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

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.  

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"?  

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.

CFR, please.

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.

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.

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?

Board nannying.

Board nannying.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree--the facts of the case aren't in dispute, and I don't see a conflict between the accounts of what the customer "intended to ask for" but never had the chance to... I'll post more when I'm in front of a computer and can cut and past (right now I'm on my phone).

Suffice it to say, the guidelines describe "board nannying" as "telling others what to do." I reject your claims that I am nannying you--I NEVER told you WHAT to do, just what I had hoped and expected of you, and my opinion of your responses. It sure seems like accusing me of violating board guidelines is an attempt to silence me or eject me from the discussion.  Please, feel free to carry on as you always have. I've adjusted my expectations accordingly.

As I said, when I'm in front of a computer, I will get back to you with a response about how I don't see a conflict between the two accounts, and why I feel your characterization of them is off.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

A non sequitur.

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.

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

No, it's not time to move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

What is the recommended means to destroy a flag? You can't legally discriminate against someone who follows the law in destroying a flag.

No! The government is requiring him to follow the law regardless of his personal religious beliefs.

Immaterial. Do you really need a court brief to not discriminate against the public?

Your choice, but personally I saw the effects of such discrimination up close a personal when I lived in Alabama.

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I agree--the facts of the case aren't in dispute, and I don't see a conflict between the accounts of what the customer "intended to ask for" but never had the chance to... I'll post more when I'm in front of a computer and can cut and past (right now I'm on my phone).

That actually may be an important factual element, both as to the gay couple's claim of discrimination against them, and also as to the defense proffered by Mr. Phillips.

It seems to me that Mr. Phillips is not refusing to provide a work product because of the sexual orientation of the customer.  Rather, he is refusing to provide a work product because of the nature of the work product itself.  

I think we can reasonably and safely surmise that if a heterosexual friend of the gay couple had requested a cake for a gay wedding (festooned with rainbows, gay cake topper, the works), Mr. Phillips would have declined that request on precisely the same basis as was stated to the gay couple.  So if Mr. Phillips categorically refuses to make customized "gay" wedding cakes for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, how is there discrimination in play?

Quote

Suffice it to say, the guidelines describe "board nannying" as "telling others what to do." I reject your claims that I am nannying you--I NEVER told you WHAT to do, just what I had hoped and expected of you, and my opinion of your responses. It sure seems like accusing me of violating board guidelines is an attempt to silence me or eject me from the discussion.  Please, feel free to carry on. I've adjusted my expectations accordingly.

I'm not trying to silence you.  I'm just not interested in your constant carping about me instead of addressing the subject matter at hand.

Quote

As I said, when I'm in front of a computer, I will get back to you with a response about how I don't see a conflict between the two accounts, and why I feel your characterization of them is off.

I'd  prefer to discuss the subject matter at hand.  But whatever.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 29, 2016 by smac97

[smac97]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

What is the recommended means to destroy a flag?

A non sequitur.  

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

You can't legally discriminate against someone who follows the law in destroying a flag.

You don't understand.  We are speaking of the government passing laws which regulate speech.  Laws which outlaw the burning of flags as a form of expressive speech have been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional restrains on Freedom of Speech.

In the present case, there is a related concept in play.  That is, a nondiscrimination law in Colorado is being interpreted in such a way as to require a private citizen to engage in "compelled speech."  That is the argument presented by Mr. Phillips, and it's a good one.  The Constitution protects citiziens rights to both engage in speech (burning a flag) and in not being compelled by the government to engage in speech (make a customized wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage).

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

No! The government is requiring him to follow the law regardless of his personal religious beliefs.

First, it's not "regardless of his personal religious beliefs."  It's "in violation of his personal religious beliefs."

Second, I am not sure if you were intending to be flippantly dismissive of the constitutional rights Mr. Phillips holds, both as to religious belief and freedom of speech.

Third, Mr. Phillips is arguing that the government is requiring him to engage in speech he does not like, which is unconstitutional.  I think he is making a solid case here.

