Gray Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 9 minutes ago, USU78 said: About as evil a notion as I've come across: one is prohibited from engaging in commerce if one has religious convictions in Gray's America. Straw man. Would you support a religious right to sell poisoned food? Religion cannot be used as a cover for lawlessness.
USU78 Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 Just now, Gray said: Straw man. Would you support a religious right to sell poisoned food? Religion cannot be used as a cover for lawlessness. You would force me out of commerce because I don't wish to kneel before your altar. That's evil.
smac97 Posted June 4, 2018 Author Posted June 4, 2018 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: More likely scenario for the same sex couple is they ask for a cake to celebrate their marriage without the charged language. Yes, that's more likely. Both charged language or no, a "gay wedding cake" that is overtly and expressively celebratory of a same-sex marriage is the issue. 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Should the cake store still have a right to deny service? Yes. If secular bakers have "a right to deny service" based on their assessment of the content of the messaging they are being asked to convey, then don't religious bakers have the same right? 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Conversely what happens if an opposite sex couple goes to a restaurant and notices the rainbow pin their waiter is wearing and they make inappropriate and bigoted comments and are rude to him. Well, in 2018, the restaurant would get a ton of bad press and might get pushed out of business. The wonderful thing about free enterprise is that it is mostly about money. Mostly, but not all. That means that these days most business will happily take a gay couple's money. I think Mr. Phillips is happy to take a gay couple's money, in exchange for goods or services that do not contravene his religious beliefs. Free Exercise (people should not be compelled by the government to engage in conduct that violates their religious beliefs). Free Speech (people should not be coerced by the government to speak things they do not want to speak). Free Association (people should not be coerced by the government to participate in private associations against their will). Equal Protection (religious bakers should have the same rights as secular bakers). These are all fundamental constitutional considerations that are getting very, very little attention from people on your side of this discussion. Thanks, -Smac 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Does this restaurant have a right to kick out that couple for their rude behavior? 3
Robert F. Smith Posted June 4, 2018 Posted June 4, 2018 5 hours ago, smac97 said: ............................................ Since when do "gay persons" and their subjective sense of "dignity and worth" get to define the parameters of how other people employ their rights under the Free Exercise / Free Speech clauses? Since when does SCOTUS hint that "gay persons" may have some sort of veto power over others' use of the Free Exercise / Free Speech clauses when that use subjectively "diminish[es]" the "dignity and worth" of "gay persons?" If the courts can require gay persons to respect the rights of a clergy member to not participate in a gay wedding, shouldn't the courts likewise require gay persons to respect the rights of all religious people to not participate in a gay wedding? Can you imagine a Mormon successfully suing to shut down "The Book of Mormon" musical worldwide on the grounds that it "diminish[es]" the "dignity and worth" of Mormons? How can SCOTUS suggest that one (gay) person's internal and subjective sense of "dignity and worth" trumps another (religious) person's Free Exercise / Free Speech rights? How can SCOTUS suggest that one category of religious people (clergy) have a right to not be compelled to participate in gay marriages, but that other categories of religious persons (all non-clergy persons engaged in commerce, I guess) can be so compelled? Since when does SCOTUS get to "confine" Free Exercise and Free Speech rights to clergy (in the context of participation in gay marriage ceremonies), and telling all other religious persons "Hey, tough luck, you shoulda gone to theology school"? -................... Well said, counselor. This is world of trigger warnings and hurt feelings as the basis for compelled speech that Jordan Peterson has been inveighing against. It may take years for the Court to narrow the range of options enough that we will all feel on secure footing (to draw a bright line).
