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

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

So are you saying that an artist who specializes in figure paintings for a living has to accept commissions from anyone? He can't chose to, say, only accept works that involve the female form? I highly doubt that's true.

No. I am not saying that. You are confusing two different issues. Let me use a different illustration. Suppose you need to hire a worker. You get a list of resumes, and you review them, and pick the person you think will best fit the job. There isn't any problem with this. However, if you exclude someone from consideration because of certain issues (like race), that is discrimination, and it is not okay.

Of course, you have to prove the intention to make a case, and often, especially in these artistic endeavors, that can be difficult to prove. But in this case, specifically, it's not an issue. The discrimination is admitted to. The reason is that this is not a case about whether discrimination has occurred, but about whether it should be allowed. The argument by the cake maker comes in three parts.

1: Making a cake is speech (and in this case, the idea is that this speech is specifically an approval of same-sex marriage). And by making him make a specific cake, the government is compelling him to make a certain kind of speech. This, as I pointed out, isn't considered a sufficient argument to justify discrimination.

2: The claim is made that endorsing or approving of same-sex marriage is something that goes against a set of religious values.

3: The claim is then made that by forcing the baker to make this speech, the government is compelling him to say something that goes against his religious beliefs - and so is violating his right to the free exercise of religion.

In all of this, the discrimination is simply assumed. So your trying to contest the issue of discrimination isn't relevant at all to the case that is being argued before the Supreme Court. This issue (while relevant in the case in the OP) is completely irrelevant here. The baker is not contesting the idea of discrimination.

Quote

You mean a public commercial space like a studio? I don't see why having a lease with a landlord makes you any more of a public actor than a freelance songwriter working (for the public) out of his own private studio. Once you don the corporate form, you're a commercial actor. So yes, a songwriter who refuses to create hymns for one church over another, based on their denomination, is in fact discriminating. They just aren't unlawfully discriminating. 

No. What I mean by this is that the business is open to the public (any member of the public can attempt to purchase goods/services from the business or individual). It would not be a public commercial space if it was simply a private business transaction between individuals, or a transaction in a non-public space (like a private club or other restricted access setting). What you are describing isn't legal discrimination because legal discrimination refers to specific classes that our legal system defines. In this particular case, the Supreme Court has already stated that in the case of same-sex marriages, they must be treated as being just like any other marriage. To say that you won't provide services to a same-sex marriage is no different from saying that you won't provide services to a mixed-race marriage. Businesses (generally speaking) - corporate entities - cannot be discriminated against in this way. A songwriter can refuse to create hymns for one church and not another because there isn't a legal basis for discrimination in that arrangement. If on the other hand, you refuse to write songs for only potential black customers, you might find yourself guilty of discrimination.

Quote

Good idea. I hadn't thought of that before.

That's kind of what I figured. The reason why I say this is that in the court documents, the actual question being asked of SCOTUS is right there: "Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment." The issue that the baker was violating the public accommodations law isn't being challenged (again the discrimination is simply assumed).

Quote

I'm not certain what makes it especially interesting for the court. It has been relisted a near record number of times, including - what - eight more times after Gorsuch was seated. We can speculate about why that is the case, but I can't say with any certainty that the free expression component is what was really the determining factor - that was a component in the photography case as well, and the court took a complete pass on it.

It's not the free speech issue that is that interesting. It's the entanglement with the free exercise clause that makes it interesting. Is the government actually interfering in someone's practice of religion by forcing them to make a cake? Clearly baking a cake isn't sinful in any religion that I know of, so baking the cake cannot in and of itself, cannot violate sincerely held religious beliefs. Do you know otherwise? This is why they can't argue directly about the free exercise clause, the problem can only come through the idea of the government compelling speech. And compelling speech in and of itself isn't going to win the case (as you note). So ... it is an interesting question. And depending on how it gets settled, it may provide useful precedent for lots of different issues (or not).

Quote

I don't think you have to reach the religious expression point at all. I suspect that the court will decide the case purely on the free speech issue.

