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

[california boy]

3 hours 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

So let's not serve sandwiches to blacks at the counter.  Each sandwich is a work of art.  

Or let's just admit that you don't have a problem with discrimination.

[Amulek]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

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?  

That kind of sounds like a dodge. My question wasn't about the baker's rights to the product after he sells it to a consumer. My question was about whether or not a seller ever has the right to determine who he chooses to sell his product to in the first place.

I seem to recall you saying something about being involved in the art community at one point. So, as another example, do you think a gallery owner should be able to refuse to sell a piece of artwork to a customer who has communicated that he intends to take the painting home and burn it? 

 

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That kind of sounds like a dodge. My question wasn't about the baker's rights to the product after he sells it to a consumer. My question was about whether or not a seller ever has the right to determine who he chooses to sell his product to in the first place.

I seem to recall you saying something about being involved in the art community at one point. So, as another example, do you think a gallery owner should be able to refuse to sell a piece of artwork to a customer who has communicated that he intends to take the painting home and burn it? 

 

I do sell art in galleries.  Maybe I am weird, but the art I create is almost a driving need to create.  Personally, I don't care what someone does with one of my pieces once I create it.  I barely care if it sells.  That is not why I do my art.  Maybe if I thought I was going to run out of creative ideas, I would feel differently.  But once I create a piece, I am done with it.  I am anxious to create the next, which I always believe is going to be better than the last.

 If every single piece of art I ever created was destroyed, I would still look to creating the next piece that would be better than anything I have ever created before.  It is a consuming drive to always have something more important to say and to say it better.

I don't speak for all artists, of course.  Maybe your point would apply to someone else.  But that is how I would personally feel.  I would probably feel the same if I was a baker.  If someone asked me to bake them a wedding cake for a straight marriage, I would look at it only as an opportunity to do something I had never done before and it would be better than any cake I had ever made before.  I would not care one bit who ate it.  It is not some sacred work of art between me and God.  What I would hope most for the customer to see is the love that went into it.

Maybe you should have asked someone else.  I am sure others feel differently about art.

[Amulek]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

Personally, I don't care what someone does with one of my pieces once I create it.

To be clear, I'm not asking if you care what someone does with it after its been sold. I'm asking if you think it is permissible for a gallery owner to refuse to make the sale in the first place. And I think you know, well and good, that consumer discrimination is something that happens in the art world. 

For example, in responding to a Times article critical of the practice, art critic / gallery owner Mat Gleason stated, "In actuality, galleries can deny a purchase, and they do all the time for a variety of reasons. If a big collector has an appointment to visit my gallery on Saturday to look at an artist's work, I am not selling that work on Friday to someone who might try to flip it on eBay next month."

Sometimes they discriminate to appease bigger fish, sometimes they discriminate because they think the collector "isn't a good fit," or any number of other reasons. The point I was trying to make is that, even if you are dealing with a pre-made good like a generic wedding cake (or a completed work of art), sometimes the seller is still going to have a bit of say-so about whether or not he actually sells it to a specific client. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

... Peace to you.  

Likewise.  I'm not accusing you of anything; This is simply a general observation: I think it's important that proponents of traditional marriage not be vilified or demonized.  I hope, even when considering such highly-charged issues as this one, that, while the legal landscape recently has shifted somewhat, it's not as though those who favor traditional marriage have absolutely no historical, sociological, or other kinds of support for their position.  For many, that position is held in good conscience and good faith and absent even the smallest hint of malice or ill will.

One may or may not be persuaded by such support, but I think it's important to acknowledge its existence even if one does not find it persuasive.  Whatever one's views regarding gay marriage, biology is what it is; to a certain (probably lesser) extent, sociology is what it is; psychology is what it is; and so on.  While anyone making such arguments might open himself up to charges that he is a "the-sky-is-falling" alarmist, in these and other areas, the jury is still out.  It will be some time before such effects are manifest sufficiently to be able to determine their results.  And though such opponents may be few and far between, even some gays and lesbians oppose gay marriage for precisely such reasons.

