Do you refuse to wear blended fabrics? Or overseed your lawn?
I’m not an observant Jew anymore, but when I was, I did do my best to keep all the commandments. Jews still won’t wear blended fabrics if they are observant.
Elvis:
They might consider it a sin, but be understanding of those who succumb to temptation.
Not to pick on you personally, just to use you as an example: Does not being observant anymore mean you now follow only the parts of the doctrine that you like, or at least find to be not inconvenient? I’m pretty sure *that *would put you in the vast majority.
I assume that this was in reply to my post immediately previous to it: Did you even read that post? I explicitly said that a business can be run according to Christian principles, and I made no statement whatsoever as to whether it should be.
I’m trying to understand what argument you are making, especially since you are making quite a few assertions. Assertions are usually about the way things are, not the way we wish them to be. I might wish that the sky was green, but I wouldn’t assert that it is.
We can accept the current jurisprudence and still argue about how it’s going to play out in this case. If it were open and shut, all the justices would agree. But I doubt that is going to happen. The justices have not given gays the status of “suspect class”, but some of them have acted as if they were. Hence the description of “rational basis, with teeth”. As I said earlier, I wish they would just get off the pot about this and label them a suspect class and this would be much easier. In my opinion, they meet the relevant criteria.
I think all opinions are great, so don’t get too excited about that. 
And it’s funny that, some of, the same people that will quote Leviticus to support their position on homosexuality will happily explain that the rest of Leviticus doesn’t apply to them because Jesus changed the Covenant (Jesus saying that he didn’t come to change the Law being yet another thing he said that we really don’t need to pay much attention to).
I’m still struggling to understand how selling a cake that does not explicitly endorse a thing can be seen as an endorsement of said thing. “This 888 cake is to celebrate my triplets eighth birthday not Hitler, it’s not like it’s a swastika* cake!” An “888” cake that says nothing is, at best, an endorsement of the number eight.
(*Of course there are people that might want a swastika cake because not every swastika is a Nazi one. I’m sure my former, Hindu, doctor with a svastika, not a hakenkreuz, on his practice’s door might appreciate a “Congratulations! You’ve been a Doctor for 25 years!” svastika cake.)
How anyone gets from “credit Masterpiece Bakery for the cake” to “Masterpiece Bakery endorses our GAY wedding” is beyond me. Imply and infer are still two different things.
Can straight couples get a rainbow wedding cake?
Is it possible that a gay couple just really wants rainbows on their wedding cake?
CMC fnord!
That included all the stuff supporting slavery, of which there is a hell of a lot more than that one line about homosexuality. None of that is in the **New **Testament, IOW the Christian part of the Bible.
Leviticus is a real hoot.
The real problem being that there are way more Paulian “Christians” than Jesusian “Christians”!
“Jesus just didn’t understand Christianity as well as I do!” Paul, né Saul of Tarsus
CMC fnord!
The court will not, of course, be concerning itself with the validity of the Pauline brand of Christianity. To the extent that religious beliefs enter the discussion, it will be enough to show that the belief in question is sincerely held as being a part of the religion practiced by the baker. Even RBG won’t be asking questions about clothing with mixed fabrics or whether Paul got his ideas right or not with respect to Jesus’ explicit teachings in the Gospels.
Sure.
Christians – well, most Christians – no longer regard all the Pentateuch laws as binding, because Acts 15 shows that we are released from most of those laws (excepting, inter alia, “…things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.”)
Often I hear people declare in tones of self-satisfaction, “Well, if you believe in the Bible, why do you cut your hair and shave? Do you stone to death your stubborn and rebellious son? Huh? Huh?”
And my answer to that is Acts 15. Which they seem to not be aware of, mostly.
The Footnote 4 criteria from Carolene Products?
Really? Gays are politically powerless? I’m not sure I agree.
I think their political power is no greater than Blacks or women (gender being a quasi-suspect class), and they qualify.
