First Amendment protects God-given moral agency

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

I was really looking forward to hearing your answers to the questions Daniel asked.

Me, too.  I hope Scott takes the time to answer them.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 9/19/2017 at 9:45 AM, The Nehor said:

Some of Antifa's activities are lawless. Antifa is a difficult organization to pin down as it is not really an organization. It is a bunch of independent groups. Their objectives are equally varied but most do not want to destroy the constitution though many violate it

I do question why you single out Antifa as the problem when they are fighting literal Nazis whose open goal is the destruction or perversion of the Constitution. I think of the arguments over Amlici and Paanchi in the Book of Mormon where there was fighting before and after the election. You seem to favor those analogous to the king-men in the modern scenario. Why?

New York Times 

Quote

Antifa and black bloc — the far left of today — engaging in street brawls and property damage, while reprehensible, is “not domestic terrorism,” said J. J. MacNab, a fellow in the Program on Extremism at George Washington University. Similar episodes of extreme violence certainly exist on the left: the recent congressional baseball shooting in Virginia, or the bombing of the North Carolina Republican Party headquarters in Orange County.

But overall, far-right extremist plots have been far more deadly than far-left plots (and Islamist plots eclipsed both) in the past 25 years, according to a breakdown of two terrorism databases by Alex Nowrasteh, an analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.

White nationalists; militia movements; anti-Muslim attackers; I.R.S. building and abortion clinic bombers; and other right-wing groups were responsible for 12 times as many fatalities and 36 times as many injuries as communists; socialists; animal rights and environmental activists; anti-white- and Black Lives Matter-inspired attackers; and other left-wing groups.

Of the nearly 1,500 individuals in a University of Maryland study of radicalization from 1948 to 2013, 43 percent espoused far-right ideologies, compared to 21 percent for the far left. Far-right individuals were more likely to commit violence against people, while those on the far left were more likely to commit property damage.

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Gray]

On 9/19/2017 at 11:45 AM, The Nehor said:

Some of Antifa's activities are lawless. Antifa is a difficult organization to pin down as it is not really an organization. It is a bunch of independent groups. Their objectives are equally varied but most do not want to destroy the constitution though many violate it

I do question why you single out Antifa as the problem when they are fighting literal Nazis whose open goal is the destruction or perversion of the Constitution. I think of the arguments over Amlici and Paanchi in the Book of Mormon where there was fighting before and after the election. You seem to favor those analogous to the king-men in the modern scenario. Why?

Alt right groups are literally talking about setting up concentration camps and putting Hitler on the currency. Antifa isn't the real problem here.

[Button Gwinnett]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think he would say he should not be required to violate his conscience in order to operate his business. Just as an Orthodox Jew in the T shirt printing business should not be required to print and sell T shirts with anti-Semitic messages or a black person should not be required to make and sell placards for use in a white supremacy rally. 

And slippery slopes can go two ways. If a person of faith is forced through judicial fiat to provide a non-essential service that violates his conscience, how long before we can expect someone to try to get the courts to force the Church of Jesus Christ to perform his gay "marriage" in the temple?

A supposed liberty that allows a person to hold certain beliefs but does not permit him to behave in accordance with his conscience is no liberty at all. 

I think the problem with your logic is this. If the Orthodox Jew already manufactures anti-Semitic messages T-shirt for the public or the African American already manufactures white supremacy placard for the public just as the Baker already bakes wedding cakes for the public, but then picks and chooses who among the public to sell their respective products too, products that they are already in business to sell, this is what is creating the problem and this is the basis of the discrimination.  The baker is already in business to bake wedding cakes.  He is not being forced to bake a cake, he bakes cakes for a living, that's what he already does  and no one is forcing him to place a figurine of 2 men on top of that cake, all he is being asked to do is bake a cake, which is his business and he is discriminating among the public who he will and won't bake for and that is discrimination.  If however the baker did no bake cakes and was being forced to do so, your point would carry some weight, but clearly the baker is discriminating who among the public he is going to bake cakes for or in this case not to bake for, and that as I see it is the problem.

[Button Gwinnett]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

But religious freedom is not simply about beliefs, but behaviour.

And beliefs are expressed through behaviour...so in essence one would be saying 'you can believe whatever you want about same sex marriage, you just can't express your belief'.

Since no government has managed to mindreading yet, that level of religious freedom is available everywhere.

