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

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

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

Sounds like we mostly agree.  

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

I'm commenting on the initial effort to divide--which is denying people services due to sexual orientation.  I'm not saying it is good to pursue legal action.  I did not condone that.   the primary problem, in my mind, and the great cause for division, is those who wish to use their religious beliefs to exclude others.  Without that initial effort to divide there would be no defined problem here.  

[The Nehor]

It would have been better to just make the stupid cake. If he did not make the stupid cake then boycott or shame instead of suing. Probably would have done more economic harm.

I guess all the lawyers get to feed their families so someone is benefitting.

[InCognitus]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm commenting on the initial effort to divide--which is denying people services due to sexual orientation.  I'm not saying it is good to pursue legal action.  I did not condone that.   the primary problem, in my mind, and the great cause for division, is those who wish to use their religious beliefs to exclude others.  Without that initial effort to divide there would be no defined problem here.  

Wouldn't the true initial effort to divide be when individuals try to force people with religious beliefs to do things contrary to their beliefs?

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm commenting on the initial effort to divide--which is denying people services due to sexual orientation. 

I dispute the characterization of, say, Phillips refusal to submit to efforts to compell speech from him as "the initial effort to divide."

Phillips was not trying to "divide" anything.  He just does not want to be compelled to speak in ways that violate his conscience and his religious beliefs.

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not saying it is good to pursue legal action.  I did not condone that.   The primary problem, in my mind, and the great cause for division, is those who wish to use their religious beliefs to exclude others. 

With respect, I disagree.  I would submit that the "initial effort to divide" and the "great cause for division" here arises not from people like Phillips, but from people who are weaponizing public accommodations/antidiscrimination statutes to punish religious people, particularly Christians.  To drive them to financial ruin (and, perhaps, even prison) should they fail to capitulate.  To push them out of the public sphere for WrongThink.

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Without that initial effort to divide there would be no defined problem here.  

If by "that initial effort" you were referring to the weaponization of public accommodations/antidiscrimination statutes to punish religious people, I would entirely agree with you.

But you aren't, so I don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Wouldn't the true initial effort to divide be when individuals try to force people with religious beliefs to do things contrary to their beliefs?

Both sides are childish.

If, as Paul taught, Christians can eat flesh sacrificed to pagan idols without violating their faith they can put a message they do not wholly endorse on a baked good that will be quickly consumed and forgotten. The lgbt crowd can just not sue or at least not deliberately set up stupid and poorly designed test cases and instead shame or boycott or ridicule the weirdos refusing service or just forget about it.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Wouldn't the true initial effort to divide be when individuals try to force people with religious beliefs to do things contrary to their beliefs?

+1.  Hurry up and accrue 25 posts so I can upvote your salient, erudite comments! 😀

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Both sides are childish.

 

OK, as long as your imagination isn't failing you with respect to where that attitude, pursued to its logical conclusion, might lead.  So you would have no problem baking a cake in these circumstances.  (While I support proprietors' right to refuse on conscience or religious grounds, I, too, likely would bake the cake.)  However, are you really certain that there is absolutely no circumstance in which government might compel you to speak in a way that violates your conscience, and that, thus, you might find offensive?

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Both sides are childish.

If, as Paul taught, Christians can eat flesh sacrificed to pagan idols without violating their faith they can put a message they do not wholly endorse on a baked good that will be quickly consumed and forgotten. The lgbt crowd can just not sue or at least not deliberately set up stupid and poorly designed test cases and instead shame or boycott or ridicule the weirdos refusing service or just forget about it.

I agree that both sides can be childish. 

The reference to eating meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians is interesting, because Paul explains that there’s nothing wrong with eating that kind of meat since the sacrifice of the meat to idols doesn’t have any meaning to a Christian believer.  Paul says that his readers should be careful not to do it if it would offend someone else who is weak in the faith.  It’s a matter of conscience.   But I’m not sure how this would apply to the topic of this thread.

If we are looking for scriptural parallels, I would think that Daniel chapter 6 might apply.  In that chapter the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel and conspired to set up laws that would force him to do things contrary to his religious beliefs, or suffer the consequences.  They wanted to make a public example of him and they succeeded in their efforts to do that (even though it backfired on them in the end).
 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Both sides are childish.

