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

[Kenngo1969]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

... He sounds like a rather decent fellow. ...

I can't resist throwing in another Princess Bride reference here:

[As the two prepare to duel/swordfight]

Inigo: "You seem a decent fellow.  I hate to keel you."

Dread Pirate Roberts/Westley: "You seem a decent fellow.  I hate to die."

 

(We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming.)

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Masterpiece cakes refused to bake even a generic cake for the same-sex couple, and that was the violation. 

Well, I'm not sure about that (emphases added):

Quote

A Lakewood man who refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a gay couple was merely invoking his constitutional right of free expression, his attorney told three judges of the Colorado Court of Appeals.

...

Craig and Mullins sued Phillips in 2012 after he refused to fill an order for a cake that included a depiction of a rainbow, a symbol that is supportive of gay marriage.

How do you square your assertion ("a generic cake") with the above information ("a custom wedding cake . . . that included a depiction of a rainbow, a symbol that is supportive of gay marriage")?

Thanks,

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD:

See also here:
 

Quote

It all started when Dave Mullins, 28, and Charlie Craig, 31, went into the Masterpiece Cakeshop hoping to get a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting for their wedding reception

...

Phillips informed the couple his business does not create cakes for gay weddings.

...

Phillips said he isn't a homophobe, and that he would gladly serve any other baked good to a gay couple -- just not a wedding cake.

If Mr. Phillips discriminates against homosexuals, why is he willing to sell them "any other baked good?"

Edited December 28, 2016 by smac97

[Daniel2]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If Mr. Phillips discriminates against homosexuals, why is he willing to sell them "any other baked good?"

"Your Honor, I don't discriminate against whites OR blacks! I bake all kinds of cakes for white customers OR black customers all the time, and I even bake wedding cakes for black couples and wedding cakes for white couples all the time!  I just won't sell this couple a chocolate AND vanilla wedding cake for their interracial marriage, because according to my deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs, I believe interracial marriage is a sin. But I'll bake them any other kind of baked good they want..."

• Is the above baker discriminating based on race, or not?

"Your Honor, as a Catholic myself, I don't discriminate against Catholics OR Jews! I bake all kinds of cakes for both Catholics and Jews all the time, and I also bake wedding cakes for Catholic couples OR and wedding cakes for Jewish couples all the time. I just won't sell this mixed-Faith couple a wedding cake for their interfaith marriage, because according to my deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs, I believe for a Catholic to marry someone born out of the covenant is a sin. But I'll bake them any other baked good they want..."

• Is the above baker discriminating based on religion, or not?

Edited December 28, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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.  

Lol... whew!  Thanks for the save...   Fixed it, with credit where credit is due!

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Yes, I agree with everything you wrote above, which is why I used the word 'consent' in my post you're responding to... given that the concept of 'legal consent' encompasses age, mental capacity, species, and obviously 'consent' itself.  In other words, I meant that, all other things being equal, those types of individuals who break the law still have the same civil right to marriage that every other citizen currently enjoys.  And I also addressed the number of spouses in a separate post on polygamy.  That being said, all of the above doesn't really change the intent of my post, in the first place.

But if you'd prefer me to be more precise, I can rephrase it this way:

As citizens of the United States, even convicted prostitutes, pimps, child molesters, animal abusers, drug dealers, and drivers under the influence ALL retain the same ability to exercise their civil right to legally marry whomever consents to marry them that every other U.S. citizen currently enjoys--that is, their status as criminals convicted of any of the crimes you listed above doesn't rob them of their legal civil right to be able to marry someone capable of and willing to give legally consent, and who does not violate any consanguinity laws in the state in which they reside. 

Hope that helps clarify my intent, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify.

D  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

"Your Honor, I don't discriminate against whites OR blacks! I bake all kinds of cakes for white customers OR black customers all the time, and I even bake wedding cakes for black couples and wedding cakes for white couples all the time!  I just won't sell this couple a chocolate AND vanilla wedding cake for their interracial marriage, because according to my deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs, I believe interracial marriage is a sin. But I'll bake them any other kind of baked good they want..."

• Is the above baker discriminating based on race, or not?

I don't think the comparison is apt.  Mr. Phillips declined to provide the cake not because he refuses to sell baked goods to homosexuals (he is apparently fine with that).

But I'll go along with you for a bit:  I think the answer is: No, he is not engaging in actionable "discrimination".  

I am not sure if merely "selling" a cake creates a free speech issue.

And even if the cake involved a "free speech" issue, if the baker categorically refuses to prepare such customized cakes regardless of the race of the customer, and if he instead simply refuses to make such cakes based on the content of the speech involved, then there would not seem to be "discrimination" in play.

Here is, perhaps, a more apt analogy: "Your Honor, I don't discriminate against anyone because of their race! I bake all kinds of cakes for white customers OR black customers all the time!  I just won't sell customized cakes advocating racial surpremacy or inferiority, regardless of the which race is being elevated or demeaned, because according to my deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs, I believe race-based claims of superiority or inferiority are a sin. But I'll bake them any other kind of baked good they want..."

• Is the above baker discriminating based on race, or not?

The very fact that you have to go so far afield in an attempt to create some justification for the Phillips matter only strengthens my view that the gay rights folks (that is, the ones resorting to tactics like those deployed against Mr. Phillips) are behaving inappropriately.  Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving were prohibited by state law from marrying based on race.  A generation later, the gay rights folks are using state law to punish religious people (that is, Christians) who refuse to engage in speech which they find morally/religiously problematic.

