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

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Quote

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?

Interesting tactic.

And one that California Boy and his compatriots manifestly did not use when their rights were at issue.  They made legal arguments regarding same-sex marriage and ultimately prevailed. 

So gay folks are supposed to argue for their rights when they are being infringed upon, but Christians are just supposed to shut up, take their medicine, and have their rights violated.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 11, 2018 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

59 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Just maybe a disagreement about the use of the word force, or coercion.

Going back a few posts, you said the question is whether the government can force Jesus or anyone else to write a specific message on the cake.

Without getting into an argument about what force is, I would instead say the question is whether the government can tell Jesus or anyone else to write a specific message on a cake while prescribing a penalty for noncompliance.

I do believe a government body can do that.

I do not believe a government can force someone.... anyone... to do something, though.

Thanks. I suppose we would agree that the government should have really good reasons for coercing obedience. 

I think governments can apply pressures that make it impossible to resist without the certainty of the loss of property, freedom, or life. Not all those pressures come from altruism. Some folks may not have the fortitude to resist such coercion, or may be broken to the point of acquiescence. To me, that is forced compliance. Of course, the victim can always chose to die for the cause.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

He was not willing to sell a wedding cake specifically endorsing and celebrating same-sex marriage to any customer.

It was not the customer that was the issue.  It was the message.

Thanks,

-Smac

Focus. Was he willing to sell the customer a wedding cake?

I am focused.  Meanwhile, I'll ask you not to stack the deck.

From this article:

Quote

A Lakewood man who refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a gay couple was merely invoking his constitutional right of free expression, his attorney told three judges of the Colorado Court of Appeals.

...

Craig and Mullins sued Phillips in 2012 after he refused to fill an order for a cake that included a depiction of a rainbow, a symbol that is supportive of gay marriage.

And from this article:

Quote

It all started when Dave Mullins, 28, and Charlie Craig, 31, went into the Masterpiece Cakeshop hoping to get a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting for their wedding reception

...

Phillips informed the couple his business does not create cakes for gay weddings.

...

Phillips said he isn't a homophobe, and that he would gladly serve any other baked good to a gay couple -- just not a wedding cake.

From his attorney:

Quote

Jack has never refused to serve any person based on who they are. Everyone is welcome in his shop — even the two men who sued him. But Jack cares deeply about the messages he communicates through his artwork. So over the years, he has declined to create many custom cakes because of the messages on them or the events that they celebrate.

In 2012, Phillips declined a request to create a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage. But he was quick to tell the couple that he would design a cake for them for another occasion or sell them anything else in his store.

Instead of respecting Phillips' belief about marriage, the state labeled his beliefs discriminatory. One state official even said that using religious freedom "to justify discrimination" is "a despicable piece of rhetoric," comparing Phillips' efforts to protect his freedom to arguments raised by slaveholders and Nazis. And the government ordered Phillips to re-educate his employees, which even included his mother, and teach them that he was wrong to operate his own business consistently with his beliefs.

To make matters worse, the same commission that sidelined Jack's convictions elevated the convictions of other Colorado cake artists, who were faced with requests for messages that they did not want to create, specifically messages that opposed same-sex marriage.

By so doing, the commissioners showed their bias and demonstrated a nearly poetic double standard concerning the cake artists' expressive freedom and their willingness to sell other products to the same customers.

Again, it was not the customer that was the issue.  It was the message.

If Mr. Phillips discriminates against homosexuals, why is he willing to sell them "any other baked good?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 11, 2018 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

The question that pops into my head is, how many business owners are actually going to refuse to serve a customer because of their religious beliefs? Most business owners would want to get and keep as many customers as they can.
I know if I had the cake baking business I would sell to anyone. Doesn't mean I support or approve of their lifestyle choice, it just means I want their money. I should be confident enough in my religious beliefs that I don't have to force what I believe on someone else. My friends and fellow church members would know where I stand on the subject and therefore would not see my serving certain people means that I approve of how they live; It just means I want to run a successful business. Thousands of church members work in and even own businesses that sell alcohol, but it doesn't mean they support the drinking of it. 

You raise a good point.  As I noted in the op-ed I pasted earlier in the thread, I would probably sell a cake for a gay wedding if I were a baker: my religious convictions notwithstanding, I would be interested in fomenting good will, nothing in my religious belief system demands that I force others to accept my paradigm, and I am too practical to want to lose such business.  But I still think that people with a sincerely-held religious objection should not be forced to violate their conscience.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And one that California Boy and his compatriots manifestly did not use when their rights were at issue.  They made legal arguments regarding same-sex marriage and ultimately prevailed. 

