T shirt maker has gay customers, gay employees, still sued

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

He already explained quite clearly the difference.  Reread his post if you really want an answer to your question. 

I reread it, and no, it doesn’t answer my question, at least not in a way that’s clear to me. Did the dress designer offer to serve FLOTUS in other ways? The answer is not in his post. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I reread it, and no, it doesn’t answer my question, at least not in a way that’s clear to me. Did the dress designer offer to serve FLOTUS in other ways? The answer is not in his post. 

Whether the dress designer is required to offer other services to TFLOTUS is another question that requires another answer.  As far as I understand the law, it is irrelevant whether the dress designer offered to serve the LFOTUS in another way. It is also irrelevant that the baker offered to sell the gay couple other products in the store.  The law doesn't permit you to offer someone who wants to buy peas that you sell to the public that you will only sell them corn because you have a religious belief about them eating peas.  So whether you offer them corn is irrelevant under the law.

Here is what Benjamin said.  He clearly explains what the law does require and why.

Quote

The discrimination against Melania Trump isn't discrimination in a legal sense. Why? Because the laws specify the kinds of groups against which discrimination is illegal. And Melania Trump doesn't fit one of these groups within the scope of her belonging to a certain political faction or ideology. If the discrimination was because she was a woman, then it would fit these legal definitions of discrimination. In Colorado, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion or religious belief. So in that case, if the singer had a business which included singing (for hire) at all religious events except Christian ones, you could talk about discrimination. If the singer didn't sing at any religious events as part of their business, then there is no discrimination in choosing not to sing at a Christian holiday event.

Benjamin did a very good job of explaining to you and anyone else how the law is written and why it has been upheld the way it has every time it has been challenged in the courts.  Now you as well as many others may very well disagree with the law, but you can't say that you don't understand what the law is.  What can be debated is the constitutionality of such a law.  And that is the question that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court.  It is their job to decide whether such a law is constitutional.  

Edited October 15, 2017 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

You consistently show that when given a very clear legal answer to your question, because it doesn't agree with your own personal opinion then you ignore the answer.  You don't say what is legally wrong with the answer.  You simply ignore the answer.  Here is what he said

Benjamin did a very good job of explaining to you and anyone else how the law is written and why it has been upheld the way it has every time it has been challenged in the courts.  Now you as well as many others may very well disagree with the law, but you can't say that you don't understand what the law is.  What can be debated is the constitutionality of such a law.  And that is the question that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court.  It is their job to decide whether such a law is constitutional.  Not the church.  Not yours. Not mine. When that decision is rendered, it is up to all of us to accept that ruling or go through the process of amending the constitution to change it to conform to our personal beliefs.  

So .... after refusing to design a dress for Melania Trump, did the designer offer to serve her in some other way (as the baker in Colorado offered to sell the gay couple anything else in his store)? I"m still in the dark about that, even after being told the answer would be clear to me if I would only reread the post (which I did) and after being lectured by you about ignoring an answer even after I tried to find it, and after having a portion of the post, which I had already read and re-read, quoted to me.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So .... after refusing to design a dress for Melania Trump, did the designer offer to serve her in some other way (as the baker in Colorado offered to sell the gay couple anything else in his store)? I"m still in the dark about that, even after being told the answer would be clear to me if I would only reread the post (which I did) and after being lectured by you about ignoring an answer even after I tried to find it, and after having a portion of the post, which I had already read and re-read, quoted to me.

Sorry, I think I accidentally posted my comment before I was finished. Please reread my post and see if my answer helps you understand at least my understanding of the law.  Whether the dress designer or the baker offered other products is irrelevant to what the law requires.

Edited October 15, 2017 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sorry, I think I accidentally posted my comment before I was finished. Please reread my post and see if my answer helps you understand at least my understanding of the law.  Whether the dress designer or the baker offered other products is irrelevant to what the law requires.

Your understanding of the law was not the subject of my question, the answer to which, I now take it, is not to be found by rereading Benjamin McGuire's post after all, notwithstanding your urging me to reread it so as to find the answer to my question.

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, california boy said:

Whether the dress designer is required to offer other services to TFLOTUS is another question that requires another answer.  As far as I understand the law, it is irrelevant whether the dress designer offered to serve the LFOTUS in another way. It is also irrelevant that the baker offered to sell the gay couple other products in the store.  The law doesn't permit you to offer someone who wants to buy peas that you sell to the public that you will only sell them corn because you have a religious belief about them eating peas.  So whether you offer them corn is irrelevant under the law.

Here is what Benjamin said.  He clearly explains what the law does require and why.

Benjamin did a very good job of explaining to you and anyone else how the law is written and why it has been upheld the way it has every time it has been challenged in the courts.  Now you as well as many others may very well disagree with the law, but you can't say that you don't understand what the law is.  What can be debated is the constitutionality of such a law.  And that is the question that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court.  It is their job to decide whether such a law is constitutional.  

Benjamin McGuire wrote:
 

Quote

 

And this is a really important point. This means that Posen isn't refusing to provide services to Ivanka or Melania because of their race, their color, their disability, their sex, their sexual orientation, their national origin/ancestry, their creed, or their marital status.

As long as he isn't refusing them service on those grounds, he cannot be charged with discrimination (at least not in Colorado).

 

My response was to point out that neither is the baker refusing to provide services on the basis of "their sexual orientation," as evidenced by the fact he offered to sell them anything else in the store, and that what he is doing is refusing to participate in an expression of that sexual orientation that goes against his personal values.

