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

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

There's already a half century of precedent on this in the law. It's worked out great so far. It's part of what makes America a great place to live.

And yet here you are, suggesting that people who decline to participate in a Jewish wedding are unlawfully "discriminating" against Jews.

Seems like we need some clarification on the law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

Just now, provoman said:

Really? How so does humility require celebrating, participating in, or require conduct that gives an approving knod, to conduct that violates religious beliefs

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

[Gray]

Just now, smac97 said:

And yet here you are, suggesting that people who decline to participate in a Jewish wedding are unlawfully "discriminating" against Jews.

Seems like we need some clarification on the law. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, people who provide products and services for weddings who refuse to sell to Jewish people are discriminating against Jews. That's a no brainer.

I agree, we need a real ruling on the issue.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am very much in favor of religious liberty for Jewish people.

I am very much in favor of religious liberty for Mormon people.

I am very much in favor of religious liberty for gay people.

Glad to hear it.

 

Quote

Unless their "right" involves coercing others into violating their Free Exercise and Free Speech rights.

If I decline to participate in an event, I am not "discriminating" against it in any material sense.  I can and should be able to make that choice.  I should not be coerced by the government into participating, or punished by the government for failing to participate.

 

If your business is participating in such events, then yes, you are discriminating against it in a material sense. You're violating the religious freedoms of the customers. But you're always free to find another line of work where you don't have to interact with people you (in the general sense) consider to be morally inferior to yourself.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Gray

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one is compelled to engage in commerce.

Well yes, they are.  Just ask Mr. Phillips.  There's even a phrase that was coined to reflect this reality: "Bake me a cake, bigot!"

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

But those who do should serve the public without prejudice.

Ah.  "Should."  And if they don't, they are threatened with fines and imprisonment.  So it's not "should serve," right?  It's "must serve, your religious beliefs and personal preferences be damned."

These coercive threats are, in your view, "part of what makes America a great place to live?"

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is no constitutional liberty to subvert other people's constitutional liberty.

I quite agree!  This is the problem I have with using Public Accommodations laws to subvert constitutional liberties.

I wish you could see the irony of pointing to "constitutional liberty" as the basis for using the government to coerce private parties to engage in behavior they find repugnant to their religious beliefs (Free Exercise) and/or speak words with which they do not agree (Free Speech).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well yes, they are.  Just ask Mr. Phillips.  There's even a phrase that was coined to reflect this reality: "Bake me a cake, bigot!"

Ah.  "Should."  And if they don't, they are threatened with fines and imprisonment.  So it's not "should serve," right?  It's "must serve, your religious beliefs and personal preferences be damned."

These coercive threats are, in your view, "part of what makes America a great place to live?"

You forgot the third option they have - find another line of work that won't put them into contact with people they consider to be their moral inferiors. Not coercive. No one is forced to bake cakes.

 

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I quite agree!  This is the problem I have with using Public Accommodations laws to subvert constitutional liberties.

I wish you could see the irony of pointing to "constitutional liberty" as the basis for using the government to coerce private parties to engage in behavior they find repugnant to their religious beliefs (Free Exercise) and/or speak words with which they do not agree (Free Speech).

You've got it precisely backwards - you're supporting the privilege of a small minority of extremists to violate the religious liberty of the general public.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

Unless their "right" involves coercing others into violating their Free Exercise and Free Speech rights.

If I decline to participate in an event, I am not "discriminating" against it in any material sense.  I can and should be able to make that choice.  I should not be coerced by the government into participating, or punished by the government for failing to participate.

If your business is participating in such events, then yes, you are discriminating against it in a material sense.

But not all "such events."  Just because I design cake decorations for parties doesn't mean I have abandoned my Free Exercise and Free Speech rights.

So no, that's not "discrimination" in any material (that is, a legally significant) sense.  

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

You're violating the religious freedoms of the customers.

No, I'm not.  Adam and Steve shouldn't have a "religious freedom" that allows them to force others to attend and participate in their private event.  

So far we've been talking about two fundamental constitutional rights.  Now we need to add another one: Freedom of Association.

You are suggesting that gay people have the legal right to compel others to associate with them (by attending and participating in their wedding).  I question that.  A lot.

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

But you're always free to find another line of work where you don't have to interact with people you (in the general sense) consider to be morally inferior to yourself.

How very totalitarian of you.

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

You forgot the third option they have - find another line of work that won't put them into contact with people they consider to be their moral inferiors. Not coercive.

That's profoundly coercive.  "Bake me a cake or get another line of work" is nothing but coercive.

Quote

No one is forced to bake cakes.

You are advocating that people should be punished, that they should be forced, by threats of fines and/or imprisonment, into decorating cakes, if they choose to exercise their Free Exercise, Free Speech, and/or Free Association rights.

And you seem to be sincere in your statement.  You aren't just saying them for rhetorical advantage.  You well and truly want to punish religious people who may not want to participate in a gay wedding.

Quote

Quote

I quite agree!  This is the problem I have with using Public Accommodations laws to subvert constitutional liberties.

