Article Re: SCOTUS Review of Gay Rights Case (Wedding Websites)

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The emotional and logical valence of an argument are independent variables.  An argument can be both hurtful and valid. For example (and please note, the "you" in the example below is a generic you, and not meant to indicate any particular individual)

A. If you are ugly, you will never get married. (If A then B)

B. You are ugly. (A)

C. Therefore, you will never get married.  (Therefore B)

The argument is valid, but it may not be true.  It is also hurtful, but its hurtfulness does not change the fact that its construction is logically valid.  In order to prove it false, one has to engage with the premises and prove that one or more of them are untrue.  Dismissing the argument as hurtful does not refute the valid construct of its logic.     

I appreciate your point of view.  Though I think there are ways to put any point across without resorting to being ugly about it if it is a valid point.  

 

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

My heart goes out to you (it really does) for all the difficult discussions you've had on this issue with friends, family, and acquaintances.  Those types of in-person interactions ought to take into consideration the emotional valence of the discussion. 

I engaged in this thread because I have an interest in law, logic, rhetoric, and free speech.  I wanted to engage in a dispassionate discussion about free speech issues and their logical implications.  Instead, the thread has gone down an emotional rabbit hole.  And while there is value in having discussions about feelings and emotions and experiences, that wasn't the discussion I had intended to engage with.

So, my apologies for any hurt feelings.  I'll take myself to a favorite legal blog and hopefully find there the kind of dispassionate discussion I had hoped to find here. 

For me it is very hard to not discuss the real personal aspects of this and other laws like it because there are real personal consequences in peoples lives.  They have to be taken into consideration when evaluating these kinds of laws that have the potential for misuse and unintended consequences.  So those voices are a necessary part of the discussion IMO.  I have seen the results of some of these laws.  Not everything is cut and dried as we would like them to be.  As I said earlier, I too am very much in favor of not having forced speech.  But that is not the only issue these types of laws affect.

Maybe if the discussion would have been framed more like "How do we protect LGBT and other minority rights while still allowing for personal beliefs would have been a more constructive discussion.  From the very beginning this thread was put up as an us against them type discussion.  Does anyone not expect some pushback on that approach?

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by california boy

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 2/22/2022 at 6:28 PM, The Nehor said:

Nah, if there weren’t any hotelswedding cake shops that would serve Blackspeople with lgbt weddings.

 

On 2/22/2022 at 6:37 PM, smac97 said:

 I decline further conversation with you.

That analogy was bad. Got it. Conversation ended. Okay. 
 

Later:

On 2/25/2022 at 9:47 AM, california boy said:

Ah.  Ok.  A gay wedding is the same as human trafficking and mob boss behavior.  I see where this is going.  

 

On 2/25/2022 at 10:09 AM, smac97 said:

If I say "The apple's skin was as red as blood," I am not saying that the apple "is the same as" blood.  I am saying they both share a trait: color.

When discussing legal principles, judges and lawyers often us comparison, analogy, simile, metaphor, etc. to make a point.  It would be tendentious to accuse the judge or the attorney of conflating the two things being compared.  

Comparing the shared traits of two otherwise dissimilar things is not saying the two things are "the same as" each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hmm…

Edited February 27, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

What if someone told you that your marriage to the person you loved is analogist to the immorality of human trafficking and mafia behavior?

Kind of ironic to see you saying this right after criticizing another poster for "tak[ing] what [you] say out of context to twist it to be what you want it to say in order to cast me in the worse possible light."

 

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

That analogy was bad. Got it. Conversation ended. Okay. 
 

Later:

 

Hmm…

I tip my hat to you.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Nah, if there weren’t any hotelswedding cake shops that would serve Blackspeople with lgbt weddings.

That analogy was bad. Got it. Conversation ended. Okay. 

Later:

Quote

If I say "The apple's skin was as red as blood," I am not saying that the apple "is the same as" blood.  I am saying they both share a trait: color.

When discussing legal principles, judges and lawyers often us comparison, analogy, simile, metaphor, etc. to make a point.  It would be tendentious to accuse the judge or the attorney of conflating the two things being compared.  

Comparing the shared traits of two otherwise dissimilar things is not saying the two things are "the same as" each other.

Hmm…

Also:

Quote

Quote

As long as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think that gay marrriage is a comparison, analogy, simile, or metaphor for human trafficking and mob boss behavior, I don’t think there is much room for dialogue and understanding.  

I agree that we need to be respectful and circumspect in making comparisons about such topics.

But Amulek did not make that comparison.  And yet you are not only saying he did, you are attributing that comparison to other "members of the Church."

Hmm...

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

39 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Kind of ironic to see you saying this right after criticizing another poster for "tak[ing] what [you] say out of context to twist it to be what you want it to say in order to cast me in the worse possible light."

 

I am sorry.  Did I misunderstand what you were saying?  I was trying to show the gravity of the remarks made about the comparison, comparing exactly what was said.  Maybe if you could provide the entire quote you are referring to so that I can understand the context of what you find ironic?

Edited February 27, 2022 by california boy

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am sorry.  Did I misunderstand what you were saying?  I was trying to show the gravity of the remarks made about the comparison, comparing exactly what was said.  Maybe if you could provide the entire quote you are referring to so that I can understand the context of what you find ironic?

I understood him not to be saying they were similarly immoral, but rather he was attempting to set up an immoral extreme that all agreed upon so that then other examples could be listed that would be on one side or the other of the immoral/moral divide so as to figure out where that divide occurred.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Calm

[smac97]

On 2/25/2022 at 10:02 PM, california boy said:

Wow this truly shows your true colors doesn't it.  You have accused me over and over and over again about saying horrible things about your Church.  Your accusations come up just about every time we interact.  For years you have been portraying me as being some vile enemy of the Church denigrate church leaders and beliefs regularly.  So finally you have the guts to actually answer one of my CFR's concerning those basis accusations.