[Kenngo1969]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

I do sell art in galleries.  Maybe I am weird, but the art I create is almost a driving need to create.  Personally, I don't care what someone does with one of my pieces once I create it.  I barely care if it sells.  That is not why I do my art.  Maybe if I thought I was going to run out of creative ideas, I would feel differently.  But once I create a piece, I am done with it.  I am anxious to create the next, which I always believe is going to be better than the last. ...

To each artist, his or her own.  I recognize the merit in the position that such work has merit merely for the fact that it exists: It is intrinsically valuable, beyond whatever extrinsic, monetary, "bottom-line" value it may have.  That said, other artists might not (and, while you move in those circles and I do not, so you might well know better than I) share your c'est la vie outlook.  While you probably have much more experience with this sort of thing than I, while I'm not an artist, to the extent I can be said to have created anything, there is something of me in that creation.  At the very least, I would be disappointed if someone were to press that creation into service of a cause I did not intend.

I recognize that your mileage varies and that your opinion differs.  Vive le difference!  I wish you well.

 

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

So let's not serve sandwiches to blacks at the counter.  Each sandwich is a work of art.  

Or let's just admit that you don't have a problem with discrimination.

It's not about whether or not a product is a work of art, necessarily.  What someone makes isn't necessarily art.  It's about whether or not the creation of that product is a form of speech or personal expression as well as what the intended purpose of that product is.

If I made a wedding cake I would be creating it for a man and a woman who were getting married, but if I made a bunch of sandwiches to give away to a group of homeless people I wouldn't really care if the person I gave a sandwich to was gay or not.  My intention then would be to just feed some people, not to condone or show my approval for how they were living their life.  I know some people intend to be homeless as they travel around as a gypsy for a while, living off of the charity of others, perhaps while playing a guitar with the case opened to accept donations, perhaps also collecting some aluminum cans to sell for some money.  It's a lifestyle for some people, and I don't intend to give them the impression that I condone their choice to do that, but I can still feel good about feeding people who are hungry, for whatever reason they are hungry. 

Edited August 29, 2019 by Ahab

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

 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.

I think you are stretching a very long way. This is a simple example of someone that has different beliefs than you, more than happy to sell you cookies, but does not want to participate directly in anything that they find morally repugnant, wrong, and against their religion. The other was a religion taking a stand to prevent an action of state. I know in your view of the world religions should be seen, but not heard in the public square. 

Also, you mistake the purpose of Christ. He invited all to follow him, but first each individual had to repent. They had to repent because they had to become a new person. In the multi-millenia old refrain, they had to die to self in order to take on new life in Christ. While the message is for all, membership is not for those who will not repent and align their will with God. 

It is not a win for religion; it is a win that those with religious convictions are not forced by the government to bow down, stop talking, stop having ideas of their own, and be forced to accept that which they hold to be wrong. 

I think some religions, Christian ones, are changing and are desperate to be remade in the image of man. Their God has long since been set aside for a milk toast gospel of love where all sin does not exist. It will be interesting if they continue to exist. Judeo-Christian religion has been around for thousands of years. I seriously doubt homosexuality will kill it now. 

[provoman]

20 hours ago, california boy said:

So let's not serve sandwiches to blacks at the counter.  Each sandwich is a work of art.  

Or let's just admit that you don't have a problem with discrimination.

It appears you are choosing not to pay attention to what I posted.

I posited two hypothesis,

1. Production on a widget is speech and must not be compelled; Alternatively

2. Production of certain widgets is banal and therefore not speech.

I took no position either way; but it is your right assume what ever you want; even when your assumption is without merit and histrionic.

Edited August 30, 2019 by provoman

[california boy]

16 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I think you are stretching a very long way. This is a simple example of someone that has different beliefs than you, more than happy to sell you cookies, but does not want to participate directly in anything that they find morally repugnant, wrong, and against their religion. The other was a religion taking a stand to prevent an action of state. I know in your view of the world religions should be seen, but not heard in the public square. 

