Thinking Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Government is better. Did you forget the ? or were you making a statement?
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 31 minutes ago, Thinking said: I definitely would not trust market forces to make social policy. How should the government sanction me if I decline to provide music for a ss marriage? 1
Thinking Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: How should the government sanction me if I decline to provide music for a ss marriage? Excellent question. Like I wrote earlier, this is an interesting case because of the artistic angle.
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 29 minutes ago, Thinking said: Did you forget the ? or were you making a statement? Both a question and a statement. Which do you agree with?
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Thinking said: Excellent question. Like I wrote earlier, this is an interesting case because of the artistic angle. And...........? Edited June 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui
Thinking Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Both a question and a statement. Which do you agree with? I trust the government more than I trust the market to make social policy.
Thinking Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: And...........? Where's the line for the artistic angle and the religious angle? For example, could somebody refuse service to an interracial couple?
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Thinking said: Where's the line for the artistic angle and the religious angle? For example, could somebody refuse service to an interracial couple? In my case, both apply. Art is a personal product that requires skill, training, and time. How can someone demand those things? Who is harmed if that service can easily be obtained elsewhere? Why should one be forced to do something against his will or against his beliefs? What justifies such force? Edited June 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Thinking said: I trust the government more than I trust the market to make social policy. So, how should the government sanction a musician who declines to play for s service based on religious values? I’m not trying to put you on the spot. It’s a sincere question. Do you think I should be at risk as was this baker? Edited June 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui
california boy Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 7 hours ago, smac97 said: Yes, that's more likely. Both charged language or no, a "gay wedding cake" that is overtly and expressively celebratory of a same-sex marriage is the issue. Yes. If secular bakers have "a right to deny service" based on their assessment of the content of the messaging they are being asked to convey, then don't religious bakers have the same right? Well, in 2018, the restaurant would get a ton of bad press and might get pushed out of business. The wonderful thing about free enterprise is that it is mostly about money. Mostly, but not all. That means that these days most business will happily take a gay couple's money. I think Mr. Phillips is happy to take a gay couple's money, in exchange for goods or services that do not contravene his religious beliefs. Free Exercise (people should not be compelled by the government to engage in conduct that violates their religious beliefs). Free Speech (people should not be coerced by the government to speak things they do not want to speak). Free Association (people should not be coerced by the government to participate in private associations against their will). Equal Protection (religious bakers should have the same rights as secular bakers). These are all fundamental constitutional considerations that are getting very, very little attention from people on your side of this discussion. Thanks, -Smac Do you believe that a business has a constitutional right to know and control what happens to their product once it leaves the store?
california boy Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 6 hours ago, Storm Rider said: It has been interesting the last three years to see what free speech means within liberal circles. Specifically, demonstrations such as at Berkley and other universities; where free speech is free as long as you agree with me. However, if you disagree with my opinion then you must be silenced at all costs. I think they are prime examples of what I hate most in the Liberal agenda. Everyone is accepted as like as you think like me, act like me, and talk like me. They are the antithesis of almost every principle this nation was formed upon. While I personally like hearing all sides of an issue, I certainly do not believe someone has a constitutional right to say what they want any where, at any time heck, weren’t you one of those freaking out about a 12 year old girl saying she wanted to marry a woman one day in a testimony meeting? Do you really think free speach means you are entitled to say whatever you want anywhere at any time? liberals also believe they have a right to say “Your hate speech is not welcome here” 1
california boy Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I have been watching this case with great interest because I play in small string ensembles for weddings and receptions. For many years I have played for all sorts of religious and secular events, but if asked, I would decline to play for a same-sex marriage or reception because of my religious beliefs. My deep religious conviction is that only a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Anything else is not, and is contrary to my beliefs. I would not perform at a plural marriage or a union between a person and an animal or an object or some other variation. I don’t believe this should end up with me in court having my violin confiscated. I developed my musical skills in order to express myself artistically and to make a living. To be forced to use my skills and art to celebrate something I find objectionable is a violation of my rights. Were I to be asked, I would simply say, “I’m sorry. I can’t. I have other obligations.” That is truthful because I have an obligation to my integrity and religious conviction. The government must not use its power to force me to to otherwise. Given the way the Church treats gays, I doubt anyone would be surprised that s Mormon would not play at a gay wedding i doubt anyone would be surprised if a Mormon refused to sit at a table where a gay married couple was sitting.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 5 hours ago, Thinking said: I definitely would not trust market forces to make social policy. Right. Government is the far better tool.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 4 hours ago, Thinking said: I trust the government more than I trust the market to make social policy. See??? As I said, government is the far better tool! (Thanks for responding on cue, Thinking ...)
