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

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

So do I.

My thoughts?  Pretty easy.  I follow the teachings of Christ.  He clearly taught about this very thing.  

I'm more interested in the legal side of this, not your allegiance to "the teachings of Christ."

If a person believes that following "the teachings of Christ" requires him to not speak in a particular way, do you think the government should force him to speak anyway?  To punish him if he refuses to speak in the way the government requires him to?

And that's just the "Free Exercise" angle.  What about the "Free Speech" issue?  For example, do you think Barbra Streisand should be coerced into performing for a group she dislikes?  

And what about the "Free Association" angle?  What about a caterer who does not want to provide catered food in the Folsom Street Fair?  Should others be able to sue him into oblivion because he does not want to attend or participate or support that event?

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Christ is teaching us that when the law of the land compels us to do something, our responsibility  is to do more than we are compelled to do by law.  So if a Jewish videographer is approached by a rabid anti-semitic group to record a promotional/recruiting video for their cause, if he wants to follow the teachings of Christ, he should do even more than is asked of him to do.  He should absolutely put his best work forward.

And the government will punishment if he chooses not to do these things.  Is that your view?

Quote

Same applies.  The person who despises the LDS Church if he is a disciple of Christ, he should paint the very best portrait of Joseph Smith that he can possibly paint.  

But what if he doesn't want to?  What if it violates his conscience?  What he wants to have the choice to paint or not to paint?  To speak or not to speak?  Do you think the government should take that choice away from him?  

Quote

I think the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated the baker unfairly.  

What are your thoughts about the Commission's treatment of the subsequent cases (referenced repeatedly in yesterday's decision)?  Were those correctly decided, in your view?

Quote

The Supreme Court decision was right on the mark.  But it doesn't answer my question, and neither did you.  

What question?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 5, 2018 by smac97

[california boy]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some would, some would not.

The question is whether they should be coerced by the government, under threat of fine and financial destruction, to "play at a gay wedding."

Given the way some people dislike the LDS Church, I doubt anyone would be surprised that they would not want to provide creative services designed to advance the interests of the LDS Church.  Do you think that such persons should nevertheless be forced by the government, under threat of fine, to do so?

Thanks,

-Smac

I owned my own business most of my adult life.  Occasionally I would be asked to do something that I really didn't want to do by a client that I didn't necessarily want to work for.  But I was in business.  I signed up to serve the public.  I am proud that I did my very best on every assignment that was given to me.  I think the Civil Rights Act made America a better place.  I like that discrimination has become unacceptable for the most part.  A large part of this change has been because the government forced businesses to treat every customer with respect and dignity.  

Like I said in the above post, I think Christ has told us exactly what our response should be when the government forces us to do something that we may not want to do.  I honestly don't respect any christian who will not serve someone because of who they are.  Nor do I think a business has a right to control the product they sell to the public once it leaves the store.  This is a subject that we should be more Christ like in how we approach it.  I wish more Mormons would stand up for what is right on this issue.   I understand others see this issue differently.  I am having a hard time understanding how they can apply the clear teachings of Christ on this issue and not follow His example.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.  The question here, though, is whether nondiscrimination and public accommodations laws, as applied to Mr. Phillips, run afoul of the Free Exercise clause, the Free Speech clause, the Free Association clause, and/or the Equal Protection clause.

I would also hope that "reasonable protections for the religious community" would likewise be on your radar.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, absolutely, and I think we need to find a balance that works best for everyone.  I do want religious freedoms to be upheld, and I get the impression that this is an important priority from Judge Kennedy as well.  I also think we have to be careful to not use the claim to religious freedom as a mechanism for discrimination against the marginalized.  This is the debate society is having today.  

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the government will punishment if he chooses not to do these things.  Is that your view?

I think that is exactly what the Roman government would have done if someone would not have carried the soldiers arms for a mile as compelled to by law.  The question is not what the law should do, but how Christians should respond to that law.  

