A Solid Win for Free Speech and Religious Liberty (8th Circuit Case)

[Storm Rider]

17 hours ago, california boy said:

Well hey, if you believe that Christianity is thriving and more and more people are being attracted to organized religion because of its embracing and support of discrimination, then hey, who am I to convince you otherwise.  I will just step aside and watch.

 

God discriminates. I guess accepting all things is not his idea of perfection, holiness, righteousness, etc. But, hey, who am I to argue with God. I will just keep my hand on the Iron Rod and ignore the Big House full of nondiscrimination. 

Edited August 31, 2019 by Storm Rider

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I should have never waded into this thread.  I should know by now that members of the Church believe religious beliefs trump all other laws of the land...

Always an exaggerator, aren't cha?  Next time just ask me to set you straight regarding our true beliefs and I'll help you weed out your exaggerations.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Anijen said:

Colorado ruled that Phillips would have to comply to his business records being searched, this violated his 4th Amendment Right to be secure in his papers, etc.. This would also be without search warrants, thus another violation.  Colorado also ruled that his entire work staff would need to take group therapy. This is propaganda trying to change the way people think., i.e. those who hold the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

All this was overruled by SCOTUS. Having said that, Phillips is being sued again by Colorado for a third time. I am sure this time the state will be careful not to use the derogatory language they used before, forcing SCOTUS (if they take the case) to be more detailed in their rulings.

Alliance Defending Freedom is taking donations to defend him in this latest lawsuit. A challenge grant of $2 million has been issued to promote matching donations. 

http://www.adflegal.org/enough-is-enough?mwm_id=306471841569&sourcecode=10006841&creative=306471841569&keyword=jack phillips&matchtype=b&network=g&device=m&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI9JiKqvCr5AIVlLfsCh3qvw8zEAAYASAAEgJzCfD_BwE

[Anijen]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

 I should know by now that members of the Church believe religious beliefs trump all other laws of the land and gives them license to behave any way they want.  

You are a master of the strawman tactic. Here, you make an unfounded conclusion that members believe religion trumps all other laws, and then you argue against that unfounded conclusion. Here, you state that we believe our religious beliefs trump all other laws and then argue that we think that gives us licence to behave anyway we want. Although you make these strawman arguments all the time. I will defend the church, its members, and the Constitution.

 

Quote

I will leave you to your religious certainty of superiority over anyone else’s beliefs

Do whatever you want...   I am reporting this as an offensive statement aimed at me. 

[Anijen]

You know we are in the last days when religious beliefs are considered discrimination.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Anijen said:

You know we are in the last days when religious beliefs are considered discrimination.

Calling good evil and evil good. 

[Anijen]

Isa 5:20

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

You know we are in the last days when religious beliefs are considered discrimination.

Religious beliefs are not the same as discriminatory actions.

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Anijen said:

You are a master of the strawman tactic. Here, you make an unfounded conclusion that members believe religion trumps all other laws, and then you argue against that unfounded conclusion. Here, you state that we believe our religious beliefs trump all other laws and then argue that we think that gives us licence to behave anyway we want. Although you make these strawman arguments all the time. I will defend the church, its members, and the Constitution.

 

Do whatever you want...   I am reporting this as an offensive statement aimed at me. 

Just what public accommodation law in the entire country wouldn't be trumped by"personally held religious belief"? What employment laws or housing laws in the entire country wouldn't "personally held religious beliefs" not be able to trump?  What laws regarding medical treatment of individuals could not be trumped by "personally held religious beliefs"?

 

Or what about this guy who refuses to use his Social Security number "because of personally held religious beliefs"

Or how about these guys who work in a health care facility. but refuse to have a flu shot "because of personally held public beliefs"

Or how about this guy who refused to cut his hair "because of "closely held religious beliefs"

Edited August 31, 2019 by california boy

[Kenngo1969]

No.  What makes this case different than the usual case of "My religion forbids me to do [x], where [x] is a general, neutrally-applicable law" is its implications for free speech, free expression, and, by extension, religious exercise.  I can hardly be said to be able to exercise my religion freely nor to exercise my right to free speech when the government tells me that I must, through my artistry, speak/express myself in a manner that is inconsistent with my religion and/or with my conscience.  That's the difference.  I would make the same argument in favor of the cake baker's right to refuse business that offends his conscience if the Westboro Baptist Church were to insist that a gay cake baker bake the church a customized, expressive cake ("God hates fags!") for an anti-gay function.  In either case, the government should not be able to use the force of law to compel me to violate my conscience.