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Quote

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

Immaterial. Do you really need a court brief to not discriminate against the public?

So you profess ignorance of even the most basic legal issues, yet still want to participate in a discussion about those legal issues?

I'll take a pass.  If you want to have a substantive discussion, you actually have to . . . be familiar with the substance of the discussion.  That involves reading.  Study.  Analysis.  Efforts which you dismiss as "immaterial."

The mind reels...

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

Your choice, but personally I saw the effects of such discrimination up close a personal when I lived in Alabama.

"Such discrimination"?  You mean a private citizen in Alabama was not compelled by the government against his will to engage in speech with which he did not agree?

What "effects" were those?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Words are only symbols.  Assuming they chose the rainbow layers to make their own symbolic statement (statement as is explanation, not protest), it becomes about whether or not someone should be required to participate in helping someone else make a statement they do not agree with, either generally speaking or specifics (I can see a specific case possibly getting required promotion because it won't be heard otherwise, such as required hours for public service announcements or carrying political advertisements of all legal candidates, however I don't see that as relating to a private celebration).

I can't remember if the baker stated he would do a generic wedding cake for them, just not one that was obviously a statement about gay marriage.  If he would do a generic one, that seems like a freedom of speech issue to me.  If he wouldn't do any kind of wedding cake,that seems a form of discrimation even if he was willing to sell to the customers other nonwedding items...though I am not saying someone should be required in every case to provide services if willing to do so for some events, but not others because of the category of person involved (racial, religious, sexuality, gender, etc).

Say an elderly, somewhat spacey man or woman came in with a woman or man in their early twenties and wanted a typical wedding cake.  The baker refused because he viewed it as inappropriate, perhaps the young one was manipulating the older for personal advantage or there was something else dysfunctional going on.  Would the baker have a right to do so?  If not, would he have a right to refuse to decorate the cake in a May/December theme?

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Calm

[Daniel2]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That actually may be an important factual element, both as to the gay couple's claim of discrimination against them, and also as to the defense proffered by Mr. Phillips.

It seems to me that Mr. Phillips is not refusing to provide a work product because of the sexual orientation of the customer.  Rather, he is refusing to provide a work product because of the nature of the work product itself.  

I think we can reasonably and safely surmise that if a heterosexual friend of the gay couple had requested a cake for a gay wedding (festooned with rainbows, gay cake topper, the works), Mr. Phillips would have declined that request on precisely the same basis as was stated to the gay couple.  So if Mr. Phillips categorically refuses to make customized "gay" wedding cakes for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, how is there discrimination in play?

I'm not trying to silence you.  I'm just not interested in your constant carping about me instead addressing the subject matter at hand.

I'd  prefer to discuss the subject matter at hand.  But whatever.

Thanks,

-Smac

I appreciate the time and effort you put into the last post at the bottom of the previous page as well as the content.  I agree with you that discussing the facts at hand is preferable, and likewise intend to keep my focus on those. 

A couple of other key questions I think would have been I important, if the facts WERE in dispute over if the bakery had heard the requested order (which they aren't, and which Masterpiece bakery isn't contesting, as your precious post now pointed out):

1. What does "custom cake" mean? Is every specially-ordered cake made to a customer's specs (flavor/dimension/frosting type/color/tiers)--even those without specific letters or symbols--considered a "custom cake"? Or does "custom" ONLY refer to cakes that have specific messages/letters/symbols on them?

2. Did Masterpiece regularly sell multi-colored cakes (per the customer's specs) to the general public?

3. Did Masterpiece stock the colors to make rainbow cakes, and if so, they regularly sell multi-colored tiered cakes or have that option in something like a special order catalogue?

4. If yes to the above, would Masterpiece have any problems baking a Noah's Ark-themed rainbow cake?

I think where we may be differing the most, Smac, is whether or not a cake is a form of speech. 

In my view, baking a "custom cake" made to any of a bakery's available and regularly stocked and produced pan-sizes, tier options, colors, or flavors would NOT be an "expression of speech" under First Amendment.

