Masterpiece Cake Shop religious freedom case at Supreme Court

[bsjkki]

17 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Refusing to provide cakes with specific words/symbols are protected by free speech on either side of the issue. The fact that Philips (and other bakers) can and do refuse to make cakes with specific messages has nothing to do with this issue, which is that Philips has refused to bake the same type of cake for same-sex couples that he bakes for other couples.

This issue was debated heavily in oral arguments...I would post some quotes but must go hang out with my kids!  

 

[Daniel2]

If the baker prevails, I really wonder if “creative” wedding professionals with conflicting but deeply-held religious beliefs to the contrary will be likewise allowed to refuse service to any given religious type of weddings (I including Christian and of course, Mormon), christenings, baptisms, bar mitzvahs, interracial weddings, weddings between divorcees, barren/infertile, or senior-citizen couples, baby showers for unwed couples, etc. or if the court will somehow decide its just same-sex weddings that are ok to discriminate against based on religious belief... So far, no one I’ve heard from seems to be able to suggest any compelling reason why that wouldn’t be the eventual outcome. 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

8 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This issue was debated heavily in oral arguments...I would post some quotes but must go hang out with my kids!  

 

If it hadn’t been asked, the justices would likely have faced criticism that they didn’t thoroughly vet the issue, but previous court ruling have been consistent on that matter.  Enjoy your kids.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly.  What will we hear next?  That anti-Black Christian Identity people feel offended that they must bake a cake for a Black wedding? 

With due respect, Robert, I think a persuasive case could be made that that's a non sequitur.  Interracial marriage doesn't call into question the very fundamental meaning of the concept the way that, arguably, gay marriage does.  (I know you don't think much of my legal acumen, such as it is, but nonetheless ...)

Quote

Or how about anti-Mormon discrimination in public accommodations? 

How one frames the issue can have a sizable impact on how one believes conflicts such as these should be resolved.  In my opinion, you frame the issue here entirely too broadly.  If it were simply about whether one should be allowed to refuse service to another person based on some invidious criteria, then I would agree with you, but I don't think it is.  It's about whether my expressive abilities should be pressed into service to favor a cause with which I disagree.  One's right to free speech carries with it the implication that government should not be able to compel someone to use one's expressive talents to convey a message with which he disagrees.

Quote

Should my contempt for Mormon heretics make it possible for me to refuse to rent or sell to Mormons? 

Again, that frames the issue entirely too broadly.  But, yes, in answer to your question, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion, still."  If someone dislikes me enough that he finds the prospect of renting to me odious because of my religion, then I don't want to live there.  Legally, it depends on how large the complex is:  How many units are there?  I don't believe Fair Housing laws apply to complexes below a certain size, to individual units, and/or to private renters.  If you're renting out the other half of a duplex and you decline to rent to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because of his religion, in dicta, a court might lament your failure to keep up with the times and might strongly imply that you're a racist, but that doesn't necessarily make it a federal (or even a state) case, at least, not one in which a court can compel you to rent to someone.

Quote

All on the basis of my freedom of religion.

Yep.  I think it's poor form, but it would seem that if the 2012 U.S. national election taught us anything, it's that, apparently, anti-Mormonism is the last acceptable social prejudice.   

Quote

Mormons are already prohibited from attending many evangelical seminaries -- one must accept and sign a tightly written creedal statement.

I received an invitation to apply to law school at Jerry Falwell's Regent University in Virginia Beach VA.  I followed up by contacting an admissions official, telling him that I doubted it would come as a huge surprise to him, given the preponderance of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the state, to learn that I am a member of that denomination, whereupon, essentially, I bore my testimony to him (though not in the traditional, formal, Fast Sunday sense) and asking, given the school's evangelical roots, how I might be received.  He responded by telling me that he was "delighted that my faith in Christ plays such a central role in [my] life."  Although I didn't end up applying to RUSL because it wouldn't have made financial sense for me to go there unless I were to receive something approaching a full-ride scholarship (and, given the likely high cost of living in the area, it may not have made financial sense for me to do so even then), I was favorably impressed by this official's response.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You may want to read up on the context of that quote a bit. It was about protecting freedom of thought, not the right to refuse to serve someone economically. Specifically it was about the evil of using discriminatory economic inducements to squash speech.

Just as someone should not be allowed to use economic inducements to quash or to quell speech, so should one be prevented from using government coercion to compel speech.

[Kenngo1969]

17 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

This issue was debated heavily in oral arguments...I would post some quotes but must go hang out with my kids!  