So gay folks are supposed to argue for their rights when they are being infringed upon, but Christians are just supposed to shut up, take their medicine, and have their rights violated.

Thanks,

-Smac

That’s why I said the “turn the other cheek” argument can be used to support virtually any position. “Don’t like what I’m doing? Well then you need to turn the other cheek. That’s what Jesus told you to do. Don’t you believe in Jesus?” 

[Anijen]

45 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Yep, and let's not let the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission off the hook, either.

I agree. It was the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission that discriminated, the Colorado Appellate Court just affirmed (allowed) that discrimination. It was the Supreme Court that said no Mr. Phillips was not the one showing discrimination but the Colorado court system did show egregious discrimination.

I like what smac97 said and I quote; "It was not the customer that was the issue.  It was the message." (emphasis mine)

This is the issue Gray, CB and others want to change so that the discrimination falls to Mr. Phillips. Their argument has merit that way, but that is not what SCOTUS said. SCOTUS basicaly in the language of the decision said; it was Mr. Phillips, who was discriminated against not his customers.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You raise a good point.  As I noted in the op-ed I linked to earlier in the thread, I would probably sell a cake for a gay wedding if I were a baker: my religious convictions notwithstanding, I would be interested in fomenting good will, nothing in my religious belief system demands that I force others to accept my paradigm, and I am too practical to want to lose such business.  But I still think that people with a sincerely-held religious objection should not be forced to violate their conscience.

If I were a baker, I would probably sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.  I think the risk of it being seen as an endorsement would be fairly minimal.  This is particularly so if the cake was to be generic, such that it could be construed as a cake for either a same-sex or opposite-sex couple.

But if the message is specific to a gay couple (as it was in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case), and if I personally do not agree with the message, then like you, I want to have the option of not being compelled to speak in ways I do not want to speak.  I deeply resent gay rights folks punishing people like Mr. Phillips.  Such incremental oppressions against us, such gradual erosions of our liberties, such intolerant bullying tactics, need to be called out and resisted.  Strongly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

... I still think that people with a sincerely-held religious objection should not be forced to violate their conscience.

And coming at it from my belief that nobody can be forced to do something, I would say that I still think that people with a sincerely-held religious objection should not be penalized for refusing to violate their conscience.

Although I would still recognize a government body's right to penalize people for not complying with their orders or laws, because government bodies can choose to do whatever they choose to do, too.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Ahab

[Kenngo1969]

I'm surprised nobody has any feedback regarding Professor McConnell's paper from earlier in the thread.  On the one hand, we have a dressmaker refusing to outfit Melania Trump for her husband's inauguration because she doesn't want to run the risk that observers will conclude, essentially, that she is using her art to support President Trump or his policies, and nobody says, "Boo!"  But if a cake-baker refuse to sell a particular product for the same reason to a gay couple (he does not want observers to conclude that he is using his art to support policies or events he does not favor) ... this, when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission concluded previously that other cake-bakers turning away business based on the message being conveyed was PERMISSIBLE ... and, all of a sudden, THAT'S "discrimination"!

One employing simple, sound logic, and nothing more, if he is consistent, must reach the same conclusion the majority did in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission.

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If I were a baker, I would probably sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.  I think the risk of it being seen as an endorsement would be fairly minimal.  This is particularly so if the cake was to be generic, such that it could be construed as a cake for either a same-sex or opposite-sex couple.

But if the message is specific to a gay couple (as it was in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case), and if I personally do not agree with the message, then like you, I want to have the option of not being compelled to speak in ways I do not want to speak.  I deeply resent gay rights folks punishing people like Mr. Phillips.  Such incremental oppressions against us, such gradual erosions of our liberties, such intolerant bullying tactics, need to be called out and resisted.  Strongly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Good point.  I, too, might draw the line at decorating the cake with "gay-themed" items, but big deal: Buy your own gay, plastic bride-and-groom and feel absolutely free to place them prominently atop the otherwise-nicely-decorated cake's top tier.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If I were a baker, I would probably sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.  I think the risk of it being seen as an endorsement would be fairly minimal.  This is particularly so if the cake was to be generic, such that it could be construed as a cake for either a same-sex or opposite-sex couple.

But if the message is specific to a gay couple (as it was in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case), and if I personally do not agree with the message, then like you, I want to have the option of not being compelled to speak in ways I do not want to speak.  I deeply resent gay rights folks punishing people like Mr. Phillips.  Such incremental oppressions against us, such gradual erosions of our liberties, such intolerant bullying tactics, need to be called out and resisted.  Strongly.