Calm Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 If one could get a guaranteed as high of quality a product elsewhere, I think I would have no problem with a recommendation to a better or as good as with as good or better prices. To not allow a group access to the best quality product at a good price...that seems fundamentally wrong though.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Calm said: If one could get a guaranteed as high of quality a product elsewhere, I think I would have no problem with a recommendation to a better or as good as with as good or better prices. To not allow a group access to the best quality product at a good price...that seems fundamentally wrong though. Which is why any comparison between this situation and what happened in the Jim Crow South is inapposite. Don't like me as a proprietor? Don't like my product? Don't like a particular decision I have made to sell or to not sell it to someone? Fine. Feel absolutely free to complain about how horrible I and my business are to anyone who will listen. Do everything you can, legally and lawfully, to discourage patronage of my business. Get a permit, obey any time, place, and manner restrictions, and even picket me if you wish. (I just went on Walmart.com and to Kashi's Web site to complain about how the latter's product exploded in my kitchen, half of it ending up on the floor when I tried to get into it.) If enough people agree that I really am as bad as you say I am, I won't be in business long, anyway. And you will have accomplished your intended objective without resorting to government coercion to do it. And, since I've posted my proposed solution to the Cake Conundrum (I'm copyrighting that phrase! ) several times before, why not? Even want to sue me? Fine. Go ahead. But, in order for you to prevail, I would: (a) require proof by the relevant legal standard (probably a preponderance of the evidence) that reasonable efforts to obtain a similar product at a similar price were unavailing; and (b) limit recovery to the difference between what a refusing business owner would have charged if he had accepted the job and what an accepting business owner did charge, along with related expenses, such as travel. No more lawfare. No more driving people out of business simply because they disagree with me (particularly if such a disagreement is principled, but, heck, even if it's not). Edited June 5, 2018 by Kenngo1969 2
Storm Rider Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 5 hours ago, california boy said: While I personally like hearing all sides of an issue, I certainly do not believe someone has a constitutional right to say what they want any where, at any time heck, weren’t you one of those freaking out about a 12 year old girl saying she wanted to marry a woman one day in a testimony meeting? Do you really think free speach means you are entitled to say whatever you want anywhere at any time? liberals also believe they have a right to say “Your hate speech is not welcome here” 3 Cal, you and I both agree that it would be wonderful if individuals would only say, "Your (insert your descriptor of choice) speech is not welcome here". The problem is that there are those, which seem to be only on the Left, that believe others have no right to speak at any time. Yes, I don't think a child who is manipulated to say things in a testimony meeting is the best of choices for her parents. A child of 12 does not know anything, does not comprehend sexuality to any degree. A child of 16 does not either; they may understand the mechanics, but they don't comprehend what human sexuality is to any significant degree. Cal, I have never felt you were the type of person that would not listen to the other side, but you also know that the Left is notorious for not any allowing others to speak with whom they disagree. It just has never occurred to me that our response to hearing that a speaker, with whom we strongly disagree, is to violently prevent them from speaking. My response is to just not attend their event. I wish they would teach that type of response to college students; they appear to be in dreadful need of a proper understanding of free speech.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 6 hours ago, california boy said: While I personally like hearing all sides of an issue, I certainly do not believe someone has a constitutional right to say what they want any where, at any time heck, weren’t you one of those freaking out about a 12 year old girl saying she wanted to marry a woman one day in a testimony meeting? Do you really think free speach means you are entitled to say whatever you want anywhere at any time? liberals also believe they have a right to say “Your hate speech is not welcome here” You make solid point with regard to private property like a church, but not a public, tax supported institution like Berkeley.
smac97 Posted June 5, 2018 Author Posted June 5, 2018 10 hours ago, sunstoned said: How about "serve me at your lunch counter of get another line of work". I have a different opinion regarding providing essential goods and services (food, clothing, housing, medicine, communications, etc.). I think "public accommodations" laws should be limited to those. Otherwise, I think the free market will provide for everything else. 10 hours ago, sunstoned said: If a person or business is engaged in commerce, then they cannot legally (civil rights act of 1964) discriminate. And yet Barbra Streisand could not be sued under the Civil Rights Act if she refuses to perform at a birthday party for a rabid anti-semite. Why is that, do you think? She's "engaged in commerce," but she can "discriminate." Why? 10 hours ago, sunstoned said: No one is forcing the baker to attend or participate in the wedding. What about caterers? Performers? Musicians? Clergy? Are you suggesting that the constitutional distinction to be made here is actual physical participation/attendance (a baker can be coerced into decorating a gay wedding cake because he's not being forced to personally attend the wedding, but a member of the clergy cannot be coerced into officiating because it would involve physical attendance at the wedding)? Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted June 5, 2018 Author Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, california boy said: Do you believe that a business has a constitutional right to know and control what happens to their product once it leaves the store? I believe businesses and individuals have constitutional rights to Free Speech, Free Exercise, Free Association, and Equal Protection. All of those are implicated in this discussion. What are your thoughts about a Jewish videographer who is approached by a rabid anti-semitic group to record a promotional/recruiting video for their cause? Do you think the videographer should have the right to decline to provide such a service? What about an artist who despises the LDS Church being approached by an observant Latter-day Saint to paint a portrait of Joseph Smith. Do you think the artist should have the right to decline such a proposal? What are your thoughts about the Colorado Civil RIghts Commission's trio of post-Phillips decisions, including the Jack case, which are discussed at some length in yesterday's SCOTUS decision? Were those decisions rightly or wrongly decided, in your view? Thanks, -Smac Edited June 5, 2018 by smac97
