Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

It's worth noting that one can recognize, appreciate and support moral virtue, civic virtue, religion, religious freedom, and the toleration of divergent religions as well as their individual contributions to society while simultaneously supporting both the rule of law, public accommodations laws limiting public, commercial discrimination based on protected classes, and the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples.  Societies are strengthened and enriched when they recognize and appreciate the contributions from all citizens in a diverse society, and when societies or organizations fail to do so, they are the poorer for losing the multitude of beneficial contributions by members of the classes of people whom said societies or organizations reject and/or cast out.

Even granting that what you say is true for the sake of this discussion, the issue, in my mind, is whether the government, primarily through the courts, should be able to force people to "recognize and appreciate the contributions from all citizens in a diverse society."  Is there any limit to what means the government should be able to use to accomplish this purpose?  What do you, as an individual, gain, when such recognition occurs as a result of the government employing force to compel the individual to violate his conscience?  What does society collectively gain when that happens?  What is really gained when "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion, still"?  Doesn't that violate Doctrine & Covenants Section 121:41-44?  Doesn't it violate various provisions of the treatise on the proper role of government set forth in Doctrine and Covenants Section 134?  If someone thinks I'm wrong, he's welcome to use whatever lawful means he has at his disposal to convince me.  Government coercion seems to be one of the least effective means of doing so. And what's the limiting principle?  Is there one?  As abhorrent as discrimination is, fascism and/or totalitarianism strike me as poor antidotes, the equivalent of destroying one's house by attempting to swat an elusive fly with a sledgehammer.  And as much as I appreciate the Obergefell v. Hodges majority's magnanimous declaration that the devout may continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish with respect to physical intimacy between gays and lesbians and gay marriage, the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause is broader than that.

With due respect, I don't think a valid use of use of public accommodations laws is that they be used as cudgels to force unwilling businesses to engage in expressive conduct which those businesses and their owners do not support.  If a business owner does not wish to engage in expressive speech (more on this below; see my final paragraph) in support of gay marriage, he should not be forced to do so. (And I say that as someone who would have no problem baking a cake for a wedding between a gay couple.  I might draw the line at decorating it with gay themed items, but big deal: buy your own plastic, gay or lesbian bride and groom and place them prominently atop the otherwise-nicely-decorated cake's top tier.)  

That having been said, I would still allow a gay couple who is refused service to sue on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination, but I would require them to show by the relevant evidentiary standard (probably preponderance of the evidence) that their efforts to obtain a similar good or service at a similar price were unavailing, and I would limit recovery to the difference between what a refusing business owner would have charged them and what an accepting business owner did charge them, along with related, reasonable expenses such as travel.  To those who argue that this regime is a step back into the Jim Crow South, I would say that isolated, episodic, de facto discrimination is different in kind and in degree from the formerly entrenched, state-sanctioned, common, de jure discrimination that the 14th Amendment now prohibits.  A gay couple is free to seek a willing provider, while the unwilling provider's First Amendment rights also are protected.  

Whether Smac97 is successful in his search for case law outlining the contours of expressive conduct, the United States Supreme Court long has recognized that concept in its jurisprudence.  By analogy, I don't support flag burning.  I think there are other, better, more effective ways to demonstrate one's dissatisfaction with the government and with government action.  Occasionally, I still get misty when I hear or sing The Star Spangled Banner or other patriotic songs, or when I see the stars and stripes.  If someone wanted to burn the flag as a means of protest, I would do everything in my power to convince him to use other, more effective means at his disposal to air his grievances.  But, that said, if he were still determined to burn the flag to express his dissatisfaction, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), recognizes that he has that right.  

Edited December 28, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Daniel2]

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 7:16 AM, LittleNipper said:

So what happens to the photographer who is obviously expected to attend the "wedding" and the reception, and take "romantic" pictures? What about the card shop owner who has only husband and wife wedding cards or generic (Hope Your Special Day is Filled with Happiness)? What happens to the business owner who realizes that the only reason Bobby married Bruce was to gain healthcare access for Bruce to cover his HIV treatments which is going to cause the company's healthcare premiums to skyrocket for all the other employees? What about the bed and breakfast owner who doesn't want his establishment to become a hedonistic pit stop? What happens to the church that lets its music director go, because it finds out that he is dating a male? The cat is out of the bag and what the Federal Government thinks it is going to do now, should be of concern for every citizen and not hidden in some Supreme Court closet.

1. From what I understand, wedding photographers can't decline to photograph weddings based on protected classes.  I found the following helpful in understanding how the law is applied to photographers regarding ALL protected classes and the types of photography offered: Discrimination in Photography: Do you have to shoot EVERY client request?

