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

[cdowis]

13 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

You've just provided another reason why Mormonism is regarded as a cult and not Christian. The Bible never disregarded people for color.

You have provide an example of "holier than thou" who are ignorant of the Bible. Can I assume that you are unfamiliar with the Old Testament -- that you have never read it. There were serious consequences for mingling with those who were not of the House of Israel.  Ezra 9:1-2

 

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis

[LittleNipper]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You have provide an example of "holier than thou" who are ignorant of the Bible. Can I assume that you are unfamiliar with the Old Testament -- that you have never read it. There were serious consequences for mingling with those who were not of the House of Israel.  Ezra 9:1-2

 

Moses married an Ethiopian woman and Ruth was a Moabite --- or do you have plank in your eye? The problem has always been marriage to a PAGAN/NONBELIEVER/UNSAVED.

[thesometimesaint]

54 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Moses married an Ethiopian woman and Ruth was a Moabite --- or do you have plank in your eye? The problem has always been marriage to a PAGAN/NONBELIEVER/UNSAVED.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

[LittleNipper]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

I've heard all this and personally feel Jesus loves the little children of the world: Red and Yellow, Black or White they are precious in His sight. Who is to say that God didn't make Cain an Albino or put a wart on his nose? God punished Cain for murder and not everyone. In the movie the Bible, Cain is struck by lightning and it leaves a sort of tattoo of the Tree of Knowledge on his forehead (artistic license, I know). But it is interesting that God tells the Israelites not to mark their skin. Yet, how did man get such a crazy idea in the first place? Anyway, Cain married a woman from the land of Nod (right next to Wink'n and Blink'n ).

Edited December 26, 2016 by LittleNipper

[thesometimesaint]

Not sure what to say to someone who thinks a movie is scripture.

[LittleNipper]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not sure what to say to someone who thinks a movie is scripture.

I can sympathize. It is the same with people who regard a novel as scripture and the Bible as incomplete....................... Rather ironic isn't it! 

Edited December 26, 2016 by LittleNipper

[carbon dioxide]

20 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

You've just provided another reason why Mormonism is regarded as a cult and not Christian.

Yes in regards to the opinions of certain people who in the end will not matter anyway.

[cdowis]

7 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Moses married an Ethiopian woman and Ruth was a Moabite --- or do you have plank in your eye? The problem has always been marriage to a PAGAN/NONBELIEVER/UNSAVED.

Please help me  -->>

 Was an exception given for believing Gentiles.
 Did the law also apply to marriage with unsaved, nonbeliever, pagan worshiping Jews, or was it only applied  to the Gentiles.  Was a believer Jew able to marry a pagan worshiping Jew under this law, which implied a racist element in the law.

When did Moses get married -- before or after the law was given?

Just curious whee that plank is located.

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis

[sunstoned]

23 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

You've just provided another reason why Mormonism is regarded as a cult and not Christian. The Bible never disregarded people for color. Christianity is responsible for a lot more changes in regards to everything.

And there are, however: many scientists who believe in a young earth and a global Flood. That doesn't make them anymore or less scientific. It does show that a belief in God is more complex than only accepting the material realm and not considering the spiritual whatsoever.

CFR that there are "many" scientists who believe in a young earth and a global flood.  

[LittleNipper]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

Please help me  -->>

 Was an exception given for believing Gentiles.
 Did the law also apply to marriage with unsaved, nonbeliever, pagan worshiping Jews, or was it only applied  to the Gentiles.  Was a believer Jew able to marry a pagan worshiping Jew under this law, which implied a racist element in the law.

When did Moses get married -- before or after the law was given?

Just curious whee that plank is located.

I do believe this will really help you regarding the saving of Gentiles. God always considered it wrong for believers to marry non-believers. And frankly, there were Jew who died and didn't go to heaven. The Lord looks at the heart and not works. Please see: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1475-did-the-ancient-gentiles-have-the-hope-of-salvation

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, sunstoned said:

CFR that there are "many" scientists who believe in a young earth and a global flood.  

I second that one.

[Kenngo1969]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2016 at 2:08 PM, california boy said:

I think you are from New Zealand, is that right?  Maybe I could explain a little about our judicial system.  While states individually had passed laws against gay marriage, federal law supersedes state law.  That is why the cases were brought before the federal courts.  

