Married gay couple challenges UT's surrogacy law/Colorado Baker Heads to SCOTUS

[Scott Lloyd]

53 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

While there may be "a variety of ecclesiastical support" for the defendant, it appears the majority of citizens--even those that are religious--don't support carving out the ability to withhold services based on religious objections...

Think Progress sheds some further light on a recent study, per below. 

The money quote:  "In 2015, the only two religious groups where a majority favored religion-based service refusals were Mormons and white evangelical Protestants. This year, however, the number of Mormons in favor of such refusals dropped from 58 to 42 percent, while the number of white evangelical Protestants in favor dropped from 56 to 50 percent. Almost every other religious group saw the percentage of people in favor of such refusals drop, and none saw it rise. This declining support for religion-based discrimination across the board, combined with 2016 being the first year that white evangelical Protestants didn’t have a majority in support, could suggest that the country is on the path toward a major change in public opinion."

 

Refusals of what services?

Apparently, the Church of Jesus Christ, which helped craft "the Utah compromise," draws a distinction between essential services -- such as housing -- and non-essential services -- such as designer wedding cakes. It may be that a majority of Mormons likewise draw that distinction. I know I do.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I posted multiple articles that explained how men and women see things differently.  Having done that, I assumed you could do the rest.  Did you read them?

Absolutely.  I read all of them.  And I acknowledged the differences that the studies identify.  But none of them answered my original question.

[Daniel2]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think all this is beside the point.

California Boy asked for past instances in which religious principles have come to bear in providing commercial goods or services. I said I would have to research it, but it's not hard to conceive of such an instance. I then gave as a hypothetical example a Jewish print shop where a business owner could reasonably refuse to provide a service that violated his principles (the dissemination of anti-Semitic literature). It doesn't matter whether you think such a person would be legally protected or not; it's an example that fits the sort of circumstance that CB was asking about.

Maybe I could express here the other hypothetical I tried to post but was blocked from doing so, presumably because of a word or phrase that triggered the blocking (I'll use a euphemism).

Suppose a church decides to rent out its meeting facility midweek when the facility is not needed by the church for its worship services. A customer comes along and wants to rent the church's meeting facility to use as a location for what I shall euphemistically call a "gentleman's club." The church refuses because such a use of its facility would violate the church's expressed religious standards.
 

Here's a case where Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington elected to close down its foster care and public adoption services rather than be forced to provide such services to same-sex couples. There's nothing in there about the move being occasioned by lack of access to public monies.

 

I don't have any problem with you providing examples you feel were relevant to answering a request by CaliforniaBoy.  But far from being "beside the point," I still stand by my comments in response to your post, lest any make the false assumption  that the examples you provided were similarly situated to the topic of public accommodations being discussed here.  In my experience, many don't understand or are willfully or unintentionally casual about the differences, which, from a legal perspective, have significant differences and are thus treated significantly different. 

Regarding your additional hypothetical (which I'm glad you're finally able to post--I know how frustrating it is to work hard on something and not have it go through!):  again, whether you feel it answers a CFR by CB or not, my response by way of pointing out the differences is that buildings are classified as either private (as any religious building not operating as a rental-out-for-profit business venture) or public (if they operate in the public sphere as for-profit rentals).  Religious buildings are legally private (even if members of the general public are usually/always welcome in them), and are not subject to public accommodations law.  No religion would or will be forced to rent a private place of worship to anyone, let alone as a strip club.

Finally, yes, a Google search reveals that even though your particular source didn't specify as much, the Catholic Charities Archiocese of Washington D.C. received public funds to run it's programs prior to it's decision not to renew it's services on the day their existing contract with the city expired, and that in providing adoption services, the Catholic Charities arm was operating as a paid "outside contractor dealing with the city."  From The Washington Times: 

"Americans United applauded Catholic Charities’ decision to withdraw.  “If faith-based charities cannot or will not obey civil rights laws,” the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director, said in a statement Wednesday, “they ought not benefit from public funds."... The foster care and adoption programs had been two among the 63 social service programs that the D.C. government paid Catholic Charities $22.5 million to run."