2. Card shop owners (or any other type of business) can carry whatever inventory they wish, including only carrying "husband and wife wedding cards" and generic cards.  Public Accommodations Laws regarding all protected classes don't mandate (and never have mandated) that businesses be forced to carry inventory they don't already carry.  This has been explained to you on multiple occasions in this thread.  Are you reading those posts, or just deliberately ignoring them? 

3.  Both same-sex AND opposite-sex couples can and do marry for many of the marital benefits, including health insurance... and in many cases, even ones with a wide variety of horribly debilitating diseases requiring expensive treatments.  HIV isn't limited to gays and lesbians, and the issue of marrying for insurance isn't limited to same-sex couples.  Existing insurance law already covers the nuances of pre-existing conditions.  This isn't related to same-sex couples, and it's already settled law.  Do you have a legitimate point, other than being what appears to be 'scare tactics' about the cost of HIV treatments?

4.  Bed and Breakfast owners can't discriminate against legally protected classes of people.  Period.

5.  Church's are exempt from public accommodations laws and are protected by the First Amendment.  They are exempt from laws about discrimination of any of the legally-protected classes (which is also why churches aren't required to have female clergy, or why clergy can't be forced to marry interracial couples, non-member couples, or even member couples who aren't in good standing, to name a few examples).

6.  No, no "cat is out of the bag," here... Public accommodations laws have been around since the early 60's.  Religions have been exempted, but religious business owners and employees haven't been free to operate "according to their deeply held religious beliefs" about any of the other protected classes for over 50 years.  The ONLY difference now is that sexual orientation is being considered as a potential protected class.  If adding sexual orientation is truly a violation of religious freedom, why haven't the inability to discriminate by business owners and employees with deeply held religious beliefs against any of the other classes LIKEWISE considered to be a violation of religious freedom, up until now....?

[thesometimesaint]

19 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Even granting that what you say is true for the sake of this discussion, the issue, in my mind, is whether the government, primarily through the courts, should be able to force people to "recognize and appreciate the contributions from all citizens in a diverse society."  Is there any limit to what means the government should be able to use to accomplish this purpose?  What do you, as an individual, gain, when such recognition occurs as a result of the government employing force to compel the individual to violate his conscience?  What does society collectively gain when that happens?  What is really gained when "a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion, still"?  Doesn't that violate Doctrine & Covenants Section 121:41-44?  Doesn't it violate various provisions of the treatise on the proper role of government set forth in Doctrine and Covenants Section 134?  If someone thinks I'm wrong, he's welcome to use whatever lawful means he has at his disposal to convince me.  Government coercion seems to be one of the least effective means of doing so. And what's the limiting principle?  Is there one?  As abhorrent as discrimination is, fascism and/or totalitarianism strike me as poor antidotes, the equivalent of destroying one's house by attempting to swat an elusive fly with a sledgehammer.  And as much as I appreciate the Obergefell v. Hodges majority's magnanimous declaration that the devout may continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish with respect to physical intimacy between gays and lesbians and gay marriage, the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause is broader than that.

With due respect, I don't think a valid use of use of public accommodations laws is that they be used as cudgels to force unwilling businesses to engage in expressive conduct which those businesses and their owners do not support.  If a business owner does not wish to engage in expressive speech (more on this below; see my final paragraph) in support of gay marriage, he should not be forced to do so. (And I say that as someone who would have no problem baking a cake for a wedding between a gay couple.  I might draw the line at decorating it with gay themed items, but big deal: buy your own plastic, gay or lesbian bride and groom and place them prominently atop the otherwise-nicely-decorated cake's top tier.)  

That having been said, I would still allow a gay couple who is refused service to sue on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination, but I would require them to show by the relevant evidentiary standard (probably preponderance of the evidence) that their efforts to obtain a similar good or service at a similar price were unavailing, and I would limit recovery to the difference between what a refusing business owner would have charged them and what an accepting business owner did charge them, along with related, reasonable expenses such as travel.  To those who argue that this regime is a step back into the Jim Crow South, I would say that isolated, episodic, de facto discrimination is different in kind and in degree from the formerly entrenched, state-sanctioned, common, de jure discrimination that the 14th Amendment now prohibits.  A gay couple is free to seek a willing provider, while the unwilling provider's First Amendment rights also are protected.  

Whether Smac97 is successful in his search for case law outlining the contours of expressive conduct, the United States Supreme Court long has recognized that concept in its jurisprudence.  By analogy, I don't support flag burning.  I think there are other, better, more effective ways to demonstrate one's dissatisfaction with the government and with government action.  Occasionally, I still get misty when I hear or sing The Star Spangled Banner or other patriotic songs, or when I see the stars and stripes.  If someone wanted to burn the flag as a means of protest, I would do everything in my power to convince him to use other, more effective means at his disposal to air his grievances.  But, that said, if he were still determined to burn the flag to express his dissatisfaction, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), recognizes that he has that right.  

We run into real problems when individuals claim the right to not follow the law.

