Storm Rider Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said: I plainly disagree. They are selling a service. And in the open marketplace they are discriminating. Free and fair markets cannot function well this way. The court disagrees with you - some services involve freedom of speech and of religion. The wholesale attack on those rights is rejected by the court. Edited August 29, 2019 by Storm Rider 4 Link to comment
Ahab Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 52 minutes ago, Amulek said: A wedding cake shaped like a temple? That's really a thing? I've got to be honest, if my wife wanted something like that, I would be grateful for any excuse to have someone other than me shoot that idea down. Which temple do you have in mind? Think of the Provo temple. it would be fairly easy to make a cake shaped like that one. And instead of a spire it could have a figure of a bride and a groom on the top. Or just something in the shape of the spire. Link to comment
Popular Post smac97 Posted August 28, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted August 28, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said: I'm surprised you oppose a State's right to regulate commerce. This is one of the (few) legitimate purposes of government. Conflating commerce with speech is going to lead to bad outcomes. I do not think the regulation of commerce should or needs to include the suppression or violation of individual constitutional rights to speech and to religious exercise. Edited August 28, 2019 by smac97 5 Link to comment
Ahab Posted August 28, 2019 Share Posted August 28, 2019 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: I do not think the regulation of commerce should or needs to include the suppression or violation of individual constitutional rights to speech and to religious exercise. I think we need some stronger language here: I would say that according to the Constitution of the United States of America, the regulation of commerce should not suppress or violate an individual's constitutional rights to speech or religious exercise. 1 Link to comment
USU78 Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 5 hours ago, Ahab said: Pawns, the whole lot of them, I tell you. Prawns? Link to comment
Popular Post Amulek Posted August 29, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted August 29, 2019 2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said: I plainly disagree. You're plainly mistaken. Trust me, I can do this all day. Quote They are selling a service. Again, this was discussed in the decision. Have you bothered to read it yet? Quote And in the open marketplace they are discriminating. Free and fair markets cannot function well this way. Well, between you and Milton Freedman, I'm going to stick with Milt when it comes to what the market can and can't handle. In fact, this is precisely the sort of situation that free markets are prepared to address. If somebody refuses to provide goods and services to a portion of the population, there will be an opportunity for someone else to step in and take those customers. And when it comes to wedding related services, there is already a vibrant market market filled with vendors who are happy to celebrate these weddings and take those dollars. And, in fact, the market has even already created a trivially easy way to locate them (see, e.g., here). 5 Link to comment
Amulek Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 2 hours ago, Ahab said: Which temple do you have in mind? Think of the Provo temple. it would be fairly easy to make a cake shaped like that one. And instead of a spire it could have a figure of a bride and a groom on the top. Or just something in the shape of the spire. Any of them really. The only way you would be able to get a cake looking sufficiently good would require that it basically be inedible. Oh sure, it might still technically be eat-able, but it wont be the kind of delicious memory I would want to have associated with my wedding day (sorry for the tangent - I really dig on tasty cakes). 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Amulek said: Any of them really. The only way you would be able to get a cake looking sufficiently good would require that it basically be inedible. Oh sure, it might still technically be eat-able, but it wont be the kind of delicious memory I would want to have associated with my wedding day (sorry for the tangent - I really dig on tasty cakes). You knew I had to go looking for one once you said that.... https://www.pinterest.com/pin/368239707003451484/ Edited August 29, 2019 by Calm 2 Link to comment
Anijen Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 11 hours ago, smac97 said: Specifically, the Eighth Circuit held that “antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution.” I've been saying this forever. Thanks Smac for the update. 1 Link to comment
sunstoned Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: The first right explained in the Bill of Rights is the freedom of the exercise of religion. Nobody should be forced in their business to do things against their conscience. Should a Muslim photographer be forced to take pictures of people of people depicting Mohammad in a negative way? Should a Jewish photographer be forced to take pictures at a Nazi wedding? There are enough people in the US who support gay marriage that there is plenty of access for gay couples to hire a photographer for their wedding. Besides, why would a gay couple want someone at their wedding who does not want ot be there and beyond that have that person take the official pictures at that wedding. That person might just take a lot of poor pictures. I would think that the best option is to hire a photographer who actually wants to be there. Should a fundamentalist christian be forced to take pictures at a mormon wedding? Should a white man be forced to take pictures at a Black couples wedding? For that matter, should that white man be forced to serve black people at his lunch counter? Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 7 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Should a fundamentalist christian be forced to take pictures at a mormon wedding? Should a Quaker be forced to fight in a war? 1 Link to comment
Anijen Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 3 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Should a fundamentalist christian be forced to take pictures at a mormon wedding? No. Quote Should a white man be forced to take pictures at a Black couples wedding? No. Quote For that matter, should that white man be forced to serve black people at his lunch counter? This topic is about anti-discrimination laws that are in conflict with the Constitution. The 8th Circuit Court has ruled that; "antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution." Racial discrimination is ugly and not wanted. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments fight against racial discrimination. The 1st Amendment fights against religious discrimination and the freedom of speech (which include the freedom not to be compelled to speak). The argument of which law is superior the anti-discrimination statute or the Constitution has been answered. It is sad that people try to defend discrimination by using another type of discrimination. The simple solution is do not force anyone, but simply find another baker, another photographer who is willing. 4 Link to comment
