Update on the "Cake Wars" - Re: Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Nondiscrimination Statutes

[Daniel2]

40 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

You sound a bit defensive though.

Interesting. You sound a bit defensive of Jack Phillips’ victimization, instead of acknowledging his personal choice to humbly/proudly stand for Christ/his beliefs.

Edited January 28 by Daniel2

[Dario_M]

47 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Interesting. You sound a bit defensive of Jack Phillips’ victimization, instead of acknowledging his personal choice to humbly/proudly stand for Christ/his beliefs.

No no no, you see that wrong dear Daniel. 😌👍

[Kenngo1969]

@Daniel2

You might want to stow the weapons and ammunition, Daniel2.  I think @Dario_M, more or less, is on your side.

Thanks,

-Ken

[Daniel2]

20 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

No no no, you see that wrong dear Daniel. 😌👍

My apologies. I’ll have to go back and reread that… Lol 

Edited January 28 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

As much as I don't think invidious discrimination is a good thing, and (if anyone here has gotten the wrong impression, I don't), and as much as I think invidious discrimination is a bad thing, and (if anyone here has gotten the wrong impression, I do), it does seem that, somehow, in the minds of many, the law's justified and justifiable protections against invidious discrimination have morphed into a "right to not be offended, inconvenienced, and so on, ad infinitum, ever, by anything at any time."

"Someone believes something different than I do about something?  He should be hounded out of his job and prevented from being gainfully employed ever again!  Hounded off of campus and prevented from getting an education anywhere else!  Prevented from eating anywhere in public!  Prevented from shopping anywhere! [Hello, Maxine Waters!  While I'm sure I'm completely alone in this view, it's absolutely astounding to me that someone who, no doubt, has faced discrimination on the basis of her skin color would promote discrimination against others based on their political convictions ...] Prevented from banking anywhere!  [After all, they can just hide their money in their mattresses!] Hell, let's make it impossible for them to do any commerce at all by punishing any entity who would dare deliver to them!"

And so on and so forth, ad infinitum.  As much as I do believe that the concept of a dignitary harm is a thing, the notion that absolutely every wrong or alleged wrong ("He believes something that's wrong!" "He used the wrong word!"  "Someone doesn't want to do business with me?  He should be forced to, regardless of any sincerely, deeply held personal convictions!"*  Again, ad infinitum)  has a potential legal remedy has, to one degree or another and in one way or another, turned us ALL, in one way or another, into precious little snowflakes.

If absolutely everything is against the law or if, potentially, every single wrong has a legal remedy, then what's the point?  Maybe it's time we all "sucked it up, Buttercup" ... maybe just a little?  (And yes, despite the fact that, apparently, it defies all logic, reason, and fairness in the minds of some, I do have the temerity to believe that, in the vast majority of cases, it is easier for someone simply to find a willing provider ...)

__________________________

*Yes, I know that historically, that one has been used to justify various forms of invidious discrimination: See my first paragraph.

[Dario_M]

37 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@Daniel2

You might want to stow the weapons and ammunition, Daniel2.  I think @Dario_M, more or less, is on your side.

Thanks,

-Ken

Yeah indeed i am on Daniel side. Sort of offcourse. I don't dislike The Nehor or so. It is not personal guys. Don't worrie. 

Edited January 28 by Dario_M

[Dario_M]

20 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

My apologies. I’ll have to go back and reread that… Lol 

No problem hun you may read it back. 😌👍

[Benjamin McGuire]

40 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As much as I don't think invidious discrimination is a good thing, and (if anyone here has gotten the wrong impression, I don't), and as much as I think invidious discrimination is a bad thing, and (if anyone here has gotten the wrong impression, I do), it does seem that, somehow, in the minds of many, the law's justified and justifiable protections against invidious discrimination have morphed into a "right to not be offended, inconvenienced, and so on, ad infinitum, ever, by anything at any time."

And yet, for most of us, we have no personal experience with this (at least I don't, my parents don't, my children don't). I think that it is easy to think this way when you are largely experiencing it through media (social media, news media, etc). However, there is an extreme difference between those of us who may experience a threat of problems if we engage in discrimination, and those who are on the receiving end of discrimination every single day.

