California Judge Rules Making a Cake is "Artistic Expression" - Denies LGBT Discrimination Claim

[Euphrosyne]

@raventhief

I think that is a wild misinterpretation. The point of the remark appears to me that closing your shop DOESN’T equal death. Hence the apostles, who were put to death, made a much bigger sacrifice.

Compare changing careers to that ultimate sacrifice. No one is indicating that Christians should be put to death. Perhaps they should, instead, gain a sense of perspective, and realize that.

You are entitled to interpret things in any way you like.

I know what she wrote.

And so will everyone else who reads this thread.

[k9bfriender]

@Morgenstern

Not at all. They are not attacking the statute. They are attacking the application of that statute when it infringes on someone’s 1st. Amendment rights.

You’re not suggesting that a Superior Court judge in California can not rely on the US Constitution to make a ruling?

Like I said, they are attacking the application of that statue when they don’t want it to apply to them.

@Euphrosyne

You are entitled to interpret things in any way you like.

I know what she wrote.

And so will everyone else who reads this thread.

Yes, they will… And they will read the actual words that were written, and they will read your response that indicates that you did not read the words that were written.

[raventhief]

@Euphrosyne

You are entitled to interpret things in any way you like.

I know what she wrote.

And so will everyone else who reads this thread.

Yes, I too know what she wrote. I still believe you are misinterpreting, as she said if closing your business is too great a sacrifice, consider those who committed a much larger sacrifice. That is in no way an invitation to imitate, merely reflect.

[Euphrosyne]

@raventhief

Yes, I too know what she wrote. I still believe you are misinterpreting, as she said if closing your business is too great a sacrifice, consider those who committed a much larger sacrifice. That is in no way an invitation to imitate, merely reflect.

Really.

Suppose someone said or wrote the following to you.

Sample:

If you feel that something in this country bothers you, then why don’t you consider the Russian Imperial family, who were shot to death by the Bolsheviks, and their remains buried in a mass grave.

End Sample.

You know perfectly well what that imagery means, what it’s meant to evoke in you, and what it’s meant to evoke among those who side with the position of your interlocutor.

It’s the implied expression of the wish for the death of another. A violent death. An horrific death.

You don’t believe it?

Try sending such language to a family member in your greeting card over the holidays.

See what kind of a response you get.

It won’t be a festive response, I’ll guarantee you that.

[raventhief]

@Euphrosyne

Really.

If you feel that something in this country bothers you, then why don’t you consider the Russian Imperial family, who were shot to death by the Bolsheviks, and their remains buried in a mass grave.

Am I to believe you are suggesting that I die? Really? That is your intent? I wouldn’t read it that way, but apparently you would.

[raventhief]

@Euphrosyne

Really.

Suppose someone said or wrote the following to you.

Sample:

If you feel that something in this country bothers you, then why don’t you consider the Russian Imperial family, who were shot to death by the Bolsheviks, and their remains buried in a mass grave.

End Sample.

You know perfectly well what that imagery means, what it’s meant to evoke in you, and what it’s meant to evoke among those who side with the position of your interlocutor.

It’s the implied expression of the wish for the death of another. A violent death. An horrific death.

You don’t believe it?

Try sending such language to a family member in your greeting card over the holidays.

See what kind of a response you get.

It won’t be a festive response, I’ll guarantee you that.

Do you react so strongly to any suggestion that someone else may have gone through a greater misfortune than yourself?

“Children are starving in xxxxx, so clean your plate.”

“Oh my god how dare you wish starvation and death on me!”

[raventhief]

And please clean up your quotes. It’s disconcerting to see your name attached to my words.(and vice versa)

[Miller]

@Euphrosyne

Really.

Suppose someone said or wrote the following to you.

Sample:

If you feel that something in this country bothers you, then why don’t you consider the Russian Imperial family, who were shot to death by the Bolsheviks, and their remains buried in a mass grave.

End Sample.

You know perfectly well what that imagery means, what it’s meant to evoke in you, and what it’s meant to evoke among those who side with the position of your interlocutor.