I am reminded of this article:

Quote

Dear gay rights militants, dear progressive tyrants, dear liberal fascists, dear haters of free speech, dear crusaders for ideological conformity, dear left wing bullies:

You will lose.

I know you’ve got legions of sycophants kowtowing to you these days, and the rest you’ve set out to destroy — but you will lose.

So, you’ve tracked another dissident and skinned him alive. You’ve made an example of Brendan Eich, and now you dance joyously around his disemboweled carcass. You have his head on a spike, and you consider this a conquest in your eternal crusade to eradicate diversity and punish differing opinions. You launched your millionth campaign of intimidation, and now another good man has been dragged through the mud, to the sounds of taunting and jeering and death threats.

You found out that the CEO of Mozilla gave a few dollars to support a pro-traditional marriage ballot measure several years ago, and you proceeded to publicly tar and feather him until he was forced to ‘resign’ in disgrace.

You again chose to forgo debate, in favor of coercion and bullying.

You again attempted to end the ‘gay rights’ argument by defrocking your opponent.

Hey, good for you.

Enjoy the spoils of your cowardice.

It won’t last.

You will still lose.

Don’t you people read? Haven’t you learned anything from history? ‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. You can only win a debate by suffocating your opposition for so long. Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed.

In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic.

You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion.

You are exposed. We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division.

...

You are the agents of bigotry, my friends. You. You are what you say we are.

I don’t know much about Brendan Eich, and neither do you. I know that he is a revolutionary mind in his field and he became the CEO of Mozilla because of his professional merits. That’s all the information I would have ever seen as relevant or important. But none of that matters to you. You decided to cast all of that aside because you took a peek at the names of Prop 8 donors — names that were only publicized in order to punish and shame those who supported the measure — and determined that everyone listed must be punished.

You fancy yourselves the ideological descendants of civil rights pioneers, but these tactics put you in the same vein as book burners and Puritan witch hunters. When your story is ultimately told, it’ll read more like The Crucible than the Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr.

And that’s why you’ll lose.

You might have fooled society forever if you’d just kept singing about love and kindness, and never started bombarding Christians with your bitter hate and hostility. You might have gained some lasting ground if you hoisted your banner of free love, and never used it to diminish free speech.

But the proverbial cat is out of the bag. You’ve been made.

The rhetoric in this article is considerably harsher than I would like, but the underlying point is hard to dispute.  By constantly falsely accusing people of good conscience and good character of horrible things, by seeking to punish other people because they have opinions which do not jibe with theirs, by distorting both the form and intent of "public accommodations" laws to go after religious people, the militant gay rights crown have burned bridges.  Opportunities for mutual understanding and love and cooperation and tolerance have been diminished or destroyed.  

In short, nobody likes a bully.  And sooner a later, the bullying ceases to have its intended effect.

Back to you:

Quote

"Your Honor, as a Catholic myself, I don't discriminate against Catholics OR Jews! I bake all kinds of cakes for both Catholics and Jews all the time, and I also bake wedding cakes for Catholic couples OR and wedding cakes for Jewish couples all the time. I just won't sell this mixed-Faith couple a wedding cake for their interfaith marriage, because according to my deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs, I believe for a Catholic to marry someone born out of the covenant is a sin. But I'll bake them any other baked good they want..."

• Is the above baker discriminating based on religion, or not?

Same as above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 28, 2016 by smac97

[Daniel2]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think the comparison is apt.  Mr. Phillips declined to provide the cake not because he refuses to sell baked goods to homosexuals (he is apparently fine with that).

But I'll go along with you for a bit:  I think the answer is: No, he is not engaging in actionable "discrimination".  

I am not sure if merely "selling" a cake creates a free speech issue.

And even if the cake involved a "free speech" issue, if the baker categorically refuses to prepare such customized cakes regardless of the race of the customer, and if he instead simply refuses to make such cakes based on the content of the speech involved, then there would not seem to be "discrimination" in play.

Here is, perhaps, a more apt analogy: "Your Honor, I don't discriminate against anyone because of their race! I bake all kinds of cakes for white customers OR black customers all the time!  I just won't sell customized cakes advocating racial surpremacy or inferiority, regardless of the which race is being elevated or demeaned, because according to my deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs, I believe race-based claims of superiority or inferiority are a sin. But I'll bake them any other kind of baked good they want..."

• Is the above baker discriminating based on race, or not?

The very fact that you have to do so far afield in an attempt to create some justification for the Phillips matter only strengthens my view that the gay rights folks (that is, the ones resorting to tactics like those deployed against Mr. Phillips) are behaving inappropriately.  Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving were prohibited by state law from marrying based on race.  A generation later, the gay rights folks are using state law to punish religious people (that is, Christians) who refuse to engage in speech which publicly endorses their marriage.

I

Frankly, I'm surprised at your response that you don't believe the examples I provided are examples of actionable discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples.  I guess this is a point we'll disagree on.  I believe the law firmly forbids the type of activity I used in my examples.  Further, I'm also somewhat shocked that the two examples, which I consider to be almost perfectly analogous to the claims being made by Masterpiece, are what you would characterize as "so far afield in an attempt to create some justification for the Phillips matter," which "only strengthens [your] view" that those of us who support recognizing sexual orientation as a protected class "are behaving inappropriately."  I don't see any merit to your assertion that there's a distinction between how the law should regard "race" and "religion" differently than it regards "sexual orientation."

