Islander Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 On 6/30/2020 at 10:09 AM, california boy said: Ok. I am still interested in knowing whether you believe you have a right to discriminate against anyone you want in your business if it goes against your own personal religious belief? And you think the laws of this country support such a position? Of course not. My response to the OP and, if you follow the subsequent exchange, you will see that it centers on the baker and photographer businesses that are the ones that have been sued for objecting to participate in LGBT ceremonies. Also, I responded to the OP in regards to religious organizations and the exemption under the law.
Bob Crockett Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Islander said: If you look at my response to the OP and all the ones that follow you will see where the exchange is coming from. I have done all that. You're all over the board. What is your point? State it clearly. Edited July 1, 2020 by Bob Crockett
Islander Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said: I have done all that. You're all over the board. Undisciplined. Perhaps. But all I did was respond to the OP's questions as he/she posted them. That's the nature of these forums, I guess.
Calm Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Islander said: The exchange was about a baker or a photographer. You got late to the exchange. So not a religious organization, correct? 1
Bob Crockett Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 40 minutes ago, Calm said: So not a religious organization, correct? That is why I doubt his bona fides. What is a religious organization? A mere business?
Daniel2 Posted July 1, 2020 Posted July 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Calm said: So not a religious organization, correct? 1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said: That is why I doubt his bona fides. What is a religious organization? A mere business? I'm really puzzled by Islander's posts, as well, and totally unclear as to if he thinks the law considers a "business/bakery/photography business owned by a person with religious beliefs" to be the same thing as "a religious organization"....? Can you clarify, Islander?
Islander Posted July 2, 2020 Posted July 2, 2020 6 hours ago, Calm said: So not a religious organization, correct? On a later post I did address the issue of religious organizations as well. We went back and forth for three days. Lots of posts.
Bob Crockett Posted July 2, 2020 Posted July 2, 2020 1 hour ago, Islander said: On a later post I did address the issue of religious organizations as well. We went back and forth for three days. Lots of posts. No you haven't. Clarify now please. Answer Daniel's questions.
Daniel2 Posted July 2, 2020 Posted July 2, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, Islander said: On a later post I did address the issue of religious organizations as well. We went back and forth for three days. Lots of posts. Islander, on a forum like this, how much time has passed is really irrelevant, because we can all go back and read the entire thread from start to finish, and each post is a snapshot preserving the past conversations. After your recent posts insisting you were clear in what you were saying over the course of the thread, I went back and re-read all of your posts, and am still confused, regardless of how much time has passed, and I still don't think you're point is clearly understood. Rather than repeatedly insisting that you've already made your point clear, across multiple posts in response to multiple posters asking for clarification over the last two pages, would you mind simply just answering these two straightforward questions?: Do you believe the law considers a "business/bakery/photography business owned by a person with religious beliefs" to be the same thing as "a religious organization"? Why/why not? Do you believe the law SHOULD consider a "business/bakery/photography business owned by a person with religious beliefs" to be the same thing as "a religious organization"? Why/why not? Thank you, D Edited July 2, 2020 by Daniel2 1
Islander Posted July 2, 2020 Posted July 2, 2020 48 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: Islander, on a forum like this, how much time has passed is really irrelevant, because we can all go back and read the entire thread from start to finish, and each post is a snapshot preserving the past conversations. After your recent posts insisting you were clear in what you were saying over the course of the thread, I went back and re-read all of your posts, and am still confused, regardless of how much time has passed, and I still don't think you're point is clearly understood. Rather than repeatedly insisting that you've already made your point clear, across multiple posts in response to multiple posters asking for clarification over the last two pages, would you mind simply just answering these two straightforward questions?: Do you believe the law considers a "business/bakery/photography business owned by a person with religious beliefs" to be the same thing as "a religious organization"? Why/why not? Do you believe the law SHOULD consider a "business/bakery/photography business owned by a person with religious beliefs" to be the same thing as "a religious organization"? Why/why not? Thank you, D It is obvious that you are NOT reading the replies. I responded to these very questions on the OP. But here they are again. They are not the same. A bakery and a photographer are not the same as any other generic business that offers/sells generic products. A plumber or electrician or accountant or landscaper can render services, which are generic in nature without any distinctive features to anyone. A baker or photographer are different and should be treated differently under the law, since they are asked to provide/create a unique product or service with a context/ceremony/celebration that he/she may find objectionable from a religious standpoint. They are not considered the same under the law. A religious organization, typically a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, has a mission statement and a purpose, explicitly delineating its mission according to its faith and religious tenets. They have the right to hire individuals that share in that faith, principles and there is a statement of faith and expected behaviors that should be congruent with such statement.