 

Quote

But what if he doesn't want to?  What if it violates his conscience?  What he wants to have the choice to paint or not to paint?  To speak or not to speak?  Do you think the government should take that choice away from him?  

I think I already answered that question.  Follow the teachings of Christ no matter what the law compels one to do, do more than is asked.  

Now if someone wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act, then there is a way to do that legally through the framework of our form of government.  But until those laws are repealed, then there is really only one course a follower of Christ should follow.  

Quote

What question?

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you think a business has a constitutional right to determine what happens to the products they sell once it leaves their store?

Edited June 5, 2018 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

I never even mentioned you in my post.  RATHER than making it personal I referred to all Mormons.  My comment was directly related to what you posted, so it was not a derail.  You made a personal post about how you personally would never play at a gay wedding and then you took my post as personal.  The problem is entirely yours.  You keep accusing me of doing something that I am not doing.  I asked you what insult I hurled at you.  You came up empty handed.  What should stop is your continued false accusations that you seem to easily hurl at me without any basis for them.  

You got two options here.  Quit posting personal posts, so others won't comment on what you wrote.  Or ignore my responses to your posts.  But to continually telling me to stop posting in a forum that is designed to do exactly that is something you should not be doing.  If you think someone is making this personal, the first place you should look is in the mirror.  Re read my post.  I said nothing about you personally, nor did I post an insult to you.  Now look at both of your posts directed at me.  BOTH of them are personally directed at me for something I never said or did.   It is getting annoying.   I am moving on.  I will continue to reply to this thread and the discussion that is being addressed.  Further posts directed personally at me will be ignored by me.  

Uh, no. I posted a sincere question about my interest in the story about the baker, described my position, how it might relate to me as a musician, and asked if I might be subject to the same treatment. You responded:

Quote

Given the way the Church treats gays, I doubt anyone would be surprised that s Mormon would not play at a gay wedding

i doubt anyone would be surprised if a Mormon refused to sit at a table where a gay married couple was sitting. 

And here we are once again on the derail. Why not just ask me to clarify what I meant? It's easy. You could say, "I understand your concern. Is it because you dislike gay people?"

Instead, you used my honest and open post to obliquely denigrate the Church and me and springboard to the assertion that there is no question such a bigot as I would mistreat gay people and refuse to sit at a table with a gay married couple. Both assertions are untrue and vile. I expect an apology.

If you can't see that, there's no hope for meaningful and respectful communication. It that is beyond your capability, then I go for option 2. Ignore permanently.

In the meantime, while you think about that, do you believe a musician who declines to play at an event that may be contrary to his beliefs should be penalized by the government? It would appear that you do, and that is really scary.

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I owned my own business most of my adult life.  Occasionally I would be asked to do something that I really didn't want to do by a client that I didn't necessarily want to work for.  But I was in business.  I signed up to serve the public.  I am proud that I did my very best on every assignment that was given to me.  I think the Civil Rights Act made America a better place.  I like that discrimination has become unacceptable for the most part.  A large part of this change has been because the government forced businesses to treat every customer with respect and dignity.  

You seem to be dodging the issue.  Here it is again: Given the way some people dislike the LDS Church, I doubt anyone would be surprised that they would not want to provide creative services designed to advance the interests of the LDS Church.  Do you think that such persons should nevertheless be forced by the government, under threat of fine, to do so?

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Like I said in the above post, I think Christ has told us exactly what our response should be when the government forces us to do something that we may not want to do.  

So you would have no objection to a reversion to only heterosexual marriage?  You would be okay with the government forcing a gay man to "divorce" his spouse (or else the government would simply deem the marriage a nullity)?  You'd be okay with that because when the government calls the tune, it is your duty to unquestioningly submit to it?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

How is this coercion any different than all the other laws we have to obey as a civilized society.  Are you morally outraged about taxes, or about civil rights, or how about the DMV?  I can get behind some DMV outrage.  

