The Church and the Fundamental Right of Due Process

[thesometimesaint]

That Christianity is not a monolithic whole.

Can a state college refuse to accept a certain class of people? Yes, they can for diversity purposes. No they can't

Can a Police Force only hire African Americans? Yes, they can, for a reasonable amount of time, to redeem for bad past hiring practices.Npoo they can't but it is a good idea.

Legalized discrimination is all around us. Immigration law is based on discriminating who we let in, how many we let it. Tell that to the Federal Courts about President Trump's plan. .

I hate any type of prejudice. I hate that people hate other people. I hate discrimination!!!! The why promote it our Gay citizens.

But this thread IS NOT ABOUT DISCRIMINATION

Sometimessaint Professor Umbridge here (of Hogwarts and of the Ministry of Magic), Please take this pen and write 100 times the phrase; 

This thread is not about discrimination, this thread is about why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny? He did. He didn't  pass that Strict Scrutiny.

[Calm]

Should have been more civil in my phrasing...

Edited June 11, 2017 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

OK.

[Calm]

Sorry, my cold just blew up into a massive sore throat just when I thought it was getting better...always on weekends it seems...and I am really ticked off about it and took it out on you.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Calm

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sorry, my cold just blew up into a massive sore throat just when I thought it was getting better...always on weekends it seems...and I am really ticked off about it and took it out on you.

Feel better soon Calm!

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Feel better soon Calm!

Thanks.  Used to feel better about getting sick, but now I feel guilty about not being there for Mom though I shouldn't because there is always someone who could step in if needed.  We have apparently set up a great support system for her as besides a grocery run my husband did for her at the beginning of the week, she has been fine.  

I am more afraid of her catching it though, so I guess I should just look on this as a vacation.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Anijen said:

Scratches head. I agree, but is this relevant? What is your point?

 

When considering cases for appellate review, the justices must determine the "standing" of a plaintiff. For example; is the cause of action justiciable, does the plaintiff even have the cause of action to take to a federal court or must it remain in a state court, is the cause of action ripe or moot, can the plaintiff show damages (has he/she been harmed) etc.

So I assume you would agree that the courts ruled that the baker did have standing correct?

7 hours ago, Anijen said:

Once standing has been determined, the court looks at the plaintiff and assigns a level of scrutiny to him or her or it, (i.e. corporation, a local, state, or federal government). The level of scrutiny is not by random, is not "willy-nilly,"  it is not based on any of the judges bias. Standing is determined by the type of plaintiff, or the issue in which the case arose. If the case arose under a protected class (race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, age, citizenship, familial status... and others). Now, the court will determine what level of scrutiny to assign to that protected class. It may not even be a protected class, but the court still must determine by cause of action or class of plaintiff to determine what level of scrutiny they will apply. This determination has rules and priorities, once again the judges do not get to allow their personal feelings or biases to determine what level of scrutiny to use. It has been set. For example, imagine the cause of action is the freedom of speech, a lower court judge ordered the press out of the court room because he feared since the crime happened in such a small town, the reporting of it would bias the small jury pool that town pulls from. Because it is a First Amendment issue (freedom of the press and speech), this case will automatically get a Strict Scrutiny level. When a Strict Scrutiny level is used the burden of proof is always on the government, and it is a very difficult level of scrutiny for the government to prevail. When a Strict Scrutiny is used the government almost always loses. Here, in my example the Supreme Court would find the lower courts ruling of ejecting the press a violation of the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Thus, the reporters will win. The lowest level of scrutiny is called Rational Basis. When a Rational Basis level of scrutiny is used the government will almost always win. (there is also a middle level, hence the name Intermediate Scrutiny.

So how was the bakers case handled differently than any other case at this point of the procedure.  Or do you think it was handled normally.  And what makes you think that both parties did not receive Strict Scrutiny since they were both protected class issues?

7 hours ago, Anijen said:

To move along... A Protected Class may get different levels of scrutiny, for example an African-American will get a different level of scrutiny than a disabled person (both are protected classes, but only the African-American falls into the suspect-Class category. A Suspect Class (i.e. based on race, national origin, religion, sexual attraction)  will always get Strict Scrutiny.

I hope that helps. 

 

The Baker, a religious man who believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. This belief is still the majority of the opinion with people of the Christian religion. The Baker, NOT out of discrimination, but from his religious beliefs felt that making a wedding couple would express an endorsement of a change to his religious beliefs.

I think this is where we disagree. The baker was discriminating BECAUSE of his religious beliefs.  It is discrimination.  The case is a discrimination case.  Religion is just the reason given for the discrimination.

7 hours ago, Anijen said:

This argument is stronger than accusations of discrimination because the Baker, said he would make the couple any other cake, but not the wedding cake because the Baker's own religious beliefs.

The baker is still discriminating.  They are refusing service that they offer to all their other customers.  Their reason may be religious based, but it is still discrimination.  This is where your opinion is coming into the discussion.  You are assuming that the bake had a stronger case than the couple discriminated against.  The court disagreed with both your opinion and the bakers and ruled against them.

7 hours ago, Anijen said:

After the lower courts ruling, the Baker appeals because he feels the forced order to comply is the government (the lower court) is an entanglement in his religion by forcing him to make an expression against his religious beliefs. The Baker also appeals on that it is a violation of his right to freedom to refrain from speech.

