Masterpiece Cake Shop religious freedom case at Supreme Court

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The government is entitled to force it's citizens to do hundreds of things, even if it goes against their religious beliefs.  

 

 True the government does force its citizens to do many things, some go against religious beliefs like compelling someone to bake a cake.

But in defence of fairness and all things Holy, here are a list of a few cases where the government has waived certain things for religious reasons:

1. The government has allowed the Amish not to pay medicare or social security taxes.
2. Quakers and other religions are exempt from serving in the military.
3. There are property tax exemptions for religious properties.
4.  Mandatory dress codes may be waived for religious reasons.
5. Chaplins get a portion of their salaries tax free.
6. There are religious exemptions from mandatory vaccinations.
7. Some business do not have to pay for their employees birth control and they cite religious reasons for justification.
8. Church buildings do not have to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act.
9. Religious Child Care Centers do not have to pay for costly licensing procedures

But, Heaven forbid and Holy smoke don't you try to refuse to bake a wedding cake based on religious reasons, the government will be out to get ya.

Big Brother is everywhere

 

 

[kiwi57]

6 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 ---

 

Interesting. I wonder if you always assume anyone who disagrees with you about "gay" things is acting in bad faith by default, or only when there is religious faith involved.

I've always held a rather strong suspicion that people who have and act on principles can usually recognise that same trait in others, even when they don't agree with the particular principles being espoused.

Please note that, even if he hadn't been the target of all this expensive, time-consuming and harrowing lawfare at the hands of extremely well-heeled (and utterly relentless) adversaries, Mr Phillips' refusal to bake custom cakes for same sex weddings would have cost him money. That's usually a good indicator that self-interest is not the primary motivation.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours 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.

One can accept the rule of law while at the same time opposing and working to thwart excessive government control over personal freedoms and civil liberties.  That’s why we have a checks and balances system with three branches of government. We don’t have to acquiesce to the compelling of behavior when such is unjust or tyrannical. 

To apply it to the argument at hand, to require the owner of a family-owned business to subject his employees to “training” wherein state-mandated dogma is drilled into them is unjust and tyrannical. As I said, I hope the high court slaps down the government of Colorado for it. 

[smac97]

I thought this commentary was useful:

Quote

The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in the Colorado cake maker case. The issue is whether Colorado can coerce a baker, Jack Phillips, into making a custom cake for a gay wedding when he objects to gay marriage on religious grounds.

It quickly became apparent that, to no one’s surprise, Justice Kennedy’s vote will likely decide the case. The questions Kennedy asked created some discomfort for both sides, but more for the gay couple.

Amy Howe of ScotusBlog reports:

Quote

...

But the tide seemed to shift later in the argument, as Kennedy asked Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger, representing the state, about a statement by a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who noted that religious beliefs had in the past been used to justify other forms of discrimination, like slavery and the Holocaust. It is, the commission member contended, “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use their religion to hurt others.” If we thought that at least this member of the commission had based his decision on hostility to religion, Kennedy asked Yarger, could the judgment against Masterpiece stand?

...

Kennedy returned to this idea again a few minutes later, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society.” But Colorado, Kennedy posited, hasn’t been very tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs in this case. And, following up on Gorsuch’s suggestion that the training required of Phillips would amount to compelled speech, Kennedy commented (more than a little derisively) that Phillips would “have to teach that state law supersedes our religious beliefs.”

 

Hmm.  Litigation decided in favor of a gay couple and "based ... on hostility to religion" and "{not} very tolerant of Phillips' religious beliefs."

Who knew?

Quote

That last Kennedy comment harks back to what he wrote in the Obergefell case, where he established a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex:

Quote

The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.

 

I have repeatedly suggested on this board that, sooner or later, the bullying tactics used by the Gay Rights folks would come back to haunt them.

Looks like "sooner" is becoming more and more plausible.

Quote

David French is fascinated and encouraged by Kennedy’s fixation on “Colorado’s” animus towards religious belief. He writes:

Quote

...