It’s the implied expression of the wish for the death of another. A violent death. An horrific death.

Yeah, no. I don’t think that’s at all a reasonable extrapolation from that sentence, nor is it one that the majority of people would arrive at, nor do I think it’s an interpretation you’d arrive at yourself if you didn’t already have your back up from the combative tone of the thread.

You don’t believe it?

Try sending such language to a family member in your greeting card over the holidays.

See what kind of a response you get.

It won’t be a festive response, I’ll guarantee you that.

Well, it’s not a friendly message, for sure, but “not friendly” isn’t “I wish you were dead.” Did your mom ever use the, “You don’t like your dinner? Think about the starving children in Africa!” line on you? Did you think that meant your mom wanted you to starve to death because of it?

[Bone]

Folks - the quote tags have gotten really messed up. Someone left an unclosed quote tag and it has perpetuated itself all through the thread so a bunch of quotes from posters are being misattributed. It’s going to take me a bit to clean up but I cant do it now. Please be aware of how you are quoting going forward and I will attempt to correct in a bit.
eta: Ok, cleaned up the quote tags. I made edits to 10 separate posts, so if I messed that up please let me know.

[/moderating]

[nelliebly]

@Euphrosyne

Nellibly, in message #672, you wrote "If you think making a wedding cake for a gay wedding is a sin, fine, close your shop. If that seems like too big a sacrifice for your faith, remember that Paul and 11 of the 12 apostles made a much bigger sacrifice for theirs."

You invited me - and those who think as I do - ultimately, to imitate the Apostles who were martyred, as an alternative to obeying the law in its present-day form.

You can walk that back all you want.

Your own words indicate that you would be content to see people of faith put to death.

A more anti-American outlook, I never hoped to live to see.

My poor family now entering pre-school. What does the future hold for them? Where can they go to be free, now that, for many Americans, it’s Open Season on people of faith.

I hope all who read this recognize this shockingly anti-American attitude, and object to it!

Holy moly. I am not content to see ANYONE put to death. I said Paul and the Apostles were martyrs for their faith. I was raised Catholic and have tremendous admiration for those who have died for their faith. I’m sorry you feel my views are un-American. I believe in separation of church and state, a fundamental American principle. I believe in loving my fellow human being, as Jesus instructed me to do.

I’m not going to subject my faith nor my patriotism to your confused logic and misguided insults. Instead of wasting any more time here, I’m going out to practice my faith.

Peace be unto you.

[raventhief]

@Bone

Folks - the quote tags have gotten really messed up. Someone left an unclosed quote tag and it has perpetuated itself all through the thread so a bunch of quotes from posters are being misattributed. It’s going to take me a bit to clean up but I cant do it now. Please be aware of how you are quoting going forward and I will attempt to correct in a bit.
eta: Ok, cleaned up the quote tags. I made edits to 10 separate posts, so if I messed that up please let me know.

[/moderating]

Thanks! That was bugging me.

[boytyperanma]

@Euphrosyne

Since the other poster expressed a preference to pass on answering, I will try.

I thank you for the effort.

My question would be: would most reasonable American voters and legislators buy the argument that deliberately and gratuitously to subject customers - any customers - to humiliating experiences, was a matter of religious precept or of counsel? (Please see my post #602)

So you’ve personally decided ‘deliberate and gratuitous’ acts of humiliation should not be acceptable, I think you are right that most Americans would share your your belief. But we are arguing the absolute right for one to express themselves under the 1st amendment, you are drawing a line for others based on your belief. Being rejected from a business is humiliating, it is clearly deliberate, are you comfortable letting others determine if it rises to the level of ‘gratuitous’ or would you prefer it only be determined by the principals of your faith?

When living in a country where holy men preach that gay men should be put to death, is it far fetched draw the conclusion they may also believe all services should be refused to gays? Do you think the government should examine the texts of their religion to determine if they’ve personally come to the correct conclusion?

Even within your own religion there are those that do not believe in refusing service to gay people. There are Catholic owned bakeries that are making cakes for gay weddings. If you as a Catholic decide to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay person, should the government compare your understanding of your faith to others in your faith to come to a conclusion? What if the governments conclusion after reading the Catholic bible is it does not bar you from baking a cake for a gay person?