Once again, private organizations accepting public taxes to run their organizations cannot discriminate against members of the public.  Period.  Thank you for providing yet another source that played loose and casual with the details, omitting key pieces of information----such as the fact that they received millions of dollars in public funds---to make their decision to close sound like it was victimization instead of the understandable business decision to close so as not to violate laws prohibiting discrimination against any of the American citizens who were paying for/subsidizing their paychecks.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Daniel2

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

From a legal perspective, things like creating goods or providing services (including decorating a wedding cake, arranging flowers, printing wedding invites, etc.) have historically been legally found not to fall into the "inherently expressive" category, because when one looks at a vase of flowers, a cake with icing and flowers/birds/bells/whatever, etc., "the average person" isn't presuming that whomever created those flowers, cake, or whatever was making any sort of "statement" (as protected by free speech laws) about the couple getting married... whether or not the creator considers their job well done as a testament to God or whatever, claims that is a "message" doesn't pass the "inherently expressive" legal test.

Well, I think the question (or one of the questions, technically) is whether or not decorating a cake should be considered expressive activity. Is baking a wedding cake more like creating a painting or is it more like renting a hotel room? If it's more like the former, then the service provider should enjoy strong First Amendment protections. If it's more like the latter, then yeah...not so much.

I think a plausible argument can be make that some of the cases we see trickling up through the courts involve expressive content and ought to be protected by the First Amendment. For me, things like photography easily make the cut. But, I've got to be honest, I'm kind of on the fence about cake bakers - they are right in the gray area for me (at least, so far as we are talking about actually creating wedding cakes; if we were talking about one of those stupid cupcake towers, that would be a different story completely).

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm fairly sure you misunderstood my post.

I didn't say anything about "hiring someone who lacks qualifications for a job."

Let me try again to explain my analogies.

In the first hypothetical in my post, a Jewish family owns a printing and publishing establishment. A customer wants to pay the establishment to print and distribute anti-Semitic pamphlets and flyers. The establishment refuses to provide this service for obvious reasons.

In the other example in my post, Catholic agencies have been accustomed to providing adoption services to couples. The services are based on the Catholic Church's values and standards, which exclude placing children in homes in which there is not a marriage between a man and a woman. It now appears the Catholic Church must get out of the adoption business because it will no longer be allowed to be guided by its own values and standards in administering adoptions.

I had another example, but, as I indicated, was blocked from posting it for some reason.

In all three examples, businesses do what you phrase as "discriminate against selling something to a customer they provide to a general public." And no, I don't believe this is a new right they have been seeking. In my wildest speculation, I could not conceive of a Jewish owner of a print shop being required to provide services to a customer distributing anti-Semitic materials to the public.

But you ask about legality, and I really am out of my realm there, as I am not a lawyer. That's why I say I'm not the best person to pose this question to.

 

We have been down this road before.  We have talked about the difference between the court case of the tee shirt shop and the baker.  You know how this ends as well as I do.  I thought you might have something that relates to the issues the baker is asserting.  Your answer really gives me more confidence that the Supreme Court will rule against the ability to use religion as an excuse to discriminate.  

So I will leave it at that.  We can both see how this all plays out over the next Supreme Court session.

[Daniel2]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Well, I think the question (or one of the questions, technically) is whether or not decorating a cake should be considered expressive activity. Is baking a wedding cake more like creating a painting or is it more like renting a hotel room? If it's more like the former, then the service provider should enjoy strong First Amendment protections. If it's more like the latter, then yeah...not so much.

I think a plausible argument can be make that some of the cases we see trickling up through the courts involve expressive content and ought to be protected by the First Amendment. For me, things like photography easily make the cut. But, I've got to be honest, I'm kind of on the fence about cake bakers - they are right in the gray area for me (at least, so far as we are talking about actually creating wedding cakes; if we were talking about one of those stupid cupcake towers, that would be a different story completely).

