thesometimesaint Posted November 9, 2017 Posted November 9, 2017 10 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Thank you for making my point. By labelling yourself as "progressive," you imagine that your vindictiveness is fully sanitized and perfectly righteous. It excuses you from ever saying "Lord, is it I?" and instead you can smugly say, "Yep, it's them all right." And in case you didn't notice, "Using the power of the state to bring churches to heel" isn't separation, it's entanglement. I'm sure you've heard this saying of John Stuart Mill: "Men might as well be imprisoned, as excluded from the means of earning their bread." When I hear it, it makes me realise how draconian it is to force someone to choose between his conscience and his livelihood. Perhaps when you hear it, it makes you think that since it's perfectly righteous to drive non-surrendering Christians out of business, then it's probably just as righteous to lock them up, too. Nice distraction. I'm fine with a religious person or group of religious people believing anything they want. Hate blacks? Fine; Hate LGBTQ's? Fine? Hate Mormon's? Be my guest; Use your beliefs to discriminate against them in your business. or stoning them? Not so much. BTW ALL Christians believe in Blood Atonement albeit the only one that counted happened some 2 millennia ago in Palestine. Killing someone today in the name of your religion will get you in jail.
kiwi57 Posted November 9, 2017 Posted November 9, 2017 10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Nice distraction. I'm fine with a religious person or group of religious people believing anything they want. Hate blacks? Fine; Hate LGBTQ's? Fine? Hate Mormon's? Be my guest; Use your beliefs to discriminate against them in your business. or stoning them? Not so much. BTW ALL Christians believe in Blood Atonement albeit the only one that counted happened some 2 millennia ago in Palestine. Killing someone today in the name of your religion will get you in jail. Glad to hear it. Latter-day Saints don't do that anyway. Never have. 2
Calm Posted November 10, 2017 Posted November 10, 2017 (edited) On 2017-11-08 at 2:39 PM, Daniel2 said: Interesting. I don’t doubt people threaten to sue businesses on a regular basis for a variety of reasons. I can understand them threatening to sue in the hope of encouraging her to change her mind. That doesn’t mean their request wasn’t benign to begin with, though. Is there any evidence their initial request was a concerted, conscious effort to preemptively identify Christian businesses with the sole intent to litigiously profit from them financially, instead of stemming from an ernest attempt to find a wedding photographer? Additionally, how does your friend know it was truly sent ‘on accident’...? It seems possible the couple feigned ‘accidentally’ ccing her in the hope that she’d change her mind and decide to serve them... Did they follow through on that perceived threat—Is your friend facing a lawsuit? Or did she photograph the wedding? Any chance you can get a copy of the email and share it? Except she had not said anything to them about refusing them or communicated with them at all at that point. They were apparently planning on suing her right from the start assuming she would refuse even though there was no reason to assume she would save because they apparently somehow found out her background...or they may had planned to just keep approaching photographers until they found one who refused. Like I said, it sounded from her report they were just about money...maybe fame, conmen more or less taking advantage of the situation. It didn't sound as if it had anything to do with activism, though it is not like I read the email so it is just my impression of her impression. They disappeared. Possibly because they realized they had accidentally sent her the email detailing their plan or because she found a safe way to turn them down (my impression is that it was only because she was nervous they would find another reason to make problems for her)...I can't quite remember which. We have been out of contact for awhile, so sorry no references save my crap memory. The conversation merely triggered it. I wouldn't suggest it be entered as evidence in anything, certainly not for militant activism. At best it shows jerks come in all types. Edited November 10, 2017 by Calm 3
thesometimesaint Posted November 11, 2017 Posted November 11, 2017 On 11/9/2017 at 1:10 PM, kiwi57 said: Glad to hear it. Latter-day Saints don't do that anyway. Never have. Sorry; I don't understand what we never have done.
kiwi57 Posted November 12, 2017 Posted November 12, 2017 8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Sorry; I don't understand what we never have done. Killed people in the name of our religion.
thesometimesaint Posted November 12, 2017 Posted November 12, 2017 14 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Killed people in the name of our religion. Mountain Meadows Massacre.
