*Another* Solid Win for Free Speech and Religious Liberty (Arizona State Case)

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understood him as disparaging someone who resists government-compelled speech, and the disparagement is based solely on the form of the "speech" (decorating a cake).

Except there is a good chance when the incident first occurred Phillips wasn’t thinking in terms of “I am resisting government compelled speech” and instead was just thinking “I don’t want to make a cake for this gay marriage”.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Calm

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Except there is a good chance when the incident first occurred Phillips wasn’t thinking in terms of “I am resisting government compelled speech” and instead was thinking “I don’t want to make a cake for this gay marriage”.

But doesn't it amount to the same thing?

[Calm]

Just now, smac97 said:

But doesn't it amount to the same thing?

No.  Motivations are different even if behaviour is the same. 

Think of someone joining the army. The first joins to defend freedom.  The second joins because he thinks big guns are cool.  The first is noble, the second petty though the behaviour is identical...joining the army. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

No.  Motivations are different even if behaviour is the same. 

I agree.  But the motivations seem to be largely the same.  I think Phillips doesn't want to be compelled to speak things that contravene his religious beliefs, whether that compulsion arise from public pressure, or from the force of law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

No.  Motivations are different even if behaviour is the same. 

Think of someone joining the army. The first joins to defend freedom.  The second joins because he thinks big guns are cool.  The first is noble, the second petty though the behaviour is identical...joining the army. 

Let's stick with the apples and oranges. 

In this case I think it's fair to say that the baker's motivation for not wanting to bake the cake was because he believed he should not and he felt that having some government rep tell him he should or else was a violation of his freedom of expression.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But the motivations seem to be largely the same.  I think Phillips doesn't want to be compelled to speak things that contravene his religious beliefs, whether that compulsion arise from public pressure, or from the force of law.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don’t disagree about not wanting to be compelled. I have my doubts Phillips thought about it in terms of compulsion being involved beyond being asked when he first refused.

My understanding is he had refused to make items before without any legal or otherwise pressure (though I assume some customer told him they would take their business elsewhere in the future).

Edited September 19, 2019 by Calm

[sjdawg]

On 9/16/2019 at 3:30 PM, smac97 said:

We need to stop this assault on civil liberties. 

I'm not convinced there has been an "assault" on the civil liberties of the religious. I do agree there is a limited group of people who have pushed the envelope too far in pursuing their interpretation of equality.   

Did you consider religions fighting against gay marriage rights to be assaulting civil liberties of homosexual people.?

I believe these lawsuits are helpful in identifying the lines between the rights of various groups holding differing beliefs

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by sjdawg

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t disagree about not wanting to be compelled. I have my doubts Phillips thought about it in terms of compulsion being involved beyond being asked when he first refused.

Well, yes.  The compulsion would likely have not been anticipated by Mr. Phillips.  

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

My understanding is he had refused to make items before without any legal or otherwise pressure (though I assume some customer told him they would take their business elsewhere in the future).

I think he was motivated by his religious beliefs, and the presumption that he had the right to not be compelled to speak in ways that violate his beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, sjdawg said:

Quote

We need to stop this assault on civil liberties. 

I'm not convinced there has been an "assault" on the civil liberties of the religious.

Well, there have apparently been enough incidents to result in litigation in Colorado, Kentucky, Arizona, Washington State, and who knows how many more.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop was not a one-off.  

1 minute ago, sjdawg said:

Did you consider religions fighting against gay marriage rights to be assaulting civil liberties of homosexual people. 

Prior to 2015?  No.  Now?  Yes

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mr. Phillips was threatened with fines (and possibly imprisonment?) unless he spoke in a way that violated his sincerely-held religious beliefs. 

You disparage that because the compelled speech would be in the form of a cake.  You call this "petty."

I disagree.  I think compelling speech is wrong.  Using the force of government to do this is wrong.  Doing so to punish religious people is wrong.

It sure would be nice if you could allow for other people to find these issues to be non-petty.  How 'bout it?

I don't recall saying anything like that.  And I'm not even sure what your faith is.

If anything, I am usually criticized for talking too much.  Not talking enough?  That's a new one.

