Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I don't see how they can make that argument, given that the baker and the couple never even got the point of discussing potential cake designs.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Is Religious Freedom in the U.S. Broken Beyond Repair?"
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Whether the trait being discriminated against is a choice or innate is irrelevant. Religion is also a choice, yet it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion.
The question before the court is not one of business viability; it's one of discrimination against a class of people.
They do all the time. "It's against my religion" is not a universal get out of jail free card.
The facts of the case clearly indicate that the entire reason for his refusal to provide services to the couple was their sexual orientation. Whether he thought their orientation was "immoral" or not is irrelevant.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
The idea is that if their cake is art, then not only would they have a religious ground for opposition, they could somehow have more control over their art. But it's an absurd claim, not because they didn't reach the point of cake designs, but because the artist has no control over their art once it's out of their hands. An author can't control how someone will interpret their works, nor can a painter determine what sort of emotional reaction a viewer will have. Record producers certainly never intended for records to be smashed, but it's happened plenty of times in protest anyways.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I think our two points are complimentary. Yours is entirely valid from an artistic POV, and mine is valid from a pragmatic POV.
Phil25
Active Member
Its off topic but I think its cases like these that makes the appointment to SCOTUS so politicized even though its supposed to be impartial. Nine people(but in most cases one person as the decisions of the other eight are predictable) have the power to set a precedent for generations. And because of life tenure these justices can serve for three or four decades. I think its high time for a reform in the structure of SCOTUS. In many other countries their Supreme Court justices have to retire by a certain age(usually 70 or 75) and there are 20 or 30 justices in total. So open positions occur frequently and judicial appointments are a lot less politicized.
I didn't misquote you. I quoted your actual quote.
My response before is the same I'd make now. You may wish to look at it again.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Could be. As I pointed out earlier, it can also bring in support. They'd probably wither and die out very quickly in coastal California. In a state like Alabama, it's reasonable to assume it would have the opposite effect and attract new customers for "bold" and so "godly."
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Beyond that, the proposition @SalixIncendium is presenting is absurd on its face. Basically it's "let's leave civil rights up to popular opinion".
Skwim
Veteran Member
I said: "Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long."I didn't misquote you. I quoted your actual quote.
You said I said: "I Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long."
..........................
Yeah, and before I answer, I will need your answer to my question.
.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I'm not sure if it's over-confidence in consumers, or over-confidence in how far civil rights have progressed, but it's a fairly common argument and it has no basic in historic fact. Every other group has needed government intervention for protection, because businesses and their costumers were not. It's no different today with LBGT rights.
I can understand that, but no one is saying that whatever the government does is okay. People just need to be more proactive and take control of their government through the means provided in our Constitution. I happen to be against the government's propensity to impose drug laws or other "morals" on people, but if I go waving a bag of illegal narcotics in front of a police officer, then I would expect to be arrested.
True, although if the government writes a law and says not to do something, then we're kind of stuck with it until the law can be challenged in court (which is what is happening in this case).
And that's why it's in court, so the legal beagles can figure it all out.
Or, what about "ladies' night" at the bars? I can see what you're saying, although discounts are a different matter, since it doesn't actually deny any services to people willing to pay full price. I don't know if anyone has made any complaints or filed lawsuits over senior and student discounts.
Well, no one should give more weight to cops' testimony, so I agree with you there. I think that's more of a philosophical viewpoint held by mindless conformists within society itself (and they abound), but theoretically, the government isn't really supposed to do that. Likewise for "blue wall" corruption.
I would say it's also the result of not having sufficient checks and balances within the system.
Another large part of the problem is that state and local police departments demand that they be "independent" and separate agencies. I don't agree with that philosophy. They need to have a proper chain of command. They need to have someone to answer to, and that's what is missing in the system.
Well, there are smarter ways of going about it, though. A little advanced preparation might be in order, if one has any intention of provoking a cop (with or without cause).
No, but then again, neither is baking a cake for a paying customer. How much damage can that cause? Even if one had a court order demanding that someone bake a cake, even that doesn't really cause much harm to comply with that order. Maybe it's a bit ego-deflating, to be ordered to bake a cake, but hardly much damage.
Celebrating Hitler's or Tojo's birthday would be an exercise in free speech, which is also protected by the same Amendment.
But whose speech is it? If a TV station sells a 30-minute slot of time for an infomercial, they typically put a disclaimer informing viewers that it's a paid advertisement and that the station does not endorse any opinions or claims made by the advertiser. The same principle could apply to bakeries. Just because someone is baking a cake for a gay wedding, it does not constitute an endorsement of gay weddings.
Even if the Westboro Baptist Church wanted to buy 30 minutes of airtime from a TV station which is in the business of selling airtime for infomercials, then they should have to accommodate that. Or, they can stop showing infomercials and have actual TV shows on instead. They have infomercials simply because they want to make more money, and if money is all they care about, then they've made their choice.
Likewise, the bakery could simply choose to not sell wedding cakes at all, neither for straight or gay couples, and then they wouldn't be considered guilty of discrimination. I guess it's a matter of knowing why someone decides to go into the bakery business in the first place. Do they do so to make money? Or do they do so to spread Christian values to the community? I see an inherent conflict in trying to do both at the same time.
But if they face difficulties because they have other priorities more important than the business they've chosen, then they've brought those difficulties upon themselves.