And here is what you came up with?  Drum roll.   One of your fellow members accusations of, as he put it, "emotional blackmail".  Did you read what his response was when I asked him to give me an example of using "emotional blackmail"?  When I asked Hamba to please point out exactly where I was using "emotional blackmail" he refused knowing full well it was an unfounded accusation, kinda like yours.  

So when the proof was asked for, Hamba bailed didn't he.  It is easy to make accusations.  Much harder to actually find them to be accurate.  I see you find yourself in the same situation.  And besides, even if this was true, how is that some kind of proof of degrading your Church and saying the most vile things against your Church? 

One of the things you CONSISTENTLY do is take what I say out of context to twist it to be what you want it to say in order to cast me in the worse possible light.  This is what you said in your above post.

Why didn't you include the entire post?  Was your intention to paint a false picture of what I actually said?  Cause this is the whole post, not cut and pasted like you want to do.

You completely cut out the first part of the post.  Why?  Isn't that being a bit deceptive?  Did you not like the part where I said that "I  love the Church and I think that for many, it is a great place to raise a family and support that family with a strong community that embraces good for the most part? "  This is why I really don't like interacting with you.   I don't like the way you slice and dice every comment, taking things out of context, slanting things in the worse possible light.  You think of me as your enemy and try to defeat me with every post I make,  I can't change your attitudes towards me.  But I can ignore your false accusations.  If what you have presented is the worse I have ever said about the Church, then your accusations remain unproven.  I do disagree with much of how the Church treats the LGBT community.  I don't think the Church has a particularly good track record in treating that community fairly.  At times I do believe the Church has not acted in a Christ like way towards those that are gay.  I mean what kind of Church forbids baptisms to underaged children just because their parents believe they should be married?   But disagreement with some of the policies the Church institutes against its LGBT members and speaking out against them does not constitute vile and demeaning treatment of the Church.  

Do I think there is a place for someone who is gay in the Church?  For the vast majority, the answer is NO.  It is no secret that most gay members end up leaving the Church at some point for many of the reasons I listed in that post. It is also no secret that how the Church treats LGBT issues is one of the major reasons people list as reasons for leaving the Church.   Are you really disputing that?  if that is true, how is that an attack on the Church?  How is that some kind of vile thing to say about your Church?

I think it is probably best that I return to my policy of not responding to your posts even when they are distorting what I am actually saying.  

I apologize.  I will be more cirumspect.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I apologize.  I will be more cirumspect.

Thanks,

-Smac

 I truly appreciate the gesture. I also hope that it is true and you quit painting me as some kind of vile evil enemies of the Church.  I am not that.  And I don't say vile things about the Church. I do disagree with some of the policies the Church institutes, but that doesn't mean those few issue defines my feelings about the Church.

[Amulek]

On 2/26/2022 at 10:20 PM, california boy said:

I am sorry.  Did I misunderstand what you were saying?  I was trying to show the gravity of the remarks made about the comparison, comparing exactly what was said.  Maybe if you could provide the entire quote you are referring to so that I can understand the context of what you find ironic?

Yes, I believe you misunderstood what I was saying, and (as such) are not "comparing exactly what was said."

Here is the context (since you asked for it):

1. In a response that was directed to both smac and me (see, e.g., here), you stated that, "You and I have a very different view of what is celebrating/ratifying/endorsing means. Selling a person a cake isn't really any of those things. Withholding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught."
2. I responded to each of those points in my post here:

   • On 2/24/2022 at 11:24 PM, california boy said:

     You and I have a very different view of what is celebrating/ratifying/endorsing means.  

     Possibly, though I don't think I've opined on that in this discussion.

   • Quote

     Selling a person a cake isn't really any of those things.  

     This case isn't about selling a cake though - it's about whether or not the government should be allowed to force somebody to communicate a message (to the entire world no less) against her will.

   • Quote

     Withholding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught.  

     And condoning and/or participating in sinful activity is something Christ never did.

     If Jesus was a web designer, do you honestly think that he would happily create a human trafficking site for a mob boss on the dark web? I mean, surely he wouldn't withhold his services just because the person requesting them was a sinner, right?

3. To which, you replied, "Ah.  Ok.  A gay wedding is the same as human trafficking and mob boss behavior.  I see where this is going."

4. Even though I manifestly did not say that "[a] gay wedding is the same as human trafficking and mob boss behavior," I decided it would be best to simply apologize for any misunderstanding and restate what I was actually trying to communicate with to begin with. Which is what I did here, as follows:

   • I apologize if you took offense at my previous comment. It was needlessly hyperbolic. I'm sorry. Let's try this again...

     You said that "[w]ithhoding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught."

     Well, in this particular case, the service being withheld is web design.

     So, that sort of begs me to ask following question: If Jesus were a web designer, do you believe there is any website he would refuse to create?

     For example, do you believe he would create a website for the Ashley Madison Agency?

So no, I wasn't trying to say that your marriage - or even gay marriage, in general - is analogous to the immorality of human trafficking and maffia behavior.

I was simply using that as an extreme example to refute your point that "Withholding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught." Because I think such a statement is wildly overbroad and, in my opinion, obviously false.

So, from my perspective, when you continue to say that your marriage was being compared to human trafficking, even after I apologized for the misunderstanding and provided additional context, it seems to me as though you are now intentionally taking what I said out of context and twisting it to paint it in the worst possible light.

And when I see you doing this right after complaining about another poster doing the same thing to you, well, yes - I find that rather ironic.

 

[poptart]

Something from the ELCA's reddit, makes me think about this as well as what laws are being passed in this country right now.  Ties into this quite nicely I think.  

