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

[california boy]

This is a case based on free speech issues.  I agree with the ruling.  No one should be forced to speak against their beliefs.  As I understand it, that principle has been established law for some time.

Even though the OP is trying to link it to religious rights victory to push his own agenda, the ruling had nothing to do with discriminating based on personally held religious beliefs.  It would not have mattered what the reasons for being forced to write something that they were against.  The right to discriminate based on personally held religious beliefs is a totally different issue.   

I think the Supreme Court will clarify that difference with the selected cases that are currently before them.

[Ahab]

31 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Not at all. They are not inferior or subhuman. The line of reasoning to justify or rationalize racism or racial discrimination is, itself, logically inferior and is ignorantly asserted and employed.

Okay, then I would say you are employing definition #2 of discrimination by simply recognizing and understanding the difference between people who employ logically inferior reasoning and people who reason at least a bit better than those troglodyte people do.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

While I dislike the plaintiffs this was a good decision.

I thought the last two lawsuits were dropped mutually. Did something else happen?

Phillips is now facing a third suit by the state.

[Anijen]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

The right to discriminate based on personally held religious beliefs is a totally different issue.   

Could you be more specific here? Can you show the difference in the issue? How one of the defendants, how their religious beliefs was used as discrimination? Are you saying those defendants personal held beliefs are discriminatory? Does that not imply that it is alright to sue them, but they cannot use their religious beliefs as their defense in court?

 

Quote

I think the Supreme Court will clarify that difference with the selected cases that are currently before them.

I am just curious, how do you think the Supreme Court will do that? I am also interested in how you clarify the difference.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This is a case based on free speech issues.  

And Free Exercise issues.  From the Court's decision (bolded emphases added):

Quote

The rights of free speech and free exercise, so precious to this nation since its founding, are not limited to soft murmurings behind the doors of a person’s home or church, or private conversations with like–minded friends and family. These guarantees protect the right of every American to express their beliefs in public. This includes the right to create and sell words, paintings, and art that express a person’s sincere religious beliefs.

With these fundamental principles in mind, today we hold that the City of Phoenix (the “City”) cannot apply its Human Relations Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) to force Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studios, LC (“Brush & Nib”), to create custom wedding invitations celebrating same-sex wedding ceremonies in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.  Duka, Koski, and Brush & Nib (“Plaintiffs”) have the right to refuse to express such messages under article 2, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution {"Freedom of Speech and Press"}, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act (“FERA”), A.R.S. § 41-1493.01. 
...
Duka and Koski’s beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some. But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive. They are for everyone. 

I encourage you to read through the entire decision.  It is shot through with references to religious freedom.  A search in the decision for "relig" (as in "religious," "religion," etc.) yields 215 results.

Quote

I agree with the ruling.  No one should be forced to speak against their beliefs.  As I understand it, that principle has been established law for some time.

And yet there are apparently plenty of instances of so-called "gay rights" advocates who are moving heaven and earth to exempt religious people from "that principle."

Hence the lawsuits.

Quote

Even though the OP is trying to link it to religious rights victory to push his own agenda, the ruling had nothing to do with discriminating based on personally held religious beliefs.  

You haven't even read the decision, have you?

I'm content to let each reader review the decision for themselves, and then decide which us, you or I, is more accurately summarizing the findings of the Arizona Supreme Court.

From paragraph 6: "Although this case is about freedom of speech and religion..."

Later on in paragraph 6: "Plaintiffs must, and they do, serve all customers regardless of their sexual orientation. However, by focusing solely on the anti-discrimination purpose of the Ordinance, the dissent engages in a one–sided analysis that effectively deprives Plaintiffs of their fundamental right to express their beliefs. But no law, including a public accommodations law, is immune from the protections of free speech and free exercise."

It looks like the dissent isn't the only one doing "a one-sided analysis."  Though I suspect the dissenting justices at least bothered to read the majority opinion before responding to it.  🤨

Quote

It would not have mattered what the reasons for being forced to write something that they were against. 

Says the guy who hasn't read the AZ Supreme Court's decision.  Which decision references "religious" or "religion" etc. 215 times (between both the majority and dissent).

