A Solid Win for Free Speech and Religious Liberty (8th Circuit Case)

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Nope.

Nor should a gay singer/songwriter be forced to compose music and perform for the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you disagree?

 

Obviously. Because serving lunch doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment. The government isn't forcing someone to say something or to not say something. 

While it's actually a bit more complicated than this, when it comes to these anti-discrimination cases I think it's helpful to first decide whether we are talking about something that involves speech (where 1A may come into play) or if we're just talking about widgets. 

If you sell Almond Toffee Symphony bars at your grocery store (because they are delicious and will likely sell like hotcakes), well, those are widgets. So, if you live in a jurisdiction with an anti-discrimination statute, then you have to sell those tasty treats to everyone. 

But what if you aren't a grocery store owner. What if you are a freelance writer instead. What you are selling isn't really just a widget now - it's your speech. And the First Amendment protects your right to speak along with your write to not speak. As such, you should be able to refuse to write items praising the Catholic Church even if you generally takes commissions to write items praising other religious groups. Just like you should be able to refuse to write items supportive of one political party even though you write items supportive of another. 

 

 

And what if it is a generic wedding cake?

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

And what if it is a generic wedding cake?

Would those who made it know what kind of marriage it was... SSM vs the one and only proper form of marriage???

Edited August 29, 2019 by Ahab

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Would those who made it know what kind of marriage it was... SSM vs the one and only proper form of marriage???

Ugh 

A SSM is just as legal and "proper" as a heterosexual marriage.  These are they types of statements that should not even be a part of this discussion (which has been great so far for the most part, IMO.) 
 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Would those who made it know what kind of marriage it was... SSM vs the one and only proper form of marriage???

Why would that matter?  Is a gay couple expected to hide the fact that they are getting married?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Ugh 

A SSM is just as legal and "proper" as a heterosexual marriage.  These are they types of statements that should not even be a part of this discussion (which has been great so far for the most part, IMO.) 
 

My question was germane to the california boy's question.  It questions what the cake makers had in mind as the purpose for that cake when they made that wedding cake. As a form of expression or speech, what they had in mind could make a difference.

Imagine the cake makers were 2 women and when they made it they had in their mind that it would be for a man and a woman who were getting married, and that was in their minds as the one and only proper form of marriage when they made it.

To then have 2 men come along and say they wanted it for their same sex marriage would be contrary to what they had in their minds when they made that wedding cake.  They would then think something like: No, this isn't for that kind of marriage, we didn't make it for that!

So what they had in their minds could make a difference.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My question was germane to the california boy's question.  It questions what the cake makers had in mind as the purpose for that cake when they made that wedding cake. As a form of expression or speech, what they had in mind could make a difference.

I understand that, but it's insulting to phrase it as you did and I'd imagine you know why.  A SSM is very much a legal and proper marriage.  You may not be in favor or SSM, but that does not change that fact.

[Ahab]

Just now, ALarson said:

I understand that, but it's insulting to phrase it as you did and I'd imagine you know why.  A SSM is very much a legal and proper marriage.  You may not be in favor or SSM, but that does not change that fact.

I had to say something about it to show the difference in thought, now that SSM is a legal form of marriage.  Legal isn't the same thing as proper, just as what is legal isn't the same thing as what is good.

And whether you agree or not, there are many, many people who feel that SSM marriage isn't really the way a marriage is supposed to be.  They feel it is not proper, and not good, even though it is now legal on this planet.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I had to say something about it to show the difference in thought, now that SSM is a legal form of marriage. 

Ok.  But when you state "the one and only", that's not true.  It may be your opinion, but it's an insult or put down....please don't pretend it's not.

You can differentiate between heterosexual marriages and same sex marriages just by using the terms I just did in this sentence.  There's really no need to go back and forth on this or for you to continue acting like you don't know what I'm talking about either (or attempt to justify the insult).

Edited August 29, 2019 by ALarson

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  But when you state "the one and only", that's not true.  It may be your opinion, but it's an insult or put down....please don't pretend it's not.

You can differentiate between heterosexual marriages and same sex marriages just by using the terms I just did in this sentence.  There's really no need to go back and forth on this or for you to continue acting like you don't know what I'm talking about either (or attempt to justify the insult).

You can consider it an insult as much as you want but my point was that the cake makers may have felt there was only one proper form of marriage and that is between a man and a woman.  And they are free to express that sentiment when they make their cakes.

They are not required to feel that all forms of marriage are equal, even though you may choose to feel that way.  And I am not required to feel that same sex marriage is a proper form of marriage, either.  I do not feel it is proper and I have the right to not only feel this way but to express my feelings in words and actions according to the Constitution of the United States of America, 

I do know what you are talking about and I simply do not agree with you.