 

I agree with you that answering that question--should baking a cake, arranging flowers, or documenting a wedding through photography each be considered an expressive actions protected by the First Amendment?--is at the crux of this argument, and will be the determining factor to how this case is likely decided.

I've read each of the rulings thus far leading up to SCOTUS's decision to take the case, and as I mentioned before, the historical preponderance of evidence is that such actions--even the photography--are NOT "inherently expressive" from a legal standpoint.

But as I said earlier, SCOTUS will get to decide the final verdict on that regard, and we'll all have to abide by their decision at that point, either way.

D

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I don't have any problem with you providing examples you feel were relevant to answering a request by CaliforniaBoy.  But far from being "beside the point," I still stand by my comments in response to your post, lest any make the false assumption  that the examples you provided were similarly situated to the topic of public accommodations being discussed here.  In my experience, many don't understand or are willfully or unintentionally casual about the differences, which, from a legal perspective, have significant differences and are thus treated significantly different. 

Whatever. You appear to be addressing a separate issue than what CaliforniaBoy raised with me.

Quote

Regarding your additional hypothetical (which I'm glad you're finally able to post--I know how frustrating it is to work hard on something and not have it go through!):  again, whether you feel it answers a CFR by CB or not, my response by way of pointing out the differences is that buildings are classified as either private (as any religious building not operating as a rental-out-for-profit business venture) or public (if they operate in the public sphere as for-profit rentals).  Religious buildings are private (even if the public is welcome in them), and are not subject to public accommodations law.  No religion would be forced to rent a place of worship to anyone, let alone as a strip club.

How come you were allowed to write "strip club" and I wasn't? Not fair!

It wasn't a CFR from CB. I was merely attempting to respond to the question he put to me as best I could.

And regardless of whether the church's meeting facility is considered pubic or private, it's would still be an example of an entity (in this case, a church) refusing to do business with a specific customer in violation of its own values.

 

Quote

 

Finally, yes, a Google search reveals that even though your particular source didn't specify as much, the Catholic Charities Archiocese of Washington D.C. received public funds to run it's programs prior to it's decision not to renew it's services on the day their existing contract with the city expired.  From The Washington Times: 

"Americans United applauded Catholic Charities’ decision to withdraw.  “If faith-based charities cannot or will not obey civil rights laws,” the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director, said in a statement Wednesday, “they ought not benefit from public funds."... The foster care and adoption programs had been two among the 63 social service programs that the D.C. government paid Catholic Charities $22.5 million to run."

Once again, private organizations accepting public taxes to run their organizations cannot discriminate against members of the public.  Period.

 

The news release I linked to said nothing about the Catholic agency shutting its doors because it could no longer get public funds.

From the link:

Quote

The D.C. City Council’s law recognizing same-sex “marriage” required religious entities which serve the general public to provide services to homosexual couples, even if doing so violated their religious beliefs. Exemptions were allowed only for performing marriages or for those entities which do not serve the public.

Also,

Quote

Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to close its adoption services in 2006 because it would no longer place children with homosexual couples, as required by state law. Laws have also forced Catholic adoption societies in Britain either to close or to disaffiliate from the Church.

And,
 

Quote

 

“Archbishop Donald Wuerl is a man of principle and prudence: he did not want to end the foster-care program, but he was left with no realistic option,” Donohue said Wednesday. “District lawmakers could have granted the kind of religious exemptions that would have ensured a continuation of services, but instead they sought to create a Catch-22 situation for the archdiocese.

“Surely they knew that Archbishop Wuerl was not going to negotiate Catholic Church teachings on marriage, yet that hardly mattered to them. The real losers are the children who were served by the Catholic Church.”

Those who characterized the Catholic Church’s actions on the issue as neglectful of the children, Donohue claimed, were “phonies.”

“Archbishop Wuerl isn't about to allow the state to run roughshod over Catholic doctrine, and that is why he is being forced to drop the foster-care program.”