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

To bring logic kicking and screaming back into this thread:

CB posited the argument (paraphrasing):

• If one is withholding services, one is not following the teachings of Christ (If A then ~B)
• The web designer is withholding her services for a same sex wedding (A)
• Therefore, the web designer is not following the teachings of Christ (~B)

Amulek disputed the truthfulness of the first premise (If A then ~B). To demonstrate this, he posited a scenario where both A and B were true. 

• A web designer is withholding his services for a human trafficking operation (A)
• Withholding that service on behalf of a human trafficking operation is following the teachings of Christ (B)
• Therefore, one can withhold professional services AND follow the teachings of Christ at the same time (A and B) 
• The premise (If A then ~B) is therefore false. 

@Amulek: In my overly-expansive defense of your comment, I may have obscured the defense you made on your own behalf.  I made the argument that, even if you had made an odious comparison, it wouldn't have altered the logical structure of the argument.  When in reality, you actually hadn't compared same sex weddings to human trafficking at all.  If I made your job more difficult, I apologize.

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[california boy]

20 hours ago, Amulek said:

Yes, I believe you misunderstood what I was saying, and (as such) are not "comparing exactly what was said."

Here is the context (since you asked for it):

1. In a response that was directed to both smac and me (see, e.g., here), you stated that, "You and I have a very different view of what is celebrating/ratifying/endorsing means. Selling a person a cake isn't really any of those things. Withholding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught."
2. I responded to each of those points in my post here:

   • Possibly, though I don't think I've opined on that in this discussion.

   • This case isn't about selling a cake though - it's about whether or not the government should be allowed to force somebody to communicate a message (to the entire world no less) against her will.

   • And condoning and/or participating in sinful activity is something Christ never did.

     If Jesus was a web designer, do you honestly think that he would happily create a human trafficking site for a mob boss on the dark web? I mean, surely he wouldn't withhold his services just because the person requesting them was a sinner, right?

3. To which, you replied, "Ah.  Ok.  A gay wedding is the same as human trafficking and mob boss behavior.  I see where this is going."

4. Even though I manifestly did not say that "[a] gay wedding is the same as human trafficking and mob boss behavior," I decided it would be best to simply apologize for any misunderstanding and restate what I was actually trying to communicate with to begin with. Which is what I did here, as follows:

   • I apologize if you took offense at my previous comment. It was needlessly hyperbolic. I'm sorry. Let's try this again...

     You said that "[w]ithhoding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught."

     Well, in this particular case, the service being withheld is web design.

     So, that sort of begs me to ask following question: If Jesus were a web designer, do you believe there is any website he would refuse to create?

     For example, do you believe he would create a website for the Ashley Madison Agency?

So no, I wasn't trying to say that your marriage - or even gay marriage, in general - is analogous to the immorality of human trafficking and maffia behavior.

I was simply using that as an extreme example to refute your point that "Withholding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught." Because I think such a statement is wildly overbroad and, in my opinion, obviously false.

So, from my perspective, when you continue to say that your marriage was being compared to human trafficking, even after I apologized for the misunderstanding and provided additional context, it seems to me as though you are now intentionally taking what I said out of context and twisting it to paint it in the worst possible light.

And when I see you doing this right after complaining about another poster doing the same thing to you, well, yes - I find that rather ironic.

 

I guess it is my turn to apologize.  I took your comments to say that Christ would withhold services to the gay couple just like he would withhold services to someone participating in  human trafficking and maffia behavior.  Just to clarify, do you think Christ would withhold his services to a gay couple getting married?  Do you think Christ would refuse to baker a cake if he found out it was going to be served to guests at a gay wedding?

[T-Shirt]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

  Do you think Christ would refuse to baker a cake if he found out it was going to be served to guests at a gay wedding?

I know you didn't ask this of me, but, if I may, I would like to share my thoughts.  For the purpose of the constitution and what should be considered free speech, I think what Jesus would do is completely irrelevant.  I have no idea what Jesus would do  in this situation, but even if He would sell the cake, I think the constitution allows, and should allow, someone do do otherwise, even if we don't like it.  We are not allowed to discriminate against a class of people in our commerce, but , in this case, it is not the class that is being turned away, but the product.  If a business refuses all services to a protected class, that would be a different story.  If a business owner chooses not to make a product for an event that clashes with his personal religious belief, he should be allowed to do so, even if we don't like it.  If a business owner does not want his artistic work to be associated with an event he doesn't believe in, he should not be forced to do so.  This has nothing to do with whether the business owners decision is good or bad, praiseworthy or loathsome, it is about his freedom to do so, and we should fight for that freedom even if we detest what that person is doing.

I produce custom t-shirts, hats and other items.  I would print shirts for a gay wedding, but I believe, in order to maintain a free society, the constitution allows me and should allow me to refuse to do so , as well.  As long as I am not refusing all services to all gay people, but am choosing to not provide my creation to be used for something I personally don't agree with, it should be allowed.  And, yes, let the market determine if this person should remain in business.  If enough people feel this business is wrong, then the business will not last.  If you don't like it, go somewhere else and share with your friends your experience.  That is how the market works and weeds out bad businesses.  The constitution does not only protect good speech, but also bad speech and the law should never force either one.

In more than thirty years, I have printed a lot of things, some of which I didn't agree with.  One time, however, the customer was asking me to print something that crossed the line of what my personal beliefs would allow, and I refused to do it.  The customer was not happy, but I am grateful that the law allowed me to refuse.

Edited March 1, 2022 by T-Shirt

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I know you didn't ask this of me, but, if I may, I would like to share my thoughts.  For the purpose of the constitution and what should be considered free speech, I think what Jesus would do is completely irrelevant. 

