That’s a good guess I suppose.
So, are there any legally recognized marriages that that phrase would be legally acceptable to be forbidden for religious reasons, other than SSM?
Not quite ETA: (And other than that one state where you can marry your sister if she is over childbearing age or otherwise infertile.)
My point was not to identify the religion specifically, but to point out the factual error in the claim, “No religious laws/texts have anything to say about wedding cake decorating.”
Of course, technically, drachillix merely expressed “serious doubt,” that such religious rules exist. So I offered up an example, or more specifically a question designed to highlight the example.
You chimed in with a statement that also suggested error, “Apparently only if the love is between two of the same sex.”
That was neither apparent, or factually accurate.
Observant Jewish practice includes essentially never writing the name of God. (Again technically, the prohibition is not against writing it, but against writing in when the writing may subsequently be defaced or destroyed; see the Rambam’s Sefer Ha-mitzvot (lo ta’aseh 65), for example). The Rambam did not discuss eating the name, to be sure, but we may safely observe that eating it would in fact destroy it.
So now, no one should entertain doubt, serious or otherwise, that religious rules or texts exist that are relevant to cake decoration. And no one, you included, you believe that these rules apply only “if the love is between two of the same sex.”
That’s an awfully confident claim. It’s almost like you are announcing a rule.
Can you explain why that wouldn’t constitute compelled speech under the First Amendment’s precedents?
And this baker would not write those words on any cake, for any couple, for any reason, right?
Not discrimination.
I apologize, I was mistaken in that I thought that your example was relevant in dealing with the issue of discrimination, and not just a potential score on my next game of trivial pursuit.
So, to be relevant to this thread, are there any examples of religious rules that would cause a baker that would write those words for one legal marriage, but not for another, other than SSM or that one state that allows incest?
You did pick out one line of drachillix’s post out of context, I did not realize that in doing so you were also going to change the intent of the words that drachillix used.
Your example was not of a religious text about wedding cake decorating, it was an example of words that cannot be used on anything that is consumable. It had nothing to do with wedding cakes, other than that you could theoretically use it on wedding cakes.
You may as well have rebutted the argument by saying “A couple asks for a cake with the face of mohammed on it”, might there be any religious texts/laws about that?" At least then it wouldn’t appear as though you were going for obscure.
IOW, your rebuttal had nothing at all to do with wedding cakes, weddings, discrimination, SSM, or anything else relevant to the thread.
Do agree that if the baker was going to put those words on any cake, he would have to put them on all cakes if requested?
To the contrary, the rebuttal served a valuable purpose: to stigmatize this unfortunate tendency people have of announcing, in tones of certainty that rival Moses at Sinai, some kind of rule - a rule that doesn’t actually exist.
No. I think that would constitute compelled speech, in violation of the First Amendment.
Justice Alito clearly showed the problem with the idea of requiring a baker to duplicate any message that had previously be provided to a different customer. In short, whatever ruling the court fashions will not require such a simplistic rule.
And any notion that a person offering a religious objection must be able to point to some written command in whatever text his faith adheres to is one huge No True Scotsman argument. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.
A court may examine if the religious belief of a single individual is sincerely held. But courts will not put an entire religion on trial to determine if a particular belief corresponds to a professed faith or decide which version of a particular belief system is the “right” one.
Like the Biblical “rule” that Christians aren’t allowed to make cakes for “gay” weddings?
CMC fnord!
Read up.
Fortunately, for me, I’m not “a court”.
CMC fnord!
I agree.
Fortunately there is sufficient jurisprudence to establish that no one must be perfect to be able to raise the issue of a right of religious expression or conscientious objection. In fact a person’s sincerely held beliefs need not arise from organized religion at least in the case of conscientious objection. That could be extended beyond the context of a military draft.
There was even a rather famous person whose case made its way to the high court in which the justices granted him conscientious exemption from the draft since “beliefs are founded on tenets of the Muslim religion as he understands them.”
emphasis mine.
So Jack Phillip’s personal beliefs may be assessed, but only as to whether he sincerely holds those beliefs about marriage as he understands that his faith requires.
That wouldn’t be an accurate statement. That implies all marriages are approved by said religious belief or for that matter any belief system.
Fortunately for ME, it’s a court that decides the issue, not you.
Good that you know exactly how I would rule on this case . . . since I, actually, don’t know!
CMC fnord!
Fortunately for all of us, personal opinions are still allowed.
Aren’t they?
Sure, in fact, I hear tell of an entire forum on this site dedicated to their exchange.
The implication being, that matters of opinion are not suited to this forum?
Because that’s also wrong.
I notice that you did not speak as a moderator, but I nonetheless am concerned about contradicting you. So I’ll just say nothing.
I hear tell of only one forum on this site not dedicated to the exchange of personal opinions, GQ, and even it’s infested with them.
Are you, a 99er, under the impression that “IMHO” is special??? 
CMC fnord!
I, a 99’er, am an incurable optimist in this regard. But I certainly admit you have the realistic side of this exchange.
I was speaking as a poster, and not a moderator. But you’ve been here how many years, and never noticed the forum description for GD?
“For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for religious debates and (if you feel you must) witnessing.”
The forum was initially conceived for “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” type questions. Obviously, objective facts are welcome when they’re applicable, but the only forum here that’s specifically supposed to only be about factual matters is GQ.