I'm not sure how my thoughts about the DMV or taxes or civil rights has anything to do with being contracted to play at a wedding. I pay self-employment taxes on those earnings, I have a valid license with an awful picture on it, and I have supported civil rights since I became aware of the movement in the early 1960s. Is there something you are trying to say?

Not sure how expressing a concern about an issue that made it to the Supreme Court that could have ramifications for me indicates some sort of moral outrage. I have already stated that I have absolutely no animus towards the participants of a ss ceremony, or as one poster suggested, towards people sitting at a table with me. 

 So, are you arguing that the government can or should punish a musician who declines to give his services for an event which may be contrary to his moral values? Is this your position?

[Bernard Gui]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

I agree that there are SOME on the left that handled the issue in Berkeley wrong in my opinion.  But I don't think I would label it as a problem with the entire left.  Does that seem fair?

My response would be similar to yours.  I would simply not attend a speech by someone who spews hatred.

Should the government force you to attend?

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, absolutely, and I think we need to find a balance that works best for everyone.  I do want religious freedoms to be upheld, and I get the impression that this is an important priority from Judge Kennedy as well.  I also think we have to be careful to not use the claim to religious freedom as a mechanism for discrimination against the marginalized.  This is the debate society is having today.  

Who was marginalized? The baker, the couple, or both?

When a person starts a business or offers a service, does he or she thereby relinquish all control over who can demand those services?

Edited June 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm more interested in the legal side of this, not your allegiance to "the teachings of Christ."

Why?  Because you keep making this an issue of religion.  Isn't that what the controversy is all about?  Yet you want to leave Christ out of it?  I don't get that approach at all.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If a person believes that following "the teachings of Christ" requires him to not speak in a particular way, do you think the government should force him to speak anyway?  To punish him if he refuses to speak in the way the government requires him to?

I don't know what you are referring to.  How is the government forcing someone to speak?

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And that's just the "Free Exercise" angle.  What about the "Free Speech" issue?  For example, do you think Barbra Streisand should be coerced into performing for a group she dislikes?  

If Barbra Streisand gives birthday performances as part of the services she offers to the general public, then yes, she should be compelled to offer that service to anyone who pays her asking price.  That is how the law is currently written.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And what about the "Free Association" angle?  What about a caterer who does not want to provide catered food in the Folsom Street Fair?  Should others be able to sue him into oblivion because he does not want to attend or participate or support that event?

You actually have to pay to be a vendor at the Folsom Street Fair.  Try again.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And the government will punishment if he chooses not to do these things.  Is that your view?

Yes, there are laws against discrimination.  Just because you have religious beliefs doesn't mean you have a right to break the law.  If you want to change the laws, then you are free to do so.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But what if he doesn't want to?  What if it violates his conscience?  What he wants to have the choice to paint or not to paint?  To speak or not to speak?  Do you think the government should take that choice away from him?  

Like I said in a previous thread.  When you sign up to open a business, sometimes you are required by law to do things that you don't want to do.  It doesn't mean you can break the law when you don't feel like you need to comply with the law of the land.  There are always consequences for breaking the law.  Just because you are religious does not mean you are exempt from breaking the law of the land.

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about the Commission's treatment of the subsequent cases (referenced repeatedly in yesterday's decision)?  Were those correctly decided, in your view?

What question?

Thanks,

-Smac

Honestly, I am not familiar enough with other cases that you are referring to.  If they are treating others unfairly, then the person has every right to repeal their judgements.  The one thing you can say about the Masterpiece case,  our system of government worked for him.

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, absolutely, and I think we need to find a balance that works best for everyone.  I do want religious freedoms to be upheld, and I get the impression that this is an important priority from Judge Kennedy as well.  I also think we have to be careful to not use the claim to religious freedom as a mechanism for discrimination against the marginalized.  This is the debate society is having today.  

Who was marginalized? The baker, the couple, or both?

When a person starts a business or offers a service, does he or she thereby relinquish all control over who can demand those services?