There are 94 district courts in America as well as 3 territorial courts.  There are 13 appellate courts that preside over these district courts.  In every one of these 13 appellate circuits, starting wth the 9th circuit which California is under, a lawsuit was filed against states that had enacted laws against gay marriage.  It has to first start at the district level.  Virtually all of those district level courts ruled in favor of gay marriage.  Each state who had laws against gay marriage appealed those district decisions to one of the 13 appellate courts.  Virtually all of the 13 appellate courts also all ruled in favor of gay marriage.  Those rulings were also challenged, so the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.  And as you know the Supreme Court also ruled in favor of gay marriage.  There is little disagreement in the legal system that gays have the constitutional right to marry mostly based on the rights outlined in the 14 amendment.  If you want to understand why all of these courts ruled in favor of gay marriage and what specific laws in the U.S. Constitution guarantee them that right, read the opinions.  They are not that hard to follow.

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?

Quote

Virtually all of the 13 appellate courts also all ruled in favor of gay marriage.

 

Quote

You are right.  The Supreme Court did not have to rule on this issue when all of the other appellate courts had ruled in favor of gay marriage.

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.)

Quote

[The United States Supreme Court] still had the option to pick up the challenge to those appellate courts to make this decision perfectly clear.

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.

Quote

In the future, someone can not challenge this decision on a appellate level and win.  They have to challenge it in the Supreme Court and win.  It makes it way more difficult to ever be challenged again.  

 

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."

 

Quote

I hope that clarifies things for you.  And I hope that you now realize that gay marriage was not just some wild judicial verdict by just 5 justices that sit on the Supreme Court.  It is really hard to argue the rights of gay couples when every single court that heard a gay marriage case ruled in favor of gay marriage.

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

Quote

 THIS IS NOT A CASE OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.  There is too much law supporting that decision and too many judges that also ruled in favor of gay marriage.  And none that ruled against it.

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. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Daniel2]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 5:44 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

Sure, there has.  You may not accept it as such, and others may not accept it as such, but that doesn't negate its existence.  And, while others may disagree on this point, canonization is not necessarily a sin qua non of revelation. https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng

Ken,

I know we likely won't agree on the following, but I feel it's important to point out that I and others don't see anything in the Proclamation on the Family that addresses the issue of same-sex relationships or precludes the possibility that God can someday sanction them through special revelation, despite the fact that same-sex behavior had previously been considered to be "abominable."

Namely:

I, Daniel2, personally affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is something I approve of and ordain.  I believe it's foundational and vital to the existence of society, and that men and women who become parents have  sacred responsibilities including child-bearing and rearing.

The fact that all of the above is true doesn't negate the fact that I can and do also affirm that marriages between same-sex couples is also something I approve of and ordain.

The Proclamation you're referring to addresses God's approval and ordination of marriage between a man and a woman.  But that doesn't automatically mean that God can't and won't ever approve of and ordain other forms of marriage, as he's done with polygamy, per Joseph Smith's own admission:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.  God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.

[Daniel2]

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 3:21 PM, smac97 said:

I will respectfully disagree with that last one.  I think the problem is not "We don't bake cakes for gays", but is rather "We don't bake cakes for same-sex weddings". 

The former is a categorical denial of service that is deeply problematic.  The latter, however, involves "speech" (expressive speech, but speech nonetheless), and I have strong reservations about coercive measures which compel a private citizen to engage in speech with which he disagrees.

Do you think a publisher should be compelled by force of law to print materials he may find morally objectionable?

Thanks,

-Smac

Hi, Smac,

I'd be interested in any legal precedence that suggests that baking a cake is a form of "speech" (expressive or otherwise) that falls under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment.

Will you share any you're aware of?

Thanks,

Daniel

[Daniel2]

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 7:55 PM, LittleNipper said:

I feel that laws protecting race are reasonable; however, they are being abused to promote the normalization of homosexual behavior --- which is simply a form of hedonistic eroticism. You may enjoy Pottersville but I prefer Bedford Falls. 

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.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 9:06 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

In any event, whether or not one sees moral virtue as a sin qua non for civic virtue, and whether a society which devalues religion necessarily is morally impoverished, such a society is, indeed, at the very least culturally impoverished, and everyone, gay or straight, religiously devout, religiously indifferent, or religiously antipathetic, is the poorer for it.

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.

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Ken,

I know we likely won't agree on the following, but I feel it's important to point out that I and others don't see anything in the Proclamation on the Family that addresses the issue of same-sex relationships or precludes the possibility that God can someday sanction them through special revelation ...