I don't think so. This assumes that the court accepts the idea that making the cake is indeed speech by the baker (I am not convinced). And if they find it to be speech, and decide it simply on that basis, then why take the case to begin with? Why not just support the lower court's decision? Obviously there was an interest in the case extending beyond the simple question of free speech.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Gerrymandering of course isn't a factor at all in things like presidential elections. But there are clearly examples where districts are drawn specifically with the intent of securing GOP wins, which I don't think you're disputing.

Certainly. I just dispute how effective it is. I think it tends to get dwarfed by other factors. I also think the rural/urban divide makes it very difficult to create districts where Democrats won't be at a disadvantage without very careful pro-Democratic gerrymandering.

Quote

Wisconsin famously made it very difficult to vote, requiring the kind of ID that low income people are unlikely to have.

Of course there are all kinds of other ways to discourage voting - from giving out disinformation about polling dates/places, to closing polls earlier in blue districts, to bumping people off the voter roles.

I confess that I find it questionable that it'd be very difficult to get a drivers license or equivalent.  I completely understand the criticism of cost. But the cost is very minor and it's honestly a document everyone should have in order to function in society. i.e. the poor would be much better off having such a document and not having it is almost certainly contributing to their disadvantaged status. But to most people saying people are unlikely to have a drivers license and unlikely to be able to get it isn't exactly a winning argument. Again I personally think that if the state requires it they should subsidize it. But I'm simultaneously very skeptical it has the effect activists claim.

The other things, to the degree they were intentional and confirmed to have occurred I find completely indefensible. A lot of the complaints again I find pretty iffy and often only note when it's done on one side (such as robocallers). Figuring out who is to blame can be difficult though due to third parties becoming involved. Typically these aren't exactly common. But I certainly support prosecution and more importantly investigation. I'm not sure I agree with tarring whole movements because of the actions of a few. (And that goes for both sides - Democratic dirty tricks got overplayed in conservative media as if it was representative when it almost certainly wasn't)

Quote

It actually doesn't take that much voter suppression to change the course of an election. Votes were suppressed in the 2016 election with seemingly surgical precision. Only a few tens of thousands of votes secured Trump his electoral victory. I'm sure more details will emerge at the conclusion of the Russia investigation.

But only in cases where the election is so close almost anything could change the course of the election. 

To say that only a few tens of thousands of votes secured Trump seems dubious. I know that's been a recent talking point but I find it questionable. Further it ignores the states Clinton barely won. The reality was it was a very close race between two people who were very disliked by most voters. In such an election turnout mattered more than usual just because people didn't like the candidates and were less likely to vote (a fact true of both candidates - Trump won fewer votes in Wisconsin than Romney did). So it didn't take much.

My personal view is that when the race is so close the public is by and large saying they don't favor one candidate. Now we can talk about why that is given so many recent close elections after years of elections that really weren't terribly close. But I hate to say it but I think a big problem is both parties have had bad candidates. In my opinion if you want to find the real problem it's not the national final election but what's going on in the primaries.

 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

So are you saying that an artist who specializes in figure paintings for a living has to accept commissions from anyone? He can't chose to, say, only accept works that involve the female form? I highly doubt that's true.

No artist has to accept any commission.  In fact, most artist do not accept commissions. What a figure artist can not do is to produce a painting and then refuse to sell it to someone who is black or gay or a christian.

[Amulek]

16 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 Suppose you need to hire a worker. You get a list of resumes, and you review them, and pick the person you think will best fit the job. There isn't any problem with this. However, if you exclude someone from consideration because of certain issues (like race), that is discrimination, and it is not okay.

That's usually the case, but not always. If you own a small company (i.e., fewer than 15 employees) then your business isn't subject to federal anti-discrimination laws at all, and you can discriminate against whoever you want in your hiring practices. Being a larger company exposes you to more regulations, but even then there are still exceptions. It is fairly common for airlines to enforce mandatory retirement upon their pilots at a certain age (for safety reasons), and that is perfectly legal - though such age discrimination would be disallowed if they tried to apply the same policy to their office staff.

 

Quote

The reason is that this is not a case about whether discrimination has occurred, but about whether it should be allowed.

I agree.

 

42 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What I mean by this is that the business is open to the public (any member of the public can attempt to purchase goods/services from the business or individual). It would not be a public commercial space if it was simply a private business transaction between individuals, or a transaction in a non-public space (like a private club or other restricted access setting).

I understand what being open to the public means. That's exactly the kind of situation I was describing earlier. Sorry for not expressly saying so; I just assumed that was understood, otherwise it wouldn't be analogous to the cake store. If a gay songwriter creates a private corporation and then advertises his services to the public, do you believe that the government can compel him to create hymns for the Westboro Baptist Church? Or should said songwriter be allowed to discriminate against them based on their religion? 

You bring up a good point with restricted access settings though. Do you think the baker would be allowed to get away with his actions if he were to simply create a private "Cake Club" where you pay an annual fee to become a member, but membership is only extended to heterosexuals who want to obtain custom cakes? I'm not sure that such a scheme would be successful. 

 

48 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

Good idea. I hadn't thought of that before.

That's kind of what I figured.

Your sarcasm gauge might need to be checked.

I have read the petitioners brief, the respondents brief, and the majority of the amicus briefs (though I bailed on that one that seemed to have been written by a crazy person). 

I think I'm pretty much up to speed on the case, at least as much as anyone who isn't a first amendment scholar can reasonably be expected to be. 

 

56 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This assumes that the court accepts the idea that making the cake is indeed speech by the baker (I am not convinced). And if they find it to be speech, and decide it simply on that basis, then why take the case to begin with? Why not just support the lower court's decision? Obviously there was an interest in the case extending beyond the simple question of free speech.

There may be an interest in it, but I'm doubtful that you will get a majority to rule on it. A narrowly tailored ruling on the speech issue, without ever reaching the exercise question, has the potential to garner a majority of the court. 

 

 

[Amulek]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

No artist has to accept any commission.  

I know. That's one of the points I have been making in these threads (repeatedly).

 

Quote

In fact, most artist do not accept commissions.

Really? All of the professional artists that I personally know accept commissions.

They typically have a 'day job' where they work teaching art, doing graphic design, etc. (so they don't have to be starving artists), and then they accept commissions for work they do on their own time. 

 

Quote

What a figure artist can not do is to produce a painting and then refuse to sell it to someone who is black or gay or a christian.

I agree. If you have created a piece of artwork and then offer it for sale on the public market, then anyone should be able to buy it.  

 

 

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Regarding your attempt to refute my evidence.

Still not specific enough. So, ummm, yes?

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Which is why I used it for a comparison with the alleged freedom of slavery.

Not sure your piibt, so, to be certain, you are few to treat others however you choose, correct? But, there are consequences when you mistreat people, correct? Why is it any different collectively for a free society? 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

You are dellusional. I never said the Declaration of Independence has legal standing. In fact I specifically said it's language needed to be left out or our society's legalities. The DoI does, however, outline the founding idea if the Constitution. I typically declare the Declaration the coscience or soul of the Constitution. That the Constiturion itself is the political and legal framework which our society functions. The Founders wisely left out religious language in that document. But the Constitution was absolutely based upon the idea that our rights come from God. For legal purposes and/or discourse we call these natural rights or civil rights.

 American law is very much based on biblical law. The more and values behind our laws are distinctly, though not exclusively, from a Jude-Christizn ethos background. They are not theocratic but what we decide as a society is right or wrong/ good or bad, is heavily based on on biblical teachings. 

Again a pastiche of false statements on American law, telling us that you desperately need to study the subject in a formal university setting.

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I can take free courses from Hilsdale College but thank you for assuring me of your elite superiority. It's comforting, especially since you fight against elitism. 

"I cited a case on real voter suppression, and you ignored it. "

The link I clicked on said the Supreme Court rejected the case. You said that voter suppression is current and by Republicans. I say that does not happen and asked for a Supreme Court case which dealt with this and the outcome of the case. 

If you had any knowledge of Supreme Court decision-making, you would know that letting a lower court decision stand is a decision by the Supreme Court.  The lower court in the case I cited had determined that there had in fact been voter suppression and found it unconstitutional.  The U.S. Supreme Court let that decision stand because they agreed with it.  They could easily have overturned it.  That is another indicator that you desperately need to study constitutional law in a university setting.

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Yes, in centuries and mere decades past, Democrats in the South did suppress votes from minorities. Democrats used Jim Crow laws to target blacks and Republicans lead the fight to overcome this injustice. That Republicans surpress minorities currently is dellusional. 

White southern racists like to obfuscate and blame someone else for the extreme racism, Jim Crow, voter suppression, and lynchings which went on normally in the Old South.  Yesterday's southern Democrats and Dixiecrats are todays Republicans.  If you had bothered to study political science in college you would  know that.  You would also understand the systematic and nationwide effort by Republicans to gerrymander all legislative districts to guarantee that only Republicans can get elected.  In other words, they like to cheat on a grand scale.  Why are you in denial on that?

7 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Now Supreme Court jurists are yokels. They should probably take law courses and study political science professionally. Them they can reach your own elite status. 

Here was one Supreme Court Justice yokel Thourgood Marshall  asked for assistance. This yokel  was a Democrat US Senator and Associate Supreme Court Justice. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/09/01/thurgood-marshall-asked-an-ex-klan-member-to-help-him-make-supreme-court-history/?utm_term=.a805958d6b80

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, and the decisions they render are the supreme law of the land.  They are experts in the law, a matter on which you lack any knowledge.  All of us have preferences as to what sort of person we would like to see appointed to that court, but we have to learn to live with composition of that court as it is -- regardless of consequences.  You need to learn to accept those principles.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Right. A fredom  neither calm nor myself would recognize. And, yes, it was in ways similar to the Democrat South. Pre civil war, as I recall, I don't know since I never studied history professionally, would be chronologically  before calm and I were born. 

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to lose arguments on the internetz.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Quote

That's usually the case, but not always. If you own a small company (i.e., fewer than 15 employees) then your business isn't subject to federal anti-discrimination laws at all, and you can discriminate against whoever you want in your hiring practices. Being a larger company exposes you to more regulations, but even then there are still exceptions. It is fairly common for airlines to enforce mandatory retirement upon their pilots at a certain age (for safety reasons), and that is perfectly legal - though such age discrimination would be disallowed if they tried to apply the same policy to their office staff.

All of this is completely irrelevant to the point. Yes there are sometimes rational exceptions. Age discrimination is one in particular that is allowed in lots of circumstances by necessity. Race discrimination is one that isn't allowed in nearly all instances. So stop trying to avoid the real issue here. Discrimination is rather well defined - why are you trying to get around it?

Quote

I understand what being open to the public means. That's exactly the kind of situation I was describing earlier. Sorry for not expressly saying so; I just assumed that was understood, otherwise it wouldn't be analogous to the cake store. If a gay songwriter creates a private corporation and then advertises his services to the public, do you believe that the government can compel him to create hymns for the Westboro Baptist Church? Or should said songwriter be allowed to discriminate against them based on their religion? 

You can't discriminate against a corporation in the same way that you can against individuals. The argument simply isn't there. You aren't introducing something that is remotely analogous to the situation we are talking about. How does a corporation become a member of a suspect class? An individual can sue a corporation for discrimination. I don't find any laws that support a corporation suing an individual for discrimination in the same way, do you?

Quote

You bring up a good point with restricted access settings though. Do you think the baker would be allowed to get away with his actions if he were to simply create a private "Cake Club" where you pay an annual fee to become a member, but membership is only extended to heterosexuals who want to obtain custom cakes? I'm not sure that such a scheme would be successful. 

Your description here presents something quite bizarre that would probably never actually be found. But there is some history behind dealing with the issue about when a private group can be challenged for discrimination and when it can't. However, the kinds of issues we are currently discussing wouldn't apply until that first question was sorted out.

Quote

 

Your sarcasm gauge might need to be checked.

I have read the petitioners brief, the respondents brief, and the majority of the amicus briefs (though I bailed on that one that seemed to have been written by a crazy person). 

I think I'm pretty much up to speed on the case, at least as much as anyone who isn't a first amendment scholar can reasonably be expected to be.

 

My sarcasm gauge is just fine. I have just seen very little from you that suggests that you actually understand much of the process or what is being discussed (or how these issues are different from previous questions) - just that you think you understand it. I don't think you are all that 'up to speed' on the case because of your comments here. I'm sorry, I am just stating what I observe. Perhaps it is merely about the challenges of good communications in forums like this (something I sometimes have trouble with).

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I don't know. How much do you think I like Trump? It's weird how much Trump is derided, and rightfully so, for mistreating people when Bill is not. Bull's treatment of others was far far far far far far far worse than anything Trump has done. And Hillary has been nothing except Bill's enabler. 

I have no idea. And no. And no.

[Amulek]

48 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You can't discriminate against a corporation in the same way that you can against individuals. The argument simply isn't there. You aren't introducing something that is remotely analogous to the situation we are talking about. How does a corporation become a member of a suspect class? An individual can sue a corporation for discrimination. I don't find any laws that support a corporation suing an individual for discrimination in the same way, do you?

/sigh

I am talking about discrimination against an individual - not about discrimination against a church as a corporate entity. Again, sorry for not expressly saying that earlier. As before, I thought it would have been obvious that this was my intent, seeing as how that would be a necessary factor in order for the hypothetical to be analogous to the situation with the cake shop but it seems I have (yet again) misjudged your ability to charitably read / understand what I have been saying. So, here we go, once more into the breach:

Let's say there is a gay songwriter who has decided to go into business for himself. To that end, he forms his own company - let's call it Out Loud Music Group - which (unsurprisingly) focuses on creating songs. He advertises his services to the public and his ad in the yellow pages (or whatever is the modern equivalent, Craigslist?) states that they create songs of any genre. One day, Fred Phelps walks in and says he wants to commission them to create a hymn. He is the pastor of a church, you see, and he is looking for a new song to mix things up a bit (note: to avoid any further pedantry, please assume for the sake of argument that this is prior to 2014 when Mr. Phelps was still alive). Understandably, the CEO of Out Loud Music doesn't want to provide his creative talents to aid Mr. Phelps in any way because his religious beliefs are so abhorrent. Should Out Loud Music (a corporation) be allowed to discriminate against Fred Phelps (an individual) based on his religion (a protected class)? Or can the government compel the songwriter to write the hymn?

 

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

My sarcasm gauge is just fine. I have just seen very little from you that suggests that you actually understand much of the process or what is being discussed (or how these issues are different from previous questions) - just that you think you understand it. I don't think you are all that 'up to speed' on the case because of your comments here. I'm sorry, I am just stating what I observe. Perhaps it is merely about the challenges of good communications in forums like this (something I sometimes have trouble with).

Well, I don't have any formal training in the law; I readily admit that. If that is your area of expertise and there is something about the "process" that you think I am fundamentally misunderstanding, I am happy to be corrected - even though I don't always come across that way (I can be kind of snarky). 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess that I find it questionable that it'd be very difficult to get a drivers license or equivalent.

As I understand it the original law they passed did not allow for forms of ID that would be easy to attain for low income people. Eventually it was amended. 

 

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

To say that only a few tens of thousands of votes secured Trump seems dubious. I know that's been a recent talking point but I find it questionable. Further it ignores the states Clinton barely won. The reality was it was a very close race between two people who were very disliked by most voters. In such an election turnout mattered more than usual just because people didn't like the candidates and were less likely to vote (a fact true of both candidates - Trump won fewer votes in Wisconsin than Romney did). So it didn't take much.

My personal view is that when the race is so close the public is by and large saying they don't favor one candidate. Now we can talk about why that is given so many recent close elections after years of elections that really weren't terribly close. But I hate to say it but I think a big problem is both parties have had bad candidates. In my opinion if you want to find the real problem it's not the national final election but what's going on in the primaries.

 

Trump won three critical states by a total margin of 80,000 votes - WI, MI, PA. A lot of factors played into it, but Russia is apparently behind a lot of them. Another factor is Jill Stein of the Green party, a Russian asset who siphoned votes away from Hillary as well. 

I didn't like Hillary, but maybe I fell victim to Russian propaganda myself (which was quite pervasive on social media), because I stayed home and didn't vote. That's exactly the outcome they wanted.  But Hillary had quite a large popular vote margin over trump, so you can't really say she was a bad candidate. Something else was going on. 

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I don't know. How much do you think I like Trump? It's weird how much Trump is derided, and rightfully so, for mistreating people when Bill is not. Bull's treatment of others was far far far far far far far worse than anything Trump has done. And Hillary has been nothing except Bill's enabler. 

Bill Clinton is morally depraved, but there is no way he can compete with Trump. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

Amulek writes:

Quote

I am talking about discrimination against an individual - not about discrimination against a church as a corporate entity. Again, sorry for not expressly saying that earlier. As before, I thought it would have been obvious that this was my intent, seeing as how that would be a necessary factor in order for the hypothetical to be analogous to the situation with the cake shop but it seems I have (yet again) misjudged your ability to charitably read / understand what I have been saying. So, here we go, once more into the breach:

Let's say there is a gay songwriter who has decided to go into business for himself. To that end, he forms his own company - let's call it Out Loud Music Group - which (unsurprisingly) focuses on creating songs. He advertises his services to the public and his ad in the yellow pages (or whatever is the modern equivalent, Craigslist?) states that they create songs of any genre. One day, Fred Phelps walks in and says he wants to commission them to create a hymn. He is the pastor of a church, you see, and he is looking for a new song to mix things up a bit (note: to avoid any further pedantry, please assume for the sake of argument that this is prior to 2014 when Mr. Phelps was still alive). Understandably, the CEO of Out Loud Music doesn't want to provide his creative talents to aid Mr. Phelps in any way because his religious beliefs are so abhorrent. Should Out Loud Music (a corporation) be allowed to discriminate against Fred Phelps (an individual) based on his religion (a protected class)? Or can the government compel the songwriter to write the hymn?

You see, you are moving the goal posts. Prior to this post, what you wrote was:

Quote

If a gay songwriter creates a private corporation and then advertises his services to the public, do you believe that the government can compel him to create hymns for the Westboro Baptist Church? Or should said songwriter be allowed to discriminate against them based on their religion?

"creating hymns for the Westboro Baptist Church" has a pretty clear meaning. It's not about being my being charitable - it's about a real communication issue.

So, having said that, let's start from the top. If real discrimination is going on, and can be demonstrated, then yes. That is what the law says, and how it is understood. But, I don't think that you could demonstrate discrimination in this case based on this description, and so there is this challenge. Part of this is because the desire to not write the song is not "based on their religion" (as you note in the earlier example) but instead based on "religious beliefs". And this is a significant issue, sine not all of Christianity collectively shares these "abhorrent beliefs". Would this songwriter have any problem with writing a hymn for the Community of Christ? We would assume that they wouldn't right? So the question of whether or not there is real discrimination is an important one. If there isn't any discrimination going on based on religion, then no, the government would have no need to force the issue.

So does this rise to the level of discrimination? If it did, then the courts could compel. If it doesn't, then they can't.

And to bring up something really recent that speaks to this, there is was a decision last week in a Federal Court in Minnesota (September 20, 2017 in a case that is related in some ways to the cake case):

https://adflegal.blob.core.windows.net/web-content-dev/docs/default-source/documents/case-documents/telescope-media-group-v.-lindsey/telescope-media-group-v-lindsey---order-granting-motion-to-dismiss.pdf?sfvrsn=4

This was a case for a wedding videographer refusing to make wedding videos for same-sex weddings. The judge noted this:

Quote

The Court does not find semantic distinctions about the reason for refusing service to be particularly useful. When the message of the speech-for-hire necessarily varies based on the customer’s protected characteristic, such a refusal is at least in part “because of” the customer’s protected status, even if the decision is also “because of” an objection to the message of the expressive product that will be created as a result of serving the customer with the “objectionable” characteristic.

This is much more analogous to the cake case, and not so much to your hypothetical, but, the question is whether the reason for the alleged discrimination correlates directly to the group description on which the discrimination claim is based. That is, if the religion as a whole can be described by the beliefs (that form the reason for refusing services) then there is no difference in using either the group, or substituting those beliefs as a proxy for the group. In this case, the answer is probably that this is not going on. It isn't just that we can find those who share a religion with the Church to have different views (as I noted earlier), it's that the beliefs aren't unique to that religious group. Would the song writer also refuse to write songs for a white supremacist group? Would they want to avoid writing a theme-song for an atheist organization opposed to same-sex marriage? The belief isn't exactly usable as a substitution for the protected class group. On the other side of the coin, you can't argue that your cake sends a message of approving a same-sex marriage outside of the context of a same-sex marriage. Again, is this new example narrow enough to really match the legal requirements to establish discrimination?

This is why these sorts of questions are more complicated in certain contexts than in others. Race is usually much clearer. Same-sex marriage is also usually far less ambiguous.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You see, you are moving the goal posts.

That wasn’t my intent. I was merely trying to provide additional, clarifying information to better articulate what I was trying to get at to begin with. 

 

Quote

"creating hymns for the Westboro Baptist Church" has a pretty clear meaning. It's not about being my being charitable - it's about a real communication issue.

In the context of the discussion (discrimination by a company against an individual based on membership in a protected class), I would think one would read references to the church here to mean members of the church, rather than the church itself as a legal entity. I can understand how you would read it the way you did though, so I apologize for saying that you weren’t reading it charitably. It seems like you understand what I'm talking about now though, so we can move on.

 

Quote

If real discrimination is going on, and can be demonstrated, then yes. That is what the law says, and how it is understood. But, I don't think that you could demonstrate discrimination in this case based on this description, and so there is this challenge. 

Wait, what? There is nothing challenging about my example at all. The hypo I presented is a classic, practically textbook example of discrimination. The question is whether or not you think such discrimination should be allowed. 

 

Quote

Part of this is because the desire to not write the song is not "based on their religion" (as you note in the earlier example) but instead based on "religious beliefs".

That is a distinction without a difference. Treating somebody differently based on their religious beliefs is the very definition of religious discrimination.

 

Quote

And this is a significant issue, since not all of Christianity collectively shares these "abhorrent beliefs". 

No, this isn’t significant. Treating somebody differently based on their religious beliefs is the very definition of religious discrimination. 

Period. Full Stop. 

 

Quote

So does this rise to the level of discrimination? If it did, then the courts could compel. If it doesn't, then they can't.

Yes. This is a blatant case of religious discrimination.

I take it then, that you believe the government can force the gay songwriter to use his creative talents to compose a hymn for Fred Phelps. Is that correct?

 

Quote

It isn't just that we can find those who share a religion with the Church to have different views (as I noted earlier), it's that the beliefs aren't unique to that religious group.