 

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

OK, as long as your imagination isn't failing you with respect to where that attitude, pursued to its logical conclusion, might lead.  So you would have no problem baking a cake in these circumstances.  (While I support proprietors' right to refuse on conscience or religious grounds, I, too, likely would bake the cake.)  However, are you really certain that there is absolutely no circumstance in which government might compel you to speak in a way that violates your conscience, and that, thus, you might find offensive?

First, they came after my Christian brother, because he would not behave in a manner that violated his conscience. I withheld my support, because I thought he was being childish. 

Then, they came after me for refusing to be coerced into doing something I found deeply offensive, and there was no one left to speak up for me. 

[bsjkki]

Well, here is a case where the LDS man is being kicked out of a medical cost sharing program because he isn't traditionally 'Christian.' I've had friends of mine kicked out of playgroups and home school groups because to some, self defined, Christians, members of the church are not 'Christians.' I have not heard of anyone suing. I don't think this man is planning to sue either and he generally, seems to take this in stride. It does seem that they are purposely tightening up their interpretation of membership requirements to exclude members. https://www.ksl.com/article/46640296/christian-health-care-organization-asks-latter-day-saints-to-rethink-their-beliefs-or-leave

"The organization’s statement of faith is grounded in the Bible, while Latter-day Saints “historically … affirm additional scriptures as authoritative,” the letter continues. Those scriptures, as well as leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, have “denied at least some portion” of the organization’s statement of faith, the letter adds.

Baker, a Utah native now living in Alaska, said when he joined the organization he promised to attend church regularly; abstain from drugs, alcohol and extramarital sex; and abide by other requirements, but he didn’t recall any of his beliefs being contrary to the organization’s — nor did anyone flag his admission application." “Had I known, I wouldn't have voluntarily signed up. But we knew a lot of other LDS people who had been in it and never had an issue,” he said.

Here is their statement of faith. 

*We believe in the triune God of the Bible. He is one God Who is revealed in three distinct Persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. GEN 1:26 | LUKE 1:35, 3:21-22 | 2 COR 13:14 | MATT 28:18-20

*We believe Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, and continues to be such even after His resurrection—fully God and fully man. He was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, was bodily resurrected on the third day, and now is seated in the heavens at the right hand of God the Father. ISA 7:14, 9:6 | MATT 1:22-23, 26:64 | MARK 16:19 | LUKE 24:38-40 | JOHN 1:1-2, 1:14, 1:29, 2:18-21, 5:18, 8:46 | ACTS 2:32-33 | 1 COR 15:3-4, 15:20-21 | 2 COR 5:21 | COL 1:15-20, 2:9 | HEB 1:1-4, 4:14-15, 7:26, 9:11-14, 10:10-12 | 1 PETER 2:22-24 | 1 JOHN 3:5

*We believe that all people have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory and can be saved from eternal death only through faith in Jesus Christ, Whose atoning death and resurrection secures for us eternal life. JER 17:9 | JOHN 3:3, 14:6, 20:30-31 | ROM 3:9-11, 3:23, 5:12-21, 10:8-13 | EPH 2:8-9

Can I tell you, I find it interesting that they define the Triune God and in the next requirement, mention Christ will sit on the right side of God the Father. How does  this make any sense? I think the 'egg' theory kind of falls apart with that statement. 

Anyway, I agree if they don't want members of the church in their group, that is there prerogative but they should affirm they do not want active members from our faith to participate. 

The article concluded,  "The letter Baker received encourages “anyone who is in fellowship with the LDS faith” to attend a “Biblical Christian” church and reflect on their ability to affirm the organization’s statement of faith.“If you genuinely affirm Samaritan’s Statement of Faith and your church, ward, temple, or fellowship cannot, we kindly and sincerely ask how you are able to reconcile the LDS teachings with your Biblical, Christian confession with Samaritan Ministries,” the letter reads.Baker said he’s grateful the organization has reached out instead of instantly expelling him and thinks they’re trying to understand – though he’s surprised it’s an issue at all.“The approach seemed a little heavy-handed,” he said. “If they feel that they have to take steps to kick us out, then I’ll let them take that step.”

 

Advertise with us

Report ad

Edited September 18, 2019 by bsjkki

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

OK, as long as your imagination isn't failing you with respect to where that attitude, pursued to its logical conclusion, might lead.  So you would have no problem baking a cake in these circumstances.  (While I support proprietors' right to refuse on conscience or religious grounds, I, too, likely would bake the cake.)  However, are you really certain that there is absolutely no circumstance in which government might compel you to speak in a way that violates your conscience, and that, thus, you might find offensive?