Further, I believe the way that the law has historically handled interracial marriage WOULD suggest that a baker couldn't rely on religious motivation as a means to discriminate against an interracial couple in so far as withholding goods or services:

When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

— Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959

The most remarkable thing about Arizona’s “License To Discriminate” bill is how quickly it became anathema, even among Republicans. Both 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain and 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called upon Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto this effort to protect businesses that want to discriminate against gay people. So did Arizona’s other senator, Jeff Flake. And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Indeed, three state senators who voted for this very bill urged Brewer to veto it before she finally did so on Wednesday, confessing that they “made a mistake” when they voted for it to become law.

The premise of the bill is that discrimination becomes acceptable so long as it is packaged inside a religious wrapper. As Arizona state Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (R) explained, lawmakers introduced it in response to instances where anti-gay business owners in other states were “punished for their religious beliefs” after they denied service to gay customers in violation of a state anti-discrimination law.

Yet, while LGBT Americans are the current target of this effort to repackage prejudice as “religious liberty,” they are hardly the first. To the contrary, as Wake Forest law Professor Michael Kent Curtis explained in a 2012 law review article, many segregationists justified racial bigotry on the very same grounds that religious conservatives now hope to justify anti-gay animus. In the words of one professor at a prominent Mississippi Baptist institution, “our Southern segregation way is the Christian way . . . . [God] was the original segregationist.”

God Of The Segregationists

Theodore Bilbo was one of Mississippi’s great demagogues. After two non-consecutive terms as governor, Bilbo won a U.S. Senate seat campaigning against “farmer murderers, corrupters of Southern womanhood, [skunks] who steal Gideon Bibles from hotel rooms” and a host of other, equally colorful foes. In a year where just 47 Mississippi voters cast a ballot for a communist candidate, Bilbo railed against a looming communist takeover of the state — and offered himself up as the solution to this red onslaught.

Bilbo was also a virulent racist. “I call on every red-blooded white man to use any means to keep the n[*]ggers away from the polls,” Bilbo proclaimed during his successful reelection campaign in 1946. He was a proud member of the Ku Klux Klan, telling Meet the Press that same year that “[n]o man can leave the Klan. He takes an oath not to do that. Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux.” During a filibuster of an anti-lynching bill, Bilbo claimed that the bill

will open the floodgates of hell in the South. Raping, mobbing, lynching, race riots, and crime will be increased a thousandfold; and upon your garments and the garments of those who are responsible for the passage of the measure will be the blood of the raped and outraged daughters of Dixie, as well as the blood of the perpetrators of these crimes that the red-blooded Anglo-Saxon White Southern men will not tolerate.

For Senator Bilbo, however, racism was more that just an ideology, it was a sincerely held religious belief. In a book entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.” Allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”

Bilbo was one of the South’s most colorful racists, but he was hardly alone in his beliefs. As early as 1867, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld segregated railway cars on the grounds that “[t]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures.” This same rationale was later adopted by state supreme courts in Alabama, Indiana and Virginia to justify bans on interracial marriage, and by justices in Kentucky to support residential segregation and segregated colleges.

In 1901, Georgia Gov. Allen Candler defended unequal public schooling for African Americans on the grounds that “God made them negroes and we cannot by education make them white folks.” After the Supreme Court ordered public schools integrated in Brown v. Board of Education, many segregationists cited their own faith as justification for official racism. Ross Barnett won Mississippi’s governorship in a landslide in 1960 after claiming that “the good Lord was the original segregationist.” Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia relied on passages from Genesis, Leviticus and Matthew when he spoke out against the civil rights law banning employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters on the Senate floor.

Bob Jones

Although the Supreme Court never considered whether Bilbo, Candler, Barnett or Byrd’s religious beliefs gave them a license to engage in race discrimination, a very similar case did reach the justices in 1983.

Bob Jones University excluded African Americans completely until the early 1970s, when it began permitting black students to attend so long as they were married. In 1975, it amended this policy to permit unmarried African American students, but it continued to prohibit interracial dating, interracial marriage, or even being “affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage.” As a result, the Internal Revenue Service revoked Bob Jones’ tax-exempt status.

This decision, that the IRS would no longer give tax subsidies to racist schools even if they claimed that their racism was rooted in religious beliefs, quickly became a rallying point for the Christian Right. Indeed, according to Paul Weyrich, the seminal conservative activist who coined the term “moral majority,” the IRS’ move against schools like Bob Jones was the single most important issue driving the birth of modern day religious conservatism. According to Weyrich, “t was not the school-prayer issue, and it was not the abortion issue,” that caused this “movement to surface.” Rather it was what Weyrich labeled the “federal government’s move against the Christian schools.”

When Bob Jones’ case reached the Supreme Court, the school argued that IRS’ regulations denying tax exemptions to racist institutions “cannot constitutionally be applied to schools that engage in racial discrimination on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs.” But the justices did not bite. In an 8–1 decision by conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Court explained that “[o]n occasion this Court has found certain governmental interests so compelling as to allow even regulations prohibiting religiously based conduct.” Prohibiting race discrimination is one of these interests.

My Liberty Stops At Your Body

Ultimately, the question facing anti-gay business owners, even if the bill Brewer vetoed had become law, is why it is acceptable to exclude gay people simply because of who they are, when we do not permit this sort of behavior by racists such as Bilbo or Byrd? And there is another, equally difficult question facing advocates of the kind of sweeping “religious liberty” protected by the Arizona bill — why should we allow people to impose their religious beliefs upon others?