hope_for_things Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 15 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yes. If secular bakers have "a right to deny service" based on their assessment of the content of the messaging they are being asked to convey, then don't religious bakers have the same right? I’m not sure I agree either side should have that right. The SCOTUS ruling doesn’t seem to answer this issue. 33 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, in 2018, the restaurant would get a ton of bad press and might get pushed out of business. Wow, this is funny because I think the exact opposite would happen in society today. I think the bigots who get kicked out of the restaurant would get the bad press. 35 minutes ago, smac97 said: The wonderful thing about free enterprise is that it is mostly about money. Mostly, but not all. That means that these days most business will happily take a gay couple's money. I think Mr. Phillips is happy to take a gay couple's money, in exchange for goods or services that do not contravene his religious beliefs. Free Exercise (people should not be compelled by the government to engage in conduct that violates their religious beliefs). Free Speech (people should not be coerced by the government to speak things they do not want to speak). Free Association (people should not be coerced by the government to participate in private associations against their will). Equal Protection (religious bakers should have the same rights as secular bakers). These are all fundamental constitutional considerations that are getting very, very little attention from people on your side of this discussion. While I agree that money is a motivator, I think most of society would take their money because bigotry on this topic is increasingly rare.
hope_for_things Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 29 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Well said, counselor. This is world of trigger warnings and hurt feelings as the basis for compelled speech that Jordan Peterson has been inveighing against. It may take years for the Court to narrow the range of options enough that we will all feel on secure footing (to draw a bright line). I listen to Jordan Peterson a lot and I haven’t seen evidence that he would agree with many of the statements made by Smac here.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: I listen to Jordan Peterson a lot and I haven’t seen evidence that he would agree with many of the statements made by Smac here. Spencer provided us several quotations from that recent decision which indicate the thinking of the Court. His comments on those quotations are sage and accurate. They reflect the thinking of a smart attorney. Peterson (who is a Canadian professor of psychology) doesn't do that sort of legal analysis, but I see no reason why he would differ with Spencer in any material way. Both he and Spencer are opposed to compelled speech. 2
Duncan Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 So, I haven't followed this thread but can a business refuse someone based on their sexual orientation, what about a restaurant refusing 2 Mormon missionaries or a Muslim or a rabbi, what are the extents of this ruling? you can pick and choose who you serve or refuse to serve?
hope_for_things Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Spencer provided us several quotations from that recent decision which indicate the thinking of the Court. His comments on those quotations are sage and accurate. They reflect the thinking of a smart attorney. Peterson (who is a Canadian professor of psychology) doesn't do that sort of legal analysis, but I see no reason why he would differ with Spencer in any material way. Both he and Spencer are opposed to compelled speech. Smac has a clear bias and I think represents a very conservative reading of the results. I suggest considering other readings from more liberal thinkers to balance things. I also think your implication that Jordan Peterson supports all those views isn’t accurate. If you have supporting evidence to the contrary I’d be interested in reading it. I know he’s supportive of free speech in general, but so am I and so are many all across the political spectrum, but that doesn’t mean we’d agree with everything Smac posted.
Storm Rider Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 37 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Smac has a clear bias and I think represents a very conservative reading of the results. I suggest considering other readings from more liberal thinkers to balance things. I also think your implication that Jordan Peterson supports all those views isn’t accurate. If you have supporting evidence to the contrary I’d be interested in reading it. I know he’s supportive of free speech in general, but so am I and so are many all across the political spectrum, but that doesn’t mean we’d agree with everything Smac posted. It has been interesting the last three years to see what free speech means within liberal circles. Specifically, demonstrations such as at Berkley and other universities; where free speech is free as long as you agree with me. However, if you disagree with my opinion then you must be silenced at all costs. I think they are prime examples of what I hate most in the Liberal agenda. Everyone is accepted as like as you think like me, act like me, and talk like me. They are the antithesis of almost every principle this nation was formed upon.