I do acknowledge this. I just do not think a cake decorated to order qualifies as coercive speech. It is a cake.

If someone hired someone and wanted them to sing a racist song or tried to commission them to paint a sacrilegious painting then I will back them. I would feel they should be able to refuse as well if the cake they wanted was overtly satanic or pornographic.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do acknowledge this. I just do not think a cake decorated to order qualifies as coercive speech. It is a cake.

What would you say of this decorated cake:

Is that "speech?"

Or this:

Is that "speech?"

Or this:

Is that "speech?"

Or this:

Or this:

Speech?

Or this:

"Speech?"

I have addressed this point previously here.

If I were in the cake-making business, I would not be thrilled at the prospect of being compelled, under threats of fine and/or imprisonment, to use my skills to express messages such as those shown above.

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If someone hired someone and wanted them to sing a racist song or tried to commission them to paint a sacrilegious painting then I will back them.

But not any of the above?  What is the difference?

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I agree that both sides can be childish. 

The reference to eating meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians is interesting, because Paul explains that there’s nothing wrong with eating that kind of meat since the sacrifice of the meat to idols doesn’t have any meaning to a Christian believer.  Paul says that his readers should be careful not to do it if it would offend someone else who is weak in the faith.  It’s a matter of conscience.   But I’m not sure how this would apply to the topic of this thread.

If we are looking for scriptural parallels, I would think that Daniel chapter 6 might apply.  In that chapter the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel and conspired to set up laws that would force him to do things contrary to his religious beliefs, or suffer the consequences.  They wanted to make a public example of him and they succeeded in their efforts to do that (even though it backfired on them in the end).
 

True, I was not going in that direction though that was what convinced me not to drink caffeinated soda at church events. I did not want to offend anyone. I was going more for the angle that sacrificing to pagan gods is a sin but the believer can interact with it from a distance and not be stained by it.

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

First, they came after my Christian brother, because he would not behave in a manner that violated his conscience. I withheld my support, because I thought he was being childish. 

Then, they came after me for refusing to be coerced into doing something I found deeply offensive, and there was no one left to speak up for me. 

That is slippery slope in almost pure form and the original you are alluding to is not analogous. Here is one version of the poem you referenced:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

The difference is that when they came for the communists that was a pure unmitigated evil. The were taking people to death camps. Openly. Having to make a cake does not compare. The poem does not get worse as it continues. The first evil is the same as the last. I believe that you are tough enough that if you were a cakemaker and had to put the names Adam and Steve on the cake you would be okay. The communists and Jews were not okay.

Hence the slippery slope. You are arguing that if I do not take every accommodation I might have to make for my religious beliefs as sacrosanct I cannot have lines I will not cross. I have to defend the guy who will not make wedding invitations for an interracial marriage because of his religious beliefs? I have to argue that religious corporations have the right to violate insurance standards?

I reject that reasoning. Furthermore the church seems to. Did they demand the right to perform legal marriages in temples where it was not allowed by law based on religious freedom? No. Do they demand release time seminary in all school districts as a religious right? No. They pick their battles and try to be civil along the way.

The cake thing is petty and that is what I resent. If this continues to escalate and become more and more tightly defined (and it probably will) it is just going to get more and more petty. A city nearby does a rotating nativity presentation every Christmas. Our church and other churches involved. It rotates between public land and churches and people can just go see it. Is this a little iffy? Sure. Is anyone throwing a fit? No one I hear about. These kinds of minor collaborations are what keep things going smoothly. It is how we have release time seminary and prayers at some civic meetings and how we don’t have open school prayer. We gave a little. If we start throwing everything to the courts both sides will start losing things that are very important to them and gnash their teeth and go after petty concerns and the war escalates and the courts become more politicized and the decisions get more and more random. Hate increases and Satan laughs as his dominion increases.

Now imagine an alternate scenario. Imagine the cake maker gets an order for the cake. It is not something he agrees with but thinks it is not worth the trouble to deal with so he says it will take a little longer to get the toppers as he does not have them in stock. They design the cake and deliver it. More similar orders come in. No problem. Two years later he is asked to make a pornographic or anti-Christian cake. He demurs. Forces rise up for a legal contest but this time he has more allies, people who ostensibly “should” be on the other side remember their pleasant experience and a few speak out.