And Footnote 4 does not say they must be “powerless”:
*[Footnote 4]
There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments, which are deemed equally specific when held to be embraced within the Fourteenth. See Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 283 U. S. 369-370; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 303 U. S. 452.
It is unnecessary to consider now whether legislation which restricts those political processes which can ordinarily be expected to bring about repeal of undesirable legislation is to be subjected to more exacting judicial scrutiny under the general prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment than are most other types of legislation. On restrictions upon the right to vote, see Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536; Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. 73; on restraints upon the dissemination of information, see Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, 283 U. S. 713-714, 283 U. S. 718-720, 283 U. S. 722; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233; Lovell v. Griffin, supra; on interferences with political organizations, see Stromberg v. California, supra, 283 U. S. 369; Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U. S. 380; Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 274 U. S. 373-378; Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242, and see Holmes, J., in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 268 U. S. 673; as to prohibition of peaceable assembly, see De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 299 U. S. 365.
Nor need we enquire whether similar considerations enter into the review of statutes directed at particular religious, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, or national, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390; Bartels v. Iowa, 262 U. S. 404; Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U. S. 284, or racial minorities, Nixon v. Herndon, supra; Nixon v. Condon, supra: whether prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry. Compare 17 U. S. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 17 U. S. 428; South Carolina v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U. S. 177, 303 U. S. 184, n 2, and cases cited.*
I should add, as you might have missed it, that I’m thinking quasi-suspect class with Intermediate Scrutiny would be just about right for gays. Same as gender.
Some sects regard the Law as still binding, except where it’s directly superseded by New Testament preachings. For example, you obviously don’t need a Day of Atonement anymore, because Jesus was the lamb.
But there’s plenty of room for difference of opinion on this count. Seems to me that if you don’t follow the Law, then homosexuality is not a specifically forbidden activity. IT’s just covered under fornication.
And Leviticus doesn’t say anything about lesbian sex, right?
Insight might be gained by noting that the nine Justices and the four attorneys presenting oral arguments spent no time at all on whether the baker’s beliefs are sincerely held. This line is one huge No True Scotsman argument that is doomed to fail in attacking Phillip’s case.
Whether or not a custom designed cake constitutes expressive conduct warranting consideration of First Amendment protections is a valid line of argument. And given that Phillips sincerely hold religious beliefs that would be compromised by a ruling against him were the rulings of the ALJ and the Colorado commissions and courts simply the application of a neutrally applied law which was not targeted against those holding a particular religious belief?
But any notion that the high court is going to rule that Phillips should lose because he was not a good enough adherent to his professed faith is just wishful thinking.
John Mace:
That is correct.
Not for American Catholics. They are very much “a la carte”. At least, in practice.
I picked up the phrase from adaher’s post, but what I meant is something like any of these without a topper. Or these They are not pre-made, as no bakery keeps these on the shelf just in case someone comes in for a wedding cake needed that same day, but they are pre-designed. They have a certain amount of customization (filling, frosting,flowers, etc ) but any of those designs is equally appropriate for a gay wedding, a straight wedding or ( judging by the toppers on one of them) a dog wedding.
I’ve noticed that there seems to be an idea in discussions about this case that there are only two kinds of cakes - the pre-made, off the shelf sort of cake that’s sitting there waiting for you to buy it or the one-of-a-kind custom cakes that were shown on the Ace of Cakes.* But that’s not true. Most wedding cakes are not custom designed but they are not bought off the shelf either. I think people ( not necessarily you,** John Mace**) are hearing the bakery owner saying that he would have been willing to sell the couple a pre-made cake and interpreting that to mean he would have sold them a pre-made “wedding cake”. But that is absolutely not what he meant, because pre-made "wedding cake"s don’t exist. What he meant is that he would sell them a pre-made cake that no one would call a wedding cake - maybe. Or maybe he meant he would sell them a pre-made cake if they didn’t mention it was going to be used for a wedding.
- And looking at the price list for Charm City cakes , you can see a real difference. Their pre-designed wedding cakes are $6.50 to $10 a serving. Custom cakes start at $300 for 10-15 servings.