Many progressives have been playing the bigotry card since the inception of this case, but Justice Kennedy raises the possibility that the true bigots may have been the government officials who punished Jack Phillips.

 

Well, yes.

I think people on this board have likewise played - and overplayed - the "bigotry card."  I wonder what they think of Justice Kennedy's suggestion of the real bigotry in this case - animus towards religious beliefs.

Quote

French is also heartened by this exchange between Kennedy and the lawyer for the gay couple:

Quote

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, but this whole concept of identity is a slightly — suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against — against gay people. He says but I just don’t think they should have a marriage because that’s contrary to my beliefs. It’s not -­

MR. COLE: Yeah.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: It’s not their identity; it’s what they’re doing.

MR. COLE: Yeah.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: I think it’s — your identity thing is just too facile.

Yeah.

"I have nothing [] against gay people.  ... It's not their identity; it's what they're doing. ... Your identity thing is just to facile."

How many times have good and decent people made these same points, only to be accused of hatred and bigotry?

Justice Kennedy - the author of Obergefell v. Hodges and the swing vote in that case - appear to be calling out the bullies.

How will the bullies respond?  Bueller?  Bueller?

Quote

French concludes:

Quote

Phillips never, ever, discriminated on the basis of identity. He merely refused to use his talents to support actions and messages he believes to be immoral.

Justice Kennedy gets the key distinction in this case. Now let’s hope this thought makes it into the opinion of the Court.

Kennedy is the swing vote. If he wants this thought to make it into the opinion of the Court, it will.

Will the bullying tactics result in a legal comeuppance?  Time will tell.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I thought this commentary was useful:

Hmm.  Litigation decided in favor of a gay couple and "based ... on hostility to religion" and "{not} very tolerant of Phillips' religious beliefs."

Who knew?

I have repeatedly suggested on this board that, sooner or later, the bullying tactics used by the Gay Rights folks would come back to haunt them.

Looks like "sooner" is becoming more and more plausible.

Well, yes.

I think people on this board have likewise played - and overplayed - the "bigotry card."  I wonder what they think of Justice Kennedy's suggestion of the real bigotry in this case - animus towards religious beliefs.

"I have nothing [] against gay people.  ... It's not their identity; it's what they're doing. ... Your identity thing is just to facile."

How many times have good and decent people made these same points, only to be accused of hatred and bigotry?

Justice Kennedy - the author of Obergefell v. Hodges and the swing vote in that case - appear to be calling out the bullies.

How will the bullies respond?  Bueller?  Bueller?

Will the bullying tactics result in a legal comeuppance?  Time will tell.

Thanks,

-Smac

The bullies in this case are the ones who want to refuse service based on sexual orientation. That's a classic bully tactic.

[Exiled]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I thought you were going to say how libertarians don't like the religious political agenda pushed primarily by evangelical christians and that's why you don't like it. Isn't the opposition to same sex marriage part of this agenda? Libertarians don't really care about these issues. I don't know how they would side on the cake issue. My guess is that they wouldn't want government involved and would favor letting people protest or boycott the cake shop because that is more what market forces allow. Let the people vote with their dollars.

As far as mentally deranged people, I think all parties attract the mentally deranged in some way or another. Sovereign citizens' problem is that their legal reasoning is highly lacking. They think that filing liens and invoking admiralty court will get them out of debt which is a bunch of nonsense. 

Anyway, I think you touched on an issue that is at the core of our problems imo and that is that we have allowed too much concentration of wealth to happen at the top and have allowed government to create too many barriers that favor the oligarchs. We are progressively being dominated by the few.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

The bullies in this case are the ones who want to refuse service based on sexual orientation. That's a classic bully tactic.

The baker isn't refusing service based on sexual orientation though.  He isn't refusing to serve gay people.   He's refusing to serve an activity that he doesn't agree with.  How is that bullying?

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The baker isn't refusing service based on sexual orientation though.  He isn't refusing to serve gay people.   He's refusing to serve an activity that he doesn't agree with.  How is that bullying?

Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. He makes wedding cakes. Gay people get married, but he won't make cakes for gay people's weddings. This excuse wouldn't fly if he refused to make cake for black people's weddings, it shouldn't fly now. It's like saying, "No, I didn't punch you, my fist just made contact with your face with some velocity."

[Exiled]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The baker isn't refusing service based on sexual orientation though.  He isn't refusing to serve gay people.   He's refusing to serve an activity that he doesn't agree with.  How is that bullying?

I don't know if one can disassociate the action from the actor in this case or any case for that matter.  The law punishes actors and not some amorphous, separate, fictional activity entity.  In this case, clearly the cake shop owner's actions harmed the same-sex couple who wanted to get married.  Sure, the couple could go somewhere else but is separate but equal what we want as a society?  On the other hand, should people be forced to accommodate views they find repugnant?  If I had to lay odds on how this will be decided, the new judge, Gorsuch, seems to be a religious freedom advocate and it seems he would join the other conservative justices to carve out an exception on religious grounds.  My guess is that if the court did this, the majority would try to limit the exception's scope, if that's possible.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. He makes wedding cakes. Gay people get married, but he won't make cakes for gay people's weddings. This excuse wouldn't fly if he refused to make cake for black people's weddings, it shouldn't fly now. It's like saying, "No, I didn't punch you, my fist just made contact with your face with some velocity."

But he will make other kinds of cakes for gay people, right?  That means that it's not gays that he's discriminating against, it's a specific activity.  

 

[Gray]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But he will make other kinds of cakes for gay people, right?  That means that it's not gays that he's discriminating against, it's a specific activity.  

 

I don't know if he would or not. But that's just a cover and an excuse anyway. If I claim not to have anything against Mormons, but I won't make a cake for Mormon weddings (but would for other weddings), most people would rightly conclude that I really did have something against Mormons.

[Anijen]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, that's exactly what he's doing. He makes wedding cakes. Gay people get married, but he won't make cakes for gay people's weddings. This excuse wouldn't fly if he refused to make cake for black people's weddings, it shouldn't fly now. It's like saying, "No, I didn't punch you, my fist just made contact with your face with some velocity."

If Philips told the couple he would bake them other things, just not a wedding cake it shows he did NOT refuse service, but refused a wedding cake.

Why did he say he would bake other things for them? Why did he say he would not bake a cake? The answer is obviously he is willing to bake and give service to the gay couple, he is just not willing to make a wedding cake that would be against his religious beliefs. 

[Gray]

Just now, Anijen said:

If Philips told the couple he would bake them other things, just not a wedding cake it shows he did NOT refuse service, but refused a wedding cake.

Did he say that?

 

Just now, Anijen said:

Why did he say he would bake other things for them? Why did he say he would not bake a cake? The answer is obviously he is willing to bake and give service to the gay couple, he is just not willing to make a wedding cake that would be against his religious beliefs. 

Just like southern bus lines were willing to take black customers, just as long as they sat in the back. These are transparently poor excuses.

[Anijen]

Just now, Gray said:

Did he say that?

Yes he said that.

 

Quote

Just like southern bus lines were willing to take black customers, just as long as they sat in the back. These are transparently poor excuses.

Oh poppycock! Sick and tired of the race card being played. What a weak rebuttal to resort to the race card. Race is not the issue. He did not refuse service to a black person, he did not put his customer to the back of the bus.

 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I don't know if one can disassociate the action from the actor in this case or any case for that matter.  The law punishes actors and not some amorphous, separate, fictional activity entity.  In this case, clearly the cake shop owner's actions harmed the same-sex couple who wanted to get married. 

How did it harm them?  Were they not able to get married?  Were they not able to have a cake at their wedding?  Is having your feelings hurt (which i'm not trying to downplay or ignore or suggest doesn't matter in the larger scope of things) a harm that the law should protect against?

Quote

Sure, the couple could go somewhere else but is separate but equal what we want as a society?

This isn't separate but equal though.  No one is arguing that services for gay brides and grooms should be separated from services for straight brides and grooms.