[Kenngo1969]

30 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

You're almost correct here, California Boy, but not quite.  All but ONE federal, district, and appeals court ruled in favor of the constitutionally-protected right for gay couples to marry--and that one was the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ...

Shhh!  Don't make him let facts get in the way of his little reinvention of history, there Daniel2!  He's having waaaaaay too much fun condescending to me on the matter!  

[Daniel2]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 9:48 PM, LittleNipper said:

The next issue on the horizon will most likely be polygamy. And that maybe where some Mormons are again heading. I'd like to see how the courts will be able to prevent men marrying as many wives as they can handle, when they cannot say no to homosexual marriage. And there is history where men and even today where an individual can have more than one wife. I see nothing in the Constitution limiting the number of times an individual can divorce and remarry, and I don't see how if there becomes a fashion trend of multiple spouses how the courts with wimps for judges would be willing to interfere with the next rung down the ladder.... It might hurt their reputation.

In the name of advancing religious freedom, I sincerely hope so.  The 1876 decision Reynolds vs. United States was an unjust stain on our country's history which violates the religious freedoms of citizens who believe that polygamy is a God-ordained institution and are required to practice it according to their beliefs.  Of course, I anticipate that freedom of religion won't be used as an excuse to perpetuate abuse through non-consensual plural marriages to underage children, just as religion cannot be used as an excuse for such abusive underage monogamous marriages.

An insightful look at this issue can be found here:  Are Polygamy Bans Unconstitutional?

 

[Kenngo1969]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We run into real problems when individuals claim the right to not follow the law.

Yes, we do.  I have absolutely no idea how you think that's responsive, in any way, to anything I've said on this thread, but, knock yourself out.  (Can you tell how much I loooove one-sentence drive-by responses to in-depth, substantive posts? )

Edited December 28, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Daniel2]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 10:34 PM, LittleNipper said:

Including prostitutes, pimps, child molesters, animal abusers, drug dealers, and drivers under the influence? Once they serve their time are they then back to square one, or do they carry a black mark for the rest of their lives that sets them apart and limits job opportunities. Is that equal protection for them? And if such is true for them, what makes homosexuality any different? I mean 40 or 50 year old guys hitting on college guys trying to pay off tuition isn't akin to taking an undue advantage to gain sexual pleasure is it?  And would everyone agree that the 40 something is no more mature than the 19, 20 or 21 year old or not be seen as having an undue advantage over the younger?  

As citizens of the United States, even convicted prostitutes, pimps, child molesters, animal abusers, drug dealers, and drivers under the influence ALL retain the ability to exercise their civil right to legally marry whomever consents to marry them. 

As far as employment screenings or public accommodations laws are concerned, none of those designations are protected classes.

LittleNipper, it really appears that you are trying to make this issue harder than it has to be.  Either that, or you still haven't acquired--or are simply unwilling to acknowledge--a basic fundamental understanding of how civil rights, religious freedom, public accommodations laws, and protected classes all operate.

 

[thesometimesaint]

The problem with that Libertarian argument is that anyone for any reason can claim a deeply held religious belief to unlawfully discriminate against anyone they choose.

SEE http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/

[Daniel2]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 7:43 PM, Avatar4321 said:

Not seeing why we should have any more skirmishes. What do you have left to fight? As long as you do not try to infringe on my freedom to worship and preach the gospel of truth, your sins are between you and God.

I'd love to avoid not having any more skirmishes, too.  Unfortunately, the proposed First Amendment Defense Act seeks to legalize discrimination against LGBT individuals and families.  Until sexual orientation is recognized by the Federal Government as a protected class, efforts for full equal protection of the law will continue.  That is what's left to "fight" for.

EDIT: Thanks to Ken for my grammar correction!  (see "not").  Who can resist a "Princess Bride" reference?!

Edited December 28, 2016 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

Daniel2,

So in other words, if The Family: A Proclamation to the World can be read as not to exclude gay relationships, it can also be read to not exclude any of the other relationships I mentioned, as well (father and freely-consenting adult son or stepson, mother and freely-consenting adult daughter or stepdaughter, aunt or uncle and freely-consenting niece or nephew, and so on).  Correct?

Thanks in advance.

-Ken

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

As citizens of the United States, even convicted prostitutes, pimps, child molesters, animal abusers, drug dealers, and drivers under the influence ALL retain the ability to exercise their civil right to legally marry whomever consents to marry them. 

Well, not really.  Until quite recently, marriage had long been defined as the association of people based on the attributes of those people, including A) gender (a man and a woman), B) number (two people), C) age (this one varies by jurisdiction a bit), D) mental capacity, E) consent (no coerced marriages), F) consanguinity and G) species (no human / non-human marriages).