I went to some effort to provide some information in support of my position.  I've said nothing to discourage you from explaining yours.

Thanks,

-Smac

They are “sincerely held beliefs” therefore they are immune to criticism. Yes, you have said that before but you would not accept that level of allowance for any “sincerely held belief”

How do you know the belief is sincerely held? Have you met the guy? Or is it just assumed?

I called his refusal to make an inoffensive cake petty, yes, because it is my “sincerely held belief” that not making such a cake is petty.

I said others might not find it petty. I would admittedly question their sense of proportion. Then again people are trying to compare this case with throwing people into death camps with a straight face so there is more then a little evidence that their sense of proportion is a little off.

You do not know my faith? What? I am one of the most prolifigate (negative connotation of that word intentional) posters on this forum and I have never been coy about my faith, my callings, my mission. Is this a backhanded insult to suggest I clearly do not live my faith or after all of our back and forth you really never noticed or something else? I feel like I am in Wonderland now. Am I real? Are you real? Is any of this real?

[The Nehor]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Refusal to bake and decorate the cake" = "Refusal to speak in ways he did not want to speak."

I understood him as disparaging someone who resists government-compelled speech, and the disparagement is based solely on the form of the "speech" (decorating a cake).

I think disparaging Mr. Phillips as being "petty" for this is an unfair characterization.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, it is, as I have said many times and you continually ignore or your eyes glaze over when I say it, that I do not see that cake decoration as speech at all.

[smac97]

Just now, The Nehor said:

They are “sincerely held beliefs” therefore they are immune to criticism.

No.  But they may very well be immune to compulsion and punishment by the government.

Just now, The Nehor said:

Yes, you have said that before but you would not accept that level of allowance for any “sincerely held belief”

With respect, I don't think you are situated to speak as to what I would or would not accept.

So rather than resort to baseless speculation, you could just ask me.

Just now, The Nehor said:

How do you know the belief is sincerely held? Have you met the guy? Or is it just assumed?

I've read quite a bit about this case.  I've read quite a bit by and about Mr. Phillips.  My assessment is not an assumption.  It's a conclusion.

Just now, The Nehor said:

You do not know my faith?

Nope.

Just now, The Nehor said:

What? I am one of the most prolifigate (negative connotation of that word intentional) posters on this forum and I have never been coy about my faith, my callings, my mission.

Okay.

Just now, The Nehor said:

Is this a backhanded insult to suggest I clearly do not live my faith or after all of our back and forth you really never noticed or something else?

Not at all.  I am not very good at keeping track of individuals on the board, particularly those who just have online handles.

I had no intention of insulting you or questioning your faith.  At all.  I just don't know much about you.  That's all.

Just now, The Nehor said:

I feel like I am in Wonderland now. Am I real? Are you real? Is any of this real?

I did not intend to give offense, but it appears that I did.  I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, it is, as I have said many times and you continually ignore or your eyes glaze over when I say it, that I do not see that cake decoration as speech at all.

Yes, so you've asserted.

And I've gone to some length to explain why it is (or can be).  You do not seem to be addressing the legal issues, and instead relying solely on your personal say-so.  In the end, though, this is less a matter of opinion, and is instead a question of law.  

I admit that I can become curt with people who weigh in on legal issues (which, in and of itself, is perfectly fine), but who refuse to address the substantive law that governs such issues.

I'll work on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

No.  But they may very well be immune to compulsion and punishment by the government.

Too late, I am already on the plane to Guantanamo.

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not at all.  I am not very good at keeping track of individuals on the board, particularly those who just have online handles.

I had no intention of insulting you or questioning your faith.  At all.  I just don't know much about you.  That's all.

Oh, no offense taken then. I am one of the Universe People. I wait with others for Ashtar Galactic Command’s fleet (made up of many extraterrestrial civilizations) to come down and take all the good of the earth and bring us to a better dimension. Until then we battle the evil Saurians/lizard people to protect the Earth.

How about you? What faith do you subscribe to?

[sjdawg]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  

Prior to 2015?  No.  Now?  Yes

 

Fair enough.  Thanks

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I feel like I am in Wonderland now. Am I real? Are you real? Is any of this real?