I think it's hard to imagine, particularly when so many of our laws are far removed from basic notions of morality, of "right" and "wrong."

18 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I have no idea what Jesus would do  in this situation, but even if He would sell the cake, I think the constitution allows, and should allow, someone do do otherwise, even if we don't like it.  We are not allowed to discriminate against a class of people in our commerce, but , in this case, it is not the class that is being turned away, but the product.  If a business refuses all services to a protected class, that would be a different story.  If a business owner chooses not to make a product for an event that clashes with his personal religious belief, he should be allowed to do so, even if we don't like it.  If a business owner does not want his artistic work to be associated with an event he doesn't believe in, he should not be forced to do so.  This has nothing to do with whether the business owners decision is good or bad, praiseworthy or loathsome, it is about his freedom to do so, and we should fight for that freedom even if we detest what that person is doing.

Agreed.

18 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I produce custom t-shirts, hats and other items.  I would print shirts for a gay wedding, but I believe, in order to maintain a free society, the constitution allows me and should allow me to refuse to do so , as well.  As long as I am not refusing all services to all gay people, but am choosing to not provide my creation to be used for something I personally don't agree with, it should be allowed.  And, yes, let the market determine if this person should remain in business.  If enough people feel this business is wrong, then the business will not last.  If you don't like it, go somewhere else and share with your friends your experience.  That is how the market works and weeds out bad businesses.  The constitution does not only protect good speech, but also bad speech and the law should never force either one.

Regarding the potency of market-based solutions, I am reminded of this story:

Quote

FEMINIST CAFE THAT CHARGED 18% ‘MAN TAX’ GOES OUT OF BUSINESS

By Pluralist / April 23, 2019

A feminist-owned and operated cafe that made headlines around the world after introducing an 18% “man tax” on male customers will be closing its doors at the end of the month.

Handsome Her, a vegan establishment located in Melbourne, Australia, will be going out of business on April 28, according to an announcement on its website.

In a lengthy Facebook post, the cafe delivered a heartfelt message to its patrons.

“When we opened Handsome Her in 2017, we expected that perhaps we might make a stir through our brazen public discussions of structural inequality and oppression,” the statement reads. “The man tax blew up the internet, an idea that we didn’t think was all too radical, yet the way the world responded showed us how fragile masculinity is and solidified the necessity for us to confront and dismantle patriarchy.”

Handsome Her took aim at the backlash over its decision to institute an 18 percent tax on male patrons, sarcastically calling themselves “the evil, discriminatory, man-hating dykes who charge men more when didn’t you know the wage gap doesn’t even exist!?”

The company touted its ethical and ecologically conscious practices, such as “abandoning take-away cups, single use straws and napkins, by shopping locally and supporting women owned businesses.”

In its struggle against the patriarchy, Handsome Her was surprised to learn “that it wasn’t only men’s rights activists targeting” the business, but also those within its own community. Handsome Her was “taken aback to find that many people in the LGBTIQA+ community have as much aversion to us using the word ‘lesbian’ as the men’s-rights activists.”

The activist cafe sparked controversy in 2017 after instituting anti-patriarchal “house rules” designed to hit back at sexism.

“House Rules, Rule #1: women have priority seating. Rule #2: men will be charged an 18% premium to reflect the gender pay gap (2016) which is donated to a women’s service. Rule #3 respect goes both ways,” a chalkboard in the cafe read.

As it turns out, these "House Rules" may have been sufficiently offputting as to drive away a lot of customers.  The market worked.

18 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

In more than thirty years, I have printed a lot of things, some of which I didn't agree with.  One time, however, the customer was asking me to print something that crossed the line of what my personal beliefs would allow, and I refused to do it.  The customer was not happy, but I am grateful that the law allowed me to refuse.

Yes.  I think we too often fail to pause, reflect, and consider "when the shoe is on the other foot..."-style questions to what it is we are wanting.  If you want to deny others a right that you want to preserve for yourself, then that deserves some real contemplation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

I know you didn't ask this of me, but, if I may, I would like to share my thoughts.  For the purpose of the constitution and what should be considered free speech, I think what Jesus would do is completely irrelevant.  I have no idea what Jesus would do  in this situation, but even if He would sell the cake, I think the constitution allows, and should allow, someone do do otherwise, even if we don't like it.  We are not allowed to discriminate against a class of people in our commerce, but , in this case, it is not the class that is being turned away, but the product.  If a business refuses all services to a protected class, that would be a different story.  If a business owner chooses not to make a product for an event that clashes with his personal religious belief, he should be allowed to do so, even if we don't like it.  If a business owner does not want his artistic work to be associated with an event he doesn't believe in, he should not be forced to do so.  This has nothing to do with whether the business owners decision is good or bad, praiseworthy or loathsome, it is about his freedom to do so, and we should fight for that freedom even if we detest what that person is doing.

I produce custom t-shirts, hats and other items.  I would print shirts for a gay wedding, but I believe, in order to maintain a free society, the constitution allows me and should allow me to refuse to do so , as well.  As long as I am not refusing all services to all gay people, but am choosing to not provide my creation to be used for something I personally don't agree with, it should be allowed.  And, yes, let the market determine if this person should remain in business.  If enough people feel this business is wrong, then the business will not last.  If you don't like it, go somewhere else and share with your friends your experience.  That is how the market works and weeds out bad businesses.  The constitution does not only protect good speech, but also bad speech and the law should never force either one.

In more than thirty years, I have printed a lot of things, some of which I didn't agree with.  One time, however, the customer was asking me to print something that crossed the line of what my personal beliefs would allow, and I refused to do it.  The customer was not happy, but I am grateful that the law allowed me to refuse.