One year before Bob Jones, the Court decided a case called United States v. Lee, which involved an Amish employer’s objection to paying Social Security taxes on religious grounds. As the Court explained in Lee, allowing people with religious objections to opt out of Social Security could undermine the viability of the entire program. “The design of the system requires support by mandatory contributions from covered employers and employees,” Burger wrote for the Court. “This mandatory participation is indispensable to the fiscal vitality of the social security system. . . . Moreover, a comprehensive national social security system providing for voluntary participation would be almost a contradiction in terms and difficult, if not impossible, to administer.”

Just as importantly, allowing religious employers to exempt themselves from the law would be fundamentally unfair to the employees who are supposed to benefit from those laws. “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

Lee, in other words, stands for the proposition that people of faith do not exist in a vacuum. Their businesses compete with other companies who are entitled to engage in this competition upon a level playing field. Their personnel decisions impact their employees, and their decision to refuse to do business with someone — especially for reasons such as race or sexual orientation — can fundamentally demean that individual and deny them their own right to participate equally in society.

This is why people like Theodore Bilbo should not be allowed to refuse to do business with African Americans, and it is why anti-gay business owners should not be given a special right to discriminate against LGBT consumers. And this is also something that the United States has understood for a very long time. Bob Jones and Lee are not new cases. A whole generation of Americans spent their entire professional careers enjoying the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Religious liberty is an important value and it rightfully belongs in our Constitution, but it we do not allow it to be used to destroy the rights of others.

The argument Gov. Brewer resolved Wednesday night with her veto stamp is no different than the argument Lyndon Johnson resolved when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Invidious discrimination is wrong. And it doesn’t matter why someone wants to discriminate.

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Frankly, I'm surprised at your response that you don't believe the examples I provided are examples of actionable discrimination against interracial couples or interfaith couples.

It is wonderful, then, that reasonable minds can disagree about such things and still remain civil with each other.

Quote

I guess this is a point we'll disagree on.  I believe the law firmly forbids the type of activity I used in my examples.

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  I think a law which compels private citizens to speak in violation of their conscience is an unjust and profane law.  And I despise the misuse and exploitation of existing well-intentioned nondiscrimination and public accommodations laws as weapons for a politically and socially powerful group to punish and demean good and decent religious persons who want to live according to their beliefs.

But regardless of the legalities involved, I find the unending utilization of the if-you-do-or-say-anything-other-than-publicly-embrace-and-endorse-same-sex-marriage-then-you-are-a-bigot-like-the-racists-of-yesteryear schtick to be a stale and boring.  As I said, nobody likes a bully, and sooner a later, the bullying ceases to have its intended effect.

Quote

Further, I'm also somewhat shocked that the two examples, which I consider to be almost perfectly analogous to the claims being made by Masterpiece, are what you would characterize as "so far afield in an attempt to create some justification for the Phillips matter," which "only strengthens [your] view" that those of us who support recognizing sexual orientation as a protected class "are behaving inappropriately."

Funny, that.  I am likewise "shocked" at your casual and disgusting comparison of invidious racial hatred of yesteryear to a Christian baker who takes moral exception to same-sex marriage, and who therefore has resisted efforts to be compelled by force of law to speak in favor of same-sex marriage.

I guess we all have our own special set of blinders on to some extent.

Quote

I don't see any merit to your assertion that there's a distinction between how the law should regard "race" and "religion" differently than it regards "sexual orientation."

I'm content with what I have said.

I abhor racial animus.  I suspect Mr. Phillips does, too.  I also think he would be highly offended at his principled and good faith opposition to compelled speech being glibly and casually compared to the racial hatreds of yesteryear.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by smac97

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am reminded of this article:

The rhetoric in this article is considerably harsher than I would like, but the underlying point is hard to dispute.  By constantly falsely accusing people of good conscience and good character of horrible things, by seeking to punish other people because they have opinions which do not jibe with theirs, the militant gay rights crown have burned bridges.  Opportunities for mutual understanding and love and cooperation and tolerance have been diminished or destroyed.  

In short, nobody likes a bully.  And sooner a later, the bullying ceases to have its intended effect.

Yes, it's interesting how our differing perspectives color who we see as "bullies" in these cases, a.k.a. "the blinders" that we both perceive the other is wearing.

I really don't relate to the tone nor underlying point of the article you quoted.  And despite the vocal-ness and hostility of the fringe, I honestly don't believe that the majority of the LGBT community IS trying to bully or intimidate into silence those who view homosexuality as a sin.  Even as a resident of Utah, most LDS members and gays and lesbians get along quite well in my day to day life at work, at my kids' schools, in my predominantly LDS neighborhood, and even when my husband and I show up at LDS church services, sing in the ward choir at Christmas, etc.  I believe the media distorts and overemphasizes the most extreme, because THAT'S what sells, not peaceful coexistence.  The inflammatory nature of the letter you posted is as much of a rallying cry as those outspoken gay activists calling for "the end of marriage as we know it and the dissolution of the family unit" and other such nonsense.

Now, have there been victims on BOTH sides of this issue who haven't deserved what they've gotten?  Absolutely.  And do we need to take action to do all we can protect those individuals?  Definitely.