 

What about other relationships that the Proclamation on the Family says nothing about? Does it not preclude the possibility that God can someday sanction them through special revelation?  What about marriage between father and freely-consenting adult daughter or stepdaughter?  Between uncle and freely-consenting adult niece?  Between mother and freely-consenting adult son or stepson?  Between aunt and freely-consenting adult nephew? I'll hasten to add that if your immediate response is, "I'm talking about consenting adults who are not related by blood or marriage," that's fine, but I'm simply trying to see how far your logic extends. As long as we're reading situations into the Proclamation that it does not, by its terms, address, what's the limiting principle that might preclude any of the above? Is there one?  

As an Eternal Bachelor, I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of gays and lesbians who may not find an eternal companion in this life.  I recognize that what the Restored Gospel asks of them may be an exceedingly tough (perhaps a uniquely tough) row to hoe in mortality.  If I thought that mortality was the final act (or the most important one) in the premortal/mortal/postmortal drama, I might feel exactly the way many of them do about the positions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with regard to chastity and marriage.  

If someone says, "Heavenly Father, I won't want to be straight in the next life, either," I could say, "Heavenly Father, if finding an Eternal Companion entails attending one looooong Stake Singles Dance in the next life, count me out.  Eternal 'ministering angelhood' is fine."  But whatever happens, however God, in His Infinite Wisdom, Love, Mercy, and Power, chooses to address our respective situations, if we continue faithful (as-yet unanswered questions notwithstanding) I don't think He'll have to tell any of us, "I know you were expecting something more, or better, or at least different, but, sorry.   This is the best I could do. " 

[Daniel2]

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 9:27 PM, california boy said:

 

I wanted to address this issue separately becaue this is a separate issue from what we have been talking about in this thread.  I also want to address this issue separately because your post is a stemic problem with many Christians who feel they are being persecuted.  You go to Christian web sites that take the issue and twist and turn it to suit their own agenda.  It seems like you, as a lawyer would want to go to the actual court case and read the ruling for yourself to better understand the legality of the ruling.  At least read the article as it was reported by the Coeur d'Alene newspaper.  Hitching Post Is Exempt From Gay Rights Law

Read this article which reports what this case was really about and what the results actually were.  The Hitching Post originally was a for profit business.  After the city told them they had to comply with accommodation laws, THEY REORGANIZED AS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. and as such did NOT have to perform weddings to anyone including gays.  

 

 

You made a false assumption.  No religious organization has been compelled to perform a gay marriage.

Thank you for posting this, California Boy.  I have had to re-educate, re-educate, and re-educate countless times about "The Hitching Post" case, as well as numerous other similar half-told stories.

It is amazing how some conservative sites twist stories like the one Smac posted, without telling the full story.

It seems like a common theme among many of these businesses attempting to portray themselves as victims of an unjust, so-called "gay juggernaut."

I suppose the silver lining is that the fact that they have to distort their stories to try to gain sympathy shows they're unable to succeed on the actual facts and merits of their case.

Unfortunately for them, in the long run, I think such distortions are a losing strategy.  These individuals claim to be Christians, yet they are less than honest with their fellow men in how they're telling their stories.  And that lack of full disclosure and transparency is ultimately what helps advance equal rights for same-sex couples and LGBT individuals.

Ultimately, truth does and will continue to prevail, and "the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Edited December 28, 2016 by Daniel2

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.  God said, "Thou shalt not kill;" at another time He said "Thou shalt utterly destroy." This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.

An understanding of this principle obligates one to sustain and observe the current practices administered by the Lord’s servants, that is, the covenants they administer as right for the circumstances of His children and under the broader circumstances in which the kingdom moves forward. They administer through councils which operate under the keys of presidency, sustaining and observing the current practices while staying open to the inspiration required to perceive and understand the circumstances and the Lord’s will in relation thereof.

When people dispute the points of doctrine (from 3 Nephi these would be faith and repentance, charity, and the ordinances and other activities authoritatively administered in relation to them) or seek to pressure or impose their will upon these councils, they act wrongly for the circumstance, oppose the revelation adapted to it, are not waiting on or seeking first the kingdom of God. That what happens so often in relation to dealing with this subject.