I totally agree with you and have stated that same position numerous times. My biggest gripe is when people invoke the name of Christ to justify discrimination.  I just can’t see Christ sitting at a table of sinners and when someone asks him to pass the bread, him saying no because I would be supporting your sins.  
 

The problem comes when a person hides behind his religion by refusing to bake a wedding cake exactly like he does for other customers   
 That becomes a product not a work of art.  Now if rainbows and two grooms are asked for, that becomes a created work that could be legally refused

[carbon dioxide]

I still do not get why any gay couple would want to force a baker to make a cake for their wedding or photographer to take pics.   Asking a person to provide a service for you and they are not happy is not the best way to get good service. They might do a bad job on the cake.  Any photographer can take very bad pictures and there is no do over.  The gay couple is stuck with bad pictures.   You get the best service from people who are happy to offer you service. 

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I totally agree with you and have stated that same position numerous times. My biggest gripe is when people invoke the name of Christ to justify discrimination.  I just can’t see Christ sitting at a table of sinners and when someone asks him to pass the bread, him saying no because I would be supporting your sins.  
 

The problem comes when a person hides behind his religion by refusing to bake a wedding cake exactly like he does for other customers   
 That becomes a product not a work of art.  Now if rainbows and two grooms are asked for, that becomes a created work that could be legally refused

All a baker needs to do is on all of the cakes he offers to customers, it comes with something like "Marriage, man and woman".  No exceptions are given.  The gay couple could not ask for something different as it is not discrimination to refuse to sell a different cake than what is offered to all customers.   If they want a cake from the baker, they have to get the exact same cake that is given to everyone else.

[Amulek]

On 3/1/2022 at 9:10 AM, california boy said:

I guess it is my turn to apologize. 

It's okay. I recognize that you have participated in a lot of discussions where hurtful comparisons have been used when talking about gay marriage. I'm sorry for that. And I'm grateful that you are willing to accept that I honestly didn't mean to say or even imply that your (or anyone else's) marriage is an abomination.

 

Quote

Just to clarify, do you think Christ would withhold his services to a gay couple getting married?  Do you think Christ would refuse to baker a cake if he found out it was going to be served to guests at a gay wedding?

I could be wrong, and I acknowledge that others may disagree, but I personally believe that for the overwhelming majority of services the answer would be no - he would not refuse.

Are there some services which might be exceptions (e.g., officiating)? Possibly. Though, even then, I can only formulate opinions based on my understanding of the gospel as it has been currently revealed.

 

Edited March 2, 2022 by Amulek

[smac97]

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I still do not get why any gay couple would want to force a baker to make a cake for their wedding or photographer to take pics.  

This 2018 article comes to mind:

Quote

Even after a 7–2 Supreme Court decision protecting Colorado custom baker Jack Phillips from overt religious discrimination, the state is doubling down. It’s participating in and empowering a grotesque campaign of discrimination and harassment that should shock the conscience of sensible Americans.
...
According to a verified complaint filed today by my old colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom, on June 26, 2017 — the very day the Supreme Court granted Jack’s request to review his wedding-cake case — a lawyer named Autumn Scardina called Masterpiece Cakeshop and “asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to create a custom cake with ‘a blue exterior and a pink interior’ — a cake ‘design’ that, according to the lawyer,” reflected “the fact that [the lawyer] transitioned from male-to-female and that [the lawyer] had come out as transgender.”

Lest anyone wonder whether this request was made in good faith, consider that this same person apparently made a number of requests to Masterpiece Cakeshop. In September 2017, a caller asked Phillips to design a birthday cake for Satan that would feature an image of Satan smoking marijuana. The name “Scardina” appeared on the caller identification. A few days earlier, a person had emailed Jack asking for a cake with a similar theme — except featuring “an upside-down cross, under the head of Lucifer.” This same emailer reminded Phillips that “religion is a protected class.”

On the very day that Phillips won his case at the Supreme Court, a person emailed with yet another deliberately offensive design request:

I’m thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting. And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9″ black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake. I can provide it for you if you don’t have the means to procure one yourself.

And finally, two days later, a person identifying as “Autumn Marie” visited Phillips’s shop and requested a cake featuring a pentagram. According to ADF, “Phillips believes that person was Autumn Scardina.”

I think plenty of people suspected that the lawsuit against Phillips was an activist and targeted (and initially successful) attempt to punish him for his viewpoint as a devout Christian. 

The test, then, was how the subsequent request by Scardina would be treated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  

Read on...

Quote

Rather than recognizing Scardina’s conduct as nothing more than a bad-faith campaign of harassment, Aubrey Elenis, the director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, found on June 28 “probable cause” to believe that Phillips violated Scardina’s civil rights when he refused Scardina’s bad-faith request to design a cake celebrating Scardina’s “transition.”

And there it is. 

According to the Colorado Civil Rights Division, a bespoke cake featuring a "topper {of} a large figure of Satan, licking a 9″ black Dildo" is not speech.

According to the Colorado Civil Rights Division, there is no First Amendment protection against being compelled to prepare such a bespoke cake.  

Is there a difference between the original requested "rainbow"-themed cake and the one requested by Autumn Scardina?  Sure, but only a difference of degree, not kind.  Both bespoke cakes are examples of artistic "speech."  And the Colorado Civil Rights Division is fine with compelling Mr. Phillips to "speak" both of these messages.

Is there a difference between the two requests for the two cakes?  I believe so.  I think the first one was likely presented in good faith.  But in the end, I don't think that matters.  Regardless of the intent of the requester, the request still pertains to compelled speech.

Read on...