The Supreme Court has knocked down one of these (gender), so it seems that some (all?) of the others are likewise susceptible to being constitutionally tossed out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

The problem with that Libertarian argument is that anyone for any reason can claim a deeply held religious belief to unlawfully discriminate against anyone they choose.

SEE http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/

I don't know that sussing out such issues is, would be, or ought to be, as difficult as you suggest.  If someone claims that he's an observant [X], the next question is "What do observant [x]s do orrefrain from doing?"  "What is the attitude of most observant [x]s with respect to [y]?"  "Does [x] do (or refrain from doing) what other observant [x]s do (or refrain from doing)?"  "Does [x] share the attitude of most observant [x]s with respect to [y]?"  "Has he ever commented publicly on the matter/such matters?  If so, what has he said?"  And so on.  If someone wanted to know my attitude concerning matters of faith, all he'd have to do is search my posting history here.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Daniel2]

Hey, Smac,

Thanks for the thoughtful and well documented response.  I will try and respond to it in it's entirety, but I will say that I think you and I are closer in our agreement here than we are different, at least in so far as when it comes to preserving freedom of speech, I agree that those who bake cakes shouldn't have to write specific messages on cakes, just as t-shirt companies shouldn't have to write offensive messages on t-shirts, etc. 

In all honesty, my heart sank when I first read about that ruling against the bakery in Ireland when it was first handed down.  I note that that Irelands' religious freedom protections may differ from those we have in the United States, but that doesn't make their ruling any less wrong from a moral perspective, in my opinion.  I believe it was wrong, and hope that higher appeals court will overturn it and compensate the bakery for legal expenses and any damages occurred.

I'm more on the fence about whether non-written decorations which are already carried in inventory and/or offered through the bakery to the general public (such as icing, flowers, birds, hearts, etc) on a cake are a form of legally-protected speech.  It seems to me that arguments that any such decorations which are sold to the public and which can't be withheld to individual consumers on the basis of any legally-protected class would carry more legal weight than an attempt to suggest that such non-written decorations are a matter of First Amendment protections.  However, I agree with you that this is a greyer area of the law, and am open to more information, study, and refinement of my ideas on this particular aspect, as well.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

16 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Daniel2,

So in other words, if The Family: A Proclamation to the World can be read as not to exclude gay relationships, it can also be read to not exclude any of the other relationships I mentioned, as well (father and freely-consenting adult son or stepson, mother and freely-consenting adult daughter or stepdaughter, aunt or uncle and freely-consenting niece or nephew, and so on).  Correct?

Thanks in advance.

-Ken

Correct. I don't see The Proclamation as a comprehensive document detailing each and every facets of marriage and/or familial life, but rather as a declaration and reaffirmation of certain standards, doctrines, and practices of the church today.

I found this article helpful, from Times & Seasons, titled "Rethinking the Proclamation."

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Hey, Smac,

Thanks for the thoughtful and well documented response.  I will try and respond to it in it's entirety, but I will say that I think you and I are closer in our agreement here than we are different, at least in so far as when it comes to preserving freedom of speech, I agree that those who bake cakes shouldn't have to write specific messages on cakes, just as t-shirt companies shouldn't have to write offensive messages on t-shirts, etc. 

I am glad we agree on that point.

Quote

In all honesty, my heart sank when I first read about that ruling against the bakery in Ireland when it was first handed down.  I note that that Irelands' religious freedom protections may differ from those we have in the United States, but that doesn't make their ruling any less wrong from a moral perspective, in my opinion.  I believe it was wrong, and hope that higher appeals court will overturn it and compensate the bakery for legal expenses and any damages occurred.

Same here.

Quote

I'm more on the fence about whether non-written decorations which are already carried in inventory and/or offered through the bakery to the general public (such as icing, flowers, birds, hearts, etc) on a cake are a form of legally-protected speech. 

I am not on the fence about such things.  These seem to be entirely "neutral" in their viewpoint.

On the other hand, forcing a baker to place a caketopper like this would, I think, be problematic:

 

Quote

It seems to me that arguments that any such decorations which are sold to the public and which can't be withheld to individual consumers on the basis of any legally-protected class would carry more legal weight than an attempt to suggest that such non-written decorations are a matter of First Amendment protections.  However, I agree with you that this is a greyer area of the law, and am open to more information, study, and refinement of my ideas on this particular aspect, as well.

Daniel2

I think decorations, both in letters/words and in imagery, that are specifically (or even "generally" or "reasonably" or "broadly") evocative of a particular message which a person may find to be morally/religiously problematic should not be the subject of compulsion.

Birds and flowers and hearts?  None of that is, in my view, "evocative of a particular message which a person may find to be morally/religiously problematic."

These, on the other hand . . . 

If I were in the cake-making business, I would not be thrilled at the prospect of being compelled, under threats of fine and/or imprisonment, to use my skills to express messages such as those shown above.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

That's not in question. It is if you normally make such cakes for sale to the public. You can't discriminate against your customers.

