I can see the sense in that.
I agree that this is a matter of competing rights and that a court would have to seek to find an approriate balance. I do not agree that it is necessarily the best solution to send the couple elsewhere.
With reference to such a court ruling every business could refuse service to a minority telling them to go elsewhere. The consequence could be that at least in some parts of the country the options of finding service would be severely limited for members of such a minority. The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to ensure that that does not happen.
Excellent points.
The competing rights things is what troubles me the most when it comes to offering a service.
I think of examples such as a religious group who believes in racial supremacy, using this to deny access to restaurants and to provide other services. Honestly, I am torn on this issue. There is so much to think about in my opinion.
As to the second point, you are correct, it was poor reasoning. I will have to reconsider my perspective on that matter.
Oh, I also missed a third point you made, the publicly part.
I was thinking of the argument from a context of having to outwardly express something in a manner which could be construed as you publicly supporting the cause.
Baking a cake- hard to make that argument.
Decorating the cake- could be argued artistic expression, a little stronger.
Serving the cake at the wedding- a little more and public, making you actually participate in the event itself.
Perhaps I was too narrowly tailoring my statements based on the scenario I provided, the catering of an event.
Making food for someone to pick up- hard to argue you are publicly supporting the cause.
Serving the food at the rally and helping them keep up a protest you disagree with- a very strong act of conscience in the public forum.
Let me be clear, I sincerely am debating this on many angles. I have opinions and reasoning (of which I change with each new argument and perspective), but this conversation with my students was one of the best we ever had. It really explored critical thought.
Where does discrimination start? When does personal conscience allow you to refuse public service based on a sincerely held belief.
I think we can all hopefully agree on three things:
- Discrimination in the public sector (good, services, etc…) is an injustice.
- People should have the autonomy to have their personal beliefs and act within their conscience.
- Either side, taken to an absolute are absolutely opposed. We will definitely have discrimination if we allow people to deny public goods and services based on their personal beliefs; and we will definitely infringe on the autonomous exercise of a service providers personal convictions if we compel them to deliver a service which is against their conscience.
Where the line is… I simply do not know, but rational discourse on it is imperative.
This might have been good for your class, but for purposes of the law, however, it does matter if a sincerely held belief is religious in nature for some legal purposes.
In the Peterson v Wilmur Communications case I have previously cited the bigot’s beliefs had to protected specifically because they were religiously based. :smack: Similar claims had been raised by members of the KKK but no religious accommodation was required specifically because the KKK was deemed to be political in nature and not religious.
On the other hand, in Conscientious Objector cases the Supreme Court has ruled that the deeply held beliefs cited by CO petitioners need not be religiously based.
Correct me if I am wrong but do not the courts typically avoid trying to determine whether or not someone has a sincere religion. It would not be hard to create a religion for any set of beliefs.
But you are correct, I took it out so we could have the discussion more socio-philosophical rather than legal. Don’t get me wrong, legal arguments are important, but they are not the only arbiter of social justice. In fact, historically they have a pretty poor track record of upholding civil rights.
You are quite correct. Courts can evaluate whether a belief is religious and whether a belief is sincerely held. They are just loath to do so. Both sides quoted admonishments from prior courts about this issue in the SSM ruling and dissent.
If a court decides to evaluate those aspects then a person could show examples from his religious tradition/ holy book/ minister, etc… showing that a challenged belief has some history and tradition behind it. That might give the religious belief a greater weight. Still it is not a guarantee that a requested accommodation would be granted.
The courts did wade into the whole “Is it really a religion?” discussion on both the KKK and the Peterson cases. In the KKK cases the answer was “no” and that provided definitive.
In my opinion (which may not be in agreement with the law) is no, you the caterer, should have a right to say “No, thanks, I don’t want to be part of the drama. The fact that I despise your organization is just a bonus to my refusal.” Okay, maybe that last line could be held back if you want to be extra polite. Trust me somewhere out there is a caterer that only cares about making money who will do even the Phelps’ catering. They can have the job.
The law agrees with you.
Where in this entire thread has anyone said that painters have to paint subjects they don’t normally paint? Where is it said that a guy who paints dogs must also paint cats?
It’s a fake point, made up out of nothing. No one here holds that position. It does not exist in this thread.
Nope. The argument is that you can’t agree to make a wedding cake for a straight customer, but refuse to make one for a gay customer.
No one here has argued that anyone has to make a “gay wedding cake.” You just can’t discriminate in business (in some states) on the grounds of the customer’s sexual orientation.