Thanks,

-Smac

What I object to, mainly, is somebody thinking they have the right or even the power to force me to do something.  I strongly object to that notion, and believe it to be false.

But, sure, if I wanted to, I could make anyone a really pretty wedding cake with rainbows and stars and whatever I wanted to put on it. 

Just don't expect me to bend over kindly when some gay couple, or any other couple comes asking me to do whatever they want me to do while I just smile and say something like "Okey dokey whatever you want is fine with me!"

[smac97]

Just now, Ahab said:

And coming at it from my belief that nobody can be forced to do something,

I don't follow.  If a thief sneaks up and pistol-whips me from behind, then holds the gun to my head and demands that I give him my wallet, and if I do so, are you really claiming that I was not "forced to do" it?

Just now, Ahab said:

I would say that I still think that people with a sincerely-held religious objection should not be penalized for refusing to violate their conscience.

Although I would still recognize a government body's right to penalize people for not complying with their orders or laws, because government bodies can choose to do whatever they choose to do, too.

Well, no.  Government bodies are required to follow the law, including the Constitution. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I don't follow.  If a thief sneaks up and pistol-whips me from behind, then holds the gun to my head and demands that I give him my wallet, and if I do so, are you really claiming that I was not "forced to do" it?

Yes, that's what I meant.  I believe we retrain the right and power to choose to do whatever we do, whatever the circumstances,. unless somebody somehow is able to take away our power of agency.

 

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  Government bodies are required to follow the law, including the Constitution. 

Thanks,

-Smac

What I had in mind when I said that was that government bodies can choose to make any law they want to make.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What I object to, mainly, is somebody thinking they have the right or even the power to force me to do something.  I strongly object to that notion, and believe it to be false.

Well, the government has such power.  We are obligated to pay taxes.  And sign up for Selective Service.  And get a driver's license (if we want to drive).  And so on.  If we fail to do these things, we can be punished with fines and/or imprisonment.

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

But, sure, if I wanted to, I could make anyone a really pretty wedding cake with rainbows and stars and whatever I wanted to put on it. 

Just don't expect me to bend over kindly when some gay couple, or any other couple comes asking me to do whatever they want me to do while I just smile and say something like "Okey dokey whatever you want is fine with me!"

Yep.  It is the gay rights folks using the coercive power of government to oppress that I find disturbing.  The arrogant presumption.  The disregard of the rights of Christians and other religous persons.  The false accusations and characterizations.

No need to knuckle under.  The gay rights folks fought for their constitutional rights.  We need to do the same.

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

What I had in mind when I said that was that government bodies can choose to make any law they want to make.

But they can't "choose to make any law that they want to make."  Government bodies are constrained by the Constitution.  "Any law" that contravenes the Constitution is unenforceable.

This is why we need to fight.  The gay rights folks, some of them anyway, are turning into a bunch of bullies and tyrants.  They are out to punish Christians who choose to exercise their constitutional rights.  That's just not right.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 11, 2018 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And coming at it from my belief that nobody can be forced to do something, I would say that I still think that people with a sincerely-held religious objection should not be penalized for refusing to violate their conscience.

Although I would still recognize a government body's right to penalize people for not complying with their orders or laws, because government bodies can choose to do whatever they choose to do, too.

I agree with your first paragraph, but I have serious reservations about the second.  In the United States, government bodies cannot "do whatever they choose to do": They cannot act arbitrarily and/or capriciously; they must afford entities affected by their decisions due process; they cannot take private property without just compensation or without due process; they cannot penalize one party for choosing to not use his artistic talent or his right to expression to favor a cause he does not support, on the one hand, while declining to penalize another party for doing that very thing simply because the objection of the first is grounded in sincerely-held religious belief while the objection of the second is not.

[Ahab]

Just now, smac97 said:

But they can't.  Government bodies are constrained by the Constitution.  "Any law" that contravenes the Constitution is unenforceable.

Thanks,

-Smac

per the American government and their choice, as a body, to uphold the Constitution.  But even they, the American government body, could choose to discard the Constitution if they wanted to.  

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I agree with your first paragraph, but I have serious reservations about the second.  In the United States, government bodies cannot "do whatever they choose to do": They cannot act arbitrarily and/or capriciously; they must afford entities affected by their decisions due process; they cannot take private property without just compensation or without due process; they cannot penalize one party for choosing to not use his artistic talent or his right to expression to favor a cause he does not support, on the one hand, while declining to penalize another party for doing that very thing simply because the objection of the first is grounded in sincerely-held religious belief while the objection of the second is not.

