Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

285 Excellent

About kllindley

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

391 profile views
  1. First Amendment protects God-given moral agency

    The ironic thing here is that now the LGBT rights movement wants to separate conduct and identity in terms of a protected class. I hear that the baker or photographer all have every right to hold their religious beliefs. But two years ago the arguments in Obergerfell relied heavily on the premise that identity could not be separated from conduct. The Supreme Court upheld that argument then. If it doesn't uphold it here, it opens the door to challenging Obergerfell.
  2. mmmmk. So I'm supposed to give precedence to the lower court's ruling while ignoring the mountains of precedent in other courts as well as Supreme Court precedent to the contrary? I didn't say it has no legal foundation. I said it isn't supported by case law. I'm arguing that it isn't as black and white as you are trying to make it sound. That illusion of the issue being settled is a dodge.
  3. I was actually also swayed by those which did not support my preconceived notions. Maybe you missed the part where I said that these briefs "changed my opinion on the matter." But maybe that's how confirmation bias really works, psychology degrees not withstanding.
  4. The brief argues that the state does have a compelling interest to prohibit discrimination against same-sex couples (which is actually farther than I would have gone.) The entire focus of the brief is that the wedding is an inherently religious context and that as enforced, the non-discrimination law targets religious belief, but allows for discrimination against religious individuals. I think that the quote bolded above is very important to the issue at hand. Case law regarding the Establishment Clause is pretty clear.
  5. So, I know the pattern here is for me to make an argument, get called out/being told I am wrong/asked to substantiate a claim, me spending a lot of time doing additional research to document the claim, providing those references, and then never hearing back. I'm not expecting the pattern to change here. But I figure, since I've done a ton of additional reading, it still makes sense to relate what I have learned. I wonder if anyone is familiar with how many Amici briefs have been filed in this case. I'm counting 49 today. I've now read through 4 in their entirety and scanned the arguments of 18 others. This has significantly changed my opinion of the case. It appears to be a clear case of religious discrimination on the part of the state of Colorado. The idea that inherently expressive only applies to letters or symbols is not substantiated by case law. It is a convenient dodge. If that is what people think the law ought to say, then they need to make sure it says that. Further, the public accommodations law in Colorado is not being applied neutrally or generally. There is documented evidence that businesses are allowed to discriminate against religious customers. Has anyone else actually read the brief filed by the Church et. al.? Because nobody is really responding to any of the claims and arguments there. It seems like we're content to sit back and let critics say the Church is actively supporting anti-gay discrimination, when that is not at all what the brief argues. Also, I recommend the Amici Brief from 479 Creative Professionals and the one from Cake Artists (Not in support of either party) when trying to pretend that the idea of creative expression and speech is some settled issue. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/
  6. Another point comes to mind as I have been thinking about this thread. I think part of what helped set the tone for my response was actually the article from Slate that you posted. I read it carefully. And although I can see how you might have meant to just point out the legal points, with the hyperlinks (which is valuable--Like I have tried to explain, I agree with the legal reasoning.) I think that the tone of the article is dismissive and mocking. And I will own that I attributed that to you as well. I tended to read it as though you were expressing those same opinions. I apologize for that misattribution.
  7. Can you accept that I agree with you here? Really, truly, deeply. I actually think it is naive or irrational to assume that a win for the baker is a loss for protection against discrimination on religious grounds.
  8. I'm just saying that it was clear that you really don't like the ADF. I feel the same way about the SPLC. Here and Here As far as the ADF, while I might disagree with them in this case, I do think that they genuinely see an equivalence in the situations. I didn't mean to suggest that you were being ill-mannered or inappropriate. I was trying to point out that you were using emotionally charged words (like Hate Group) in an effort to deny any similarities between the cases and to question the honesty and intent of the ADF.
  9. Now I'm quick to appreciate that you explained why you used this example. Still, it sure sounded like you were castigating everyone for using hypotheticals, but it seems like even you recognize that it's hard to have this discussion without some hypothetical examples. It seems to me that you are assuming I support Masterpiece Cakes's decision here. Maybe you don't remember our conversation earlier this year, where I pretty clearly agreed that what they and other bakers, florists, and photographers, have done is against the law. I just am not convinced that sexual orientation should be a protected class, and I do believe that our current social and political climate is strongly weighted against religious liberty. Do I really think this case is a good "poster child" for that threat? Nope. I mean, you seem to be upset that I didn't respond and acknowledge the answers I received, but that sure isn't one sided: I really understand getting busy and not getting back to conversations here. But this discussion about protected classes seems to be one of the REAL issues that is happening. Have there been major developments that render that conversation irrelevant, or is it just inconvenient? (The site wouldn't let me link to the earlier thread on "Emerging Skirmishes." )
  10. The only response was CaliforniaBoy's statement that the business owner can discriminate against a product (a cake in the shape of a hat, which is exactly the sort of thing cake bakers specialize in) but not the person. Bringing it up the second time really isn't "over and over and over." I really don't see how one could state that there is nothing inherently expressive about making a wedding cake, but that there is in baking a birthday cake. Did any of the bakeries offer to make the cake and let them write the four letters themselves? Actually, if you want to talk about facts, political affiliation and political belief are protected classes in several jurisdictions. While it is not protected on the Federal Level, neither is sexual orientation. Many states do not recognize Sexual Orientation as a protected class. So it seems that political affiliation/belief is a very good analogy to sexual orientation. Also, I find it a little ironic that the ADF agrees that the bakeries should be free to refuse to bake that cake. In light of the protected class status I highlight above, it seems that you are the one guilty of using inflammatory and emotion to shut out reasonable disagreement. Should I assume that tells me all I need to know about your honesty and true motives? Or would I be better off believing that people can have valid and reasonable opinions which I disagree with, without jumping to accusations and rudeness? I had thought that we had a better rapport than this.
  11. Then a Baker shouldn't be allowed to refuse to bake a Donald Trump cake, right? http://blog.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2017/08/03/no-cake-for-pickle-but-jack-should-be-forced-to-design-a-cake-against-his-beliefs
  12. And yet you haven't really addressed the other issues bring brought up. I do believe my examples were substantially different than non-kosher items or offensive speech. But these were never answered. I wish we could all just be honest about the fact that this court case is simply about which liberty is more valuable: the right to follow one's religious conscience or the right to never be discriminated against. I believe there is a reasonable disagreement to have about which right is more fundamental. I think there is a fruitful debate to be had about how far each of those liberties extend. But, if you can't see that there need to be limitations to non-discrimination laws that work to preserve Religious Liberty, don't be surprised that people see all the bluster about how this has nothing to do with religious liberty, as a smokescreen.
  13. So, am I understanding California Boy, Marginal Gains, and Daniel2 that you would agree that certain forms of expression are protected and therefore exempt from anti-discrimination law? The T-shirt, printed material, writing, any others? What about a history book that includes a painting of Mohammad? Should a Muslim be free to decline to print an image that while in no way offensive, still violates his religious conscience? What are your thoughts on the Baker who refused to bake a birthday cake in the shape of a red MAGA hat for the little boy. Would that be discrimination? I think there is a big difference between "refusing service to someone who is LGBT" and "declining to act contrary to religious beliefs." Scott's hypothetical of the Church renting is not really applicable, but what about a private owner of a retail building. Should he be required to lease it to a liquor store? Or an adult business? Would a liberal atheist be breaking the law to choose not to rent out his building to a Catholic prolife political action group?
  14. Which seems to be another way to say "good faith duscussion not welcome here." Got the message loud and clear
  15. Well, I never said anything about "oversee." So you're the one who started changing what was said. I won't argue for something I didn't say.