[Daniel2]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

What about other relationships that the Proclamation on the Family says nothing about? Does it not preclude the possibility that God can someday sanction them through special revelation?  What about marriage between father and freely-consenting adult daughter or stepdaughter?  Between uncle and freely-consenting adult niece?  Between mother and freely-consenting adult son or stepson?  Between aunt and freely-consenting adult nephew? I'll hasten to add that if your immediate response is, "I'm talking about consenting adults who are not related by blood or marriage," that's fine, but I'm simply trying to see how far your logic extends. As long as we're reading situations into the Proclamation that it does not, by its terms, address, what's the limiting principle that might preclude any of the above? Is there one?  

As an Eternal Bachelor, I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of gays and lesbians who may not find an eternal companion in this life.  I recognize that what the Restored Gospel asks of them may be an exceedingly tough (perhaps a uniquely tough) row to hoe in mortality.  If I thought that mortality was the final act (or the most important one) in the premortal/mortal/postmortal drama, I might feel exactly the way many of them do about the positions of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with regard to chastity and marriage.  

If someone says, "Heavenly Father, I won't want to be straight in the next life, either," I could say, "Heavenly Father, if finding an Eternal Companion entails attending one looooong Stake Singles Dance in the next life, count me out.  Eternal 'ministering angelhood' is fine."  But whatever happens, however God, in His Infinite Wisdom, Love, Mercy, and Power, chooses to address our respective situations, if we continue faithful (as-yet unanswered questions notwithstanding) I don't think He'll have to tell any of us, "I know you were expecting something more, or better, or at least different, but, sorry.   This is the best I could do. " 

Well, actually... if one subscribes to The Bible and The Pearl of Great Price, God already did sanction marriages between family members, as he was populating the earth after the Fall of Adam and Eve.  And apparently, God approved of marriages between already-married women, as well as siblings, during the time of the Prophet Joseph Smith...

If one is a Latter-day Saint, I'm not sure how one could never say never, if one truly believes the words I quoted earlier by Joseph Smith.  That being said, he's your prophet, not mine, and The Bible and other scriptures contain many actions which I personally find abominable which were allegedly justified by God (even far more abominable than incest... such as genocide).  But that's the God of Christianity and Mormonism, not my beliefs.

I honestly appreciate your sympathy towards gays and lesbians in this life, just as I am sympathetic to the challenge of remaining single, despite one's efforts to find a mutually-fulfilling relationship.  And while I can acknowledge and appreciate that sympathy on both our parts, I think we're talking about something entirely different, when it comes to the possibility of revelation sanctioning same-sex relationships, and whether or not the Proclamation expressly forbids it.

[thesometimesaint]

While we have to be open to new revelation at any time, don't expect such a change any time soon. I feel the same way about polygamy. I have no desire for more than the one wife I already have. 

[Daniel2]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

An understanding of this principle obligates one to sustain and observe the current practices administered by the Lord’s servants, that is, the covenants they administer as right for the circumstances of His children and under the broader circumstances in which the kingdom moves forward. They administer through councils which operate under the keys of presidency, sustaining and observing the current practices while staying open to the inspiration required to perceive and understand the circumstances and the Lord’s will in relation thereof.

When people dispute the points of doctrine (from 3 Nephi these would be faith and repentance, charity, and the ordinances and other activities authoritatively administered in relation to them) or seek to pressure or impose their will upon these councils, they act wrongly for the circumstance, oppose the revelation adapted to it, are not waiting on or seeking first the kingdom of God. That what happens so often in relation to dealing with this subject.

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.

[Daniel2]

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 9:37 PM, california boy said:

Let's be clear on the Obergefell v. Hodges   ruling.  EVERY SINGLE federal and district court ruled in favor of the constitutionally protected right for gay couples to marry.  

You're almost correct here, California Boy, but not quite.  Ken is correct--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:

Quote

Nov. 6, 2014 - 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Gay Marriage Bans

"A federal appeals court panel upheld bans on same-sex marriage in four states Thursday, a break with other federal courts that makes it almost certain the Supreme Court must take up the issue of whether gay couples have a constitutional right to marry...

The decision overturned lower-court rulings in Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee and Kentucky and makes the 6th Circuit the first appeals court to uphold state bans since the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 2013."       

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeal's decision was actually a win for those supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples, as a plurality or rulings (a.k.a. contradiction between different court's opinions) was necessary in order for the Supreme Court of the United States to take it up and decide the issue as legally-binding for the entirety of the United States of America in one final decision.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

While we have to be open to new revelation at any time, don't expect such a change any time soon. I feel the same way about polygamy. I have no desire for more than the one wife I already have. 