Quote

This decision is as foolish as it is malicious. The one weakness of Jack’s Supreme Court case was that he denied the gay couple’s request to custom-design their cake before he knew the design they wanted. That left him open to the charge that he could have designed a cake that contained no obvious expressive message. Phillips countered that compelling him to use his artistic ability to help celebrate an immoral act was a violation of his First Amendment rights no matter the appearance of the cake.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court punted on that key question, but it was clear that even the two dissenting justices would view the case differently if it was about a specific message that Phillips would reject for any customer. And clearly, a cake with a pink middle and blue exterior communicates the message that Scardina is truly female on the inside. The requested message was as painfully obvious as Scardina’s satanic requests.

With its probable-cause finding, the Colorado Civil Rights Division demonstrates it’s as foolish as it is malicious. It has just launched yet another legal campaign against Phillips based on nothing more than a bad-faith complaint from an angry troll. It hasn’t cured its devotion to double standards. And by seeking to punish Phillips when the expressive message of the proposed cake is crystal clear, the Division has only strengthened his First Amendment claim.

I think that's right.  But I doubt Mr. Phillips will see vindication in Colorado.  The above story was published in August 2018.  What has happened in the Colorado courts re: Scardina's claim since then?  See here (published on June 17, 2021) :

Quote

Scardina is a 42-year-old attorney who practices law in Colorado — the home of Phillips’ bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop — but she is also a devout Christian. Phillips claimed that his First Amendment rights precluded him from making a cake that endorsed a ceremony that violated his religious beliefs about marriage. The day after SCOTUS narrowly ruled in his favor in June 2018, he told the Today show that a wedding is an “inherently religious event and the cake is definitely a specific message.”

As a fellow believer, Scardina says she could appreciate the “nuance” of Phillips’ position. “I remember him saying several times: ‘This is about a singular religious event. This doesn’t have to do with the individuals,’” she tells them. over the phone. “I disagreed with his ultimate position, but some part of me understood how difficult it must be... to watch the world change on him. I wanted to believe him.”

Scardina called Masterpiece Cakeshop in June 2017 hoping that her good faith would be validated, but things went sour very quickly. She had a birthday coming up and decided to order a pink and blue cake to honor the date’s added significance to her: July 6 is also the anniversary of when she came out as a transgender woman. After detailing the size of the order and confirming with a representative that the bakery could fill it within that time frame, she says that she explained to a representative the “personal meaning” behind the requested design.

At that point, Scardina says that the woman taking the order “became very hostile” and immediately “shut it down.” She explained that Masterpiece would not be able to fulfill the request because it “violates their religious beliefs,” as Scardina recalls. She was in the car with her brother at the time and put the call on speaker, asking the worker to repeat what she said so he could hear. Scardina says the call was immediately disconnected.

Note how this story only characterizes the cake request as being "a pink and blue cake."  

Quote

On Wednesday, a Denver court issued a ruling agreeing with Scardina. Judge A. Bruce Jones of the Second Judicial District dismissed the argument put forward by Phillips and his attorneys that the refusal of service to Scardina is constitutionally protected three years after she filed a lawsuit against him. He argued that the case is not about “compelled speech,” saying instead that it is about upholding nondiscrimination laws “intended to ensure that members of our society who have historically been treated unfairly… are no longer treated as ‘others.’”

Jones added that Masterpiece’s policy of serving Scardina until it became aware that she is a transgender woman is the “equivalent of a ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ rule.” “LGBT individuals would be entitled to equal service only to the extent they do not request goods that reflect their identity as LGBT individuals (or at least do not inform Defendants of that reflection),” he wrote.

In addition to finding in favor of Scardina’s claim, Jones slapped Phillips with a $500 fine, the highest possible amount under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, a sweeping 2008 law protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from prejudicial bias.

Phillips’ legal team has already vowed to challenge the ruling, announcing plans to appeal in a Wednesday press release. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a right-wing law firm that also represented Phillips in his prior case before the Supreme Court, claimed in its statement that Scardina “demanded Jack create custom cakes in order to ‘test’ Jack and ‘correct the errors’ of his thinking.”

“[T]he activist even threatened to sue Jack again if the case is dismissed for any reason,” said ADF General Counsel Kristen Waggoner. “Radical activists and government officials are targeting artists like Jack because they won’t promote messages on marriage and sexuality that violate their core convictions.”

This sure sounds like a vendetta against Mr. Phillips.

Quote

Scardina’s legal team denied that characterization of their client’s motives in bringing forward the lawsuit. Attorney Paula Greisen described Scardina as a “very loving, generous, kind person” who is “not the picture that gets painted of her.”

Scardina, who in the article describes herself as "a devout Christian," and whose attorneys describe her as a "loving, generous, kind person," sued a baker for his refusal to make a bespoke cake featuring a "topper {of} a large figure of Satan, licking a 9″ black Dildo."

Quote

Greisen was also the lead trial lawyer representing Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the gay couple at the center of the 2018 Supreme Court case, and says that they, too, were falsely depicted as “crazy activists.”

“They weren’t even activists, and neither is Autumn,” Greisen tells them. over the phone. “These are just ordinary people going about their lives, trying to do the simple things that most of us take for granted. They are being told, ‘No, you're not good enough. We're not going to do this for you.’”

Right.  No activism in either case, both of which just happened to be handled by the same attorney.

Anyway, it looks like Mr. Phillips is appealing the above ruling.  See this August 2021 article:

Quote

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, has now followed through on his pledge to appeal a Colorado state court’s ruling that he violated state law by refusing to create a custom cake celebrating a patron’s gender transition.
...
On the day Supreme Court granted certiorari in Phillips’ case regarding the wedding cake, Denver transgender attorney Autumn Scardina called Masterpiece Cakeshop and requested that Phillips make a blue and pink birthday cake to celebrate her transition from male to female.

Again, note that the article only describes Cardina's request as "a blue and pink birthday cake."  No mention of the satanic/sexual imagery.  This August 2018 Newsweek article references it.