Whether he can be forced to so participate is a question that I understand SCOTUS will decide.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Benjamin McGuire wrote:
 

My response was to point out that neither is the baker refusing to provide services on the basis of "their sexual orientation," as evidenced by the fact he offered to sell them anything else in the store, and that what he is doing is refusing to participate in an expression of that sexual orientation that goes against his personal values.

Whether he can be forced to so participate is a question that I understand SCOTUS will decide.

The court rulings on this case have stated that denying a wedding cake for a gay couple is by its very nature related to their sexual orientation.  Kind of a duh for most people.  If they weren't gay, there would be no problem selling a wedding cake to them.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Colorado baker didn’t refuse service to the gay couple on the basis of sexual orientation either (he offered to sell them anything else in the store). 

But here is the problem, Scott. The Colorado law exactly defines this as discrimination. It doesn't have to be a complete rejection of services for it to qualify as discrimination under the law. And the cake baker admits to the fact that this is a discriminatory practice. His interest isn't in trying to find a way to argue that it isn't discriminatory in nature. His interest is in finding a way to use the law to justify his discriminatory behavior.

Is this the position that you are trying to take? That you are looking for legal justifications for discrimination?

Quote

What he did do was to refuse to participate in the expression of that orientation in a manner that was inconsistent with his values. 

No. Nobody believes this is the case (including the courts). You would understand this if you had read through all of the related court history and documents. The courts \have consistently suggested that when a law requires you to do something to avoid things like discrimination, that any reasonable person doesn't construe that action as speech or as an expression of approval of something you disagree with. This is the whole issue behind my use of the term speech-for-hire concept.

Quote

The dress designer, by contrast, refused service to FLOTUS ostensibly due only to her association with someone else, namely POTUS. Did the designer offer to accommodate her in other ways as the baker did the gay couple? I don’t know, but I doubt it. 

It's irrelevant. The law doesn't protect you from this kind of discriminatory action. Specifically, the Colorado law goes out of its way to make sure that we understand that this isn't a protected sort of thing. It is a comparison between apples and oranges. It is not about the belief, it is about the group you are discriminating against. So this doesn't begin to be analogous to the cake issue that SCOTUS is going to hear. And these kinds of arguments won't even come up in that case.

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My response was to point out that neither is the baker refusing to provide services on the basis of "their sexual orientation," as evidenced by the fact he offered to sell them anything else in the store, and that what he is doing is refusing to participate in an expression of that sexual orientation that goes against his personal values.

Whether he can be forced to so participate is a question that I understand SCOTUS will decide.

But, Scott, this is exactly what the earlier courts have found - that he was refusing to serve them precisely because they were gay. It's not that he was willing to sell other things, it's that he wants to treat a protected class of individuals differently than he treats others. The fact that he was willing to provide a lesser degree of service to them despite the fact that they are gay doesn't somehow magically make the idea of discrimination go away, does it. There isn't a lot of difference between that and a restaurant that offered two different sections (and two different menus) for whites and blacks. Obviously, if they were willing to serve blacks at all, then there couldn't be racial discrimination, right? On the level that you are presenting it, there is no difference between this and not wanting to sell an interracial couple a wedding cake.

The courts have a long history of forcing speech. This has been common ever since the civil rights movement when there were a lot of people who tried to defend racial discrimination on the basis of free speech. This isn't an issue. The question is whether or not the courts can force speech that is entangled with the free expression. Up until this appeal, the earlier courts have determined that making a cake doesn't rise to the level of personal speech, and so cannot be in effect an expression of personal religious belief, and so there is no entanglement with the free exercise clause. This is what I expect SCOTUS to decide also. Which means that SCOTUS is unlikely to get to the real question we want answered which is whether or not you can be forced to make religious speech.

But the idea of forcing speech is anything but novel - it has been established for decades in our legal system. SCOTUS would not have taken this case if that were the only issue being explored here. What SCOTUS is going to decide about is whether or not baking the cake constitutes personal speech, and whether or not that speech is entangled with the free exercise clause - and if they find that it is speech and that it is entangled, then they will decide whether or not the right to free exercise has a stronger constitutional claim than the right of the government to forbid discrimination. These issues are what SCOTUS is being asked to decide. They are not actually being asked to decide if the courts can simply force speech to avoid discrimination.

[Daniel2]

On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 8:46 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

But, Scott, this is exactly what the earlier courts have found - that he was refusing to serve them precisely because they were gay. It's not that he was willing to sell other things, it's that he wants to treat a protected class of individuals differently than he treats others. The fact that he was willing to provide a lesser degree of service to them despite the fact that they are gay doesn't somehow magically make the idea of discrimination go away, does it. There isn't a lot of difference between that and a restaurant that offered two different sections (and two different menus) for whites and blacks. Obviously, if they were willing to serve blacks at all, then there couldn't be racial discrimination, right? On the level that you are presenting it, there is no difference between this and not wanting to sell an interracial couple a wedding cake.

The courts have a long history of forcing speech. This has been common ever since the civil rights movement when there were a lot of people who tried to defend racial discrimination on the basis of free speech. This isn't an issue. The question is whether or not the courts can force speech that is entangled with the free expression. Up until this appeal, the earlier courts have determined that making a cake doesn't rise to the level of personal speech, and so cannot be in effect an expression of personal religious belief, and so there is no entanglement with the free exercise clause. This is what I expect SCOTUS to decide also. Which means that SCOTUS is unlikely to get to the real question we want answered which is whether or not you can be forced to make religious speech.