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

We have been down this road before.  We have talked about the difference between the court case of the tee shirt shop and the baker.  You know how this ends as well as I do.  I thought you might have something that relates to the issues the baker is asserting.  Your answer really gives me more confidence that the Supreme Court will rule against the ability to use religion as an excuse to discriminate.  

So I will leave it at that.  We can both see how this all plays out over the next Supreme Court session.

I would just quote from a talk by Elder Dallin H. Oaks that I ran across this week:
 

Quote

 

I believe religious freedom is declining because faith in God and the pursuit of God-centered religion is declining worldwide. If one does not value religion, one usually does not put a high value on religious freedom. It is looked at as just another human right, competing with other human rights when it seems to collide with them. I believe the freedoms of speech and assembly are also weakening because many influential persons see them as colliding with competing values now deemed more important. Some extremists have even opposed free speech as an obstacle to achieving their policy goals.

In our current cultural and political atmosphere we are distressed to see official and private infringements on free speech, free association, and the free exercise of religion that pose threats to our free and open society. While a political party in power at the federal or state level has greater potential to sponsor official threats, such threats can also be made by others.

 

This address is on the Church's "Religious Freedom" website. But here's a direct link.

[Daniel2]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever. You appear to be addressing a separate issue than what CaliforniaBoy raised with me.

How come you were allowed to write "strip club" and I wasn't? Not fair!

It wasn't a CFR from CB. I was merely attempting to respond to question the question he put to me as best I could.

And regardless of whether the church's meeting facility is considered pubic or private, it's would still be an example of an entity (in this case, a church) refusing to do business with a specific customer in violation of its own values.

 

The news release I linked to said nothing about the Catholic agency shutting its doors because it could no longer get public funds.

From the link:

Also,

And,
 

 

Yes, I realize YOUR source didn't admit it was because of it's inability to continue receiving funds.  The source I posted DID say that.

And again, that illustrates my point... some sources seem to either unintentionally OR deliberately leave out that "detail" (which isn't really a detail at all).  Whether or not it's intentional, it certainly has the effect of confusing the issue and influencing the perception that they've been a victim of religious persecution or discrimination.

And I'm not sure why you started off by saying "whatever" or feel like I'm making your comments out to be something they weren't.  I think you're attributing hostility to my comments that aren't there.  My point was saying that regardless of whether or not your comments were an attempt to respond to a question he put to you as best you could (which I entirely believe), my comments in response (which weren't intended for you) were to clarify for anyone else reading how the examples you raised weren't the same as the main topic of the thread.  Again--I'm not accusing you of anything other than trying to answer what your understood CB's question to be to the best of your ability.  I was likewise providing additional context. Can we all get along now?

D

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Yes, I realize YOUR source didn't admit it was because of it's inability to continue receiving funds.  The source I posted DID say that.

 

Your source said only that the agency was given public funds. It didn't say the withdrawal of the funds was the reason the Catholic agency closed.

Presumably, the agency might have found other funding sources that would have sustained it. The clear message from the news release is that the agency was prohibited by law from continuing unless it agreed to offer services to homosexual couples.

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

34 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I've read each of the rulings thus far leading up to SCOTUS's decision to take the case, and as I mentioned before, the historical preponderance of evidence is that such actions--even the photography--are NOT "inherently expressive" from a legal standpoint.

The Supreme Court took a pass on the photography case and instead opted to tackle the cake-baking matter instead. I think the photography case had a much stronger First Amendment argument, so I suspect that means we'll get a ruling that comes down on the side of wedding cakes just being pretty widgets. But I guess we won't know for sure until they actually publish their decision.

 

[Marginal Gains]

16 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

What would you suggest are the key differences between anti-Semitism, and anti-same sex marriagism?

 

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Non-sequitur.

The principle in both the analogy I gave and the pending SCOTUS case is whether a business owner should be required to provide non-essential goods/services in violation of his/her own deeply held values and standards.