Islander Posted July 2, 2020 Posted July 2, 2020 10 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: No you haven't. Clarify now please. Answer Daniel's questions. Response to OP: Posted June 23 On 6/23/2020 at 10:27 AM, california boy said: Here are a few that come to mind. Should a business be able to refuse to service someone based on "personally held religious beliefs". What if they are a baker, florist or photographer that might be asked to provide their services for a gay wedding? What if it is an interracial couple? What if they are a grocery store owner and their business has no services related to gay weddings? Yes -- It is not just a "business". A florist, a baker and a photographer are "creating" a unique, tailor-made product/service that constitute speech and thus is being force to create a certain expressive creation against their religious conviction. Should an African American baker be forced to bake a cake for the local grand dragon of the KKK, depicting a black man hanging from a tree? Of course not. Should a wedding venue be forced to rent to anyone or can they discriminate? What if their religious belief believes they should not rent to Jews or Blacks? Do the owners have to practice a recognized religion or can they just have personal religious beliefs? No -- Other than renting the locale, if they are not forced to participate in the event in any way they find objectionable from a religious standpoint. Should a religious organization be allowed to fire someone for any reason that goes against their beliefs no matter what the job or responsibility? Yes -- You don't have the right to work in a religious organization, when you are fully aware and cognizant that your value system collides with those of the organization. You would would have lied in your statement of faith and values that are required prior to employment. Which specifies the expectations about your faith, beliefs and conduct. What if they are a janitor or a landscaper. What if the person is a Jew or in an inter racial marriage? (Here you are blaring the issues. Religion and race are two very different categories) No -- the current Supreme Court ruling makes provisions for that. If you are a Jew why would you lie about your religious beliefs and affiliation? Can anyone claim to be a religious organization? No -- There are classifications are to what constitute a religio licita What if that employee is working at a for profit religious business owned by a church such as a museum or theme park. Yes -- The religious organization exception applies. Again, why would you go work at an organization fully aware that you hold a value system that runs diametrically opposed to those of your employer? If your behavior clashes with the image, values and organizational culture as to be disruptive and detrimental to the business, yes, you should be fired. I would not go work for an explicitly gay business. What if the business run by a religious organization is not religious based such as a hospital or thrift store? It is still a religious organization and the the exemption applies. Should a religious organization be able to discriminate against LGBT if they are receiving federal funds such as an adoption agency or a school. Are they still entitled to federal funds? The government can not discriminate (dictate who gets money) based on religious affiliation. To do so would be discriminating against a group of people for no good cause, since nobody can show that the religious character of the organization hinders the task at hand (adoption in this case). The argument here could be lengthy. Basically, society has decided to normalize and legalize (homosexual) behavior that is biologically abnormal. Via the same instrument and for the same purposes, institute adoption into an abnormal domestic relationship that religious people find objectionable. Why force them into compliance just to receive Fed funds? How about leaving them alone to pursue their work and find an agency that has no such objections? If a religiously run school hires someone who is gay who ends up working for them for years, and then finds out they are gay, should the school be able to fire them? What if they teach drama or english or math or any other completely non religious subject? Yes --This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please. Can a religious organization fire a paid minister if they find out they are LGBT? Yes --This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please. Does a religious school that has married housing have to rent to a married gay couple? No --This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please. Should a religious institution that rents property or a venue be forced to rent that property or venue to anyone that wants to use it? No -- This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please. Does a religious organization have the right to trump all other laws that prohibit discrimination simply because they are a religion? Can they discriminate against anyone because of any reason, skin color, sex, someone else's religion, or sexual orientation? Of course not. The law prohibit discrimination skin color, sex, someone else's religion. The exemption to religious beliefs always applies to a religious organization. They have the right to hire those that share values, beliefs and the org, has the right to expect certain behavior and overall conduct. These are just a few of the gray areas that are yet to be clarified by the laws of this country. You may consider the answers black and white. But someone with a different point of view may not see things the same way
