I think we’re more or less on the same page. So far Tooth seems to be the only one that doesn’t get it.
Does the mural artist have a storefront or advertise his mural painting services?
The storefront could be a public accomodation. People are not public accomodations.
Yeah, that’s sort of my point too, before I was assaulted with irrelevant questions about paintings and my feelings. Discriminating against gay people then adding “in Jesus’ name” doesn’t turn bigotry into a religious practice. Going to mosque is a religious practice. Sitting Shiva is a religious practice. Doing whatever the hell you want and then saying “but I’m a Christian” to excuse it is not a religious practice.
But I guess we’re outvoted on that.
I think your problem is that you are confusing “exercise of religion” with “religious practice”, in some narrow sense of “practice” meaning something one does regularly. The Constitution protects them both, with the latter being a subset of the former.
That is exactly my position, thank you.
So, you would not allow conscience objectors to opt out of being sent to war because of “sincerely held religious beliefs” that war is wrong? “Opting out of war” is not something one does on a regular basis, especially since people within the same religious tradition often disagree about whether or not participating in war is part of the religion’s belief system or not in the first place.
I would, because they’re not using their sincerely held religious beliefs to excuse their homophobia. I still wouldn’t consider it a religious practice, though. This has nothing to do with cakes for gay people.
Is your proposed rule then, “No religious belief can excuse homophobia?”
Oh, I see. So that wasn’t “exactly” your position then.
Now, suppose a gay couple asks a Catholic priest to perform their wedding ceremony. Is the priest compelled to do so, in your view?
No religious belief can justify homophobic business practices, yes. You sell a cake to me, you sell it to my gay cousin. How you feel is not important to me at that point.
But also, if he doesn’t have to sell it to you, then he also doesn’t have to sell it to your gay cousin. No one has special rights.
I’m glad you understand. Happy to clarify.
Religious organizations aren’t public accommodations. If you’re hoping to fling imaginary situations at me until I crack, it won’t work. Flinging imaginary situations at me until I get fed up and leave this thread, on the other hand, has resulted in a stunning success.
I think we’re done. It doesn’t look like the goalposts are ever going to be firmly planted in one place.
He has a large studio loft on the second floor above a Best Buy from which he sells other artwork he has created but he makes custom artwork on commission and he has been getting a lot of this sort of work since he made his Obama poster public domain. There is a small sign in the window of his loft that says “art for sale - we do custom work too”
I think we’re still waiting for the clarification.
If religious organizations aren’t public accommodations, are the physical structures public accomodations? I me they are required to comply with the ADA, right? And you can’t keep blacks out, right?
So if the church frequently rents out space for things like weddings, piano recitals, boy scout meetings and even bar mitzvahs and muslim mosque services. Do they also have to rent out their church for a gay wedding?
The rainbow motif was what the couple decided on because they’d been turned away by Masterpiece. As I’ve mentioned several times, the baker never actually got to the point where he asked what design they wanted. He turned them away as soon as he found out it was a cake for a gay wedding; the specific speech act of designing the cake never came up. The problem was the venue.
Please be advised that I was responding to someone who posted: “Try as I might, I can’t really think of any way in which a high-end wedding cake designed for a straight couple would differ from one designed for a gay couple. Except for maybe the topper.” I was giving that person an example, so the fact that it was made “after the fact” in this case is irrelevant.
Fair enough. I was mostly responding to DA and the numerous people who think that there was discussion of a cake design in *this *case. From the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision:
I no longer have access to the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights’ opinion, but it confirms that the cake design was never discussed.
There are way too many rainbow wedding cake pictures on pinterest for me to believe they were all for lgbt weddings.