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

[Gray]

41 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!"

Businesses are allowed to discriminate against the shirtless, and the shoeless. They can also discriminate against members of a crime family. None of those is a protected class.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Gray

[Kenngo1969]

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?

Nope, and neither is Mr. Phillips.  Ergo?

Quote

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.

No one is arguing that segregation should be reinstituted.  And again (you keep glossing over my responses to you.  It makes it hard for me to conclude that you're attempting to dialogue in good faith), isolated, episodic, de facto discrimination of the kind engaged in by Mr. Phillips (granting, solely for the sake of this discussion, that Mr. Phillips engaged in discrimination,  and I think a persuasive case can be made, since he offered to sell the allegedly-aggrieved patrons anything else in the store, that he did not) is entirely different that the formerly-widespread, well-entrenched, de jure discrimination that the Rev. Dr. King et al fought against and which the Fourteenth Amendment now prohibits.

[Calm]

1 hour 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.

Phillips didn't refuse all forms of care for one group of his customers or refused to help in such a way that it would cause physical harm or not repair it....emotional pain, sure, maybe even financial costs if the baker they got it from took more of their time or was more expensive, analogy with Tim would be more like Tim refused to provide wine to any unmarried woman or whatever group he saw it as inappropriate drinking it while providing it for the rest of his clients even though he was okay with providing water and food.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Businesses are allowed to discriminate against the shirtless, and the shoeless. They can also discriminate against members of a crime family. None of those is a protected class.

Nice non sequiturs there.  

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

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

False.  No wedding cake for a gay wedding, regardless of who is requesting it, per my sources.

Again, please stop trying to stack the deck.

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Let's say I set up an auto shop. I'll fix anyone's car, so long as they're not Mormon.

Then that is qualitatively different from Mr. Phillips.  His refusal to provide a service was based on the message, not the person requesting it.

In contrast, your hypothetical mechanic is refusing to provide a service based on the person requesting it, not the vehicle.

Do you see the difference?  

To make the hypothetical analogous, it would have to go like this: "Let's say I set up an auto shop. I'll fix any car, but not any Volvos [or whatever make the mechanic prefers not to repair]."

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Mormons are more than welcome to buy auto parts, but we won't service their car. Not discrimination?

Discrimination.  But that's because the mechanic is discriminating against the person, not the work.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

 

1 hour ago, Gray said:

So he was willing to sell a wedding cake to the customer, just as he would with any other customer?

If a gay individual had come in and asked him to provide a wedding cake for his straight brother's wedding , it would appear he would have sold the gay customer the cake.  If the straight brother had come in and said "I want to provide the cake for my gay brother's wedding" he would have refused.  It wasn't  who was paying him for it, but what they were paying for.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Businesses are allowed to discriminate against the shirtless, and the shoeless. They can also discriminate against members of a crime family. None of those is a protected class.

Rainbow wedding cakes are also not a "protected class."  They have no constitutional rights at all, in fact.

Mr. Phillips 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.

Again, 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.

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

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Kenngo1969]

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

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?

Non sequitur.  Cake baking is not on a par with mechanic services.  The latter is an essential service, the former is not.  In any event, assuming we're not talking about the only cake shop or the only mechanic within a 500 mile radius, the mechanic in question is absolutely free to dislike members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to refuse to serve them, and I'm free to take my business elsewhere, just as the Plaintiffs in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case were).

How strained are we willing to make this analogy?  Did my car just happen to break down right outside this hostile, anti-Mormon mechanic's shop?  Did I unwisely have my car towed there without determining, beforehand, if the mechanic would or could fix the problem?  How did I find out that the mechanic wouldn't serve members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  (Personally, if he has a sign that says, "Mormons, I'll sell you parts but I won't fix your car," as disappointed as I might be, on the one hand, on the other, I might at least laud him for his perverse honesty and for having the courage of his perverse convictions.)  Did I pick this particular mechanic knowing that he would refuse to serve me based on my religion and that, therefore, I could kick up a fuss on social media, on business rating Web sites, in the news, and elsewhere?  (But of course, no gay or lesbian couple would ever do that ...   )  And, in any event, your analogy is inapt (that is to say, it is inapplicable) because there is little to no expressive or artistic element in play with respect to providing mechanic services, as there is with cake-decorating services.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Ahab]

47 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

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.