Islander Posted July 2, 2020 Posted July 2, 2020 1 hour ago, Daniel2 said: Islander, on a forum like this, how much time has passed is really irrelevant, because we can all go back and read the entire thread from start to finish, and each post is a snapshot preserving the past conversations. After your recent posts insisting you were clear in what you were saying over the course of the thread, I went back and re-read all of your posts, and am still confused, regardless of how much time has passed, and I still don't think you're point is clearly understood. Rather than repeatedly insisting that you've already made your point clear, across multiple posts in response to multiple posters asking for clarification over the last two pages, would you mind simply just answering these two straightforward questions?: Do you believe the law considers a "business/bakery/photography business owned by a person with religious beliefs" to be the same thing as "a religious organization"? Why/why not? Do you believe the law SHOULD consider a "business/bakery/photography business owned by a person with religious beliefs" to be the same thing as "a religious organization"? Why/why not? Thank you, D Response to OP: Posted June 23 On 6/23/2020 at 10:27 AM, california boy said: Here are a few that come to mind. Should a business be able to refuse to service someone based on "personally held religious beliefs". What if they are a baker, florist or photographer that might be asked to provide their services for a gay wedding? What if it is an interracial couple? What if they are a grocery store owner and their business has no services related to gay weddings? Yes -- It is not just a "business". A florist, a baker and a photographer are "creating" a unique, tailor-made product/service that constitute speech and thus is being force to create a certain expressive creation against their religious conviction. Should an African American baker be forced to bake a cake for the local grand dragon of the KKK, depicting a black man hanging from a tree? Of course not. Should a wedding venue be forced to rent to anyone or can they discriminate? What if their religious belief believes they should not rent to Jews or Blacks? Do the owners have to practice a recognized religion or can they just have personal religious beliefs? No -- Other than renting the locale, if they are not forced to participate in the event in any way they find objectionable from a religious standpoint. Should a religious organization be allowed to fire someone for any reason that goes against their beliefs no matter what the job or responsibility? Yes -- You don't have the right to work in a religious organization, when you are fully aware and cognizant that your value system collides with those of the organization. You would would have lied in your statement of faith and values that are required prior to employment. Which specifies the expectations about your faith, beliefs and conduct. What if they are a janitor or a landscaper. What if the person is a Jew or in an inter racial marriage? (Here you are blaring the issues. Religion and race are two very different categories) No -- the current Supreme Court ruling makes provisions for that. If you are a Jew why would you lie about your religious beliefs and affiliation? Can anyone claim to be a religious organization? No -- There are classifications are to what constitute a religio licita What if that employee is working at a for profit religious business owned by a church such as a museum or theme park. Yes -- The religious organization exception applies. Again, why would you go work at an organization fully aware that you hold a value system that runs diametrically opposed to those of your employer? If your behavior clashes with the image, values and organizational culture as to be disruptive and detrimental to the business, yes, you should be fired. I would not go work for an explicitly gay business. What if the business run by a religious organization is not religious based such as a hospital or thrift store? It is still a religious organization and the the exemption applies. Should a religious organization be able to discriminate against LGBT if they are receiving federal funds such as an adoption agency or a school. Are they still entitled to federal funds? The government can not discriminate (dictate who gets money) based on religious affiliation. To do so would be discriminating against a group of people for no good cause, since nobody can show that the religious character of the organization hinders the task at hand (adoption in this case). The argument here could be lengthy. Basically, society has decided to normalize and legalize (homosexual) behavior that is biologically abnormal. Via the same instrument and for the same purposes, institute adoption into an abnormal domestic relationship that religious people find objectionable. Why force them into compliance just to receive Fed funds? How about leaving them alone to pursue their work and find an agency that has no such objections? If a religiously run school hires someone who is gay who ends up working for them for years, and then finds out they are gay, should the school be able to fire them? What if they teach drama or english or math or any other completely non religious subject? Yes --This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please. Can a religious organization fire a paid minister if they find out they are LGBT? Yes --This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please. Does a religious school that has married housing have to rent to a married gay couple? No --This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please. Should a religious institution that rents property or a venue be forced to rent that property or venue to anyone that wants to use it? No -- This is a redundant question. See above similar question, please. Does a religious organization have the right to trump all other laws that prohibit discrimination simply because they are a religion? Can they discriminate against anyone because of any reason, skin color, sex, someone else's religion, or sexual orientation? Of course not. The law prohibit discrimination skin color, sex, someone else's religion. The exemption to religious beliefs always applies to a religious organization. They have the right to hire those that share values, beliefs and the org, has the right to expect certain behavior and overall conduct. These are just a few of the gray areas that are yet to be clarified by the laws of this country. You may consider the answers black and white. But someone with a different point of view may not see things the same way
