Supreme Court's Decision in Colorado "Gay Wedding Cake" Case

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The current laws say I have to serve them and give them what they want. Doesn't mean I agree with their beliefs; it just means I am following the law and am therefore exempt from any religious repercussions from my church or God.
(Article of faith #12)
I am guessing your point is that the law should be changed. As far as I'm concerned it can stay the way it is. 

I like the First Amendment the way it is, and I don’t like bigoted administrative bodies like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission eroding it. 

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was a veiled threat of the “nice religion you have here; it would be a shame if something happened to it” variety. Just as smac said. 

By the way, “loose” is the opposite of tight. “Lose” means to be defeated. 

NO.  You took it as a veiled threat.  I just expressed a possible outcome if religion gets the legal right to discriminate because of religious beliefs.

It is interesting that no one wants to discuss what I actually speculated on, which is how this might possibly all play out.  Everyone is so busy defending their piece of the legal puzzle that they aren't even considering how this might all end up for religion if they end up winning the legal battle.

Thank you for the grammar check.  Sometimes I type faster than I think.

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are right if LGBT businesses start discriminating against Christians. I hope they don't.  

Kllindley was talking about oppressive governments, not LGBT businesses. 

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Maybe it doesn’t mean what you think it means. Surely you can see that that argument can be used against virtually any position, including yours.

What principle do you think Christ was trying to teach?

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Kllindley was talking about oppressive governments, not LGBT businesses. 

Most people agree with the Supreme Court decision.  The fact that some very liberal justices supported the decision tells a lot.  I don't think there is any room for government to discriminate against anyone.  On the whole, I think they do a pretty good job.  When they don't they should be called out for it.

What I was referring to is, if religion wins the right to discriminate because of personal beliefs, do you think that there may be some LGBT businesses that start discriminating against Christians?  While I believe that would be just as wrong as the baker discriminating, when it becomes legal to do so, I guess there is a possibility that this could open up a whole rash of unfair discrimination.

Edited June 11, 2018 by california boy

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is interesting that no one wants to discuss what I actually speculated on, which is how this might possibly all play out.  Everyone is so busy defending their piece of the legal puzzle that they aren't even considering how this might all end up for religion if they end up winning the legal battle.

If your speculation is that people will organically start to become more anti-religion, I disagreed. I think that outcome is likely, but will be the consequence of the intentional efforts to villanize religious belief and those who hold them.  

I also pointed out that an inverse outcome is very likely if the LGBT community ends up winning the legal battle. 

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Most people agree with the Supreme Court decision.  The fact that some very liberal justices supported the decision tells a lot.  I don't think there is any room for government to discriminate against anyone.  On the whole, I think they do a pretty good job.  When they don't they should be called out for it.

That is very hopeful to hear that most people are with the Court's ruling. Do you have any source for that statement, or is it more the impression you get from taking to people?

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

What principle do you think Christ was trying to teach? 

Another illustrative teaching:

In the story of the good Samaritan, the priest and the Levite pass by the injured man for fear of tainting themselves. The Samaritan, a man from a people hated by the orthodox, casts concerns of ritual purity aside and helps the injured man.

No one who was the least bit concerned with following the Master would ever refuse to provide services for a gay wedding, regardless of how they felt about gay marriage generally.

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

What I was referring to is, if religion wins the right to discriminate because of personal beliefs, do you think that there may be some LGBT businesses that start discriminating against Christians?  While I believe that would be just as wrong as the baker discriminating, when it becomes legal to do so, I guess there is a possibility that this could open up a whole rash of unfair discrimination.

I would simply take my business elsewhere. Easy as that. No need to demand the government force them.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I wonder if all those fighting for the baker that is asserting his right to discriminate based on his religious beliefs ever think about where this is all going.  

 

I think the same question can be asked in reverse.

As Andrew Sullivan put it, "It always worries me when gays advocate taking freedom away from other people. It worries me as a matter of principle. But it also unsettles me because some gay activists do not seem to realize that the position they’re taking is particularly dangerous for a tiny and historically despised minority. The blithe unconcern for the First Amendment [...] ignores the fact that, for centuries, the First Amendment was the only defense the gay minority ever had — and now, with the first taste of power, we are restricting the rights of others in this respect? Ugh. Endorse the state’s right to coerce speech or conscience and you have ceded a principle that can so easily come back to haunt you. The freedom of any baker to express himself is, in this respect, indistinguishable from that of any gay person to do so — a truth that our current tribalism blinds so many to. I hope, in other words, that the baker prevails — but that the Supreme Court decision doesn’t turn on religious so much as artistic freedom."