But isn't this exactly what the US government did to we Mormon's regarding polygamy?  They found that we could continue to Believe in Polygamy aka Celestial marriage but we could not practice polygamy or celestial marriage as it was then being practiced.  So yes the government and the law does distinguish between belief and behavior

[Button Gwinnett]

8 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I think the problem with your logic is this. If the Orthodox Jew already manufactures anti-Semitic messages T-shirt for the public or the African American already manufactures white supremacy placard for the public just as the Baker already bakes wedding cakes for the public, but then picks and chooses who among the public to sell their respective products too, products that they are already in business to sell, this is what is creating the problem and this is the basis of the discrimination.  The baker is already in business to bake wedding cakes.  He is not being forced to bake a cake, he bakes cakes for a living, that's what he already does  and no one is forcing him to place a figurine of 2 men on top of that cake, all he is being asked to do is bake a cake, which is his business and he is discriminating among the public who he will and won't bake for and that is discrimination.  If however the baker did no bake cakes and was being forced to do so, your point would carry some weight, but clearly the baker is discriminating who among the public he is going to bake cakes for or in this case not to bake for, and that as I see it is the problem.

Evidentially I can't edit my post so I'm going to add:  The baker in this case is not being forced to bake a cake, he already bakes cakes for a living, he is being asked to "Sell" a cake to a minority group of people he find offense with.  If he refused to sell to other minority groups I seriously doubt that the church would move to add a friend of the court brief.  I want to add that I support the church on many of its Moral crusades, but I personally feel that history will prove that on this specific matter with the baker, they are once again walking all of us down a path that will tar each of us as bigots and that causes me grief.

If in Lehi dream he had been throwing rotten tomato's at the people in the Great and  Spacious Building then maybe those people would have been warranted in jeering and pointing their fingers  in indignation back at Lehi.

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I think the problem with your logic is this. If the Orthodox Jew already manufactures anti-Semitic messages T-shirt for the public or the African American already manufactures white supremacy placard for the public just as the Baker already bakes wedding cakes for the public, but then picks and chooses who among the public to sell their respective products too, products that they are already in business to sell, this is what is creating the problem and this is the basis of the discrimination.  The baker is already in business to bake wedding cakes.  He is not being forced to bake a cake, he bakes cakes for a living, that's what he already does  and no one is forcing him to place a figurine of 2 men on top of that cake, all he is being asked to do is bake a cake, which is his business and he is discriminating among the public who he will and won't bake for and that is discrimination.  If however the baker did no bake cakes and was being forced to do so, your point would carry some weight, but clearly the baker is discriminating who among the public he is going to bake cakes for or in this case not to bake for, and that as I see it is the problem.

But the T shirt shop owner doesn't manufacture shirts with anti-Semitic messages in this hypothetical. He will print T shirts to order but understandably draws a line that excludes anti-Semitic messages on the shirts. Similarly, the placard maker makes placards to order but draws a boundary excluding certain messages on placards he makes and sells, including those that promote white supremacy.

The baker makes wedding cakes to order, but will not make certain kinds of wedding cakes. In this, he is like the T shirt maker and the placard maker in the above examples who each offer a product for sale but will not offer certain kinds of that product.

So no, there is no problem in my logic.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But the T shirt shop owner doesn't manufacture shirts with anti-Semitic messages in this hypothetical. He will print T shirts to order but understandably draws a line that excludes anti-Semitic messages on the shirts. Similarly, the placard maker makes placards to order but draws a boundary excluding certain messages on placards he makes and sells, including those that promote white supremacy.

The baker makes wedding cakes to order, but will not make certain kinds of wedding cakes. In this, he is like the T shirt maker and the placard maker in the above examples who each offer a product for sale but will not offer certain kinds of that product.

So no, there is no problem in my logic.

Your logic is completely flawed and these examples are not valid, IMO.

Button is correct in his assessment.

The T-shirt shop owner is not discriminating against anyone if he refused to sell shirts with anti-Semitic messages to everyone.  But, If he produced and sold them to some and then refused to sell the identical product to another, that is discrimination.  

What do you mean by "certain kinds" of wedding cakes?  Can you list how a wedding cake for a gay wedding is different for any other wedding cake?

In this case, the wedding cake that the gay couple was ordering was identical in every way to wedding cakes the baker had made and sold to their other customers.  The gay couple did not request that a message be written on the cake (not usually done on wedding cakes anyway) or for the wedding cake to be decorated any differently than identical wedding cakes that this baker had sold to other customers.  That this baker refused to do this, is discrimination.

I see that your logic falls apart quickly when examined and your examples are not comparing equal situations regarding what took place is the case of the bakery.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Evidentially I can't edit my post so I'm going to add:  The baker in this case is not being forced to bake a cake, he already bakes cakes for a living, he is being asked to "Sell" a cake to a minority group of people he find offense with.  If he refused to sell to other minority groups I seriously doubt that the church would move to add a friend of the court brief.