In the US the court does not question an individuals religious interpretation. You are welcome to come to any interpretation you wish. If there is a question weighing religious expression, the furthest the government delves is to determine if the belief is sincerely held. We don’t question the merits of why it is sincerely held. I don’t want my government to make theological inquiries into someone’s interpretation of their faith.

Not going to happen. Maybe the state requires that the shop staff prepare a customer intake form for each wedding or wedding-related order. And the intake form would have a box labelled: “Sex / Bride (Spouse 1)” and "Sex / Groom (Spouse 2). The staffers tick off “Male” “Female” “Other.” And the manager of the shop or the MOD will review each form before the agreement is concluded. If the boxes ticked off are other than 1 male and 1 female, the mgr or MOD will call the customer into her office, and privately and politely explain that the establish greatly appreciates his business proprietor is religious, and to accept this particular order would be to go against her religious sensibilities. The interviewer would ask the rejected customer if he understands that this specific order cannot be taken at this establishment, and does he understand why. Does he have any further questions? And that the establishment values his continued business for other occasions and affairs, and would be glad to take these orders. And would the customer be willing to accept the gift of either a freshly baked loaf of bread or an especially terrific pie?

So, no after the fact discoveries that the event being celebrated is a same-sex union.

You’ve questioned government overreach but your own proposal doesn’t seem completely ridiculous to you? You think the government should dictate forms for bakers to fill out? Should these forms only be required for bakers that wish to discriminate or all bakers? Would requiring only bigoted bakers to implement additional forms be discrimination? Will every service in the country have to implement similar forms to accommodate their beliefs? A mechanic or car salesman who doesn’t believe women should drive, should they implement forms so they are not duped into serving women?

Our country has managed to balance the needs of protected class and religious beliefs for decades. Businesses have for the most part been able to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and customers for years. But now when sexuality is elevated to receive similar protections, it’s a step too far?

If these bigots wish to operate businesses open to the public why isn’t the onus put on them to make reasonable accommodations as they must do for everyone else? I’d be fine if a religious baker didn’t want to personally prepare the cake, they could have a non-religious employee make it or subcontract another bakery to make it. I ask that the standard be the customer receive the same level of service and the cake be of the same quality as a heterosexual would get.

[k9bfriender]

@boytyperanma

Our country has managed to balance the needs of protected class and religious beliefs for decades. Businesses have for the most part been able to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and customers for years. But now when sexuality is elevated to receive similar protections, it’s a step too far?

There are many, some in this very thread, who feel that the current accommodations required of businesses is a step too far already.

If these bigots wish to operate businesses open to the public why isn’t the onus put on them to make reasonable accommodations as they must do for everyone else? I’d be fine if a religious baker didn’t want to personally prepare the cake, they could have a non-religious employee make it or subcontract another bakery to make it. I ask that the standard be the customer receive the same level of service and the cake be of the same quality as a heterosexual would get.

One thing I would add to this, if I were the owner, I would not be fine if my employee decided they didn’t want to make a cake for religious reasons. There is reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs, but then there is also the need to have your business operate. If they were my employee, and they refused to provide service for my customers, then they would be replaced with an employee who will provide service to my customers. That may not mean firing them, that may just mean reassigning them from wedding cake maker to cupcake maker, if I am big enough to have those as separate positions, and if that means less pay and hours, then they have made that choice.

[simster]

@Euphrosyne

You are entitled to interpret things in any way you like.

I know what she wrote.

And so will everyone else who reads this thread.

Yep, and like many other things , you are wrong again.

[Euphrosyne]

@simster

Yep, and like many other things , you are wrong again.

“You are entitled to interpret things in any way you like.” (She’s not?)

“I know what she wrote.” (I don’t?)

“And so will everyone else who reads this thread.” (They won’t?)
Allrighty-then!