Bob Crockett Posted July 2, 2020 Posted July 2, 2020 (edited) You have a lot of made up rules. Plus they are pretty dense. The law provides that ordinary businesses cannot discriminate against homosexuals (and protected classes) due to the public accommodations theory of the law. In California, an Evangelical fertility doctor refused to provide insemination services to a gay couple. Court held -- can't do that. Court held that if the doctor had a partner who was not averse to such medical services, he could move the work off to his partner. But if he was alone in his practice, he couldn't. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby threw a wrench in the principle above, by holding that closely-held for-profit corporations had the right to avoid the HHS/ACA mandate to provide contraceptives to employees, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I don't think that Hobby Lobby will be expanded to say that closely-held for-profit businesses may discriminate against homosexuals and protected classes. A religion may or may not be a corporation or a non-profit. The law does not require religions to register with the government for corporate status. May religions refuse to hire homosexuals or protected classes to work in their back offices? Yes, said the Supreme Court in Presiding Bishop v Amos, which upheld the LDS Church's requirement that a janitor have a temple recommend to work in a church gym. Just like a Mormon cannot expect to go to work for Judaica magazine. If a church owns a for-profit business, like a bank, may it refuse to hire homosexuals? No, under the public accommodations laws in place. It is old news. Now, as a libertarian I believe that anybody ought to be able to discriminate in business against protected classes, homosexuals, old ladies and such. But standard economics teaches that such business models are sub-optimal. Edited July 2, 2020 by Bob Crockett 3
Daniel2 Posted July 2, 2020 Posted July 2, 2020 (edited) 23 hours ago, Islander said: It is obvious that you are NOT reading the replies. I responded to these very questions on the OP. But here they are again. They are not the same. A bakery and a photographer are not the same as any other generic business that offers/sells generic products. A plumber or electrician or accountant or landscaper can render services, which are generic in nature without any distinctive features to anyone. A baker or photographer are different and should be treated differently under the law, since they are asked to provide/create a unique product or service with a context/ceremony/celebration that he/she may find objectionable from a religious standpoint. Actually, I have read through your replies.... and I appreciate this clarification. Your words above are far more helpful than the re-cut and paste of what you wrote previously, because I think I see at least one potential point that wasn't clear between the two of us before, given the way you answered my question above. I asked if you (and your understanding of the law) considers there to be any "difference between a 'business/bakery/photography business owned by a person with religious beliefs' to be the same thing as 'a religious organization'." You responded above by indicating that you consider that bakeries and photographers are different than other businesses. You elaborated that bakers and photographers should therefore be treated differently than other businesses. Your words above are helpful in clarifying that we were talking past each other; I (and others) were asking if you see a difference between privately-held businesses or organizations owned by churches or clergy. In short, we were talking past each other, which is why your clarification is more helpful than simply referring us back to or cutting and pasting your previous posts. Now that you've explained it, it sounds like you side with those that claim a right to refuse service based on providing goods and services based on freedom of expression (what you describe as "distinctive features" and being "asked to provide/create a unique product or service with a context/ceremony/celebration they find objectionable...), as well as based on the exercise clause ("from a religious standpoint.") But that view is not legally accurate, according to several court rulings at both the appellate and Supreme Court levels. From Masterpiece: Quote As this Court observed in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. (2015), “[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Id., at (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law. See Newman v. Piggy Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402, n. 5 (1968) (per curiam); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 572 (1995) (“Provisions like these are well within the State’s usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments”). When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion. This refusal would be well understood in our constitutional