[Daniel2]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am glad we agree on that point.

Same here.

I am not on the fence about such things.  These seem to be entirely "neutral" in their viewpoint.

On the other hand, forcing a baker to place a caketopper like this would, I think, be problematic:

 

I think decorations, both in letters/words and in imagery, that are specifically (or even "generally" or "reasonably" or "broadly") evocative of a particular message which a person may find to be morally/religiously problematic should not be the subject of compulsion.

Birds and flowers and hearts?  None of that is, in my view, "evocative of a particular message which a person may find to be morally/religiously problematic."

These, on the other hand . . . 

If I were in the cake-making business, I would not be thrilled at the prospect of being compelled, under threats of fine and/or imprisonment, to use my skills to express messages such as those shown above.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Actually I do agree with what you wrote above--I think it would be well within the rights of a cake baker to decline to decorate any and all of the cake decorations above--even if the customer supplied the topper or other materials.  From what I understand, the law merely requires business owners to bake the cake, ice it, put the decorative flourishes with icing, etc. but inform the customer that they're welcome to place any additional toppers/messages/writing on it that they'd like to, after selling them the cake (in the US--obviously, the Ireland case contracts the above--but hopefully that will be overturned).

EDITED to add:  By the way, here's what I think is a good real-life example of what we're discussing (albeit on the flip side); that public accommodations laws require business owners to provide a iced "blank slate" cake per the customer's specifications, but are and should not be forced to write a message or decorate it in such a way as to be a violation of the business owner's freedom of speech:

Quote

Apr 6, 2015

---

This Baker Refused To Bake An Anti-Gay Cake. Here’s Why That’s Not Discrimination.

Marjorie Silva, owner of Azucar Bakery CREDIT: AP PHOTO/IVAN MORENO

The Colorado Civil Rights Division recently ruled that Azucar Bakery in Denver did not engage in illegal discrimination when it refused to make cakes with anti-gay messages on them.

In March of 2014, Marjorie Silva, owner of Azucar, refused to make cakes that included two Bible verses: “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2[2].” The cake design was also to include a portrayal of two grooms holding hands in front of a cross with a red “X” over them. The man who made the request, one William Jack, proceeded to file a complaint against her for discriminating against him based on his “creed” as defined by Colorado law.

A decision letter from the Division ruled in Silva’s favor. She did not discriminate against Jack because of his religious identity, but because his request included “derogatory language and imagery.” Her standard against such language is consistent across protected classes. “In the same manner [she] would not accept [an order from] anyone wanting to make a discriminatory cake against Christians, [she] will not make one that discriminates against gays,” the decision reads. “The evidence demonstrates that [Silva] would deny such requests to any customer, regardless of creed.”

As UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh predicted, Colorado law protects discrimination against people based on their belonging to certain classes, not based on their ideas and messages.

Consistency is a factor to assessing this, which is why Silva won, but another Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, lost his case when he refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Phillips never even gave the couple a chance to discuss the artistry of the cake; despite selling wedding cakes to different-sex couples, he refused to sell the same product to same-sex couples. Though he argued that his religious beliefs simply forbade him from “participating” in a same-sex wedding, Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer found that this was just a pretext for anti-gay discrimination. “Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings,” he wrote. “Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not ‘because of’ their sexual orientation.”

Phillips is appealing his case, and conservatives seem to reject the distinction between the two. Over the weekend, pundit Michelle Malkin stoked the idea that Silva’s victory reflected a double standard against Christians, which several other pundits seemed to agree with, including Tammy Bruce, who previously chaired the gay conservative group GOProud. Other conservative groups have yet to respond to the outcome, but when Jack first filed his complaint, they positioned themselves in support of Silva, attempting to conflate the legitimacy of her “discrimination” with Phillips’ discrimination.

Jack told ABC7 that he found it “offensive” the Bible verses were considered “discriminatory” or “obscenities,” suggesting that the Bible had been “censored from the public arena.” He plans to appeal.

Hope that helps,

Daniel2

Edited December 28, 2016 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am glad we agree on that point.

Same here.

I am not on the fence about such things.  These seem to be entirely "neutral" in their viewpoint.

On the other hand, forcing a baker to place a caketopper like this would, I think, be problematic:

...

 

 

Well, on the bright side, the guy with the knife appears to be poised to engage in extreme expressive conduct venting his feelings about support for gay marriage by cutting Burt's nose off. Expressive conduct!  

P.S.: Is Burt's nose edible, or is that some rubber thing?  Perhaps he'll really drive home the point by conspicuously consuming Burt's inedible nose?

