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

[california boy]

3 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

"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?

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."

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?

The more organized religion draws away from the teachings of Christ, the more distain I have for them.  When did it become a sin to serve someone who is a sinner?  Why is this even an issue for someone who claims to follow the example of Christ?  

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Of course, that isn't what is happening there Scott. And that's why this is a problem. That video wasn't made with the intent of getting people to explore and evaluate the consistency of their own reasoning. It was made as a piece of propaganda. It is much like asking a political poll with completely leading questions, and then using the results of that poll as evidence in a larger argument. Creating the outcome you want, and then attempting to suggest that this is the way everyone should approach a subject isn't doing at all what you suggest here. That is dishonest.

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

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

But the challenge is that this situation isn't analogous to the issue we are looking at. So why is this relevant?

Quote

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.

My ilk? You mean those that believe discrimination is wrong under any pretext? Does it bother you to learn that I am white, a believer, a member of the Church in good standing? My willingness to stand up against discrimination isn't somehow sinful ...

And to get to your point, it doesn't escape me. I am quite clearly exactly how I understand the issue of the same-sex wedding. Selling a cake, even making a cake is not getting "involved in a same sex 'wedding'". So you are mis-characterizing my point of view. It's not that you might believe that there is a principled reason. A desire to discriminate can be quite principled, it can even be genuine. The problem is that it is incoherent in this particular situation. What you haven't explained is how a cake baker would be considered sinning by making this cake. How would the cake maker be violating his religious beliefs in making this cake? How does making this cake really affect his ability to practice his religion. These are all legitimate questions to ask in the face of an obvious and admitted discriminatory practice. We could ask the same questions about the cases earlier during the civil rights movement when these same issues were raised.

And if I view discrimination as sinful behavior (and I am genuine in this belief, and have a principled reason behind it), don't I then have an obligation - a religious obligation to try and end the practice? Isn't that what you are ultimately arguing about your own perspective? You want religious freedom for yourself, but not for me?

Quote

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.

Let's suppose that this is true. Is it bad? We can ask the same questions about interracial marriage. What you haven't established is that your own disgust for same-sex marriage should allow you to discriminate. It shouldn't. It shouldn't any more than a racists disgust over interracial marriage should allow them to discriminate. It's not about whether or not you think it's immoral. The discrimination is also immoral.

Quote

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."

Look, repeating this like a mantra doesn't actually make it true. It's not true. It won't ever be true. And the courts are NEVER going to accept this argument under these kinds of circumstances. There is no difference in this regard between the concept of a same-sex marriage and the concept of an interracial marriage. The behavior isn't really distinguishable from the group. And because of this, it is a distinction that has no meaning (except perhaps to try and convince yourself that you can take a moral high ground while participating in an ugly practice).

Quote

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?

No. But again this has no comparison to the issue we are looking at here.

What you cannot do is say that you will work for everyone except for this group here (where this group is one of the groups that we protect as a society). That should be pretty simple to understand. Why do you think this is even close to representing the same sort of narrow issue being discussed?

Quote

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

Not at all. And creating caricatures really only shows that you don't have any sort of understanding of the issue beyond your talking points.

Quote

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.

This isn't true. We aren't talking about contracts (its not an analog). This is the reason why the laws use specific language with regard to these protections. To drive a car, you need a license. Driving also means following the rules when you drive (or face legal consequences). Businesses get licenses. And their are laws that regulate their conduct and control their environment. Fire marshals, health inspectors, there is a long list of regulations that apply to people doing business. These regulations are enforced by government. In Colorado, one of these regulations is identified as Section 24, Article 34, part 6. Section 24 defines that State principal departments of state government. Article 34 defines the Department of Regulatory Agencies. Part 6 is titled Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation. It is part of the state's regulatory framework for all business that meet the description of Public Accommodation (which the bakery shop does). Because of this, when the bakery shop opens, it is subject to these regulatory oversights. Failing to meet these regulations causes a legal response. In the same way, the baker would receive a legal response if he violated the health regulations, or the fire code regulations, and so on.

This is not about a contract. It doesn't begin at the contract. It is a requirement of doing a certain type of business in the State of Colorado (although as we all know, Colorado is hardly unique in this regard). So again, your analogy doesn't work. It doesn't describe the circumstances that exist. When I suggested earlier that you were displaying ignorance - this is much of what I meant. You present situations for consideration that aren't relevant at all to the circumstances in this case. The baker admits to having a place of Public Accommodation. He admits to being in violation of Colorado Law. He admits that there are easy ways to avoid breaking the law. His claim is that the constitution protects his right to violate the law because the constitution protects his right to the free expression of religion. But so far, the courts have contended that baking a cake doesn't violate the free expression of religion because it doesn't make speech that makes a religious statement. And so his constitutional claim is invalid.