This is a position I appreciate and respect, Sometimesaint. Thanks for sharing.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Hi, Smac,

I'd be interested in any legal precedence that suggests that baking a cake is a form of "speech" (expressive or otherwise) that falls under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment.

Will you share any you're aware of?

Thanks,

Daniel

Hmm.  You raise a good question.  Perhaps the more appropriate "line" would be decorating a cake.  What do you think?  

This article makes some fair points:

Quote

Like most gay and equality campaigners, I initially condemned the Christian-run Ashers Bakery in Belfast over its refusal to produce a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan for a gay customer, Gareth Lee. I supported his legal claim against Ashers and the subsequent verdict – the bakery was found guilty of discrimination last year. Now, two days before the case goes to appeal, I have changed my mind. Much as I wish to defend the gay community, I also want to defend freedom of conscience, expression and religion.

I echo this sentiment.  Over the past few years I have revised and refined my perspective on same-sex orientation and same-sex marriage in a variety of ways.  But at the end of it all I continue to be troubled by what I see as an attempt by some in the gay rights crown to use the coercive power of government to punish those who disagree with them on these issues, even people whose position is based on reason and principles and deeply-held religious/moral beliefs.  Hence I too "want to defend freedom of conscience, expression and religion."

Back to the article:

Quote

The saga began in 2014 when the bakery said it was not willing to ice a cake with the words “support gay marriage” and the logo of the equality group Queer Space, claiming the message was contrary to its Christian beliefs.

And there it is.  Perhaps this is where a distinction can/should be drawn.

Back to the article:

Quote

This struck many of us as anti-gay discrimination based on religious-inspired homophobic prejudice. Ashers believes that the relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people are wrong and should not be eligible for the status of marriage. They translated these beliefs into action and declined to make the cake. Ashers would have decorated a cake with a message celebrating traditional heterosexual marriage and promoting a Christian organisation. Surely this was an example of clear-cut anti-gay discrimination?

Gareth Lee’s legal case against Ashers was backed by the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland. It argued that the bakery’s actions breached Northern Ireland’s Equality Act and Fair Employment and Treatment Order, which prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the respective grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion. Last May a Belfast court found Ashers guilty of discrimination on both grounds, ordering it to pay Lee £500 compensation.

And there it is.  Punishment.  By the government.  For refusing to engage in "speech" which the speaker found personally objectionable.

Back to the article:

Quote

I profoundly disagree with Ashers’ opposition to same-sex love and marriage, and support protests against them.

I am fine with this.

Quote

They claim to be Christians, yet Jesus never once condemned homosexuality, and discrimination is not a Christian value. Ashers’ religious justifications are, to my mind, theologically unsound.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things, I suppose.

Quote

Nevertheless, on reflection the court was wrong to penalise Ashers and I was wrong to endorse its decision.

The law suit against the bakery was well-intended. It sought to challenge homophobia. But it was a step too far. It pains me to say this, as a long-time supporter of the struggle for LGBT equality in Northern Ireland, where same-sex marriage and gay blood donors remain banned. The equality laws are intended to protect people against discrimination. A business providing a public service has a legal duty to do so without discrimination based on race, gender, faith and sexuality.

However, the court erred by ruling that Lee was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and political opinions.

His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for.

"His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for."

Aye, and there's the rub.

Quote

There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order. Despite this, Judge Isobel Brownlie said that refusing the pro-gay marriage slogan was unlawful indirect sexual orientation discrimination. 

Yep.  And this is where I think we get into the coerced speech area.  The bakers were punished for not speaking words they did not want to speak.  It does not matter that the "words" were in icing on a cake (along with putting a "Queer Space" logo on a cake).

Quote

On the question of political discrimination, the judge said Ashers had denied Lee service based on his request for a message supporting same-sex marriage. She noted: “If the plaintiff had ordered a cake with the words ‘support marriage’ or ‘support heterosexual marriage’ I have no doubt that such a cake would have been provided.”  Brownlie thus concluded that by refusing to provide a cake with a pro-gay marriage wording Ashers had treated him less favourably, contrary to the law.

See?  The judge specifically punished the bakers because they declined to engage in speech they did not like.