kiwi57 Posted November 12, 2017 Posted November 12, 2017 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Mountain Meadows Massacre. Claiming that the MMM represents Mormons "killing people in the name of religion" is industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf, anti-Mormon hate propaganda. All the most devious and unscrupulous anti-Mormons labour to find the causes of the MMM in LDS theology. 3
thesometimesaint Posted November 13, 2017 Posted November 13, 2017 19 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Claiming that the MMM represents Mormons "killing people in the name of religion" is industry-standard, shrink-wrapped, off-the-shelf, anti-Mormon hate propaganda. All the most devious and unscrupulous anti-Mormons labour to find the causes of the MMM in LDS theology. Not what I said. I said Mormons committed those acts, because it was. Not that the Church was responsible for it. I don't believe in collective blame.
kiwi57 Posted November 13, 2017 Posted November 13, 2017 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Not what I said. I said Mormons committed those acts, because it was. Not that the Church was responsible for it. I don't believe in collective blame. Yes, Mormons committed those acts. They did it because of factors that seemed more important at the time, not because of their religion.
Daniel2 Posted November 14, 2017 Author Posted November 14, 2017 It's been a slow few weeks with regards to the Masterpiece Cake Shop, largely because the deadline for amici briefs in support of the Petitioner, Masterpiece Cakes, had passed (which was early in September) and the bevy of briefs in the bakers' support had ended. Previous comments on the site have focused on the briefs in support of the Petitioners and how compelling and convincing they were. At the time, only one side---that in support of the Petitioner--had been filed. For those interested in reading them, here they are: Aug 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, et al. filed. Aug 31 2017 Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) Aug 31 2017 Brief of petitioners Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. filed. Aug 31 2017 Brief amici curiae of Indiana Family Institute, Inc., et al. filed. Sep 01 2017 Brief amici curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al. filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amici curiae of Rev. Patrick Mahoney, et al. filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Thomas More Society filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amici curiae of Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., et al. filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Independence Law Center filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amici curiae of North Carolina Values Coalition and the Family Research Council filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. Sep 06 2017 Brief amici curiae of Law and Economics Scholars filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Counsel filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of National Black Religious Broadcasters, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of William Jack and The National Center for Law and Policy filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Mark Regnerus, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Cake Artists in support of neither party filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Agudath Israel of America filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of 33 Family Policy Organizations filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of International Christian Photographers and Center for Arizona Policy filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and National Organization for Marriage filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of 34 Legal Scholars filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Sherif Girgis filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Public Advocate of the United States, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Christian Business Owners Supporting Religious Freedom filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Richard Lawrence filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of United States Senators and Representatives filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of American College of Pediatricians, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of C 12 Group, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice in support of neither party filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Aaron and Melissa Klein filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs ("COLPA") filed on behalf of Orthodox Jewish Organizations filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Legal Scholar Adam J. MacLeod filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Professors Christopher R. Green and David R. Upham filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Freedom X and Rabbi Dovid Bressman filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of 479 Creative Professionals filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of Restoring Religious Freedom Project filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Lawyers Association filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of States of Texas, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of CatholicVote.org filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amici curiae of National Legal Foundation, et al. filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle in support of neither party filed. Sep 07 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Christian Law Association filed. Sep 08 2017 Brief amici curiae of Utah Republican State Senators filed. The amici briefs in support of the Respondents (The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Charlie Craig, and David Mullins) were due by the end of October. The defense of Public Accommodations laws prohibiting discriminatory actions like Masterpiece Cakes is seeking by the Colorado's Civil Rights Commission in its brief is phenomenal as it is extensively documented. I'm still getting through it, but it's well worth a read and can be found by clicking on the following link: BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT: COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION Again, for those interested, here now are the briefs in support of the Respondents. In case any of the links aren't working or don't transfer, here's the link to them all on the SCOTUS blog: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/ Oct 23 2017 Brief of respondent Colorado Civil Rights Commission filed. (Distributed) Oct 23 2017 Brief of respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins filed. (Distributed) Oct 25 2017 Brief amici curiae of Legal Scholars in Support of Equality filed. (Distributed) Oct 25 2017 Brief amici curiae of Freedom of Speech Scholars filed. (Distributed) Oct 26 2017 Brief amici curiae of Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders and American Society on Aging filed. (Distributed) Oct 26 2017 Brief amici curiae of American Unity Fund, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 26 2017 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the Constitutional Rights and Interests of Children filed. (Distributed) Oct 27 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Freedom From Religion Foundation filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Motion of Chris Sevier, et al. for leave to intervene DENIED. Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of 15 Faith and Civil Rights Organizations filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Motion of John Gunter, Jr., et al. for leave to intervene DENIED. Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Scholars filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Center for Inquiry, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of National Women's Law Center and Other Groups filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Chefs, Bakers, and Restaurateurs filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Church-State Scholars filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Transgender Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Colorado Organizations and Individuals filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of OutServe-SLDN, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Floyd Abrams, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Main Street Alliance, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Thirty-Seven Businesses and Organizations filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Ilan H. Meyer, PhD, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Central Conference of American Rabbis, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Corporate Law Professors filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Civil Rights Forum filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Professor Tobias B. Wolff filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of 211 Members of Congress filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Former Representative Tony Coelho, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of National LGBTQ Task Force, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Canadian Civil Liberties Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Public Accommodation Law Scholars filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Service Employees International Union filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Behavioral Science and Economics filed. (Reprinted Copy Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Massachusetts, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amicus curiae of Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of County of Santa Clara, Cities of New York and Los Angeles, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. filed. (Distributed) Oct 30 2017 Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al. filed. (Distributed)
thesometimesaint Posted November 14, 2017 Posted November 14, 2017 9 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Yes, Mormons committed those acts. They did it because of factors that seemed more important at the time, not because of their religion. The ones involved sure claimed it was because of their religion. The rationalizations seem to me to be more of an afterthought, but I still don't blame the Church or its teachings. It was sad event that should have never occurred, but it did.