order as an exercise of religion, an exercise that gay persons could recognize and accept without serious diminishment to their own dignity and worth. Yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations. It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public. And there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment. Petitioners conceded, moreover, that if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court’s precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law... There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying “no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,” something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons. (Masterpiece pages 10, 12) After acknowledging the above, of course, the court then moved on and ruled in Mr. Phillips favor, not based on the merits of anything in the above, but because it found that Mr. Phillips had been the target of religious animus and hostility by a member of the Civil Rights Commission (meaning that even while Mr. Phillips' freedom of speech or religious exercise were not violated, his considerations were not given the appropriate respect and consideration due to some very specific dismissive comments by a member of the Commission, o the court ruled Phillips was therefore unfairly singled out by a hostile commissioner). Quote In this case the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward in the respects noted above. However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission’s order must be invalidated. The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market. (Masterpiece page 18) In so ruling and in saying the quoted portion above, the court signaled other bakers/photographers/florists wanting to deny goods or services to same-sex weddings would be unlikely to prevail based on appeals to the First or Fourteen Amendments, and, indeed, even remanded a similar case back to the Washington State Supreme court in light of what they said in Masterpiece. Namely, Arelene's Flowers, who's circumstances were different than Phillips, in that she was not the target of religious animus. After Masterpiece, SCOTUS remanded Arlene's Flowers case back to Washington's Supreme Court, who ruled for the second time against Ms. Stuzman (the owner of Arlene's Flowers), even in considering the Masterpiece ruling: Quote The state Supreme Court, for the second time on Thursday, disagreed. The court ruled that selling wedding floral arrangements was not speech, but conduct, and thus not protected under the First Amendment. “The decision to either provide or refuse to provide flowers for a wedding does not inherently express a message about that wedding,” the court ruled. “Providing flowers for a wedding between Muslims would not necessarily constitute an endorsement of Islam, nor would providing flowers for an atheist couple endorse atheism.” Ms. Stuzman appealed again to the Supeme Court in 2019... the court has yet to take her case back up. A third recent case is also relevant. Elane's Photography was decided by New Mexico's State Supreme Court, and it also contradicts your belief that business owners' can refuse services on religious exercise or free speech grounds, at least as the law applies thus far. In this case, it held a photographer in the business of wedding photography cannot choose to decline to photograph a same-sex wedding, and rejected her claim doing so would violate either her free speech or religious exercise rights (see here). Of course, the highest court of our land has not yet explicitly and/or definitively spoken on the clash between gay weddings and freedom of speech or religious exercise, but most interpretations I've read believe the previously-quoted portions of Masterpiece, as well as their remanding Arlene's flowers back to the lower courts and their decision to let other similar rulings, such as Elane's Photography, stand, certainly seem to suggest the Court has tipped it's hand in how it will ultimately rule, should the appropriately-situated case come up. Getting back to what you said in your last post: Quote They are not considered the same under the law. A religious organization, typically a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, has a mission statement and a purpose, explicitly delineating its mission according to its faith and religious tenets. They have the right to hire individuals that share in that faith, principles and there is a statement of faith and expected behaviors that should be congruent with such statement. Your (last) paragraph above finally addresses my question about a religiously-owned organization. I agree with all that you wrote in this last paragraph. Edited July 3, 2020 by Daniel2 1
The Nehor Posted July 3, 2020 Posted July 3, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: Now, as a libertarian I believe that anybody ought to be able to discriminate in business against protected classes, homosexuals, old ladies and such. But standard economics teaches that such business models are sub-optimal. Not in a segregated society. In those the optimal choice is whatever will bring in the most customers whether that is running certain groups out of your store or not. I wrote quite a few papers about disciminatory economics back in college. In many societies and cultures letting everyone in cuts into your profits. This is still the case. How many high society country clubs operate on the basis of letting everyone who wants to pay in? The free market has not historically been a solid influence for social, political, and economic equality. Edited July 3, 2020 by The Nehor 2