But the idea of forcing speech is anything but novel - it has been established for decades in our legal system. SCOTUS would not have taken this case if that were the only issue being explored here. What SCOTUS is going to decide about is whether or not baking the cake constitutes personal speech, and whether or not that speech is entangled with the free exercise clause - and if they find that it is speech and that it is entangled, then they will decide whether or not the right to free exercise has a stronger constitutional claim than the right of the government to forbid discrimination. These issues are what SCOTUS is being asked to decide. They are not actually being asked to decide if the courts can simply force speech to avoid discrimination.

Amen.

[kiwi57]

On 10/15/2017 at 6:19 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Of course. But as I noted, if the questions were reversed, the people holding the camera and asking the questions would find themselves in exactly the same boat. The thing is, they are not being really honest, because they haven't begin to present a completely analogous circumstance in their example.

You "noted," or merely opined?

How do you know that the interviewers aren't perfectly happy for Muslim singers to have the right to refuse to perform at a Christian event, just like they are happy for Christian bakers to have the right to refuse to support an SSM event?

Whenever I see this automatic assumption that we'd all think differently if the shoe was on the other foot, I have to wonder: has it ever occurred to you that there are people who hold actual principled positions because they actually believe the principles, and not out of mere self-interest?

Speaking only for myself: given that I am free to walk down the street and walk right past any shop where I don't like the look of the person behind the counter, thus refusing (for entirely arbitrary reasons) not to do business with them, and choose a seller more to my liking, I find it entirely asymmetrical that the seller doesn't have exactly the same right. So I accept as a matter of course that what I'm arguing for entails that sellers would have the right to refuse to serve me because I'm male. Or white. Or Mormon. Or have a New Zealand accent. Or all of the above.

[california boy]

7 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

You "noted," or merely opined?

How do you know that the interviewers aren't perfectly happy for Muslim singers to have the right to refuse to perform at a Christian event, just like they are happy for Christian bakers to have the right to refuse to support an SSM event?

Whenever I see this automatic assumption that we'd all think differently if the shoe was on the other foot, I have to wonder: has it ever occurred to you that there are people who hold actual principled positions because they actually believe the principles, and not out of mere self-interest?

Speaking only for myself: given that I am free to walk down the street and walk right past any shop where I don't like the look of the person behind the counter, thus refusing (for entirely arbitrary reasons) not to do business with them, and choose a seller more to my liking, I find it entirely asymmetrical that the seller doesn't have exactly the same right. So I accept as a matter of course that what I'm arguing for entails that sellers would have the right to refuse to serve me because I'm male. Or white. Or Mormon. Or have a New Zealand accent. Or all of the above.

It was a dishonest interview.  The person asking the questions was not giving an accurate picture of what the law states.  And the people answering the questions are not versed on what the law requires.  These kinds of discussions thrive on ignorance and emotion.

What you choose to do is irrelevant to what the law requires a business to do.  It is like saying personally I would never steal so therefore laws against thief are unjustified.  For some, discrimination is a very real thing.  The law is written to protect, not those who are not discriminated against but those that are.

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

You "noted," or merely opined?

How do you know that the interviewers aren't perfectly happy for Muslim singers to have the right to refuse to perform at a Christian event, just like they are happy for Christian bakers to have the right to refuse to support an SSM event?

Whenever I see this automatic assumption that we'd all think differently if the shoe was on the other foot, I have to wonder: has it ever occurred to you that there are people who hold actual principled positions because they actually believe the principles, and not out of mere self-interest?

Speaking only for myself: given that I am free to walk down the street and walk right past any shop where I don't like the look of the person behind the counter, thus refusing (for entirely arbitrary reasons) not to do business with them, and choose a seller more to my liking, I find it entirely asymmetrical that the seller doesn't have exactly the same right. So I accept as a matter of course that what I'm arguing for entails that sellers would have the right to refuse to serve me because I'm male. Or white. Or Mormon. Or have a New Zealand accent. Or all of the above.

Why should I assume that propaganda is somehow objective? It isn't.

I think that people who insist that they should be allowed to discriminate based on "principles" are looking for ways to justify behavior which is anything but Christian. There is a level of hypocrisy involved in such a statement is absolutely stunning to me. I am glad you are only speaking for yourself, because of course, we don't have to go back very far in time (to the heyday of the civil rights movement) to find people expressing exactly the same views that you are expressing about the right they should have to engage in racial discrimination.

Of course you recognize that this could allow for discrimination towards you. But it always seems to me that this is partly just a posture. After all, you have very little experience with real discrimination directed towards you personally - and it is that lack of experience that allows you to be so casual about it. When we see real discrimination towards others, we have an obligation in our religion to champion those being discriminated against. We shouldn't simply wave our hands, and suggest that its okay for them to treat us the same way - and so walk past on the other side of the road.

[kiwi57]

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Why should I assume that propaganda is somehow objective? It isn't.

You realise, of course, that that absolutely includes propaganda in favour of same sex "marriage" and in opposition to religious freedom?

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that people who insist that they should be allowed to discriminate based on "principles" are looking for ways to justify behavior which is anything but Christian.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm sure that you also think it is bad to judge others harshly.

Why is it "anything but Christian" to want to not be bullied into celebrating an unclean relationship?

[kiwi57]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

It was a dishonest interview.  The person asking the questions was not giving an accurate picture of what the law states.  And the people answering the questions are not versed on what the law requires.  These kinds of discussions thrive on ignorance and emotion.