But most legal gains and public sympathy/approval aren't won by violent demonstrations defacing personal, private, or public property, angrily ugly and belligerent crowds, physical threats or bullying towards targeted individuals, irrational general or specific boycotts, pressure forcing people out of jobs, etc.  I note these tactics have been employed by many different movements throughout history on BOTH sides of this issue.  In years past, such actions have been against minority groups... whereas in the last few years, the pendulum has swung the other way.

However, I believe that the majority of the legal gains in favor of LGBT equality are because the arguments made in the legal realm have been more compelling than those against it, and public support has shifted in favor of LGBT equality because of the sincere stories by gay and lesbian citizens have engaged in with their family and friends, which have changed hearts and minds.  Courts don't listen to or rely on things like boycotts, pressure on individuals to resign, etc.  And I don't think that's what changes peoples minds, either. 

By the way, I don't believe that Masterpiece is as benign as the Petitioner's Opening Filing, and I DO believe, based on the many articles I've read and watching several of the interviews of Mr. Phillips, that he discriminated unjustly against the same-sex couple.  But, given that you believe the two examples I gave aren't discrimination, I don't anticipate we'll come to an agreement here.   

I agree with you that it's wonderful that rational minds can disagree and still remain civil.  I will continue to strive for civility, even when we disagree.

At the end of the day, my main argument remains this:  I have yet to read or hear any compelling reason why sexual orientation shouldn't be equally treated as a protected class in exactly the same fashion as race, color, religion/creed, national origin, sex, age, physical or mental disability, or veteran status.  Can you offer one?

Edited December 28, 2016 by Daniel2

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I really don't relate to the tone nor underlying point of the article you quoted.  And despite the vocal-ness and hostility of the fringe, I honestly don't believe that the majority of the LGBT community IS trying to bully or intimidate into silence those who view homosexuality as a sin.

Which is why I limited my remarks to those parts of the LGBT community that are so trying to bully/intimidate.

Quote

Even as a resident of Utah, most LDS members and gays and lesbians get along quite well in my day to day life at work, at my kids' schools, in my predominantly LDS neighborhood, and even when my husband and I show up at LDS church services, sing in the ward choir at Christmas, etc.

I am glad to hear it.  I wonder, however, how such warm sentiments would fare if you were to publicly accuse those of your friends and neighbors who have religious/principled reasons to disagree with same-sex marriage of being effectively on par with hate-filled racist bigots.

Not long, I'd wager.  And yet you have no qualms with doing that here.

Quote

By the way, I don't believe that Masterpiece is as benign as the Petitioner's Opening Filing, and I DO believe, based on the many articles I've read and watching several of the interviews of Mr. Phillips, that he discriminated unjustly against the same-sex couple. 

CFR, please, regarding the interviews you have watched.  I'd be curious as to how you have discerned the motivations of Mr. Phillips.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 28, 2016 by smac97

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am glad to hear it.  I wonder, however, how such warm sentiments would fare if you were to publicly accuse those of your friends and neighbors who have religious/principled reasons to disagree with same-sex marriage of being effectively on par with hate-filled racist bigots.

Not long, I'd wager.  And yet you have no qualms with doing that here.

OK... here we go, back to that "good faith" assumption you often refer to here on the board.

Smac, in good faith, is it JUST POSSIBLE that those of us who feel that the struggle for equal civil rights for LGBT individuals and couples is analogous to the struggle for equal civil rights, regardless of race, can see them as such, without any intention of labeling others as "effectively on-par with hate-filled racist bigots"?  Because that's YOUR rhetoric, not mine.

Or are you saying that reasonable minds can't disagree on the matter--that those of us who consider them to be analogous are automatically some sort of "reverse-bigots" who MUST be projecting hateful labels onto those who feel otherwise?

To be fully candid, yes, I'm very open with my LDS coworkers, family, and friends about my views on how the two struggles for equality are similar.  I take time to share with them how Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s widow, Coretta Scott King, also viewed the two struggles and movements as similar.  I don't doubt the sincerely-held religious beliefs held about racial inequality that religious folk back in the early 1900's didn't automatically mean they were "bad people" (my LDS grandparents hailed from Kentucky, and their local culture coupled with a different time's LDS teachings about race made them less than tolerant of interracial marriage; but they were still sincere, good-hearted, well-intentioned people). 

And today, people can sincerely believe that same-sex relationships are sinful without being hateful.  Just as they may feel a twinge of concern while having to patiently set aside any potentially-reflexive response to take offense at or during my explantation of how I and others believe anti-LGBT equal civil rights efforts are similar with the struggle for racial equality, I find I often have to likewise bite my tongue, take a deep breath, work at avoiding taking offense, and have patience with their explanations as they imply that my relationship and an integral and personally-valued part of my identity is analogous to alcoholism, drug addiction, rape, murder, pedophilia, beastiality, satanic delusion, and being labeled everything from a sin to an abomination. 

And yet even as I discuss these issues sensitively and calmly with my LDS family, friends, coworkers, and acquaintances, neither I nor they resort to the self-victimizational offense nd inflammatory rhetoric it appears you automatically presume underlies my intentions and use it as an attempt to call into question my character.

Perhaps I did jinx my own thread, just having expressed gratitude for the civility here... be that as it may, I still feel this has been far above what past discussions have been.  Even so, a little more good faith would be appreciated, as I haven't used the words and slander that you claim I'm automatically inferring onto others, nor do I feel that way.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Daniel2

[LittleNipper]

8 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

It appears that you're either unable or unwilling to distinguish between behaviors that are or should be legal due to our secular government's tenant not to establish one religious ideology over others vs. your own views on the morality (or immorality) of certain behaviors. 