Yes, it matters.  If the reasons implicate the free exercise of religious belief, that matters.  That is an enumerated right, under both the state and federal constitutions.

Quote

The right to discriminate based on personally held religious beliefs is a totally different issue.   

Says the guy who hasn't even read the decision yet.

Again, I encourage you to read the decision (both the majority opinion and the dissent).  I think you will find that this case involved both free speech and free exercise issues.  To be sure, the recent spate of cases intertwine these two rights, since there are some folks in our society bound and determined to take both away from religionists, or else punish religionists for daring to exercise such rights.

Quote

I think the Supreme Court will clarify that difference with the selected cases that are currently before them.

Like they did in 1943?  See here (quoted in the majority opinion):

Quote

The dissenters engage in unfortunate hyperbole when they invoke shameful historical examples of discrimination. Infra ¶¶ 217–18 (Bales, J. (Ret.), dissenting). Plaintiffs do not seek to employ the coercive apparatus of government to impose disabilities on others. They do not discriminate against patrons based on their sexual orientation (indeed, it remains unlawful for them to do so), but instead object to conveying certain messages regardless of who the patron is. Plaintiffs seek merely to vindicate their right not to engage in speech that offends their deeply held religious beliefs, a right not only protected by the Arizona Constitution and the Free Exercise of Religion Act, but also one of our nation’s most cherished civil liberties—one that, as Justice Robert H. Jackson declared, is “beyond the reach of majorities and officials.” W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 629, 638, 642 (1943) (striking down law that required Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the American flag). As the Court’s opinion abundantly illustrates, that right does not evaporate upon enactment of a public accommodations law, no matter how beneficently inspired.

Well said!  

I encourage all readers to read the dissent.  

The majority opinion concludes gracefully (which is much more than I can say for the dissent):

Quote

There is a reciprocity and universality to these rights of speech and conscience that give us all a direct stake in protecting them regardless of the circumstances of a particular case. For instance, Phoenix could lawfully prohibit a gay calligrapher from discriminating against Christian patrons whatever their beliefs but could not force the calligrapher to create a program for a church that preached against same-sex marriage.  Likewise, if Michelangelo were alive, the City could require that he sell his sculptures free from discrimination but could not compel him to paint a chapel ceiling in a way he deemed blasphemous. That distinction is the fair accommodation required in a pluralistic society bounded by constitutional protections of individual rights.

To be candid, I think there are segments of our society that are not willing to allow religious people any sort of "fair accommodation required in a pluralistic society bounded by constitutional protections of individual rights."

By way of evidence, well, read above.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 17, 2019 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And Free Exercise issues.  From the Court's decision (bolded emphases added):

I encourage you to read through the entire decision.  It is shot through with references to religious freedom.  A search in the decision for "relig" (as in "religious," "religion," etc.) yields 215 results.

And yet there are apparently plenty of instances of so-called "gay rights" advocates who are moving heaven and earth to exempt religious people from "that principle."

Hence the lawsuits.

You haven't even read the decision, have you?

I'm content to let each reader review the decision for themselves, and then decide which us, you or I, is more accurately summarizing the findings of the Arizona Supreme Court.

From paragraph 6: "Although this case is about freedom of speech and religion..."

Later on in paragraph 6: "Plaintiffs must, and they do, serve all customers regardless of their sexual orientation. However, by focusing solely on the anti-discrimination purpose of the Ordinance, the dissent engages in a one–sided analysis that effectively deprives Plaintiffs of their fundamental right to express their beliefs. But no law, including a public accommodations law, is immune from the protections of free speech and free exercise."

It looks like the dissent isn't the only one doing "a one-sided analysis."  Though I suspect the dissent at least bothered to read the majority opinion before responding to it.  🤨

Says the guy who hasn't read the AZ Supreme Court's decision.  Which decision references "religious" or "religion" etc. 215 times (between both the majority and dissent).

Says the guy who hasn't even read the decision yet.

Again, I encourage you to read the decision (both the majority opinion and the dissent).

Like they did in 1943?  See here (quoted in the majority opinion):

Well said!  