Quote

On the other hand, should people be forced to accommodate views they find repugnant?  If I had to lay odds on how this will be decided, the new judge, Gorsuch, seems to be a religious freedom advocate and it seems he would join the other conservative justices to carve out an exception on religious grounds.  My guess is that if the court did this, the majority would try to limit the exception's scope, if that's possible.

I think that's what makes this so difficult.  No one would want to be forced to support something that they personally find repugnant, but most of us are o.k. forcing someone else to do something if we believe it's right.  This issue gets right to the core of our human weaknesses.  

Laws are necessary to help everyone seek life, liberty, and pursue happiness, but people also have to be able to follow their own personal morals and not be forced to obey the morals of others.  It's a fine line sometimes.  Tolerance goes a long way, but it has to be tolerance on both sides.  

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Anijen said:

 

 True the government does force its citizens to do many things, some go against religious beliefs like compelling someone to bake a cake.

But in defence of fairness and all things Holy, here are a list of a few cases where the government has waived certain things for religious reasons:

1. The government has allowed the Amish not to pay medicare or social security taxes.
2. Quakers and other religions are exempt from serving in the military.
3. There are property tax exemptions for religious properties.
4.  Mandatory dress codes may be waived for religious reasons.
5. Chaplins get a portion of their salaries tax free.
6. There are religious exemptions from mandatory vaccinations.
7. Some business do not have to pay for their employees birth control and they cite religious reasons for justification.
8. Church buildings do not have to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act.
9. Religious Child Care Centers do not have to pay for costly licensing procedures

But, Heaven forbid and Holy smoke don't you try to refuse to bake a wedding cake based on religious reasons, the government will be out to get ya.

Big Brother is everywhere

 

 

Did you notice that on your list, none include anything that discriminates or takes away another persons rights?  They are all things that only affect the individual getting the exemption.

[california boy]

5 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Interesting. I wonder if you always assume anyone who disagrees with you about "gay" things is acting in bad faith by default, or only when there is religious faith involved.

I've always held a rather strong suspicion that people who have and act on principles can usually recognise that same trait in others, even when they don't agree with the particular principles being espoused.

Please note that, even if he hadn't been the target of all this expensive, time-consuming and harrowing lawfare at the hands of extremely well-heeled (and utterly relentless) adversaries, Mr Phillips' refusal to bake custom cakes for same sex weddings would have cost him money. That's usually a good indicator that self-interest is not the primary motivation.

Yet you didn't answer the question.  You don't think that could have bearing on his sincerity?

[Anijen]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Did you notice that on your list, none include anything that discriminates or takes away another persons rights?  They are all things that only affect the individual getting the exemption.

Well by some of the remarks I have seen in this thread, many here would claim every single one of those things on the list is discrimination.

e.g. Why can church's discriminate against the disabled by not accommodating them? Why do the Amish get a pass on not paying social security, or medicaid tax and others have to pay?

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How did it harm them?  Were they not able to get married?  Were they not able to have a cake at their wedding?  Is having your feelings hurt (which i'm not trying to downplay or ignore or suggest doesn't matter in the larger scope of things) a harm that the law should protect against?

This isn't separate but equal though.  No one is arguing that services for gay brides and grooms should be separated from services for straight brides and grooms.

I think that's what makes this so difficult.  No one would want to be forced to support something that they personally find repugnant, but most of us are o.k. forcing someone else to do something if we believe it's right.  This issue gets right to the core of our human weaknesses.  

Laws are necessary to help everyone seek life, liberty, and pursue happiness, but people also have to be able to follow their own personal morals and not be forced to obey the morals of others.  It's a fine line sometimes.  Tolerance goes a long way, but it has to be tolerance on both sides.  

I have to push back a little.  Allowing a cake maker or any other wedding associated business to refuse to serve same sex couples seems to be the essence of separate but equal and while the harms aren't life threatening, they are harms that can be redressed legally.  I don't see how this is not arguing for allowing a separation of services among the types of couples.  The cake maker refused to make the wedding cake and allowing him and other businesses to do so would create a division among service providers.  The question is should society allow this refusal of services on religious grounds.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't know if he would or not. But that's just a cover and an excuse anyway. If I claim not to have anything against Mormons, but I won't make a cake for Mormon weddings (but would for other weddings), most people would rightly conclude that I really did have something against Mormons.