Also, you mistake the purpose of Christ. He invited all to follow him, but first each individual had to repent. They had to repent because they had to become a new person. In the multi-millenia old refrain, they had to die to self in order to take on new life in Christ. While the message is for all, membership is not for those who will not repent and align their will with God. 

It is not a win for religion; it is a win that those with religious convictions are not forced by the government to bow down, stop talking, stop having ideas of their own, and be forced to accept that which they hold to be wrong. 

I think some religions, Christian ones, are changing and are desperate to be remade in the image of man. Their God has long since been set aside for a milk toast gospel of love where all sin does not exist. It will be interesting if they continue to exist. Judeo-Christian religion has been around for thousands of years. I seriously doubt homosexuality will kill it now. 

Well hey, if you believe that Christianity is thriving and more and more people are being attracted to organized religion because of its embracing and support of discrimination, then hey, who am I to convince you otherwise.  I will just step aside and watch.

 

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well hey, if you believe that Christianity is thriving and more and more people are being attracted to organized religion because of its embracing and support of discrimination, then hey, who am I to convince you otherwise.  I will just step aside and watch.

 

Discrimination, in itself, is not a bad thing.  Discrimination is bad only when what someone is discriminating against is a GOOD thing.  Which means it is good to discriminate against things that are BAD.

Some people are  just a little mixed up about what is good and what is bad. Some people think good things are bad, and some people think bad things are good. So people need to do a better job of discriminating only against the things that are bad.

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, provoman said:

It appears you are choosing not to pay attention to what I posted.

I posited two hypothesis,

1. Production on a widget is speech and must not be compelled; Alternatively

2. Production of certain widgets is banal and therefore not speech.

I took no position either way; but it is your right assume what ever you want; even when your assumption is without merit and emotionally driven histrionics.

 

It is very interesting that you have quoted the same thing twice AND both times avoided addressing the issues quoted.

I do believe that a person should not be compelled on issues of speech.  I just don't think a generic wedding cake that has no speech on it should still be considered speech.  Like I said, where does that line end?  Is a sandwich a work of art and should be considered speech?  Is a floral arrangement a political statement?

In any event, the courts will make their decision.  And if they rule contrary to what I believe to be a just ruling, these things have a way of working themselves out over time.  If the Supreme Court does make discrimination legal due to personal beliefs, people will start to come up with all types of scenarios to justify discrimination in the market place even against religion.  "Christians" that justify discrimination because of religious beliefs will only push more people away from religion.  It is a spiral that has already begun.

[california boy]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Discrimination, in itself, is not a bad thing.  Discrimination is bad only when what someone is discriminating against is a GOOD thing.  Which means it is good to discriminate against things that are BAD.

Some people are  just a little mixed up about what is good and what is bad. Some people think good things are bad, and some people think bad things are good. So people need to do a better job of discriminating only against the things that are bad.

The exact type of member of the Church that is justifying discrimination as being a good thing.  I just don't think the majority of people in the world agree with this idea.  If discrimination is a good thing, maybe the Church should bring back banning blacks from the priesthood.  That worked out so well.

[Anijen]

18 hours ago, Ahab said:

It's not about whether or not a product is a work of art, necessarily.  What someone makes isn't necessarily art.  It's about whether or not the creation of that product is a form of speech or personal expression as well as what the intended purpose of that product is.

I think it is evenmore. It does not need to be a work of art, for me the wrong is being forced to say, forced to make, forced to accept a way of life, forced to think a certain way... It is wrong to force someone who does not believe the same way, even if that way is supposedly superior to what a person currently believes. Yes, being forced to make a wedding cake for a SSM couple is saying that person's religious beliefs does not matter, that person's freedom of speech does not matter.

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

The exact type of member of the Church that is justifying discrimination as being a good thing.  I just don't think the majority of people in the world agree with this idea.  If discrimination is a good thing, maybe the Church should bring back banning blacks from the priesthood.  That worked out so well.

As I just told you, discrimination is bad only when it is discrimination against good things.  Discrimination against bad things is good.