I anticipate a response telling me I do not understand how evil they are and how depraved and hateful and how kindness and civility would change nothing and for the less sane that is true but they are not the majority. Most people react positively to kindness and civility and I would argue that those most likely to try to rebut me on this purely experience the “Left” through the news and rhetoric filtered mostly through Amalickiah’s hired spokesmen of hate. How often have you gone out to dinner with them? Spent time playing sports or interacting on a social level? They are not caricatures, the people the demagogues on both sides need to keep enraged are people.

If I may be a little frothy I would share an example from several years back. A friend of my father is semi-prominent in their community. When he was getting ready to retire he got interested in a specific charitable organization. It had two very senior positions that have to work together for the organization to work and he got one of them. A woman he did not know got the other. When they met for the first time it turns out she knew him and his political leanings and religious affiliation. She started by wanting to clear the air and politely but forcefully said, (paraphrasing all this) “ I am a married lesbian liberal Democrat and I am dedicated to this stance,” His response was along the lines of: “I am a married LDS Christian conservative Republican and I think we are going to get along just fine.” They shook hands and they did because they both passionately cared about what they were doing.

Edited to Fix:

Our obsession with the petty elements of our differences is saddening. I am not trying to suggest that there are not real differences and the battle over them is important but we need to act like the Church did with the overthrow of Prohibition or the loss of the same sex marriage battle. We fought and we lost and we moved on without bitterness or rancor. When we win the big battles hopefully same thing. The war is between good and evil, not over defeating the enemy.

Edited September 18, 2019 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

True, I was not going in that direction though that was what convinced me not to drink caffeinated soda at church events. I did not want to offend anyone. I was going more for the angle that sacrificing to pagan gods is a sin but the believer can interact with it from a distance and not be stained by it.

That is slippery slope in almost pure form and the original you are alluding to is not analogous. Here is one version of the poem you referenced:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

The difference is that when they came for the communists that was a pure unmitigated evil. The were taking people to death camps. Openly. Having to make a cake does not compare. The poem does not get worse as it continues. The first evil is the same as the last. I believe that you are tough enough that if you were a cakemaker and had to put the names Adam and Steve on the cake you would be okay. The communists and Jews were not okay.

Hence the slippery slope. You are arguing that if I do not take every accommodation I might have to make for my religious beliefs as sacrosanct I cannot have lines I will not cross. I have to defend the guy who will not make wedding invitations for an interracial marriage because of his religious beliefs? I have to argue that religious corporations have the right to violate insurance standards?

I reject that reasoning. Furthermore the church seems to. Did they demand the right to perform legal marriages in temples where it was not allowed by law based on religious freedom? No. Do they demand release time seminary in all school districts as a religious right? No. They pick their battles and try to be civil along the way.

The cake thing is petty and that is what I resent. If this continues to escalate and become more and more tightly defined (and it probably will) it is just going to get more and more petty. A city nearby does a rotating nativity presentation every Christmas. Our church and other churches involved. It rotates between public land and churches and people can just go see it. Is this a little iffy? Sure. Is anyone throwing a fit? No one I hear about. These kinds of minor collaborations are what keep things going smoothly. It is how we have release time seminary and prayers at some civic meetings and how we don’t have open school prayer. We gave a little. If we start throwing everything to the courts both sides will start losing things that are very important to them and gnash their teeth and go after petty concerns and the war escalates and the courts become more politicized and the decisions get more and more random. Hate increases and Satan laughs as his dominion increases.

Now imagine an alternate scenario. Imagine the cake maker gets an order for the cake. It is not something he agrees with but thinks it is not worth the trouble to deal with so he says it will take a little longer to get the toppers as he does not have them in stock. They design the cake and deliver it. More similar orders come in. No problem. Two years later he is asked to make a pornographic or anti-Christian cake. He demurs. Forces rise up for a legal contest but this time he has more allies, people who ostensibly “should” be on the other side remember their pleasant experience and a few speak out.

I anticipate a response telling me I do not understand how evil they are and how depraved and hateful and how kindness and civility would change nothing and for the less sane that is true but they are not the majority. Most people react positively to kindness and civility and I would argue that those most likely to try to rebut me on this purely experience the “Left” through the news and rhetoric filtered mostly through Amalickiah’s hired spokesmen of hate. How often have you gone out to dinner with them? Spent time playing sports or interacting on a social level? They are not caricatures, the people the demagogues on both sides need to keep enraged are people.