 

Oh, please!  Talk about skewed priorities!  

(Have fun! )

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There's no way for me to know a thing like that. Or you either.

I agree.  Which is why this case has some very blurry lines.

[Calm]

While I would not claim all wedding cakes qualify, I do think wedding cakes such as these are works of art and engineering and some qualify in my view as edible sculpture:

https://www.pinterest.com/dayzeeaday/cakes-elaborate-wedding/?lp=true

Sculpture::  "the art of carving, modeling, welding, orotherwise producing figurative or abstract worksof art in three dimensions, as in relief, intaglio, orin the round."  Dictionary.com

[Anijen]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Refusing to provide cakes with specific words/symbols are protected by free speech on either side of the issue.

I agree, where I do not agree is when a court can compel conduct or compel the way we should think.

 

Quote

 Philips has refused to bake the same type of cake he bakes for other couples for same-sex couples. 

The Colorado courts have compelled his conduct that he must bake the cake or face consequences or not bake wedding cakes for anybody irregardless of his religious beliefs. The Colorado courts have furthermore compelled his employees to have counseling about discrimination, in other words how to act, how to conform, finally how to believe.

This in my opinion is so close to a future court ruling that will progress from this action to the next action (from forced conduct evolving into forced beliefs, what we can and cannot believe). Which branch of government do you think has constitutionally authority to decide how we think? Where will that line be drawn between forced conduct and forced belief?  Should a line be drawn, or should we just shut up and obey? 

Which fundamental right has superiority over another fundamental right?

The topic is so controversial because it appears courts can decide which protected right has a priority over anothers protected right.  It appears religious idiots, like myself, who think they have a First Amendment religious right, the courts say phooey! (I disagree with the court here).  It appears a gay couples fundamental right to marriage the courts say emphatically yes! (I agree with the courts here, at the same time believing marriage is between a man and a woman).

To me marriage is a sacred and in its origin is religious in nature. It is the same with Philips. His decision was on his deeply held religious beliefs. The correctness of his religious beliefs, bad or good, acceptable or not acceptable is not the issue, the issue is whether Philips may refuse baking a wedding cake,  which to him is an artistic creation that symbolizes marriage and thus reflects Philips religious beliefs on marriage.

When the Colorado court ordered Philips to bake this wedding cake, Philips was in  a sense being told his beliefs are of no importance and the First Amendment does not apply. In a sense the court is saying if Philips does not toe the government line he will be punished. What the courts are in essence is saying is what is a legally acceptable belief and what is not a legally acceptable belief and if Philips does not fall in line with their decision then the courts will punish him (thus, compelled conduct becomes a legally compelled acceptable belief).

Scary

 

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Refusing to provide cakes with specific words/symbols are protected by free speech on either side of the issue. The fact that Philips (and other bakers) can and do refuse to make cakes with specific messages has nothing to do with this issue, which is that Philips has refused to bake the same type of cake for same-sex couples that he bakes for other couples.

The SCOTUS case is about being forced to “speak”. The oral argument from Phillips attorney covers the fact that Colorado compels speech by “requiring” Phillips to create custom made cakes to include custom cakes with custom written messages. Additionally, I believe it is agreed by all parties that Phillips refusial was a refusial of a custom cake not a cake.

[The Nehor]

59 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Just as someone should not be allowed to use economic inducements to quash or to quell speech, so should one be prevented from using government coercion to compel speech.

Selling a cake is not an expression of free speech.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

With due respect, Robert, I think a persuasive case could be made that that's a non sequitur.  Interracial marriage doesn't call into question the very fundamental meaning of the concept the way that, arguably, gay marriage does. .............................

Believe it or not, Kenngo, there are actually people who believe that Black people are not part of the human race, consigning them to the status of "mud people," subhumans, and the like.  They are fully opposed to Black people being able to have equal rights in any sort of public accommodations, and they function on that basis today.  I don't really care what they believe privately.  We're talking about public places of business.  Do you really think that its O.K. to refuse them service?

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

How one frames the issue can have a sizable impact on how one believes conflicts such as these should be resolved.  In my opinion, you frame the issue here entirely too broadly.  If it were simply about whether one should be allowed to refuse service to another person based on some invidious criteria, then I would agree with you, but I don't think it is.  It's about whether my expressive abilities should be pressed into service to favor a cause with which I disagree.  One's right to free speech carries with it the implication that government should not be able to compel someone to use one's expressive talents to convey a message with which he disagrees.