I'm talking about the LGBT community in this context.  

Yes, businesses have to follow certain rules that society has determined are for the public good and have been implemented in the form of laws in our country.  I get a little uncomfortable hearing arguments that businesses have the right to choose who they will service, because our racist history in this country.  Are you in favor of the progress made via the civil rights movement?  

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I agree that there are SOME on the left that handled the issue in Berkeley wrong in my opinion.  But I don't think I would label it as a problem with the entire left.  Does that seem fair?

My response would be similar to yours.  I would simply not attend a speech by someone who spews hatred.

Yes, it is not all the Left, but it is a definite part of the Left's MO on college campuses.  Are you aware of the Right acting in a like manner?  Specifically, violently opposing and preventing others from speaking?  

 

[california boy]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be dodging the issue.  Here it is again: Given the way some people dislike the LDS Church, I doubt anyone would be surprised that they would not want to provide creative services designed to advance the interests of the LDS Church.  Do you think that such persons should nevertheless be forced by the government, under threat of fine, to do so?

How can you say I have dodged the question.  I have answered this question several times.  Yes the person should be compelled to obey the laws of the land.  If they don't like the law, then repeal it.  But just because you disagree with the LDS Church does not give you the right to break the law and not have consequences such as paying fines.  

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So you would have no objection to a reversion to only heterosexual marriage?  You would be okay with the government forcing a gay man to "divorce" his spouse (or else the government would simply deem the marriage a nullity)?  You'd be okay with that because when the government calls the tune, it is your duty to unquestioningly submit to it?  

Thanks,

-Smac

The Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was a guaranteed right under the Consitition of the United States under the equal protection clause.  If there was enough support to pass an amendment to the Constitution that specifically prohibited gay marriage, then yes, I would be ok with that.  We choose to live in America.  Part of that choice is to obey the laws of the land or face the consequences for breaking those laws.  Would I fight against such a movement?  Absolutely.  That is also part of my right as an American.

[california boy]

42 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Uh, no. I posted a sincere question about my interest in the story about the baker, described my position, how it might relate to me as a musician, and asked if I might be subject to the same treatment. You responded:

And here we are once again on the derail. Why not just ask me to clarify what I meant? It's easy. You could say, "I understand your concern. Is it because you dislike gay people?"

Instead, you used my honest and open post to obliquely denigrate the Church and me and springboard to the assertion that there is no question such a bigot as I would mistreat gay people and refuse to sit at a table with a gay married couple. Both assertions are untrue and vile. I expect an apology.

If you can't see that, there's no hope for meaningful and respectful communication. It that is beyond your capability, then I go for option 2. Ignore permanently.

In the meantime, while you think about that, do you believe a musician who declines to play at an event that may be contrary to his beliefs should be penalized by the government? It would appear that you do, and that is really scary.

 

You don't really want me to respond to your posts.  So why are you asking?

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Yes, it is not all the Left, but it is a definite part of the Left's MO on college campuses.  Are you aware of the Right acting in a like manner?  Specifically, violently opposing and preventing others from speaking?  

 

Quote

 

The Unite the Right rally, also known as the Charlottesville rally, Charlottesville riots,^[4] or A12,^[5] was a far-right rally that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States, from August 11 to 12, 2017.^[6][7] Its stated goal was to oppose the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park.^[8][9] Organizer Nathan Damigo said the rally was intended to unify the white nationalist movement in the United States.^[10] Protesters included white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and various militias. Some of the marchers chanted racist and antisemitic slogans, carried semi-automatic rifles, swastikas, Confederate battle flags, and anti-Muslimand antisemitic banners.^[9][11][12]