provoman Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 On 10/12/2017 at 3:58 PM, kiwi57 said: Anti-miscegenation laws were radically different from one jurisdiction to another, even when such jurisdictions were close neighbours. They never had anything to do with the historic, natural view of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and always had to do with the way particular societies viewed minority population groups. Have you looked into the basis by which these laws were defended or upheld?
Daniel2 Posted December 28, 2017 Author Posted December 28, 2017 Another Appellate Court has weighed in on the wedding cakes issue, this time in Oregon and a different case than the Colorado-based "Masterpiece Cakes" case that was before the Supreme Court earlier this month. Though different cases, it sounds as if the same arguments were employed by the bakery, who's lawyers similarly claimed that the bakers' right to freedom of speech has being violated: Appeals court upholds fine against Christian bakers who refused to make same-sex wedding cake Updated 12:38 PM; Posted 9:49 AM By Gordon R. Friedman gfriedman@oregonian.com The Oregonian/OregonLive The Oregon Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a decision by Oregon's labor commissioner that forced two Gresham bakers to pay $135,000 to a lesbian couple for whom the bakers refused to make a wedding cake. Melissa and Aaron Klein made national headlines in 2013 when they refused to bake a cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, citing their Christian beliefs. The Bowman-Cryers complained to the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, saying they had been refused service because of their sexual orientation. An administrative law judge ruled that the Kleins' bakery, Sweetcakes by Melissa, violated a law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in places that serve the public. Brad Avakian, the state labor commissioner, then leveled heavy damages against the Kleins for the Bowman-Cryer's emotional and mental distress. The decision will likely be the most controversial ruling, and the one with the biggest impact, handed down by Avakian during his nearly 10 years in the role. He has decided not to seek re-election when his term expires next year. The hate keeps coming: Pain lingers for lesbian couple denied in Sweet Cakes case Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer wanted to buy a wedding cake. What happened that day at Sweet Cakes by Melissa changed their lives forever. The Kleins appealed Avakian's decision, arguing for a religious exemption from the Oregon Equality Act, the anti-discrimination law. They also argued Avakian was biased against them, that his actions violated their rights to free expression as artists and their right to due process, and that the fine was excessive. But in their ruling Thursday, a panel of state appeals court judges sided with Avakian, saying the Kleins did, in fact, deny the Bowman-Cryers because they were lesbians. The justices also rejected the Kleins' argument that Avakian's ruling violated state and federal free speech protections. In the ruling, Judge Chris Garrett wrote that Avakian's order does not violate the Klein's free speech rights because it simply "requires their compliance with a neutral law." Garrett also wrote that the Kleins "have made no showing that the state targeted them for enforcement because of their religious beliefs." In a statement, Avakian said the Appeals Court ruling "sends a strong signal that Oregon remains open to all." Through their attorney, the Bowman-Cryers said Thursday's ruling affirms "the long-standing idea that discrimination has no place in America." "All of us are equal under the law and should be treated equally," the couple said. Any ruling to the contrary would "create a sweeping license to discriminate," they said. The appeals court ruling represents an "important victory" for the Bowman-Cryers, who faced humiliation, harassment and death threats after their wedding preparations turned into an ordeal, said Nancy Marcus, senior attorney at Lambda Law, a national pro-LGBT rights group. Marcus said the court's ruling is critical yet "completely unsurprising" because it aligns with courts in other states, which have not allowed businesses to exempt themselves from anti-discrimination laws. Adam Gustafston, lead attorney for the Kleins and the former White House counsel for President George H.W. Bush, was not immediately available for comment. Gustafson had argued the bakers' religious beliefs should shield them from being compelled to conduct speech -- in this case, baking a cake. Such a requirement would "offend the conscience and the constitution," Gustafson argued. The First Liberty Institute, a religious freedom law firm whose attorneys also represented the Kleins, said it is disappointed by Thursday's ruling. "The Oregon Court of Appeals decided that Aaron and Melissa Klein are not entitled to the Constitution's