If I may be a little frothy I would share an example from several years back. A friend of my father is semi-prominent in their community. When he was getting ready to retire he got interested in a specific charitable organization. It had two very senior positions that have to work together for the organization to work and he got one of them. A woman he did not know got the other. When they met for the first time it turns out she knew him and his political leanings and religious affiliation. She started by wanting to clear the air and politely but forcefully said, (paraphrasing all this) “ I am a married lesbian liberal Democrat and I am dedicated to this stance,” His response was along the lines of: “I am a married LDS Christian conservative Republican and I think we are going to get along just fine.” They shook hands and they did because they both passionately cared about what they were doing.

Edited to Fix:

Our obsession with the petty elements of our differences is saddening. I am not trying to suggest that there are not real differences and the battle over them is important but we need to act like the Church did with the overthrow of Prohibition or the loss of the same sex marriage battle. We fought and we lost and we moved on without bitterness or rancor. When we win the big battles hopefully same thing. The war is between good and evil, not over defeating the enemy.

There is a principle here that applies across the board. That principle is respect by the government for human rights, among them being freedom of conscience. It’s the underlying principle of the First Amendment. 

And I beg to differ: My adaptation of this parable is indeed comparable to the original in the expression of reverence for human rights under the law and government. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What would you say of this decorated cake:

Is that "speech?"

You want me to evaluate cakes. I would prefer to taste them but okay.

No, not speech. It is kind of cute but that is about it. I do object to what look to be actual flower petals on the cake. Cake is for eating. Aesthetics can add to the effect but taste is much more important and I do not want petals in my frosting.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or this:

Is that "speech?"

No, it is stupid. Everyone knows that Bert and Ernie are not gay.

The creators weighed in on this back in 2013: (warning: no one should view this video, you have been warned)

More seriously, I would probably not condemn a cake baker saying no to that one though I personally would say yes to help out, for the technical challenge of the faces, and I would make sure to take a picture so I can show it to others for a good laugh later.

Is that even a cake? I can't tell. If not, I ban it for false advertising. I was promised cake in this post.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or this:

Is that "speech?"

Yeah, that would cross the line for me beyond reasonable accommodation.

Plus, it is an unfair cake. If you do not get a piece from the bible half you get less frosting.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or this:

I am more of a rope BDSM guy as opposed to leather and chains so not entirely to my taste. I would have also gone with muscleman and a more twinkish figure to provide some contrast but maybe that does not fit the couple. If they asked me to join them for the honeymoon I might be tempted. They look like they know how to have a good time. "Hit me baby one more time" indeed.

I also applaud the creative use of what I believe to be vintage He-Man figures. I remember the hand positions very well from playing with them as a kid. They might even both be He-Man. Coloration seems to match but the models were the same for a lot of the figures.

This is also a case where you could bow out because the toppers are probably hard to find. Don't think there is a real message there either. Thanks for reminding me that my mom gave away my toys to the greedy and rapacious "less fortunate" children. Well, they probably were not worth much anyways. We will always have the memories guys.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or this:

Speech?

Only acceptable if they play "Springtime for Hitler" on a loop at whatever event that cake is celebrating and if you add "Heil baby!" as a caption on the cake and you have a Hitler pinata for everyone to smash. Otherwise it crosses into speech.

Also hits on the Bible cake problem of the cake not being evenly distributed. Frosting consistency people!!!! FOCUS!!!!

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or this:

"Speech?"

Is that a divorce cake? If so, I find it clever and would love to make that cake. It made me laugh. I like.

It's not really speech though unless the cake was created by a militant feminist to call for the death of all men. Nah, I take it back, even then it still qualifies as comedy.

I do think this is the most egregiously bad cake yet. Is that even a real cake? There isn't enough for everyone to have a good slice unless this is a divorce cake and she is eating it alone at home while crying which makes it less funny so hope it is not that.

Keep the toppers and add more cake and more blood/raspberry topping for consistency. If you insist on the blood staying the way it is in terms of distribution put a bowl of it with a spoon next to the cake so people can add some if their slice is light on blood.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have addressed this point previously here.

If I were in the cake-making business, I would not be thrilled at the prospect of being compelled, under threats of fine and/or imprisonment, to use my skills to express messages such as those shown above.

But not any of the above?  What is the difference?

Thanks,

-Smac

In your argument you talk about that Belfast case. It is worth noting that neither Northern Ireland or the British Isles have a Free Speech amendment. There are times I envy them that lack but usually not and not in that specific case. I would not use that as an example of a potential test case in the United States.

I would make most of them. Maybe you are just not suited for the cake business. Now if you will excuse me I am off to cooking school.