While mindless slogans live "Love wins!" and meaningless oxymorons like "marriage equality" are examples of pure, rational thinking?

The people responded to the questions in ways that reflected the attitudes that you and yours seem to want them to have. How is that "dishonest?"

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

You realise, of course, that that absolutely includes propaganda in favour of same sex "marriage" and in opposition to religious freedom?

Sure. However, legal decisions don't usually fit into this category. On the other hand, I do have a real problem with the suggestion here that somehow same-sex marriage exists in opposition to religious freedom ( there is no need for the scare quotes - since those marriages are under our laws marriages just like opposite-sex marriages).

Quote

Why is it "anything but Christian" to want to not be bullied into celebrating an unclean relationship?

The challenge is that this isn't what is happening. That seems to be the part that is so hard for those who want to be allowed to discriminate to understand. Making a cake for someone isn't "celebrating an unclean relationship". This is the position of the courts repeatedly in these cases. And this is in my opinion exactly what SCOTUS is going to tell us when they get done considering the case. And since it isn't an actual celebration, then it becomes merely a pretext. And when it is a pretext for discrimination, that is when it becomes unchristian. This is the problem that I have. Apparently, any argument that lets you discriminate against others is okay right? Because, after all, it really is only about the outcome ...

Edited October 17, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Sure. However, legal decisions don't usually fit into this category. On the other hand, I do have a real problem with the suggestion here that somehow same-sex marriage exists in opposition to religious freedom ( there is no need for the scare quotes - since those marriages are under our laws marriages just like opposite-sex marriages).

The challenge is that this isn't what is happening. That seems to be the part that is so hard for those who want to be allowed to discriminate to understand. Making a cake for someone isn't "celebrating an unclean relationship". This is the position of the courts repeatedly in these cases. And this is in my opinion exactly what SCOTUS is going to tell us when they get done considering the case. And since it isn't an actual celebration, then it becomes merely a pretext. And when it is a pretext for discrimination, that is when it becomes unchristian. This is the problem that I have. Apparently, any argument that lets you discriminate against others is okay right? Because, after all, it really is only about the outcome ...

As you know, the people accused of "discrimination" were objecting to the event, not the customers. As you know, they offered to sell those customers any item already on the shelves of their store.

If telling yourself that they were only looking for a pretext to "discriminate" against people they didn't like is what helps you to throw religious liberty under the bus, then I guess you've got to do what you've got to do.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

*shrug*

When there is no real distinction between "the event" and "the customers", then discriminating against the event means discriminating against the customers (this argument hasn't worked for anyone yet either). There's not much difference in your suggestion and having a store that while it sells some things to both black people and white people, keeps the really nice things for sale only to the white people right? And, actually, that's a sort of classic description of discrimination, isn't it. They are discriminating against the customers, not just an event.

It's obvious that your mind is made up, and you aren't all that worried about facts getting in the way. So carry on.

Just realize that despite your efforts to make this about religious liberty, it really isn't. And in a few months, SCOTUS will confirm that it really isn't. And then this discussion will become irrelevant.

[kiwi57]

16 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

*shrug*

When there is no real distinction between "the event" and "the customers", then discriminating against the event means discriminating against the customers

Except that there is a real distinction between "the event" and "the customers," as demonstrated by the fact that the baker explicitly offered to serve the customers.

Or is it your position that "gay" people only eat cakes at same sex "weddings?"

16 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There's not much difference in your suggestion and having a store that while it sells some things to both black people and white people, keeps the really nice things for sale only to the white people right? And, actually, that's a sort of classic description of discrimination, isn't it. They are discriminating against the customers, not just an event.

No, actually, there is a difference.

The baker wasn't keeping anything aside, he was declining a demand request to do additional bespoke work.

He was refusing to participate in an event, not "discriminating against the customers."

I am aware, of course, that that brazen falsehood has gotten rather a lot of traction in some quarters. But it is still false.

16 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It's obvious that your mind is made up, and you aren't all that worried about facts getting in the way. So carry on.

Physician, heal thyself!

16 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Just realize that despite your efforts to make this about religious liberty, it really isn't. And in a few months, SCOTUS will confirm that it really isn't. And then this discussion will become irrelevant.

So you are saying that religious liberty is only what SCOTUS says that it is?

I see.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Sure. However, legal decisions don't usually fit into this category. On the other hand, I do have a real problem with the suggestion here that somehow same-sex marriage exists in opposition to religious freedom ( there is no need for the scare quotes - since those marriages are under our laws marriages just like opposite-sex marriages).

You know what ****ens said about the law. And in reality, same sex "marriages" are not "just like" authentic conjugal marriages.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Kiwi,

Your bigotry is showing.

Quote

Except that there is a real distinction between "the event" and "the customers," as demonstrated by the fact that the baker explicitly offered to serve the customers.

No. There isn't a real distinction. It isn't there. As I noted, you could have a store that explicitly offers to sell some things to whites and other things to blacks - and while they explicitly offer to serve both sets of customers, the fact that they make it different is explicitly part of the legal definition of discrimination. So what you are offering as a demonstration isn't what you think it is at all.

Quote

Or is it your position that "gay" people only eat cakes at same sex "weddings?"