Edited December 28, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

As far as I'm aware, Solomon didn't receive his wives and concubines through councils operating under the keys of presidency, and neither did Joseph Smith, who received personal revelation on the subject, both for himself and others, which he actually kept secret from his own wife and the majority of the church for long periods of time.  The church's recent policy on same-sex marriage and children being raised by married gay or lesbian couples wasn't presented "through councils" or by "sustaining" vote of the membership.  It seems anachronistic to attempt to squeeze Smith's quote into your understanding of how the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints operates, today, and even today, only sometimes.

Mormonism encourages personal revelation all the time.  While the church may not be ready to receive certain revelations (as the body wasn't, in Smith's day), it's certainly plausible and very much in keeping with LDS history and practice that God can speak to specific individuals giving them revelation appropriate for their lives, alone, without it being binding on the body of the church.

I think it conceivable that Solomon received permission through a presidency or a council consisting of “a quorum of three presidents …anciently.” Nathan is the identified prophet at the time. Joseph Smith didn’t give many details, and operated under the system of priesthood authority suited for the saints’ circumstances in 1831, prior to revelations about councils and presidencies in 1835 and writing D&C 132 in 1843.

So yes, your comparison with Joseph Smith and perhaps Solomon are anachronistic in light of what went on in the kingdom of God on earth after Solomon, and since Joseph’s first revelation on plural marriage.

The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles came up with the current policies, and they are sustained by the membership to do so. And of course people will do whatever they think God has told them to do, even if it runs contrary to what The Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has put forth. But that is not what the quote from Joseph Smith advocates for conducting “the government of heaven [on earth] … by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.” He is referring to what is binding upon the body of the Church, and advocating the acceptance of whatever God requires is right for the children of the kingdom (the whole body), which comes through the government of the kingdom of heaven.

Edited December 28, 2016 by CV75

[Daniel2]

By the way, an earlier article (before the final decision was made) offers the additional details on how the cases differ between the Azucar case and the Masterpiece bakery case, including the fact that the owner of the Azucar bakery (a Christian herself) offered to bake and frost the couple a cake and even give the customer the materials to write their own message, so she didn't have to.  But the customer declined that accommodation, demanding that SHE be the one to write the messages, unlike Masterpiece bakery, which wouldn't even discuss selling the same-sex couple a generic wedding cake:

This Colorado baker refused to put an anti-gay message on cakes. Now she is facing a civil rights complaint.

By Abby Ohlheiser

Post Nation

January 28, 2015 Follow @abbyohlheiser

 
Marjorie Silva owns Azucar Bakery in Denver. (Ivan Moreno/AP)

A Denver bakery has found itself at the center of an LGBT rights controversy. But this isn’t about another bakery refusing to fulfill an order for a same-sex wedding. Instead, Azucar Bakery in Denver is the subject of a Colorado civil rights investigation for declining to decorate a cake with an anti-gay message.

A customer, identified as Bill Jack, told reporters that he believes Azucar Bakery “discriminated” against him “based on my creed,” which is Christian. He filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division some time last year, though according to his statement to reporters, Jack said he wouldn’t comment on the specifics of the complaint. But the baker in question did.

Jack walked into Azucar Bakery last March and asked for two cakes, both in the shape of Bibles. That wasn’t a problem for Marjorie Silva, the bakery’s owner. It was what Jack wanted her to write on the cake: Anti-gay phrases including “God hates gays” and an image of two men holding hands, covered in a big, red “X.”

“It’s unfair that he’s accusing me of discriminating when I think he was the one that is discriminating,” Silva told NBC affiliate KUSA. She said she refused to inscribe the cakes with the requested messages and soon after received notice from the state’s Department of Regulatory Agencies that she was the subject of a religious discrimination complaint.

After initially declining to comment to reporters last week on the details of his complaint, Jack now says that Silva mis-remembered the specific phrases he asked her to inscribe.

Here’s his side of the story, from World Magazine:

In an email to WORLD, he wrote that he requested two cakes in the shape of an open Bible. He asked that the first cake show on one page, “God hates sin—Psalm 45:7,” and on the facing page, “Homosexuality is a detestable sin—Leviticus 18:22.” He requested that the second cake have on one page, “God loves sinners,” and on the facing page, “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us—Romans 5:8.”

Jack added to World that he initially responded to media requests for comment with a “generic statement” because of concerns that he would have “no recourse if misquoted or if my comments are taken out of context,” following a “hatchet job” by a Denver television station that first picked up the story.

The purpose of his request, Jack explained to the evangelical publication, was to see if the Colorado Civil Rights Commission would handle what World characterized as “discrimination against Christians” the same as it had handled a previous charge that another Colorado bakery participated in “discrimination against gays.”

Jack is a founder of Worldview Academy, a nondenominational Christian organization. In his bio on the academy’s site, he describes himself as “an educator with ten years experience in public schools and 14 years with The Caleb Campaign, a creationist youth ministry.”

Silva told Denver’s Fox affiliate, KDVR, that she is a Christian and that her business “make(s) a lot of Christian cakes.”