I asked a simple question directly related to the topic at hand. Which seems to me to not fit the descriptor ‘non-sequitur’. But I could be wrong. 

However, I understand why you don’t want to answer the question. And your lack of response will more than suffice as the answer to it.

I hope they ask it during court proceedings.

[Marginal Gains]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Refusals of what services?

Apparently, the Church of Jesus Christ, which helped craft "the Utah compromise," draws a distinction between essential services -- such as housing -- and non-essential services -- such as designer wedding cakes. It may be that a majority of Mormons likewise draw that distinction. I know I do.

Nobody is trying to change what The Church/Mormons deem essential for themselves. The problem is The Church/Mormons trying to stipulate what everyone else must deem essential to them.

The other problem I see is the jarring discrepancy between what the Church says (support for LoveLoud concert etc) and what it does (funding court actions against gay people). 

Here’s what I’m struggling to understand in some of the points of view being expressed. If someone were to refuse to serve a black couple with a wedding cake because they believe in white supremacy, there would be almost unilateral outrage and condemnation of the baker and the Church wouldn’t be anywhere near funding an amicus brief.

What the heck is the difference?

Why can people look back at the civil rights movement and condemn racism, yet be totally blind that they are propagating the exact same thing when it comes to gay people? 

Edited September 15, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[california boy]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would just quote from a talk by Elder Dallin H. Oaks that I ran across this week:

Quote

 

I believe religious freedom is declining because faith in God and the pursuit of God-centered religion is declining worldwide. If one does not value religion, one usually does not put a high value on religious freedom. It is looked at as just another human right, competing with other human rights when it seems to collide with them. I believe the freedoms of speech and assembly are also weakening because many influential persons see them as colliding with competing values now deemed more important. Some extremists have even opposed free speech as an obstacle to achieving their policy goals.

In our current cultural and political atmosphere we are distressed to see official and private infringements on free speech, free association, and the free exercise of religion that pose threats to our free and open society. While a political party in power at the federal or state level has greater potential to sponsor official threats, such threats can also be made by others.

 

This address is on the Church's "Religious Freedom" website. But here's a direct link.

I agree with Elder Oaks.   "religious freedom is declining because faith in God and the pursuit of God-centered religion is declining worldwide".  People inherently reject the idea of discrimination.  They feel it is unjust to penalize someone because of their color of their skin, their religious beliefs and their sexual orientation.  It is wrong.  And there is no message in the gospel of Christ that supports discrimination.  Christ could not have been more clear that we should administer to both the just and the unjust.  To the sinner and to the saint.  When religion walks away from the core teachings of Christ, can you really blame people from walking away from those organizations that have abandoned those principles taught by Christ.  

By supporting a baker that refuses to treat gay couples in a Christ-like way only reinforces the reasons so many are walking away from organized religion.  Instead of helping the baker realize that just because someone sins is no reason to withhold services, religion double downs on the idea that discrimination based on someone's judges sins is a good idea.  

The Mormons learned this hard lesson once already when it supported policies of discrimination.  It will learn that same lesson again when it chooses to side with those that discriminate against gay couples.  No matter how the court rules on this issue, religion has already lost.  Just like with Prop 8, it is possible that they may win the battle, but in the end they will continue to be irrelevant to a generation that has no interest in discrimination.  The church should be more worried that with each poll, more members of their own church are standing against discrimination then whether a baker has the right to discriminate.

Have you ever considered what would happen if the bakers win their case?  When signs go up in storefront windows saying "gays not served"?  Just who do you think the public will turn to to blame that kind of discrimination on?  The Mormon church will certainly be on the short list.  And rightly so.  

[LittleNipper]

Everyone feels left out at some point or another. Some buck up and move on and some wallow in self pity. Life isn't fair, get over it. Open a bakery and do your own thing; however, you cannot force yourself on people. If you want to be gay, be gay --- but don't expect everyone to fall in line with your way of thinking. I can point you to the cross of Christ, but I cannot make you accept it!