Your expressive abilities are not the issue, and are not in question.  What is in question is your right to extend that into the public accommodations sphere.

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Again, that frames the issue entirely too broadly.  But, yes, in answer to your question, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion, still."  If someone dislikes me enough that he finds the prospect of renting to me odious because of my religion, then I don't want to live there.  Legally, it depends on how large the complex is:  How many units are there?  I don't believe Fair Housing laws apply to complexes below a certain size, to individual units, and/or to private renters.  If you're renting out the other half of a duplex and you decline to rent to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because of his religion, in dicta, a court might lament your failure to keep up with the times and might strongly imply that you're a racist, but that doesn't necessarily make it a federal (or even a state) case, at least, not one in which a court can compel you to rent to someone.

Your personal feelings are not at issue, but straightforward matters of law.  It may be complex, as you suggest, but the law by its nature often compels people to do things they don't want to do.  As a community, we all need to accept that.  We vote, and win or lose, we must accept the results with good grace.

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yep.  I think it's poor form, but it would seem that if the 2012 U.S. national election taught us anything, it's that, apparently, anti-Mormonism is the last acceptable social prejudice.   ..............................................

True enough.  What is astonishing is that Mormons so quickly forget how they have been victimized, while going along with current suppression of the rights of others.

[Anijen]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Selling a cake is not an expression of free speech.

I believe a custom ordered wedding cake that goes against the bakers religious beliefs is an expression of free speech. But if I tweak your post just a bit by adding two words;

[The forced] selling of a cake is not an expression of free speech." You would be correct it is the expression of compelled speech.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Anijen

[provoman]

 

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Selling a cake is not an expression of free speech.

Selling a cake was not refused. Creating a custom cake was refused. The couple even admits that they requested a custom cake and were refused.  The ruling from Colorado requires Phillips to make custom cakes with custom messages, which is compelling Phillips to speak. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Necessary" being the operative term here. In theory, government works because people voluntarily and collectively give up some limited personal freedoms to reap the benefits of protection, order and peace. That doesn't mean we should be obliged to do so without just cause.

That, I might add, was the political theory on which our Constitution was based.

This part of your post troubles me because it sounds too much like attitudes that must have prevailed in pre-World War II Germany.

There are people who think of our police, FBI, and other law enforcement elements as Gestapo, but are unable to explain how we can do without them.  Like the silly Marxist theory of automatic harmony, some prefer anarchy or a form of libertarianism -- none of which work in practice, and only create chaos.  We vote for people to represent us at all levels of government, and rules are made and enforced in our name.  A lot of people who don't understand that grouse about being compelled to do this or that, but I have yet to find a complainer who actually understands our political system.  If given the chance to vote on it today, many of them would reject the U.S. Constitution.  Why?  Because they don't understand it.  That is one reason for our current national crisis.  That is also the reason that Hitlerian dictatorship can rise in this country.  To the extent that Americans reject the rule of Law, it can happen here.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

There are many custom cakes Jack Phillips has refused to make including Halloween, Divorce, Bachelorette and Bachelor Party cakes, Satan's birthday party cake etc...and even a cake with an anti-lgbtq message. 

Interesting.  I wonder if he has always done that or if he just started doing that after he refused to bake the wedding cake for the gay couple just to cover his ---

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Not really in conflict at all. Neither side (including Philips and his lawyer) dispute that the design of the cake wasn’t even discussed at the couple’s contact with the bakery.

In SUBSEQUENT media reports, the couple described the type of cake they had hoped to have at their wedding. 

While this has been pointed out more than once on this board, Smac continues to try to cloud the issue with a laundry list of those subsequent media sources mentioning the design the couple wanted for the wedding, as if that means a there’s some nefarious or questionable aspect to the couple’s integrity, honesty, or their approach to the legal proceedings. In my experience, this is the type of ambiguity that deft lawyers seek to capitalize on in trying to make their case, despite the fact that said facts aren’t really in dispute at all, again, by either party and as outlined in both sides’ briefs and numerous amici briefs.

I thought that was the case, so I was surprised by SMAC's assertion.

[Exiled]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There are people who think of our police, FBI, and other law enforcement elements as Gestapo, but are unable to explain how we can do without them.  Like the silly Marxist theory of automatic harmony, some prefer anarchy or a form of libertarianism -- none of which work in practice, and only create chaos.  We vote for people to represent us at all levels of government, and rules are made and enforced in our name.  A lot of people who don't understand that grouse about being compelled to do this or that, but I have yet to find a complainer who actually understands our political system.  If given the chance to vote on it today, many of them would reject the U.S. Constitution.  Why?  Because they don't understand it.  That is one reason for our current national crisis.  That is also the reason that Hitlerian dictatorship can rise in this country.  To the extent that Americans reject the rule of Law, it can happen here.