Quote

Scardina filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which first led to a dismissal, then later to a second lawsuit by Scardina. Ultimately, after conducting a bench trial, Denver District Court Judge A. Bruce Jones ruled that Phillips’ bakery violated Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) by refusing to bake Scardina’s requested cake.

In the court’s ruling, the judge specifically found as follows:

Mr. Phillips sees himself as a “Christian witness.” He wants to live his life, do his business, and engage everyone in a way that honors Jesus Christ. Mr. Phillips named the Bakery “Masterpiece” based on Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount, where he said no man can serve two masters.

The court ruled, however, that Phillips “chose to incorporate his business as a for-profit entity providing goods and services to the public,” which therefore obligates him to comply with CADA.

Oi.  This part of the court's ruling is, I think, pretty bad.  Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop, directly addressed this issue:

Quote

The Colorado Court of Appeals was wrong to conclude that Phillips’ conduct was not expressive because a rea­sonable observer would think he is merely complying with Colorado’s public-accommodations law. This argument would justify any law that compelled protected speech.  And, this Court has never accepted it. From the beginning, this Court’s compelled-speech precedents have rejected arguments that “would resolve every issue of power in favor of those in authority.”
...
The Colorado Court of Appeals also noted that Masterpiece is a “for-profit bakery” that “charges its customers.”  370 P. 3d, at 287. But this Court has repeatedly rejected the notion that a speaker’s profit motive gives the gov­ernment a freer hand in compelling speech. See Pacific Gas & Elec., supra, at 8, 16 (collecting cases); Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 761 (1976) (deeming it “beyond serious dispute” that “{s}peech . . . is protected even though it is carried in a form that is ‘sold’ for profit”). 

(Emphasis added.)

The Colorado court seems to be saying that Mr. Phillips surrendered his right to Free Speech (which includes protections against compelled speech) when he "incorporate{d} his business as a for-profit entity providing goods and services to the public."  I don't think that works.

Back to the article:

Quote

Judge Jones reasoned that Phillips lacked a sufficient First Amendment basis for his refusal, because the average person would perceive any message presented by the cake to be Scardina’s, not the cake decorator’s. Phillips was fined $500 for his violation of CADA — the maximum penalty.

I don't think this works, either.  That some people might be mistaken as to the identity of the speaker does not ameliorate the fact that Phillips is being punished for not speaking things he does not want to speak.

Quote

Phillips filed a notice of appeal on August 2, raising several distinct bases for appeal. Some of Phillips’ arguments are procedural in nature, and relate to the case’s rather indirect legal history. At the heart of Phillips’ appeal is the claim that the lower court “erred by ruling that Phillips violated CADA by declining to create a custom cake—with a blue exterior and pink interior—to symbolize and celebrate a gender transition, when the court found that Phillips would not create that cake for anyone.” In other words, Phillips argues that it wasn’t the customer to whom he objected, but rather, the cake. This is a similar argument made by Phillips over the wedding cake; he argued that he would be happy to serve gay couples in his bakery — so long as he isn’t creating wedding cakes for them.

I will be interested to see if this argument prevails.  Phillips is saying he does not want to speak the message, regardless of the sexual orientation of the person requesting that message.

13 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Asking a person to provide a service for you and they are not happy is not the best way to get good service. They might do a bad job on the cake.  Any photographer can take very bad pictures and there is no do over.  The gay couple is stuck with bad pictures.   You get the best service from people who are happy to offer you service. 

I think the cake was secondary.  This story is about a contest between weaponized anti-discrimination laws and the First Amendment.

Thanks,

-Smac

P.S., I just found an August 2018 article about Scardina's lawsuit that clarifies that the satanic/sexual cake request was Scardina's third request for a cake:

Quote

Masterpiece Cakeshop refuses birthday cake for Satan

Posted on August 17, 2018 by Appellate Squawk

 

 

I’m thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting. And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9” black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake. I can provide it for you if you don’t have the means to procure one yourself.

—Email received by baker Jack Phillips after prevailing in the U.S. Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop.

This was Satan’s third attempt to get a birthday cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop.

 

So it looks like this third request was the one that precipitated the above-referenced lawsuit against Phillips.  What was Scardina's first request?  Read on...

Quote

The first email had asked for red and black frosting with an upside-down cross under Lucifer’s image, claiming that it was “religious in theme” and warning that “religion is a protected class.”

And the second request?  Read on...

Quote

The second order was for a cake decorated with Satan smoking pot. The request was made by phone, with the caller i.d. of one Autumn Scardina.

The third request was the one referenced above.  All three of these requests were made by Scardina, the self-professed "devout Christian," and whose attorneys describe her as a "loving, generous, kind person."

The article continues:

Quote

Autumn Scardina is a transgender lawyer who’s started up a new prosecution — leaving Satan out of it this time — because Phillips refused to create a custom cake to celebrate “the 7th year of my transition from male to female.”

The "leaving Satan out of it this time" is an interesting aside, because it looks like Scardina did request the satanic/sexual imagery in her (third) request, but she omitted those details in her complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  The above link ("prosecution") is a scan of Scardina's complaint, which includes this:

"I explained I am a transexual and that I wanted my birthday cake to celebrate my transition by having a blue exterior and a pink interior..."

No mention of the satanic/sexual imagery.  I wonder if this omission was brought to the attention of the judge.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I could be wrong, and I acknowledge that others may disagree, but I personally believe that for the overwhelming majority of services the answer would be no - he would not refuse.  Are there some services which might be exceptions (e.g., officiating)? Possibly.

I agree.  I think this would be because Party A giving Party B someone food or water or clothing or housing or medical care is an act of love and service.  There is no concomitant idea that the giving of such things amounts to ratification / celebration / endorsement of Party B's behavior.