This is a classic argument against anti-discrimination laws - how will they affect me? We should be first concerned with those who are being already discriminated against. You might have a point if we didn't have very real and very problematic systemic discrimination in our society. But we do. And we won't fix it by creating barriers for those who are being discriminated against to try and prevent it.

[california boy]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not disagreeing but I don't know if I agree either.  I'm trying to decide how I feel about it.  Pondering what you said, I've asked myself, if a Black person was willing to make a white cake for a baptism, should they still be forced to make the exact same white cake if they learn it's for a KKK rally?

I'm asking myself, is the purpose of the cake relevant in these kinds of discussions?

I'm honestly not sure where I draw the line.

Does a retailer have any rights of control over what he sells once it leaves his store?  

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And yet, for most of us, we have no personal experience with this (at least I don't, my parents don't, my children don't). I think that it is easy to think this way when you are largely experiencing it through media (social media, news media, etc). However, there is an extreme difference between those of us who may experience a threat of problems if we engage in discrimination, and those who are on the receiving end of discrimination every single day.

This is a classic argument against anti-discrimination laws - how will they affect me? We should be first concerned with those who are being already discriminated against. You might have a point if we didn't have very real and very problematic systemic discrimination in our society. But we do. And we won't fix it by creating barriers for those who are being discriminated against to try and prevent it.

I've been the target of more invidious discrimination than you might suspect.  But, by all means, you keep right on insisting that I live in a comfortable bubble where such things don't exist!  

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I've been the target of more invidious discrimination than you might suspect.  But, by all means, you keep right on insisting that I live in a comfortable bubble where such things don't exist!

The fact that you want to compare whatever discrimination you have faced to the discrimination we are discussing here speaks volumes. I am not saying that you haven't experienced discrimination. I am saying that you don't face it constantly, every day.

[Kenngo1969]

27 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The fact that you want to compare whatever discrimination you have faced to the discrimination we are discussing here speaks volumes. I am not saying that you haven't experienced discrimination. I am saying that you don't face it constantly, every day.

How do you know?

[OGHoosier]

I'm more or less with the court on this most recent case. Contrary to most, I do think that the context makes the blue-and-pink cake an act of speech, but that judgement is context-dependent. I don't want to invite the government into litigating whether something counts as speech or not depending on the context and the symbolic meanings attached to things like colors. That seems like an enormous can of worms without end. A denial of certiorari on this would be ideal. 

As for anti-discrimination laws, I don't know which way the wind is blowing on them, but I can see a few scenarios:

1) Presuming that discrimination against protected classes doesn't shift with time or social developments, they remain as they are, and are perhaps added onto.

2) The definition of "protected class" warps as the country becomes more polarized in just about every variety imaginable and inter-demographic conflict bleeds into commerce along multiple axes, leading to litigation and precedent which alters "protected class" beyond what I can predict. 

3) Discrimination against the current definition of protected classes declines until the anti-discrimination laws act more as a legal advantage than a corrective, in which case they slip back into the Overton window as subjects of dispute. Obviously, this will be hotly contested all throughout the process. 

#1 seems least likely to me: changing social attitudes are the ultimate fact of life in the West. It's only a matter of time. Honestly I think #2 is probably the most likely as the American social fabric frays.

Edited January 28 by OGHoosier

[manol]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

@Daniel2

You might want to stow the weapons and ammunition, Daniel2.  I think @Dario_M, more or less, is on your side.

Thanks,

-Ken

You sir are a true gentleman, alerting your opponents that they are on the verge of a "friendly fire" incident. 

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." - Napoleon Bonaparte, warmaker

"Ceasefire, dude!  He's on YOUR side!!" - Kenngo1969, peacemaker

[3DOP]

On 12/15/2022 at 10:51 AM, smac97 said:

Back in February I said this:

And this (same link) :

It looks like this "turnabout is fair play" stuff may be happening.  See here: Gay-friendly restaurant refuses to serve Christians … What happened to “bake the cake, bigot”?