I think he makes a good point. What we are seeing in the country now is a weird sort of progressive puritanism: people who have fought for the freedom to live their lives according to their deepest convictions, who are now using the law and the government to try to coerce other people into affirming their core convictions. That is, quite honestly, something I have a hard time endorsing.  

 

Quote

Let's say that eventually the Supreme Court rules in favor of religion, and they now have the right to discriminate against ANYONE based on their beliefs.  Then what?

Then, on rare occasion, a gay couple looking for a custom cake for their wedding (or possibly an anniversary) might be turned away by a baker who happens to be a religious fundamentalist and referred to someone else instead. In fact, if I were working on creating a compromise solution, that is probably the tact I would take. An exception for conscientious objectors which includes a referral requirement, sort of like what some states have done for pharmacists who refuse to dispense emergency contraceptives on moral grounds. That seems pretty reasonable to me. 

 

Quote

What kind of consequences do you think will happen if religion starts to discriminate?  Will animosity towards religion only increase?

I doubt it. Mainly because, even if the baker ultimately wins on free speech grounds, it isn't going to open the floodgates of discrimination. It will just allow bakers, photographers, videographers, etc. (wherever the speech line ends up being drawn) to have the same rights that other artists currently enjoy - the right to support / not support the events of their choosing.

 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

If your speculation is that people will organically start to become more anti-religion, I disagreed. I think that outcome is likely, but will be the consequence of the intentional efforts to villanize religious belief and those who hold them.  

I also pointed out that an inverse outcome is very likely if the LGBT community ends up winning the legal battle. 

Do you think that people have organically become more anti-Mormon because of the church's political involvement in Prop 8?    I ask that sincerely.  I have no real idea.  But in talking to my daughter about this  a couple of months back, she says she has felt it quite strongly.  When people find out that she is Mormon, they unfairly, assume she must hate gays and believes gay couples should not have the legal right to marry.

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That is very hopeful to hear that most people are with the Court's ruling. Do you have any source for that statement, or is it more the impression you get from taking to people?

I am not even in the States right now, so, sorry I don't.  It is mostly what I have read and seen online.  I hope it is true.

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

What principle do you think Christ was trying to teach?

That no matter what your enemy does to you, you should not resist it, go along, and even accept more of the same mistreatment?

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Another illustrative teaching:

In the story of the good Samaritan, the priest and the Levite pass by the injured man for fear of tainting themselves. The Samaritan, a man from a people hated by the orthodox, casts concerns of ritual purity aside and helps the injured man.

No one who was the least bit concerned with following the Master would ever refuse to provide services for a gay wedding, regardless of how they felt about gay marriage generally.

Honestly, I find little in the teachings of Christ that support what the baker is doing.  But I obviously have a very different view on the teachings of Christ.  I would like to have someone express how they get the beliefs that Christ would not bake a cake.  But that seems to be never really explained.  

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

That no matter what your enemy does to you, you should not resist it, go along, and even accept more of the same mistreatment?

You really believe that is the message?

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one who was the least bit concerned with following the Master would ever refuse to provide services for a gay wedding, regardless of how they felt about gay marriage generally.

Would anyone the least bit concerned with following the Master use, or approve of the use of, government power to force the Samaritan to give charity?

Edited June 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

You really believe that is the message?

I’m proposing it as one way to see it. That’s why the question mark. Do you agree with it? If not, what is your understanding?

[kllindley]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you think that people have organically become more anti-Mormon because of the church's political involvement in Prop 8?    I ask that sincerely.  I have no real idea.  But in talking to my daughter about this  a couple of months back, she says she has felt it quite strongly.  When people find out that she is Mormon, they unfairly, assume she must hate gays and believes gay couples should not have the legal right to marry.

I sincerely do not believe it was an organic shift. I saw it at the time, and even moreso now as a reaction that had to be fueled and stoked. 

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I sincerely do not believe it was an organic shift. I saw it at the time, and even moreso now as a reaction that had to be fueled and stoked. 

