Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #901  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:30 PM
raventhief raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,957
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, 05:31 PM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 5,223
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 05:35 PM.
  #903  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:32 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,027
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 05:33 PM.
  #904  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:32 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
What's your point?
Two points, above the u.
  #905  
Old 02-15-2018, 05:38 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,178
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, 06:03 PM
simster simster is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Two points, above the u.
that's, umm, alot!
  #907  
Old 02-15-2018, 06:05 PM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 10,819
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.
__________________
Remember, pillage before burning.
  #908  
Old 02-15-2018, 06:13 PM
raventhief raventhief is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,957
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, 06:54 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,906
Be alert. The world needs more lerts.
  #910  
Old 02-15-2018, 08:46 PM
CarnalK CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 14,158
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, 09:28 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 28,453
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.Ē
strikes me as disingenuous in the extreme.
  #912  
Old 02-15-2018, 09:38 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 28,453
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, 10:05 PM
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 33,334
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 10:07 PM.
  #914  
Old 02-15-2018, 10:12 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 28,453
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 hasnít been.

Any law-talking guys care to do me a solid and educate me on whether Iím mistaken, and if so, why?
  #915  
Old 02-15-2018, 10:35 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 28,453
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: Thereís 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, 08:30 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 37,355
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, 08:44 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,824
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, 09:14 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 14,747
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 ó you know, the sort of cake thatís 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 ďIíll make that exact cake for you if Ashley is a woman, but not if Ashley is a man; is Ashley a woman?Ē

Is it your assertion that the baker gets to reply ďIíll make that exact cake for you if Ashley is white, but not if Ashley is black; is Ashley white?Ē
  #919  
Old 02-16-2018, 09:22 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,178
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, 09:24 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
that's, umm, alot!
At least it's not umlaut.
  #921  
Old 02-16-2018, 09:52 AM
IvoryTowerDenizen IvoryTowerDenizen is offline
"Superstar"
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North Shore of LI
Posts: 18,381
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 09:54 AM.
  #922  
Old 02-16-2018, 09:59 AM
Morgenstern Morgenstern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 10,819
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 hasnít been.

Any law-talking guys care to do me a solid and educate me on whether Iím 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?
__________________
Remember, pillage before burning.
  #923  
Old 02-16-2018, 11:01 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,343
*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, 11:22 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 6,178
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, 10:05 PM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 28,453
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 hasnít been.

Any law-talking guys care to do me a solid and educate me on whether Iím 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.
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 12:58 AM.

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

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

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

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

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

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

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017