Although there are certainly "religious" (and hence Free Exercise) elements in the Cake Wars, I think the more pertinent and central legal issue is Free Speech (more specifically, the right to resist compelled speech).

Fair questions, these.  Fair and difficult.

Here's where the "turnabout" stuff may be coming in:

From the "canceled on them" link:

A few thoughts:

First, the Metzger Bar framed their refusal of service as pertaining to the group being a "political organization that seeks to deprive women and LGBTQ+ of their basic human rights."

Second, the Metzger Bar justified their refusal of service as follows: "We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe."

Third, I think this justification opens a huge can of worms.  From the first article above:

These are fair questions.

Well, maybe.  I wonder if the Family Foundation of Virginia to consider Section 2.2-3904(B) of the Virginia Code ("Nondiscrimination in places of public accommodation; definitions"), which states:

"Public accommodations" are defined in the statute as "all places or businesses offering or holding out to the general public goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages, or accommodations."

Let's shorten the language a bit:

This seems applicable to what the Metzger Bar did to the group.

Unlike the Jack Phillips case, however, there does not seem to be much of a "Free Speech" component to the dispute.

Again from the "canceled on them" link:

Cobb has a pretty solid point here, but so far she is only doing a bit of saber-rattling.  I wonder if the time has come to actually start pushing back a bit.

I think religious individuals and groups who are being genuinely discriminated against ought to start pushing back.  Calmly.  Using the law.  With measured words and reasoned arguments.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

My thoughts are that if businesses are willing to lose money for their beliefs, it should be permissible. 

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The fact that you want to compare whatever discrimination you have faced to the discrimination we are discussing here speaks volumes. I am not saying that you haven't experienced discrimination. I am saying that you don't face it constantly, every day.

(Sorry if this comes across as patronizing, Ken, me speaking for you, hopefully I am at least accurate, going off memory).  
 

Actually Ken might with the level of physical challenges he has had.  He hasn’t been able to get a job in his selected field due to prejudice after investing many years and much money in getting training and passing requirements and is reduced to work at phone centers or whatever they are called iirc.  He hasn’t had many, if any opportunities for marriage because few look past the surface or consider their ideal mate could be different than the usual.  His physical limitations probably prevent him from using quite a few things the rest of us have access to and he could have if people were willing to invest in adapting access, but refuse to.

My guess is his experience of discrimination is a constant factor of his every waking moment and has been since before he was aware of it since many of his conditions were from birth, people thinking his capabilities are less than they are, maybe even feeling uncomfortable around him for some reason (maybe just because humans are so often with someone who is different than us even when the differences aren’t that big), him having to think ahead and take into account in his decisions barriers that are created by others, even though his form of constant discrimination is not racial.

I think of anyone on the board that I am aware of, Ken is the closest to a racial discrimination, but lacks the generational experience.  His challenges don’t hook into history as family and most of acquaintances do not have the same conditions he has, so his communal experience of discrimination is very different….though he may be involved and close to others who share his or similar challenges, so he may have developed a strong sense of community this way, such as occurs for some who are deaf.  But I believe there is definitely a systemic level of discrimination he has to constantly experience including living and working experience and not just because of his actual limitations, but the limitations others imagine he has incorrectly or create because of refusal to adapt to ways that include him.

I however may be missing something because I haven’t experienced racial discrimination though I have been hit quite a bit with sexism over the years including getting crap medical treatment (when my husband and other men in the family get active treatment and I get sent home telling me to stop worrying, just exercise, or given a pill and then forgotten and I read about studies of variations of treatment between men and women of similar cases, think it is reasonable to assume sex might have something to do with it) and my experience of health discrimination isn’t constant because looking at me one can’t tell what my challenges are, except for a few side issues due to health and my physical limitations pretty much can be dealt with in a little extra time, though hearing is getting to be more of an issue.

Edited January 29 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Honestly I think #2 is probably the most likely as the American social fabric frays.