As evidenced by the absence of criticism for the religious black and Hispanic voters who also supported Prop 8.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think the same question can be asked in reverse.

As Andrew Sullivan put it, "It always worries me when gays advocate taking freedom away from other people. It worries me as a matter of principle. But it also unsettles me because some gay activists do not seem to realize that the position they’re taking is particularly dangerous for a tiny and historically despised minority. The blithe unconcern for the First Amendment [...] ignores the fact that, for centuries, the First Amendment was the only defense the gay minority ever had — and now, with the first taste of power, we are restricting the rights of others in this respect? Ugh. Endorse the state’s right to coerce speech or conscience and you have ceded a principle that can so easily come back to haunt you. The freedom of any baker to express himself is, in this respect, indistinguishable from that of any gay person to do so — a truth that our current tribalism blinds so many to. I hope, in other words, that the baker prevails — but that the Supreme Court decision doesn’t turn on religious so much as artistic freedom."

I think he makes a good point. What we are seeing in the country now is a weird sort of progressive puritanism: people who have fought for the freedom to live their lives according to their deepest convictions, who are now using the law and the government to try to coerce other people into affirming their core convictions. That is, quite honestly, something I have a hard time endorsing.  

I too think it is a good point.  I certainly see a difference between free speech and refusing to bake a cake that is exactly the same as a cake made for a straight couple.  As I understand Masterpiece Bakery, they refused to even bake a generic wedding cake just like they do for their straight customers.  How to customize the cake was never even discussed.  So essentially the baker is saying that they should have a constitutional right to control what happens to their product once it leaves their shop.  

Other district courts have ruled in favor of not forcing individuals from printing or decorating messages that they disagree with.  That to me is a great compromise.  Protecting free speech, but not allowing discrimination. 

 

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

 

Then, on rare occasion, a gay couple looking for a custom cake for their wedding (or possibly an anniversary) might be turned away by a baker who happens to be a religious fundamentalist and referred to someone else instead. In fact, if I were working on creating a compromise solution, that is probably the tact I would take. An exception for conscientious objectors which includes a referral requirement, sort of like what some states have done for pharmacists who refuse to dispense emergency contraceptives on moral grounds. That seems pretty reasonable to me. 

If it is working in the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps it would work in the cake industry.  

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I doubt it. Mainly because, even if the baker ultimately wins on free speech grounds, it isn't going to open the floodgates of discrimination. It will just allow bakers, photographers, videographers, etc. (wherever the speech line ends up being drawn) to have the same rights that other artists currently enjoy - the right to support / not support the events of their choosing.

I hope it doesn't open up a floodgate of discrimination.  I think that most people are decent people that treat others fairly.  But I do believe that when these few cases come up, it will be picked up by national media and will unfairly tend to reflect badly on all Christians.  The fastest growing religion in America is no religion.  And the numbers are pretty staggering.  7 million people leaving organized religion in a 2 year period.  Think of that number compared to total membership of the Mormon Church.  

I personally think that people no longer look on organized religion as a beacon of charity.  I believe the political involvement of religion has taken its toll.  Certainly many who have left the Mormon church has cited the way the church treats married gay couples and their children as contributing to their leaving.  

Do you live outside the state of Utah?  And if so, have you felt any animosity towards you being a member of the Church as a result of Prop 8 like my daughter has reported to me?  

[Bernard Gui]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

Honestly, I find little in the teachings of Christ that support what the baker is doing.  But I obviously have a very different view on the teachings of Christ.  I would like to have someone express how they get the beliefs that Christ would not bake a cake.  But that seems to be never really explained.  

After all these pages of discussion, it needs to be said again. The question is not whether Jesus or anyone else would bake a cake for whatever purpose or client, but rather whether the government can force Jesus or anyone else to write a specific message on the cake.

[cinepro]

30 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would anyone the least bit concerned with following the Master use, or approve of the use of, government power to force the Samaritan to give charity?

What if the Pharisees simply told the good Samaritan that he couldn't go to the temple in Jerusalem if he didn't give to charity?

Edited June 11, 2018 by cinepro

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m proposing it as one way to see it. That’s why the question mark. Do you agree with it? If not, what is your understanding?