I'll tell you what, since the appeals court in Colorado did such a nice job responding to your concerns, I'll just quote it (emphasis added):

Quote

Masterpiece asserts that it did not decline to make Craig’s and Mullins’ wedding cake “because of” their sexual orientation. It argues that it does not object to or refuse to serve patrons because of their sexual orientation, and that it assured Craig and Mullins that it would design and create any other bakery product for them, just not a wedding cake. Masterpiece asserts that its decision was solely “because of” Craig’s and Mullins’ intended conduct — entering into marriage with a same-sex partner — and the celebratory message about same-sex marriage that baking a wedding cake would convey. Therefore, because its refusal to serve Craig and Mullins was not “because of” their sexual orientation, Masterpiece contends that it did not violate CADA. We disagree.

...

In these decisions, the Supreme Court recognized that, in some cases, conduct cannot be divorced from status. This is so when the conduct is so closely correlated with the status that it is engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who have that particular status. We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage constitutes such conduct because it is “engaged in exclusively or predominantly” by gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Masterpiece’s distinction, therefore, is one without a difference. But for their sexual orientation, Craig and Mullins would not have sought to enter into a same-sex marriage, and but for their intent to do so, Masterpiece would not have denied them its services.

In Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, the New Mexico Supreme Court rejected a similar argument raised by a wedding photographer. 309 P.3d 53, 60-64 (N.M. 2013). The court concluded that by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, New Mexico’s antidiscrimination law similarly protects “conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation,” including the act of same-sex marriage. Id. at 62. The court observed that “[o]therwise, we would interpret [the New Mexico public accommodations law] as protecting same-gender couples against discriminatory treatment, but only to the extent that they do not openly display their same-gender sexual orientation.” Id. We agree with the reasoning of the New Mexico Supreme Court.6

...

Further, Masterpiece admits that it refused to serve Craig and Mullins “because of” its opposition to persons entering into samesex marriages, conduct which we conclude is closely correlated with sexual orientation. Therefore, even if we assume that CADA requires plaintiffs to establish an intent to discriminate, as in section 1985(3) action, the ALJ reasonably could have inferred from Masterpiece’s conduct an intent to discriminate against Craig and Mullins “because of” their sexual orientation.We also note that although the Bray Court held that opposition to voluntary abortion did not equate to discrimination against women, it observed that “Some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed.” 506 U.S. at 270. The Court provided, by way of example, that “[a] tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.” Id. Likewise, discrimination on the basis of one’s opposition to same-sex marriage is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

We reject Masterpiece’s related argument that its willingness to sell birthday cakes, cookies, and other non-wedding cake products to gay and lesbian customers establishes that it did not violate CADA. Masterpiece’s potential compliance with CADA in this respect does not permit it to refuse services to Craig and Mullins that it otherwise offers to the general public. See Elane Photography, 309 P.3d at 62 (“f a restaurant offers a full menu to male customers, it may not refuse to serve entrees to women, even if it will serve them appetizers. . . . Elane Photography’s willingness to offer some services to [a woman entering a same-sex marriage] does not cure its refusal to provide other services that it offered to the general public.”).8

Finally, Masterpiece argues that the ALJ wrongly presumed that only same-sex couples engage in same-sex marriage. In support, it references the case of two heterosexual New Zealanders who married in connection with a radio talk show contest. However, as the Bray court explained, we do not distinguish between conduct and status where the targeted conduct is engaged in “predominantly by a particular class of people.” 506 U.S. at 270. An isolated example of two heterosexual men marrying does not persuade us that same-sex marriage is not predominantly, and almost exclusively, engaged in by gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

Therefore, we conclude that the ALJ did not err by concluding that Masterpiece refused to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins “because of” their sexual orientation. CADA prohibits places of public accommodations from basing their refusal to serve customers on their sexual orientation, and Masterpiece violated Colorado’s public accommodations law by refusing to create a wedding cake for Craig’s and Mullins’ same-sex wedding celebration.

You can see how this details all of the things I have been trying to explain. Just because you are willing to sell something to someone is not evidence that there cannot be real discrimination (or even the intent to discriminate).

Quote

No, actually, there is a difference.

The baker wasn't keeping anything aside, he was declining a demand request to do additional bespoke work.

He was refusing to participate in an event, not "discriminating against the customers."

I am aware, of course, that that brazen falsehood has gotten rather a lot of traction in some quarters. But it is still false.

No. This simply isn't accurate. It's not a falsehood. And I certainly don't think you are lying (I think you actually believe the nonsense you are writing - I just think you are ignorant). The fact remains that the baker made custom cakes as part of his public business. His decision to provide those services for everyone except for this one group, constitutes a clear decision to discriminate. And this distinction you are trying to press between an event and the customers simply doesn't work under the laws in our country.

The fact remains, that your own opposition to the ideas here is as much about the group as it is about the event. Since I am sure that you think that with or without the label of marriage, a gay relationship is "an unclean relationship" right? So does your own issue with gays color your perception? It seems likely, doesn't it?

Quote

Physician, heal thyself!

I am not the one arguing that we should be allowed to discriminate against groups of people we don't like.

Quote

So you are saying that religious liberty is only what SCOTUS says that it is?

On a legal level, yes. I think that clearly we need some kind of external arbitration to help us determine under which sets of circumstances religious liberty takes precedence, and when they don't. This isn't the first time that this sort of issue has been raised. One of the more significant cases came in 1968 - Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. Here is a quote from one of the court decisions:

Quote

Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."  