I like the concept of ordered liberty but there is a continuum and we need to be ever vigilant to ensure our rights aren't destroyed in the name of supposed safety. Incidentally, what don't you like about libertarianism? It seems to me that society would be fine if we had limited laws that focused on not harming others and allowed true competition without excessive state control.

[california boy]

56 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I believe a custom ordered wedding cake that goes against the bakers religious beliefs is an expression of free speech. But if I tweak your post just a bit by adding two words;

[The forced] selling of a cake is not an expression of free speech." You would be correct it is the expression of compelled speech.

Forced doesn't add any support for your argument.  The government is entitled to force it's citizens to do hundreds of things, even if it goes against their religious beliefs.  Are the Quakers allowed to deduct the portion of their taxes that go towards war?  If a religion is against income tax, does the government have the right to force the members of that church to pay income tax anyway?  This argument could go on for pages.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

 

Selling a cake was not refused. Creating a custom cake was refused. The couple even admits that they requested a custom cake and were refused.  The ruling from Colorado requires Phillips to make custom cakes with custom messages, which is compelling Phillips to speak. 

No, it isn't.

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly.  What will we hear next?  That anti-Black Christian Identity people feel offended that they must bake a cake for a Black wedding?  Or how about anti-Mormon discrimination in public accommodations?  Should my contempt for Mormon heretics make it possible for me to refuse to rent or sell to Mormons?  All on the basis of my freedom of religion.  Mormons are already prohibited from attending many evangelical seminaries -- one must accept and sign a tightly written creedal statement.

^This^

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

The SCOTUS case is about being forced to “speak”. The oral argument from Phillips attorney covers the fact that Colorado compels speech by “requiring” Phillips to create custom made cakes to include custom cakes with custom written messages. Additionally, I believe it is agreed by all parties that Phillips refusial was a refusial of a custom cake not a cake.

Not quite accurate, but close.  The Baker and his lawyers are trying to suggest the case is about speech. Thus far, all the courts of appeals have disagreed and said that baking a custom cake doesn’t qualify as an act of speech.  We’ll see whether or not SCOTUS agrees once they issue their ruling. 

But as others have noted, you’re completely off base (incorrect) that lower cases have ruled that bakers are legally required/compelled to write ANY written messages or symbols, even if they disagree with them. That simply isn’t the case, and either you haven’t read the rulings yourself or your sources are misinformed/too vague with the facts of the rulings.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Interesting.  I wonder if he has always done that or if he just started doing that after he refused to bake the wedding cake for the gay couple just to cover his ---

 

He’s entirely free to refuse to provide Halloween cakes, divorce cakes, and Bachellorette/Bachelor cakes, so long as he doesn’t pick and choose which customers to sell or not sell them to based on any status as members of protected class(es).

Edited December 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

 

Selling a cake was not refused. Creating a custom cake was refused. The couple even admits that they requested a custom cake and were refused.  The ruling from Colorado requires Phillips to make custom cakes with custom messages, which is compelling Phillips to speak. 

Again, not correct. Neither side disputes that any design was even discussed before Philips turned the gay couple away, so it wasn’t based on an objection to the design that he refused service.... It was upon hearing that it was a same-sex wedding that Phillips refused service. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I like the concept of ordered liberty but there is a continuum and we need to be ever vigilant to ensure our rights aren't destroyed in the name of supposed safety. Incidentally, what don't you like about libertarianism? It seems to me that society would be fine if we had limited laws that focused on not harming others and allowed true competition without excessive state control.

The state is us, Exiled.  We create it and we own it.  If the state exercises excessive control, that is because we will it or allow to be the case.  If we allow the oligarchs to control us by buying favorable legislation and regulations, that is us acquiescing.  Dreams of a modern utopia are simply silly and lead to dystopias of various kinds.  Most Americans are hopelessly naive and foolishly vote against their self-interest.

I also appreciate "the concept of ordered liberty," even though "there is a continuum and we need to be ever vigilant to ensure our rights aren't destroyed in the name of supposed safety."  All of us need to accept the unpleasant realities of modern civilization.

Most libertarian claims are incoherent and dangerous to the body politic, and libertarianism tends to attract sovereign citizen goofballs and other mentally deranged people.