This really hasn't been about the religious component, because the courts have stated that he isn't making the kind of speech he claims to be making. And if he isn't making the kind of speech he claims to be making, then it cannot be an expression of religious belief that is being compelled. So to date, the question of religious freedom has only been involved at the margins. The core argument is over the question speech - and that question exists with or without the religious component. How does his making a cake as a special order (for someone else) constitute personal speech, instead of speech-for-hire? Perhaps you would be willing to address that question? This is a point that the courts are returning to repeatedly. Here is the earlier court's statement from their decision:

Quote

The fact that an entity charges for its goods and services reduces the likelihood that a reasonable observer will believe that it supports the message expressed in its finished product.

Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece’s providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado’s public accommodations law.

They don't use the terminology I use, but its all in there. Speech-for-hire does not normally include the notion that the product represents the personal expression of the maker. It is that simple. If it doesn't, then there is no basis for the claim that they are protected by the freedom of expression clause of the constitution. Your idea, that they shouldn't have to associate with anything at all that they disagree with (on a religious basis) isn't a constitutional position. The way that a person can avoid the conflict (and this is recognized by the baker) is to change the list of services that they sell to the public.

When you talk about privileged treatment, what it seems like, is that you want to privilege your own religious views over the rights of others. By suggesting that they are the ones who are getting privilege, you are effectively trying to repackage anti-discrimination - but it doesn't really work. Why? Because clearly the cake maker is willing to sell all these custom cakes to everyone else. Just not gays who are getting married. Making the cake maker serve everyone in the same way is NOT giving those gays a privilege that no one else has. And of course, the Colorado Public Accomodations law doesn't give gays any more rights than anyone else who participates in a suspect class - you participate in several of those groups. The fact remains that you don't need to exercise that privilege usually because those groups are much more rarely discriminated against.

Quote

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.

Again, this description is a clear example of not understanding how the law works, and what that law is trying to achieve. All of this isn't under threat because it simply doesn't exist. It hasn't existed for decades (ever since we made it quite clear in our society during the Civil Rights Movement). If a Church wants to participate as a place of Public Accommodations, then it needs to meet the requirements of doing business as a place of Public Accommodations. It has to meet the fire code, and the health code, and in this case, the anti-discrimination code. There is nothing that forces a Church though to participate as such a business. The outcome that you are championing though - it has its own issues, doesn't it. It would be nice to see you recognize in a serious way the risks that come with allowing discrimination to be justified under a claim of religious freedom. Instead, in the one instance you did bring it up, you simply suggested it would never happen.

The courts tend to have a longer memory. Were you even alive in the 1960s?

Quote

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?

This isn't my objective. It never has been. I think that it would be good to have the courts spell out in more concrete terms what we should understand as the limits of the freedom of expression clause. I think that there are significant issues that have yet to be addressed when we deal with things that really do impact a religion and religious freedom. There are questions about abortion. There are questions about whether or not we can compel parents to give their children medical treatment in spite of a religious belief (or on a smaller scale, immunizations). There are questions about war. I think these are all legitimate issues (and these kinds of issues have a relatively mixed outcome don't they). Making a cake? Not so much.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

When did it become a sin to serve someone who is a sinner?  Why is this even an issue for someone who claims to follow the example of Christ

In the law, we have the concept of being an 'accessory before the fact,' which means that you provided assistance to someone who you had reason to believe was going to commit a crime. So, for example, if you sell a gun to someone who you know is going to use that gun to commit a crime then you can be held responsible for the crime as well. So, even though you weren't present when the crime was actually committed, you were still a participant and can be held accountable for your participation.

I suspect that something akin to this line of thinking is informing the cake baker in his decision making process. For him, the line between serving someone who is a sinner and participating in sin is using his God-given creative talents to help celebrate something which he believes God disapproves of. 

Now, obviously, not all Christians draw lines the same way. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with making a cake for a gay couple - assuming, for the sake of argument, that I was capable of creating cakes that were desirable enough that I could, in good conscience, actually charge money for - but I can understand why others might feel differently. 

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

In the law, we have the concept of being an 'accessory before the fact,' which means that you provided assistance to someone who you had reason to believe was going to commit a crime. So, for example, if you sell a gun to someone who you know is going to use that gun to commit a crime then you can be held responsible for the crime as well. So, even though you weren't present when the crime was actually committed, you were still a participant and can be held accountable for your participation.

I suspect that something akin to this line of thinking is informing the cake baker in his decision making process. For him, the line between serving someone who is a sinner and participating in sin is using his God-given creative talents to help celebrate something which he believes God disapproves of. 

Now, obviously, not all Christians draw lines the same way. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with making a cake for a gay couple - assuming, for the sake of argument, that I was capable of creating cakes that were desirable enough that I could, in good conscience, actually charge money for - but I can understand why others might feel differently. 

 

There was a Roman law that is very similar to the Colorado anti discrimination law.  Jews felt that they were unjustly required to carry a Roman soldier's armor for a mile.  They were compelled by law to do something that many probably felt that by doing so, they were by implication helping the very people that were unjustly ruling over them.  If I am not mistaken, I think Christ addressed this very situation.  Do you remember what He said?  Was Christ telling them to support the Romans regime and their unjust cause?  Or was He teaching them how to become Christians, which might be even more important that worrying about whether something someone else did is right in the eyes of God or not.  