If Party A, a political candidate, asks Party B to come to a rally celebrating Party A's candidacy, would it be wrong / immoral / hateful / bigoted for Party B - who disagrees with Party A's political perspective on some issues - to decline such an invitation?

What if Party A, still a political candidate, asked Party B to not only attend the rally but be an active participant in it?  Such as by giving an introduction to Party A, extolling the virtues of Part A's political preferences, and encouraging the crowd to celebrate and support Party A's candidacy?  

I think this comparison may be more constructive because we all know and understand that people have diverging viewpoints on political ideologies and platforms and candidates, and that disagreement about them is, or ought to be, well within the realm of civil discourse. 

I have plenty of friends whose politics vary substantially from my own, but I do not make our relationship contingent on them accepting or endorsing or celebrating or ratifying my political views, my preferred political candidates, etc.

As it happens, I do know a few people who do this.  Who do condition friendships/relationships on political ideology.  Who use political ideology as a "my way or the highway" litmus test for having a relationship with others. 

Alternatively, I also know folks who segregate political discussion from their relationships with certain people, as discussion about that topic may create undue conflict and acrimony.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stormin' Mormon]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If Party A, a political candidate, asks Party B to come to a rally celebrating Party A's candidacy, would it be wrong / immoral / hateful / bigoted for Party B - who disagrees with Party A's political perspective on some issues - to decline such an invitation?

What if Party A, still a political candidate, asked Party B to not only attend the rally but be an active participant in it?  Such as by giving an introduction to Party A, extolling the virtues of Part A's political preferences, and encouraging the crowd to celebrate and support Party A's candidacy?  

 

This may be a useful analogy to explore because it removes much of the emotional and moral valence from a discussion about same sex weddings.

How would we feel about a caterer, a web designer, or a photographer refusing to produce work for the Democratic National Convention or the annual CPAC convention?  If it is a legitimate refusal of service, what distinguishes a political convention from a wedding? 

If the answer is that the conventions are of a political nature and weddings are not, I think we find ourselves on shaky free speech grounds.  Generally, if one has to examine the content of a message in order to know whether speech protections apply, then the regulation in question is likely not constitutional.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[pogi]

17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I still do not get why any gay couple would want to force a baker to make a cake for their wedding or photographer to take pics. I still do not get why any gay couple would want to force a baker to make a cake for their wedding or photographer to take pics.   Asking a person to provide a service for you and they are not happy is not the best way to get good service. They might do a bad job on the cake.  Any photographer can take very bad pictures and there is no do over.  The gay couple is stuck with bad pictures.   You get the best service from people who are happy to offer you service. 

Think Rosa Parks.  She didn't sit at the front of the bus because she knew it would make white people happy and result in an immediate positive outcome for her.  That's not what this is about either.  Agree or not with their cause and their reasons, it is not about finding the best immediate service.  It is about fighting for social change.  It is about their freedom of speech.  They want to say something about perceived inequities. They don't want to be forced to tuck their tails between their legs and be forced to say/acknowledge via their inaction that they surrender in submission to the baker in acknowledgment that they are below him/her and don't deserve equal service for the sole reason that they are gay.  It is symbolic. 

Like it or not, forced speech is happening on both sides.  Social protest is an art!  Forcing a gay person to seek service elsewhere simply because they are gay may be perceived as forcing them to say and acknowledge that they are below the baker, and other people who are not gay, and don't deserve his service because he is gay. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by pogi

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

Quote

I still do not get why any gay couple would want to force a baker to make a cake for their wedding or photographer to take pics. I still do not get why any gay couple would want to force a baker to make a cake for their wedding or photographer to take pics.   Asking a person to provide a service for you and they are not happy is not the best way to get good service. They might do a bad job on the cake.  Any photographer can take very bad pictures and there is no do over.  The gay couple is stuck with bad pictures.   You get the best service from people who are happy to offer you service. 

Think Rosa Parks. 

How does riding in a bus implicate the First Amendment?  Specifically, the Free Speech clause?  What "compelled speech" was involved with Rosa Parks?

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

She didn't sit at the front of the bus because she knew it would make white people happy and result in an immediate positive outcome for her.  That's not what this is about either.  Agree or not with their cause and their reasons, it is not about finding the best immediate service.  It is about fighting for social change. 

Actually, it was about the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.  

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is about their freedom of speech. They want to say something about perceived inequities.

Who is "their" and "they?"

What "speech" are you referencing here?

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

They don't want to be forced to tuck their tails between their legs and be forced to say/acknowledge via their inaction that they surrender in submission to the baker in acknowledgment that they are below him/her and don't deserve equal service for the sole reason that they are gay.  It is symbolic. 

How does Party A forcing Party B to speak things he (Party B) does not want to speak implicate Party A's "freedom of speech?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[poptart]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

Think Rosa Parks.  She didn't sit at the front of the bus because she knew it would make white people happy and result in an immediate positive outcome for her.  That's not what this is about either.  Agree or not with their cause and their reasons, it is not about finding the best immediate service.  It is about fighting for social change.  It is about their freedom of speech.  They want to say something about perceived inequities. They don't want to be forced to tuck their tails between their legs and be forced to say/acknowledge via their inaction that they surrender in submission to the baker in acknowledgment that they are below him/her and don't deserve equal service for the sole reason that they are gay.  It is symbolic. 

Like it or not, forced speech is happening on both sides.  Social protest is an art!  Forcing a gay person to seek service elsewhere simply because they are gay may be perceived as forcing them to say and acknowledge that they are below the baker and don't deserve his service because he is gay. 

That is one of the most Christian things I've ever seen posted here, you are appreciated.  Thank you.