I encourage all readers to read the dissent.  It puts on full display the presumptions to tyranny, the depths of intolerance, and the hatred for religion, that can underly those who cheer on the pummeling of religious liberty.

I think those who do so will come to regret such efforts.  The majority opinion concludes gracefully (which is much more than I can say for the dissent):

To be candid, I think there are segments of our society that are not willing to allow religious people any sort of "fair accommodation required in a pluralistic society bounded by constitutional protections of individual rights."

By way of evidence, well, read above.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm glad to see, at long last, that courts are giving due consideration to the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. In my perception, that has gotten short shrift for too long now.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Phillips is now facing a third suit by the state.

I thought that one was one of the two that were dropped a month or two ago. I would run a search but these kinds of searches just tend to give you search page after search page of angst and anger and tend to be light on details.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And the ACLU is not merely a bystander.  At times, the ACLU moves to create legal disputes (such as can advance leftist orthodoxies).

You mean like how this legal dispute you are lauding was deliberately created?

[Anijen]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I thought that one was one of the two that were dropped a month or two ago. I would run a search but these kinds of searches just tend to give you search page after search page of angst and anger and tend to be light on details.

IIRC, Phillips was sued a second time for refusing to make a cake that celebrates a gender transition (the first was the Masterpiece case). Phillips then countersued the plaintiff 9the second plaintiff) . Both then agreed to drop the suit. However, then Colorado picked up the same action the 2nd plaintiff just dropped and filed the third suit. I believe it is still in the court system. I could be wrong, but haven't heard otherwise.

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Anijen said:

IIRC, Phillips was sued a second time for refusing to make a cake that celebrates a gender transition (the first was the Masterpiece case). Phillips then countersued the plaintiff 9the second plaintiff) . Both then agreed to drop the suit. However, then Colorado picked up the same action the 2nd plaintiff just dropped and filed the third suit. I believe it is still in the court system. I could be wrong, but haven't heard otherwise.

Pretty sure that last one was the one that I read had been mutually dropped.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

Could you be more specific here? Can you show the difference in the issue? How one of the defendants, how their religious beliefs was used as discrimination? Are you saying those defendants personal held beliefs are discriminatory? Does that not imply that it is alright to sue them, but they cannot use their religious beliefs as their defense in court?

 

I am just curious, how do you think the Supreme Court will do that? I am also interested in how you clarify the difference.

I think there is a huge difference between creating art work, and baking a generic cake with no writing on it or specific topper.  Some want to decide what happens to their cakes once they leave their store.  Sometimes a cake is just a cake.  Whether it is a wedding cake or a birthday cake.  

I have said before, I don't think the Supreme Court will allow someone to use the excuse that they refuse to service a customer simply because of personally held religious beliefs.  And I don't think a merchant has control over what happens to their products offered to the public once it leaves the store. I don't think a wedding venue can discriminate against couples that legally want to marry for example because of religious beliefs.  Or a bed and breakfast place.  Or an apartment owner.   In short, I don't think that the Supreme Court will rule that religious beliefs trump every other persons rights.  

I do think the Supreme Court will give religious institutions wide berth in who they hire and who they do business with.  However, if any of those institutions receive federal money, then I believe they will be required to live by the civil rights laws and not be allowed to discriminate.

I do believe when it comes to speech and creating artwork, a person will not be compelled to create something against their beliefs.  But that doesn't mean every thing a "christian" creates has to be considered art work.  For me, cakes and flower arrangements come dangerously close to being the same as creating a hamburger.  If it comes from a catalogue or brochure or book or a menu that the item can be chosen from, it is not art, but a product.  I realize that SOME cakes and flower arrangements are art.  But only when there is something unique to them that is not offered from a menu of choices offered by the merchant to all of their other customers.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And Free Exercise issues.  From the Court's decision (bolded emphases added):

I encourage you to read through the entire decision.  It is shot through with references to religious freedom.  A search in the decision for "relig" (as in "religious," "religion," etc.) yields 215 results.

And yet there are apparently plenty of instances of so-called "gay rights" advocates who are moving heaven and earth to exempt religious people from "that principle."

Hence the lawsuits.