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) I have been watching this case with great interest because I play in small string ensembles for weddings and receptions. For many years I have played for all sorts of religious and secular events, but if asked, I would decline to play for a same-sex marriage or reception because of my religious beliefs. My deep religious conviction is that only a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Anything else is not, and is contrary to my beliefs. I would not perform at a plural marriage or a union between a person and an animal or an object or some other variation. I don’t believe this should end up with me in court having my violin confiscated. I developed my musical skills in order to express myself artistically and to make a living. To be forced to use my skills and art to celebrate something I find objectionable is a violation of my rights. Were I to be asked, I would simply say, “I’m sorry. I can’t. I have other obligations.” That is truthful because I have an obligation to my integrity and religious conviction. The government must not use its power to force me to to otherwise. Edited June 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui 4
hope_for_things Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: It has been interesting the last three years to see what free speech means within liberal circles. Specifically, demonstrations such as at Berkley and other universities; where free speech is free as long as you agree with me. However, if you disagree with my opinion then you must be silenced at all costs. I think they are prime examples of what I hate most in the Liberal agenda. Everyone is accepted as like as you think like me, act like me, and talk like me. They are the antithesis of almost every principle this nation was formed upon. I agree there have been some disturbing trends in some of the liberal bastions. I don’t identify as liberal on every issue or conservative either, I’m fairly hard to pin down these days. But liberals don’t have any monopoly on free speech policing by any means.
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Duncan said: So, I haven't followed this thread but can a business refuse someone based on their sexual orientation, what about a restaurant refusing 2 Mormon missionaries or a Muslim or a rabbi, what are the extents of this ruling? you can pick and choose who you serve or refuse to serve? Shouldn’t people be free to do just that because they are presenting an honest face to the world, not hiding or pretending to be something they are not? Patrons who are treated that way are free to find accommodation elsewhere and give the business a down vote, bad review on Yelp, or publish a viral YouTube video. Others, seeing the problems, can choose not to patronize them. Rather than starting an expensive and lengthy lawsuit, let the market and public opinion change the poor behavior. Keep the government punishment out of it. Worked for Starbucks and the NFL. Edited June 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 3 hours ago, Duncan said: So, I haven't followed this thread but can a business refuse someone based on their sexual orientation, what about a restaurant refusing 2 Mormon missionaries or a Muslim or a rabbi, what are the extents of this ruling? you can pick and choose who you serve or refuse to serve? Public accommodations like restaurants, apartment rental, market shopping, car buying, etc., cannot refuse service to anyone based on race, religion, political views, gender, or gender preference. That is established law. This latest decision is no actual decision at all, and leaves up in the air where the line of refusal of service is to be drawn in cases of artistic work conditioned by religious or ideological views (such as baking a cake for a gay wedding). That has yet to be decided.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Smac has a clear bias and I think represents a very conservative reading of the results. I suggest considering other readings from more liberal thinkers to balance things. I also think your implication that Jordan Peterson supports all those views isn’t accurate. If you have supporting evidence to the contrary I’d be interested in reading it. I know he’s supportive of free speech in general, but so am I and so are many all across the political spectrum, but that doesn’t mean we’d agree with everything Smac posted. I did not say that "Peterson supports all those views." I'm not even sure which views you refer to. I pointed out that Peterson is not a lawyer, and so does not consider all the legal implications of this matter. I'd be very surprised if he had anything to say on that matter. I know of nothing that Peterson has said that would materially differ from what Spencer has said. Perhaps you could point out the instances in which you think they might differ. By the way, Spencer offered us a neutral and very lawyerly assessment of that recent Court decision, mainly just quoting from the decision. Where do you get the impression that he is taking either a "conservative" or "liberal" approach? Quite aside from there being no actual meaning which one can attach to the labels "conservative" and "liberal." Those are nonsense terms associated primarily with emotion and mood. They tell us nothing substantive or logical. 1
Gray Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, USU78 said: You would force me out of commerce because I don't wish to kneel before your altar. That's evil. No one is asking you to kneel before any alter. All you need to do is have some basic decency, decorum and respect and not trample the rights of other people. If that's too much to ask, you don't deserve a business license. The Baker in question is an apostate not only from the way of Jesus, but from the American creed. Edited June 5, 2018 by Gray 1