The rally occurred amidst the backdrop of controversy generated by the removal of Confederate monuments throughout the country in response to the Charleston church shooting in 2015.^[13] The event turned violent after protesters clashed with counter-protesters, leaving over 30 injured.^[14][15] On the morning of August 12, Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency, stating that public safety could not be safeguarded without additional powers. Within an hour, the Virginia State Police declared the assembly to be unlawful.^[9] At around 1:45 p.m., a man linked to white-supremacist groups rammed his car into a crowd of counter-protesters about 0.5 miles (0.8 km) away from the rally site, killing one person and injuring 19. The alleged perpetrator, James Alex Fields Jr., was arrested and charged with second-degree murder.^[9][16] Attorney General Jeff Sessionsdescribed the attack as domestic terrorism, and authorities began a civil rightsinvestigation to determine if the driver will be tried under hate crime statutes.^[17]

US President Donald Trump's remarks on Charlottesville received significant negative attention. In his initial statement on the rally, Trump did not denounce white nationalists explicitly, instead condemning "hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". His statement and his subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", were seen by critics as implying moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them, and were interpreted by many as a sign that he was sympathetic to white supremacy.^[11]

 

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Anijen said:

I love competition it provides better service, better products at cheaper prices. However, I do not think competition is at issue here. 

Lets say Picasso was the best painter and his quality of work is never surpassed. Do you feel it would be right to force Picasso to make an artistic work and then force him to sell it to you?

I do not think there should be force, but I do not believe a reasonable penalty compensating deprived people for their loss of opportunity (physical or financial damages, not emotional ones) would be wrong. Of course, what would be reasonable would be debated.  For example, if one was the only wedding cake maker in a small town and the nearest comparable option was 45 minutes away...gas, time spent, and any additional costs the couple would have to pay might be required from the baker who refused them...but I am iffy on things that are not essential to life, but add quality.

much later add-on:  not sure how this could be achieved in our world, I don't trust committees to be fair to all parties all the time, plus the cost to judge adds a big burden to society in general.  

Edited June 6, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why?  Because you keep making this an issue of religion.  Isn't that what the controversy is all about?  Yet you want to leave Christ out of it?  I don't get that approach at all.

It's too subjective.  The discussion here is more about legal issues, about what Free Exercise and Free Speech and Free Association and Equal Protection mean, and less about subject interpretations about what Jesus wants us to do.

You and I differ about what Jesus would want.  I'm unlikely to persuade you, and you're unlikely to persuade me.  

For what it's worth, I think Jesus inspired the Constitution, and that laws that infringe upon the Free Exercise of religion, and would not advocate that the government should coerce people into participating in events they find morally objectionable.

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't know what you are referring to.  How is the government forcing someone to speak?

Artistic expression is form of speech.  The government coercing a private actor into using their artistic skills to "speak" in ways the actor doesn't want to speak is a violation of the Free Speech clause.  We are entitled to say what we want.  We are also free to not be coerced by the government into saying things we don't want to say.

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

If Barbra Streisand gives birthday performances as part of the services she offers to the general public, then yes, she should be compelled to offer that service to anyone who pays her asking price.  

Wow.  

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

That is how the law is currently written.

No, it's not.  You apparently have not read yesterday's decision, or the cases referenced in them (do a search for "Jack").  No need to read those other decisions, I think.  Just read the summaries in yesterday's decision about how those other decisions came down.  The Commission said that bakers can refuse to provide cakes with messages they deem offensive (but apparently only when the messages are anti-gay).

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

You actually have to pay to be a vendor at the Folsom Street Fair.  Try again.

I wasn't thinking of being a vendor, but okay: What about a caterer who does not want to provide catered food for an event relating to the Folsom Street Fair (that is, catering an orgy in a nearby building)?  Should others be able to sue him into oblivion because he does not want to attend or participate or support that event?

49 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes, there are laws against discrimination.  Just because you have religious beliefs doesn't mean you have a right to break the law.  If you want to change the laws, then you are free to do so.

Like I said in a previous thread.  When you sign up to open a business, sometimes you are required by law to do things that you don't want to do.  It doesn't mean you can break the law when you don't feel like you need to comply with the law of the land.  There are always consequences for breaking the law.  Just because you are religious does not mean you are exempt from breaking the law of the land.