I wish you could see the irony of pointing to "constitutional liberty" as the basis for using the government to coerce private parties to engage in behavior they find repugnant to their religious beliefs (Free Exercise) and/or speak words with which they do not agree (Free Speech).

You've got it precisely backwards - you're supporting the privilege of a small minority of extremists to violate the religious liberty of the general public.

I do not understand what you are saying here.  Who is this "small minority of extremists?"  How are they "violat[ing] the religious liberty of the general public?"

In my view, I have the constitutional right to speak, or not speak.  I have the right to associate, or not associate.  You seem to be proposing that other people have a "religious liberty" that overrides my rights, that they can use this so-called "liberty" to force me to speak things I do not want to speak, to do things I do not want to do, to associate in venues I do not want to attend.

Totalitarianism.  It's not pretty.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 4, 2018 by smac97

[provoman]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

What does any if that have to with humility require participation in or approval conduct that violates religious beliefs

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The article I read quoted it at 7-2 and I thought the same thing.  How is that narrow?  

I wondered that as well but have now had it explained to my satisfaction: “Narrow” refers to the scope of the ruling, not to the vote count. 

Correct. The court ruled for the plaintiff on narrow grounds.

As first amendment ninja Eugene Volokh put it, "The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Leaves Almost All the Big Questions Unresolved."

 

Quote

Do bakers have a First Amendment right to refuse to bake cakes for same-sex weddings, even if there's a state law banning sexual orientation discrimination by such businesses?

Do they have a First Amendment right to refuse to bake such cakes that contain text or symbolism (e.g., rainbow striping) that the bakers disapprove of?

How about wedding photographers or videographers, who create products that (unlike most cakes) are traditionally seen as speech? How about calligraphers or graphic designers, who have an objection to personally writing or typing certain messages?

The Supreme Court's 7-to-2 Masterpiece Cakeshop decision answers none of these questions (not even the first, which seemed to be most squarely raised on the facts of this case).

He does mention that four of the Justices talked about the free speech issues though, and they split 2-to-2 (Justices Thomas and Alito would have accepted the free speech claim, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor would have rejected it given the facts of this case).

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Quote

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

What does any if that have to with humility require participation in or approval conduct that violates religious beliefs

I think he means that disciples of Jesus Christ should attend gay weddings, which in Gray's thinking is comparable to the Savior's "[sitting] at meat in his house [with] many publicans and sinners" (see Mark 2:15-16).

The problem with that analogy is that Jesus never condoned misconduct.  But attending and participating in a wedding is typically construed as an endorsement and celebration of the union.   So perhaps the better analogy is found in John 8:

Quote

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I do not want to condemn any of my brothers and sisters who choose to enter into a same-sex marriage.  But I also do not want to give them the false impression that I am celebrating and endorsing their union.  

FWIW, I would thereafter welcome a gay couple to gatherings and activities.  I do not think it would be right to withhold fellowship from friends in this way.  I would do all that I could to help them feel welcomed and valued, provided that I am not compromising my own beliefs or giving false/misleading impressions to others.

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, Gray said:

No one is compelled to engage in commerce. But those who do should serve the public without prejudice.

This is where I disagree. Everyone is prejudiced. Businesses are prejudiced against people not wearing shoes or shirts.  They are prejudiced against smokers. There are all sorts of prejudices that they should, frankly, be allowed. If they don't serve the public adequately, some other business will pop up to fill the niche. That is really the American way. That is capitalism. Businesses are not government, and constitutionally they have the same freedoms as individuals.  Applying limitations to them meant for government is I think frankly, unconstitutional. Too bad SCOTUS has gone that route. You can't force doctors to give you an abortion even though SCOTUS has declared that a right.  Yet, you may be able to force a baker to put a picture of two guys doing it on their cake. C'mon. It's ludicrous. 

Quote

There is no constitutional liberty to subvert other people's constitutional liberty.

Uhuh. If they want to exercise their right of free speech, let them put the pornography on their own cake, and stop trying to force the baker to do it for them. I don't know of a baker who has stopped a gay couple from buying a cake. When "liberty" starts turning into coercion, something went wrong IMHO. Trying to police every business transaction for "illegal prejudice" is far beyond the scope of the constitution as plainly written. But y'know that local baker probably bought that sugar from a source out of state so this entitles the feds to play daddy.

[Scott Lloyd]

Has anyone read or heard whether Jack Phillips intends to resume his wedding cake business and to conduct it on his own terms?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

So, in countryism summary format:

"Today the Supreme Court found that various members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission are a bunch of jerkwads, and enshrined their opinion forever in their ruling."

By the way, here's Anthony Aragon, one of the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commision. He's on the left, in his wedding photo shortly after midnight in May 1 2013, where he become one of the first same-sex couples in Colorado to be issued a Civil Union license.  I wonder if he was the one who made the comments hostile to religion?

You ain't been smack talked, until you've been smack talked by the Supreme Court.  

(That's smack, not smac.)