You constantly make this primitive error. You’ve never actually shown the slightest hint of comprehension. Your point is imaginary, and wholly a straw-man.
This thread is about the constitutional concept of s “separation of church and state”
There is no federal law that compels him to sell a cake
[quote=“Trinopus, post:571, topic:724529”]
Nope. The argument is that you can’t agree to make a wedding cake for a straight customer, but refuse to make one for a gay customer.
No, that’s one side of the argument.
Please explain what you mean by “primitive error”. Also, identify the straw man you think I’ve presented. because I’m getting the sense that one of us might not know what the phrase actually means.
Now look, your insistence in framing this debate in such a facile manner is both impressive and disappointing. It seems like you’re reading with your fingers in your ears. If things actually were is simple as you portray, there wouldn’t be much of debate. But reality is a bit more complicated and nuanced. As others have pointed out, even others that seem to agree more with you than me, we have a situation with competing rights and protections. But you’ll have none of it will you?! Your intransigence in acknowledging simply that there is an actual debate to be had is, again, both impressive and disappointing.
But the optimist in me still holds out hope. So, comment on this:
Hypothetical: John and Joe are getting married. And they want a cake from the bakery down the street that they go to every week. They know the owner and sit in their often having coffee and croissants. Joe and John have a dear friend, Susan (happily married to a man) who helps people pull off weddings. She arranges for the venue, decorates it, does the flowers, etc. As a gift to her dear friend John and Joe, she tells them, “I’m going to take care of everything.” They’re thrilled. She has exquisite taste and they trust whatever she will do.
Okay, so when it comes to the cake, she goes to the bakery that she knows Joe and John like. She talks to the owner, explains that she’s a wedding planner and they discuss the cake. "They talk about the height, number of tiers, type of cake, icing, color, etc. They agree at a huge 6-tier cake that is going to cost $5,000! All is good, then the baker asks, “And what would you like the cake to say?” She replies, “Happy Wedding Day Joe & John”. The baker pauses uncomfortably and says, apologetically, that he is a devout Christian and wouldn’t feel good about making a cake for an even that goes against his deeply help religious convictions, and regretfully, has to decline the very lucrative job.
Should the baker be sued? Could he be sued? By whom? The client, Susan, is a heterosexual woman. He is not saying he won’t bake a cake for her, just not for a particular flavor of event.
We have a baker who has demonstrated zero problem serving a gay couple in his bakery. And the only person he did refuse to serve was a heterosexual. So, his actions do not fit your overly simplistic framing of this issue. So, in the above hypothetical, who should be able to sue who? Keep in mind, John and Joe were never denied service at the bakery. They were served there repeatedly without incident.
I look forward to answer, assuming you’re able to move past the evidently insurmountable hurdle of accepting that this issue is not as simple as you might like it to be.
No, this thread is about whether private businesses should be allowed to discriminate. You’re thinking of a different thread with a different title.
And there are federal and state laws that prohibit a vendor from selling a cake to a straight customer, but refusing to sell a cake to a gay customer.
It’s the law in several states. The debate is over whether is should be legal, but the fact is, today, in those states, it is not legal.
You keep making irrelevant comparisons to people “being forced to paint pictures of dogs” and other nonsense, which have nothing to do with the actual debate.
Impressive bit of projection on your part.
I’ll have none of bigotry, it’s true, and your stalwart defense of it is noisome.
But I’m primarily exposing your very basic blunder in trying to say that it’s about coerced creativity, or people who only paint pictures of white people, or other garbage. Those comparisons all fail, most specifically because no one has ever made the arguments you’re rebuting.
Yes. He’s discriminating solely on the basis of the sex of the customer. The fact that the customer has an agent as an intermediary doesn’t matter. He’s breaking the law (in those states that have such laws.)
The fact that he would sell the identical cake to an agent representing Joe and Shirley, but refuses to sell it to an agent representing Joe and John puts him afoul of the law.
His religion doesn’t matter a damn. You don’t get to break the law, just because your Imam says to go and kill Salmon Rushdie.
Ha. So you do not understand that we have an issue of competing rights and protections. Okey-dokey.
Still not sure what you mean by “primitive”, but okey-dokey
No. I see both sides of the issue. You’re the one limiting to being able to see only one. Yet many other posters who are generally on your side of the fence can see what you cannot. Interesting, huh?
So defending a right enshrined in the constitution is unpleasant to you? Well, that attitude is particularly noisome itself. So, there!