promises of religious liberty and free speech," said Kelly Shackelford, the institute's president. The Kleins paid the fine following Avakian's order and closed their bakery soon afterward. Donors gave the bakers more than $500,000, money they say has been spent on legal fees. The $135,000 damage award belonging to the Bowman-Cryers has been locked in an escrow account pending appeals. The Kleins' case is one of several similar cases that has attracted significant media attention. Another, stemming from a Colorado ruling, was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month. The court justices are reportedly divided over whether a baker was justified in turning away a gay couple seeking a wedding cake because of their religious beliefs. That baker, like the Kleins, contends that creating and custom-decorating a cake is an act of artistic expression that deserves more free speech protections than the sales of other goods and services. -- Gordon R. Friedman
Daniel2 Posted January 9, 2018 Author Posted January 9, 2018 Another development worth noting and likely good news for those favoring religious exemptions: U.S. Supreme Court Leaves Intact Mississippi Law Curbing Gay Rights https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/u-s-high-court-leaves-intact-mississippi-law-curbing-gay-rights By Greg Stohr January 8, 2018, 7:33 AM MST The U.S. Supreme Court left intact a Mississippi law that lets businesses and government workers refuse on religious grounds to provide services to gay and transgender people. The justices turned away two appeals by state residents and organizations that contended the measure violates the Constitution. A federal appeals court said the opponents hadn’t suffered any injury that would let them press their claims in court. The Mississippi fight in some ways represented the flip side of a Colorado case the high court is currently considering; the question in that instance is whether the state can require a baker who sells wedding cakes to make one for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The cases are testing states’ ability to regulate what happens when LGBT rights come into conflict with religious freedoms. Colorado is aiming to bolster gay rights by enforcing an anti-discrimination law, even though the Denver-area baker says he has a religious objection to same-sex marriage. The Mississippi law, by contrast, gives priority to religious rights. The state enacted its law less than a year after the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The measure says religious people can’t be sued or penalized by the government for declining to provide services for same-sex marriage ceremonies. The law also protects people who believe gender is an immutable characteristic or who object to sex out of wedlock. Critics say the law lets government clerks refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses and lets adoption and foster-care organizations decline to place children with LGBT families. The measure also wiped out protections that cities including Jackson, the state’s most populous, had previously afforded to gay and transgender residents. The suing residents and groups contended the statute unlawfully endorses a religious viewpoint and infringes the constitutional right to equal protection. Since the court chose not to take the case because no harm had been established, I presume that’s different than actually ruling on the merits, is that right....? 2
Calm Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 (edited) What was the reasoning behind "no harm"...that it was only potential harm since there weren't any actual cases yet or that there were other options available or something else (cannot sit still today long enough to do my own research, if too much hassle to explain, feel free to say 'do yourown research when you feel like it')? PS: thanks for updating this thread rather than starting a new one so it is easy to remember the context of the discussion. Edited January 9, 2018 by Calm 1
Amulek Posted January 9, 2018 Posted January 9, 2018 1 hour ago, Daniel2 said: Since the court chose not to take the case because no harm had been established, I presume that’s different than actually ruling on the merits, is that right....? I believe so. You have to establish standing first before you get to the merits. 2
Daniel2 Posted January 10, 2018 Author Posted January 10, 2018 20 hours ago, Calm said: What was the reasoning behind "no harm"...that it was only potential harm since there weren't any actual cases yet or that there were other options available or something else (cannot sit still today long enough to do my own research, if too much hassle to explain, feel free to say 'do yourown research when you feel like it')? PS: thanks for updating this thread rather than starting a new one so it is easy to remember the context of the discussion. I understood it to be an issue of standing, as Amulek suggested, though that's only an assumption on my part.