Thinking Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: There are enough people in the US who support gay marriage that there is plenty of access for gay couples to hire a photographer for their wedding. Besides, why would a gay couple want someone at their wedding who does not want to be there and beyond that have that person take the official pictures at that wedding. That person might just take a lot of poor pictures. I would think that the best option is to hire a photographer who actually wants to be there. There are enough restaurants in the city who support African Americans that there is plenty of access for colored people to find a place to eat. Besides, why would they want to eat at a restaurant whose owners don't want them there? They might prepare the food poorly. I would think that the best option is to eat where colored people are welcome. Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 I've posted this before, the last time the subject came up, but what the heck? If it's worth saying, it's worth saying more than once : Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Thinking said: There are enough restaurants in the city who support African Americans that there is plenty of access for colored people to find a place to eat. Besides, why would they want to eat at a restaurant whose owners don't want them there? They might prepare the food poorly. I would think that the best option is to eat where colored people are welcome. The two situations are inapposite. I'm glad we've moved on from the days of Jim Crow. I don't think anyone should be denied, e.g., a place to eat, a place to sleep, and so on because of the color of his skin or because of any other invidious characteristic. That said, given the expressive component at issue here, I also don't think someone should be forced by the government to employ his artistry or other talents to express a message with which he does not agree. Edited August 29, 2019 by Kenngo1969 1 Link to comment
Amulek Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 11 hours ago, Calm said: You knew I had to go looking for one once you said that.... https://www.pinterest.com/pin/368239707003451484/ What on earth are they putting on there? Fondant? Gum paste? I honestly can't tell for sure, but it certainly doesn't look like buttercream. Hard pass. Link to comment
Amulek Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 10 hours ago, sunstoned said: Should a fundamentalist christian be forced to take pictures at a mormon wedding? Nope. Nor should a gay singer/songwriter be forced to compose music and perform for the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you disagree? Quote For that matter, should that white man be forced to serve black people at his lunch counter? Obviously. Because serving lunch doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment. The government isn't forcing someone to say something or to not say something. While it's actually a bit more complicated than this, when it comes to these anti-discrimination cases I think it's helpful to first decide whether we are talking about something that involves speech (where 1A may come into play) or if we're just talking about widgets. If you sell Almond Toffee Symphony bars at your grocery store (because they are delicious and will likely sell like hotcakes), well, those are widgets. So, if you live in a jurisdiction with an anti-discrimination statute, then you have to sell those tasty treats to everyone. But what if you aren't a grocery store owner. What if you are a freelance writer instead. What you are selling isn't really just a widget now - it's your speech. And the First Amendment protects your right to speak along with your write to not speak. As such, you should be able to refuse to write items praising the Catholic Church even if you generally takes commissions to write items praising other religious groups. Just like you should be able to refuse to write items supportive of one political party even though you write items supportive of another. 2 Link to comment
stemelbow Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 I look at stuff like this and see nothing but opportunity lost. I don't get religious people who get hung up on this stuff. They could easily be appreciative, inclusive, respectful, and loving. Instead the opportunity to build bridges gets lost because of what I see as stubbornness. I'm not really commenting on whether or not their religious liberty is at question, nor whether or not they should be able to discriminate like this. I see it as nothing more than division and promoting hate, alright dislike, if you prefer. Link to comment
Michael Sudworth Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 13 hours ago, Amulek said: In fact, this is precisely the sort of situation that free markets are prepared to address. If somebody refuses to provide goods and services to a portion of the population, there will be an opportunity for someone else to step in and take those customers. It is true that in the theoretical world of free markets, this is how things work. But in reality, markets are horribly inefficient and may not produce desirable outcomes. Let's take your assertion that services will pop up to meet the needs of a "portion of the population." But what if that "portion" is too small to warrant any rational investment? There are, for example, extremely rare genetic diseases that impact only a few hundred thousand people on the planet at any given time. A free market will never meet their needs because it is not viable to develop treatments for such a small market. By comparison, the market incentive to develop cancer treatments is very large because there are lots of cancer patients. Should we simply go on without researching cures for small numbers of people simply because the free market won't do it as a matter of course? No. That would be silly. And this is one reason we need the government to regulate free and fair markets. Imagine being a Mormon family around Liberty University. To show solidarity with the "evangelical values" of Liberty, all restaurants refuse to serve Mormons. Would this be an acceptable situation? And before you say that this isn't possible, let me tell you that it is. As a missionary, I served in a heavily Catholic town where residents refused to serve us. Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 (edited) 54 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I look at stuff like this and see nothing but opportunity lost. I don't get religious people who get hung up on this stuff. They could easily be appreciative, inclusive, respectful, and loving. Instead the opportunity to build bridges gets lost because of what I see as stubbornness. I'm not really commenting on whether or not their religious liberty is at question, nor whether or not they should be able to discriminate like this. I see it as nothing more than division and promoting hate, alright dislike, if you prefer. Did you miss the part where I said that I would bake the cake? And I think it's more than a little overwrought to say that religious people are promoting hate when all they really want is to be free from the government telling them which views are Crimethink and which are not, and that they must promote the proper, government-sponsored, "correct" view. Edited August 29, 2019 by Kenngo1969 Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said: It is true that in the theoretical world of free markets, this is how things work. But in reality, markets are horribly inefficient and may not produce desirable outcomes. Let's take your assertion that services will pop up to meet the needs of a "portion of the population." But what if that "portion" is too small to warrant any rational investment? There are, for example, extremely rare genetic diseases that impact only a few hundred thousand people on the planet at any given time. A free market will never meet their needs because it is not viable to develop treatments for such a small market. By comparison, the market incentive to develop cancer treatments is very large because there are lots of cancer patients. Should we simply go on without researching cures for small numbers of people simply because the free market won't do it as a matter of course? No. That would be silly. And this is one reason we need the government to regulate free and fair markets. Imagine being a Mormon family around Liberty University. To show solidarity with the "evangelical values" of Liberty, all restaurants refuse to serve Mormons. Would this be an acceptable situation? And before you say that this isn't possible, let me tell you that it is. As a missionary, I served in a heavily Catholic town where residents refused to serve us. If I refused to provide a good or service for a gay couple's wedding (remember: I wouldn't; I would bake the cake, but if I were to refuse ...) people would be perfectly welcome to visit online review sites and leave zero-star or one-star or (if it were possible) negative-star reviews of my business. They could tell all of their friends, neighbors, and acquaintances about how awful my business is for refusing service to the gay couple. Where is this heavily Catholic town located Brother Sudworth? If it's in the good old US of A, I agree, your experience is terribly unfortunate, and perhaps even deplorable. And I would solve the "we-don't-serve-your-kind-here-in-Lynchburg-VA" [home of Liberty University] problem the same way I would solve it if it were to occur anywhere else or under any circumstance. As I note in the foregoing op-ed, anyone refused service based on an invidious criterion is free to sue, but recovery will be limited to the difference between what a refusing business owner would have charged them and what an accepting business owner did charge them, along with such related expenses as travel. Incidentally, your hypothetical reminded me of an experience I had when I was attempting to winnow down my list of candidates to decide where I wanted to apply to and to attend law school. (The list probably should have been zero, but that's another story for another day. ) One of the schools to which I considered applying is Regent University School of Law in Virginia Beach VA. Regent University and Liberty University are, I think, quite similar in their frames of reference, in their outlooks, and so on. When I received a solicitation to apply there, I responded that I am a devout (or at least a striving) member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and asked how that religious affiliation might affect the official's invitation. He responded with a very gracious e-mail telling me that he was "delighted that my faith in Christ plays a central role in [my] life." I'm not saying that his response would have been typical among my would-have-been fellow students, among Regent's law faculty, and so on, but I did find it interesting. Edited August 29, 2019 by Kenngo1969 Link to comment
Michael Sudworth Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Where is this heavily Catholic town located Brother Sudworth? It is in the USA. But this happened a long long time ago, fortunately. Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said: It is true that in the theoretical world of free markets, this is how things work. But in reality, markets are horribly inefficient and may not produce desirable outcomes. Let's take your assertion that services will pop up to meet the needs of a "portion of the population." But what if that "portion" is too small to warrant any rational investment? There are, for example, extremely rare genetic diseases that impact only a few hundred thousand people on the planet at any given time. ... Your hypothetical fails because homosexuality is more common (far more common) than the incidence of rare diseases. Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said: ... Imagine being a Mormon family around Liberty University. To show solidarity with the "evangelical values" of Liberty, all restaurants refuse to serve Mormons. Would this be an acceptable situation? And before you say that this isn't possible, let me tell you that it is. As a missionary, I served in a heavily Catholic town where residents refused to serve us. 34 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: ... Where is this heavily Catholic town located Brother Sudworth? If it's in the good old US of A, I agree, your experience is terribly unfortunate, and perhaps even deplorable. 28 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said: It is in the USA. But this happened a long long time ago, fortunately. So, did you and your companions take to heart the counsel of Matthew 5:44, or did you run right on down to the courthouse and file suit? Link to comment
provoman Posted August 29, 2019 Share Posted August 29, 2019 (edited) I do not believe this is a solid win for religious liberty. At present I do not believe religious liberty should allow for wholesale discrimination in the public sphere - except for those currently permitted by law. I do believe this win for speech. I hope the case can stay focused separately on speech. Under these protectionist laws, the following are possible enforcement actions by the state A person of the Islamic faith whose enterprise involves speech could be forced to "speak" in a same sex marriage celebration the following "There is one true God and She is a lesbian." A homosexual whose enterprise involves speech could be forced to "speak" "God hates ----" in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church. One side of me says "let the oppressors win", then we all sue each other into economic oblivion. The other side of me says, this is a complex topic, all sides need to understand what the implications in oppressing the speech for one; as speech is very much an "all for one and one for all" issue. Edited August 29, 2019 by provoman 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts