Vance Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 On 10/3/2017 at 4:07 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Try as I might, I just can’t get spun up over the idea that, because I’m Mormon, somebody might decline to sell me a non-essential product or service such as a wedding cake or flowers or a photo portrait or a decorated T shirt. Because, thank God, we live in a free-enterprise economy, there will always be somebody waiting in the wings who will gladly provide the service for my money in the unlikely event some anti-Mormon bigot refuses to. I regret that I can only "like" this once.
Calm Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) On 2017-10-03 at 3:07 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Try as I might, I just can’t get spun up over the idea that, because I’m Mormon, somebody might decline to sell me a non-essential product or service such as a wedding cake or flowers or a photo portrait or a decorated T shirt. Because, thank God, we live in a free-enterprise economy, there will always be somebody waiting in the wings who will gladly provide the service for my money in the unlikely event some anti-Mormon bigot refuses to. Spoken like someone who lives in a city with multiple providers of services. While fewer and fewer in the US, especially given online services now, there still are likely places where options are limited because the market is only large enough for one niche business. I have been refused service while in Russia. If we had stayed in that town, we would not have been able to purchase what we desired. As it was, we got back on the ship and got what we wanted at the next stop. It was still really weird walking out of that shop empty handed. In Moscow, there was a food shop which refused service. Thankfully more people loved American money than hated Americans, but in a small town we could have been in big trouble. There were towns out in the boonies where the Canadian government had to pay doctors' way through med school to get them to serve for a few years. Taking 2 or more hours to get somewhere to get desired medical treatment would be considered a hardship by anyone, I assume. Is it more moral to allow such discrimination if it involves nonnecessities or is it wrong in those cases as well? Edited October 7, 2017 by Calm 1
Vance Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 On 10/3/2017 at 4:33 PM, california boy said: How the cake was decorated is not relevant in this case. Neither the couple nor the baker talked about any decoration on the cake. the baker refused to bake the cake no matter how or what was written on the cake. So let's turn him into a slave and force him to do it against his will. On 10/3/2017 at 4:33 PM, california boy said: And yet once again, no business is forced to decorate or write anything on a cake that goes against their personal beliefs. That is not discrimination. Refusing to sell the customer a cake is the issue that is before the Supreme Court. How did the Baker know that the customer was homosexual? It wasn't because the customer insisted on bringing that fact into the discussion and rubbing the Bakers face in it. Your claims aren't holding water here. On 10/3/2017 at 4:33 PM, california boy said: I do find it interesting that these non discrimination laws have been in effect for 50 years and during all that time, no baker ever have recorded any objection to baking a cake for ANY other sinner or ANY other event. Perhaps this is this is the first time that a homosexual announced his sexual orientation and tried to rub the bakers nose in it. Just like someone announcing their homosexuality at a family gathering and then insisting the family abandon their long held mores. On 10/3/2017 at 4:33 PM, california boy said: Is gay marriage the ONLY issue that christians have an objection to? No, I am sure abortion is objected to. 1
Gray Posted October 8, 2017 Posted October 8, 2017 (edited) On 10/3/2017 at 4:07 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Try as I might, I just can’t get spun up over the idea that, because I’m Mormon, somebody might decline to sell me a non-essential product or service such as a wedding cake or flowers or a photo portrait or a decorated T shirt. Because, thank God, we live in a free-enterprise economy, there will always be somebody waiting in the wings who will gladly provide the service for my money in the unlikely event some anti-Mormon bigot refuses to. In Utah? Sure. Maybe not in other places. Mormons no longer have to face the kind of systematic hatred that gay people still face. So I have to say, that's easy for you to say, speaking from a place of privileged that we both enjoy. Edited October 8, 2017 by Gray
Daniel2 Posted October 9, 2017 Posted October 9, 2017 (edited) On 10/06/2017 at 7:51 AM, ALarson said: I read some of their yelp reviews and these are where the people were from who he threw out: http://thetenthmark.com/ (I haven't watched the video, but he should have just served them and let them leave, IMO.) As offensive as I find this group's literature to be, I support their right to free speech, as well as their right to peaceably assemble/demonstrate. And as long as members of the group weren't passing out literature to his other customers and/or evangelizing for their cause with others of his coffee shop, I believe the owner has a legal obligation to serve them, regardless of their religious beliefs. Additionally, although the owner is likewise entitled to his own freedom of speech, the nature of the offensive language he used and the graphicness of imagery he described was entirely counter-productive to the understanding he was allegedly aiming to promote. His words and despicable behavior only reinforced the very views and opinions of the people he was apparently decrying, rather than taking advantage of an opportunity to sit down, break bread with those who are different, share how the loving relationship her shares with his boyfriend enriches his life, find some common ground, and potentially connect with those who may continue to have different beliefs, but could have met someone different than what their worldview expected. As I said, though, not only was it a missed opportunity, but it was a violation of the law. Should SCOTUS rule that business owners can withhold creative goods and services based on religious objections, we can expect more of the same. On 10/04/2017 at 8:02 AM, smac97 said: What if we end up seeing protests at places like Bedlam Coffee? Peaceful Christians descending on it and demanding service, and then suing the gay owner based on the same sort of nondiscrimination / public accommodations laws theory that has been used against Christian bakers? And why stop there? What if folks start to specifically target businesses owned by gay people and devising ways to compel those businesses to provide goods/services which are personally offensive to the owners, and then suing the owners into oblivion for their "bigotry" and "hate"?It's all just conjecture, right now anyway.,, Thanks, -Smac Ironically, Smac, the type of scenario you've imagined above has already been threatened in the name of religious liberty if Masterpiece Bakery wins the ability to withhold services based on their own religious beliefs: Quote Satanic Temple will pressure Christian bakers to make cakes ‘for Satan’ as SCOTUS case nears By Douglas Ernst - The Washington Times - Friday, September 29, 2017 Christian bakers who are awaiting an upcoming Supreme Court Case revolving around same-sex wedding cakes will soon face a new kind of customer — from The Satanic Temple. The Supreme Court plans to hear a First Amendment case this fall related to Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who made national headlines when he was ordered by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples. Members of The Satanic Temple, however, will add pressure on like-minded business owners in the meantime with a campaign that co-founder Lucien Greaves says is about religious freedom. “The Satanic Temple (TST) has announced a plan for those who feel alienated or oppressed by the privileged status that religion holds over sexual orientation: Request your homophobic baker make a cake for Satan,” a press release provided to The Daily Caller on Thursday reads. “Because religion is a protected class, a baker may refuse service to LGBTQ people, but they may not refuse service based upon someone’s religion. If they aren’t willing to make a cake for same-sex unions, let’s have them make a cake to honor Satan instead,” the statement continues. Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Mr. Phillips, has said that forcing Christian bakers to provide custom-made LGBT wedding cakes is no different than if government bodies forced them “to speak those messages with [their] lips.” Mr. Greaves objects, telling The Daily Caller that Christians seek “a type of super status” over others. “If evangelical theocratic nationalists want to deny LGBTQ community services, then other people should be allowed to deny them services as well,” Mr. Greaves said. “I think that’s a legally tenable option. It’s not a very socially tenable option. We’ve already gone over this in the Jim Crow era, I think we came up with a kind of social contract that if you’re going to run a business and provide services to the public that you need to act within the boundaries of what is within accepted social behavior, regardless of your own religion or whatever else.” The activist added that “a lot” of TST’s members come from the LGBT community. “I feel like there’s obvious reasons for that,” Mr. Greaves said. “You know, we’re very into that kind of thing. There’s no issue of tolerance with us. And a lot of people who have grown up gay feel very alienated from traditional religion. So we have a very high population of LGBTQ community also as membership of the Satanic Temple.” ______________________________________________________-This ends the article, but the "Quote" feature isn't working and won't let me move the following three sentences out of the quoted portion and into the body of my regular post. What follows is the rest of MY (Daniel2) post: The type of threats the Satanic Temple is making are exactly why public policy shouldn't be decided based on popular opinions/beliefs (as others have mentioned here on the board). The law should be decided on the protections and applications of constitutional principles designed to promote equal protection of all. Were the Christians in the coffee shop example above to sue anyone who withheld goods or services legally protected from discrimination by public accommodations laws, I would absolutely support them and hope they'd win. We're past discrimination in the public square based on religion or in the name of religion, and I can't imagine the fall out if we start allowing it now. Edited October 9, 2017 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted October 9, 2017 Posted October 9, 2017 (edited) On 10/03/2017 at 3:07 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Try as I might, I just can’t get spun up over the idea that, because I’m Mormon, somebody might decline to sell me a non-essential product or service such as a wedding cake or flowers or a photo portrait or a decorated T shirt. Because, thank God, we live in a free-enterprise economy, there will always be somebody waiting in the wings who will gladly provide the service for my money in the unlikely event some anti-Mormon bigot refuses to. The great thing about life in America is that while some government organizations may prosecute those who violate certain laws, it's entirely a matter of choose whether or not to personally pursue justice through legal action against someone who has violated your constitutionally-specified rights. No one will force any of us, as consumers, to do business with anyone we don't want to, and you're entirely free to choose to legally disengage, take your business elsewhere, and not report anyone who refuses you service for any reason without pressing charges. That being said and hyperbolic allegations of "forcing" business owners to act against their will and misplaced invocations of "slavery" aside, the law is very explicit and legal precedent has held for 50 years that business owners do not have a legal right to claim exemption from serving their customers' based on their religious objections to their customers' choices. The ACLU provides a great summary that religious objections to customers' choices have never been cited as legal exemptions from the requirements of public access--specifically, under the subheading below titled "Have there been other challenges like this to non-discrimination laws?": Quote Masterpiece Cakeshop argues that the Constitution’s free speech protections allow businesses with an expressive or creative element to refuse service to some people, in violation of laws against discrimination. If the Supreme Court were to agree, any business owner that provides custom services or products could claim a right to discriminate – and it likely wouldn’t be limited to discrimination based on sexual orientation. This would mean that printers could refuse to sell invitations to a birthday party, a hairdresser could refuse to cut hair for a bat mitzvah, or a caterer could refuse to prepare food for a graduation party. A funeral home could even refuse service to the surviving spouse of a gay couple. It could even allow businesses to argue that they have a right to violate other kinds of laws that protect consumers, like fraud protections and more. The bakery also argues that its religious beliefs entitle it to an exemption from antidiscrimination laws. If the court agreed with this view, it could allow all kinds of businesses to refuse service because of religious objections. It could open the door to discrimination against people of minority faiths, against women, against single parents, and more. Have there been other challenges like this to nondiscrimination laws? (click on this title for the link to ACLU's webpage) While most businesses, including most small businesses, oppose exemptions to allow discrimination, this isn’t the first time courts have encountered objections to nondiscrimination laws on religious or free speech grounds. In 1964, soon after the federal Civil Rights Act was enacted to bar race discrimination by places of public accommodation, a small chain of BBQ restaurants in South Carolina called Piggie Park continued to refuse service to Black customers. The owner argued that his religious beliefs about integration should allow him to break the law; he lost at every stage. Citing religious beliefs, Bob Jones University argued that it had a right to refuse to admit interracial couples or students who supported interracial marriage. Schools have argued for the right to pay women less, because their faith said men were heads of households. A newspaper argued for a free speech right to post “help wanted” that listed jobs for men and jobs for women separately, in violation of anti-discrimination laws. And a law firm sought to defend its refusal to hire women as partners, claiming First Amendment rights of expression allowed the partnership to choose to associate only with other men. In all these instances, the courts refused to accept the idea of a constitutional right to discriminate that the bakery seeks here. Any change that would authorize discrimination in this case would undermine the nation’s civil rights laws. It would essentially permit Masterpiece Cakeshop to put in its window a sign that says, “Wedding Cakes for Heterosexuals Only.” It would mean allowing the Constitution to be used to protect discrimination. Edited October 9, 2017 by Daniel2 2
smac97 Posted October 9, 2017 Posted October 9, 2017 53 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: Ironically, Smac, the type of scenario you've imagined above has already been threatened in the name of religious liberty if Masterpiece Bakery wins the ability to withhold services based on their own religious beliefs: As a legal matter, I think this is more properly characterized as primarily a Free Speech issue, rather than Free Exercise issue. Thanks, -Smac 1
Daniel2 Posted October 9, 2017 Posted October 9, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, smac97 said: As a legal matter, I think this is more properly characterized as primarily a Free Speech issue, rather than Free Exercise issue. Thanks, -Smac From what I’ve read, the defendant is claiming his rights are being violated threefold: as a matter of exercise, of speech, and a hybrid of the two. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules and whether they’ll rule that any of those three claims of his as valid. Edited October 9, 2017 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) Another great article about themes discussed here (i.e. suggesting the cake baker is using his creative talent as "expression" or "speech" which should exempt him from having to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple): Quote The Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court Case Is One Piece of a Much Larger Attack on LGBTQ Lives By Chase Strangio, Staff Attorney, ACLU LGBT & HIV Project September 22, 2017 | 11:00 AM This term the Supreme Court will hear a case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Charlie Craig & David Mullins, involving a Colorado bakery that refused to serve a same-sex couple who wanted to purchase a cake for their wedding reception. Colorado law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodations — places like bakeries, movie theatres, restaurants, hospitals, and other establishments open to the public — based on sexual orientation, among other protected classes. The Colorado courts, interpreting this straightforward law, held that the bakery’s refusal to serve the couple constituted discrimination based on sexual orientation and that there is no constitutional right to discriminate that supersedes this protection. Now before the United States Supreme Court and supported by anti-LGBTQ groups, and the United States Department of Justice, the bakery argues that it has a First Amendment right to discriminate based on the owner’s religious beliefs. The owner also claims that because his business — making cakes — involves some creativity, he should be allowed to determine who can receive his services. His argument can be deceptively appealing. Cakes can often have artistic or creative designs. So can sandwiches, legal briefs, bicycles, cars, flowers, medical care. Indeed, the work that we do often has great personal meaning to us and reflects our skill and passion. But it is wrong to think that (1) any business that involves a creative component should be exempt from nondiscrimination laws, or (2) that a business is somehow endorsing each and every customer it serves. As civil rights attorney Mary Bonauto wrote in a recent piece for SCOTUSBlog: Earning a living from the sweat of one’s brow coexists with human creativity, with the passion for cutting hair or cooking food, with designing and sewing clothing – with making something both functional and beautiful. Uplifting the dignity and creativity in all work, Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of the “street sweeper” who could “sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures; sweep streets like Handel and Beethoven composed music; sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry.” To argue, as do Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Department of Justice in this case, that the exemption that would be created by a ruling for the business is narrow, is to ignore that reality. If we start to exempt from nondiscrimination laws businesses that reflect creativity and passion, such a move would undermine all nondiscrimination protections. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the organization defending the business at the Supreme Court, is taking great pains to frame this case as one about art and expression. It is using this tactic to gain support and obscure the fact that this case is part of a broader strategy to banish LGBTQ people from public life. This is not about cake. This is about demolishing the legal protections that exist against discrimination in places of public accommodation. Groups like ADF have already proposed and passed laws seeking to exempt from nondiscrimination protections any action that infringes upon an individual or businesses deeply held religious or moral belief that: “(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and (c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth.” I shudder at this final point since it means a moral or religious belief that trans people do not exist. And that is precisely what ADF and others have argued time and time again in litigation. In the past two years, they and others have advanced the arguments that it is “outlandish” for the federal government to protect transgender students from discrimination, that having a gender that does not accord with the gender assigned to a person at birth is a “delusion,” and that providing health insurance coverage for gender transition would amount to “material cooperation with evil.” If the Supreme Court sides with the bakery, the systematic rejection of LGBTQ people from public life will gain legitimacy and anti-LGBTQ movements will grow stronger. It is possible to value creative labor and religious liberty without gutting generally applicable legal protections against discrimination and opening the door to a world in which trans people are rejected from public life because people don’t believe we do or should exist. If a baker can reject LGBTQ people because of who we are, then what about the mechanic, the florist, the doctor, the teacher? This is not about cake. This is not about art. This is about survival. He makes some good points... If cakes count as expression because they involve artistry and creativity... why can't a hair stylist refuse to cut, color, and style someone's hair for a same-sex wedding? Why can't an aesthetician (edited to correct spelling) refuse to do someone's make-up or nails? Why can't any chef refuse to make food? Why can't a tailor or dressmaker refuse to sell custom-made wedding dresses or provide custom-tailored tuxedos? Why can't a florist refuse flower arrangements? Creativity is involved in a variety of roles, as is customization. And not just for same-sex weddings... what about any other type of ceremony to which the business owner objects? (bar mitzvahs, baptisms, temple sealings, non-religious weddings, anniversaries, birthdays, Courts of Honor, etc. etc. etc.). The author above makes a very compelling case that if SCOTUS allows a license to discriminate to stand here, it will become very difficult to draw the line, despite claims it will be narrowly limited. Edited October 13, 2017 by Daniel2 2
Daniel2 Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 Another great analysis from SCOTUS Blog (a portion of which was referenced in my previous post, but once I clicked on the link, I figured it's worth sharing, as it again directly addresses the "speech" claims being made by some in this thread): Commercial products as speech – When a cake is just a cake Posted Fri, September 15th, 2017 10:24 am by Mary Bonauto Mary L. Bonauto is the Civil Rights Project Director at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders. This case is not really about a cake. It is about equal citizenship of gay people, and whether we may engage in the kinds of ordinary transactions others take for granted in the commercial marketplace and beyond... To circumvent the demands of equality, both Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Department of Justice as amicus seek to draw new constitutional lines about speech in the marketplace – either as “pure speech” or “expressive conduct” – because of the personal creativity that can be involved in making products for sale or providing services. A wedding cake is “not an ordinary baked good; its function is more communicative and artistic than utilitarian,” the government writes. But exempting businesses from anti-discrimination laws based on personal creative efforts in making a product or providing a service creates a massive hole in those protections. Throughout our existence, humans have used their hands to design, cut, shape and mold products, whether with clay, stone, cloth, metal or edible substances. Earning a living from the sweat of one’s brow coexists with human creativity, with the passion for cutting hair or cooking food, with designing and sewing clothing – with making something both functional and beautiful. Uplifting the dignity and creativity in all work, Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of the “street sweeper” who could “sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures; sweep streets like Handel and Beethoven composed music; sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry.” Studs Terkel’s 1970s classic “Working” speaks to the human drive to act and create distinctively, even in mundane tasks, and how the inability to do so feels like imprisonment. And yet we have never equated the human creativity involved in producing a myriad of products and services for public sale as grounds for denying the sale of those products or services to a class of customers because of who they are. The cakeshop’s counsel says the bakery’s owner “intends to, and does in fact, communicate through” the cakes the bakery sells. However, most of us would think that the message of a special occasion or celebration is the message of those marking the occasion – those celebrating – who plan and even choreograph their event, and know what and why they are celebrating. Not just the baker, but all vendors are the conduits for the celebrants’ expression. Even a student should understand that. But inherent in the cake, the cakeshop says, is the baker’s personal message that a marriage has occurred and should be celebrated, something that is sacrilegious to him in the case of same-sex couples’ marriages. We do not impugn the baker’s beliefs by remarking on the astonishing breadth of that claim. We have never thought that a bakery takes a position one way or another when making and selling a cake to celebrate a wedding, bat mitzvah or first communion, a baby shower or a birthday celebration. Under the test advanced by the cakeshop and DOJ, a bakery could refuse an order for a baby-shower cake when a married same-sex couple is expecting their first child because the baker believes this birth should not be celebrated, and that a same-sex couple should not be the child’s parents. The cakeshop claims a willingness to sell “pre-made” products to gay people, but wouldn’t the proposed rule allow a bakery to refuse any cake order for same-sex couples because serving them could be construed as showing support for them as they reach milestones in their shared lives? Under that rule, a copy shop could refuse to print birth announcements for same-sex couples, and a funeral home could deny funeral services to a same-sex spouse, as one did not long ago. For this and other reasons, the status (being LGBT) versus conduct (marrying) distinction the cakeshop relies on is chimerical. Gay people marry other gay people, and a new, constitutionally-based objection to conduct and marriage could be wielded far more broadly. Looking beyond this case, it is clear that although the present controversy may focus on marriage and same-sex couples, if the Supreme Court were to accept a rule that simply providing commercial goods or services conveys a message of approval and endorsement that cannot be compelled, then public-accommodations protections will evaporate and many will suffer. Would vendors who sew gowns, design place-setting graphics, perform music, cater the food or decorate the wedding limousine have free rein to deny wedding services to Jewish and Muslim couples who do not accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, to Christians who do, and to those customers lacking any faith at all? Whether a product or service is wedding-related or not, if its production, sale or delivery is seen as freighted with messages of approval and endorsement, then many or most places of public accommodation can be swept in. Faced with the real threat that businesses will be emboldened to deny service beyond the facts of this case, we know only that DOJ (rightly) believes “eliminating private racial discrimination” is a sufficient interest to justify application of a public-accommodation law to an objector. Many of us would have hoped that DOJ would recognize that gender, religion, national origin and sexual orientation are also important interests, as do many state legislatures. Yet the federal government has all but stated that preventing harm to gay people is barely an interest at all. Nor is there any reason to think that this rule would not reach all civil-rights laws. Why, for example, would laws prohibiting sex discrimination still foreclose a male business owner from refusing to hire women, married or unmarried, if his religion instructs him that they should be at home and not in the workforce, or if he asserts that requiring him to hire women would express something contrary to his beliefs? And what of the landlord who renovates and rents apartments? To support its argument that requiring a baker to make a wedding cake is compelled speech, DOJ maintains that each product has a life of its own that carries messages of its originator, who may therefore be seen as compelled to “literally” or “figuratively” participate in the event when they have made a product “that performs an important expressive function in the ceremony.” The cakeshop and DOJ rely heavily on Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. But a for-profit business open and selling goods to the general public is neither a private parade marching to make a point, like the veterans groups organizing the St. Patrick’s Day parade in Hurley, nor a private association like the Boy Scouts, and the government can regulate businesses like the former in a way it cannot regulate the latter. If a product does not express a particular, discernible message, or is understood not to be the vendor’s speech, the cakeshop’s compelled-speech-and-expression claim simply fails. To repeat: When a couple buys a wedding cake, it is for their wedding, their celebration, and everyone knows it is their messages that are communicated by their event and its trappings. “Customizing” products and services for events is typical because customers of all kinds want their events to feel special, to be their own. Indeed the cakeshop acknowledges that before designing a cake, a store representative “meets with the couple to learn their desires, personalities, preferences, and wedding details.” Why – other than to be sure that the cake conveys the couple’s beliefs, ideas and messages? How then can the cakeshop ask the Supreme Court to regard the cake as the embodiment of its owner’s personal beliefs and a distinct message of approval for the customers and their celebration? When all is said and done, a beautiful cake remains a cake. And discrimination remains discrimination. 1
kiwi57 Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 On 10/11/2017 at 9:56 AM, Daniel2 said: Another great article about themes discussed here (i.e. suggesting the cake baker is using his creative talent as "expression" or "speech" which should exempt him from having to provide a wedding cake to a same-sex couple): He makes some good points... If cakes count as expression because they involve artistry and creativity... why can't a hair stylist refuse to cut, color, and style someone's hair for a same-sex wedding? Why can't an esthetician refuse to do someone's make-up or nails? Why can't any chef refuse to make food? Why can't a tailor or dressmaker refuse to sell custom-made wedding dresses or provide custom-tailored tuxedos? Why can't a florist refuse flower arrangements? Creativity is involved in a variety of roles, as is customization. And not just for same-sex weddings... what about any other type of ceremony to which the business owner objects? (bar mitzvahs, baptisms, temple sealings, non-religious weddings, anniversaries, birthdays, Courts of Honor, etc. etc. etc.). The author above makes a very compelling case that if SCOTUS allows a license to discriminate to stand here, it will become very difficult to draw the line, despite claims it will be narrowly limited. I'm glad someone from your side of the argument has finally acknowledged that it wasn't about "selling a cake," but about making a bespoke item. Because, as everyone knows (but certain parties prefer to remain silent about) the Masterpiece people expressly offered to sell the professionally aggrieved parties anything that was on the shelves of the shop. Thus, the claim that they were discriminating based upon "orientation" is demonstrated to be false. And maybe the answer is that hair stylists should have the right to refuse to provide their creative activity in support of an event they disapprove of (although given the hair stylists of my acquaintance, that's hardly likely to be a same sex anything, really.) And maybe estheticians (is that really a word?) should have the right to refuse to do someone's make-up or nails. And chefs, and florists, and dressmakers. But calling it "One Piece of a Much Larger Attack on LGBTQ Lives" is rather hilariously over the top. Are "LGBTQ Lives" really going to be blighted if SCOTUS takes away the power to compel others to submit? What is it that you've said before? "When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression?" Maybe there's a little bit of "gay privilege" going on. 2
Benjamin McGuire Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 12 hours ago, kiwi57 said: I'm glad someone from your side of the argument has finally acknowledged that it wasn't about "selling a cake," but about making a bespoke item. Because, as everyone knows (but certain parties prefer to remain silent about) the Masterpiece people expressly offered to sell the professionally aggrieved parties anything that was on the shelves of the shop. Thus, the claim that they were discriminating based upon "orientation" is demonstrated to be false. And maybe the answer is that hair stylists should have the right to refuse to provide their creative activity in support of an event they disapprove of (although given the hair stylists of my acquaintance, that's hardly likely to be a same sex anything, really.) And maybe estheticians (is that really a word?) should have the right to refuse to do someone's make-up or nails. And chefs, and florists, and dressmakers. But calling it "One Piece of a Much Larger Attack on LGBTQ Lives" is rather hilariously over the top. Are "LGBTQ Lives" really going to be blighted if SCOTUS takes away the power to compel others to submit? What is it that you've said before? "When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression?" Maybe there's a little bit of "gay privilege" going on. The idea of it being okay to sell off-the-shelf cakes is really what tells me that those involved (the baker and his lawyers) don't understand about speech more generally. An artist who creates a painting and then sells it, can paint whatever they want. That painting represents their creative efforts and could be seen as a form of speech. On the other side of the coin, a specialty cake (assuming that making a cake is in fact speech) becomes speech for hire. And we don't usually recognize speech for hire as making a personal statement. An add designer for a grocery store chain (something I did quite regularly decades ago when I worked in the newspaper business) can include pictures and sale prices for alcohol without anyone ever thinking that this add really represents the personal speech and views of the guy who designed and laid out the advertisement before it was printed. In the same way, the cake that is custom made and taken to a wedding is never viewed as speech made by the baker - especially to those at the wedding who are eating it. If they recognize any speech in it at all, it would be the speech of those being married, and the cake (which they had custom made for them) is aimed at conveying something to their guests. They have no intention of buying something that represents someone else's speech to them or to their guests. This argument doesn't exist quite so strongly with the cakes taken off the shelf. They are designed by the baker independent of a buyer, or a specific context, and so they could really represent some sort of speech by the baker precisely in a way that the custom cake (the speech-for-hire) could never do. If the cake is speech-for-hire, then it cannot be entangled with the right to free exercise, because the baker isn't actually being compelled to create speech when he bakes a custom cake. And while the courts so far have not used this language (that I use) they have argued that reasonable people would not understand the cake as speech in favor of same-sex marriage (which is the argument that I make). I expect that the Supreme Court will also make a decision on this grounds - and we will never get to the question of where religious exceptions ought to begin or end. It is all about the question of what the cake means. And in this case, I agree with the decisions that have been made - that there isn't any reason to believe that the cake means what they think it means. And this means that it isn't about the cake, but about a desire to discriminate. So it is all about selling the cake, and trying to find a creative argument to justify not selling it to those you don't want to sell it to. 3
Daniel2 Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, kiwi57 said: I'm glad someone from your side of the argument has finally acknowledged that it wasn't about "selling a cake," but about making a bespoke item. Because, as everyone knows (but certain parties prefer to remain silent about) the Masterpiece people expressly offered to sell the professionally aggrieved parties anything that was on the shelves of the shop. Thus, the claim that they were discriminating based upon "orientation" is demonstrated to be false. And maybe the answer is that hair stylists should have the right to refuse to provide their creative activity in support of an event they disapprove of (although given the hair stylists of my acquaintance, that's hardly likely to be a same sex anything, really.) And maybe estheticians (is that really a word?) should have the right to refuse to do someone's make-up or nails. And chefs, and florists, and dressmakers. But calling it "One Piece of a Much Larger Attack on LGBTQ Lives" is rather hilariously over the top. Are "LGBTQ Lives" really going to be blighted if SCOTUS takes away the power to compel others to submit? What is it that you've said before? "When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression?" Maybe there's a little bit of "gay privilege" going on. I’m not sure what “making a bespoke item” means, but I think those supporting the customers have consistently said it’s not about the cake—it’s about whether or not public accommodation laws are valuable and whether or not we’ll allow discrimination. Sounds like you are questioning the need for public accommodation laws and are leaning towards favoring discrimination. The fact that you laughably dismiss that this is just one part of a a larger attack on LGBT equality and the equal civil rights we’ve been fighting for demonstrates either you are unaware or unwilling to see the current administration’s multiple attacks on LGBT equality. I’m puzzled that you believe that those of us who support EQUAL treatment under the law—that is, that our lives should be afforded the SAME protections that you and others already enjoy—somehow counts as “privilege.” The two sentences of your last paragraph entirely contradict one another. Thanks for catching my misspelling by omitting the “a” at the beginning of the word “aesthetician.” I corrected it in my original post and acknowledged the change. Edited October 13, 2017 by Daniel2 1
kiwi57 Posted October 13, 2017 Posted October 13, 2017 7 hours ago, Daniel2 said: I’m not sure what “making a bespoke item” means, but I think those supporting the customers have consistently said it’s not about the cake—it’s about whether or not public accommodation laws are valuable and whether or not we’ll allow discrimination. A bespoke item: think of buying a suit off the rack. Then think of a tailor taking your measurements, showing you swatches of cloth and pictures of suits, and you saying you want the jacket to look like picture A and the trousers to look like picture B, but with more flare in the leg. The latter is the bespoke item. The notion that someone hanging up a shingle and opening the doors represents a "public accommodation" is still an odd one. 7 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Sounds like you are questioning the need for public accommodation laws and are leaning towards favoring discrimination. I rather expected that particular misrepresentation to be attempted. I would oppose the imposition of laws that would force stores to stop selling coffee. That doesn't mean I'm in favour of people breaking the Word of Wisdom; it just means that I prefer actual freedom over mere buzzwords. 7 hours ago, Daniel2 said: The fact that you laughably dismiss that this is just one part of a a larger attack on LGBT equality and the equal civil rights we’ve been fighting for demonstrates either you are unaware or unwilling to see the current administration’s multiple attacks on LGBT equality. You're right, I'm not aware. Do tell! 7 hours ago, Daniel2 said: I’m puzzled that you believe that those of us who support EQUAL treatment under the law—that is, that our lives should be afforded the SAME protections that you and others already enjoy—somehow counts as “privilege.” The two sentences of your last paragraph entirely contradict one another. I've never expected that by simply walking into a shop I can force the owner to do business with me. I just don't have such a raging sense of entitlement. So I'm not seeing an attempt by anyone to get "the SAME protections" that I have. I also don't think that people selling me stuff is any kind of "protection." So, you think that all this compulsion you are trying to impose on others is merely an attempt to have LGBT-alphabet soup people treated just like everyone else, do you? I believe I can refute that in exactly three words. 7 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Thanks for catching my misspelling by omitting the “a” at the beginning of the word “aesthetician.” I corrected it in my original post and acknowledged the change. I didn't know you'd misspelled anything. I didn't recognise the word at all. I thought it was just a pretentious title for a beautician. 1
kiwi57 Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 Here's an interesting video, which some kind soul posted on Sic Et Non: 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 14, 2017 Author Posted October 14, 2017 2 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Here's an interesting video, which some kind soul posted on Sic Et Non: Wow! The Socratic method in action. Great video. Thanks for posting it! "That's such a sticky issue." Love it!
Benjamin McGuire Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Wow! The Socratic method in action. Great video. Thanks for posting it! "That's such a sticky issue." Love it! Videos like this amuse me. There is something in this sort of thing that reminds me so much of my kids when they were younger, saying (when they got in trouble) "but he did it too". None of these arguments change the fact that the baker was doing something that was illegal. And what the scenario presented in the video doesn't make clear is what sort of business the singer had. The singer (much like the cake baker) can specify what sorts of events they will or won't sing at. They can do this quite legally - as long as the restriction isn't connected to a specific group. They couldn't say, "I sing at all religious religious holidays except for Hanukah - because that becomes associated with a specific group. Just like they couldn't say that they sing at all religious holidays except Easter. But they could refuse to sing at any event celebrating a religious holiday and that would not constitute any sort of discrimination (just as the baker can simply not make wedding cakes at all and so avoid the conflict that way). I imagine we could make the same sort of video from the other perspective, and discuss how appropriate it could be to refuse Christians a variety of services. And their response probably would be little different from the people in this video. How you present things can make all the difference in the world. But let's face it, it doesn't matter how you dress it up ... it's still a pig. 1
california boy Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 11 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Here's an interesting video, which some kind soul posted on Sic Et Non: Yet another shot misrepresenting what the issue is. No one is saying that a business can not discriminate against an individual. And if the Muslin's business includes receiving money for singing in churches, then of course she would be in violation of the law. But if the Muslin singer is not paid, or does not offer her services to sing in churches, or she is not operating a business to do that kind of activity, then she is not compelled to do so under the law Perhaps what is most frustrating on this issue is the countless times this issue has been defined and discussed as to what the law actually is. When I see posts like Scott Lloyd it becomes crystal clear that some are not interested in the facts, they are only interested in the christian juggarnaut (using Scott Lloyd type hyperbole.) using their religion as justification to discriminate.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 14, 2017 Author Posted October 14, 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Videos like this amuse me. There is something in this sort of thing that reminds me so much of my kids when they were younger, saying (when they got in trouble) "but he did it too". Sounds like your kids may have been adept at the Socratic method. Quote None of these arguments change the fact that the baker was doing something that was illegal. Isn't that what SCOTUS is set to decide: whether or not the baker indeed behaved illegally? Quote And what the scenario presented in the video doesn't make clear is what sort of business the singer had. The singer (much like the cake baker) can specify what sorts of events they will or won't sing at. They can do this quite legally - as long as the restriction isn't connected to a specific group. But it is connected to a specific group: a Christian group. A dress designer refusing to provide service to Melania Trump is discriminating against her because of her association with a certain political faction or ideology. That's connected to a group. Quote I imagine we could make the same sort of video from the other perspective, and discuss how appropriate it could be to refuse Christians a variety of services. And their response probably would be little different from the people in this video. As a Christian, I would not go to court to force somebody to provide a service for my Christian event, despite how bigoted I thought the service provider to be. Quote How you present things can make all the difference in the world. But let's face it, it doesn't matter how you dress it up ... it's still a pig. A pig begins to squirm when he gets uncomfortable -- just like people who are not so certain of their position when it is carried through to its logical consistency. As one of the respondents in the video said, "That's such a sticky issue." Edited October 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 Scott writes: Quote Isn't that what SCOTUS is set to decide: whether or not the baker indeed behaved illegally? Not really. That was decided a long time ago. SCOTUS doesn't make this kind of decision because it isn't that kind of court. What SCOTUS does is to confirm (or reject) the decisions of earlier courts based on whether or not the law can be considered constitutional, and whether or not the law has been applied properly. There is no question (on the part of anyone including the baker) that the baker was violating the law. Quote But it is connected to a specific group: a Christian group. A dress designer refusing to provide service to Melania Trump is discriminating against her because of her association with a certain political faction or ideology. That's connected to a group. 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. When I talk about this idea of exclusion, it is because exclusion is the key. The idea of connecting things to a specific group. The singer could choose to sing only at Islamic holiday events. In that case, there isn't a discrimination consideration either, since it doesn't discriminate against any specific group. Quote As a Christian, I would not go to court to force somebody to provide a service for my Christian event, despite how bigoted I thought the service provider to be. Good for you. And as a white Christian male, you almost never experience real discrimination against you in the way that these minorities do. So I don't find your comment to be particularly meaningful, or helpful, or even charitable. I think it might be an entirely different picture if you found that you (and your friends and family) were constantly the target of discriminatory practices. Quote A pig begins to squirm when he gets uncomfortable -- just like people who are not so certain of their position when it is carried through to its logical consistency. As one of the respondents in the video said, "That's such a sticky issue." 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. 1
Calm Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 If it is legal to refuse to serve someone based on political views, then why couldn't bakers, etc. refuse to serve gay marriages based on the political stance of those participating? As long as they refused everyone who made their supportive opinion about gay marriage, could this be used as a valid argument. After all, Posen and others have not refused service to anyone else. 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted October 14, 2017 Posted October 14, 2017 Quote If it is legal to refuse to serve someone based on political views, then why couldn't bakers, etc. refuse to serve gay marriages based on the political stance of those participating? As long as they refused everyone who made their supportive opinion about gay marriage, could this be used as a valid argument. Something like this might work in certain circumstances, but its not likely in this specific case. These kinds of issues have a long history. Consider an analog. You don't like interracial marriage. You could have a policy not to serve someone in your restaurant who approves of interracial marriages. But, if that creates a situation where the vast majority of people you refuse to serve for this reason are in fact interracial couples, then the stated intention doesn't match up well against the actual outcome. And the outcome is part of what is considered when the courts deal with discrimination cases. This becomes an even more pointed issue in these kinds of cases (the cake maker sort). Because, generally speaking, the only way for the cake baker to know that they support same-sex marriage is through the attempted purchase of a wedding cake (yes we could think of all sorts of non-normal exceptions - but the fact that they aren't normal makes them easy to dismiss as being irrelevant). And that circumstance is even more tightly connected to the protected group. In the Colorado case, the Colorado law is quite clear about the protected groups: Quote Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, and Marital Status Now, the term "creed" is somewhat ambiguous, so Colorado law further defines it: Quote “Creed” means all aspects of religious beliefs, observances or practices, as well as sincerely held moral and ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong, and/or addresses ultimate ideas or questions regarding the meaning of existence, as well as the beliefs or teachings of a particular religion, church, denomination or sect. A creed does not include political beliefs, association with political beliefs or political interests, or membership in a political party You can see that they make it very clear that that political beliefs by themselves are not grounds for a discrimination case. But ... the law/courts also won't allow someone to discriminate against a protected group while hiding behind a claim that they are really only discriminating against a political party. And of course, while being in the liberal party makes it more likely that you support same-sex marriage, it isn't a guarantee. And it isn't very hard in Colorado to change your party affiliation. Quote After all, Posen and others have not refused service to anyone else. 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). 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 15, 2017 Author Posted October 15, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Something like this might work in certain circumstances, but its not likely in this specific case. These kinds of issues have a long history. Consider an analog. You don't like interracial marriage. You could have a policy not to serve someone in your restaurant who approves of interracial marriages. But, if that creates a situation where the vast majority of people you refuse to serve for this reason are in fact interracial couples, then the stated intention doesn't match up well against the actual outcome. And the outcome is part of what is considered when the courts deal with discrimination cases. This becomes an even more pointed issue in these kinds of cases (the cake maker sort). Because, generally speaking, the only way for the cake baker to know that they support same-sex marriage is through the attempted purchase of a wedding cake (yes we could think of all sorts of non-normal exceptions - but the fact that they aren't normal makes them easy to dismiss as being irrelevant). And that circumstance is even more tightly connected to the protected group. In the Colorado case, the Colorado law is quite clear about the protected groups: Now, the term "creed" is somewhat ambiguous, so Colorado law further defines it: You can see that they make it very clear that that political beliefs by themselves are not grounds for a discrimination case. But ... the law/courts also won't allow someone to discriminate against a protected group while hiding behind a claim that they are really only discriminating against a political party. And of course, while being in the liberal party makes it more likely that you support same-sex marriage, it isn't a guarantee. And it isn't very hard in Colorado to change your party affiliation. 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). 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). What he did do was to refuse to participate in the expression of that orientation in a manner that was inconsistent with his values. 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. Edited October 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
kiwi57 Posted October 15, 2017 Posted October 15, 2017 On 10/8/2017 at 10:49 AM, Vance said: I regret that I can only "like" this once. So your only regret is that you have but one like to give for your country?
california boy Posted October 15, 2017 Posted October 15, 2017 1 hour 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). What he did do was to refuse to participate in the expression of that orientation in a manner that was inconsistent with his values. 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. He already explained quite clearly the difference. Reread his post if you really want an answer to your question.
Recommended Posts