Nobody is suggesting that.  We are suggesting that the law itself is bad.  That the law, as applied and interpreted, is bad.  That the law violates the constitutional rights of Mr. Phillips and people like him.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

Agreed.  The question here, though, is whether nondiscrimination and public accommodations laws, as applied to Mr. Phillips, run afoul of the Free Exercise clause, the Free Speech clause, the Free Association clause, and/or the Equal Protection clause.

I would also hope that "reasonable protections for the religious community" would likewise be on your radar.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, absolutely, and I think we need to find a balance that works best for everyone. 

I am glad we can agree on that.  What do you think that would entail?  For me, I think a vibrant protection of our individual rights to Free Speech, Free Exercise, Free Association, and Equal Protection call for a pretty substantial change to the weaponized use of public accommodations laws against religious people like Mr. Phillips.

I also think public accommodations laws should be limited to a closed set of necessary goods and services (food, clothing, housing/shelter, education, transportation, medicine and medical care, etc.), but that otherwise individuals and businesses should be free to do business, or not do business, with whomever they like.  Let the free market take care of things.  (I'll call this the "Shapiro Doctrine," in honor of Ben Shapiro - see here).

For example, consider Di-ck's Sporting Goods recent decision to not sell "assault-style rifles."  While I disagree with Di-ck's decision, I think it is theirs to make.  I would strongly oppose any state legislation that would require them to carry "assault-style rifles," that would fine them for failing to do so.  Moreover, a pawn shop in South Carolina chose to take advantage of Di-ck's decision to bolster their sales of rifles:

I thought that was kind of funny (if also a bit crass), but it illustrates how the free market steps in to fill gaps in supply.  Di-ck's doesn't want to sell "assault-stile rifles?"  No problem!  Plenty of other places will gladly step in, make the sales that Di-ck's is foregoing, and take the money that Di-ck's is choosing not to earn.

So it should be with Mr. Phillips.  He doesn't want to decorate a cake with a message he finds morally objectionable?  No problem!  Plenty of other places will gladly step in, do the decorating Mr. Phillips is foregoing, and take the money that Mr. Phillips is choosing not to earn.

I'm a big fan of the Free Market.  And I'm an even bigger fan of Free Exercise.  And Free Speech.  And Free Association.  And Equal Protection.  Mr. Phillips didn't get any of these things (well the "Free Association" thing maybe).  

Quote

I do want religious freedoms to be upheld, and I get the impression that this is an important priority from Judge Kennedy as well. 

I'd like to think that, too.

Quote

I also think we have to be careful to not use the claim to religious freedom as a mechanism for discrimination against the marginalized.  This is the debate society is having today.  

I think we need to have a discussion about "discrimination" as a word.  I think we need to understand that it's only bad when it's modified with and adjective "illegal" or "invidious."  The NFL "discriminates" against me by not letting me be on their football team, but obviously that's not bad or unlawful.

Even the execrable Colorado Civil Rights Commission gets this.  Note this bit from the SCOTUS decision:

Quote

Indeed, while enforcement proceedings against Phillips were ongoing, the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages.

So these other three bakers discriminated in the same way that Mr. Phillips did (in that all four actors refused to decorate cakes which they found morally objectionable), and yet they were deemed to have "acted lawfully" when they "discriminated" in this way.

Consider Justice Gorsuch's assessment (in his concurring opinion) (emphases added):

Quote

A full view of the facts helps point the way to the problem.  Start with William Jack’s case. ...