As such, it's difficult to engage in dialogue with you on this thread as outlined in it's title and in the opening posts.

The simple fact is that no one has to have sex simply for fun. If homosexuality were to end tomorrow, society would not be harmed in anyway whatsoever. As such the government should consider that a husband and wife are far more important to the growth and maturity of society and civilization than mere fulfillment of one's sexual fantasies.

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

... 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

What we get when political correctness is legislated.  

[california boy]

On 12/27/2016 at 9:16 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Condescend much?   Usually, those who are secure in their positions and opinions don't feel the need to condescend to their interlocutors as much as you do here.  So, why the dripping condescension?

 

You're equivocating.  Which is it?  All, or virtually all?  (Hint: If the unanimity you claim existed among the Circuit Courts of Appeals actually had existed, there would have been no reason for the United States Supreme Court to take up the case.)

Arguably, no it doesn't: If the unanimity you claim had existed among the Circuit Courts of Appeals actually had existed, there would have been no reason for the United States Supreme Court to take up the case, and if it had done so, arguably, that might've been a violation of the "case or controversy" clause of Article III of the United States Constitution.  Very likely, it would have been people on your side of the issue invoking the "case or controversy" clause in support of not disturbing the (allegedly unanimous) decisions in each/all of the Circuit Courts of Appeals below.

You're right to the extent that with the United States Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on the books, no trial or appellate court is likely to "get a wild hair" and issue a ruling or a decision which is inconsistent with it.  However, there is a big, big difference between "unlikely" and "impossible."  After all, Obergefell v. Hodges wasn't a 9-0 decision, or an 8-1 decision, or a 7-2 decision, or even a 6-3 decision: it was only a 5-4 decision, and such bare majorities are far from permanently secure.  And it would appear (notwithstanding your own security in your own allegedly-vast knowledge of how the court system works ... in fact, you're so secure in that knowledge that, apparently, you simply cannot resist condescending to your interlocutors, who might, however unlikely the prospect may seem to you ... actually know more about how that system works than you do) that your knowledge of how the court system works actually might be [Gasp!]  lacking.

The United States Supreme Court does not simply take original jurisdiction over cases, even when it has decided cases on that subject previously.  As much as gay marriage proponents might love to say, "We won in the Supreme Court in 2015, and that's the end of the story, forever and ever, Amen," the United States Supreme Court cannot simply say, "Yep, we've decided this issue before, so we'll simply dispense with all of that nonsense in the trial and appellate courts below and decide it again."  Guess what?  In the (admittedly unlikely) event that a trial court were to render a decision inconsistent with Obergefell v. Hodges, gay marriage proponents would still have to argue the issue in the trial court.  Then, if the trial court ruled against them, they would still have to argue it in the appellate court.  And if the appellate court ruled against them, they'd still have to argue it in the United States Supreme Court.  Granted, with Obergefell v. Hodges in place, the odds might be long that arguments against it would prevail, but a declaration of, "Your Honors, we won in 2015" might well be met with a skeptical, "So?  That was then, and this is now.  You better have a better argument than that.  The composition of the Court has changed, and if that's all you've got, you'd better be ready for 2015's bare minority to become today's (albeit bare) majority."

 

Your knowledge of history appears to be lacking.  You might want to check your facts.

If the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals had been unanimous, as you claim, yet the United States Supreme Court had decided to hear Obergefell v. Hodges anyway, wouldn't it be people on your side of the issue sputtering, "B... Bu... But, that's judicial activism!  All of the Circuit Courts are unanimous!  Why does the Supreme Court even have to hear the case?!"  You seem to want to have your cake and eat it, too.  You appear to be just fine with judicial activism ... as long as it's not your ox being gored.

As for Judge Dale Kimball of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, his ruling did nothing to legalize gay marriage per se.  Judge Robert Shelby's ruling (and Judge Shelby, like Judge Kimball, serves on Utah's federal district court ... in an earlier post, you elevated Judge Kimball to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit) already did that.  Rather, all Judge Kimball's ruling did was simply decline to delay enforcement of Judge Shelby's ruling pending appeal.  You may disagree, but that isn't the same thing as "ruling in favor of gay marriage": it simply means the procedurally, the judge saw no reason to delay enforcement of Judge Shelby's ruling.

I look forward to your (no doubt exceedingly condescending) reply. 

Call it condescending if you like.  But quite frankly it is you that doesn't seem to know how all of the district and appellate courts ruled on gay marriage. While I may have been wrong about one single court ruling, my assertion that there gay marriage was deemed a constitutional right under the 14th amendment remains the same.

Edited December 29, 2016 by california boy

[Avatar4321]

21 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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?!

simple solution to avoid conflict:

don't infringe on anyone else's first amendment rights

[thesometimesaint]

Your First Amendments rights to swing your fist ends at the other person's nose.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

simple solution to avoid conflict:

don't infringe on anyone else's first amendment rights

Do public accommodations laws infringe on individuals' first amendment rights?

Edited December 29, 2016 by Daniel2

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Do public accommodations laws infringe on individuals' first amendment rights?

Mr. Phillips has been fined by the government, and is being compelled by government to engage in speech which contravenes his religious beliefs.  Meanwhile, other non-Christian bakeries have, during the same approximate period, not been fined by the government for refusing to engage in speech which they dislike, nor have they been compelled by law to engage in speech which they dislike.

So when public accommodations laws are misused, yes, they can infringe on individuals' first amendment rights.