P.S.: I just read about the Idaho "Social Security Number" case.  I think Mr. Phillips has the stronger case due to the expressive component involved, and if I were deciding the former case, I'm not sure where I would come down on it.  I might say, "You don't want to use your Social Security Number.  OK.  Provide your own unique identifier."  Problem solved, perhaps?

Edited August 31, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No.  What makes this case different than the usual case of "My religion forbids me to do [x], where [x] is a general, neutrally-applicable law" is its implications for free speech, free expression, and, by extension, religious exercise.  I can hardly be said to be able to exercise my religion freely nor to exercise my right to free speech when the government tells me that I must, through my artistry, speak/express myself in a manner that is inconsistent with my religion and/or with my conscience.  That's the difference.  I would make the same argument in favor of the cake baker's right to refuse business that offends his conscience if the Westboro Baptist Church were to insist that a gay cake baker bake the church a customized, expressive cake ("God hates fags!") for an anti-gay function.  In either case, the government should not be able to use the force of law to compel me to violate my conscience.

P.S.: I just read about the Idaho "Social Security Number" case.  I think Mr. Phillips has the stronger case due to the expressive component involved, and if I were deciding the former case, I'm not sure where I would come down on it.  I might say, "You don't want to use your Social Security Number.  OK.  Provide your own unique identifier."  Problem solved, perhaps?

Except we have been talking about a totally generic wedding cake, with no speech or topper on it, not specifically about any one case.  

I at least never brought up Philips.  I wanted to know how far this “personally held religious beliefs” extended.  I have in fact stated that speech should not be forced.  (See answer to Provo)

I do believe that a person should not be compelled on issues of speech.

Edited August 31, 2019 by california boy

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Just what public accommodation law in the entire country wouldn't be trumped by"personally held religious belief"? What employment laws or housing laws in the entire country wouldn't "personally held religious beliefs" not be able to trump?  What laws regarding medical treatment of individuals could not be trumped by "personally held religious beliefs"?

 

Or what about this guy who refuses to use his Social Security number "because of personally held religious beliefs"

Or how about these guys who work in a health care facility. but refuse to have a flu shot "because of personally held public beliefs"

Or how about this guy who refused to cut his hair "because of "closely held religious beliefs"

Yup! What if a church believes women should not speak in public, or show their faces? 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

What if a church believes women should not speak in public, or show their faces? 

Not sure where you were going with this. Churches are private organizations, and your association with any particular church is completely voluntary. 

So, if you don't like your church's stance on face covering, you can simply disassociate yourself with that church. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Except we have been talking about a totally generic wedding cake, with no speech or topper on it, not specifically about any one case.  

I at least never brought up Philips.  I wanted to know how far this “personally held religious beliefs” extended.  I have in fact stated that speech should not be forced.  (See answer to Provo)

I do believe that a person should not be compelled on issues of speech.

If you truly believed that a person should not be compelled on issues of speech, then you would agree that one should not be compelled by the government to use his skills of artistry and expression to create an item in support of an event with which he fundamentally disagrees as a matter of religious conscience, even if the item doesn't happen to contain pure expression (i.e., words only) such as, "Happy Wedding, Bill and Ted!"

Edited August 31, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

57 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If you truly believed that a person should not be compelled on issues of speech, then you would agree that one should not be compelled by the government to use his skills of artistry and expression to create an item in support of an event with which he fundamentally disagrees as a matter of religious conscience, even if the item doesn't happen to contain pure expression (i.e., words only) such as, "Happy Wedding, Bill and Ted!"

Not everything someone bakes is a work of art.  Sometimes it is just a generic cake

[Kenngo1969]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Not everything someone bakes is a work of art.  Sometimes it is just a generic cake

True.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree whether this is one of those times.  (Remember: If I were a baker, I would bake the cake. )

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Not sure where you were going with this. Churches are private organizations, and your association with any particular church is completely voluntary. 