All of that is still subject to change, though.  Change, revision, amendment, and appeal.  With free agency we can changes the rules/laws we follow at any time for any reason we use to explain why we did what we did whenever we did it or do it again.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I too think it is a good point.

I appreciate you considering it. 

 

Quote

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.   

I believe that is substantively correct. However, as Justice Kennedy points out in the court's opinion, "[o]ne of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker's refusal to provide service." 

 

Quote

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.  

Not exactly. The baker is saying that the government can't compel him to use his creative talents to help celebrate an event that he doesn't want to be associated with. 

 

Quote

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. 

That very well may be where we end up eventually. As I said in another thread, the cake baker is kind of an edge case scenario for me. I can see an argument that designing and creating custom wedding cakes is a form of artistic expression, and I can also see how making a wedding cake can be like making a widget. The former triggers free speech protections in a way that the latter doesn't. 

I feel much more strongly about the first amendment rights of photographers than I do bakers, but that isn't to say that the bakers don't have a serious, legitimate argument. 

 

Quote

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

I agree. While I would personally just prefer less government control all together (trying not to get too political here), I think an exemption / referral system could be an acceptable compromise that would work for both sides.

One of the nice things about the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision is that by punting on the big, central issues, the court effectively put the ball back in our court, which is really where this sort of thing ought to be worked out anyway.

It would be nice if people were to recognize that for what it is: an opportunity; a fresh start; a chance to come up with our own solutions that work for everyone. 

Instead, what I have seen is a lot of selective reading of the majority opinion, using it to justify how their side was really "right" all along. 

 

Quote

I hope it doesn't open up a floodgate of discrimination.

I really don't think it will.

 

Quote

 I think that most people are decent people that treat others fairly.  

I agree completely.

 

Quote

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.  

Maybe. It depends on how things shake out. 

 

Quote

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?

I do live outside Utah; in the great state of Texas.

I get animosity all the time for being a member of the church, but it doesn't have anything to do with Prop 8. That's one of the few things the Southern Baptists don't hate us for.

 

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Gray said:

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?

More like refusing to detail anyone's car in a certain way (perhaps refuses to put advertising on a car because they find it distracting or ugly, violates the pure function of the car which is to get you from A to B), thus forcing those car owners who want to promote the value of their business this way to find someone else to do it or lose out.

It was a wedding cake.  Important in a symbolic way to some, pure fun for others; not life altering to not have one (I didn't and have never felt the lack, it was a relief to avoid the hassle and pocket the money instead) or even life affecting beyond an afternoon.  I don't believe anyone really suffers because they don't have a wedding cake even if they dreamed of it as part of their wedding.  The circumstances of not having one---never married, too poor, refusal by baker to give you one---can certainly be painful to think about, but there is no inherent need in life to have it..unlike transportation to work, to get food, to visit doctors, etc. or healthcare.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Quote

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.   

I believe that is substantively correct. However, as Justice Kennedy points out in the court's opinion, "[o]ne of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker's refusal to provide service." 

Yes, I've long thought it strange that this factual ambiguity exists in the record.  How on earth did it get past the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals?  Why didn't the Court of Appeals remand the case back to the Commission to resolve that ambiguity? Perhaps because either A) the factual ambiguity was not relevant (a very strange proposition, given its patently apparent importance), or B) the ambiguity, if explored, would have yielded results showing that how the cake was to be "customized" was to make is specifically relevant to a gay wedding.  This would have bolstered Mr. Phillips's point (that he serves people regardless of who they are, but that he doesn't provide gay wedding cakes).

The gay couple suing the baker repeatedly asserted in their brief that they "Phillips did not ask for, and Mullins and Craig did not offer, any details about the design of the cake."  However, contemporary news accounts seem to differ with that:

FoxNews Article (emphasis added):

Quote

Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colo., said he has received more than 1,000 angry messages — critics upset because he would not compromise his personal beliefs and bake a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig.

The couple, set to be married in Massachusetts in September, told television station KDVR they wanted a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting.

They said the owner immediately informed the men that he does not create cakes for gay weddings.

“It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter,” Mullins, 28, told Denver Westward. “We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, ‘F**k you and your homophobic cake shop.’ And I may or may not have flipped him off.”