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

Just because a cop doesn't pull you over for speeding doesn't mean you didn't speed.

The First Amendment isn't a get out jail free card.

Edited December 29, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Just because a cop doesn't pull you over for speeding doesn't mean you didn't speed.

The First Amendment isn't a get out jail free card.

So breaking the law = refusing to engage in compelled speech.  Is that your point?

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

So breaking the law = refusing to engage in compelled speech.  Is that your point?

Thanks,

-Smac

There is no law compelling speech. IE; There is no law compelling you to yell FIRE in a crowded theater. But if you choose to do so you can be legally charged. In this case if you provide a good/service to the public, you can't hide behind your religion to discriminate against that public. Time to MOVE ON.

[Daniel2]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So breaking the law = refusing to engage in compelled speech.  Is that your point?

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac,

Based on this and your previous post, I'm beginning to question that YOU really are approaching this discussion in good faith.  You make statements as if they're fact based on a Petitioner's opening brief, rather than the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, misrepresenting your opinions of the matter as if they are fact.  As a lawyer, that may be what you do in a court room when pleading your case before a judge in the hopes that he rules in your favor, but here on this message board, it's misrepresenting the case to assert Mr. Phillips freedom of speech was violated. The fact is, all the courts leading up to the current pending case before SCOTUS ruled exactly the opposite of what you claim. Further, you've chosen to ignore the articles I've posted which contain evidence that the customer wasn't even given the opportunity to describe the cake he was indenting to buy, but told up front by Phillips that he wouldn't do a gay wedding.

We're all equally welcome to have an opinion on any subject, including whether a court's ruling is misguided and wrong, but you act as though facts exist that really aren't clearly established. As a lawyer, people look to you on this board and solicit your opinions. When you misrepresent your opinions on vague details of the case as fact while ignoring others that played into court rulings, you demonstrate your inherent bias.  I had expected and hoped for a more honest and balanced approach from you.

That said, I don't anticipate any of my perspective above will change your opinion or behavior, but I believe it's worth pointing out for others reading the thread to be aware of.

 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is no law compelling speech.

I think there is.  If burning a flag is a form of "speech" then so is making a customized wedding cake with a rainbow on it.

49 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

IE; There is no law compelling you to yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

A non sequitur.

49 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

But if you choose to do so you can be legally charged.

Which is irrelevant to the issue facing Mr. Phillips, who is being compelled by the government to engage in speech which violates his religious beliefs.

49 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

In this case if you provide a good/service to the public, you can't hide behind your religion to discriminate against that public. Time to MOVE ON.

You have clearly not read the briefs filed in the Phillips matter.

No, it's not time to move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Smac,

Based on this and your previous post, I'm beginning to question that YOU really are approaching this discussion in good faith.  

I am approaching this discussion in good faith.  I am stating the facts, which do not appear to be in dispute.  I am presenting my understanding of disputed points of law, which the U.S. Supreme Court have agreed to hear.  

Quote

You make statements as if they're fact based on a Petitioner's opening brief, rather than the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, misrepresenting your opinions of the matter as if they are fact.

The facts of the case do not appear to be in dispute.  That is rather the point of an opening brief.  Appellate courts are not supposed to settle factual disputes.  Instead, they are supposed to analyze disputes about points of law.  

I am not an appellate attorney, but if there are relevant/determinative facts which remain in dispute, I would think the case would have been remanded for further proceedings to reach a factual determination, such as whether there was supposed to be a rainbow on the cake.

If you want to have a serious discussion about this, stop carping and start engaging the substantive points of law.  For example, is making a customized cake a form of "speech"?  

Quote

As a lawyer, that may be what you do in a court room when pleading your case before a judge in the hopes that he rules in your favor, but here on this message board, it's misrepresenting the case to assert Mr. Phillips freedom of speech was violated.

No, it's not.  He is being compelled to "speak" by the government.  Again, if you want to have a discussion, stop lecturing and start analyzing.

Quote

The fact is, all the courts leading up to the current pending case before SCOTUS ruled exactly the opposite of what you claim.

CFR, please.

Quote

Further, you've chosen to ignore the articles I've posted which contain evidence that the customer wasn't even given the opportunity to describe the cake he was indenting to buy, but told up front by Phillips that he wouldn't do a gay wedding.

I did not ignore them.  I countered them with articles which corroborate Mr. Phillips point.

And his point is not that he refuses to do business with gay people, ergo he does not discriminate against gay people.

His point is that he will not make custom wedding cakes for gay weddings, and his refusal is based on the nature of the wedding, not on the sexual orientation of the customer.  If a heterosexual friend or relative of the gay couple had attempted the order a cake celebrating the couple's same-sex wedding, I think Mr. Phillips would have also turned that request down.  Why?  Because he is not "discriminating" against people.  He is refusing to engage in speech which violates his religious beliefs.

Quote

We're all equally welcome to have an opinion on any subject, including whether a court's ruling is misguided and wrong, but you act as though facts exist that really aren't clearly established.

I'm ignoring your lecturing.  If you want to have a substantive discussion of the law, have at it.  Haggling with a self-appointed board nanny is not interesting to me.

Quote

As a lawyer, people look to you on this board and solicit your opinions.

Board nannying.

I am giving my opinions.  I am not misrepresenting facts at all.  The facts do not appear to be in dispute.  What I am presenting is my understanding of certain questions of law, such as whether making a customized cake is a form of expressive "speech," like burning a flag or painting a picture or writing a song.  I think it is, for reasons previously stated.  What do you think?