I don't know whether the Church would do that or not. But the Church has a vested interest in preserving the traditional family and religious freedom. They have clearly and prominently staked out those positions, so it is quite understandable that they would be interested enough in this case to file the amicus brief.

Quote

 

I want to add that I support the church on many of its Moral crusades, but I personally feel that history will prove that on this specific matter with the baker, they are once again walking all of us down a path that will tar each of us as bigots and that causes me grief.

 

There are occasions when adherence to principle must trump PR considerations. The Church of Jesus Christ recognizes this and will act accordingly, even as it tries to be congenial.

Quote

If in Lehi dream he had been throwing rotten tomato's at the people in the Great and  Spacious Building then maybe those people would have been warranted in jeering and pointing their fingers  in indignation back at Lehi.

I think a more apt analogy would be Lehi refusing to wash the windows and sweep the floors of the great and spacious building.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Your logic is completely flawed and these examples are not valid, IMO.

Button is correct in his assessment.

 

I stand by my post and earnestly disagree that my logic is "completely flawed."

And CFR that the cake was to be "identical to any other wedding cake."

Edited September 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I stand by my post and earnestly disagree that my logic is "completely flawed."

Well, it's flawed, IMO.  If a product is identical in every way and a business owner sells that product to some, but refused to sell the exact same product to other customers,  that is discrimination. 

If bakeries started refusing to sell wedding cakes that were identical in every way and they sold them to all other customers, but then refused to sell this same wedding cake to Mormons because they didn't believe in temple weddings, I'm sure we'd hear about how that is discrimination from you.  Of course you could just go elsewhere to buy the wedding cake, but that doesn't change the fact that discrimination had taken place.

I guess we will wait and see how the case is decided.

Edited September 21, 2017 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

According to the president, it's a Muslim ban.

Oh hush. His supporters have pointed out we should not believe a thing he says.....and that he is the best President ever.

[Button Gwinnett]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But the T shirt shop owner doesn't manufacture shirts with anti-Semitic messages in this hypothetical. He will print T shirts to order but understandably draws a line that excludes anti-Semitic messages on the shirts. Similarly, the placard maker makes placards to order but draws a boundary excluding certain messages on placards he makes and sells, including those that promote white supremacy.

The baker makes wedding cakes to order, but will not make certain kinds of wedding cakes. In this, he is like the T shirt maker and the placard maker in the above examples who each offer a product for sale but will not offer certain kinds of that product.

So no, there is no problem in my logic.

Quote

If a bakery has a free speech right to discriminate, gay groups contend, then so do all businesses that may be said to engage in expression, including florists, photographers, tailors, choreographers, hair salons, restaurants, jewelers, architects and lawyers. A ruling for Mr. Phillips, they say, would amount to a broad mandate for discrimination.

Quote

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Phillips’s free speech rights had not been violated, noting that the couple had not discussed the cake’s design before Mr. Phillips turned them down. The court added that people seeing the cake would not understand Mr. Phillips to be making a statement and that he remained free to say what he liked about same-sex marriage in other settings.

Note that this is a clear case of discrimination.  The baker was not willing to sell his generic designed "message-less" wedding cake to these 2 men solely because they were gay not because they requesting that he put a gay theme on the cake.   A cake does not have gender, it is neither gay or heterosexual, it is made of flour, eggs, water, oil and flavoring.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/us/supreme-court-baker-same-sex-marriage.html?mcubz=3&_r=0

 

[Button Gwinnett]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think he would say he should not be required to violate his conscience in order to operate his business. Just as an Orthodox Jew in the T shirt printing business should not be required to print and sell T shirts with anti-Semitic messages or a black person should not be required to make and sell placards for use in a white supremacy rally. 

And slippery slopes can go two ways. If a person of faith is forced through judicial fiat to provide a non-essential service that violates his conscience, how long before we can expect someone to try to get the courts to force the Church of Jesus Christ to perform his gay "marriage" in the temple?

A supposed liberty that allows a person to hold certain beliefs but does not permit him to behave in accordance with his conscience is no liberty at all. 

So using your analogy. Should the Orthodox Jew or the African American be allowed the right to deny selling their plain, blank T-shirts or placard to the public even before a message has been applied? Personally I don't think they should be allowed to discriminate.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Button Gwinnett

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Note that this is a clear case of discrimination.  The baker was not willing to sell his generic designed "message-less" wedding cake to these 2 men solely because they were gay not because they requesting that he put a gay theme on the cake.   A cake does not have gender, it is neither gay or heterosexual, it is made of flour, eggs, water, oil and flavoring.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/us/supreme-court-baker-same-sex-marriage.html?mcubz=3&_r=0

 

Apparently, it is not a settled matter, else SCOTUS would not have agreed to hear the case.