Everyone feeling like a victim because things get worse and they are so all are fighting for limited resources seems more in line with scripture rather than stagnation/equilibrium or people holding on to victim status way past the time it is needed because I think most prefer not seeing themselves as victims needing to be protected even if some develop the habit.

Edited January 29 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

How do you know?

I'm basing that conclusion from your profile photo. And from the fact that I believe that you would have far more empathy if you were regularly encountering systemic discrimination ...

[bsjkki]

24 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I'm basing that conclusion from your profile photo. And from the fact that I believe that you would have far more empathy if you were regularly encountering systemic discrimination ...

You know what they say about ‘assuming’ things. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

30 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

You know what they say about ‘assuming’ things. 

No. What do they say?

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I'm basing that conclusion from your profile photo. And from the fact that I believe that you would have far more empathy if you were regularly encountering systemic discrimination ...

Ah.  So race is the only determinant of systemic discrimination.  Thanks for clearing that up.

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

(Sorry if this comes across as patronizing, Ken, me speaking for you, hopefully I am at least accurate, going off memory).  
 

Actually Ken might with the level of physical challenges he has had.  He hasn’t been able to get a job in his selected field due to prejudice after investing many years and much money in getting training and passing requirements and is reduced to work at phone centers or whatever they are called iirc.  He hasn’t had many, if any opportunities for marriage because few look past the surface or consider their ideal mate could be different than the usual.  His physical limitations probably prevent him from using quite a few things the rest of us have access to and he could have if people were willing to invest in adapting access, but refuse to.

My guess is his experience of discrimination is a constant factor of his every waking moment and has been since before he was aware of it since many of his conditions were from birth, people thinking his capabilities are less than they are, maybe even feeling uncomfortable around him for some reason (maybe just because humans are so often with someone who is different than us even when the differences aren’t that big), him having to think ahead and take into account in his decisions barriers that are created by others, even though his form of constant discrimination is not racial.

I think of anyone on the board that I am aware of, Ken is the closest to a racial discrimination, but lacks the generational experience.  His challenges don’t hook into history as family and most of acquaintances do not have the same conditions he has, so his communal experience of discrimination is very different….though he may be involved and close to others who share his or similar challenges, so he may have developed a strong sense of community this way, such as occurs for some who are deaf.  But I believe there is definitely a systemic level of discrimination he has to constantly experience including living and working experience and not just because of his actual limitations, but the limitations others imagine he has incorrectly or create because of refusal to adapt to ways that include him. ...

Not patronizing at all.  It was a flawless routine, and you stuck the landing. You nailed it.  If I could spend all of my rep points on one post, this one would be it for today, and probably for a few days.  

[Kenngo1969]

23 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And yet, for most of us, we have no personal experience with this [systemic discrimination] ...

 

20 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I've been the target of more invidious discrimination than you might suspect.  But, by all means, you keep right on insisting that I live in a comfortable bubble where such things don't exist!  

 

17 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The fact that you want to compare whatever discrimination you have faced to the discrimination we are discussing here speaks volumes. I am not saying that you haven't experienced discrimination. I am saying that you don't face it constantly, every day.

 

16 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

How do you know?

 

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I'm basing that conclusion from your profile photo. And from the fact that I believe that you would have far more empathy if you were regularly encountering systemic discrimination ...

 

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

You know what they say about ‘assuming’ things. 

 

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

No. What do they say?

@bsjkki, whether @Benjamin McGuire is feigning ignorance or being genuine, he's the perfect illustration of that old saw.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Kenngo1969 -

What you are doing is akin to what has been labeled as white fragility. There is no question that we are dealing with discrimination. Your response is all about protecting the person that is handing out the discrimination as opposed to the person who is experiencing. White fragility refers to racial discrimination - where white people claim (in response to the issue of racial discrimination) that they too are discriminated against. It is purely a deflection - to avoid recognizing the real discrimination going on, and to claim equal victim status with those that are experiencing it. Here you are.