Asking a bakery to put messages, symbols, or custom-made decorations or decorations the bakery doesn't already stock--like all of those you listed in a precious post in this thread--WOULD fall under a matter of "freedom of speech" protected by the First Amendement.

In my view, asking a bakery that sells custom cakes (to customers' specs regarding dimensions, colors, flavors, tiers, frosting type) for a cake of a specific color and frosting falls under the former. It's a product--a cake.  Not speech.

If the court were to rule otherwise, it seems to me that that would set a legal precedent that ANY craftsman, trade, or skilled worker could claim his or her goods and/or services are a "reflection of my divine religious beliefs meant to glorify god through my hands." And virtually anyone could use that excuse to deny services to anyone.

 

[Calm]

Daniel (sorry, lost track of who was talking)..,

So if a bakery stocks frosting used to write messages and do so for some messages on cakes like "happy birthday" or have even used the same words in different configurations, do you believe this means they are required to write any message at all using those same words, even if this changes the message into something offensive such as a vulgarity?

A rainbow theme on a kid's birthday cake most likely means something different than a rainbow theme on the wedding cake of a gay couple (if there is doubt, easily clarified).  Is the intended meaning of a symbol irrelevant in your view and only the actual symbol relevant?

Edited December 29, 2016 by Calm

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I appreciate the time and effort you put into the last post at the bottom of the previous page as well as the content.  I agree with you that discussing the facts at hand is preferable, and likewise intend to keep my focus on those. 

A couple of other key questions I think would have been I important, if the facts WERE in dispute over if the bakery had heard the requested order (which they aren't, and which Masterpiece bakery isn't contesting, as your precious post now pointed out):

1. What does "custom cake" mean? Is every specially-ordered cake made to a customer's specs (flavor/dimension/frosting type/color/tiers)--even those without specific letters or symbols--considered a "custom cake"? Or does "custom" ONLY refer to cakes that have specific messages/letters/symbols on them?

I am not sure if there is a clear-cut definition.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Supposed Mr. Phillips loses, and ends up agreeing to make custom caked for same-sex weddings, but then refuses to add any flourishes which may mark it, in expressive speech terms, as a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding?  Would you find that acceptable?

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

2. Did Masterpiece regularly sell multi-colored cakes (per the customer's specs) to the general public?

Dunno.  But how does that matter?

What about a "gay" cake topper (two grooms holding hands or kissing or whatever)?  Would you support or oppose the government compelling Mr. Phillips to purchase such things and keep them in stock?  I guess I am curious how far folks like you are willing to go as far as using governmental coercion to get your way.

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

3. Did Masterpiece stock the colors to make rainbow cakes, and if so, they regularly sell multi-colored tiered cakes or have that option in something like a special order catalogue?

That doesn't really matter, though, does it?  If a painter regularly paints family portraits, but then declines to paint one for a same-sex couple, do you support the government forcing him into such an endeavor?

What about a songwriter?  Would you support the government coercing, say, Marc Shaiman into writing a musical which lionizes the efforts of Christians to support Prop 8 (after a successful religious discrimination lawsuit against Mr. Shaiman filed by a conservative Christian group that had approached him with the request)?  

And if Mr. Shaiman were to object to being compelled to engage in speech which contravenes his religious and/or political views, would you end up asking questions like the above?  

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

4. If yes to the above, would Masterpiece have any problems baking a Noah's Ark-themed rainbow cake?

Probably not.  The rainbow, you see, is not the issue.  It is merely a symbol that can be used in a variety of ways, depending on the intent of the individual.  It is the message that is the issue.  Mr. Phillips would probably have no problems with engaging in expressive speech that involved a rainbow intended as a message about Noah.  

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I think where we may be differing the most, Smac, is whether or not a cake is a form of speech. 

But we're not talking about just "a cake," are we?  We are talking about a wedding cake.  And not just any wedding cake, but a customized one.  And not just any customized wedding cake, but a customized wedding cake intended to convey a message of celebration about a same-sex wedding.