But Phillips defended his decision in an interview with television station KCNC in Denver.

“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,” Phillips told the television station. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”

July 2012 KDVR Article (emphasis added):

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, which will take place in Denver this October after their wedding in Provincetown, Mass., which is set for September.

July 2012 Westword Article (apparently published one day after the incident) (emphasis added):

Quote

Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors).  Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October. But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

July 2012 Advocate Article (emphasis added):

Quote

A cake shop in Denver told a gay couple last week that they are refusing to make them a rainbow-layered wedding cake this fall. 

July 2012 Advocate Article (emphasis added):

Quote

A cake shop in Denver told a gay couple last week that they are refusing to make them a rainbow-layered wedding cake this fall. 

...

Mullins and Craig don't seem to be the only same-sex couple to encounter problems with Masterpiece Cakeshop. According to Westword, other previous customers like Yelp user Samantha S., have said the shop does not "participate in making cakes for 'illegal' things, such as a commitment ceremony." A Masterpiece employee did say, however, that they would be willing to make any other kind of celebratory cake for gay customers, as long as it was not for a wedding or commitment ceremony. 

2013 Chicago Tribune Article (emphasis added):

Quote

Here's the story: Jack C. Phillips, co-owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, in July 2012 told Charlie Craig and David Mullins that he would not bake a cake for their wedding. He said as a long-practicing Christian he believed God intended marriage to be for one man and one woman.

He also told the couple, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." He believed he was protected in this because the Colorado Constitution defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Craig and Mullins apparently didn't have trouble finding another baker to make a cake, one with rainbow-colored filling, for their later out-of-state wedding. It's not as if Phillips prevented them from getting a cake from anywhere in America.

June 2013 AP Article (emphasis added):

Quote

David Mullins, left, and Charlie Craig, right, successfully sued a Colorado bakery after their order for a rainbow wedding cake was turned down by the owner

June 2013 Fox Article (emphasis added):

Quote

The complaint stems from an incident on July 19, 2012, in which Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips declined to create a rainbow layer cake for the couple’s October wedding in Massachusetts, saying his business does not bake cakes for gay weddings.

Nevertheless, the findings of the fact in the original administrative court case appear to favor the gay couple's factual claim (specifically, that they never discussed "what the cake would look like").  Those findings, however, are a bit at odds with the couples' various public statements above (emphases added):

Quote

4. On July 19, 2012, Complainants Charlie Craig and David Mullins entered Masterpiece Cakeshop in the company of Mr. Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn.
5. Complainants sat down with Phillips at the cake consulting table. They introduced themselves as “David” and “Charlie” and said that they wanted a wedding cake for “our wedding.”
6. Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”
7. Complainants immediately got up and left the store without further discussion with Phillips.
8. The whole conversation between Phillips and Complainants was very brief, with no discussion between the parties about what the cake would look like.
9. The next day, Ms. Munn called Masterpiece Cakeshop and spoke with Phillips. Phillips advised Ms. Munn that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, and because Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages. 

So if there was a discussion about the "what the cake would look like" (contemporaneous news reports strongly suggest that there was), did Mr. Phillips contest the above factual finding?  

Also, the bit about the gay couple "immediately" getting up and leaving is a bit at odds with what they said here:

Quote

Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, who are set to tie the knot in Provincetown, Mass. this fall but are planning a Denver-based reception for later in the year, said they were stunned and humiliated by their experience with Phillips.

“It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter,” Mullins, 28, told Denver Westword. “We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, ‘F**k you and your homophobic cake shop.’ And I may or may not have flipped him off.”

Classy.

Note the omission of any description of the decoration.  That, I think, is important.

Now consider the results from the case (from the Petitioner's brief😞

Quote

The ALJ {A dministrative Law Judge} ordered Phillips to (1) create wedding cakes celebrating same-sex marriages if he creates similar cakes for one-man-one-woman marriages, (2) retrain his staff to do likewise, and (3) report to the Commission every order he declines to fill for any  reason for the next two years.

Government-mandated instruction on what to think.  Rather creepy and scary.

Quote

One of the nice things about the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision is that by punting on the big, central issues, the court effectively put the ball back in our court, which is really where this sort of thing ought to be worked out anyway.