Yeah, but in this case, the remedy is just so simple: Bake the damn cake and be done with it. It's what the baker does anyway. That's his job. Why should a business owner even care at all? I thought the conventional wisdom these days was to not mix business with personal matters.
It's not the government's fault that they choose to be offended. In any case, I don't see that "being offended" amounts to any great hardship.
Not sure. There was once a time when it was considered a valid use of governmental authority to outlaw homosexuality outright. Nowadays that's no longer the case, but there is still lingering discrimination which might need to be addressed at a governmental level.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
Not in the least. I support gay rights.
No matter how proactive an individual is, one has no control over government.
When the area is gray, I'd prefer that government simply leave people to their own devices.
An example is abortion.
Some say it's murder.
Others say it's not.
So government should stay out as much as practical.
Setting a legal abortion limit on development stage is such a compromise.
I'd prefer that public policy be made by elected representatives
than by lawyers & judges, who are the lease accountable of all.
Technically illegal here, but tolerated.
(Powerful ladies lobby, eh?)
I wonder if the city would be so tolerant if I offered white male discounts?
This is detente....the idea that someone committing some legal offense should only endure commensurate sanction.
Refusing to sell someone a cake should be on the order of a $100 ticket.
The specific performance remedy, eh?
But should someone be compelled to perform this speech for another?
I don't think so.
A disclaimer on the cake perhaps?
Creative!
I suspect it wouldn't fly.
At this point, I've no new ground to cover.
But dang...you put a lot of effort in to posts!
It was fricking keyboard error when I copied and pasted. It of course was not intentional. But did you care to respond to what I was replying to you with, sans the added character that got itself into there?
Misunderstood
Active Member
I will admit that I have not read the briefs in the case before the Supreme Court and do not know what arguments have survived and made it into the case. I did read some from the original case, and from what I remember it had and argument about compelling someone to use their artistic talents against their beliefs. I do not remember how long ago it was that I read this and I have not read anything since. Who knows I could be getting details mixed up as I will say my memory is not as good as it used to be. But with the details you have given, in the fact he refused service before determining what they wanted, I would say they were discriminated against and the baker will lose the case, if those are truly the facts.
That may be true, but in this thread the OP has set the argument as to what they want to discuss and the facts they want to use in that discussion. With that I actually may have brought the discussion off of topic by bringing into the discussion outside information. But in a discussion I do not feel it wrong to use the the facts the OP sets out for their discussion. However, I do feel it would be a good idea to read the COA, and I may do so sometime, I also think it would be good to read the whole case before the Supreme Court before making a binding decision. If the Supreme Court thought that the case was without merit and the COA ruling is on solid ground, they would not have taken the case. There must be something in the Bakers appeal to cause the Supreme Court to question the COA's ruling and to take the case for review.
As I said, with the facts you have just provided I do agree that the baker is not allowed to discriminate in the way he did. With the details in the original case as I remember them I feel he should prevail. Artistic expression has almost always been considered a free speech issue and has been allowed even when controversial or seen to be without any artistic value. With this I feel it would be wrong for any government or person to compel someone to write, say, or create something that they do not believe in. Say the tables were turned and a pro-homosexual speaker were asked to create and give a speech against homosexuality. He is a regular speaker and hires himself out to do this service, should he be made to do this? Or an artist compelled to do a sculpture that that repulses them, or a writer to write something they find repulsive? I just feel it is not a good idea to make someone create something they are against, no matter what side you are on, it may come back to bit you.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, this section of your post would apply if the baker in question was an employee, not an owner.
An employee should be expected to do what he is told, and if he doesn't like it he can apply elsewhere.
As long as he is following the law, an owner who decides to go into business for himself shouldn't be made to compromise his principles.
(I know the baker refusing to bake the cake is against Colorado law. I am opposed to how strict Colorado's public accommodation law is compared to the federal public accommodation law.)
And if his principles are socially abhorrent, let the market, not the government, deal with it.
Let the customer buy the cake elsewhere, post a negative yelp review for the baker who wouldn't bake the cake, and everyone gets to move on with their lives without wasting the Supreme Court's time.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Whoa! Take it easy. I only pointed out that you misquoted me, not that you drown puppies or voted for Trump.
No, I didn't care to. I didn't find it particularly comment-worthy.
But, your misquote, "I Don't want to service gays, be it cakes or carburetors, then you probably wont be in business for long." odd as it is, made it look as if I was supporting the cake baker, which I felt should be brought to your attention. Too bad you didn't catch on quicker, but no big deal. We're good. .
Skwim
Veteran Member
Of course they could have bought a cake elsewhere; however, if I remember correctly, they wanted to correct what they feel is unjust discrimination. As for wasting the Supreme Court's time, it's the Supreme Court that decides what to do with its time, which cases it will hear and which it won't, not any litigant.
.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Let them picket the store, organize a rally to spread awareness of what jerks own the store, organize a boycott of the store. Let them freely express themselves without using the government to force a person to do something he isn't inclined to do because of his religious principles.
Skwim
Veteran Member
The government, through the justice system, has already decided it will be used, so your protest is in vain. Its involvement is a fait accompli.
Besides, as everyone knows, what people do because of their religious principles isn't always right and shouldn't be freely expressed. You do know that, don't you?
.