Black skin, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.  I know many people thought so for many years, but eventually most people came to realize that people should be judged for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

I suppose you're hoping the same thing will hold true for the LGBTQ characteristics, and yes over time more people have come to think of LGBTQ characteristics as good things, but whether or not they are right or wrong is for God to decide.

If God regards any LGBTQ characteristics as good things, then someday you will be vindicated and entitled to receive every good blessing God can give for those good characteristics, but for any bad thing you won't receive any good blessings from God.

God has already revealed some things to me about this issue so I know something about what to expect.  You will eventually learn from all of your own experiences.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I think it is evenmore. It does not need to be a work of art, for me the wrong is being forced to say, forced to make, forced to accept a way of life, forced to think a certain way... It is wrong to force someone who does not believe the same way, even if that way is supposedly superior to what a person currently believes. Yes, being forced to make a wedding cake for a SSM couple is saying that person's religious beliefs does not matter, that person's freedom of speech does not matter.

I don't think anyone is really forcing someone to make a cake, or to say anything in particular.  There have simply been some legal penalties for people who have not complied with some legal requirements.  But now in this case the courts have determined that the Constitution of the United States allows for free speech and expression of those beliefs, without any legal penalties. So this case is in support of what you are saying we are entitled to in this country.  Our freedom to express ourselves has been upheld.

[Anijen]

22 minutes ago, california boy said:

The exact type of member of the Church that is justifying discrimination as being a good thing.  I just don't think the majority of people in the world agree with this idea.  If discrimination is a good thing, maybe the Church should bring back banning blacks from the priesthood.  That worked out so well.

We definitely do not want to ban African Americans from the priesthood and even making that statement is a cheap shot. Discrimination is bad.

We are not saying discrimination is a good thing at all. However, you might be saying that. If you believe fighting religious discrimination with SSM discrimination is ok, then you are possibly being the discriminator, implying your preference of religious discrimination is justified. 

I am for the legalality of SSM, I have always been so. Never once have I stated otherwise. My point, is that one cannot use discrimination to fight discrimination.

Anti-discrimination statutes, as important as they are, must yield to the superior law of the land. All state laws are governed by superior laws. Article VI, Clause II, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes this. Therefore, the freedom of speech and freedom of religion trump the anti discrimination statutes of state law. If a person holds the belief that making a wedding cake would demonstrate conduct that he personally does not believe in and does so by his own religious tenets then the state cannot force him to speak or go against his beliefs.

Not wanting to be redundant, but the solution is simply going to an artist, baker, florist, photographer who has no problem baking, painting, photographing, arranging a SSM thing...

[Anijen]

25 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't think anyone is really forcing someone to make a cake, or to say anything in particular.  There have simply been some legal penalties for people who have not complied with some legal requirements.  But now in this case the courts have determined that the Constitution of the United States allows for free speech and expression of those beliefs, without any legal penalties. So this case is in support of what you are saying we are entitled to in this country.  Our freedom to express ourselves has been upheld.

Colorado ruled that Phillips would have to comply to his business records being searched, this violated his 4th Amendment Right to be secure in his papers, etc.. This would also be without search warrants, thus another violation.  Colorado also ruled that his entire work staff would need to take group therapy. This is propaganda trying to change the way people think., i.e. those who hold the religious belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.

All this was overruled by SCOTUS. Having said that, Phillips is being sued again by Colorado for a third time. I am sure this time the state will be careful not to use the derogatory language they used before, forcing SCOTUS (if they take the case) to be more detailed in their rulings.

[Anijen]

34 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 There have simply been some legal penalties for people who have not complied with some legal requirements.  

This is how it is forced, by legal penalties. These penalties are over $135,000 in fines and go up. Submission to mandatory checks of business reports (without a warrant), mandatory therapy. This may not be your definition of force, it does match my definition of force.

• Q. What happens when you don't comply with these "legal penalties?"
• A. You are in contempt.
• Q. How do you punish contempt?
• A. Jail

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

This is how it is forced, by legal penalties. These penalties are over $135,000 in fines and go up. Submission to mandatory checks of business reports (without a warrant), mandatory therapy. This may not be your definition of force, it does match my definition of force.