I'd agree, except that "our court" means leaving the tyrants and bullies in the gay rights movement, and their enablers in government positions (like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission) are still at liberty to punish Christians because of their religious beliefs.

Nevertheless, the narrowness of the grounds upon which the decision was made was a judgment call.  Perhaps in the end you are right, and we need to sort these things out a bit more.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 11, 2018 by smac97

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'd agree, except that "our court" means leaving the tyrants and bullies in the gay rights movement, and their enablers in government positions (like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission) are still at liberty to punish Christians because of their religious beliefs

As demonstrated by the hundreds of negative Yelp reviews and physical protests at the Cakeshop. 

Though it's really cool how Phillips responded. He affirmed the protesters' right to be there and served them cookies. Hardly the actions of a hateful bigot. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

As demonstrated by the hundreds of negative Yelp reviews and physical protests at the Cakeshop. 

I don't oppose legal bullying like negative Yelp reviews and lawful protests.  Free Speech has to cut both ways, after all.

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Though it's really cool how Phillips responded. He affirmed the protesters' right to be there and served them cookies. Hardly the actions of a hateful bigot. 

Quite.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m not sure I understand. How we react to government force determines what kind of person we are, and that is Christ’s message?

Is this what you mean?

When you cut and past just a part of what I am saying,  you obviously are not trying to understand all of what I wrote.  

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

When you cut and past just a part of what I am saying,  you obviously are not trying to understand all of what I wrote.  

That may or may not be true. If the selected quotation reasonably conveys the gist or context of the entire text, it may well be said that the one doing the quoting is indeed endeavoring to understand.

That said, I have little patience with the act of deliberately taking a thing out of context.  

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

When you cut and past just a part of what I am saying,  you obviously are not trying to understand all of what I wrote.  

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That may or may not be true. If the selected quotation reasonably conveys the gist or context of the entire text, it may well be said that the one doing the quoting is indeed endeavoring to understand.

That said, I have little patience with the act of deliberately taking a thing out of context.  

Bernard quoted the entire post.  I fail to see how that is taking anything out of context. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

When you cut and past just a part of what I am saying,  you obviously are not trying to understand all of what I wrote.  

I’m not quoting you out of context. I’m only asking about this statement which was a complete quote, not cut and pasted. This is a normal and acceptable part of discussion. There is no need to rehash that. I wouldn’t be taking a considerable amount of my time doing this if I was not trying to understand you. Just explain what you meant or where I misunderstand and let’s move on.

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Precise and accurate can also be hyperbolic. As in this case. No one here is calling for segregation, except perhaps those who want to isolate and punish people based on their religious convictions.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[USU78]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

Businesses are allowed to discriminate against the shirtless, and the shoeless. They can also discriminate against members of a crime family. None of those is a protected class.

Again with the circular reasoning.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

As demonstrated by the hundreds of negative Yelp reviews and physical protests at the Cakeshop. 

Though it's really cool how Phillips responded. He affirmed the protesters' right to be there and served them cookies. Hardly the actions of a hateful bigot. 

Contrast that with the reaction of gay rights protestors in the wake of the Prop 8 vote, including the desecration of a sacred space. 

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Contrast that with the reaction of gay rights protestors in the wake of the Prop 8 vote, including the desecration of a sacred space. 

Everybody knows who's bullying whom.

[Kenngo1969]

I wonder, will there ever come a time when even people of good conscience and good faith who support gay marriage and who oppose a business owner's right to not be forced to use his artistry to communicate a message with which that business owner disagrees will find themselves appalled by the militant, mean-spirited, no-holds-barred and take-no-prisoners attitudes of the most vehement segment of the so-called "gay rights" lobby? 

Not only is "Shut up!  We won!" not a legal argument, it's not an "argument," period.  While, arguably, a right to gay marriage may "emanate from the penumbras" of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, respectively (my phrase in quotation marks), religious freedom and other rights of conscience are specifically spelled out in the black-letter, plain terms of the First Amendment.  Even many people who support gay marriage and who think that cake-bakers should be forced to serve all comers may eventually begin to realize that it's not just the rights of religious zealots which may come to harm from a continuing onslaught of "endless emanations" from "endless penumbras." 