We'll see what happens.

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

So using your analogy. Should the Orthodox Jew or the African American be allowed the right to deny selling their plain, blank T-shirts or placard to the public even before a message has been applied?

In my hypotheticals, they would not have demanded that right, just as the baker offered to sell the men any other product in his shop.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Alt right groups are literally talking about setting up concentration camps and putting Hitler on the currency. Antifa isn't the real problem here.

Both are the real problem.

And Antifa's lawlessness has been in the news a lot more frequently these days than neo-Nazis.

 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In my hypotheticals, they would not have demanded that right, just as the baker offered to sell the man any other product in his shop.

Which is completely beside the point.  He refused to sell  the same product to them that he willingly sold to other customers.  That is discrimination.

I agree that we will just have to wait and see what happens with this case.

[Button Gwinnett]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Which is completely beside the point.  He refused to sell  the same product to them that he willingly sold to other customers.  That is discrimination.

I agree that we will just have to wait and see what happens with this case.

The baker has stopped selling wedding cakes which is the right thing to do.  He can no longer discriminate his selling of wedding cakes if he no longer sells wedding cakes.   

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

The baker has stopped selling wedding cakes which is the right thing to do.  He can no longer discriminate his selling of wedding cakes if he no longer sells wedding cakes.   

Oh wow, I had not read that.  I agree that is what he should do....smart move on his part.

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Both are the real problem.

And Antifa's lawlessness has been in the news a lot more frequently these days than neo-Nazis.

 

 

Perhaps in right wing news sources - most of which seem to downplay the threat of Nazism and white supremacy.

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 

Perhaps in right wing news sources - most of which seem to downplay the threat of Nazism and white supremacy.

I have a hard time believing that these loser nazi and white supremacist groups are a legitimate threat. Most people in the country think that they are completely bonkers. 

The real problem is the shutting down of free speech by cry babies that can't handle people voicing opposing opinions.

[USU78]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Oh wow, I had not read that.  I agree that is what he should do....smart move on his part.

So ... Driving others out of commerce is good, better or best, in your view?

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Button Gwinnett said:

I think the problem with your logic is this. If the Orthodox Jew already manufactures anti-Semitic messages T-shirt for the public or the African American already manufactures white supremacy placard for the public just as the Baker already bakes wedding cakes for the public, but then picks and chooses who among the public to sell their respective products too, products that they are already in business to sell, this is what is creating the problem and this is the basis of the discrimination.  The baker is already in business to bake wedding cakes.  He is not being forced to bake a cake, he bakes cakes for a living, that's what he already does  and no one is forcing him to place a figurine of 2 men on top of that cake, all he is being asked to do is bake a cake, which is his business and he is discriminating among the public who he will and won't bake for and that is discrimination.  If however the baker did no bake cakes and was being forced to do so, your point would carry some weight, but clearly the baker is discriminating who among the public he is going to bake cakes for or in this case not to bake for, and that as I see it is the problem.

Great explanation.   Unfortunately this has been explained to Scott time and time again.  He knows by now how the public accommodation laws work in this country.   Scott doesn't have much of an argument to make.  So he writes these kinds of posts knowing full well what he is doing is a distortion of the way the law works.

There is really no logical reason for a baker to not sell a wedding cake to every customer that walks in the door.  I can't think of another business open to the public that wants to continue to control the product that they sell once it leaves the store.  Can you imagine a grocer deciding if they should sell you bread on the basis of what you are going to use that bread for?  What if they are Evangelic.  Would they want their bread used for sacrament in a Mormon church?  Or a shoe shop deciding on whether they should sell you their shoes based on where you are going to walk in them.

Edited September 21, 2017 by california boy

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't know whether the Church would do that or not. But the Church has a vested interest in preserving the traditional family and religious freedom. They have clearly and prominently staked out those positions, so it is quite understandable that they would be interested enough in this case to file the amicus brief.

There are occasions when adherence to principle must trump PR considerations. The Church of Jesus Christ recognizes this and will act accordingly, even as it tries to be congenial.

I think a more apt analogy would be Lehi refusing to wash the windows and sweep the floors of the great and spacious building.

Refusing to sell a cake to a gay couple is not going to do anything to "preserve the traditional family."  Perhaps calling those that divorce apostates and refusing to baptizing their children would have a much bigger impact on keeping traditional families together.