Not as long as you happily served mormons otherwise.  Sure some people wouldn't like it and would be upset, but it's o.k. if people do stuff we don't like sometimes.  We can just choose not to spend money in their establishment.  

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I hope they gather the cake bakers who want to discriminate and the litigating couple who want to sue over this and force them to fight to the death in an arena with crocodiles and lions in it. Then no one makes it out and the world is a better place.

I would prefer a good old-fashioned cream pie fight.

[Daniel2]

I always appreciate the SCOTUS Blog's information on SCOTUS's cases.  Here's a good sampling of their most recent round-up for this morning and the last few days, including the blue hyperlinks to several commentaries on both sides:

Quote

Additional commentary on Masterpiece Cakeshop comes from:

• Jeff Milchen at The American Independent Business Alliance;
• Walter Olson in an op-ed for the New York Daily News;
• law student Justin Burnam at The Least Dangerous Blog;
• Mark Joseph Stern at Slate;
• David Boyle at Casetext;
• Jeffrey Toobin at The New Yorker’s Daily Comment blog;
• Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg;
• Douglas Laycock and Thomas Berg at Vox;
• the same authors in an op-ed for the New York Daily News, where they maintain that “[t]he free exercise argument lets the Court craft a narrow exception focused just on sincere religious believers and on weddings”; and
• Rick Hills at PrawfsBlawg, who suggests that “respect for federalism’s role in defusing deep disagreements should lead the Court to affirm by deferring heavily to Colorado’s characterization of its purpose.”

[Daniel here again: And in the interest of representing analyses by both sides, here's a link to an analysis by "The Heritage Foundation" from yesterday[/end Daniel's comments]

Event announcement: Live stream of review of argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop

By Andrew Hamm on Dec 6, 2017 at 10:48 am

 

Today at 11 a.m. (available by live stream), the Heritage Foundation will review yesterday’s oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Speakers will include one of the oral advocates, Kristen Waggoner, and two authors of amicus briefs in the case, Ilya Shapiro and Lloyd Cohen. Elizabeth Slattery will serve as moderator. The event, which will happen at the foundation’s Allison Auditorium in Washington, can be viewed online on the foundation’s website

.

 

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Daniel2

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I have to push back a little.  Allowing a cake maker or any other wedding associated business to refuse to serve same sex couples seems to be the essence of separate but equal and while the harms aren't life threatening, they are harms that can be redressed legally. 

How does not wanting to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, separate gays from straights?  There are still plenty of other cake makers who do both.  

And also, what, exactly, are the harms this specific couple suffered?  

Quote

I don't see how this is not arguing for allowing a separation of services among the types of couples.  The cake maker refused to make the wedding cake and allowing him and other businesses to do so would create a division among service providers.  The question is should society allow this refusal of services on religious grounds.

Separate but equal is a term that specifically addresses separate facilities for different groups of people.  Who is arguing or attempting to create separate wedding bakeries for gays and straights?

[Exiled]

Just now, bluebell said:

How does not wanting to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding, separate gays from straights?  There are still plenty of other cake makers who do both.  

 

I think this is the essence of separate but equal: send the same sex couple to the same sex wedding cake maker because they can be served there.  As for the harm, do you live along the wasatch front or in utah?  Maybe if you had grown up in a predominantly non-mormon area you would understand somewhat, the indignities minority groups suffer? 

[hope_for_things]

I just listened to this RadioWest podcast this morning, a very interesting discussion about this case and the observations of a couple of legal experts on the recent SCOTUS briefings.  I learned a lot, and one thing that I didn't know about is that this case is that its being argued from a freedom of artistic expression angle and not from a religious freedom one.  I highly recommend this listen, very good stuff.

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/cakes-conscience-and-equality