The difference is message. Free Speech is about the protection of ideas. A pair of male toppers on a cake is not expressing an idea beyond just marriage. Bert and Ernie are a little closer because it is conveying an idea as part of an ideology but even there it is a little on the line. There is some comedy and satire in there and it could be argued it is celebrating an anniversary. The bible cake is definitely an ideological message.

The BDSM cake is just corny and funny. I am not sure how it conveys any ideas beyond amusement.

The Nazi cake is definitely ideological.

I have no idea what the last cake would be even trying to say so no, I would not put that under free speech.

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is a principle here that applies across the board. That principle is respect by the government for human rights, among them being freedom of conscience. It’s the underlying principle of the First Amendment. 

If the principle of freedom of conscience is inviolate in all cases and it is not a matter of degree and there can be no compromise with it then we are wrong. The Civil Rights movement legislation was a travesty. That 1968 South Carolina case where a BBQ sought the right to exclude minorities from their restaurant based on their religious beliefs was decided wrongly.

Bring back the "No Coloreds" signs. Put up "No Homos" and "No Jews" and "No Mormons" signs too. I am not using hyperbole here. That is literally what some people will do. I think it is worth a little accommodation and inoffensive compromise to avoid living in that world.

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And I beg to differ: My adaptation of this parable is indeed comparable to the original. 

And there you are just patently and unequivocally wrong. That you want to compare death camps to frosting patterns is ludicrous. I assumed you were older but are you by chance a Millenial? This sounds like the whining special snowflake "I need to be protected from anything even mildly uncomfortable" mentality I am often told they exemplify.

Either that or your sense of perspective is WAY off, like this far off:

[Amulek]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Bring back the "No Coloreds" signs. Put up "No Homos" and "No Jews" and "No Mormons" signs too. I am not using hyperbole here. That is literally what some people will do. I think it is worth a little accommodation and inoffensive compromise to avoid living in that world.

The notion that a victory for artists on their free speech claims is somehow going to slingshot our country back to the Jim Crow South is one of the most outlandish arguments I hear banded about in these discussions. It's patently false. I would go so far as to say that it ranks up there with other such epic falsehoods as, "If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" or, if you prefer, "Read my lips - no new taxes." 

It's just never going to happen. Period. 

 

[Anijen]

It is easy to say; "just bake the silly cake." It is easier to take the easy way out hoping to maintain peace. However, there are time we should not bake that cake and fight for your principles.

One of the things we agree to do as part of our baptismal covenant is to stand as  witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places. We renew that covenant every week. There are times when standing as a witness of God will mean to face opposition, criticism, and ridicule. The road less traveled is often more difficult, it is not the easy way. Defending your beliefs even in the face of scorn disguised as being judged as discriminatory.

We can say, "I would have just baked the cake." At what cost?  If we bake that cake, we are giving up a little bit of our freedoms (of speech of religion), we are saying; "government go ahead and force me how I should think." When we are told how to think, even when it is good it is still at the little bit cost of our agency. When we allow the government to tell us how to think eventually some of those ways will be contrary to Gods ways.

A wedding cake is not a hamburger.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Anijen

[Daniel2]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm commenting on the initial effort to divide--which is denying people services due to sexual orientation.  I'm not saying it is good to pursue legal action.  I did not condone that.   the primary problem, in my mind, and the great cause for division, is those who wish to use their religious beliefs to exclude others.  Without that initial effort to divide there would be no defined problem here.  

+ adding my rep point here.

[Daniel2]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I dispute the characterization of, say, Phillips refusal to submit to efforts to compell speech from him as "the initial effort to divide."

Phillips was not trying to "divide" anything.  He just does not want to be compelled to speak in ways that violate his conscience and his religious beliefs.

With respect, I disagree.  I would submit that the "initial effort to divide" and the "great cause for division" here arises not from people like Phillips, but from people who are weaponizing public accommodations/antidiscrimination statutes to punish religious people, particularly Christians.  To drive them to financial ruin (and, perhaps, even prison) should they fail to capitulate.  To push them out of the public sphere for WrongThink.

If by "that initial effort" you were referring to the weaponization of public accommodations/antidiscrimination statutes to punish religious people, I would entirely agree with you.

But you aren't, so I don't.

Thanks,

-Smac

White Christian business owners seeking to deny services to blacks or interracial couples sympathized and supported very similar (and in some cases, virtually identical) arguments you’re peddling in their efforts to defend denial of services to blacks and interracial couples. 