Gray Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 3 hours ago, Duncan said: So, I haven't followed this thread but can a business refuse someone based on their sexual orientation, what about a restaurant refusing 2 Mormon missionaries or a Muslim or a rabbi, what are the extents of this ruling? you can pick and choose who you serve or refuse to serve? The ruling will have no effect on any of those things. SCOTUS has weighed in only for this particular case, not for similar cases. 1
Paiute Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Public accommodations like restaurants, apartment rental, market shopping, car buying, etc., cannot refuse service to anyone based on race, religion, political views, gender, or gender preference. That is established law. This latest decision is no actual decision at all, and leaves up in the air where the line of refusal of service is to be drawn in cases of artistic work conditioned by religious or ideological views (such as baking a cake for a gay wedding). That has yet to be decided. Apparently, the courts will have to rule that a family-owned bakery is a public accomodation. Then the courts can be just like Venezuelan Dictator Nicolas Maduro: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-39278391
Thinking Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: I have been watching this case with great interest because I play in small string ensembles for weddings and receptions. For many years I have played for all sorts of religious and secular events, but if asked, I would decline to play for a same-sex marriage or reception because of my religious beliefs. My deep religious conviction is that only a marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Anything else is not, and is contrary to my beliefs. I would not perform at a plural marriage or a union between a person and an animal or an object or some other variation. I don’t believe this should end up with me in court having my violin confiscated. I developed my musical skills in order to express myself artistically and to make a living. To be forced to use my skills and art to celebrate something I find objectionable is a violation of my rights. Were I to be asked, I would simply say, “I’m sorry. I can’t. I have other obligations.” That is truthful because I have an obligation to my integrity and religious conviction. The government must not use its power to force me to to otherwise. This is an interesting case because of the artistic angle. It will be interesting to see where that artistic line is? Photographer? DJ? Chef? Venue? Rentals? 54 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Shouldn’t people be free to do just that because they are presenting an honest face to the world, not hiding or pretending to be something they are not? Patrons who are treated that way are free to find accommodation elsewhere and give the business a down vote, bad review on Yelp, or publish a viral YouTube video. Others, seeing the problems, can choose not to patronize them. Rather than starting an expensive and lengthy lawsuit, let the market and public opinion change the poor behavior. Keep the government punishment out of it. Worked for Starbucks and the NFL. This sounds a lot like some of the justifications that existed before 1964. 2
sunstoned Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 8 hours ago, smac97 said: That's profoundly coercive. "Bake me a cake or get another line of work" is nothing but coercive. How about "serve me at your lunch counter of get another line of work". If a person or business is engaged in commerce, then they cannot legally (civil rights act of 1964) discriminate. No one is forcing the baker to attend or participate in the wedding. 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I listen to Jordan Peterson a lot and I haven’t seen evidence that he would agree with many of the statements made by Smac here. Jordan Peterson got on the big map by refusing to acquiesce to government-mandated speech. Isn’t that closely related to this issue?
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Thinking said: This is an interesting case because of the artistic angle. It will be interesting to see where that artistic line is? Photographer? DJ? Chef? Venue? Rentals? This sounds a lot like some of the justifications that existed before 1964. Baker? Not justification but observation and query. Things have changed considerably since before 1964. I was there. Is it unreasonable to ask whether persuasion and market forces are better in changing behavior than government force, since social sensibilities and the powers and means of persuasion and the market have been greatly magnified since then? Look at what Starbucks did over a cup of coffee and bathrooms. Edited June 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, sunstoned said: How about "serve me at your lunch counter of get another line of work". If a person or business is engaged in commerce, then they cannot legally (civil rights act of 1964) discriminate. No one is forcing the baker to attend or participate in the wedding. Were I to get a call to provide music for a ss marriage and I decline based on my religious beliefs, should the government sue me and take my violin, maybe incarcerate or fine me? Should I be compelled to find another profession? Who has ultimate control over my time, talents, property, and labor? The baker may not be physically at the wedding, but the creative product of his labors will be. He is a participant. Edited June 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
Thinking Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said: Is it unreasonable to ask whether persuasion and market forces are better in changing behavior than government force, since the powers and abilities of persuasion and the market have been greatly magnified since then? Look at what Starbucks did over bathrooms. I definitely would not trust market forces to make social policy. 1
Bernard Gui Posted June 5, 2018 Posted June 5, 2018 22 minutes ago, Thinking said: I definitely would not trust market forces to make social policy. Government is better. 1
Recommended Posts