You mean, in short, that they cannot choose to violate their own laws.  I disagree with that notion.  I say they can choose to violate their own laws, if they want to.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

What was lawless about Dr. King's movement? Was he seeking a license to do whatever he pleased simply because he was religious? Or was he seeking greater justice and an end to segregation? The kind of segregation that the anti-marriage crowd is trying to bring back into style.

Hyperbole and inaccuracies don’t help the argument.

 

Edited June 11, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

per the American government and their choice, as a body, to uphold the Constitution.  But even they, the American government body, could choose to discard the Constitution if they wanted to.  

Yes, they can disregard the Constitution.  But that's wrong.  So it is up to people like Mr. Phillips to object when that happens.  We must be vigilant against the government exceeding the bounds of its authority.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 11, 2018 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

11 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You mean, in short, that they cannot choose to violate their own laws.  I disagree with that notion.  I say they can choose to violate their own laws, if they want to.

In a general sense, that was the notion at the very center of Colorado Civil Rights Commission v. Masterpiece Cake Shop.  And a seven-justice majority said, "No, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission cannot 'violate its own laws': It cannot tell one cake-baker that it is permissible for that baker to reject business based on the message being conveyed because the root of that objection is secular, on the one hand, while telling another cake-baker (Mr. Phillips), on the other hand, that it is impermissible for him to reject business based on the message being conveyed because his objection is religious.  For the time being, anyway, "Free Exercise of Religion" in the United States still means something more than, "Sure, you're 'free' to 'exercise' your religion ... within the walls of your Holy Place on your Holy Day."

As Sovereign, the American People can, provided they make appropriate, effective use of the means set out for doing so and provided they can convince enough of their representatives to do so, change the laws if they wish.  They cannot, however, violate the law without incurring the consequences set forth in the law for doing so.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

It's more like this. Tim runs a clinic at the side of the road, where he takes care of wounded people. Except, he refuses to take care of Samaritans. So the government says, that Samaritan is dying. If you're going to run this clinic, you're going to have to accept Samaritans too.

So Tim stomps off in a huff screaming about how his rights are being infringed upon, and the government wants to "force" him to provide services he's already voluntarily providing. But he also, bizarrely, claims to be a follower of Jesus. Jesus later denied ever knowing Tim. 

Later Tim would complain that the government forced him to pay taxes and clean up after his own donkey, despite those things being against his religious beliefs. Jesus again denied ever knowing Tim. 

Tim sure complains a lot about not getting his way at the expense of everyone else. The moral of the story: don't be like Tim.

This is a ludicrous and inaccurate comparison. Just for starters, a gay couple looking for a wedding cake is in no way like a dying man seeking life-saving measures. One is for pleasure and entertainment and could easily be supplied by others or even baked by themselves or a friend. The other is an urgent matter of life or death. Hyperbole does not help the argument.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[kllindley]

26 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm surprised nobody has any feedback regarding Professor McConnell's paper from earlier in the thread.  On the one hand, we have a dressmaker refusing to outfit Melania Trump for her husband's inauguration because she doesn't want to run the risk that observers will conclude, essentially, that she is using her art to support President Trump or his policies, and nobody says, "Boo!"  But if a cake-baker refuse to sell a particular product for the same reason to a gay couple (he does not want observers to conclude that he is using his art to support policies or events he does not favor) ... this, when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission concluded previously that other cake-bakers turning away business based on the message being conveyed was PERMISSIBLE ... and, all of a sudden, THAT'S "discrimination"!

One employing simple, sound logic, and nothing more, if he is consistent, must reach the same conclusion the majority did in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission.

I think this is in part due to the fact that people on the LGBT side need to maintain a distinction between sexual orientation and other non-protected classes.  Any attempt to compare the situation to any other form of discrimination based on other dimensions of identity is (a priori or ipso facto?) invalid.  They want desperately to make sexual orientation the equivalent of race and nothing like political affiliation.  

As far as I can understand, that is the only way they can be consistent in claiming the additional protections of being a protected class, while stating that they aren't asking for any "special rights."  

[Gray]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am focused.  Meanwhile, I'll ask you not to stack the deck.

From this article:

And from this article:

From his attorney:

Again, it was not the customer that was the issue.  It was the message.

If Mr. Phillips discriminates against homosexuals, why is he willing to sell them "any other baked good?"

Thanks,

-Smac

So, no wedding cake for gay people, per your sources.

Let's say I set up an auto shop. I'll fix anyone's car, so long as they're not Mormon. Mormons are more than welcome to buy auto parts, but we won't service their car. Not discrimination?

[Gray]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Hyperbole and inaccuracies don’t help the argument. 

 

I'm being very precise and accurate in the words I'm using.