 

 

 

So the commission was not exactly a disinterested party here. At least as it pertains to one of its members. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So the commission was not exactly a disinterested party here. At least as it pertains to one of its members. 

"Civil Rights" commissions are apparently becoming problematic.  They owe their existence and function to the finding of civil rights violations, so it's not really an unfounded concern that they might be affirmatively predisposed to finding civil rights violations.  See here (briefly examining today's SCOTUS decision):

Quote

Essentially the Supreme Court is calling out the egregious behavior of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Of course, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, like most state civil rights commissions, was set up not to be an impartial and fair enforcement and advisory body, but as a governmental advocacy center for the civil rights movement, which is today totally politicized in ways that depart markedly from the old civil rights movement of Martin Luther King. In other words, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the captive of the identity politics left, and that’s by design.

And yet these commissions have authority to mete out fines and such.  Teams of nakedly partisan "judges."  Oh, goody.

-Smac

Edited June 4, 2018 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Civil Rights" commissions are apparently becoming problematic.  They owe their existence and function to the finding if civil rights violations, so it's not really an unfounded concern that they might be affirmatively predisposed to finding civil rights violations.  See here (briefly examining today's SCOTUS decision):

And yet these commissions have authority to mete out fines and such.  Teams of nakedly partisan "judges."  Oh, goody.

-Smac

Seems like something needs to be done to rein them in. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Who appoints civil rights commissioners? Is it the governor of the state? 

If they wield so much power, perhaps voters need to pay closer attention to electing officials who will appoint commissioners who reverence First Amendment rights. Those are civil rights too. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[LoudmouthMormon]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Who appoints civil rights commissioners? Is it the governor of the state? 

If they wield so much power, perhaps voters need to pay coded attention to electing officials who will appoint commissioners who reverence First Amendment rights. Those are civil rights too. 

Colorado resident here.  Yes, in CO anyway, this commission is appointed by the governor.  In this case, Democrat Governor Hickenlooper.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Colorado resident here.  Yes, in CO anyway, this commission is appointed by the governor.  In this case, Democrat Governor Hickenlooper.  

Well, it appears you have your work cut out for you. 

By the way, I meant to say “closer attention,” not “coded attention.” (Darned auto-correct.)

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Colorado resident here.  Yes, in CO anyway, this commission is appointed by the governor.  In this case, Democrat Governor Hickenlooper.  

Theoretically, decisions from civil rights commissions are subject to judicial review.  However, it looks like the district court (and CO Court of Appeals) abdicated their oversight responsibilities a bit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, it appears you have your work cut out for you. 

By the way, I meant to say “closer attention,” not “coded attention.” (Darned auto-correct.)

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

But not all "such events."  Just because I design cake decorations for parties doesn't mean I have abandoned my Free Exercise and Free Speech rights.

So no, that's not "discrimination" in any material (that is, a legally significant) sense.  

Of course you don't abandon those rights. No one will force you to keep selling cakes.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No, I'm not.  Adam and Steve shouldn't have a "religious freedom" that allows them to force others to attend and participate in their private event.  

No one is suggesting forcing anyone to do anything.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So far we've been talking about two fundamental constitutional rights.  Now we need to add another one: Freedom of Association.

You are suggesting that gay people have the legal right to compel others to associate with them (by attending and participating in their wedding).  I question that.  A lot.

How very totalitarian of you.

-Smac

Again, no one is trying to do that.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That's profoundly coercive.  "Bake me a cake or get another line of work" is nothing but coercive.

You are advocating that people should be punished, that they should be forced, by threats of fines and/or imprisonment, into decorating cakes, if they choose to exercise their Free Exercise, Free Speech, and/or Free Association rights.

And you seem to be sincere in your statement.  You aren't just saying them for rhetorical advantage.  You well and truly want to punish religious people who may not want to participate in a gay wedding.

Do you think that any kind of lawless behavior should go unpunished in the name of freedom for religious extremists? Does freedom of religion allow you to skip out on paying taxes with no consequences? If not, why make an exception for this issue?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I do not understand what you are saying here.  Who is this "small minority of extremists?"  How are they "violat[ing] the religious liberty of the general public?"

Extremists who don't wish to serve people based on their race, religion, or gender/sexual orientation.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In my view, I have the constitutional right to speak, or not speak.  I have the right to associate, or not associate.  You seem to be proposing that other people have a "religious liberty" that overrides my rights, that they can use this so-called "liberty" to force me to speak things I do not want to speak, to do things I do not want to do, to associate in venues I do not want to attend.

Totalitarianism.  It's not pretty.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're suggesting totalitarianism against a broad swath of the nation in the name of "religious freedom" for a few extremists.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

... But y'know that local baker probably bought that sugar from a source out of state so this entitles the feds to play daddy.

Yep!  There ya go!  The Interstate Commerce Clause must be read to entitle the federal government to force Mr. Phillips to employ his artistic talents in support of a ceremony which violates his sincerely held religious beliefs.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

What does any if that have to with humility require participation in or approval conduct that violates religious beliefs

Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.