[Euphrosyne]

@k9bfriender

There are many, some in this very thread, who feel that the current accommodations required of businesses is a step too far already.
One thing I would add to this, if I were the owner, I would not be fine if my employee decided they didn’t want to make a cake for religious reasons. There is reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs, but then there is also the need to have your business operate. If they were my employee, and they refused to provide service for my customers, then they would be replaced with an employee who will provide service to my customers. That may not mean firing them, that may just mean reassigning them from wedding cake maker to cupcake maker, if I am big enough to have those as separate positions, and if that means less pay and hours, then they have made that choice.

If you were the office manager of a doctor’s office, and you had a Muslim woman working for you as a physician’s assistant, ($20 per hour) and you asked her to inject novacaine into a patient’s man-part in prep for surgery, and she said, “I can’t do that . . .” etc., etc.

Would you reassign her to receptionist $8.00 per hour? Or would you fire her?

[boytyperanma]

@Euphrosyne

If you were the office manager of a doctor’s office, and you had a Muslim woman working for you as a physician’s assistant, ($20 per hour) and you asked her to inject novacaine into a patient’s man-part in prep for surgery, and she said, “I can’t do that . . .” etc., etc.

Would you reassign her to receptionist $8.00 per hour? Or would you fire her?

If this is a rare event for the Doctors office, she could be reasonably accommodated by having the doctor perform the injection(I assume he’s also qualified).

If this is a doctor that specializes in penile reconstructive surgery, a woman with a religious restriction, such as that, probably can’t be reasonably accommodated. She should seek out work elsewhere. If she wanted to work as a receptionist instead, she can apply for that position.

[Euphrosyne]

@boytyperanma

I thank you for the effort.

So you’ve personally decided ‘deliberate and gratuitous’ acts of humiliation should not be acceptable,

I love that! “Personally decided.”

You always know when somebody totally disagrees with you and everything you have to say when they say, “personally decided.”

“Personally decided?” As opposed to what? Having my drone-alter-ego decide and get back to me?

Whhhhiirrrrrrr-rrrrrrr! Euphrosyne, this is your drone. Your decision on gratuitious acts of humiliation and refusal is : humiliation - 3 and refusal - 2. Got that? So it’s 3-2 humiliation.

I think you are right that most Americans would share your your belief. But we are arguing the absolute right for one to express themselves under the 1st amendment, you are drawing a line for others based on your belief.

Absolute right? Absolute? As in . . .

No. I'm not arguing that shit.

You want to? — knock yourself out.

Only absolut I’m doin around here is that Vodka shit. You know what I’m sayin’?

Being rejected from a business is humiliating, it is clearly deliberate, are you comfortable letting others determine if it rises to the level of ‘gratuitous’ or would you prefer it only be determined by the principals of your faith?

Nope.

When living in a country where holy men preach that gay men should be put to death, is it far fetched draw the conclusion they may also believe all services should be refused to gays?

What? You mean Saudi Arabia? I know, right? Man, those folks got some whacked shit goin’ on. You’ll have to ask one of them dudes.

Do you think the government should examine the texts of their religion to determine if they’ve personally come to the correct conclusion?

I don’t know. Can they read Arabic?

Even within your own religion there are those that do not believe in refusing service to gay people. There are Catholic owned bakeries that are making cakes for gay weddings. If you as a Catholic decide to refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay person, should the government compare your understanding of your faith to others in your faith to come to a conclusion? What if the governments conclusion after reading the Catholic bible is it does not bar you from baking a cake for a gay person?

I have no problems baking a cake for a gay person.

YMMV.

In the US the court does not question an individuals religious interpretation. You are welcome to come to any interpretation you wish. If there is a question weighing religious expression, the furthest the government delves is to determine if the belief is sincerely held. We don’t question the merits of why it is sincerely held. I don’t want my government to make theological inquiries into someone’s interpretation of their faith.

Well. Ah’ve already said my piece, friend.

Suture self.

You’ve questioned government overreach but your own proposal doesn’t seem completely ridiculous to you? You think the government should dictate forms for bakers to fill out?

Sure, why the hell not?