No, you are not real.  You are a fake.  Always have been.  You may carry on now.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, so you've asserted.

And I've gone to some length to explain why it is (or can be).  You do not seem to be addressing the legal issues, and instead relying solely on your personal say-so.  In the end, though, this is less a matter of opinion, and is instead a question of law.  

I admit that I can become curt with people who weigh in on legal issues (which, in and of itself, is perfectly fine), but who refuse to address the substantive law that governs such issues.

I'll work on that.

Thanks,

-Smac

No, it isn’t solely a legal issue. I understand why legal issues are important but I am not going to say Philips is now a great man because the law agreed with him (inasmuch as his case was dismissed due to the plaintiff being an idiotic jerk and not on more general principles). If the law says cake decorating is always speech, okay, I still disagree and am not going to change my mind based on what legal precedent says.

I still find it is a petty case involving a lot of petty people and sentence them all to hang for dragging me into this conversation. Thus decides the non-binding court of Nehor, the great and terrible. Move over Judge Judy, there is a new sheriff in town.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, you are not real.  You are a fake.  Always have been.  You may carry on now.

Welp, then time to do the only logical thing when you realize you live in a fantasy:

[smac97]

Just now, The Nehor said:

No, it isn’t solely a legal issue.

It is primarily a legal issue.

Just now, The Nehor said:

I understand why legal issues are important but I am not going to say Philips is now a great man because the law agreed with him (inasmuch as his case was dismissed due to the plaintiff being an idiotic jerk and not on more general principles).

Sheesh.  He's just a guy who wants to bake cakes.  One who doesn't want to be forced by threats of fines and prison to speak in ways he does not want to speak.  One who by all accounts is polite and inclusive and civil.  One who probably does not like his good name disparaged by people like you, who have never met him.

Does this make him "great?"  I don't know.  I've never called him that.  And you have only done so in a snide and mean-spirited and sarcastic way.

Just now, The Nehor said:

If the law says cake decorating is always speech, okay, I still disagree and am not going to change my mind based on what legal precedent says.

I encourage you to give the matter some further study and effort.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

Scott was using freedom of conscience as a trump card over other considerations. 

Bull. I never said that. 

If anything, I was objecting to the dismissive attitude that standing up for freedom of conscience in the face of government oppression is “childish” (your word). 

[The Nehor]

Just now, smac97 said:

It is primarily a legal issue.

Sheesh.  He's just a guy who wants to bake cakes.  One who doesn't want to be forced by threats of fines and prison to speak in ways he does not want to speak.  One who by all accounts is polite and inclusive and civil.  One who probably does not like his good name disparaged by people like you, who have never met him.

Does this make him "great?"  I don't know.  I've never called him that.  And you have only done so in a snide and mean-spirited and sarcastic way.

I encourage you to give the matter some further study and effort.

Thanks,

-Smac

What accounts make him polite and inclusive and civil?

Still do not think it is speech.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bull. I never said that. 

If anything, I was objecting to the dismissive attitude that standing up for freedom of conscience in the face of government oppression is “childish” (your word). 

Uh-huh.

Now it is oppression? Is that stepping it up or backing off from the “being sent to a death camp” analogy?

I deny that if he was required to make the cake that it would be “oppression”. I deny that this is a freedom of conscience issue and I stand by calling him (and those on the other side of the case) childish.

Edited September 19, 2019 by The Nehor

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What accounts make him polite and inclusive and civil?

You ask this after having repeatedly branded him as "petty" and "childish?"

Here:

Quote

Phillips’ attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, replied that being forced to create such a cake would violate Phillips’ free-speech rights.

“The compulsion in this case is him being forced to create an expression that he finds offensive,” Tedesco replied.

He said Phillips has sold cakes to gay couples and would have sold a cake to Mullins and Craig. But he added that forcing Phillips to create a custom cake for the couple would be comparable to an artist being forced to paint the Confederate flag against his beliefs.

“He won’t create cakes celebrating Halloween, with anti-family and anti-American messages or racist symbols … either,” Tedesco said.

