Masterpiece Cake Shop religious freedom case at Supreme Court

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Yes he said that.

 

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.

 

It's the same issue. Sorry if you don't like it, but the comparisons will continue because history keeps repeating itself. The comparisons get made I suppose in the futile attempt to show people that history is repeating itself. But if you choose not to see, that's your right.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

So you're saying someone who singles out Mormon weddings and won't cater specifically to them doesn't have some kind of prejudice against Mormons?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't know if he would or not. But that's just a cover and an excuse anyway. 

I believe that is what is being debated.  Seems circular to declare it as a given.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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? 

But no one is saying to send them to a same sex wedding cake maker, right?  No one is saying that there should be same sex cake makers and straight cake makers.  

I grew up in Montana and Wyoming; there were a handful of mormons in my high school.  I've lived in those places, plus Idaho (for two months), California, Utah and North Dakota as an adult.  I understand the problems with majority rule and the importance of making sure minorities are not steamrolled.  

Like you implied with your comment about growing up in a non-mormon area and the suffering it can cause, minorities in beliefs, as well as orientation and race, need to be accommodated too.

[Gray]

Just now, Calm said:

I believe that is what is being debated.  Seems circular to declare it as a given.

All one needs to do to show the sophistry of these arguments is to change the target from a gay person to some other category closer to home. It couldn't be more transparent.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

So you're saying someone who singles out Mormon weddings and won't cater specifically to them doesn't have some kind of prejudice against Mormons?

That would depend on why they won't cater the wedding.  I don't see religious groups who refuse to take oaths for legal purpose or "swear allegiance to the flag" as prejudice as the reason is not a "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience" (Google definition), but a desire to live the precepts of their faith and the teaching against oaths are a particular interpretation of scripture.

There could be a valid reason based on a religious teaching of their faith not to support or recognize temple ceremonies as valid religious (as in approved or at least not rejected by God) ceremonies.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

All one needs to do to show the sophistry of these arguments is to change the target from a gay person to some other category closer to home. It couldn't be more transparent.

Not really.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

So you're saying someone who singles out Mormon weddings and won't cater specifically to them doesn't have some kind of prejudice against Mormons?

They would have a prejudice against mormon weddings.  But if they had no issue serving mormons otherwise, then no, they wouldn't have a prejudice against mormons.

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But no one is saying to send them to a same sex wedding cake maker, right?  No one is saying that there should be same sex cake makers and straight cake makers.  

I grew up in Montana and Wyoming; there were a handful of mormons in my high school.  I've lived in those places, plus Idaho (for two months), California, Utah and North Dakota as an adult.  I understand the problems with majority rule and the importance of making sure minorities are not steamrolled.  

Like you implied with your comment about growing up in a non-mormon area and the suffering it can cause, minorities in beliefs, as well as orientation and race, need to be accommodated too.

The cake maker said go somewhere else because he refused to accommodate. That looks like a refusal of service to me. My guess is that you are attempting to make this distinction because of the similarities this case has with race cases. Surely a cake maker cannot refuse to make a cake because he finds it religiously repugnant that a couple is of different races? I guess the question is what distinguishes same sex marriage from the race cases? What do you think?

Could a distinction be along the lines of something other than same sex marriage like say forcing the cake maker to make the same sex wedding cake but letting the cake maker refuse certain content?

[Anijen]

Gray posted

Quote

It's the same issue. Sorry if you don't like it, but the comparisons will continue because history keeps repeating itself. The comparisons get made I suppose in the futile attempt to show people that history is repeating itself. But if you choose not to see, that's your right.

You do not understand the word issue as far as it is used in legal terms. You can say race is the same issue all day, all night, all the next day, but you would still be wrong. I have read the actual briefs issues filed by both respondents [State of Colorado, and Craig and Mullins] and the petitioner [Masterpiece Cake]:

Here is a list of every single case cited in those 3 briefs (yes, I have read every single case cited). Every single one of these cases are First Amendment Cases regarding Freedom of Speech or the two Religious Clauses found in the First Amendment. Not one has race as its issue, (not even the KKK one, which issue was wearing their robes and hoods in public and not race).

• Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc.
• Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach
• Arcara v. Cloud Books
• Axson-Flynn v. Johnson
• Bd. of Dirs. of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club
• Bernstein v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting ***'n.
• Blau v. Fort Thomas Pub. Sch. Dist.
• Bob Jones Univ. v. United States
• Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale
• Brush & Nib Studio LC. v. City of Phoenix
• Buehrle v. City of Key West
• Church of the Am. Knights of the KKK v. Kerik,
• Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
• City of Cleveland v. Nation of Islam,
• Claybrooks v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
• Cressman v. Thompson
• Cohen v. Cowles Media
• Dole v. Shenandoah Baptist Church
• EEOC v. Fremont Christian Sch.
• EEOC v. Miss. Coll
• Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, (cert. denied)
• Emp’t Division v. Smith
• Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark
• Gifford v. McCarthy
• Hands on Originals, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette
• Heart of Atl. Motel v. United States
• Hishon v. King & Spalding
• Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland
• Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. Of  Boston
• Jack v. Azucar Bakery
• Jack v. Gateaux, Ltd.
• Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc.
• Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo
• Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc.
• Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar ***’n,
• Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Cal.
• Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Hum. Relations
• PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins
• R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn.
• Reed v. Town of Gilbert
• Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees
• Romer v. Evans
• Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional. Rights, Inc
• Spence v. Washington
• State v. Arlene’s Flowers, Inc.
• Tenafly Eruv ***’nv. Borough of Tenafly
• Texas v. Johnson
• United States v. Lee
• United States v. O’Brien
• Ward v. Polite
• Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, Inc.
• West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette
• Wooley v. Maynard

Comparisons are made because we naturally connect discrimination with civil rights. Colorado and CADA and Mullins and Craig and their lawyers agree this is a discrimination case based on the CADA statute not a racial issue. Sure race, national origin, sexual orientation, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech are all protected, but when choosing which purview to have standing under it is the purview of Sexual Orientation and NOT Race. Masterpiece Cake also did NOT choose Race as its purview for standing he and his lawyers chose are Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.

It is easy to say race, race, race and make comparisons and then label me racist, bigoted, homophobic, it would not be the case, it would be wrong. This case issues are based on the First Amendment, (compelled speech, and the religious Clauses) and Discrimination Statutes based on Sexual Orientation (not Race). 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Anijen

[Daniel2]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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

 

Thanks for the recommendation, Hope. I look forward to listening later tonight.

 

[Exiled]

31 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks for the recommendation, Hope. I look forward to listening later tonight.

 

Interesting, maybe the lawyers thought the comparisons to racial discrimination were too powerful to overcome? I am going to listen to this too.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Interesting, maybe the lawyers thought the comparisons to racial discrimination were too powerful to overcome? I am going to listen to this too.

They did talk about this somewhat and apparently there are some arguments that race as a category should represent an even higher standard than other protected classes, but it sounds like there is some disagreement on this issue.  They mentioned how another case decided last year essentially made race equal with other status's.  It was interesting that Kennedy has played a key role in so many of these big decisions of late.  The feeling was that Kennedy might want to make a big decision on this case as well, but reading the tea leaves is hard.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

The cake maker said go somewhere else because he refused to accommodate. That looks like a refusal of service to me.

Yes, but that alone does not equate to someone trying to create "separate but equal" facilities for gays and straights.  

Quote

My guess is that you are attempting to make this distinction because of the similarities this case has with race cases.

I'm making the distinction because I don't believe this has much in common with race cases.  Being discriminated against because of something you are (black, for example) is different than being discriminated against because of something you want to do (get married).

Quote

Surely a cake maker cannot refuse to make a cake because he finds it religiously repugnant that a couple is of different races? I guess the question is what distinguishes same sex marriage from the race cases? What do you think?