From the original court case's findings of fact (emphasis added):

Quote

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.”

It sounds like Mr. Phillips is "discriminating" against a concept, not against persons.

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

In my view, baking a "custom cake" made to any of a bakery's available and regularly stocked and produced pan-sizes, tier options, colors, or flavors would NOT be an "expression of speech" under First Amendment.

Really?  What about a "gay" cake topper?  Is that an "expression of speech?"

What about using icing to write out "We love gay weddings!" on the cake?  Would that be an "expression of speech?"

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Asking a bakery to put messages, symbols, or custom-made decorations or decorations the bakery doesn't already stock--like all of those you listed in a precious post in this thread--WOULD fall under a matter of "freedom of speech" protected by the First Amendement.

What does Mr. Phillips' stock of decorations have to do with this?  Those are just the medium.  It is the message that is problematic.

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

In my view, asking a bakery that sells custom cakes (to customers' specs regarding dimensions, colors, flavors, tiers, frosting type) for a cake of a specific color and frosting falls under the former. It's a product--a cake.  Not speech.

Why?

What about a painter?  Are you okay with using the government to coerce an artist into painting a family portrait of a same-sex couple?  After all, the artist already will have access to the paints and brushes and canvas and whatnot (pretty much like the generic stocked things Mr. Phillips has).  So would such a work of art be "a product" and "not speech" in your view?

What about music?  Marc Shaiman presumably already has access to a piano and blank sheets to write music on.  So there should be no problem with using the government to coerce him into writing a musical celebrating the passage of Proposition 8.  Would you agree with that?

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

If the court were to rule otherwise, it seems to me that that would set a legal precedent that ANY craftsman, trade, or skilled worker could claim his or her goods and/or services are a "reflection of my divine religious beliefs meant to glorify god through my hands." And virtually anyone could use that excuse to deny services to anyone.

Did you read the petitioner's briefs?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A non sequitur.  

You don't understand.  We are speaking of the government passing laws which regulate speech.  Laws which outlaw the burning of flags as a form of expressive speech have been repeatedly struck down as unconstitutional restrains on Freedom of Speech.

In the present case, there is a related concept in play.  That is, a nondiscrimination law in Colorado is being interpreted in such a way as to require a private citizen to engage in "compelled speech."  That is the argument presented by Mr. Phillips, and it's a good one.  The Constitution protects citiziens rights to both engage in speech (burning a flag) and in not being compelled by the government to engage in speech (make a customized wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage).

First, it's not "regardless of his personal religious beliefs."  It's "in violation of his personal religious beliefs."

Second, I am not sure if you were intending to be flippantly dismissive of the constitutional rights Mr. Phillips holds, both as to religious belief and freedom of speech.

Third, Mr. Phillips is arguing that the government is requiring him to engage in speech he does not like, which is unconstitutional.  I think he is making a solid case here.

So you profess ignorance of even the most basic legal issues, yet still want to participate in a discussion about those legal issues?

I'll take a pass.  If you want to have a substantive discussion, you actually have to . . . be familiar with the substance of the discussion.  That involves reading.  Study.  Analysis.  Efforts which you dismiss as "immaterial."

The mind reels...

"Such discrimination"?  You mean a private citizen in Alabama was not compelled by the government against his will to engage in speech with which he did not agree?

What "effects" were those?

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that the issue of "compelled speech" is a solid argument. 

I believe it would also apply in the case of the Salt Lake City motorcycle cop whose chief got mad and placed him on suspension because he asked to trade duties with another officer so as not to have to engage in showy motorcycle stunts as part of the entertainment at a gay pride parade. 

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree that the issue of "compelled speech" is a solid argument. 

I believe it would also apply in the case of the Salt Lake City motorcycle cop whose chief got mad and placed him on suspension because he asked to trade duties with another officer so as not to have to engage in showy motorcycle stunts as part of the entertainment at a gay pride parade. 

I thought the case of the motorcycle cop was, in the broad sense, a bit murkier.  On-the-job requirements are, I think, generally not going to fall within the realm of "speech" because a state actor is acting on behalf of the state, not in his individual capacity.