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My question was germane to the california boy's question.  It questions what the cake makers had in mind as the purpose for that cake when they made that wedding cake. As a form of expression or speech, what they had in mind could make a difference.

Imagine the cake makers were 2 women and when they made it they had in their mind that it would be for a man and a woman who were getting married, and that was in their minds as the one and only proper form of marriage when they made it.

To then have 2 men come along and say they wanted it for their same sex marriage would be contrary to what they had in their minds when they made that wedding cake.  They would then think something like: No, this isn't for that kind of marriage, we didn't make it for that!

So what they had in their minds could make a difference.

Except I specifically asked about a generic wedding cake. Frosting and a border around the edge. No wedding topper

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You can consider it an insult as much as you want but my point was that the cake makers may have felt there was only one proper form of marriage and that is between a man and a woman.  And they are free to express that sentiment when they make their cakes.

Oh...ok.  You were only speaking for the baker.  That wasn't clear and it was still insulting how you phrased it (but I'm sure you know that)....

 

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Except I specifically asked about a generic wedding cake. Frosting and a border around the edge. No wedding topper

I think you're talking about the cake's physical appearance, like what if it had nothing on it to distinguish what type of wedding the bakers had in mind when they made it.  But the physical appearance of the cake isn't the only thing that makes that cake a form of expression or speech of those who made it.  What they had in mind when they made it also makes a difference.  If they had in their minds when they made it that it was for a man and a woman getting married, then that cake was not intended to be used for a same sex marriage.

And according to my understanding of this court's ruling, and the Constitution of the United States, bakers are not required to give their wedding cakes to same sex couples to be used for their same sex weddings if they did not intend that cake to be used for a SSM.

[provoman]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Except I specifically asked about a generic wedding cake. Frosting and a border around the edge. No wedding topper

I want to be clear, I do not mean the following as being flippant.

I think you raise a good point, and from a speech perspective should frosting and bordering be considered artistic expression?  Or is frosting and bordering banal as to not be "expressive"? While I do not particular like quoting fiction, in this instance I think the quote is applicable " “there is a bit of every artist in their work” ~ Dr. Ana Stelline, Blade Runner 2049

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Did you miss the part where I said that I would bake the cake?   And I think it's more than a little overwrought to say that religious people are promoting hate when all they really want is to be free from the government telling them which views are Crimethink and which are not, and that they must promote the proper, government-sponsored, "correct" view.

Of course I missed.  I didn't see your response.  Good to know, kenngo.  I struck out hate.  I think it goes along with what people feel, but I don't know that it's quite the right word when we speak of intentions.  

Peace to you.  

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think you're talking about the cake's physical appearance, like what if it had nothing on it to distinguish what type of wedding the bakers had in mind when they made it.  But the physical appearance of the cake isn't the only thing that makes that cake a form of expression or speech of those who made it.  What they had in mind when they made it also makes a difference.  If they had in their minds when they made it that it was for a man and a woman getting married, then that cake was not intended to be used for a same sex marriage.

And according to my understanding of this court's ruling, and the Constitution of the United States, bakers are not required to give their wedding cakes to same sex couples to be used for their same sex weddings if they did not intend that cake to be used for a SSM.

What if the wedding cake is sitting in the display case and a gay couple asks to buy the cake for their wedding.  Should the baker be required to sell the cake?

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

What if the wedding cake is sitting in the display case and a gay couple asks to buy the cake for their wedding.  Should the baker be required to sell the cake?

That was the whole point of the case, as I understand it.  And the court basically ruled that No, they are not required to sell it to people who they did not make the cake their product for.  If the bakers makers didn't have any specific type of people in mind though when they made their wedding cake product, that it could be for anybody for any type of wedding event, then I think they would be required to sell it to them unless somebody else had already spoken for it.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Ahab

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

It is true that in the theoretical world of free markets, this is how things work.  But in reality, markets are horribly inefficient and may not produce desirable outcomes.  

I’m not talking about a theoretical market. I’m talking about an actual market: the market for wedding services; specifically, the market for wedding videography services. And if we’re going to be really specific, it’s the market for wedding videography services in St. Cloud, MN – since that is where the involved company is located.

Let’s look at that market. Is Telescope Media the only game in town? Nope. Not by a long shot. There are plenty of other choices. In fact, LGBT-owned Luke Payne Photography seems like it would be a pretty good option if you were looking for someone to record your wedding.  