Quote

When you misrepresent your opinions on vague details of the case as fact while ignoring others that played into court rulings, you demonstrate your inherent bias.

Board nannying.

Quote

I had expected and hoped for a more honest and balanced approach from you.

Board nannying.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 29, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

So it appears there may be some factual dispute regarding the nature of the cake requested, and whether the gay couple had wanted it customized so that it expressed the idea of a same-sex wedding.

The gay couple repeatedly assert in their brief that they "Phillips did not ask for, and Mullins and Craig did not offer, any details about the design of the cake."  However, contemporary news accounts seem to differ with that:

FoxNews Article (emphasis added):

Quote

Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colo., said he has received more than 1,000 angry messages — critics upset because he would not compromise his personal beliefs and bake a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig.

The couple, set to be married in Massachusetts in September, told television station KDVR they wanted a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting.

They said the owner immediately informed the men that he does not create cakes for gay weddings.

“It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter,” Mullins, 28, told Denver Westward. “We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, ‘F**k you and your homophobic cake shop.’ And I may or may not have flipped him off.”

But Phillips defended his decision in an interview with television station KCNC in Denver.

“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,” Phillips told the television station. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”

July 2012 KDVR Article:

Quote

It all started when Dave Mullins, 28, and Charlie Craig, 31, went into the Masterpiece Cakeshop hoping to get a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting for their wedding reception, which will take place in Denver this October after their wedding in Provincetown, Mass., which is set for September.

July 2012 Westword Article (apparently published one day after the incident):

Quote

Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors).  Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October. But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

July 2012 Advocate Article:

Quote

A cake shop in Denver told a gay couple last week that they are refusing to make them a rainbow-layered wedding cake this fall. 

2013 Chicago Tribune Article (emphasis added):

Quote

Here's the story: Jack C. Phillips, co-owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, in July 2012 told Charlie Craig and David Mullins that he would not bake a cake for their wedding. He said as a long-practicing Christian he believed God intended marriage to be for one man and one woman.

He also told the couple, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." He believed he was protected in this because the Colorado Constitution defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Craig and Mullins apparently didn't have trouble finding another baker to make a cake, one with rainbow-colored filling, for their later out-of-state wedding. It's not as if Phillips prevented them from getting a cake from anywhere in America.

July 2012 Advocate Article:

Quote

A cake shop in Denver told a gay couple last week that they are refusing to make them a rainbow-layered wedding cake this fall. 

...

Mullins and Craig don't seem to be the only same-sex couple to encounter problems with Masterpiece Cakeshop. According to Westword, other previous customers like Yelp user Samantha S., have said the shop does not "participate in making cakes for 'illegal' things, such as a commitment ceremony." A Masterpiece employee did say, however, that they would be willing to make any other kind of celebratory cake for gay customers, as long as it was not for a wedding or commitment ceremony. 

June 2013 AP Article:

Quote

David Mullins, left, and Charlie Craig, right, successfully sued a Colorado bakery after their order for a rainbow wedding cake was turned down by the owner

June 2013 Fox Article:

Quote

The complaint stems from an incident on July 19, 2012, in which Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips declined to create a rainbow layer cake for the couple’s October wedding in Massachusetts, saying his business does not bake cakes for gay weddings.

Undated Fox News Article:

Quote

Phillips found himself in the middle of a controversy several weeks ago when David Mullins and Charlie Craig asked the bakery to make a rainbow cake for their wedding reception.

“He quickly informed us that his business did not provide cakes for gay weddings,” Craig said in a statement. “This moment was offensive, dehumanizing, awkward and quite painful.”

Mullins then cursed the owner, “f*** you and your homophobic cake shop.”

December 2013 LifeSiteNews Article:

Quote

When they visited Phillips’ cake shop to ask him to provide a wedding cake for the event, he declined, explaining that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in same-sex “weddings.”  Phillips said he would be happy to sell them brownies or other treats to serve at the reception, just not a wedding cake.

The two men reacted with angry disbelief.  “It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter," Mullins told Denver Westword at the time. “We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, ‘F--- you and your homophobic cake shop.’ And I may or may not have flipped him off.”

Nevertheless, the findings of the fact in the original administrative court case appear to favor the gay couple's factual claim:

Quote

4. On July 19, 2012, Complainants Charlie Craig and David Mullins entered Masterpiece Cakeshop in the company of Mr. Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn.

5. Complainants sat down with Phillips at the cake consulting table. They introduced themselves as “David” and “Charlie” and said that they wanted a wedding cake for “our wedding.”

6. Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”

7. Complainants immediately got up and left the store without further discussion with Phillips.

8. The whole conversation between Phillips and Complainants was very brief, with no discussion between the parties about what the cake would look like.

9. The next day, Ms. Munn called Masterpiece Cakeshop and spoke with Phillips. Phillips advised Ms. Munn that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, and because Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages. 

Now consider the results from the case (from the Petitioner's brief):

Quote

The ALJ {Administrative Law Judge} ordered Phillips to (1) create 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 to fill for any reason for the next two years.

I don't see how this is not a Free Speech issue.  If making movies, music, sculptures, paintings, etc. are forms of speech, then so is making customized wedding cakes.  If flag burning is a form of speech, then so is making customized wedding cakes.

The government is compelling Mr. Phillips, against his will, to engage in speech which he finds morally/religiously objectionable.  

Thanks,

-Smac