Do we think that this should be allowed? The only thing that really makes this case with the cakes any different from the case in 1968 (which was also taken to the Supreme Court and lost), is that this case extends the argument. Like the 1968 case, it claims a religious freedom exemption from the anti-discrimination laws. Unlike that case, this one suggests that being compelled to serve the class that is being discriminated against isn't just an issue of religious freedom, but represents the idea that a declaration of religious belief is being compelled. It would be the same thing as the 1968 case, if they had argued then, that serving blacks in a whites only establishment was effectively speech supporting the religious belief that racial integration was a good thing.

You may not like the comparison, but this is what this case with the baker is also all about.

I think that most rational people will recognize that there are reasonable limits in both directions over when we should (and shouldn't) put limits religious freedom as the most important element in determining whose rights should prevail.

Now, here is the important part. These cases are not about limiting religious freedom in some new way. We already established this sort of restriction (and appropriately so in my opinion) during the civil rights movement. We decided that religious freedom arguments ought to have some limitations when used to try and justify discrimination. So this decision (assuming that the baker loses) is not going to restrict religious freedom any more than already exists. What the baker (and those who support him) in this case is trying to do is to extend religious freedom and take back some of this space so that those who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom can do so legally. And the courts (so far) have shown that they aren't terribly interested in returning this space (for lots of reasons). Do we really want to back to having people saying that it's okay to reestablish segregation because there are still people who believe that integration of races is against their religious beliefs? (Do you think it wouldn't happen?)

And finally, for the vast majority of us (and I speak only from my personal experience - so I can't speak authoritatively for most Americans - but I have no reason to believe that my experience is different from others), we don't really see how making a custom cake for and selling it to gays somehow conflicts with the practice of religion. If you were the baker, would your bishop think of you as sinning by selling such a cake? Is there some commandment against this? Is it in scripture?

For all of these reasons collectively, there isn't much expectation that SCOTUS is actually going to reverse the case. I think that whatever they say will largely have to do with the question of whether or not making the cake should be considered speech at all, and not whether or not there is an entanglement with the free exercise clause. So the question about religious freedom is unlikely to even matter in this case. But who knows .... I suspect that we will have a much better sense after that first Tuesday in December, when we can hear the oral arguments before the court.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[kiwi57]

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Kiwi,

Your bigotry is showing.

Benjamin,

It's a good thing I didn't say that, or I would have been thread-banned for sure.

It is apparent that what side of the argument you are on matters rather a lot around here these days.

Thank you for telling me how the courts have ruled, and trotting out the specious arguments by which they discount the very real and meaningful distinction between discrimination against people and refusing to participate in an event.

I don't accept those arguments.

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The fact remains, that your own opposition to the ideas here is as much about the group as it is about the event. Since I am sure that you think that with or without the label of marriage, a gay relationship is "an unclean relationship" right? So does your own issue with gays color your perception? It seems likely, doesn't it?

It seems likely that I wouldn't want to be coerced into participating in anything celebrating a homosexual relationship, yes.

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am not the one arguing that we should be allowed to discriminate against groups of people we don't like.

But it's equally obvious that your mind is made up, and you aren't all that worried about facts getting in the way. So carry on.

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Do we think that this should be allowed? The only thing that really makes this case with the cakes any different from the case in 1968 (which was also taken to the Supreme Court and lost), is that this case extends the argument. Like the 1968 case, it claims a religious freedom exemption from the anti-discrimination laws. Unlike that case, this one suggests that being compelled to serve the class that is being discriminated against isn't just an issue of religious freedom, but represents the idea that a declaration of religious belief is being compelled. It would be the same thing as the 1968 case, if they had argued then, that serving blacks in a whites only establishment was effectively speech supporting the religious belief that racial integration was a good thing.

You may not like the comparison, but this is what this case with the baker is also all about.

Yes, that's what we are supposed to think it is all about. It's a false comparison, of course, because race and behaviour are two essentially unrelated things. Although rap "music" is undertaken predominantly by members of a particular ethnic group, it is not "racist" to dislike long unmusical monologues heavily laced with swear words.

Actually what this case is really "all about" is whether people who have a principled objection to same sex "marriage" can be compelled to contribute their labour to such events. As far as I am aware, the correct descriptor for a person who is not free to refuse to work for someone is "a slave." The purpose of this case is to make slaves of those who don't believe in SSM.

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that most rational people will recognize that there are reasonable limits in both directions over when we should (and shouldn't) put limits religious freedom as the most important element in determining whose rights should prevail.

Yes, and religious liberty is far higher than the "right" to compel others to work for you.

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Now, here is the important part. These cases are not about limiting religious freedom in some new way. We already established this sort of restriction (and appropriately so in my opinion) during the civil rights movement. We decided that religious freedom arguments ought to have some limitations when used to try and justify discrimination. So this decision (assuming that the baker loses) is not going to restrict religious freedom any more than already exists. What the baker (and those who support him) in this case is trying to do is to extend religious freedom and take back some of this space so that those who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom can do so legally. And the courts (so far) have shown that they aren't terribly interested in returning this space (for lots of reasons). Do we really want to back to having people saying that it's okay to reestablish segregation because there are still people who believe that integration of races is against their religious beliefs? (Do you think it wouldn't happen?)

Yes, I think it wouldn't happen. For a number of very good reasons, including but not limited to, the power of free markets.

But again, I see something quite different. I see that a certain group are trying to weaponise same sex "marriage" and turn it into a club with which to beat the targets of their hatred and bigotry into submission.

I believe that, whatever decision the court makes, the halcyon days of same sex "marriage" are already over. Most gays don't want "marriage," few are choosing it, and many of those who were part of the initial surge are already getting divorced.