Daniel2 Posted January 10, 2018 Author Posted January 10, 2018 Given the LDS church's large presence in South America (which is also where I and almost all of my immediate family served our missions--woot!), I thought this might be of interest. It appears that, as rapid as it was (relatively speaking) for same-sex marriage to be recognized in North America, it's spread across our sister continent to the south may be even faster. The BBC reports: Inter-American Human Rights Court backs same-sex marriage 4 hours agoShare http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42633891 Image caption Activists celebrated the court's ruling holding up signs reading: "The court said yes!" The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that same-sex marriages should be recognised. The court's rulings apply to countries which have signed the American Convention on Human Rights. Some of the signatories already recognise same-sex marriages while others recognise same-sex civil unions. But others, such as Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Paraguay and Peru do not recognise either and will be expected to change their laws. The court was established by the regional body, the Organization of American States (OAS), and signatories to the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights are bound by its rulings. Western hemisphere countries where same-sex marriage is legal: Argentina Brazil Canada Colombia Mexico (certain states only) US Uruguay The ruling comes as a number of Latin American countries have changed or are debating changing their laws to allow same-sex couples to marry. Most recently, outgoing Chilean President Michelle Bachelet sent a gay marriage bill to Congress for debate. Other western hemisphere countries, such as Ecuador, have introduced same-sex civil unions. 'Without discrimination' The judges said that governments "must recognise and guarantee all the rights that are derived from a family bond between people of the same sex". They also said that it was inadmissible and discriminatory for a separate legal provision to be established just for same-sex marriages. The judges demanded that governments "guarantee access to all existing forms of domestic legal systems, including the right to marriage, in order to ensure the protection of all the rights of families formed by same-sex couples without discrimination". Recognising the difficulty in passing such laws in countries where there is strong opposition to same-sex marriage, they recommended that governments pass temporary decrees until new legislation was brought in. The judges issued the ruling in response to a motion brought by Costa Rica. The Central American government asked the court to give its opinion on whether it had an obligation to extend property rights to same-sex couples. The court ruled that it did. The Costa Rican government also wanted to know whether it should allow transgender people to change their name on their identity documents. Again, the court ruled that it should. Costa Rica's Vice-President Ana Helena Chacón welcomed the court's ruling, saying it would be adopted "in its totality".
Daniel2 Posted January 10, 2018 Author Posted January 10, 2018 (edited) Wow… Yesterday's ruling legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples and transgender identity protections in twenty countries.... “The Organization of American States created the Costa Rica-based court in 1979 in order to enforce provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. Tuesday’s ruling is legally binding in Costa Rica and in the following 19 other countries throughout the Americas that currently recognize the convention: Argentina Barbados Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Haiti Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru" Edited January 10, 2018 by Daniel2 1
Daniel2 Posted February 6, 2018 Author Posted February 6, 2018 (edited) A new ruling out of California supports the concept that wedding cakes classify as forms of speech and rules in favor of a California baker’s choice to refuse to provide one for a same-sex wedding as a matter of artistic expression about an event, mirroring the views and arguements of several posters here. From the AP as resported by The Sacramento Bee: Quote Judge: Baker can refuse to make same-sex wedding cakes The Associated Press February 06, 2018 11:42 AM BAKERSFIELD, CALIF. A California bakery owner can continue to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples because it violates her Christian beliefs, a judge ruled. The decision came after a lawyer for Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield argued that owner Cathy Miller's right to free speech and free expression of religion trumps the argument that she violated a state anti-discrimination law. Kern County Superior Court Judge David Lampe agreed but said Monday his ruling was tied closely to the fact that Miller was being asked to make a cake for an event and that the act of creating it was protected artistic expression. Lampe cautioned that freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to refuse service to groups protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act in other circumstances, the Bakersfield Californian reported. "A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell a tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples,:" Lampe wrote. "No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification." Miller said it went against her Christian beliefs to make a cake for a same sex couple. She told the newspaper she was overjoyed by the ruling and respected the distinction Lampe made between the sales of a cake and the creation of one. "I am very happy to serve everything from my cases to anybody," she said. "But I cannot be a part of a celebration that goes against my lord and savior." An attorney for Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio, who brought the case, was not available for comment. The decision comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule in the high-profile case