[california boy]

36 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Everyone feels left out at some point or another. Some buck up and move on and some wallow in self pity. Life isn't fair, get over it. Open a bakery and do your own thing; however, you cannot force yourself on people. If you want to be gay, be gay --- but don't expect everyone to fall in line with your way of thinking. I can point you to the cross of Christ, but I cannot make you accept it!

It is not about feeling left out.  It is about being treated fairly and equally under the laws of this country. Should the black students have set at the counter of the restaurant that didn't serve blacks?  Absolutely.  It was the right thing to do.  It was the courageous thing to do.  It would have been much easier to just go along with discrimination.  There are, after all, other lunch counters.

You aren't pointing towards Christ when you think that your religious beliefs allow you to discriminate against someone because you  think they are sinners.  Like I said, how is the church going to feel if the Supreme Court does uphold their brief and "No gays served here" signs start showing up.  It may very well be members of the church that start to feel left out as others remember who chose to push for such signs.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Nobody is trying to change what The Church/Mormons deem essential for themselves. The problem is The Church/Mormons trying to stipulate what everyone else must deem essential to them.

The other problem I see is the jarring discrepancy between what the Church says (support for LoveLoud concert etc) and what it does (funding court actions against gay people). 

Here’s what I’m struggling to understand in some of the points of view being expressed. If someone were to refuse to serve a black couple with a wedding cake because they believe in white supremacy, there would be almost unilateral outrage and condemnation of the baker and the Church wouldn’t be anywhere near funding an amicus brief.

What the heck is the difference?

Why can people look back at the civil rights movement and condemn racism, yet be totally blind that they are propagating the exact same thing when it comes to gay people? 

I understand the baker offered to bake a cake for the customer without decorating it, or to serve the customer in other ways. He just could not use his talent to support a practice he, for religious reasons, felt is sinful.

So your comparison fails.

If someone were to insist that a baker bake him a sheet cake with decorations expressing disgust with same-sex marriage, the baker refused, and the customer made a big thing out of it, I'm pretty sure the customer would be roundly condemned. Furthermore, the baker would be lauded for his heroism in refusing the order

I don't see a lot of difference here between. They both pertain to refusal to violate one's own conscience.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[provoman]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I understand the baker offered to bake a cake for the customer without decorating it, or to serve the customer in other ways. He just could not use his talent to support a practice he, for religious reasons, felt is sinful.

So your comparison fails.

If someone were to insist that a baker bake him a sheet cake with decorations expressing disgust with same-sex marriage, the baker refused, and the customer made a big thing out of it, I'm pretty sure the customer would be roundly condemned. Furthermore, the baker would be lauded for his heroism in refusing the order

I don't see a lot of difference here between. They both pertain to refusal to violate one's own conscience.

Your post is confusing, dies the comparison fail or are the racist baker and the religious "no cake for gays" the same as both do not want to violate their conscience?

[provoman]

removed

Edited September 15, 2017 by provoman

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I understand the baker offered to bake a cake for the customer without decorating it, or to serve the customer in other ways. He just could not use his talent to support a practice he, for religious reasons, felt is sinful.

So your comparison fails.

If someone were to insist that a baker bake him a sheet cake with decorations expressing disgust with same-sex marriage, the baker refused, and the customer made a big thing out of it, I'm pretty sure the customer would be roundly condemned. Furthermore, the baker would be lauded for his heroism in refusing the order

I don't see a lot of difference here between. They both pertain to refusal to violate one's own conscience.

I never heard what you posted that I put in bold.  Do you have a reference for that?

It was my understanding that the baker just refused outright to bake the gay couple a wedding cake.

What is written on the cake is an issue of free speech and no one is suggesting that someone should be compelled to write anything that they find offensive..  We have talked about this so much, the only conclusion I can draw for you giving this example is because you want to intentionally distort the issue.

