If the gay couple wanted a standard wedding cake, then they should have gotten it. If they wanted a custom story about their unique story and love, they have no right to demand that Melissa think one up.
The US Supreme Court did not rule against Elane Photography.
The New Mexico Supreme Court did, and you’re right: they rejected the argument that Elane Photography was “expressive” enough to raise a First Amendment concern.
The US Supreme Court simply failed to accept the case, which is not a decision on the merits thereof. I wish they had, but I’m okay with the general concept that a wedding photographer is not doing anything uniquely creative: he’s taking the same pictures, in the same poses, of the couple and the wedding party. With all due respect to Ansel Adams (and Robert Mapplethorpe!) wedding pictures are not generally artistic expressions of the photographer in the same way that Adams’ and Mapplethorpe’s photography is an artistic expression of their view of the worlds they photograph.
(And a moment’s thought experiment will make this clear: can I go to Robert Mapplethorpe and demand he take pictures of me and my wife? Of course not. He’s creating art, not commercial photography. And who ever looks at wedding pictures for a glimpse into the artistic views of the photographer?)
Yes. There are laws exempting theatrical casting from equal opportunity laws.
The NFL is exempt from having to hire handicapped persons.
But there is no reason other than bigotry for a cake-maker to refuse service to a gay couple. It neither breaks his arm nor picks his pocket. It’s a cake. There is no religious content to baking a cake.
When it becomes evident that he never “feels like it” for a black patron, but always is willing for a white one, then we sue his ass for discrimination.
It is fairly commonplace in rental discrimination cases to send two identical applicants to a rental office. It sometimes happens that the white applicant is told, “Yes, the apartment is vacant, and you can move in whenever you want,” but the black applicant is told, “Oh, we’re sorry, someone else rented it before you got here.”
Demonstrable proof of unequal treatment is really solid grounds for a lawsuit. Your “feelings” had damn well better be race-neutral.
Whatever his other flaws Gov. of Arkansas Asa Hutchinson is an experienced attorney with a reputation for being fairly sharp intellectually, so I’m not going to discount his interpretation of the legislation as driven by “misinformation” (per your characterization) just yet.
Local pizzeria in Indy is counting down the days until they can freely discriminate against gays. Of course, they said they wouldn’t deny service to gays coming into the store, just that they won’t be catering the perhaps fanciest gay wedding in Indy in the near future. I guess the owners often use the arrangements of the pepperoni as an expression of their religious faith
Then he’s pandering to the misinformation, instead of explaining that in the Eighth Circuit, federal law already gives a private cause of action defense under the RFRA.
Oh, but we are not debating whether discriminatory business practice is wise or foolish. That’s a different conversation. We’re debating whether discriminatory business practice would be codified by the proposed RFRA law.
And while we agree that the aim of (good) government should be to forbid unequal treatment, that does not mean we can safely assume that the aim of this piece of legislation (and its sponsors) has that primary goal in mind.
People, organizations, and corporations are reacting to the fairly obvious intent behind these pieces of legislation and I think most people have pretty good common sense bead on why, and by whom, these specific laws are being pushed at this point. If you somehow think giving a finely parsed dissertation on why they are really not that different would put out this firestorm all I can tell you is don’t go into political crisis management.
My problem, astro, is that the people with their pretty good common sense bead on why, and by whom, these specific laws are being pushed are pushing back by relying on deceptive summaries. Every single thread on the SDMB has included credulous repetitions of those deceptions.
So my point is this: in order to stoke the flames of attack, the law’s opponents used false and misleading claims about the law.
Now, I agree, it’s too late for the governor to undertake a point-by-point refutation.
Pardon me if I’m asking the obvious, but can it be shown that in this piece of legislation preventing discrimination is focal to the government’s interests?
My aim in asking isn’t to condemn the state government as being anti-gay; Just not to fall prey to the assumption that all legislative intentions are always in the interest of greatest social good.
I have already listed, with a cite, examples in which governments in the USA tried to interfere with religious practices of different groups, and were stopped by the federal or state RFRAs. So have other posters. How do you justify saying that no religious freedom was ever threatened?
Is that strictly the case? I believe in tax law, notes from the subcommittees that draft laws can be referred to by courts to help deign the intent of the law.
Intent can certainly be relevant. In the Louisiana creationist lawsuit, various statements made by legislators about “Putting the Bible back in the classroom” were taken into consideration by the Supreme Court.
Sure it does: it offers them the guarantee that their needs will be taken into account to the greatest degree possible when crafting a compromise; isn’t that the reason the “least restrictive means” language is in there? To continue protecting the vendors as much as possible?
Where would that protection be for an atheist vendor?
I guess I have a problem with this scenario. Multiple legal scholars besides you are reading this law differently from you, ranging from writers at the Atlantic, to advocates for the law in Indiana, to the governor of Arkansas. In all cases, you’re positing that they’re either mistaken or lying about their interpretation.
Is there no possibility either that they’re making a point slightly different from what you think they’re making (again, I think their analysis has more of a political thread than you do–they’re probably looking at the context in which the law is passed in order to determine its possible effects), or that there’s another legitimate legal analysis of the law? Or are you so convinced in your analysis that educated people who disagree with you are necessarily lying?