How would you feel if you were compelled, by law, under threat of fine and/or imprisonment, to speak out against gay marriage?  That would be . . . unpleasant, would it not?  You might even refuse to obey the underlying law requiring it.  You may find it to be an unjust law.  You may resent to some extent the Powers That Be which foisted that law upon you in a deliberate and calculated effort to coerce you into engaging in speech you personally find abhorrent.

Quote

This finding of political discrimination against Lee sets a worrying precedent. Northern Ireland’s laws against discrimination on the grounds of political opinion were framed in the context of decades of conflict.

Yep.  In Ireland, the issue is being framed as "political discrimination," but I think the practical intent and effect of going after the bakers was to punish them for their religious beliefs.

Quote

They were designed to heal the sectarian divide by preventing the denial of jobs, housing and services to people because of their politics. There was never an intention that this law should compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed.

Yep.  And I think the nondiscrimination and public accommodations laws of the U.S. were not intended to "compel people to promote political {or moral/religious} ideas with which they disagreed."  

Quote

The judge concluded that service providers are required to facilitate any “lawful” message, even if they have a conscientious objection.

I find this rather problematic.  And yet I think there are some in the gay rights corner who delight in the prospect of using the power of governement to compel private citizens into speaking such so-called "'lawful' message{s}" and punishing anyone - particularly religionists - who refuse to bend the knee to such coercive efforts.

Quote

This raises the question: should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed?  Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier?  Or gay bakers accept orders for cakes with homophobic slurs?

What do you think, Daniel?  How do you answer the above questions?

Quote

If the Ashers verdict stands it could, for example, encourage far-right extremists to demand that bakeries and other service providers facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions. It would leave businesses unable to refuse to decorate cakes or print posters with bigoted messages.

Yep.  The chickens will come home to roost eventually, I think.

Don't get me wrong.  I would oppose coerced speech in the form of "anti-migrant and anti-Muslim opinions" or other "bigoted messages" as well.  I would just find it ironic that folks on your side of the debate would, at that point, perhaps begin to regret their campaign against bakeries.

Quote

In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object. Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas.

Well said!

Here is another thoughtful article on this subject:

Quote

Constitution Check: Does the First Amendment protect a wedding cake as an art form?
July 28, 2016 by Lyle Denniston

Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser, looks at a potential Supreme Court test case about religious beliefs, same-sex marriage and a Colorado bakeshop. 

THE STATEMENT AT ISSUE:

“Jack Phillips is an artist.  He has created elaborate custom cakes for over two decades.  His cakes commemorate the important celebratory themes of birthday parties, anniversaries, graduations, and weddings.  His faith teaches him to serve and love everyone and he does.  It also compels him to use his artistic talents to promote only messages that align with his religious beliefs.  Thus, he declines…to create cakes celebrating…messages that his faith prohibits, such as…any marriage not between one man and one woman.  But Colorado has ordered him to create custom wedding cakes celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies.  This mandate violates one of the Free Speech Clause’s essential rules: the government cannot compel a private citizen to utter what is not in his mind.”

– Excerpt from appeal papers filed in the Supreme Court on July 22 for a Lakewood, Calif., bakery operator, challenging a ruling by Colorado state officials that the bakeshop illegally refused to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Interesting stuff, eh?

Quote

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…

No one could doubt that the First Amendment would forbid, for example, a demand by the state of Pennsylvania that the Cathedral Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul in downtown Philadelphia remove the religious-themed stained glass windows from its magnificent dome.  Religious art is protected constitutionally, both as an utterance of belief and as a form of expressive art.

The Supreme Court long ago began bringing under the First Amendment other forms of expressive activity beyond pure speech and pure writing.   A classic modern example came in back-to-back decisions in 1989 and 1990, providing constitutional protection for burning the American flag, when that was done to send a message of political protest.

In other words, if the real reason behind a form of conduct or behavior is to send a message, that has a fair chance of being treated as a form of “symbolic speech” even if not a word is uttered and not a sign is displayed.

Yep.  If burning a flag is a form of "speech," then it does not seem to be too much of a stretch to say that decorating a cake is also a form of "speech."

To be frank, I am not sure if baking a cake is a form of "speech."  I'll have to think about and study that issue a bit more.