The timing of the incident at Azucar Bakery has not gone unnoticed: In December 2013, a judge found that another Colorado bakery violated a civil rights law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. That decision was upheld by Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission in May.

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., is fighting the order, the Associated Press notes.

In fact, many of Masterpiece’s supporters are drawing a direct parallel between the complaint against Azucar and the one against Masterpiece, leading them to support the “freedom of conscience” rights of both bakeries. Jeff Johnston of Colorado-based Focus on the Family, an organization that opposes same-sex marriage, told the Christian Post that “just as a Christian baker should not be required to create a cake for a same-sex ceremony, this baker should not be required to create a cake with a message that goes against her conscience.”

Colorado state Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt (R) told the Fox affiliate that he is sponsoring legislation to protect Azucar. While running for office, Klingenschmitt claimed that U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), who is openly gay, would “bankrupt Christians who refuse to worship and endorse his sodomy,” and wanted to “join ISIS in beheading Christians, not just in Syria, right here in America.”

The potential legislation Klingenschmitt refers to was already under discussion by the state GOP, as a response to the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision and similar controversies in other states.

But there appear to be some differences between the two cases. The civil rights division will have to decide, as many LGBT advocates are arguing, whether those differences are significant enough to warrant treating each case differently.

For one thing, Silva says that she offered to accommodate Jack’s request in a way that would not require her to write the words in question in her own hand. According to KDVR, Silva proposed that her bakery make the cake with a blank Bible page and provide Jack with the frosting and piping materials needed to write his anti-gay cake message on the dessert himself.

University of Denver law professor Nancy Leong told KUSA that the accommodation offer could actually matter here. “This is not a situation where a business owner denied service to somebody,” Leong said. “She offered to accommodate him to the extent that she could. In fact, requiring her to write that message would infringe on her own free speech rights.”

[RELATED: Supreme Court declines case of photographer who denied service to gay couple]

Some are also turning to the court decision against Masterpiece Cakeshop, which refused business from a gay couple in search of a wedding cake. In the December 2013 decision, administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer repeatedly drew a distinction between refusing service to an individual and refusing to inscribe a specific message on a cake, noting:

Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church.

However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like.

Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado, told the AP that “there’s no law that says that a cake-maker has to write obscenities in the cake just because the customer wants it.”

For now, supporters of both sides are waiting to see what the Civil Rights Division of the state’s Department of Regulatory Agencies does with the case. If the division determines that a civil rights violation occurred, KUSA notes, the case will go to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. That decision could come in the next few months.

[Kenngo1969]

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

What the crap?!  

P.S.: Happy/Merry Ho-ho-homicide?!  

P.P.S.: In the regime favored by TheSometimeSaint, if someone wanted this cake, I'd have to make it???

Edited December 28, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Actually I do agree with what you wrote above--I think it would be well within the rights of a cake baker to decline to decorate any and all of the cake decorations above--even if the customer supplied the topper or other materials.  From what I understand, the law merely requires business owners to bake the cake, ice it, put the decorative flourishes with icing, etc. but inform the customer that they're welcome to place any additional toppers/messages/writing on it that they'd like to, after selling them the cake (in the US--obviously, the Ireland case contracts the above--but hopefully that will be overturned).

Daniel2

The Colorado case currently before the Supreme Court involves a bit more than that.  From the Petitioner's opening brief:

Quote

“The material facts are not in dispute.” Jack Phillips opened Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. over 22 years ago to pursue his life’s vocation—creating artistic cakes.  Phillips pours himself into their design and creation, marshaling his time, energy, and creative talents to make a one-of-a-kind creation celebrating the couple’s special day and reflecting his artistic interpretation of their special bond. 

Phillips is also a Christian who strives to honor God in all aspects of his life, including his art. From Masterpiece’s inception, Phillips has integrated his faith into his work.  (Phillips closes Masterpiece on Sundays, pays his employees well, and helps them with personal needs outside of work, all because of his religious beliefs).

He sounds like a rather decent fellow.

Quote

Because of the artistry associated with custom cakes, Phillips also honors God through his work by declining to use his creative talents to design and create cakes that violate his religious beliefs.  This includes cakes with offensive written messages and cakes celebrating events or ideas that violate his beliefs, including cakes celebrating Halloween (a decision that costs him significant revenue), anti-American or antifamily themes, atheism, racism, or indecency.  He also will not create cakes with hateful, vulgar, or profane messages, or sell any products containing alcohol. 

Note here that he declines prospective income-generating work based on content he finds objectionable all the time, yet the atheists and the racists, and the folks inclined toward "hateful, vulgar, or profane messages" all apparently were able to live in society without seeking ways to get the government to punish Mr. Phillips for not agreeing with their views.

If the dregs of society can tolerate some measure of a live-and-let-live society, it sure would be nice if gay folks could, too.