So, if you don't like your church's stance on face covering, you can simply disassociate yourself with that church. 

 

I think they might be asking if a person has the "personally held religious belief" that women should have their heads covered, should a woman be compelled to cover her head before the clerk at the store is willing to ring her up? 

[Amulek]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think they might be asking if a person has the "personally held religious belief" that women should have their heads covered, should a woman be compelled to cover her head before the clerk at the store is willing to ring her up? 

Off the top of my head, I would say that if we're talking about an individual clerk making this kind of request then probably not. Employers generally have an obligation to make accommodations for the religious beliefs of their employees, but only if doing so does not cause them any significant burden (and it doesn't take all that much to be considered a 'significant' burden). 

However, if we were talking about a store owner who refused to sell anything to anyone who was not wearing a hat or some kind of head covering, then that might fly. No shirt, no shoes, no hat, no service. 

 

[california boy]

If the clerk insists on women covering their heads before he will do business with them, can the employer fire the worker for their personally held religious beliefs?

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Off the top of my head, I would say that if we're talking about an individual clerk making this kind of request then probably not. Employers generally have an obligation to make accommodations for the religious beliefs of their employees, but only if doing so does not cause them any significant burden (and it doesn't take all that much to be considered a 'significant' burden). 

However, if we were talking about a store owner who refused to sell anything to anyone who was not wearing a hat or some kind of head covering, then that might fly. No shirt, no shoes, no hat, no service. 

 

If the clerk insists on women covering their heads before he will do business with them, can the employer fire the worker for their personally held religious beliefs?

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Not sure where you were going with this. Churches are private organizations, and your association with any particular church is completely voluntary. 

So, if you don't like your church's stance on face covering, you can simply disassociate yourself with that church. 

 

The context is religious belief and businesses. Can a business refuse entry and services to women who don't cover their faces? Can they refuse public speaking positions of employment to women?

[Anijen]

15 hours ago, Thinking said:

Religious beliefs are not the same as discriminatory actions.

I know, that is the exact point I am making. Although there are those on this board who say when someone refuses to bake a SSM wedding cake because it is against their religious beliefs, take that as discrimination against the LTBGQ community. Even though that same baker said he would sell or bake that same SSM couple other goods, but not a wedding cake.

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Not everything someone bakes is a work of art.  Sometimes it is just a generic cake

It doesn't matter if it is an artistic creation or not, the government cannot compel speech.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If the clerk insists on women covering their heads before he will do business with them, can the employer fire the worker for their personally held religious beliefs?

In all likelihood, yes - though, technically, he would be firing the employee not for his beliefs but for failing to perform his required duties. 

You aren't allowed to fire an employee based merely on his religious beliefs. However, as I said before, if an employee's religious beliefs are in conflict with the job, the employer usually has an duty to see if they can make reasonable accommodations. And the courts have held that a reasonable accommodation shouldn't require the company to shoulder any significant burden. 

So, for example, say you run a shipping company and you have drivers making deliveries all over town. One of your employees comes to you and says that he has a religious objection to transporting alcohol, so he doesn't want to be assigned to drive the route that delivers beer to all of the gas stations. At this point, the employer couldn't just fire the employee because he hasn't looked to see if the request could be accommodated. If the employer can shift routes without being forced to take on any additional expenses then he may need to do just that. However, if the only way to accommodate the request would be to pay other drivers overtime, then the employer probably wouldn't have to accommodate the request and could tell the employee to either drive the route or look for another job. 

In the case of the clerk, the employer would likely be justified in letting him go since any solution would likely impose a significant burden on the employer. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The context is religious belief and businesses.  (Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.)   Can a business refuse entry and services to women who don't cover their faces? Can they refuse public speaking positions of employment to women?

I think it behooves one to be very precise, particular, and careful about just which matters are being considered and what questions are (and are not) to be answered in a given instance.

If we say that the government may force a religiously devout baker to make a gay couple's wedding cake when doing so violates his conscience, do we also conclude that the government may force a baker who happens to be gay to create an item specially for an event sponsored by the Westboro Baptist Church when doing so would violate his conscience?  If the answer to the first question is "Yes," then on what plausible, consistent, principled basis could the answer to the second question possibly be "No"?

Edited August 31, 2019 by Kenngo1969