Take your elbows out of your ears. That IS part of the debate. Should a baker be coerced—forced—to make a cake for a SS wedding? Should he be compelled by the state to act in a way that conflicts with his religious compass. Do you really not get this? REALLY? Because if not, I think you’re the only one.
No he’s not. He has served the gay couple numerous times. The patron he has refused is a heterosexual woman. This shows that the bias is not toward the individuals, but toward the event.
You’re assuming she’s acting as an agent, meaning that Joe and John sent her down there. But that’s not part of the hypothetical. But let’s say it is, then Joe and John would be able to sue the bakery, right. I don’t see what legal standing Susan would have. Can you illuminate?
Unfortunately for your tack here, we’re not talking about murder. We’re talking about either forcing someone to do something against his religious beliefs are having you walk down the street to another bakery.
Do you realize that you live in a society with others that don’t agree with you on everything. Do you realize that you might not always get your way? Do you realize that the U.S. is founded in large part on religious freedom. Do you realize that it is enshrined in our constitution. Do you know the role the constitution plays in our day to day lives? Do you know what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is? Do you know that Bill Clinton signed it into law and it gives additional religious protections.
I’m getting the feeling that your answer to at least some of these question is “No”. or “Huh”. Perhaps that’s why this “debate” has proved so unfruitful.
So a white principal goes to buy text books for his predominately black school. The seller say no we don’t believe black children should be educated.
You think this isn’t a case of racial discrimination?
The law says you can not discriminate on the basis of race. It is not specific to who is involved in the transaction.
This debate is unfruitful, not least because of your odious debate technique of putting words in others’ mouths.
“Ah, I see, you believe [something exactly contrary to what someone actually believes]” has got to be one of the world’s shittiest debate techniques, and yet you use it almost to the exclusion of all others.
Except that, 9 times out of 10, when someone is defending their actions with the religious freedom clause, they are doing something that is morally questionable, when examined from an objective morality instead of religious morality. Ex:
Prayer in School
10 Commandments on the court house steps
Enacting zoning laws that get a women’s clinic (abortion) shut down
No sale of alcohol on sunday
I won’t bake your cake
Passing out bibles in public school
Business closed on sunday (a rarity in 2015)
Official day of prayer
Homosexuals can not adopt (common up until 10 years ago)
Gay men can’t teach elementary school (common up until 10 years ago)
Anti-Euthanasia
So?
Why should a religious conviction matter? I am not, at the moment, contesting the religious freedom expression clause, let’s for the moment say it gives you the right to slander and discriminate or whatever. I’m asking you why - you - are concerned with the idea of a religious conviction as opposed to a moral conviction. I am making the distinction that a religious conviction, like, homosexuality is wrong, is not connected to reality, at all, it is just in their imagination.
That would be a perfectly good alternative in a large town like Atlanta or NYC or Austin or San Francisco. But, and you don’t seem to care about this much at all, sorry, but you just don’t, there are still lots of small towns in america that are still hostile to homosexuals and SSM. Places where you don’t have a lot of options and places where you have a lot of suspicious glances and snide remarks offered on a common basis. Like it or not there are still a few places left in your beloved USA where a homosexual is going to live best, living in the closet.
I think in most cases when some couple does bring legal action or social media against an anti SSM bakery it is because they are standing up for a cause. Not that there is not some personal animosity involved in their reaction but I think their real motivation is, “we don’t have to put up with this anymore.”
As opposed to your comments, I’m not going bother quoting directly but as opposed to your comments that we should be patient and tty to persuade them, well, we’ve done that, for 15 years. Time for patience is now over.
So what?
Hostility and discrimination or bias expressed in a “benign” manner is still hostility, discrimination and bias.
Rewind back 25 years to 1990. A woman is working in an engineering firm. She is new on the job and submits a report. Her boss says “Honey, are you sure you got the numbers right?*” Did he call her stupid? No, not technically. He found a very “nice” way to express his bigoted, sexist opinion. Exact same thing with “oh, I’m sorry, you might want to get someone else to bake your cake.”
*in 1990 you could get away with actually saying “Honey, are you sure you got the numbers right?” but even without such outdated terminology the bias still exists, even in 2015. We have a current thread on the topic:
Sexism
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=18525189
Some enjoyable reading about the role of women and the bible. All of which have the protection of free religious expression and the sanctity of religious conviction:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm
Married gay man denied communion at his mother’s funeral.
Unfortunately, this being a religious ceremony, I have to think it’s okay, although morally reprehensible