[kllindley]

So, am I understanding California Boy, Marginal Gains, and Daniel2 that you would agree that certain forms of expression are protected and therefore exempt from anti-discrimination law? The T-shirt, printed material, writing, any others?  

What about a history book that includes a painting of Mohammad? Should a Muslim be free to decline to print an image that while in no way offensive, still violates his religious conscience?  

What are your thoughts on the Baker who refused to bake a birthday cake in the shape of a red MAGA hat for the little boy. Would that be discrimination? 

I think there is a big difference between "refusing service to someone who is LGBT" and "declining to act contrary to religious beliefs."

Scott's hypothetical of the Church renting is not really applicable, but what about a private owner of a retail building. Should he be required to lease it to a liquor store? Or an adult business? 

Would a liberal atheist be breaking the law to choose not to rent out his building to a Catholic prolife political action group?

[california boy]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

So, am I understanding California Boy, Marginal Gains, and Daniel2 that you would agree that certain forms of expression are protected and therefore exempt from anti-discrimination law? The T-shirt, printed material, writing, any others?  

What about a history book that includes a painting of Mohammad? Should a Muslim be free to decline to print an image that while in no way offensive, still violates his religious conscience?  

As I understand the law, you can discriminate against a product  You can't discriminate against who you sell your product too  That is the big difference  Sell a history book you have printed? Yes to everyone that walks in your door   Print a special history book? Nope.

 

Quote

What are your thoughts on the Baker who refused to bake a birthday cake in the shape of a red MAGA hat for the little boy. Would that be discrimination? 

Does the baker bake cakes in the shape of a red MAGA hat for all of his customers?  If the answers is yes, then he can not discriminate against the little boy's family.  If he doesn't offer a red MAGA cake to his other customers, then no he does not have to bake a special cake.

 

Quote

I think there is a big difference between "refusing service to someone who is LGBT" and "declining to act contrary to religious beliefs."

If a business offers wedding cakes to the general public, then they are not allowed to pick and choose who they sell their cakes to.  If a lunch counter offers sandwiches to the general public then they are not allowed to refuse black customers or Jewish customers, or gay customers or white customers.  If a lunch counter does not offer sandwiches to the general public, then they do not have to make sandwiches for any customers no matter who they are.

The baker bakes wedding cakes.  They sell wedding cakes.  They can choose how to decorate those wedding cakes.  They can refuse to decorate a wedding cake in a specific way that is not what they offer to their other customers.  What they can not do is discriminate against who is buying those wedding cakes or what they plan to do with those cakes.  Baking wedding cakes is their business.  How the cake is consumed is NOT their business.

And just to be crystal clear.  If the gay couple asks to bake your wedding cakes in a different manor, say rainbow layers, you absolutely could decline to bake that kind of cake.  Discriminate against a product? Yes. Discriminate against who you sell it to? Nope. 

Quote

Scott's hypothetical of the Church renting is not really applicable, but what about a private owner of a retail building. Should he be required to lease it to a liquor store? Or an adult business? 

Would a liberal atheist be breaking the law to choose not to rent out his building to a Catholic prolife political action group?

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by california boy

[LittleNipper]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

It is not about feeling left out.  It is about being treated fairly and equally under the laws of this country. Should the black students have set at the counter of the restaurant that didn't serve blacks?  Absolutely.  It was the right thing to do.  It was the courageous thing to do.  It would have been much easier to just go along with discrimination.  There are, after all, other lunch counters.

You aren't pointing towards Christ when you think that your religious beliefs allow you to discriminate against someone because you  think they are sinners.  Like I said, how is the church going to feel if the Supreme Court does uphold their brief and "No gays served here" signs start showing up.  It may very well be members of the church that start to feel left out as others remember who chose to push for such signs.