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And finally, for the vast majority of us (and I speak only from my personal experience - so I can't speak authoritatively for most Americans - but I have no reason to believe that my experience is different from others), we don't really see how making a custom cake for and selling it to gays somehow conflicts with the practice of religion. If you were the baker, would your bishop think of you as sinning by selling such a cake? Is there some commandment against this? Is it in scripture?

That's probably the weakest argument of the lot. It is not for an unbeliever to determine what part of religious doctrine ought to inform a believer's conscience. For people with principles, religious practice isn't just what happens inside the walls of a church on Sunday.

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

For all of these reasons collectively, there isn't much expectation that SCOTUS is actually going to reverse the case. I think that whatever they say will largely have to do with the question of whether or not making the cake should be considered speech at all, and not whether or not there is an entanglement with the free exercise clause. So the question about religious freedom is unlikely to even matter in this case. But who knows .... I suspect that we will have a much better sense after that first Tuesday in December, when we can hear the oral arguments before the court.

I don't know what the outcome will be either. But if it goes the wrong way, that will simply underline the fact that America's days as "the land of the free" are now a footnote in history.

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I don't accept those arguments.

That's the beauty of truth. It really is indifferent to whether you accept it or not, right? I think that this conversation has largely run its course. If you accept nothing but your own opinion, then what is the point in the discussion?

Quote

It seems likely that I wouldn't want to be coerced into participating in anything celebrating a homosexual relationship, yes.

Let us all hope then, that you don't have any gay children ....

Quote

Yes, that's what we are supposed to think it is all about. It's a false comparison, of course, because race and behaviour are two essentially unrelated things. Although rap "music" is undertaken predominantly by members of a particular ethnic group, it is not "racist" to dislike long unmusical monologues heavily laced with swear words.

They aren't essentially unrelated things. And it really doesn't matter how much you disagree with the idea that they aren't unrelated - it isn't going to change the fact that the legal consensus agrees with me. On the issue with rap, clearly, you don't mind all sorts of stereotypes do you. My daughter has a close friend whose favorite musician right now is George Watsky  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Watsky

You would probably agree that black musicians don't have anything resembling a monopoly on bad language in music. And while I think in this case, you will find that while blacks do produce most of contemporary rap music, there are also significant white singers who have contributed to the genre. I am going to go out on a limb here though, and guess that you probably can't name more than a couple without looking it up, because you probably have little interest in the music genre at all. You may have hear of Eminem, or the Beastie Boys, or Kid Rock. I don't have any of them on my device, but I do listen to Linkin Park on a regular basis. I think in the long run, you won't find me particularly sympathetic to the comparison.

The problem that we inevitably end up with is the question - if a disagreement with the behavior becomes a pretext for discrimination of the group, then it doesn't really matter - it is still against the law, and it isn't justified.

Quote

Actually what this case is really "all about" is whether people who have a principled objection to same sex "marriage" can be compelled to contribute their labour to such events. As far as I am aware, the correct descriptor for a person who is not free to refuse to work for someone is "a slave." The purpose of this case is to make slaves of those who don't believe in SSM.

This is complete nonsense. Why? Because slaves cannot refuse to do something. Anti-discrimination laws say that you cannot offer to do something for everyone except members of these specific groups. So you can refuse to provide services for anyone if it means that much to you. That is not the definition of a slave. However, we do have words that describe this desire to refuse to treat groups of people they don't like in the same way that they treat others. You just don't like any of them ...

Quote

Yes, and religious liberty is far higher than the "right" to compel others to work for you.

What does this even mean? We as a society have collectively decided that there are limits to what we allow in the name of religious liberty. It is that simple. Religious liberty does not give you the right to trample all over the rights of others to experience equal treatment in our society. It is that simple.

Quote

Yes, I think it wouldn't happen. For a number of very good reasons, including but not limited to, the power of free markets.

 

I don't share your optimism here. The last state to rescind their anti-miscegenation laws did so in 2000 (Alabama) and when the vote was held to rescind it, 41% of the population voted against removing the law. In 2009, a Justice of the Peace refused to perform an interracial marriage. He resigned rather than perform it. I think that you will find that we still have a population that is deeply resistant to the civil rights laws, and the power of free markets doesn't work so well when you have a majority trying to repress a minority. Clearly, free markets would have very little impact on persons like the cake baker, or the various photographers, or even yourself who believe that this should be an issue of principle over money. So no, I think that these kinds of things would happen in spite of the power of free markets ...

Quote

But again, I see something quite different. I see that a certain group are trying to weaponise same sex "marriage" and turn it into a club with which to beat the targets of their hatred and bigotry into submission.

And I don't see this at all. What I see instead is a much larger group attempting to find ways to put gays into their place, and keep them from having any sort of voice or equality in our society.

Quote

I believe that, whatever decision the court makes, the halcyon days of same sex "marriage" are already over. Most gays don't want "marriage," few are choosing it, and many of those who were part of the initial surge are already getting divorced.

You know, my personal experiences tell me that just the opposite is going on. But, of course, time will tell.

Quote

That's probably the weakest argument of the lot. It is not for an unbeliever to determine what part of religious doctrine ought to inform a believer's conscience. For people with principles, religious practice isn't just what happens inside the walls of a church on Sunday.

I am a believer. But you still haven't said anything to explain how this is a matter of religious practice. How is making this cake not simply speech-for-hire? How is it making a statement if exactly no one understands the statement? It is an argument that isn't there to present someone practicing their religion - it is an argument contrived to allow discrimination.