Like i said above, one is a discrimination based on something a person is (a specific race) and the other is discrimination based on something a person wants to do (an activity).

Quote

Could a distinction be along the lines of something other than same sex marriage like say forcing the cake maker to make the same sex wedding cake but letting the cake maker refuse certain content?

Maybe.  

If i was this cake maker I would simply have treated the couple with respect and kindness but told them that while i would make their cake (and do the best job I could on it), I was going to donate all of the money they paid for my services to support anti-SSM legislation.  That would have taken care of the problem and everyone could have parted ways without a backwards glance (though, it seems likely that the couple still would have attempted to punish me financially by calling for a boycott on my shop).

[Exiled]

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

They did talk about this somewhat and apparently there are some arguments that race as a category should represent an even higher standard than other protected classes, but it sounds like there is some disagreement on this issue.  They mentioned how another case decided last year essentially made race equal with other status's.  It was interesting that Kennedy has played a key role in so many of these big decisions of late.  The feeling was that Kennedy might want to make a big decision on this case as well, but reading the tea leaves is hard.  

Thanks for the link. I'm going to listen to it shortly.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

We'll see what the Supreme Court does in that particular case, but the basic principle remains the same:  Those who go into public business must expect that they will have to comply with regulations which they may not find to their liking.  That is the nature of modern society.  Every society has rules and sets boundaries, religions as well as secular states.  In our case, as American citizens, we are the govt, and we have no one else but ourselves to blame when we are annoyed or dissatisfied with our govt.  We need to accept our responsibilities for the kinds of rules we live under.

I recall attending several lectures years ago by Cleon Skousen.  He clearly did not understand history or the U.S. Constitution. He had a "them and us" mentality about govt.  He saw govt as the "other," and as an enemy, and back in the 19th century we did suffer at the hands of the Feds.  Today we are full participants and we earn the kind of govt we deserve.  If we have complaints, we need to examine ourselves and our own failures.  It is no longer someone else's responsibility.  If there is tyranny, it is being managed by your friends and neighbors, with your acquiescence.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

The cake maker said go somewhere else because he refused to accommodate.

This is untrue. This is the exact quote from the brief petition to the Supreme Court: "For this reason, Phillips politely declined to design and create a cake celebrating Respondents Craig’s and Mullins’ same-sex wedding, App. 287a, ¶ 78, but offered to make any other cake for them, id., ¶ 79." In the lower courts both parties agreed that he offered not just cakes but other pastries as well, just not the wedding cake. So he did not refuse service, he only refused the wedding cake, an artistic creation that would symbolize a gay marriage, a concept Philips declined not because he discriminates against gays, but it went against his religious beliefs.

 

Quote

That looks like a refusal of service to me.

He did not refuse service he refused the wedding cake. 

 

Quote

Surely a cake maker cannot refuse to make a cake because he finds it religiously repugnant that a couple is of different races?

Actually he can, The same Colorado court has ruled three times for another bakery that refused to bake a cake for a Black Baptist Minister. However, this case was a gay baker and the cake he refused to bake that the minister wanted had the bible verses that quoted scripture against men marrying men. If you can't see the double standard here, then I do not know how to respond to you.

 

Quote

I guess the question is what distinguishes same sex marriage from the race cases?

The difference is when you file the claim in court, the Petitioner or Respondent must assert in their claim the purview they are suing under. For example if you are suing under a discrimination act then you choose one or more of the following purviews; Race, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation... In this case the chosen purview was Sexual Orientation and NOT race. Masterpiece chose to Compelled Speech and the Religious Clause under the First Amendment. Race is not the issue in this case.

 

 

Quote

Could a distinction be along the lines of something other than same sex marriage like say forcing the cake maker to make the same sex wedding cake but letting the cake maker refuse certain content?

This is one of the the remedies sought. However, forcing one to make a wedding cake is facially unconstitutional (compelled speech).