of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. That baker, Jack Phillips, claims his First Amendment claims of artistic freedom were being violated. Edited February 6, 2018 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted February 6, 2018 Author Posted February 6, 2018 (edited) As we await SCOTUS's ruling on the Masterpiece Cakes case and try to read the tea leaves to divine how the ruling will turn out, I also came across this interesting analysis By Margot Cleveland that I recently came across: Why The Supreme Court Is Likely To Rule For Jack Phillips While Dodging The Big Religious Liberty Question While there is always a risk of reading too much into Supreme Court justices’ questions during oral argument, there is often much to be gleaned. By Margot Cleveland December 8, 2017 If Tuesday’s oral argument is any indication, the year-long anticipation for the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court showdown will result in a narrow opinion that provides little clarity in the continuing conflict between culture and religious liberty. By now the basics are well-known: When a homosexual couple asked Jack Phillips, the owner of the Colorado-based Masterpiece Cakeshop, to design a wedding cake for them, Phillips informed the pair that he could not, in conscience, create a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. The men filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, claiming Masterpiece Cakeshop “discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation” because of their sexual orientation. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found in favor of the couple and ordered Masterpiece to provide wedding cakes to same-sex couples. The seven-member Colorado Commission on Civil Rights upheld the ALJ’s decision. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the commission’s conclusion that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the state’s anti-discrimination law. The state appellate court also rejected Masterpiece’s argument that compelling Phillips to use his artistic talents to create a cake for a same-sex marriage violated his free speech and free exercise of religion rights. Masterpiece Cakeshop then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. That brings us back to Tuesday, when the Supreme Court heard oral argument. While there is always a risk of reading too much into the justices’ questions, there is often much to be gleaned. And so it was in this case. We Like Free Speech, But Not Yours The oral argument quickly revealed that Phillips’ free speech claim lacked traction, with the justices demanding to know the dividing line between protected artistic expression and unprotected services: If cakes receive constitutional protection, what about an exquisitely prepared meal? What about makeup artists—“It’s called an artist,” Justice Elena Kagan quipped—or florists or hairdressers? Then came the death knell from Justice Anthony Kennedy, as he addressed Masterpiece Cakeshop’s attorney: “But the problem for you is that so many of these examples — and a photographer can be included — do involve speech. It means that there’s basically an ability to boycott gay marriages.” With this comment, Kennedy rendered it next to impossible to envision the Supreme Court cobbling together a majority finding for Masterpiece Cakeshop on its free speech claim. But Kennedy had earlier hinted that the free speech issue wasn’t his concern, when he asked a quick question on that claim, with this prefatory comment: “[J]ust one more thing, and then we’ll leave this part alone, at least as far as I’m concerned ” (emphasis added). What did concern Kennedy was evidence that the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights held an anti-religion animus. Here, the swing justice cited one commissioner’s comment that “freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable piece of rhetoric.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch added their voices to this criticism, with Gorsuch casting comments from a second commissioner as anti-religion. At this point, Justice Samuel Alito interjected his own similar concerns: One thing that’s disturbing about the record here, in addition to the statement made, the statement that Justice Kennedy read, which was not disavowed at the time by any other member of the Commission, is what appears to be a practice of discriminatory treatment based on viewpoint. The — the Commission had before it the example of three complaints filed by an individual whose creed includes the traditional Judeo-Christian opposition to same-sex marriage, and he requested cakes that expressed that point of view, and those — there were bakers who said no, we won’t do that because itis offensive. And the Commission said: That’s okay. It’s okay for a baker who supports same-sex marriage to refuse to create a cake with a message that is opposed to same-sex marriage. But when the tables are turned, and you have the baker who opposes same-sex marriage, that baker may be compelled to create a cake that expresses approval of same-sex marriage. When one understands First Amendment jurisprudence, these exchanges together lay out the likely approach a majority of the Supreme Court will take to resolve this case. How the Court Is Likely to Rule in Light of These Comments As noted above, in addition to arguing a free speech claim, Masterpiece Cakeshop also alleged a free exercise of religion claim. In analyzing the constitutionality of a law under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court applies the test devised in Employment Division v Smith. There, the court held a law that is neutral and generally applicable does not violate the free exercise clause of the Constitution, even if it infringes on an individual’s religious beliefs. However, the Supreme Court later clarified in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, a law is not neutral “if the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation.” The court added: “There are, of course, many ways of demonstrating that the object or