You haven't even read the decision, have you?

I'm content to let each reader review the decision for themselves, and then decide which us, you or I, is more accurately summarizing the findings of the Arizona Supreme Court.

From paragraph 6: "Although this case is about freedom of speech and religion..."

Later on in paragraph 6: "Plaintiffs must, and they do, serve all customers regardless of their sexual orientation. However, by focusing solely on the anti-discrimination purpose of the Ordinance, the dissent engages in a one–sided analysis that effectively deprives Plaintiffs of their fundamental right to express their beliefs. But no law, including a public accommodations law, is immune from the protections of free speech and free exercise."

It looks like the dissent isn't the only one doing "a one-sided analysis."  Though I suspect the dissenting justices at least bothered to read the majority opinion before responding to it.  🤨

Says the guy who hasn't read the AZ Supreme Court's decision.  Which decision references "religious" or "religion" etc. 215 times (between both the majority and dissent).

Yes, it matters.  If the reasons implicate the free exercise of religious belief, that matters.  That is an enumerated right, under both the state and federal constitutions.

Says the guy who hasn't even read the decision yet.

Again, I encourage you to read the decision (both the majority opinion and the dissent).  I think you will find that this case involved both free speech and free exercise issues.  To be sure, the recent spate of cases intertwine these two rights, since there are some folks in our society bound and determined to take both away from religionists, or else punish religionists for daring to exercise such rights.

Like they did in 1943?  See here (quoted in the majority opinion):

Well said!  

I encourage all readers to read the dissent.  

The majority opinion concludes gracefully (which is much more than I can say for the dissent):

To be candid, I think there are segments of our society that are not willing to allow religious people any sort of "fair accommodation required in a pluralistic society bounded by constitutional protections of individual rights."

By way of evidence, well, read above.

Thanks,

-Smac

I stand corrected.  And actually I don't disagree with what the ruling is based upon.  What I was reacting to is the idea that personally held religious beliefs trumps every other civil right, which some seem to be promoting.  

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I stand corrected.  And actually I don't disagree with what the ruling is based upon.  What I was reacting to is the idea that personally held religious beliefs trumps every other civil right, which some seem to be promoting.  

I'm not sure if my stance would fall into that category or not.  Religious belief encompasses a lot of stuff, like a person's personal motivations for doing whatever it is that person does. Religion is a way of life, by definition, and a person's God or god can be anything or anyone.

So if someone says something like: "you can't do that for this or that reason" they are crossing into religious territory.  Why can't they do that?  Who says so?  Does the fact that so-and -so says so make it right or binding on every other person?  I don't think so.

Religion belief and freedom of religion is something everyone is entitled to and in this country everyone is free to believe anything they want to believe without worrying about having to agree with everyone else.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Anijen said:

IIRC, Phillips was sued a second time for refusing to make a cake that celebrates a gender transition (the first was the Masterpiece case). Phillips then countersued the plaintiff 9the second plaintiff) . Both then agreed to drop the suit. However, then Colorado picked up the same action the 2nd plaintiff just dropped and filed the third suit. I believe it is still in the court system. I could be wrong, but haven't heard otherwise.

That’s my understanding as well, but I haven’t looked into it for a few weeks. 

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s my understanding as well, but I haven’t looked into it for a few weeks. 

I got it wrong. The civil right commission initiated legal action on the transgender case and Philips countersued and both of those were dismissed. Now the original person behind the claim is suing on the basis the state did not pursue the case correctly.

I love the story though. Call in to the infamous Cakeshop, request a gender transition cake, and then report that you are “shocked” it was refused. How stupid do you have to be to believe that? If you are going to create a test case do it. Don’t pretend to histrionics about it. Meanwhile the Cakeshop is making money hand over fist due to the publicity and donations. The case is interesting but I refuse to feel sorry for anyone involved.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I got it wrong. The civil right commission initiated legal action on the transgender case and Philips countersued and both of those were dismissed. Now the original person behind the claim is suing on the basis the state did not pursue the case correctly.