smac97 Posted June 5, 2018 Author Posted June 5, 2018 Another observation regarding yesterday's decision: Quote POSTED ON JUNE 4, 2018 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN GAY MARRIAGE, SUPREME COURT A NARROW RULING IN THE COLORADO CAKE BAKER CASE [UPDATED] [T]he Supreme Court ruled [yesterday] in favor of Jack Phillips, the Colorado cake baker who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple because he believed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. Phillips’ victory wasn’t narrow. He won 7-2. However, the opinion that accompanied the victory was quite narrow. Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog explains: Quote Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs. The opinion seemed to leave open the possibility that, in a future case, a service provider’s sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex couples, and the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech. This was my take as well. SCOTUS provided no guidance on the Free Speech issue. Quote Thus, a state human rights agency, for example, can get around the Court’s ruling by concealing its contempt for religious views like those of the baker and pretending neutrally to balance them against the imperative, as Justice Kennedy sees it, that “gay persons and gay couples [not] be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.” Yep. I said the same thing here: "I hate to say it, but the translation of this appears to be: 'Hey, Commission, there are, 'to be sure,' ways to justify the government in compelling a religious person to engage in speech offensive to his religious sensibilities, while also prohibiting the government in compelling secular-minded folks from engaging in speech they find offensive. You just have to word it right. Don't be so obvious in your bigotry.'" I'm not tooting my own horn here. Just pointing out that my assessment of this case seems to be fairly mainstream and objective. Quote If the state human rights agency, or other defendant, succeeds in this concealment and pretense, it will be an open question whether a cake baker, or other commercial provider, must deploy his skills to help celebrate a gay wedding. The Supreme Court leaves the resolution of that question for another day. Or perhaps other days. Justice Kennedy’s opinion suggests that the outcome may vary depending on the nature of the provider and his services. Thus, these disputes may have to be decided case-by-case for all types of wedding vendors. Courts can become wedding planning review boards. Yep. SCOTUS didn't really help anyone with yesterday's muddled decision. SCOTUS rather clearly said that the Free Exercise clause protects clergy from being compelled to participate in a gay wedding. But why just clergy? SCOTUS doesn't say. Quote It might not be as easy as it sounds for outfits like the Colorado civil rights agency to mask their contempt for Christian views when they are asserted in opposition to the left-wing agenda. That contempt often runs deep. However, I think we can expect these bodies to rise to the occasion. Quite. They have every incentive to resort to dishonesty. Quote UPDATE: David French notes that one of Justice Kennedy’s reasons for finding Colorado was motivated by anti-religious animus in its ruling against the baker is that Colorado has protected the right of bakers to refuse to create cakes with explicitly anti-gay messages. Yep. So now the Equal Protection clause comes into play. If a baker has a right to refuse to create cakes with explicitly anti-gay messages, why doesn't Mr. Phillips have a right to refuse to create cakes with explicitly pro-gay messages? Quote This portion of the majority opinion will make it difficult in some wedding vendor cases for states to navigate their way around today’s decision. So it's back to the drawing board, I think. Thanks, -Smac 2
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, california boy said: Given the way the Church treats gays, I doubt anyone would be surprised that s Mormon would not play at a gay wedding i doubt anyone would be surprised if a Mormon refused to sit at a table where a gay married couple was sitting. I have absolutely no animus toward the participants in a ss ceremony or toward people sitting at a table with me. Being forced to participate in something I don’t support is the issue. Derailing with personal insults again? These are false and vile accusations. Please stop. Edited June 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui
smac97 Posted June 5, 2018 Author Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, california boy said: Given the way the Church treats gays, I doubt anyone would be surprised that s Mormon would not play at a gay wedding Some would, some would not. The question is whether they should be coerced by the government, under threat of fine and financial destruction, to "play at a gay wedding." Given the way some people dislike the LDS Church, I doubt anyone would be surprised that they would not want to provide creative services designed to advance the interests of the LDS Church. Do you think that such persons should nevertheless be forced by the government, under threat of fine, to do so? Thanks, -Smac Edited June 5, 2018 by smac97
strappinglad Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 I have to remind myself that Jim Crow laws were created by government and required and enforced segregation and discrimination , as least until Woolworths , a commerce, decided that they had to be scofflaws in order to better serve the public. One wonders how society might have been different if SCOTUS had had the stomach to declare such laws unconstitutional from the start. The problem was that the emotional and political scars were very deep after the Civil war . 2
smac97 Posted June 5, 2018 Author Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, strappinglad said: I have to remind myself that Jim Crow laws were created by government and required and enforced segregation and discrimination , as least until Woolworths , a commerce, decided that they had to be scofflaws in order to better serve the public. Yep. The Free Market took care of things. Consider these very salient remarks by Ben Shapiro: Yep. Quote One wonders how society might have been different if SCOTUS had had the stomach to declare such laws unconstitutional from the start. The problem was that the emotional and political scars were very deep after the Civil war . Here's a fascinating debate on this issue: Worth a watch (they repeatedly reference the 1878 Reynolds v. U.S. decision regarding polygamy). Thanks, -Smac Edited June 5, 2018 by smac97
Recommended Posts