purpose of a law is the suppression of religion or religious conduct…Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality. The Free Exercise Clause protects against governmental hostility which is masked, as well as overt.” The author of Lukumi Babalu? Justice Kennedy. The swing vote. The justice who saw little concern with Masterpiece Cakeshop’s free speech claim. The justice who raised the free exercise claim, highlighted the anti-religion sentiments of one of the commissioners, then concluded: “Counselor, tolerance, is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.” Here, then, is the compromise, the baby-halved: the court rules in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, but not based on broad principles of religious liberty. Rather, the court concludes that Colorado’s commission acted with hostility toward Phillips’ religious beliefs, as demonstrated by the commissioners’ anti-religion comments and refusal to sanction bakers who refused to sell cakes celebrating the traditional meaning of marriage. I am not alone in my reading of the argument. Georgetown Law School Professor Randy Barnett, who attended the oral argument, tweeted his reaction: “Justice Kennedy did not seem receptive to compelled speech theory. …This would be very narrow fact-specific win for baker based on non-neutrality as in Lukumi.” After studying the 100-page transcript, I couldn’t agree more. While this will likely be a victory for Phillips, it is not a victory for religious liberty. That fight will wait another day—and another cake. Edited February 6, 2018 by Daniel2 1
kiwi57 Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 4 hours ago, Daniel2 said: As we await SCOTUS's ruling on the Masterpiece Cakes case and try to read the tea leaves to divine how the ruling will turn out, I also came across this interesting analysis By Margot Cleveland that I recently came across: Why The Supreme Court Is Likely To Rule For Jack Phillips While Dodging The Big Religious Liberty Question While there is always a risk of reading too much into Supreme Court justices’ questions during oral argument, there is often much to be gleaned. By Margot Cleveland December 8, 2017 If Tuesday’s oral argument is any indication, the year-long anticipation for the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court showdown will result in a narrow opinion that provides little clarity in the continuing conflict between culture and religious liberty. By now the basics are well-known: When a homosexual couple asked Jack Phillips, the owner of the Colorado-based Masterpiece Cakeshop, to design a wedding cake for them, Phillips informed the pair that he could not, in conscience, create a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. The men filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, claiming Masterpiece Cakeshop “discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation” because of their sexual orientation. An administrative law judge (ALJ) found in favor of the couple and ordered Masterpiece to provide wedding cakes to same-sex couples. The seven-member Colorado Commission on Civil Rights upheld the ALJ’s decision. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the commission’s conclusion that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the state’s anti-discrimination law. The state appellate court also rejected Masterpiece’s argument that compelling Phillips to use his artistic talents to create a cake for a same-sex marriage violated his free speech and free exercise of religion rights. Masterpiece Cakeshop then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. That brings us back to Tuesday, when the Supreme Court heard oral argument. While there is always a risk of reading too much into the justices’ questions, there is often much to be gleaned. And so it was in this case. We Like Free Speech, But Not Yours The oral argument quickly revealed that Phillips’ free speech claim lacked traction, with the justices demanding to know the dividing line between protected artistic expression and unprotected services: If cakes receive constitutional protection, what about an exquisitely prepared meal? What about makeup artists—“It’s called an artist,” Justice Elena Kagan quipped—or florists or hairdressers? Then came the death knell from Justice Anthony Kennedy, as he addressed Masterpiece Cakeshop’s attorney: “But the problem for you is that so many of these examples — and a photographer can be included — do involve speech. It means that there’s basically an ability to boycott gay marriages.” With this comment, Kennedy rendered it next to impossible to envision the Supreme Court cobbling together a majority finding for Masterpiece Cakeshop on its free speech claim. But Kennedy had earlier hinted that the free speech issue wasn’t his concern, when he asked a quick question on that claim, with this prefatory comment: “[J]ust one more thing, and then we’ll leave this part alone, at least as far as I’m concerned ” (emphasis added). What did concern Kennedy was evidence that the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights held an anti-religion animus. Here, the swing justice cited one commissioner’s comment that “freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable piece of rhetoric.