I love the story though. Call in to the infamous Cakeshop, request a gender transition cake, and then report that you are “shocked” it was refused. How stupid do you have to be to believe that? If you are going to create a test case do it. Don’t pretend to histrionics about it. Meanwhile the Cakeshop is making money hand over fist due to the publicity and donations. The case is interesting but I refuse to feel sorry for anyone involved.

Do you have documented knowledge that the bakery is “making money hand over fist,” or are you only guessing at that? My understanding is that the court battles waged against the owner have harmed his business.

As for donations, I would think they would go directly toward the baker’s legal defense and would not be enriching him in any meaningful way — not my idea of “making money hand over fist.”

 

[Calm]

This example goes straight to the owner, not itemized towards legal defenses or the shop:

https://www.continuetogive.com/4821919

Here's another one:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/masterpiece-cakeshop

I believe the ADF is funded independently by its own donations.

Quote

Over the past 24 years, ADF has experienced remarkable growth, today receiving contributions of more than $50 million a year—up from $14 million in 2002—and boasting 58 staff attorneys based in its headquarters in Arizona and in offices in Washington, DC, and elsewhere. It also has an international presence, including opposing LGBTQ equality in courts in the European Union and advising anti-LGBTQ parliamentarians in Romania.

ADF’s funding comes from individual donations, which by law are kept secret, as well as from charitable foundations, which by law must be disclosed on the donors’ tax returns. But much of ADF’s foundation funding—$77.6 million between 2008 and 2015, more than a quarter of the organization’s total donations during this period—comes through the National Christian Charitable Foundation, a conservative donor-advised fund that allows contributors to shield their identities from public view....

With this swelling war chest, ADF has been able to assemble what its founder Sears has called a “legal army.” Its ranks include more than 3,000 allied attorneys who litigate ADF cases pro bono, as well as 1,800 graduates of the Blackstone Legal Fellowship. Through these networks, ADF has exerted its influence throughout the conservative legal world, across law firms, state and federal governments, and the judiciary.

To become an “allied attorney,” one must agree with ADF’s 11-pointstatement of faith, which includes a commitment to believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ, that God designed marriage for one man and one woman, and that homosexual behavior is “sinful and offensive to God.” ADF states that its allied attorneys have so far donated more than 1 million hours of pro bono work, worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Trenton Garmon, the attorney representing Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore, is among the allied attorneys who have been inducted into ADF’s “Honor Corps” for donating more than 450 pro bono hours to the organization.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-christian-legal-army-behind-masterpiece-cakeshop/

Quote

That should have been the end of it. But now, Jack is facing anotherlegal battle. And he once again needs an ally who will stand with him. He needs you.

Already, a generous family has answered the call and provided a $2 million challenge grant to help defend people like Jack. Will you give today to further the impact for freedom during this very critical time?

https://www.adflegal.org/enough-is-enough

I am assuming this is a shot of the bakery, showing separate collecting of legal funds vs. straight to Phillips:

https://www.shutterstock.com/editorial/image-editorial/supreme-court-wedding-cake-case-lakewood-usa-04-jun-2018-9703002t

There are likely religious organizations that held fundraising events from what I have been reading.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

This example goes straight to the owner, not itemized towards legal defenses or the shop:

https://www.continuetogive.com/4821919

Here's another one:

https://www.gofundme.com/f/masterpiece-cakeshop

Do you have evidence that supports The Nehor’s claim that Phillips has been enriched by being repeatedly taken to court (my understanding of the meaning of “making money hand over fist”)? 

In 2017, he said he had lost 40 percent of his business. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/masterpiece-cakeshop-owner-says-hes-lost-40-of-business-welcomes-scotus-hearing%3f_amp=true

I can’t think it would be an easy thing to restore that, gofundme pages notwithstanding, especially if one must defend against incessant onslaughts in the legal arena. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you have evidence that supports The Nehor’s claim that Phillips has been enriched by being repeatedly taken to court (my understanding of the meaning of “making money hand over fist”)? 

In 2017, he said he had lost 40 percent of his business. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/masterpiece-cakeshop-owner-says-hes-lost-40-of-business-welcomes-scotus-hearing%3f_amp=true

I can’t think it would be an easy thing to restore that, gofundme pages notwithstanding, especially if one must defend against incessant onslaughts in the legal arena. 

