefell v. Hodges), and homosexuality is against his religious beliefs.

Using that same reasoning, he shouldn't make any other product for homosexuals. Yet he says that Craig and Mullins are welcome in his shop to purchase any other products. So birthdays for gays are OK, just not weddings?

The foundation for the biblical stance against homosexuality, Leviticus 20:13:
Quote:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Yet Phillips did not put the men to death, as the Bible commands. How is he following his religion if he doesn't kill same-sex couples that have admitted to him (by inference) that they have layed down with each other?
  #169  
Old 06-20-2018, 04:00 PM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by AWB View Post
Since the reason he didn't make the cake was that it was for the wedding of a gay couple (a legal act in the entire USA since Obergefell v. Hodges), and homosexuality is against his religious beliefs.

Using that same reasoning, he shouldn't make any other product for homosexuals. Yet he says that Craig and Mullins are welcome in his shop to purchase any other products. So birthdays for gays are OK, just not weddings?

The foundation for the biblical stance against homosexuality, Leviticus 20:13:


Yet Phillips did not put the men to death, as the Bible commands. How is he following his religion if he doesn't kill same-sex couples that have admitted to him (by inference) that they have layed down with each other?
If you're bored, google and read "letter to Doctor Laura".
  #170  
Old 06-20-2018, 04:07 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Commercial speech is not held to the same level of Constitutional scrutiny as Free Exercise of religion is. As business owners, both you and kayaker should already know that.
I missed this before.

The entire point of this argument is in determining whether or not the baker is performing commercial speech or free exercise of religion. So, it's not really a done deal as you seem to be thinking it is.

And in any case, you have not explained why you think that you should be using the hypothetical case that the law may be overturned when talking to your pastor about a law that is on the books.
  #171  
Old 06-20-2018, 04:42 PM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I missed this before.

The entire point of this argument is in determining whether or not the baker is performing commercial speech or free exercise of religion. So, it's not really a done deal as you seem to be thinking it is.

And in any case, you have not explained why you think that you should be using the hypothetical case that the law may be overturned when talking to your pastor about a law that is on the books.
No, the question is whether one person's free exercise of religion (one right) trumps (sorry) the other persons' right not to be discriminated against or vice versa.

It is perhaps a relevant but peripheral question how much the work of the baker is commercial speech vs. personal speech. Artwork is personal, making commodities for sale is commercial.
  #172  
Old 06-20-2018, 05:19 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
The entire point of this argument is in determining whether or not the baker is performing commercial speech or free exercise of religion. So, it's not really a done deal as you seem to be thinking it is.
That's not correct. Commercial speech is primarily advertising. Free Exercise is totally different, and has a higher level of Constitutional protection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_speech
  #173  
Old 06-20-2018, 06:49 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by AWB View Post
Since the reason he didn't make the cake was that it was for the wedding of a gay couple (a legal act in the entire USA since Obergefell v. Hodges), and homosexuality is against his religious beliefs.

Using that same reasoning, he shouldn't make any other product for homosexuals. Yet he says that Craig and Mullins are welcome in his shop to purchase any other products. So birthdays for gays are OK, just not weddings?

The foundation for the biblical stance against homosexuality, Leviticus 20:13:


Yet Phillips did not put the men to death, as the Bible commands. How is he following his religion if he doesn't kill same-sex couples that have admitted to him (by inference) that they have layed down with each other?
Very fair question!
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #174  
Old 06-21-2018, 12:41 AM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,072
Do I really have to post the whole thing?
Quote:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I
can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to
follow them.
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord --
Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite
them?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age,
what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual
uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offence.
4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are
purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly
states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a
lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there “degrees” of
abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to
admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room
here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even
though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still
play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as
does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death
at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such
matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
Anonymous
I think the guy that wrote this is trying to make a point.
  #175  
Old 06-21-2018, 11:36 AM
Iggy Iggy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 5,234
Once again we see a sort of No True Scotsman argument.

Court precedent clearly indicates that a person raising a religious objection argument need not conform to what another person thinks should be his beliefs.

From United States v. Seeger (1965) which dealt with religious objections raised to the military draft:
Quote:
Local boards and courts are to decide whether the objector's beliefs are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious; they are not to require proof of the religious doctrines, nor are they to reject beliefs because they are not comprehensible.
So it does not matter if a baker says his Christian beliefs preclude him from baking a cake for a same sex wedding even though the baker wears a shirt made of mixed fabrics that an outside observer might think he shouldn't wear if he was a "true" Christian. The court precedent robustly permits religious claims from so called Cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which beliefs to adhere to.

This is not to say that a court could not rule against such religious objection on other neutral grounds. But a court is NOT in the business of deciding whether a particular religious faith requires holding a particular belief. A court can examine whether a professed belief is sincerely held.

Last edited by Iggy; 06-21-2018 at 11:37 AM.
  #176  
Old 06-21-2018, 02:10 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,186
I had not seen the “Dr. Laura letter”, which I assume did not actually come anywhere near the good doctor? Pretty funny.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
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 12:29 AM.

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

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

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

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

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

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017