Here:

Quote

Phillips said he isn't a homophobe, and that he would gladly serve any other baked good to a gay couple -- just not a wedding cake.

“I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, so you could say this is a religious belief,” Phillips said. “I believe the Bible teaches that (homosexuality) is not an OK thing.”

The bakery is family owned and operated. Phillips said since 1993, it has turned away about a half dozen same sex weddings.

Here:

Quote

Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colo., said he has received more than 1,000 angry messages — critics upset because he would not compromise his personal beliefs and bake a cake for Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig.

The couple, set to be married in Massachusetts in September, told television station KDVR they wanted a rainbow-layered cake with teal and red frosting.

They said the owner immediately informed the men that he does not create cakes for gay weddings.

“It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter,” Mullins, 28, told Denver Westward. “We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, ‘F**k you and your homophobic cake shop.’ And I may or may not have flipped him off.”

But Phillips defended his decision in an interview with television station KCNC in Denver.

“If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever,” Phillips told the television station. “It’s just the wedding cake, not the people, not their lifestyle.”

Here:

Quote

Here's the story: Jack C. Phillips, co-owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, in July 2012 told Charlie Craig and David Mullins that he would not bake a cake for their wedding. He said as a long-practicing Christian he believed God intended marriage to be for one man and one woman.

He also told the couple, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." He believed he was protected in this because the Colorado Constitution defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Here:

Quote

“I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, so you could say this is a religious belief,” Phillips told FOX31 Denver. “I believe the Bible teaches that (homosexuality) is not an OK thing.”

At the time, Phillips noted that he would gladly sell other goods to gay people — just not a wedding cake.

Here:

Quote

The Colorado baker who was ordered to serve gay couples by a state judge says he’d rather go to jail than prepare a same-sex wedding cake. 

“I do what I do because I love doing what I do and I believe it’s what God’s designed for me to do,” Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, told Fox News‘ Elisabeth Hasselbeck via Raw Story. “I don’t plan on giving up my religious beliefs ... I don’t feel that I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I’m participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for.”    

Here:

Quote

Jack Phillips, the owner of Lakewood’s Masterpiece Cakeshop, told local CBS affilate KCNC-TV that he has no problem with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) customers or staff members — but nonetheless does not support gay marriage. 

“If it came to that point, we would close down the bakery before we would compromise our beliefs, so that may be what it comes to,” Phillips said. “We’ll see.”

Phillips, who said he also rejected another same-sex couple’s request for a wedding cake earlier this year, continued, “If gays come in and want to order birthday cakes or any cakes for any occasion, graduations, or whatever, I have no prejudice against that whatsoever. It’s just the wedding cake — not the people, not their lifestyle.”

This interview:

And more interviews here, here, and more here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Uh-huh.

Now it is oppression? Is that stepping it up or backing off from the “being sent to a death camp” analogy?

I deny that if he was required to make the cake that it would be “oppression”. I deny that this is a freedom of conscience issue and I stand by calling him (and those on the other side of the case) childish.

Being forced to behave in ways that violate your freedom of conscience under threat of being driven out of business does amount to oppression in my view. 

And bear in mind the original edict from the Colorado commission included forcing him to put his employees, including his wife through re-education, which sounds ominously like communist or fascist regimes. 

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Uh-huh.

Now it is oppression? Is that stepping it up or backing off from the “being sent to a death camp” analogy?

The man faces financial ruin over this (and possibly jail time too, though I'm less sure of that). And you are mocking him for it.  And you are doing so in ignorance.

Quote

I deny that if he was required to make the cake that it would be “oppression”.

If you were being compelled, by the force of government, under threat of fines and imprisonment, to say things you do not want to say, I do not think you would be so flippant and dismissive.

If someone went out of their way to destroy your livelihood and reputation because you did not want to speak the things they wanted you to say, I do not think you would say things like this.

Quote

I deny that this is a freedom of conscience issue and I stand by calling him (and those on the other side of the case) childish.

Never having met him.  Knowing nothing about him.  Having made no effort in these matters.

I'll give that assessment all the weight it deserves.

Got it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 19, 2019 by smac97