Unless you say, "Hey, I'm gay and love peculiar forms of sex", how am I to know? It's none of my business; however, when you demanded me or anyone to accommodate your fetishes, then that is where the problems start. Joseph  of the Bible ended up in prison because he ran from Potiphar's wife, even though he did nothing wrong. I've never seen no gays signs in my entire life! If they didn't exist in the 1950's they are not going to appear now. But when you demand to be serviced in a way that makes another individual an accomplice or complainant to your way of life, I feel that you are being very mean spirited and unfair to the other individual's feelings and religious rights. Frankly, if you came to me to have a cake for your wedding, I would likely tell you that I'd bake you a cake but you would have to pick it up yourself and I would not place either 2 males or females on top.

If you were to ask me why, I would gently tell you that I'm a Christian and that this bakery is a Christian establishment.  And marriage for me is a spiritual bond between only males and females that GOD Himself established and is not to be taken lightly. One thing I can honestly say is that as a little boy in a 5 & dime, I once lifted a little black boy up to the water cooler, when the junky tap water fountain was just around the corner. But that was my choice based on my religious beliefs.

I'm not trying to insult you; however, I feel that it is very wrong to allow people to believe that no matter what they do, it's Okay and acceptable, and all behavior patterns are totally equal. That would be a lie since all behavior patterns do not achieve the same end results. Not all paintings are of equal value, and not all actors are equally talented and not every athlete wins the prize. I know of at least one former homosexual male who is now married to a woman and has more than 3 children. He is a husband and a daddy and he is finally happy as a married man. What it meant was that this individual had to stop seeing others as sexual objects to use ---- but his salvation had to come first! And that doesn't mean that all single individuals have to or will ever find a mate. Sometimes it is not what GOD intended for that individual. The spinster aunt or the bachelor uncle very often have something very special they need to do that being married with children would make impossible.  I honestly believe that our society for many years has been making people feel odd if they do not marry someone. Frankly, I feel that everyone was not intended to mate or find sensual love --- it is a myth that has forced many individuals into marriages that they should never have committed to. 

Edited September 16, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Amulek]

Quote

I understand the baker offered to bake a cake for the customer without decorating it, or to serve the customer in other ways. He just could not use his talent to support a practice he, for religious reasons, felt is sinful.

12 hours ago, california boy said:

I never heard what you posted that I put in bold.  Do you have a reference for that?

It was my understanding that the baker just refused outright to bake the gay couple a wedding cake.

It's in several articles, but maybe the most authoritative version is in the actual brief, here (citations omitted, emphasis added):

Craig and Mullins were browsing a photo album of Phillips’s custom-design work when Phillips sat down with them at his consultation table. After Phillips greeted the two men, they explained that they wanted him to create a cake for their wedding. Phillips politely explained that he does not design wedding cakes for same-sex marriages, but emphasized that he was happy to make other items for them. Craig, Mullins, and Munn expressed their displeasure and left the shop.

Munn called Phillips the next day and asked why he declined their request. Phillips explained that it was because of his religious beliefs about marriage, and he also told her that Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. Over the years, Phillips has declined other requests to design custom wedding cakes that celebrate same-sex marriages, all the while affirming his willingness to create other cakes for LGBT customers.

 

 

 

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

It's in several articles, but maybe the most authoritative version is in the actual brief, here (citations omitted, emphasis added):

Craig and Mullins were browsing a photo album of Phillips’s custom-design work when Phillips sat down with them at his consultation table. After Phillips greeted the two men, they explained that they wanted him to create a cake for their wedding. Phillips politely explained that he does not design wedding cakes for same-sex marriages, but emphasized that he was happy to make other items for them. Craig, Mullins, and Munn expressed their displeasure and left the shop.

Munn called Phillips the next day and asked why he declined their request. Phillips explained that it was because of his religious beliefs about marriage, and he also told her that Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. Over the years, Phillips has declined other requests to design custom wedding cakes that celebrate same-sex marriages, all the while affirming his willingness to create other cakes for LGBT customers.

 

 

 

 

Thanks.  I knew that the baker offered to sell other items. I thought that Scott was saying that he offered to bake a wedding cake just undecirated.  Offering cupcakes is a bit different