Where, then, will those who now see absolutely nothing wrong with curtailing the conscience rights of a few religious zealots turn when the "emanations from the penumbras" begin to infringe on rights they do care about?  Might it be possible that even many of those who agree with the majority's decision in Obergefell and who disagree with the majority's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop eventually will come to realize that, as messy, time-consuming, and inconvenient as it might have been, it would have been better to win a majority over to their way of thinking by employing gradual political processes than by relying on the chance that a single justice would agree with that train of thought?  

Edited June 12, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m not quoting you out of context. I’m only asking about this statement which was a complete quote, not cut and pasted. This is a normal and acceptable part of discussion. There is no need to rehash that. I wouldn’t be taking a considerable amount of my time doing this if I was not trying to understand you. Just explain what you meant or where I misunderstand and let’s move on.

 

I am sorry I accused you of something you didn't do this time.  I know what it is like to be accused of something you didn't do.  You did not quote me out of context this time.  I completely withdraw what I posted.  You did not take my post out of context.

I have however answered this question to you in a previous post.  This is what I 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?

 

 

 

I think Christ is telling us exactly how we should respond when the government forces us to do something that we don't want to do.  How a person responds to that tells a lot about that person.  

I am not implying that a person does not have a right to change the laws that they don't believe are fair.  I have repeatedly recommended that those who think public accomodation laws are unfair should fight to have those laws repelled.  And yes, a person also has a right to plead an unjust ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.  The Baker has done this.  And the wrong has been corrected.  Has not justice been served?  

Edited June 12, 2018 by california boy

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Contrast that with the reaction of gay rights protestors in the wake of the Prop 8 vote, including the desecration of a sacred space. 

 The whole back and forth on this thread comes down to those who think the bakers right to free speech and freedom of religion are being violated.  Those on the other side are claiming that religion does not trump the law and can not be an excuse to break the public accommodation laws.  We are going to argue this until the Supreme Court ACTUALLY RULES on this issue.  But they haven't yet ruled.  So both sides are just giving their opinion on what they think the law should be.  If it was an easy issue, then the Supreme Court had every opportunity to make a ruling about these issues when they passed down their verdict on the baker.  Instead they ruled very narrowly on just the specific unfair treatment of the Colorado Board.  So you don't really have the support of the Constitution behind you quite yet.  

But do you know what does have the support of the Constitution behind it?  The right to protest.  Scott, you and SMAC have vilified those exercising that  right protesting in front of the LA temple over and over again.  SMAC has used numerous opportunities to post that video, even on a thread about medical marijuana.  Here is some of the inflammatory language he used and which you agreed with him about in that post.

1. So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened

2. I wonder what that mob would have done. 

3. ominously declared

4. barely-contained and hate-filled riots at the gates

5. His enjoyment of a video of a near riot at an LDS temple was disturbing

6. To me, it looks like a barely-constrained riot.

7. Mob intimidation against a religious minority

8. publicly issue ominous warnings about "consequences" should a religious minority

9. he "like{s}" a video showing a near riot outside their sacred temple.

10. Ungly, anti-democratic witch hunt{s}" and "blacklists.

11. California Boy issued veiled threats about "consequences

You are now adding that the sidewalk in front of the temple is sacred space.  

I am going to ask you and anyone else who feels this way about the protest to do a very simple thing.  Watch the protest again.  This time turn the sound off.  (obviously you don't like or agree with what is being chanted). Now look at it closely.  And tell me the difference between this protest and the hundreds of others that the Mormons supporting Prop 8 did on the corners of the streets of California.  What is the most egregious action you see happening during this protest that would cause you to agree with the inflammatory language that SMAC used in his post.  Tell us what you actually see,  Here is the video.

If you see nothing other than the usual waving of signs then I would propose that both sides tone down the inflammatory language.  And until the Supreme Court actually rules on this issue, I would suggest that those claiming that it is a constitutional right for a baker to not bake a cake for a gay wedding add to their assertions that it is just their opinion on how they think the Constitution should be interpreted. THAT HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED.  

There is a law that has been challenged in the Supreme Court and has been ruled upon as being constitutional. The Civil Rights Act.    Until that gets appealed, it is still the law of the land.  And their is a law that has been challenged in the Supreme Court and has been ruled upon and that is the right to protest.