You seen that shit them tax boys from the Internal Reve . . . why I had to hire me a geedee John Deere just to haul that shit in from the mailbox.

Ridiculous ain’t the word for it.

Should these forms only be required for bakers that wish to discriminate or all bakers?

Oh, all. Definitely, all!

Would requiring only bigoted bakers to implement additional forms be discrimination? Will every service in the country have to implement similar forms to accommodate their beliefs? A mechanic or car salesman who doesn’t believe women should drive, should they implement forms so they are not duped into serving women?

Yes. Absolut vodka.

Our country has managed to balance the needs of protected class and religious beliefs for decades. Businesses have for the most part been able to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and customers for years. But now when sexuality is elevated to receive similar protections, it’s a step too far?

Different folks. Different strokes, dude.

Woulda figured you for a smart enough feller coulda somehow figured that one out for yourself.

Well, not the first time I’ve been wrong.

If these bigots wish to operate businesses open to the public why isn’t the onus put on them to make reasonable accommodations as they must do for everyone else? I’d be fine if a religious baker didn’t want to personally prepare the cake, they could have a non-religious employee make it or subcontract another bakery to make it. I ask that the standard be the customer receive the same level of service and the cake be of the same quality as a heterosexual would get.

“bigots”

Isn’t that a great word? Say it with me a few times.

Bigot. Bigot. Bigot. Bigot!

What’s the plural of bigot? Not just 2 bigots, but a collective of bigots.

Is it a plethora of bigots? Or a swath of bigots?

Or a brazen of bigots?

I think it should roll off the tongue. Like vodka. Like anything “absolute.”

A bigot party would be fun. Not because of the company, but because of the chant.

You know, like toga in Animal House.

Bi-got! Bi-got! Bi-got! And then, this is where John Belushi wigs out, and gets down on the ground like a turtle on its back and just wigs. It’s great. You have to see that movie just for that scene.

Oh! Oh! And where he makes the kid think he actually shoots the horse. That’s hilarious, too.

Do bigots shoot horses? If they’re bigoted against horses, they do? What does a bigot say when he wants the horse he’s on to go? “Bigot-ap!” (Sigh.) No? Yeah. Needs work.

OK, well bye.

[crowmanyclouds]

Cake or death? Will there be tea?

CMC fnord!

[boytyperanma]

@Euphrosyne

I love that! “Personally decided.”

You always know when somebody totally disagrees with you and everything you have to say when they say, “personally decided.”

“Personally decided?” As opposed to what? Having my drone-alter-ego decide and get back to me?

Whhhhiirrrrrrr-rrrrrrr! Euphrosyne, this is your drone. Your decision on gratuitious acts of humiliation and refusal is : humiliation - 3 and refusal - 2. Got that? So it’s 3-2 humiliation.

It’'s a distinction I chose because in this thread you repeatedly use your own religion to determine how the law should be applied. Others people in the thread have shown much more willingness to be inclusive in the religions of others when making their arguments.

Only absolut I’m doin around here is that Vodka shit. You know what I’m sayin’?

I think I’m getting what you’re saying. I think maybe you should consider not posting while intoxicated.

@boytyperanma

Being rejected from a business is humiliating, it is clearly deliberate, are you comfortable letting others determine if it rises to the level of ‘gratuitous’ or would you prefer it only be determined by the principals of your faith?

@Euphrosyne

Nope.

I don’t understand your answer. Are you saying being rejected from a business is not humiliating?

What? You mean Saudi Arabia? I know, right? Man, those folks got some whacked shit goin’ on. You’ll have to ask one of them dudes.

No I was referring to the numerous US based preachers who wish to see homosexuals but to death. Many with public notoriety are Christian religions founded in the US. There is also a handful of elected officials who have stated they held similar beliefs.

I don’t know. Can they read Arabic?

That is a bigoted comment.

“bigots”

Isn’t that a great word? Say it with me a few times.
.

It is. It has a solid definition with near universal understanding it carries negative connotations. People who don’t wish to be called bigots should adjust their behavior. If they are comfortable holding bigoted beliefs perhaps they should embrace the word as a mark of honor instead.