If we want to deal with discrimination in a way that works to eliminate it from our society, then we need to treat discrimination as the problem of the discriminators and not those being discriminated against. If you have really experienced discrimination at this level, then your response should have been quite different. We need (as a society) to help those who are being discriminated against to be able to have the voice to bring their claims forward, and we need to not punish them for doing so.

The legal issue you were complaining about isn't about false accusations. It requires that the legal system finds that someone is discriminating. And it makes them pay the cost of that legal process. If your claim of discrimination fails, then you have to pay the costs (for both sides, if the court decides). This seems quite reasonable to me. But what you are suggesting means that there is nothing to be gained by bringing forward claims of discrimination and a lot to lose (in terms of cost). You want to protect those who are discriminating against others by adding to the difficulty of those who are being discriminated against. There is not justice there.

On top of this, I have yet to have anyone tell me how baking a cake prevents someone from practicing their religion (this is not the same as say forcing a Catholic doctor to perform an abortion). I know of no religion that makes cake baking a sin (no matter what the context in which it would be eaten). Certainly it isn't an issue for Mormonism.

These lawsuits are no different from the ones we had following the civil rights movements when racial discrimination was slow to go away. I really have no expectation that you will respond to this with anything more than cynicism or (as you and bsjkki have done, in calling me an ***) for voicing this opinion. But in response, I will suggest that your view of what it means to live the Gospel is far different from what I read in the scriptures. As Jesus said: "If someone wants to sue you in court and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. If someone forces you to go with him one mile, go with him two miles." We shouldn't even have to have these discussions in a moral society over how to legally justify discriminatory behavior.

Edited January 29 by Benjamin McGuire

[provoman]

40 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Kenngo1969 -

What you are doing is akin to what has been labeled as white fragility. There is no question that we are dealing with discrimination. Your response is all about protecting the person that is handing out the discrimination as opposed to the person who is experiencing. White fragility refers to racial discrimination - where white people claim (in response to the issue of racial discrimination) that they too are discriminated against. It is purely a deflection - to avoid recognizing the real discrimination going on, and to claim equal victim status with those that are experiencing it. Here you are.

If we want to deal with discrimination in a way that works to eliminate it from our society, then we need to treat discrimination as the problem of the discriminators and not those being discriminated against. If you have really experienced discrimination at this level, then your response should have been quite different. We need (as a society) to help those who are being discriminated against to be able to have the voice to bring their claims forward, and we need to not punish them for doing so.

The legal issue you were complaining about isn't about false accusations. It requires that the legal system finds that someone is discriminating. And it makes them pay the cost of that legal process. If your claim of discrimination fails, then you have to pay the costs (for both sides, if the court decides). This seems quite reasonable to me. But what you are suggesting means that there is nothing to be gained by bringing forward claims of discrimination and a lot to lose (in terms of cost). You want to protect those who are discriminating against others by adding to the difficulty of those who are being discriminated against. There is not justice there.

On top of this, I have yet to have anyone tell me how baking a cake prevents someone from practicing their religion (this is not the same as say forcing a Catholic doctor to perform an abortion). I know of no religion that makes cake baking a sin (no matter what the context in which it would be eaten). Certainly it isn't an issue for Mormonism.

These lawsuits are no different from the ones we had following the civil rights movements when racial discrimination was slow to go away. I really have no expectation that you will respond to this with anything more than cynicism or (as you and bsjkki have done, in calling me an ***) for voicing this opinion. But in response, I will suggest that your view of what it means to live the Gospel is far different from what I read in the scriptures. As Jesus said: "If someone wants to sue you in court and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. If someone forces you to go with him one mile, go with him two miles." We shouldn't even have to have these discussions in a moral society over how to legally justify discriminatory behavior.

(1865) FREDERICK DOUGLASS, “WHAT THE BLACK MAN WANTS”

and I will assume you would say Justice Clarence Thomas was wrong for quoting Fredrick Douglas in his opinion opposing affirmative action in scholastic admissions; because Justice Thomas did not respond the one and true way as you propose.

It is absurd to think to claim a "if, then" for individual experiences. It reminds me of the lyrics "can't be a man because he does not smoke the same cigarettes as me".