As we look back on those white, Christian business owners’ attempts for self-justification, history certainly doesn’t support your similar characterization of them as “the victims.” And rightfully so, IMO. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

What would you say of this decorated cake:

Is that "speech?"

Or this:

Is that "speech?"

Or this:

Is that "speech?"

Or this:

Or this:

Speech?

Or this:

"Speech?"

I have addressed this point previously here.

If I were in the cake-making business, I would not be thrilled at the prospect of being compelled, under threats of fine and/or imprisonment, to use my skills to express messages such as those shown above.

But not any of the above?  What is the difference?

Thanks,

-Smac

Ahhhh..... you’ve kept that ‘drive-by cut-and-paste’ post on speed dial for those new to these discussions. 

For those of us who’ve been around awhile, that very same post, pics and all, has been addressed and answered in multiple threads, ad nauseum. 

But you already know that. 

Thankfully, the court will decide to take up the case (or consolidate several similar ones) that will eventually provide the legally definitive final answer to the issue.  But as you of all people also know, the courts often intentionally glacial pace is intended to move with caution and care as the entire court system continues to build a preponderance of precedent upon which to make the final ruling. 

In the meantime, I expect you’ll continue to get a lot of mileage here with that cut-and-paste post.

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If the principle of freedom of conscience is inviolate in all cases and it is not a matter of degree and there can be no compromise with it then we are wrong. The Civil Rights movement legislation was a travesty. That 1968 South Carolina case where a BBQ sought the right to exclude minorities from their restaurant based on their religious beliefs was decided wrongly.

Bring back the "No Coloreds" signs. Put up "No Homos" and "No Jews" and "No Mormons" signs too. I am not using hyperbole here. That is literally what some people will do. I think it is worth a little accommodation and inoffensive compromise to avoid living in that world.

And there you are just patently and unequivocally wrong. That you want to compare death camps to frosting patterns is ludicrous. I assumed you were older but are you by chance a Millenial? This sounds like the whining special snowflake "I need to be protected from anything even mildly uncomfortable" mentality I am often told they exemplify.

 

I was going to respond to this, but I think at this point, I can scarcely do better than Amulek and Anijen. 

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You want me to evaluate cakes. I would prefer to taste them but okay.

No, not speech. It is kind of cute but that is about it. I do object to what look to be actual flower petals on the cake. Cake is for eating. Aesthetics can add to the effect but taste is much more important and I do not want petals in my frosting.

No, it is stupid. Everyone knows that Bert and Ernie are not gay.

The creators weighed in on this back in 2013: (warning: no one should view this video, you have been warned)

More seriously, I would probably not condemn a cake baker saying no to that one though I personally would say yes to help out, for the technical challenge of the faces, and I would make sure to take a picture so I can show it to others for a good laugh later.

Is that even a cake? I can't tell. If not, I ban it for false advertising. I was promised cake in this post.

Yeah, that would cross the line for me beyond reasonable accommodation.

Plus, it is an unfair cake. If you do not get a piece from the bible half you get less frosting.

I am more of a rope BDSM guy as opposed to leather and chains so not entirely to my taste. I would have also gone with muscleman and a more twinkish figure to provide some contrast but maybe that does not fit the couple. If they asked me to join them for the honeymoon I might be tempted. They look like they know how to have a good time. "Hit me baby one more time" indeed.

I also applaud the creative use of what I believe to be vintage He-Man figures. I remember the hand positions very well from playing with them as a kid. They might even both be He-Man. Coloration seems to match but the models were the same for a lot of the figures.

This is also a case where you could bow out because the toppers are probably hard to find. Don't think there is a real message there either. Thanks for reminding me that my mom gave away my toys to the greedy and rapacious "less fortunate" children. Well, they probably were not worth much anyways. We will always have the memories guys.

Only acceptable if they play "Springtime for Hitler" on a loop at whatever event that cake is celebrating and if you add "Heil baby!" as a caption on the cake and you have a Hitler pinata for everyone to smash. Otherwise it crosses into speech.

Also hits on the Bible cake problem of the cake not being evenly distributed. Frosting consistency people!!!! FOCUS!!!!

Is that a divorce cake? If so, I find it clever and would love to make that cake. It made me laugh. I like.

It's not really speech though unless the cake was created by a militant feminist to call for the death of all men. Nah, I take it back, even then it still qualifies as comedy.