I really don’t understand what you are trying to get at with this. A religious belief doesn’t have to be unique to a particular religious group (or denomination), for it to be illegal to discriminate against someone for holding that belief. If the songwriter refused to write the hymn for a Catholic, Jew, Latter-Day Saint, or anyone else who holds to a belief that homosexuality is sinful then that would still be religious discrimination. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

It seems obvious that you really don't understand what you are writing about. And I don't think it's worth my time to try to explain it again.

So ...

Have the last word.

[LittleNipper]

On 9/27/2017 at 9:31 AM, california boy said:

You really think a store owner has a right to make sure their customers that buy their merchandise have a right to decide how that product is used after it leaves the store?  And if they don't like the way it is being used they can scream their religious beliefs are under attack?

They seem to do it with gun store owners and liquor stores owners. But that is because only the material world matters to hedonist it would seem.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

They seem to do it with gun store owners and liquor stores owners. But that is because only the material world matters to hedonist it would seem.

You really don't understand why the state controls guns and liquor and not cakes?  No wonder you hold the beliefs you have.

[Vance]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

You really don't understand why the state controls guns and liquor and not cakes?  No wonder you hold the beliefs you have.

Please provide the Constitutional authority for the state control of guns, liquor or cakes.

Section and clause would be nice.

[LittleNipper]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

You really don't understand why the state controls guns and liquor and not cakes?  No wonder you hold the beliefs you have.

Well, that's just it the state shouldn't be into manipulation of who sells cake or anything to anyone. It should remain a choice of personal conviction. Just like Chick-Fil-A is only closed on Sunday and not Saturday. I'm sure that rials the Jewish crowd!!!! And all those atheists who feel left out either day that they would want a Chick-fil-A  sandwich...

[california boy]

1 hour ago, LittleNipper said:

Well, that's just it the state shouldn't be into manipulation of who sells cake or anything to anyone. It should remain a choice of personal conviction. Just like Chick-Fil-A is only closed on Sunday and not Saturday. I'm sure that rials the Jewish crowd!!!! And all those atheists who feel left out either day that they would want a Chick-fil-A  sandwich...

Do you understand that the legislature passed anti discrimination laws over 50 years ago and the Supreme Court has ruled that such laws are constitutional?  Now if you want to repeal those laws, then feel free.  It is your right to do so.  But that does not mean a baker or anyone else can break the laws of this country without being punished.  

On the other hand the legislature has not passed any laws requiring businesses to be open on Sundays.  So Chick-Fil-A are free to close any time they want.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

Please provide the Constitutional authority for the state control of guns, liquor or cakes.

Section and clause would be nice.

Are you under the illusion that the federal government can not pass laws?

[LittleNipper]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you understand that the legislature passed anti discrimination laws over 50 years ago and the Supreme Court has ruled that such laws are constitutional?  Now if you want to repeal those laws, then feel free.  It is your right to do so.  But that does not mean a baker or anyone else can break the laws of this country without being punished.  

On the other hand the legislature has not passed any laws requiring businesses to be open on Sundays.  So Chick-Fil-A are free to close any time they want.

So, Is Caesar GOD? 50 years ago, NO ONE thought that sexual behavior was anything but behavior. I still don't. Sex is a choice. Just like drinking beer --- you may and you may not. Skin color and facial features and body build are things people cannot entirely influence.  It is simply unfortunate that some people are riding the coattails of what people cannot control for the sake of a rather nasty habit. 

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

So, Is Caesar GOD? 50 years ago, NO ONE thought that sexual behavior was anything but behavior. I still don't. Sex is a choice. Just like drinking beer --- you may and you may not. Skin color and facial features and body build are things people cannot entirely influence.  It is simply unfortunate that some people are riding the coattails of what people cannot control for the sake of a rather nasty habit. 

Ummmmm..... "Sexual behavior" IS "behavior." Is anyone saying otherwise? If so, whom?

What does that have to do with anything?

What do facial features and body build have to do with anything? (Both of which can be altered, either surgically or through diet/exercise).

Religious affiliation can be controlled, like any habit (whether positive or negative, depending on your belief system)... so, again, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here or adding to the conversation...