• Q. What happens when you don't comply with these "legal penalties?"
• A. You are in contempt.
• Q. How do you punish contempt?
• A. Jail

The apostle Paul went to prison, sometimes.  And so did Joseph Smith.

Even in jail we can be free, even if it isn't where we would rather be.

I would rather be in heaven right now, where I will go after I'm dead and resurrected, but I'm not authorized by the proper authorities to go there yet.  And yet some would still say I am free.

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, Anijen said:

mandatory therapy.

Like being in school hearing things being taught by a teacher who you don't agree with.  You still don't have to believe what that teacher tells you.

I like knowing the theory of macro evolution but it doesn't mean I have to believe in it.  I might even learn something from therapy that I could use to better educate myself in this world.

And it's good to know what other people are talking about even when you don't agree with it.

[Anijen]

14 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The apostle Paul went to prison, sometimes.  And so did Joseph Smith.

Even in jail we can be free, even if it isn't where we would rather be.

I would rather be in heaven right now, where I will go after I'm dead and resurrected, but I'm not authorized by the proper authorities to go there yet.  And yet some would still say I am free.

In jail, you are literally NOT free. Sure, your mind is still free to believe how you want and I agree with you on that point, but the issue is force (my words), legal penalties (your words). The issue was not freedom. 

[Anijen]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Like being in school hearing things being taught by a teacher who you don't agree with.  You still don't have to believe what that teacher tells you.

I like knowing the theory of macro evolution but it doesn't mean I have to believe in it.  I might even learn something from therapy that I could use to better educate myself in this world.

And it's good to know what other people are talking about even when you don't agree with it.

No, more like AA announcing you are an alcoholic, or anger therapy. Here, the Colorado court ruled his staff had to take mandatory therapy e.g.  trying to make them accept SSM.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Anijen said:

No, more like AA announcing you are an alcoholic, or anger therapy. Here, the Colorado court ruled his staff had to take mandatory therapy e.g.  trying to make them accept SSM.

Hello, my name is Ahab and I was ordered by some judge to come here and receive SSM therapy because I believe SSM is evil because of what God has told me about it and I suppose that judge thought I would believe what you people tell me rather than what God has told me.

From then on when I attended it would be an opportunity for me to share what God has told me about SSM.  And who knows, maybe sometime after I walked out of that building some centurion or other person there might accept what I had told them God had told me.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

We definitely do not want to ban African Americans from the priesthood and even making that statement is a cheap shot. Discrimination is bad.

Not sure why this is directed at me   I wasn’t the one that said discrimination is a good thing   I thought the church was past that kind of thinking   Evidently not.   There seems to be plenty of members that still support discrimination   

 

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

We are not saying discrimination is a good thing at all.

Actually the person I was responding to said exactly that 

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

However, you might be saying that. If you believe fighting religious discrimination with SSM discrimination is ok, then you are possibly being the discriminator, implying your preference of religious discrimination is justified. 

No.  I am saying that legalizing discrimination is a two edge sword   When you legalize discrimination you don’t control who gets discriminated against

 

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

I am for the legalality of SSM, I have always been so. Never once have I stated otherwise. My point, is that one cannot use discrimination to fight discrimination.

But when you make discrimination legal that is exactly what can happen 

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

Anti-discrimination statutes, as important as they are, must yield to the superior law of the land. All state laws are governed by superior laws. Article VI, Clause II, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes this. Therefore, the freedom of speech and freedom of religion trump the anti discrimination statutes of state law. If a person holds the belief that making a wedding cake would demonstrate conduct that he personally does not believe in and does so by his own religious tenets then the state cannot force him to speak or go against his beliefs.

Not wanting to be redundant, but the solution is simply going to an artist, baker, florist, photographer who has no problem baking, painting, photographing, arranging a SSM thing...

I should have never waded into this thread.  I should know by now that members of the Church believe religious beliefs trump all other laws of the land and gives them license to behave any way they want.  

I will leave you to your religious certainty of superiority over anyone else’s beliefs