Nevertheless, the treatment of Officer Moutsos in particular was quite appalling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 29, 2016 by smac97

[Calm]

Murkier indeed, the guy volunteered for the motorcycle corp.  Others trained with him and put resources into his training.  If he had announced when he applied that he might try to opt out and work in another capacity and he was still accepted, that would be one thing.  Bringing it out later is another.  Iirc, after being refused accommodation to his arrangements with another cop to switch jobs, he said he would do it, so while problematic, it seems to me he was willing to work in the limits of the job.  

OTOH, based on his past behaviour where he had been recognized for his behaviour during the confrontation involving a gay couple, I find just assuming his attitude was past workable boundaries by his boss and suspending him, etc. was overreacting...unless there is something of his behaviour we are not aware of.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

Duplicate.

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I thought the case of the motorcycle cop was, in the broad sense, a bit murkier.  On-the-job requirements are, I think, generally not going to fall within the realm of "speech" because a state actor is acting on behalf of the state, not in his individual capacity.

Nevertheless, the treatment of Officer Moutsos in particular was quite appalling.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Murkier indeed, the guy volunteered for the motorcycle corp.  Others trained with him and put resources into his training.  If he had announced when he applied that he might try to opt out and work in another capacity and he was still accepted, that would be one thing.  Bringing it out later is another.  Iirc, after being refused accommodation to his arrangements with another cop to switch jobs, he said he would do it, so while problematic, it seems to me he was willing to work in the limits of the job.  

OTOH, based on his past behaviour where he had been recognized for his behaviour during the confrontation involving a gay couple, I find just assuming his attitude was past workable boundaries by his boss and suspending him, etc. was overreacting...unless there is something of his behaviour we are not aware of.

I remind the both of you that Officer Moutsos was quite willing to work another detail at the parade, one more directly related to the public safety he was sworn to uphold, such as traffic or security. Doing the motorcycle stunts was strictly entertainment, and, as such, could be regarded as "compelled speech," because it put him in the position of joining in the public revelry. And, as Calm points out, he dd not utterly refuse. When the chief went ballistic, Moutsos relented and said he would do the job, but at that point  the chief refused to stand down, instead going overboard in a way that had the potential to destroy the officer's career. "Overreacting" is putting it mildly.

As for job requirements, when one hangs his shingle out as a wedding cake baker, theoretically that implies acceptance of most any order, so I don't see a lot of difference here. Both cases involve objection to doing the very occasional task that conflicts with one's principles. I'm sure we are imaginative enough to conceive of at least one thing in most any profession or trade that we would refuse on principle to do, even if it were within our professional province or capacity.

Not wishing to turn this into a Godwin's Law thing, I will just mention that I have been reading a lot latey on the Holocaust, and it is striking to me how often Nazi officers rationalized their personal behavior on the grounds that they were "acting on behalf of the state."

Finally, the fact that another officer was willing to trade with Moutsos indicates that there was at least one other man on the force who was trained to do the job and could fill in this one time. My hunch is that Moutsos would not even have brought the matter up had there not been.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

Call it condescending if you like.  

Thank you.  I will, because that's precisely what it is.  Ignorance and hubris isn't a good combination.

Quote

But quite frankly it is you that doesn't seem to know how all of the district and appellate courts ruled on gay marriage.

How so?  If you can point to an opinion, the holding of which I have misstated, I will be happy to retract my misstatement of the holding.  (Now, that having been said, simply because I disagree with many such holdings doesn't mean that I do not know what those holdings are).

Quote

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.

You do no credit to yourself nor to those who agree with your position when you attempt to diminish your own errors while imputing errors to your rhetorical opponents that they have not made.  It causes your interlocutors to have serious doubts about how serious you are about attempting to dialogue with them in good faith.  Confucious say, "If in deep hole and man gives you shovel and ladder, make sure use right one to get out of hole."  