No I do not.  I take Christ at his word as He spoke it.  If the government forces you to do something that you don't want to do, then go the extra mile for the very reason that going the second mile is because you are not compelled by law to do.  You are giving that second mile as a gift to those who compelled you to show kindness towards them.

I don't think Christ was the least bit concerned on whether his neighbors though he was supporting a sinner when he showed kindness towards them.  Christ is telling us to love everyone and show kindness to everyone even when we are compelled to by law.  The way to show that kindness is to do what is required by law and then to go beyond what is required.  Can you imagine the Roman soldier walking that second mile with that Jew asking him "why would you do such a thing".  Can you imagine a baker baking the very best cake they could possibly bake for the gay couple and perhaps giving it to them as a gift?  What would that gay couple now think of Christians?   

Doing more than is asked by the government.  Doing your best, showing kindness when you are not compelled to do so.  As Christ said, it is not hard to show kindness to your friends.  Even the devil does that.  Is not the Spirit whispering to you that this is the better road?

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

After all these pages of discussion, it needs to be said again. The question is not whether Jesus or anyone else would bake a cake for whatever purpose or client, but rather whether the government can force Jesus or anyone else to write a specific message on the cake.

 Do we need to debate the meaning of the word "force" , again, in this thread, too?  How about coerce?  Can any worldly government coerce Jesus or anyone else to write a specific message on a cake?  While threatening  to ban him from heaven, maybe?

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you think that people have organically become more anti-Mormon because of the church's political involvement in Prop 8?    

Some, yes.  Many, however, have responded to the vitriolic rhetoric (and behavior) demonstrated against us.  See, e.g., this article by Jonah Goldberg (a contemporaneous response to the 2008 backlash against Mormons in California):

Quote

Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice, working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife's purse and then the man's wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter's piggy bank and pinch every penny. "We need it for the Wall Street bailout!" they exclaim.

No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?

No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" says the blond one with a toothy smile. "We're here to take away your rights." The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.

As the thugs leave, one says to the other, "That was too easy." His smirking comrade replies, "Yeah, what should we ban next?" The voice-over implores viewers: "Say no to a church taking over your government."

Here's the commercial in question:

Not much "organic" about this commercial.  It was a deliberate and calculated attempt to stir up resentment, fear and hatred of Mormons.

Quote

Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.

The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on election day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.

What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?

Nope.

This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.

The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.

"Religious slander."  Yep.

The backlash was not organic.  It was fabricated and engineered.

Quote

At a pro-gay-marriage rally in Los Angeles after the vote, chants of "Mormon scum!" were reported. Envelopes containing white powder have been sent to Mormon temples in California and Utah; vandals hit other temples. Lists of businesses to boycott -- essentially Mormon blacklists -- have sprung up on the Internet. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned because of pressure after it was revealed he gave $1,000 to a pro-Proposition 8 group.

Anti-Mormon chants at a rlly.

Anthrax threats.

Vandalism.

Boycotts.

The backlash was not organic.  It was fabricated and engineered.

Quote

It's amazing. Hollywood liberals, who shout "McCarthyism!" as a first resort, see nothing wrong with this. If Jews were attacked in this way for giving too much money to a political cause, Barbra Streisand would already have a French passport.

Only the Mormons were openly vilified for supporting Prop 8.

Quote

Never mind that Proposition 8 carried nearly every demographic slice of voters. Put aside the fact that the Catholic Church and scores of other Christian churches supported it too. Discount the inconvenient truth that bans on gay marriage have now passed in 30 states. It's all the Mormons' fault.

Yep.  No "organic" hatred materialized against the "nearly every demographic slice of voters" who supported Prop 8.  

Just the Mormons.

Quote

The argument is that Mormons used illegitimate power, in this case money, beyond their numerical standing in the population to secure victory for the measure. Golly, wealthy gay liberals would never do anything like that! I bet they're not giving a dime to the legal effort to overturn Proposition 8.

Yep.  When "wealthy gay liberals" spend money against Prop 8, no backlash at all.  That's the democratic process at work.  But when Mormons spent their time and money and effort in support of Prop 8 . . .

Quote

No, it's just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.

The backlash was not "organic."  It was "an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience."

Quote

It's often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the "forces of change" and the "agents of progress." They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they're challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor.

"Aggressors in the culture war."  Yep.  That's an apt description for gay rights groups these days.

Thanks,

-Smac