And this is the continuation of due process.  The baker gets the right to appeal the courts decision.  So at this point they have not been denied due process.  Would you agree?

7 hours ago, Anijen said:

The Bakers issue is of religious and speech freedoms, both protected under the First Amendment. Because his cause of action arose under a First Amendment violation, is not assigning his issue under a level of Strict Scrutiny a Constitutional violation, and because all First Amendment issues based on religion have almost every single time recieved a standard of review of Strict Scrutiny.

This is a bit muddy for me.  How does Strict Scrutiny become a factor at this point?  The courts ruled that religious belief is not a reason to deny someone service.  They are still allowed to appeal the decision. Is your problem with the decision?  Do you think they had grounds to discriminate based on their religious beliefs?  Isn't that the point of appealing a decision that you think was wrong?

Quote

Note: I am not arguing from a discrimination issue. 

You can not separate the discrimination issue from this case.  The case is centered around discrimination.  You can only argue that discrimination should have been allowed because of religious beliefs.  The courts ruled that it was not justified.

 

7 hours ago, Anijen said:

I am also not saying the couple should not of received Strict Scrutiny (yes, they should have, and I agree with it). My argument is; because it is a First Amendment Issue (mainly under the religious clauses of that amendment), the Baker too, should have received a Strict Scrutiny standard of review.

Hence, a conflict of the battle of Fundamental Rights arises. I think we will see more of these cases until a bright-line rule is made. I am for giving service to the couple, I am against refusal of service for the couple, but I am also for the Fundamental religious Right (1st Amendment) for the Baker.

Religion is a Protected Class as well.  But that doesn't mean the courts will always rule in favor of any particular Protected Class. How can you prove that the bakers did not get Strict Scrutiny?  Their case was heard.  The courts did not consider the refusal to bake a wedding cake for the gay couple to be justifiable discrimination based on religious beliefs.  But the baker still got due process.  The ruling just didn't go in their favor.

 

7 hours ago, Anijen said:

 

I agree, and I have never implied otherwise.

Can a state college refuse to accept a certain class of people? Yes, they can for diversity purposes.

Can a Police Force only hire African Americans? Yes, they can, for a reasonable amount of time, to redeem for bad past hiring practices.

Legalized discrimination is all around us. Immigration law is based on discriminating who we let in, how many we let it. 

I hate any type of prejudice. I hate that people hate other people. I hate discrimination!!!!

But this thread IS NOT ABOUT DISCRIMINATION

The thread may not be about discrimination.  But the basis for the ruling is about discrimination.  Would you agree with that?

 

7 hours ago, Anijen said:

Sometimessaint Professor Umbridge here (of Hogwarts and of the Ministry of Magic), Please take this pen and write 100 times the phrase; 

This thread is not about discrimination, this thread is about why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny?

 

[thesometimesaint]

Anijen said:

Sometimessaint Professor Umbridge here (of Hogwarts and of the Ministry of Magic), Please take this pen and write 100 times the phrase; 

This thread is not about discrimination, this thread is about why did the Baker not get Strict Scrutiny?

I had a pink dress shirt once about 50 years ago. Unfortunately my Parkinson's Disease does not allow the luxury of using any pen.

Discrimination and the need for Strict Scrutiny are inexorably tied. The Baker got his due process he didn't meet the standard.

Edited June 11, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Gray]

On 6/9/2017 at 7:55 AM, Anijen said:

Before I write my answer, I just want to say I would have baked cakes for the gay couple and for the priest. I find discrimination to be ugly and uncalled for.

In the Azucar Bakery case. The same court that decided the Masterchef (wedding cake case), ruled in favor of the Azucar Bakery. Here, a religious priest offended over the wedding cake case asked a gay friendly baker to make two cakes. His motive was to have the baker known for their risque cakes bake him a cake with two men holding hands with the red circle and slash over the two men (the "not allowed" symbol), and another cake with Ten Commandment type stones with bible verses which according to the baker denigrated the gay lifestyle.

The Azucar Bakery, is favored and very popular with the LGBTQ community. Some people even claim that it was this bakery that enticed the two men to look for a bakery that would not sell to them, in hoping they could start litigation and to help make LGTBQ rights more in the public (plus it would have negative affect on one of her competitors).  Azucar Bakery was also popular because they would bake custom cakes with some (in my opinion) designs and phrases that were very obscene (i.e. a sexual act between two men). The Azucar Bakery told the priest she would make a cake for him as he wanted, but he would have to do the writing as she found the words to be hateful and offensive. The priest declined and sued.

The Court ruled in favor of the Bakery claiming that the message was hateful and offensive. I find the irony here is, the Bakery would make some pretty risque cakes, but found the words; “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2.” "hateful and offensive."  The Colorado court in making their decision used among other factors that the Priest was not a protected class, therefore Strict Scrutiny was not used but only a Rational Basis standard of review was used, thus the government will almost always win when a Rational Basis standard is used. 

I believe California boy already said  what I would have, assuming your story happened as written. Free speech vs selling the same products you normally sell to anyone, regardless of identity.

[Anijen]

Moderators,

This topic has unfortunately digressed into the unwanted topic of discrimination and not due process rights. Please close it.

Thank you.