I have profound disagreements with the originator of this thread about the issue under discussion, as I'm sure he does with me.  In contrast to you, however, I have no doubt that he is attempting to dialogue with me in good faith.

 

[Calm]

Scott,

You don't need to remind me as I mentioned it in my post.

Still you train as a team in any precision movements and I suspect it can be a concern if they have to substitute someone less experienced.  People can get hurt if mistakes happen.  It is not just a case of dressing up and looking good.

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

Btw, Moutsos does not appear to feel disagreement over homosexual behaviour should prevent you from privately attending one and celebrating the marriage.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2552820-155/rolly-cop-who-bucked-salt-lake

Iirc, even when he was Officer Moutsos, he was willing to ride in the parade when he was refused to exchange duties, it was his boss suspending him that prevented it.  So I don't see him as a significant example of a guy taking a principled stand and refusing to budge on it in spite of pressure, etc.  It comes across as more a minor thing for him that he preferred not to do, but was okay doing if he had to, but a major thing for his boss.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Scott,

You don't need to remind me as I mentioned it in my post.

Still you train as a team in any precision movements and I suspect it can be a concern if they have to substitute someone less experienced.  People can get hurt if mistakes happen.  It is not just a case of dressing up and looking good.

 

I've never gotten the impression that was an issue in this instance. In any of the media reports I've ever seen, it was never mentioned as a justification for how the matter was handled .Again, my clear impression is that Moutsos never would have proposed it if it weren't feasible or if it were dangerous.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Btw, Moutsos does not appear to feel disagreement over homosexual behaviour should prevent you from privately attending one and celebrating the marriage.

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2552820-155/rolly-cop-who-bucked-salt-lake

 

Right, so any allegation that he behaved the way he did because he hates gays doesn't fly. It's a case of him not wanting to take part in conveying the message of the parade -- "compelled speech," as it were.

Quote

Iirc, even when he was Officer Moutsos, he was willing to ride in the parade when he was refused to exchange duties, it was his boss suspending him that prevented it.  So I don't see him as a significant example of a guy taking a principled stand and refusing to budge on it in spite of pressure, etc.  It comes across as more a minor thing for him that he preferred not to do, but was okay doing if he had to, but a major thing for his boss

I see it as him trying his best to navigate a very sensitive situation between his personal principles and the requirements of the job, including capitulation if a mutually acceptable compromise could not be reached. Which is why there was no reason in the world for the chief to have treated him the way he did.

Trying to find a compromise -- or even relenting if there were absolutely no way out -- does not make him less than principled. My understanding is that the chief was enraged -- and refused to stand down -- because Moutsos even brought up the proposal in the first place.

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I am not saying he isn't principled.  I am just saying it doesn't sound like it was a huge issue for him, just something he would have preferred not to do, but was okay if necessary in his boss' view (the boss' reaction is a separate issue).  Thus I don't think he is a good example of a draw the line in the sand with this issue that some people have been trying to use him as or as a counter example to those who are willing to do the job and rationalize it...because in the end he was indeed willing to do the job.

I see him as a victim of an overzealous boss.

I approve of the way he handled things in what was reported of the exchange (save I don't think you should volunteer for a team you won't 'play for' when they expect you) unlike the county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses when that meant she would also have to issue gay ones, but hid out in her office and left it to her subordinates to deal with the actual customers.  I have no opinion on his reaction after he got suspended or whatever because I don't know enough on that.

The fact is he didn't refuse to do anything on principle, so a comment like the below seems out of place and overblown in a discussion about his behaviour:

"it is striking to me how often Nazi officers rationalized their personal behavior on the grounds that they were "acting on behalf of the state.""

Edited December 30, 2016 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am not saying he isn't principled.  I am just saying it doesn't sound like it was a huge issue for him, just something he would have preferred not to do, but was okay if necessary in his boss' view (the boss' reaction is a separate issue).  Thus I don't think he is a good example of a draw the line in the sand with this issue that some people have been trying to use him as or as a counter example to those who are willing to do the job and rationalize it...because in the end he was indeed willing to do the job.

I see him as a victim of an overzealous boss.