Didn't see that kind of information.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you have evidence that supports The Nehor’s claim that Phillips has been enriched by being repeatedly taken to court (my understanding of the meaning of “making money hand over fist”)? 

In 2017, he said he had lost 40 percent of his business. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/masterpiece-cakeshop-owner-says-hes-lost-40-of-business-welcomes-scotus-hearing%3f_amp=true

I can’t think it would be an easy thing to restore that, gofundme pages notwithstanding, especially if one must defend against incessant onslaughts in the legal arena. 

If the ADF is not covering his legal costs they need to be smacked upside the head repeatedly. They probably made more in increased donations from the publicity of the case than they spent on it. ADF finances are hard to follow though. This is deliberate.

I found about $400k total on public giving sites and other locations and reports in donations directly to the owner. There are others as well along with references to some large donations from wealthy people with undisclosed amounts. I am thinking you could conservatively double that. While custom wedding cakes were, according to him, 40% of his business he does not say whether that was pre-case or post-case (I would guess former). The conservative backlash of support almost certainly increased sales in other areas at least temporarily. Unless the cake business is much more lucrative then I imagine the donations alone almost certainly more than cover the shortfall.

Do I have hard numbers on this? No. Then again he is not giving hard numbers to support the 40% loss or saying whether donations have made up for the loss. I am not suggesting he should. I am satisfied he is almost certainly not hurting financially and is likely to have made some money on this.

Then again I could be biased. I find his refusal to make the cake stupid and petty. I find the argument that cakes are speech silly. I am reminded of the 1968 case where a South Carolina barbeque joint tried to argue that they should not have to serve racial minorities because the owner’s religious beliefs stood against integration of the races. The Supreme Court called the argument frivolous and absurd. Lately though the cause of discrimination is on the rise again. Based on surveys people are increasingly believing that the right to discriminate based on race and religion (primarily Jews and Muslims) should be tolerated. We have a groundswell of people striving to undo the Civil Rights Act. Luckily they are still a minority.....so far but I have seen people on this board argue that every business owner has a right to discriminate as they wish. With the number of Christians sinking are they sure they want to dig this pit? If demographic trends continue soon it will not be hard for their enemies to shove them into it.

[smac97]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I stand corrected.  And actually I don't disagree with what the ruling is based upon.  

• California Boy: "This is a case based on free speech issues.  I agree with the ruling.  No one should be forced to speak against their beliefs."
• Smac97: "I encourage you to read through the entire decision.  It is shot through with references to religious freedom."
• California Boy: "I stand corrected.  And actually I don't disagree with what the ruling is based upon."

I guess that about sums it up.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

What I was reacting to is the idea that personally held religious beliefs trumps every other civil right, which some seem to be promoting.  

There is a "civil right" to compel someone to speak in ways that they do not want to speak?

There is a "civil right" to use the coercive power of government to punish free exercise?

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

In my mind the real loss is creating, maintaining and upholding an us vs them mentality here.  Creating sides and division is what this is all about, in my mind.  It is reprehensible behavior to discriminate in business like this.  I'm not suggesting it should be illegal or anything.  I think it's division causing and nothing more.  

[smac97]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I think there is a huge difference between creating art work, and baking a generic cake with no writing on it or specific topper.  Some want to decide what happens to their cakes once they leave their store.  Sometimes a cake is just a cake.  Whether it is a wedding cake or a birthday cake.  

I pretty much agree with you.

But the Phillips case did not involve "generic" services or work product.  Neither did the Brush & Nib case.  Both involved bespoke work.  Both involved artistic "speech."

Similarly, the Hands On Originals case, currently pending in Kentucky (see here) seems to fall within "artistic speech" territory.

I think the harder-to-figure out case is the Arlene's Flowers from Washington State.  Are "floral arrangements" to be construed as "artistic speech?"  And if not, is there an argument to be made that the Free Exercise Clause protects the owner of the flower shop from public accommodations / anti-discrimination laws?