Quote

The Supreme Court is now being asked to examine what the First Amendment says, or does not say, about whether other forms of creative expression – motivated by a person’s religious belief – qualify for First Amendment protection.   A case that has just arrived at the court is another in a continuing series of sequels to the court’s decision last year that same-sex couples have an equal right to marry, based on the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

While efforts to resist the full implementation of the marriage ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges are gradually coming to an end, that is true mainly in the context of actual access to marriage itself or to the benefits of marriage, such as a right to adopt children.   There remains a quite widespread resistance to offering commercial services for gay and lesbian couples who marry, when the resistance is by a person of faith who does so because of religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

Yep.  And it is this "resistance" that, I think, is triggering a desire from some folks in the gay rights crowd to punish and coerce those who will not capitulate to the moral and political viewpoint of that crowd.

Quote

Lower courts are now working on cases involving such resistance; a major case, for example, has grown out of a strongly worded new state law in Mississippi providing broad legal protection for refusing – on the basis of faith – to serve same-sex couples commercially, and otherwise.

The Supreme Court has already had experience with one such case.  Two years ago, the Justices – without comment – denied review of the case of Elane Photography v. Willock.  That was a case from New Mexico in which a commercial photographer was ruled to have acted illegally in denying to take pictures for a same-sex couple’s wedding.

But the lawyers for the photographer in that case did not base their appeal to the Supreme Court on their client’s religious beliefs, but rather on the claim that she was being forced to engage in the creative expression of taking photos in violation of her First Amendment rights of free expression.  The court appeared to have no interest in the issue, framed that way, leaving New Mexico free to enforce equal access to commercial opportunity for same-sex couples, under a state’s “public accommodations” law.

Hmm.  And thus we see the importance of "framing the issue" (for legal purposes, anyway).

Quote

That omission of a faith-based argument, however, is not a feature of the new case that is now awaiting the Justices’ attention.  Involving a commercial bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, that case seeks to make a direct test of whether the First Amendment’s protection for religious expression reaches a wedding cake, put together by a person who conducts his business according to religious principles.

Colorado, like New Mexico, has a state public accommodations law that creates equal access to such places of business or other activity for persons based on their sexual orientation. That law was used against the operator of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood.

In taking the baker’s case on to the Supreme Court, his lawyers raised this specific question: “Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel [Jack] Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.”

I think that is a very fair question.

Quote

The appeal opens with a simple sentence: “Jack Phillips is a cake artist.”  That seeks, right up-front, to draw the Justices to the view that this is a case about the symbolic expression of faith through the work of one’s hands and design talents.  A wedding cake, in short, is a form of visual speech.  And, to Jack Phillips, apparently, it serves the same expressive purpose as does a cathedral’s inspired stained-glass windows.  Will the Justices view it the same way?

The court, now in the midst of its summer recess, won’t act on the case until sometime this fall.  This may be as good a test case as there is on its chosen issue.

The above article was written in July 2016.  According to SCOTUSblog, this case was distributed to the Supreme Court justices ahead of a discussion ("Conference") about it scheduled for January 6, 2017.  So it looks like we will see a decision about this next year.  Or perhaps not.  There is a possibility of a 4-4 deadlock since there is still a vacancy on the bench owing to the passing of Justice Scalia.

The foregoing link includes links to PDFs of the parties' respective briefs submitted to the Supreme Court.  Interesting reading, particularly for those who are interested in summaries about the Court's prior treatment of Free Speech issues vis-à-vis "symbolic" or "expressive" speech, and also compelled/coerced speech.  Here is a statement I found fairly compelling (from the Petitioner's opening brief) (emphasis added):

Quote

Jack Phillips is an artist. He has created elaborate custom cakes for over two decades. His cakes communicate the important celebratory themes of birthday parties, anniversaries, graduations, and weddings. His faith teaches him to serve and love everyone and he does. It also compels him to use his artistic talents to promote only messages that align with his religious beliefs. Thus, he declines lucrative business by not creating goods that contain alcohol or cakes celebrating Halloween and other messages his faith prohibits, such as racism, atheism, and any marriage not between one man and one woman.

But Colorado has ordered him to create custom wedding cakes celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies. This mandate violates one of the Free Speech Clause’s essential rules: the government cannot compel a private citizen “to utter what is not in his mind.”
...

This Court’s review is needed to alleviate the stark choice Colorado offers to those who, like Phillips, earn a living through artistic means: Either use your talents to create expression that conflicts with your religious beliefs about marriage, or suffer punishment under Colorado’s public accommodation law.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by smac97