Quote

I don't know what the outcome will be either. But if it goes the wrong way, that will simply underline the fact that America's days as "the land of the free" are now a footnote in history.

And this is exactly the kind of thing that those opposed to the civil rights movement said when it was being enforced. And guess what, it didn't happen. All this fear mongering on your part simply presents a rather twisted and self centered view of what might happen (because it isn't really going to happen). People will get on with their lives, just as they did following the civil rights movement, and we will have another group that isn't afraid to function as a part of our society.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/17/2017 at 1:35 AM, california boy said:

It was a dishonest interview.  The person asking the questions was not giving an accurate picture of what the law states.  And the people answering the questions are not versed on what the law requires.  These kinds of discussions thrive on ignorance and emotion.

What you choose to do is irrelevant to what the law requires a business to do.  It is like saying personally I would never steal so therefore laws against thief are unjustified.  For some, discrimination is a very real thing.  The law is written to protect, not those who are not discriminated against but those that are.

It’s not a “dishonest interview” to ask questions that get people to explore and evaluate the consistency of their own reasoning. Some people don’t like it and get mad when it happens, but there’s nothing dishonest about it. 

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

That's the beauty of truth. It really is indifferent to whether you accept it or not, right?

That's right. It's even indifferent to popularity.

Right is right, even if nobody does it; and wrong is wrong, even if everybody does it.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Let us all hope then, that you don't have any gay children ....

At least I won't think they are "bigots," like some people would if they had believing Latter-day Saint children.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

They aren't essentially unrelated things. And it really doesn't matter how much you disagree with the idea that they aren't unrelated - it isn't going to change the fact that the legal consensus agrees with me.

Isn't that the beauty of truth? It doesn't care about "consensus."

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

On the issue with rap, clearly, you don't mind all sorts of stereotypes do you. My daughter has a close friend whose favorite musician right now is George Watsky  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Watsky

You would probably agree that black musicians don't have anything resembling a monopoly on bad language in music. And while I think in this case, you will find that while blacks do produce most of contemporary rap music, there are also significant white singers who have contributed to the genre. I am going to go out on a limb here though, and guess that you probably can't name more than a couple without looking it up, because you probably have little interest in the music genre at all. You may have hear of Eminem, or the Beastie Boys, or Kid Rock. I don't have any of them on my device, but I do listen to Linkin Park on a regular basis. I think in the long run, you won't find me particularly sympathetic to the comparison.

Actually that's my point. I don't care what colour the "musicians" are, I have no time for rap "music."

But there are some who might contrive to pretend that that is a manifestation of "racism."

In the which, they would be wrong.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem that we inevitably end up with is the question - if a disagreement with the behavior becomes a pretext for discrimination of the group, then it doesn't really matter - it is still against the law, and it isn't justified.

That might be your problem. The problem I see is that you and your ilk assume that anyone who doesn't knuckle under must only be using a "pretext." The thought that anyone might have a genuine, principled reason for not wanting to get involved in a same sex "wedding" completely escapes you.

Why is that, Benjamin? Don't you know what it's like to hold a principled position?

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is complete nonsense. Why? Because slaves cannot refuse to do something.

And if the immoralist clique get their way - and so far they've been having a pretty good time of it - nobody in any wedding-related industries (under the heavy hand of the US legal jurisdiction) will be able to refuse to be involved in same sex "weddings." Exactly.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Anti-discrimination laws say that you cannot offer to do something for everyone except members of these specific groups. So you can refuse to provide services for anyone if it means that much to you.

"Men might as well be imprisoned, as excluded from the means of earning their bread." (John Stuart Mill)

But hey - since you despise principled people as "bigots," I suppose that means they don't deserve to have a livelihood, do they?

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

However, we do have words that describe this desire to refuse to treat groups of people they don't like in the same way that they treat others. You just don't like any of them ...

Except they have no "desire to refuse to treat groups of people they don't like in the same way that they treat others." They have a desire to not get involved in certain events.

It's about behaviour, not "groups of people."

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What does this even mean? We as a society have collectively decided that there are limits to what we allow in the name of religious liberty. It is that simple. Religious liberty does not give you the right to trample all over the rights of others to experience equal treatment in our society. It is that simple.

So if Bill wants to work for George but not for Fred, Fred doesn't get "equal treatment" unless he can compel Bill to work for him too?

And that's your idea of "equal treatment," is it?

In contract law, you can't enforce a contract until you have one. Hanging out your shingle and opening your doors does not constitute a contract. It doesn't even constitute an "offer." It comes no higher than an "invitation to treat," i.e. to open negotiations; and, in any plausibly free society, either party is free to walk away from those negotiations at any time until the contract is struck. Insisting that one party (the seller) may not walk away from the negotiations if the buyer belongs to a special class is not "equal treatment," it is privileged treatment.

When someone who has gay customers and employees can still be sued for "discrimination" for not knuckling under; when a church can be forced to hire out its property for a same sex "wedding" reception; when religious liberty is being forced to retreat all the way to the very doors of the church - and the retreat is enthusiastically cheered on by those who claim to be believers of some description or another - then religious liberty is clearly under threat.

Tell me, Benjamin: when you get your way, and religious liberty is absolutely confined within the walls of churches and only during actual worship services; and when (not if) your friends insist on pressing the attack and trying to use the same anti "discrimination" arguments against clergymen; will you then, finally stand up for religious liberty?

Or will the Law of Merited Impossibility apply?