As to Phillips, Brush & Nib, and Hands On Originals, I think the case law is shaping up nicely in favor of Free Exercise / Free Speech.  I'm ambivalent about Arlene's Flowers. 

I strongly dislike how public accommodation and anti-discrimination statutes are being weaponized to punish religious people. 

I also want gay folks to be able to get the goods and services they need. 

I also want Americans of every stripe to not be compelled to "speak" in ways they do not wish to speak, and I don't want them punished for filing to submit to such compulsion.  

I also want religious people to be able to live according to the tenets of their sincerely-held religious beliefs.

I also think that the free market can likely resolve almost all tensions at play in these disputes.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I have said before, I don't think the Supreme Court will allow someone to use the excuse that they refuse to service a customer simply because of personally held religious beliefs.  

"Simply because."  That's how you characterize the concept of religious liberty in the United States.

Meanwhile, do you support the idea that a gay artist can be compelled, under threat of finds and imprisonment, to provide services to or participate in an event he finds offensive?  

15 hours ago, california boy said:

And I don't think a merchant has control over what happens to their products offered to the public once it leaves the store.

Most of these cases pertain to the creation of the product in the first place.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I don't think a wedding venue can discriminate against couples that legally want to marry for example because of religious beliefs.

I'm leaning toward agreeing with you on this one, at least provisionally.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Or a bed and breakfast place.  Or an apartment owner.   In short, I don't think that the Supreme Court will rule that religious beliefs trump every other persons rights.

To some extent, you have a point in suggesting that "religious beliefs" are not a carte blanche pretext for across-the-board refusal of goods and services based on sexual orientation.

However, I also think you are way to dismissive of the significance of the Free Exercise clause.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I do think the Supreme Court will give religious institutions wide berth in who they hire and who they do business with.  However, if any of those institutions receive federal money, then I believe they will be required to live by the civil rights laws and not be allowed to discriminate.

This demonstrates the dangers inherent in getting in bed with the government.  

15 hours ago, california boy said:

I do believe when it comes to speech and creating artwork, a person will not be compelled to create something against their beliefs.

I agree.  But what amounts to "speech" will take some sorting out.

But to be sure, there are some folks who are bound and determined to do all they can to do just that: To compel religious people to "speak" and create "artwork" that is "against their beliefs."  And to punish them for failing to capitulate.  This is why these lawsuits have become necessary.

15 hours ago, california boy said:

But that doesn't mean every thing a "christian" creates has to be considered art work.

I agree.  Not all work product is "speech."

15 hours ago, california boy said:

For me, cakes and flower arrangements come dangerously close to being the same as creating a hamburger.

For me, weaponizing public accommodation/antidiscrimination statutes against religious people, in order to use the power of government, the threat of fines and imprisonment and financial ruin and destruction of livelihoods, to coerce religious people into speaking things they do not want to speak, to do things that violate their religious beliefs, comes dangerously close to the sorts of tyrannies that preceded the creation of America in the first place.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 It is reprehensible behavior to discriminate in business like this.  I'm not suggesting it should be illegal or anything.  I think it's division causing and nothing more.  

Do you see pursuing a company with a lawsuit for discrimination as likely to lead the company and those who own and are employed by it to feel they are seen as part of the plantiff's community or more as 'one of them'?

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

In my mind the real loss is creating, maintaining and upholding an us vs them mentality here. 

Yes, that is a problem.  But the aggressors are those who seek to use the power of government to punish others for their speech and religious beliefs, or resistance to being compelled to speak and violate their religious beliefs.

I am glad we have the legal system to help sort out these disputes.

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Creating sides and division is what this is all about, in my mind. 

I suspect that you blamine one group, and not the other, for this.

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It is reprehensible behavior to discriminate in business like this. 

A-ha!  I thought so.

I think it is reprehensible to weaponize public accommodation/antidiscrimination statutes against religious people.  So where does that leave us?

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not suggesting it should be illegal or anything. 

Sounds like we mostly agree.  

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's division causing and nothing more.  

You might have a change of heart if and when you are threatened with fines and imprisonment for refusing to speak in ways that you do not want to speak, in ways that violate your religious beliefs or your conscience.

Thanks,

-Smac