The facts show that the two cases share all legally salient features. In both cases, the effect on the customer was the same: bakers refused service to persons who bore a statutorily protected trait (religious faith or sexual orientation).  But in both cases the bakers refused service intending only to honor a personal conviction. To be sure, the bakers knew their conduct promised the effect of leaving a customer in a protected class unserved. But there’s no indication the bakers actually intended to refuse service because of a customer’s protected characteristic. We know this because all of the bakers explained without contradiction that they would not sell the requested cakes to anyone, while they would sell other cakes to members of the protected class (as well as to anyone else). So, for example, the bakers in the first case would have refused to sell a cake denigrating same-sex marriage to an atheist customer, just as the baker in the second case would have refused to sell a cake celebrating same-sex marriage to a heterosexual customer. And the bakers in the first case were generally happy to sell to persons of faith, just as the baker in the second case was generally happy to sell to gay persons. In both cases, it was the kind of cake, not the kind of customer, that mattered to the bakers. 

...

The real explanation for the Commission’s discrimination soon comes clear, too—and it does anything but help its cause. This isn’t a case where the Commission selfconsciously announced a change in its legal rule in all public accommodation cases. Nor is this a case where the Commission offered some persuasive reason for its discrimination that might survive strict scrutiny. Instead, as the Court explains, it appears the Commission wished to condemn Mr. Phillips for expressing just the kind of “irrational” or “offensive . . . message” that the bakers in the first case refused to endorse. 

...

The Commission cannot have it both ways. The Commission cannot slide up and down the mens rea scale, picking a mental state standard to suit its tastes depending on its sympathies. Either actual proof of intent to discriminate on the basis of membership in a protected class is required (as the Commission held in Mr. Jack’s case), or it is sufficient to “presume” such intent from the knowing failure to serve someone in a protected class (as the Commission held in Mr. Phillips’s case). 

This is a big red flag for me, in terms of Equal Protection.  Religious folks are not getting the same rights as other people.

My preference is for more liberty at the individual level, which would allow individuals to use their personal preferences and constitutional rights (Free Speech, Free Association, etc.) to do business, or not do business, with anyone they please (except for necessaries).  And yes, that means that people who hate Mormons could decline to provide Mormons with non-necessary goods and services, on the grounds that the erswhile recipient is a Mormon.  The free market would take care of such things.  So if someone like who dislikes Mormons doesn't want to do business with Mormons, then I don't think he should be coerced by the government into doing so.

And if a Christian baker does not want to use his artistic skills to engage in "speech" that he finds morally offensive, then I don't think he should be coerced by the government into doing so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 5, 2018 by smac97

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I never even mentioned you in my post.  RATHER than making it personal I referred to all Mormons.

No other Mormon here (or probably anywhere) is talking about performing for a ss wedding. Who were you referring to?

Edited June 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm talking about the LGBT community in this context.  

Yes, businesses have to follow certain rules that society has determined are for the public good and have been implemented in the form of laws in our country.  I get a little uncomfortable hearing arguments that businesses have the right to choose who they will service, because our racist history in this country.  Are you in favor of the progress made via the civil rights movement?  

Asked and answered.

I get a little uncomfortable hearing arguments that I should be sued, fined, or imprisoned because I decline to play for a wedding. Are you in favor of that?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You don't really want me to respond to your posts.  So why are you asking?

Of course I want you to respond to my posts. I'm hoping against hope that you will respond favorably to the olive branch I extended recently in a private message. I suggested we could engage in civil conversation while disagreeing. I still hold that hope. Can we? Let's try again.

Do you think the government should penalize a musician who declines to play for a ss ceremony for religious reasons? Do think I should be sanctioned if I declined to play because I do not want to participate in a ceremony to which I have moral objections? Can you answer without calling me a bigot or questioning who I choose to sit with at a table?

Edited June 5, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[strappinglad]

Does a sign on a restaurant saying " No shirt  No shoes  No Service " carry any legal weight ? Sounds like discrimination but maybe not against a protected class, but against white male homeless types. What if the sign read " No tattoos , No skin piercings , No service ". Again , discriminatory but not against a protected class so it's OK but now the establishment will start to lose more customers.

Where would  SCOTUS come down if a Muslim baker refused to make a cake that was to have the phrase ," God has bacon for breakfast " on it ?

I forgot to say that the customer was a disabled black woman.