[Exiled]

You ought to listen to the radiowest podcast that Hope for Things linked too. It explains what the court thinks the issues are and one of them is whether the act of designing a cake is even speech at all. There is a two part test the court uses 1. Did the actor intend speech by the conduct and that looks like yes. 2. Does the audience believe the conduct is speech which is a lot tougher question in this case since one doesn't normally equate making a cake with support of a couple's beliefs or politics.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

This is untrue. This is the exact quote from the brief petition to the Supreme Court: "For this reason, Phillips politely declined to design and create a cake celebrating Respondents Craig’s and Mullins’ same-sex wedding, App. 287a, ¶ 78, but offered to make any other cake for them, id., ¶ 79." In the lower courts both parties agreed that he offered not just cakes but other pastries as well, just not the wedding cake. So he did not refuse service, he only refused the wedding cake, an artistic creation that would symbolize a gay marriage, a concept Philips declined not because he discriminates against gays, but it went against his religious beliefs.

 

He did not refuse service he refused the wedding cake. 

 

Actually he can, The same Colorado court has ruled three times for another bakery that refused to bake a cake for a Black Baptist Minister. However, this case was a gay baker and the cake he refused to bake that the minister wanted had the bible verses that quoted scripture against men marrying men. If you can't see the double standard here, then I do not know how to respond to you.

 

The difference is when you file the claim in court, the Petitioner or Respondent must assert in their claim the purview they are suing under. For example if you are suing under a discrimination act then you choose one or more of the following purviews; Race, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation... In this case the chosen purview was Sexual Orientation and NOT race. Masterpiece chose to Compelled Speech and the Religious Clause under the First Amendment. Race is not the issue in this case.

 

 

This is one of the the remedies sought. However, forcing one to make a wedding cake is facially unconstitutional (compelled speech).

I meant to quote you in my response above.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

That would depend on why they won't cater the wedding.  I don't see religious groups who refuse to take oaths for legal purpose or "swear allegiance to the flag" as prejudice as the reason is not a "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience" (Google definition), but a desire to live the precepts of their faith and the teaching against oaths are a particular interpretation of scripture.

Not a great example since the pledge of allegiance isn't a person, but I'd say Jehovah's Witnesses definitely are prejudiced against the pledge of allegiance. That prejudice is fueled by their faith. It's not necessarily either or - it's often both.

 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

There could be a valid reason based on a religious teaching of their faith not to support or recognize temple ceremonies as valid religious (as in approved or at least not rejected by God) ceremonies.

Which would be a kind of prejudice.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Not really.

If someone refused to cater to black weddings, we'd think it was a scandal. It'd be very obviously a racist act. But refusing to cater to gay weddings is not prejudiced because... religion?

[Gray]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

They would have a prejudice against mormon weddings.

It should be obvious that part of being a Mormon is having a Mormon wedding. To be prejudiced against Mormon celebrations is identical to being prejudiced against Mormons.

 

 

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

 But if they had no issue serving mormons otherwise, then no, they wouldn't have a prejudice against mormons.

Yes, they certainly would.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Anijen said:

Gray posted

You do not understand the word issue as far as it is used in legal terms. You can say race is the same issue all day, all night, all the next day, but you would still be wrong. I have read the actual briefs issues filed by both respondents [State of Colorado, and Craig and Mullins] and the petitioner [Masterpiece Cake]:

Here is a list of every single case cited in those 3 briefs (yes, I have read every single case cited). Every single one of these cases are First Amendment Cases regarding Freedom of Speech or the two Religious Clauses found in the First Amendment. Not one has race as its issue, (not even the KKK one, which issue was wearing their robes and hoods in public and not race).

• Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc.
• Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach
• Arcara v. Cloud Books
• Axson-Flynn v. Johnson
• Bd. of Dirs. of Rotary Int’l v. Rotary Club
• Bernstein v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting ***'n.
• Blau v. Fort Thomas Pub. Sch. Dist.
• Bob Jones Univ. v. United States
• Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale
• Brush & Nib Studio LC. v. City of Phoenix
• Buehrle v. City of Key West
• Church of the Am. Knights of the KKK v. Kerik,
• Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
• City of Cleveland v. Nation of Islam,
• Claybrooks v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.
• Cressman v. Thompson
• Cohen v. Cowles Media
• Dole v. Shenandoah Baptist Church
• EEOC v. Fremont Christian Sch.
• EEOC v. Miss. Coll
• Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, (cert. denied)
• Emp’t Division v. Smith
• Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark
• Gifford v. McCarthy
• Hands on Originals, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette
• Heart of Atl. Motel v. United States
• Hishon v. King & Spalding
• Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland
• Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. Of  Boston
• Jack v. Azucar Bakery
• Jack v. Gateaux, Ltd.
• Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc.
• Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo
• Newman v. Piggie Park Enters., Inc.
• Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar ***’n,
• Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n of Cal.
• Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Hum. Relations
• PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins
• R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn.
• Reed v. Town of Gilbert
• Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees
• Romer v. Evans
• Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional. Rights, Inc
• Spence v. Washington
• State v. Arlene’s Flowers, Inc.
• Tenafly Eruv ***’nv. Borough of Tenafly
• Texas v. Johnson
• United States v. Lee
• United States v. O’Brien
• Ward v. Polite
• Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, Inc.
• West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette
• Wooley v. Maynard

Comparisons are made because we naturally connect discrimination with civil rights. Colorado and CADA and Mullins and Craig and their lawyers agree this is a discrimination case based on the CADA statute not a racial issue. Sure race, national origin, sexual orientation, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech are all protected, but when choosing which purview to have standing under it is the purview of Sexual Orientation and NOT Race. Masterpiece Cake also did NOT choose Race as its purview for standing he and his lawyers chose are Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.

It is easy to say race, race, race and make comparisons and then label me racist, bigoted, homophobic, it would not be the case, it would be wrong. This case issues are based on the First Amendment, (compelled speech, and the religious Clauses) and Discrimination Statutes based on Sexual Orientation (not Race). 

I'm talking about morality, not legality. I have no idea how the courts will find in this case. But to take a position against gay rights is no different than previous positions against civil rights for other minorities. The immorality of prejudice is the same no matter what innocent party is the target.

[Anijen]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

You ought to listen to the radiowest podcast that Hope for Things linked too. It explains what the court thinks the issues are and one of them is whether the act of designing a cake is even speech at all. There is a two part test the court uses 1. Did the actor intend speech by the conduct and that looks like yes. 2. Does the audience believe the conduct is speech which is a lot tougher question in this case since one doesn't normally equate making a cake with support of a couple's beliefs or politics.

Why should I limit myself to a radio DJ's views or his invited experts when I can get my information from the U.S. Supreme Court itself? I have been listening to the Supreme Court. I also have a friend who is clerking for one of the justices and I can ask him what is going on, (however, I have not done so yet). I also have paid subscriptions to WestLaw and LexisNexis and my own Law library of collection of legal books over the last years..

IMO it will be a 5/4 decision favoring the Baker and the opinion will be based on compelled speech. Here is a Penn State Law Review article that explains the implications of commercially compelled speech and why new laws need to balance between protecting First Amendment Rights and State Discriminatory Statutes, It is also my opinion the Opinion will be written by Justice Kennedy and much of the case will hinge on Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian Bisexual Group of Boston Inc. found here.

For a quick overview of that case here are the facts:

In 1993, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council was authorized by the city of Boston to organize the St. Patrick's Day Parade. The Council refused a place in the event for the Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB). The group attempted to join to express its members' pride in their Irish heritage as openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. The Massachusetts State Court ordered the Veterans' Council to include GLIB under a state law prohibiting discrimination on account of sexual orientation in public accommodations. The Veterans' Council claimed that forced inclusion of GLIB members in their privately-organized parade violated their free speech.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Anijen

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

It should be obvious that part of being a Mormon is having a Mormon wedding. To be prejudiced against Mormon celebrations is identical to being prejudiced against Mormons.

 

 

Yes, they certainly would.

No they certainly wouldn’t.