Honestly, I think you are going to find very little evidence from the Gospel of Christ to support the actions of this baker.  A stronger case could be made from the teachings of Christ that would compel them by their own beliefs to bake a cake twice as big as the one asked for.  Think about how such an action would draw other closer to Christ instead of dividing and judging that has been going on as a result of their actions.  And think of how the Spirit would testify to you and to others of the truthfulness of the gospel if such a story had been the one the bakers  actions instigated.  One story softens the spirit and brings us closer to Christ, the other hardens the heart and brings contention and draws people further away from Christ.  

Honestly it is troubling to me that the church has chosen to support the baker.  It seems so counter to the gospel of Jesus Christ, at least how the Spirit testifies to me of the truths that Christ taught.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Of course, that isn't what is happening there Scott. And that's why this is a problem. That video wasn't made with the intent of getting people to explore and evaluate the consistency of their own reasoning. It was made as a piece of propaganda. It is much like asking a political poll with completely leading questions, and then using the results of that poll as evidence in a larger argument. Creating the outcome you want, and then attempting to suggest that this is the way everyone should approach a subject isn't doing at all what you suggest here. That is dishonest.

There is no poll being taken in that video. It's merely a demonstration that people who have staked out a certain position on this issue perhaps have not thought the matter through as well as they think they have. It's a way to foster critical thinking. And it's not dishonest.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Benjamin McGuire]

Scott, it is pure propaganda. In context, the dishonesty is about the suggestion that the two things are in some way analogous. They aren't. So it isn't fostering critical thinking (even if it is trying to make the suggestion that it is).

The fact that we don't know that these are real people with real beliefs (as opposed to actors) makes it more of a challenge. If they are actors, then the presentation as if they weren't is also dishonest.

But ... have it your way.

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Scott, it is pure propaganda.

What is propaganda to one may be effective and persuasive argumentation to another.

Funny thing about dismissing something out-of-hand as propaganda: The act of doing so might, in itself, be an instance of propaganda.

Quote

In context, the dishonesty is about the suggestion that the two things are in some way analogous. They aren't. So it isn't fostering critical thinking (even if it is trying to make the suggestion that it is).

That strikes me as very much a subjective judgment on your part, which does not justify declaring it to be dishonest. I say let each view the video and decide for her/himself whether or not the examples are analogous.

Quote

The fact that we don't know that these are real people with real beliefs (as opposed to actors) makes it more of a challenge. If they are actors, then the presentation as if they weren't is also dishonest.

Now that's pure and blatant innuendo. If you have some proof or compelling evidence that the video is a hoax staged with actors, show it to us. Otherwise, don't burden us with your conspiracy theories.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is propaganda to one may be effective and persuasive argumentation to another.

It's irrelevant Scott. Completely irrelevant. Just because its persuasive to someone doesn't change what it is. It just calls into question a person's critical thinking skills. The challenge (and here is where it becomes a challenge), it get introduced like this:

Quote

Here's an interesting video, which some kind soul posted on Sic Et Non:

This is like helping my daughter with her second year English class at the local university (they are working their way through this text: https://www.amazon.com/Everythings-Argument-2016-MLA-Update/dp/131908575X

You see the appeal to authority here? Why the need to connect the video to Daniel Peterson's blog? Certainly Dan (who I respect very much, and who I work with from time to time) doesn't do this sort of thing. And then we look at the comments that come afterward. Your comments. Which don't take it critically at all. It isn't a "sticky issue" - unless we accept the premise that the video is promoting - that there isn't any difference between the two issues being raised. And you, by accepting that premise (and not engaging in your own critical thinking) reinforce the idea that they are in fact exactly the same. When, anyone who spends a little time thinking about it, will realize that they aren't the same at all. And if we were to take the same interview and use the exact same, but take for my subject the 1968 civil rights case over the man who claimed a right because of his religious beliefs, to refuse to serve a black man in his restaurant, we can all predict the outcome - even from most who would support the cake maker or the photographer.

Quote

Now that's pure and blatant innuendo. If you have some proof or compelling evidence that the video is a hoax staged with actors, show it to us. Otherwise, don't burden us with your conspiracy theories.

Of course it is. I think they actually talked to a bunch of real people. And I think that they kept only the ones that helped them make their point. Probably anyone who responded like I do didn't make the cut. But that's hardly the point. Can you demonstrate otherwise? The publisher of the video is hardly a hotbed of journalistic integrity, is it .... What I do know is that the video suggests (dishonestly) that the scenarios they are presenting are equivalent. They aren't equivalent. And obviously, I am not the only one to notice, since the third comment on the Youtube page reads:

Quote

You didn't really explain the intricacies of anti-discrimination laws to these students or anyone watching the video. These laws only apply to "public accommodations" (i.e., businesses open to the public and advertise them as such) and it's only applicable if the discrimination is based SOLELY on certain characteristics of the customer (as set forth in the law -- such as race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation).

So let me ask you a direct question Scott - do you think that the issues raised in the video are the same as those raised in this case? Do you think that confronting people without explaining to them the technical issues that are at the heart of the question was in fact a way of getting informed responses or discussion. I certainly don't think so.