I approve of the way he handled things in what was reported of the exchange (save I don't think you should volunteer for a team you won't 'play for' when they expect you) unlike the county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses when that meant she would also have to issue gay ones, but hid out in her office and left it to her subordinates to deal with the actual customers.

Not everything is a binary, either/or, draw-a-line-in-the-sand proposition. Some conflicts call for reasoned negotiation and attempt to find compromise.

Sabbath Day observance can be like that. If I'm employed, for example, in a job I badly need that requires I work on Sundays, and resigning on principle is not a feasible option for me for whatever reason, I might try to negotiate some sort of compromise with the employer, perhaps securing one or two Sundays off during the month. Maybe not the optimal solution from my perspective but better than quitting in a huff, leaving the employer mad and me without the income I need. If I don't get anywhere in my attempt to negotiate, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? At least I tried, and my conscience can be clear in that respect. Hopefully, my circumstances would be better than those of the hapless Officer Moutsos, who found himself dealing with an intransigent, irrational, doctrinaire supervisor who would not stand down even after Moutsos withdrew his request. You're right in saying Moutsos was the victim of an overzealous boss, though I might have used stronger terms to characterize the boss.

Quote

 I have no opinion on his reaction after he got suspended or whatever because I don't know enough on that.

I think we can know enough from what has been reported to evaluate what he did do. He refused to be cowed into silence when he was being publicly maligned by false statements to the press. And he correctly characterized it as a matter of infringement on freedom of conscience. Good for him!
.

Quote

 

The fact is he didn't refuse to do anything on principle, so a comment like the below seems out of place and overblown in a discussion about his behaviour:

"it is striking to me how often Nazi officers rationalized their personal behavior on the grounds that they were "acting on behalf of the state.""

 

 

 

On the contrary, he did do something on principle: He tried to negotiate a mutually acceptable compromise (see above). And when he was publicly maligned unjustly, he refused to abide it.

My comment about Nazi officers was in direct response to what Smac said about "acting on behalf of the state." I was invoking reductio ad absurdum to illustrate that there comes a point where "acting on behalf of the state" ceases to be a viable excuse for neglecting one's earnestly held principles, even if it pertains to a hill you don't choose to die on, but nonetheless, one you choose to negotiate over.

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Yirgacheffe]

On 12/28/2016 at 11:58 AM, Daniel2 said:

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

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

 

I don't see that the government has to provide standard contracts for every conceivable family configuration (which is what polygamy would require) any more than it has to provide personalized bus service. Even 2 person marriages are not required and couples can make their own legal agreements or have contracts in addition to the state provided marriage contract.  And as I see it there should still be laws preventing multiple spouses without the knowledge of all parties. 

[Yirgacheffe]

On 12/28/2016 at 0:25 PM, Daniel2 said:

Hey, Smac,

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

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

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

Daniel2

I can agree with words but I can not agree that frosting flowers, ribbons, bows, bunting or fleur de lis qualify as speech nor do I agree that who you sell your artwork to or the purpose they will put it to has any bearing on the artists speech. 

[Yirgacheffe]

On 12/28/2016 at 0:43 PM, smac97 said:

I am glad we agree on that point.

Same here.

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

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

 

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

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

These, on the other hand . . . 

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

Thanks,

-Smac

 

The trouble I see with the Bert and Ernie cake is, and I'm making an assumption here, is that a bakery advertises "bring in your picture/image and we will put it on a cake"  effectively saying we will put your message on your cake and at the same time this says this is your message not ours.

[Yirgacheffe]

On 12/28/2016 at 2:01 PM, smac97 said:

that included a depiction of a rainbow, a symbol that is supportive of gay marriage.

A rainbow as a symbol is not limited to gay marriage any more than a pentagram is limited to Satan worship.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

A rainbow as a symbol is not limited to gay marriage any more than a pentagram is limited to Satan worship.

I fully agree with you.  But that is not really relevant here, is it?  The medium is not the point.  It is the message that matters.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 30, 2016 by smac97