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch added their voices to this criticism, with Gorsuch casting comments from a second commissioner as anti-religion. At this point, Justice Samuel Alito interjected his own similar concerns: One thing that’s disturbing about the record here, in addition to the statement made, the statement that Justice Kennedy read, which was not disavowed at the time by any other member of the Commission, is what appears to be a practice of discriminatory treatment based on viewpoint. The — the Commission had before it the example of three complaints filed by an individual whose creed includes the traditional Judeo-Christian opposition to same-sex marriage, and he requested cakes that expressed that point of view, and those — there were bakers who said no, we won’t do that because itis offensive. And the Commission said: That’s okay. It’s okay for a baker who supports same-sex marriage to refuse to create a cake with a message that is opposed to same-sex marriage. But when the tables are turned, and you have the baker who opposes same-sex marriage, that baker may be compelled to create a cake that expresses approval of same-sex marriage. When one understands First Amendment jurisprudence, these exchanges together lay out the likely approach a majority of the Supreme Court will take to resolve this case. How the Court Is Likely to Rule in Light of These Comments As noted above, in addition to arguing a free speech claim, Masterpiece Cakeshop also alleged a free exercise of religion claim. In analyzing the constitutionality of a law under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court applies the test devised in Employment Division v Smith. There, the court held a law that is neutral and generally applicable does not violate the free exercise clause of the Constitution, even if it infringes on an individual’s religious beliefs. However, the Supreme Court later clarified in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, a law is not neutral “if the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation.” The court added: “There are, of course, many ways of demonstrating that the object or purpose of a law is the suppression of religion or religious conduct…Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality. The Free Exercise Clause protects against governmental hostility which is masked, as well as overt.” The author of Lukumi Babalu? Justice Kennedy. The swing vote. The justice who saw little concern with Masterpiece Cakeshop’s free speech claim. The justice who raised the free exercise claim, highlighted the anti-religion sentiments of one of the commissioners, then concluded: “Counselor, tolerance, is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.” Here, then, is the compromise, the baby-halved: the court rules in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, but not based on broad principles of religious liberty. Rather, the court concludes that Colorado’s commission acted with hostility toward Phillips’ religious beliefs, as demonstrated by the commissioners’ anti-religion comments and refusal to sanction bakers who refused to sell cakes celebrating the traditional meaning of marriage. I am not alone in my reading of the argument. Georgetown Law School Professor Randy Barnett, who attended the oral argument, tweeted his reaction: “Justice Kennedy did not seem receptive to compelled speech theory. …This would be very narrow fact-specific win for baker based on non-neutrality as in Lukumi.” After studying the 100-page transcript, I couldn’t agree more. While this will likely be a victory for Phillips, it is not a victory for religious liberty. That fight will wait another day—and another cake. For the record, I would hope that whatever the decision is, it settles the key issues regarding Freedom of Religion. Another day - and another cake - may simply have state actors being more circumspect in expressing their contempt for the religiously motivated sacrifice of commercial opportunities.
kiwi57 Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: A new ruling out of California supports the concept that wedding cakes classify as forms of speech and rules in favor of a California baker’s choice to refuse to provide one for a same-sex wedding as a matter of artistic expression about an event, mirroring the views and arguements of several posters here. From the AP as resported by The Sacramento Bee: Quote Lampe cautioned that freedom of religion does not give businesses a right to refuse service to groups protected by the Unruh Civil Rights Act in other circumstances, the Bakersfield Californian reported. "A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell a tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples,:" Lampe wrote. "No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification." I think this is an important point. A genuinely principled disagreement with SSM will manifest itself in very specific ways, and not turn into a blanket refusal to serve gay people. 1
Daniel2 Posted February 7, 2018 Author Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) 14 hours ago, kiwi57 said: For the record, I would hope that whatever the decision is, it settles the key issues regarding Freedom of Religion. Another day - and another cake - may simply have state actors being more circumspect in expressing their contempt for the religiously motivated sacrifice of commercial opportunities. It sounds to me that if bakeries prevail in these matters, it actually won't be decided as a matter of protecting their "freedom of religion" at all, but as a function of baking a cake being a protected form of freedom of speech. What you're attempting to spin as "contempt" for the "sacrifice" of commercial opportunities isn't really motivated by "contempt" at all--it's motivated by the same desire to affirm the value of non-discrimination in the commercial workplace, regardless of and with the intent of protecting religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, national origin, etc. Edited February 7, 2018 by Daniel2 2
HappyJackWagon Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 3 hours ago, Daniel2 said: It sounds to me that if bakeries prevail in these matters, it actually won't be decided as a matter of protecting their "freedom of religion" at all, but as a function of baking a cake being a protected form of freedom of speech. What you're attempting to spin as "contempt" for the "sacrifice" of commercial opportunities isn't really motivated by "contempt" at all--it's motivated by a desire to affirm the value of non-discrimination in the commercial workplace, regardless of religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, national origin, etc. I think it is a much stronger argument as a protection of freedom of speech than as religious liberty. Thanks for the updates.
Recommended Posts