Islander Posted July 3, 2020 Posted July 3, 2020 On 7/2/2020 at 1:47 PM, Daniel2 said: Actually, I have read through your replies.... and I appreciate this clarification. Your words above are far more helpful than the re-cut and paste of what you wrote previously, because I think I see at least one potential point that wasn't clear between the two of us before, given the way you answered my question above. I asked if you (and your understanding of the law) considers there to be any "difference between a 'business/bakery/photography business owned by a person with religious beliefs' to be the same thing as 'a religious organization'." You responded above by indicating that you consider that bakeries and photographers are different than other businesses. You elaborated that bakers and photographers should therefore be treated differently than other businesses. Your words above are helpful in clarifying that we were talking past each other; I (and others) were asking if you see a difference between privately-held businesses or organizations owned by churches or clergy. In short, we were talking past each other, which is why your clarification is more helpful than simply referring us back to or cutting and pasting your previous posts. Now that you've explained it, it sounds like you side with those that claim a right to refuse service based on providing goods and services based on freedom of expression (what you describe as "distinctive features" and being "asked to provide/create a unique product or service with a context/ceremony/celebration they find objectionable...), as well as based on the exercise clause ("from a religious standpoint.") But that view is not legally accurate, according to several court rulings at both the appellate and Supreme Court levels. From Masterpiece: After acknowledging the above, of course, the court then moved on and ruled in Mr. Phillips favor, not based on the merits of anything in the above, but because it found that Mr. Phillips had been the target of religious animus and hostility by a member of the Civil Rights Commission (meaning that even while Mr. Phillips' freedom of speech or religious exercise were not violated, his considerations were not given the appropriate respect and consideration due to some very specific dismissive comments by a member of the Commission, o the court ruled Phillips was therefore unfairly singled out by a hostile commissioner). In so ruling and in saying the quoted portion above, the court signaled other bakers/photographers/florists wanting to deny goods or services to same-sex weddings would be unlikely to prevail based on appeals to the First or Fourteen Amendments, and, indeed, even remanded a similar case back to the Washington State Supreme court in light of what they said in Masterpiece. Namely, Arelene's Flowers, who's circumstances were different than Phillips, in that she was not the target of religious animus. After Masterpiece, SCOTUS remanded Arlene's Flowers case back to Washington's Supreme Court, who ruled for the second time against Ms. Stuzman (the owner of Arlene's Flowers), even in considering the Masterpiece ruling: Ms. Stuzman appealed again to the Supeme Court in 2019... the court has yet to take her case back up. A third recent case is also relevant. Elane's Photography was decided by New Mexico's State Supreme Court, and it also contradicts your belief that business owners' can refuse services on religious exercise or free speech grounds, at least as the law applies thus far. In this case, it held a photographer in the business of wedding photography cannot choose to decline to photograph a same-sex wedding, and rejected her claim doing so would violate either her free speech or religious exercise rights (see here). Of course, the highest court of our land has not yet explicitly and/or definitively spoken on the clash between gay weddings and freedom of speech or religious exercise, but most interpretations I've read believe the previously-quoted portions of Masterpiece, as well as their remanding Arlene's flowers back to the lower courts and their decision to let other similar rulings, such as Elane's Photography, stand, certainly seem to suggest the Court has tipped it's hand in how it will ultimately rule, should the appropriately-situated case come up. Getting back to what you said in your last post: Your (last) paragraph above finally addresses my question about a religiously-owned organization. I agree with all that you wrote in this last paragraph. I completely understand the court rulings and the impact it had on the business. But, I reiterate what I said previously; no court ruling is going to change my heartfelt convictions as to what constitute my rights when it comes to my faith. The court has deemed, in the Arelene's, case that her religious beliefs do not matter. That is a shade of things to come in the future. What we have is a court that has usurped legislative prerogatives and has taken it upon itself to set its finding above and beyond its constitutional boundaries. Roberts wrote a tax into Obamacare when Congress said it was NOT a tax, for example. Again, what I see is not a desire to compromise but the use of government to mandate submission to the ideology of a minority. I usually do not argue politics in public forums but this exchanged started on a benign note so I responded. But in sum, I will never compromise on my convictions, regardless of the legislative climate. I fear no reprisal from men not will I retract my position no matter the cost, personal or otherwise. I came to this country with nothing and already have much more than I dreamed and certainly more than I deserve. There are people that wake up earlier than I do, work longer and harder and make much less. So I stand, come what may. I thank you for your civility in the exchange. I've seen how toxic some of these threads can turn.
Recommended Posts