 

Quote

Let's take your assertion that services will pop up to meet the needs of a "portion of the population."  But what if that "portion" is too small to warrant any rational investment?  There are, for example, extremely rare genetic diseases that impact only a few hundred thousand people on the planet at any given time.  A free market will never meet their needs because it is not viable to develop treatments for such a small market.  By comparison, the market incentive to develop cancer treatments is very large because there are lots of cancer patients.  Should we simply go on without researching cures for small numbers of people simply because the free market won't do it as a matter of course?  No.  That would be silly.  And this is one reason we need the government to regulate free and fair markets.

First off, I want to congratulate you on being able to stay awake through Econ 101. Depending on where you went to school that may have been no small task. Here’s the thing about free markets though – they are designed to produce efficiencies, not necessarily ‘desired outcomes.’

And, while this is a bit of a tangent (my second for this thread now - sorry, smac), you may be surprised to learn that research into rare diseases has, contrary to your hypothetical, skyrocketed over the last twenty years. You see, it started out kind of like what you are saying; there certainly were portions of the population who not being well served by Big Pharma. So, those individuals started to form associations, began raising funds themselves, and started paying for independent clinical trials. Mainly, they were interested in finding drugs and treatments that would help with their conditions. But here’s the thing – that isn’t all they found.

Case in point, about twenty years ago now, the CF Foundation decided to take a significant (and, at the time, rather controversial) risk in its fight against the disease. Rather than just working on developing better treatments for symptoms they gave a biotech company $150M to seek a cure. 

The result was one of the first gene modulation therapy drugs: Kalydeco. The Foundation then turned around and sold off its royalty rights to an investment company for $3.3 billion – yes, that’s billion with a “b” (feel free to read that last half of the sentence again with your best Dr. Evil voice).

And the CF Foundation wasn’t the only group who started finding discoveries like these. Other groups had similar successes. Since then the pharmaceutical industry has increasingly been interested in pursuing the study of rare diseases as a drug discovery strategy. So, it turns out that markets really can work. Neener neener.  

 

Quote

Imagine being a Mormon family around Liberty University. 

No need to imagine. I grew up in a small(ish) town in the Bible Belt.

 

Quote

To show solidarity with the "evangelical values" of Liberty, all restaurants refuse to serve Mormons.  Would this be an acceptable situation?  And before you say that this isn't possible, let me tell you that it is.  As a missionary, I served in a heavily Catholic town where residents refused to serve us. 

This is the kind of discrimination that Constitutional anti-discrimination laws are designed to prevent. Nobody has a problem with these. The problem is that, as indicated in the decision (which, again, you really should read), “antidiscrimination laws, as critically important as they are, must yield to the Constitution.”

And that’s why there is a controversy in this particular case. The Larsons don’t own a restaurant; they don’t sell widgets. They create films, and films are speech. And the First Amendment declares that they have a right to say (or not say) whatever they want – even if their state passes a law to the contrary.  

 

[california boy]

49 minutes ago, provoman said:

I want to be clear, I do not mean the following as being flippant.

I think you raise a good point, and from a speech perspective should frosting and bordering be considered artistic expression?  Or is frosting and bordering banal as to not be "expressive"? While I do not particular like quoting fiction, in this instance I think the quote is applicable " “there is a bit of every artist in their work” ~ Dr. Ana Stelline, Blade Runner 2049

I will ask you the same question. if a gay couple  sees a cake in a display case and want that cake for their wedding should the baker be required to sell them the cake

 

Edited August 29, 2019 by california boy

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That was the whole point of the case, as I understand it.  And the court basically ruled that No, they are not required to sell it to people who they did not make the cake their product for.  If the bakers makers didn't have any specific type of people in mind though when they made their wedding cake product, that it could be for anybody for any type of wedding event, then I think they would be required to sell it to them unless somebody else had already spoken for it.

So basically not a problem to discriminate if the couple wants a cake for their wedding

How about an interracial couple?

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And what if it is a generic wedding cake?

I don't think it matters. Individuals go up and sees 15 wedding cakes already pre-made and asks for one. Boom - they walk out with a cake. In this circumstance there is no demand or request to be involved in the wedding. Same a selling a box of cookies, or a fountain drink. Those situations are not the issue and not being incidences of conflict. 

Not surprisingly, not a single case has been in the media about a gay couple just buying off the shelf. Rather, Christian businesses have been targeted specifically to force them to ignore their beliefs and freedoms. There are a plethora of other sources for gay couples; it amazes me that feel compelled to force the Christian to celebrate an activity they are morally against. 