I do think this is the most egregiously bad cake yet. Is that even a real cake? There isn't enough for everyone to have a good slice unless this is a divorce cake and she is eating it alone at home while crying which makes it less funny so hope it is not that.

Keep the toppers and add more cake and more blood/raspberry topping for consistency. If you insist on the blood staying the way it is in terms of distribution put a bowl of it with a spoon next to the cake so people can add some if their slice is light on blood.

In your argument you talk about that Belfast case. It is worth noting that neither Northern Ireland or the British Isles have a Free Speech amendment. There are times I envy them that lack but usually not and not in that specific case. I would not use that as an example of a potential test case in the United States.

I would make most of them. Maybe you are just not suited for the cake business. Now if you will excuse me I am off to cooking school.

The difference is message. Free Speech is about the protection of ideas. A pair of male toppers on a cake is not expressing an idea beyond just marriage. Bert and Ernie are a little closer because it is conveying an idea as part of an ideology but even there it is a little on the line. There is some comedy and satire in there and it could be argued it is celebrating an anniversary. The bible cake is definitely an ideological message.

The BDSM cake is just corny and funny. I am not sure how it conveys any ideas beyond amusement.

The Nazi cake is definitely ideological.

I have no idea what the last cake would be even trying to say so no, I would not put that under free speech.

LOLOL....

Nehor, this was THE best response I’ve EVER read here...

I bow down to your superior intellect-and sense of humor!

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

The notion that a victory for artists on their free speech claims is somehow going to slingshot our country back to the Jim Crow South is one of the most outlandish arguments I hear banded about in these discussions. It's patently false. I would go so far as to say that it ranks up there with other such epic falsehoods as, "If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance" or, if you prefer, "Read my lips - no new taxes." 

It's just never going to happen. Period. 

 

I agree that that that notion is completely outlandish. 

I am confused why you felt the need to point that out because, as far as I can tell, no one advocated the notion. I know I did not. I said that if the principle of freedom of conscience is given absolute priority over all other principles and considerations then any practice (no matter how vile) merely has to be declared a matter of conscience or religion to overturn any law or restriction. I was pointing out the logical conclusion of what would happen to counter the idea suggested that it should be inviolate. It is just one of many competing good principles that have to be balanced against each other.

I did not state or suggest that any current court case would bring about the scenario.

Edited September 19, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

It is easy to say; "just bake the silly cake." It is easier to take the easy way out hoping to maintain peace. However, there are time we should not bake that cake and fight for your principles.

One of the things we agree to do as part of our baptismal covenant is to stand as  witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places. We renew that covenant every week. There are times when standing as a witness of God will mean to face opposition, criticism, and ridicule. The road less traveled is often more difficult, it is not the easy way. Defending your beliefs even in the face of scorn disguised as being judged as discriminatory.

We can say, "I would have just baked the cake." At what cost?  If we bake that cake, we are giving up a little bit of our freedoms (of speech of religion), we are saying; "government go ahead and force me how I should think." When we are told how to think, even when it is good it is still at the little bit cost of our agency. When we allow the government to tell us how to think eventually some of those ways will be contrary to Gods ways.

A wedding cake is not a hamburger.

Truly the person who stands up for their cake baking freedoms has the same greatness as Abinadi as he burned before King Noah.

Kidding aside you paint the whole thing as a great moral choice. Is it? Can you say with certainty that Jesus would not have baked the cake? What was lost? It was an opportunity to take some kind of stand? On principle? For something so petty? Is that going to inspire others or even ourselves? It just seems so pointless. I am not saying small sins should be ignored. I am saying it is not a sin at all.

You also paint it as a surrender to government. When I say I would bake the cake I am not saying I would do it slavishly because the government has their whip hand at the ready. I am saying I would do it because I think it is the right thing to do. It shows civility and kindness. I would not feel morally compromised. I am open about my faith. Anyone who knows me more then just on a casual level knows Some of my beliefs. I do not need to take a stand on cake decorations for people to know where I stand.

For an example Jesus did not have to follow after those who left in shame after they brought the woman who was taken in adultery and explain that his comments not condemning her should not be construed as tolerance of adultery. They knew where he stood. Our church has made it very clear where we stand on same sex marriage. Many have complained we made it a little too clear. We do need to garnish it with small symbolic acts that just make other people’s lives a little harder and that foster resentment.

I admit I am not sure how you think government is compelling thought in any way in this scenario? Care to explain?