Edited June 5, 2018 by strappinglad

[Anijen]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

I do not think there should be force, but I do not believe a reasonable penalty compensating deprived people for their loss of opportunity (physical or financial damages, not emotional ones) would be wrong. Of course, what would be reasonable would be debated.  For example, if one was the only wedding cake maker in a small town and the nearest comparable option was 45 minutes away...gas, time spent, and any additional costs the couple would have to pay might be required from the baker who refused them...but I am iffy on things that are not essential to life, but add quality.

Emphasis mine.

 

Calm, I almost always agree with you and I think we are really close here too. I have highlighted two of your statements that appear to me to be contrary, although I could be wrong (have been many times).

Requiring the local baker to compensate a customer for additional costs of going to another baker from a more distant location is in effect forcing compliance to a law that is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Furthermore if that decision was based on religious objections or based on compelled speech, both which violates the local bakers constitutional rights seems that forced reimbursement of money to a customer he never serviced. 

If you didn't like the employees at a close gas station (because they were rude and mean and said bad things about you) and you traveled to a more distant gas station choosing to patronage the more distant gas station, what would give you the right to have the government force the local gas station to reimburse you?

To me I would allow the free market put the local gas station out of business, because nobody would go there because their service is rude, mean, and they say bad things about their customers. We do not need to have the government force the mean gas station to reimburse us because our feeling were hurt . That would in effect cause massive litigation for our feelings being hurt and invite everyone who disagrees with a certain political or religious ideology to pay a fine to the people who do not think or believe the way that the government wants them to.

In short this type of reasoning will make us pay if our beliefs and thoughts do not coincide with other peoples contrary beliefs.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Does a sign on a restaurant saying " No shirt  No shoes  No Service " carry any legal weight ? Sounds like discrimination but maybe not against a protected class, but against white male homeless types. 

Homeless in general perhaps given females might go without shoes as well even if unlikely to be shirtless, but less likely to be homeless imo than a male teen or young adult walking around in the heat without a shirt and little kids are the ones most without shoes in my experience.  So that is a very generic sign.

No shoes is a safety issue, so probably carries weight.  Don't know about shirtless.  Maybe hygienic if a restaurant with chairs/booths as bare skin in contact with such would transfer sweat at least.

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Emphasis mine.

 

Calm, I almost always agree with you and I think we are really close here too. I have highlighted two of your statements that appear to me to be contrary, although I could be wrong (have been many times).

Requiring the local baker to compensate a customer for additional costs of going to another baker from a more distant location is in effect forcing compliance to a law that is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Furthermore if that decision was based on religious objections or based on compelled speech, both which violates the local bakers constitutional rights seems that forced reimbursement of money to a customer he never serviced. 

If you didn't like the employees at a close gas station (because they were rude and mean and said bad things about you) and you traveled to a more distant gas station choosing to patronage the more distant gas station, what would give you the right to have the government force the local gas station to reimburse you?

To me I would allow the free market put the local gas station out of business, because nobody would go there because their service is rude, mean, and they say bad things about their customers. We do not need to have the government force the mean gas station to reimburse us because our feeling were hurt .

How someone serves you is very different from a complete refusal of service.  If the local gas station refused to give you gas and you had to drive ten miles to go to another station, you are out of money and time not because of your own "personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".

I define "force" in economic interactions in the sense of requiring in some fashion where no compromise is possible something they have significant personal standards against.  Giving someone compensation for financial (and only financial) loss may be undesirable to them, but does not need to involve them personally.  Unless they can prove they have never paid or given money to  or been paid or accepted money from to a particular class, paying compensation through an exchange of money would not be classed in personal principles, imo.

As I added to my post above, this may be an impossible ideal to implement, though I would basically require records of costs of products, documentation of comparable value/quality, hours added (minimum wage most likely unless the time involved could be proved to cut into work time, even if the person is much better paid) and other additional costs.  No damages for hurt feelings.

Edited June 6, 2018 by Calm