Quote

Consistent with this longstanding practice, Phillips also will not create cakes celebrating any marriage that is contrary to his understanding of biblical teaching.  As a Christian, Phillips believes that God ordained marriage as the sacred union between one man and one woman, a union that exemplifies the relationship of Christ and His Church. And Phillips’ religious conviction compels him to create cakes celebrating only marriages that are consistent with his understanding of God’s design.  For this reason, Phillips politely declined to design and create a cake celebrating Respondents Craig’s and Mullins’ same-sex wedding, but offered to make any other cake for them.

I suspect Mr. Phillips was targeted because of his religious beliefs on this subject.

Quote

Although Respondents Craig and Mullins easily obtained a free wedding cake with a rainbow design from another bakery,  they filed a charge of sexual orientation discrimination with the Civil Rights Division (the “Division”).

Yep.  And they did so to punish a person who disagrees with them on moral/religious grounds.

Quote

The Commission found that Phillips violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”), rejected Phillips’s First Amendment defenses, and ordered him to: (1) create custom wedding cakes celebrating same-sex marriages if he creates similar cakes for one-man-one-woman marriages, (2) retrain his staff to do likewise, and (3) report to the Commission every order he declines for any reason for a period of two years. 

Hmm.  This sure sounds like compelled speech.  So it's not just happening in Ireland.

Quote

In contrast, while this case was still ongoing, the Commission found that three secular bakeries did not discriminate based on creed when they refused a Christian customer’s request for custom cakes that criticized same-sex marriage on religious grounds. And it did so despite “creed” under CADA encompassing “all aspects of religious beliefs, observances, and practices … [including] the beliefs or teachings of a particular religion."  The Commission reasoned that—like Phillips—(1) the bakeries declined the request because they objected to the particular message of the cake and (2) the bakeries were willing to create other items for Christians. Unlike Phillips, the Commission exempted these secular bakeries from CADA’s scope.

The Christian baker is being fined and coerced into creating custom wedding cakes celebrating same-sex marriages, while three other bakers are excused from creating custom cakes opposing same-sex marriages.

This seems . . . unfair.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

By the way.... I have to say to everyone, generally.......

Historically, we ALL know this topic has gotten heated, divisive, and all-too-often devolves into insults and shut down threads...

At the risk of (HOPEFULLY NOT!!!) jinxing the thread, I just wanted to say how refreshing it is and how much I appreciate everyone's thoughtful, balanced, respectful dialogue on the topic.

Could it be that we're actually getting to a point of finally achieving mutually-respectful dialogue from both sides, even when we don't always agree??  Progress all around, I'd say!

Thanks, all, for keeping it civil!  Happy New Year--here's hoping it's better than 2016...

[Daniel2]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Colorado case currently before the Supreme Court involves a bit more than that.  From the Petitioner's opening brief:

He sounds like a rather decent fellow.

Note here that he declines prospective income-generating work based on content he finds objectionable all the time, yet the atheists and the racists, and the folks inclined toward "hateful, vulgar, or profane messages" all apparently were able to live in society without seeking ways to get the government to punish Mr. Phillips for not agreeing with their views.

If the dregs of society can tolerate some measure of a live-and-let-live society, it sure would be nice if gay folks could, too.

I suspect Mr. Phillips was targeted because of his religious beliefs on this subject.

Yep.  And they did so to punish a person who disagrees with them on moral/religious grounds.

Hmm.  This sure sounds like compelled speech.  So it's not just happening in Ireland.

The Christian baker is being fined and coerced into creating custom wedding cakes celebrating same-sex marriages, while three other bakers are excused from creating custom cakes opposing same-sex marriages.

This seems . . . unfair.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again... a post in response is worth more time and effort than I have at the moment....

But as a lawyer, you clearly are aware that the PETITIONER'S opening brief is going to paint as rosy a picture as possible of the Petitioner... (just as the RESPONDANT's will of the Respondent) and either one is NOT reflective of the ultimate Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the case.

It seems to me that allowing any craftsman, chef, trainer, or virtually ANY skilled professional worker to claim that their efforts and creations are "reflections of their personal religious beliefs" opens a dangerous door and sets a precedent allowing workers to claim anything they do or create is a matter of religious speech, thereby actually opening the door to ongoing religious discrimination.  Masterpiece cakes refused to bake even a generic cake for the same-sex couple, and that was the violation. 

Also, the fact that they ultimately got another wedding cake elsewhere should carry as little credibility with the judge as any white business owner who denied service to blacks on religious grounds claiming that the anti-discrimination case against him should be thrown out because the black customers went across the street and WERE able to get a perfectly good lunch.

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I'd love to avoid not having any more skirmishes, too.  ...

To quote the inimitable Inigo Montoya, "You keep using [those] words.  I danna think [they] mean what you think [they] mean."  Check your double-negative.