Alternatively,  businesses will lose the gay market for their behavior. It may mean they shut their doors due to their business practices. The strongest solution is not the courts, but in refusing to shop in stores where individuals feel unwelcome. 

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

So basically not a problem to discriminate if the couple wants a cake for their wedding

How about an interracial couple?

 

Right.  Not a problem.

 

dis-crim-i-nate

verb

1. recognize a distinction; differentiate

dis·crim·i·nat·ing

adjective

1. (of a person) having or showing refined taste or good judgment.

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

And what if it is a generic wedding cake?

If there is a bakery where, every morning, they just get up and made a dozen or so generic white cakes (predictably almond flavored, no doubt) and then put them out on the floor for sale, then yes - the owner generally would need to sell them to anyone who came in and asked to purchase one.

But what if a patron came into the store and didn't simply ask to buy a cake. What if, instead, she came in and started a conversation with the store owner and said that she wanted to buy the cake for use in a school raffle where the winning bidder would get to smash the cake into the principal's face. Do you think the store owner would be within his rights to refuse to sell the cake to that individual - preferring, instead, that it go to someone who would actually eat / enjoy it? 

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I don't think it matters. Individuals go up and sees 15 wedding cakes already pre-made and asks for one. Boom - they walk out with a cake. In this circumstance there is no demand or request to be involved in the wedding. Same a selling a box of cookies, or a fountain drink. Those situations are not the issue and not being incidences of conflict. 

Not surprisingly, not a single case has been in the media about a gay couple just buying off the shelf. Rather, Christian businesses have been targeted specifically to force them to ignore their beliefs and freedoms. There are a plethora of other sources for gay couples; it amazes me that feel compelled to force the Christian to celebrate an activity they are morally against. 

Alternatively,  businesses will lose the gay market for their behavior. It may mean they shut their doors due to their business practices. The strongest solution is not the courts, but in refusing to shop in stores where individuals feel unwelcome. 

 I honestly believe that it is not just business that will loose the gay market, I have seen these types of cases cause people in general to walk away from organized religion as well. They want nothing to do with this brand of "Christianity".  It is kind of like the Prop 8 thing all over again.  "Christians" trying to control who should marry and who shouldn't.  They had a small victory but lost the war.  The same thing may very well happen over these "religious rights" cases.  Christians may very well win their day in court, which may only result in more people walking away from their congregations.  People are fed up with the antics religion seems to think they are entitled to.  From the answers to my questions in this thread, this is not about free speech, this is about the ability to legally discriminate.  I don't see many members of the Church saying, wait a minute.  This is wrong.  Christ's message was to reach out to the sinner.  We should serve all, from the prostitute to the tax collector.  THAT should be their "personally held religious belief."

Already the fastest growing religion in America is no religion.  Does anyone really believe that discriminating against others because of "personally held religious beliefs" is going to attract more people to Christianity?  Many see organized religion as being a fraud to the principles taught by the Savior.  You may disagree, but can you at least see why they are drawing that conclusion?  Where in all of this stand our ground rhetoric is the principles taught in Matthew 25?

So a big win for Religious Liberty? Maybe, maybe not.  Time will tell,  The current trends are not in the favor of growing Christianity.  Religion is not giving people a reason to come back.  It is giving them a lot of reasons to continue to leave.  Don't believe me? You don't have to.   Ask the young people both within and outside the Church why they are leaving organized religion.

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

If there is a bakery where, every morning, they just get up and made a dozen or so generic white cakes (predictably almond flavored, no doubt) and then put them out on the floor for sale, then yes - the owner generally would need to sell them to anyone who came in and asked to purchase one.

But what if a patron came into the store and didn't simply ask to buy a cake. What if, instead, she came in and started a conversation with the store owner and said that she wanted to buy the cake for use in a school raffle where the winning bidder would get to smash the cake into the principal's face. Do you think the store owner would be within his rights to refuse to sell the cake to that individual - preferring, instead, that it go to someone who would actually eat / enjoy it? 

 

Personally, I don't think a baker has any rights to what happens to his cake after it leaves their shop.  When you go to a grocery store, does the clerk worry about what you are going to do with the tomato you buy?  Or a shoe store worry about where you are going to wear their shoes?  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

 

Right.  Not a problem.

 

dis-crim-i-nate

verb

1. recognize a distinction; differentiate

dis·crim·i·nat·ing

adjective

1. (of a person) having or showing refined taste or good judgment.

This is a pretty insulting post.  You know darn good and well, this is not the kind of discrimination we are talking about.  If you don't want to answer the question then fine, don't.  But at least let's see some integrity from you.