"Is Religious Freedom in the U.S. Broken Beyond Repair?"

[Stevicus]

I don't buy into the public policy philosophy that government isn't responsible for sanctions it
imposes upon us, if we have any choice in the matter. When government infringes upon our
rights, the choice to exercise them in the face of punishment does not inherently justify the
infringement & level of sanction.

But we do have a choice in the matter. The people can choose whichever government they want. If people make the wrong choices, then there may be consequences with that. People might look at government to safeguard people's rights and to act in the public interest. Is there a public interest in government forbidding discrimination?

I disagree.
We've a major problem with government in that it is so often insensitive to the damage it does to us.
The shining example is cops being trained for overkill if they perceive even the slightest threat to themselves.
We don't really matter that much to them....except when they're pandering for votes.

Well, I guess it's a matter of whose ox gored. But I don't know that the government is necessarily insensitive to the damage it causes. They are obligated to explain themselves and investigate any kind of wrongdoing (such as cops shooting people). Some may question their sincerity, but at least they know what they're supposed in things like that.

As far as damage it does to "us," all I can say is that I've never been shot by a police officer, nor do I have any real fear of that happening. I'm not the kind of guy who would go around provoking cops.

We can agree on that point.

Fortunately, Americastanian socialists don't have enuf power to turn us into Venezuela.

Wait and see.

How would you answer post #36?

Question....
If The Westboro Baptist Church wanted a cake with its name on it,
should a bakery owned by gay folk be legally required to make it?

This sounds like the question about a Jewish bakery being forced to bake a cake on Hitler's birthday.

As I mentioned upthread, I think the case is pretty ridiculous overall, no matter what side one takes here. There are far more important issues taking place in this country. Some people don't even have enough food, let alone cake. So, the fact that people are getting all worked up over cake is truly astonishing to me.

But yeah, if you're operating a business open to the public, then you have to take whatever you get. No one is being forced to go into the bakery business, so they can choose whatever vocation they wish. If they chose to become a doctor, then they might have to operate on patients whose religious views they disagree with.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't think something being a "choice" or not matters.
One could say that religion & political affiliation (eg, Nazi) are choices.
But are they?
When one is called to a belief or dis-belief, it could very well be involuntary.

I'll grant this. Being born a Muslim is not really a choice. To dissociate oneself from one's own culture of birth, is not really a choice either. To refuse service to a Muslim because your religion calls them pagans and terrorists, is however a choice. An illegal choice.

As far as Nazi's go however, if we are not talking some child born into a neo-nazi home where he was programmed from birth, but rather the typical disenfranchised young white male seeking some sort of affiliation that echoes his personal frustrations with culture as he sees it, that is a choice. It's an adopted ideology. But even so, by law, you would not be allowed to deny them your goods and services, just because they are part of a cult.

I know that I could not choose to be anything other than an atheist.

Fair enough. And when you were denied being able to rent a rototiller because the rental place owner "don't sell to no f'ing atheists", would you just say, "Sure fine, whatever, you can discriminate against me". Or would you possible, and rightly so, sue him for violating the law?

A better view would be to consider how important one's (potentially) protected
group (legal usage there) status is to one. Race, gender, religion....all the
same with regard to level of legal protection.

I agree with this. Yes, even if someone made a choice to become a Neo-Nazi when they were 20, you can't deny them service either. When it comes to homosexuals however, choice does not even enter into the picture, and refusal to serve them is on the same level as denying someone service based on skin color. It's not a matter of disagreeing with their beliefs.

 

[Enoch07]

'm not getting "all emotional." I'm getting all rational

You are not being rational or you would see why forcing people to labor against their will is bad.

Refusing goods and services to someone based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation is a discriminatory practice. It's not like they were being rowdy or rude as a customer. It's because of their sexual orientation, which is not any different than refusing service to a Black or Hispanic. It's not a race-style choice. It's nothing you can change. Do you not understand this? To refuse service to someone because they are born a certain way, is illegal. How is it you don't understand this?

I do understand. But I still have the right to refuse my labor to anyone. I am not a slave.

Being a Nazi is in fact a choice. Nazism is an ideology. Homosexual is not. It's no more a choice than being Black or Hispanic. I think this is the source of the issue. Basic ignorance about what homosexuality actually is. Do you believe it's a choice?

I don't believe homosexuality is a choice.

But choice has nothing to do with the issue. Under the law you are supporting you take away the ability for people to refuse service. So Jewish bakers would be forced to make swastika cakes that say "Heil Hitler" or else face discrimination penalties.

The solution is is simple. If a gay couple go to a baker and a baker refuses them. Boycott that bakery, and find one that will take their money. Let the free market sort it out. Any businesses that discriminate will eventually go out of business from their own actions, and the problem will be solved. Without enacting draconian legislation that will inevitable bite us in the butt later.

 

[Nous]

Yes, I agree that they do offer wedding cakes and I assume he is talented enough to make any type someone would want.

Let me try to explain slightly differently. Say you go into a card shop they have wedding cards, some for heterosexual couples most with no indication of the couples preference at all. If the card shop does not have a card that indicates a homosexual couple should they be made to include a section on it? And if so, how about for Christians, Muslims, Jewish and all other groups that are identified.

That scenario isn't analogous to this case in any way. Phillips didn't offer to create or sell Craig and Mullins a wedding cake. Phillips refused them service as soon as he learned that the cake they were inquiring about was to be served at their wedding reception.

As I said I think the case is about making someone use an artistic talent to make something they would have not normally make because of their beliefs.

If you were to read the petition and briefs in this case, you would discover that the compelled speech claim has been mostly abandoned. Courts have repeatedly held--as the Colorado Court of Appeals (COA) did--that such accommodations laws regulate conduct, not speech. The COA made clear that Phillips remained free to express his opinions about the law, about the rulings in regard to it, about same-sex couples getting married, etc. Colorado's public accommodations law (CADA) does not require Phillips to speak or host the government's message. What CADA forbids is for him to discriminate on the basis of the listed characteristics such as race, gender, religion, sexual orientation.

Moreover, as the COA also made clear, Phillips himself undermined any claim of compelled expressive activity, by the fact that he refused service to Craig and Mullins as soon as he learned that the cake would be served at their wedding reception (which was hundreds of miles away from their wedding). He did not seek to find out what sort of cake Craig and Mullins wanted. He refused them service for no other reason than their sexual orientation, not because of any expressive activity they requested of him.

You (and everyone else here) need to read the COA opinion. You can't get the facts or the relevant arguments from the stupid little articles such as the OP gives.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I agree with a lot of points in both camps. The baker should be allowed some room to choose what he is and isn't willing to use his talents toward - provided it can be shown that the specification of the cake requests customization that requires the baker "break his moral code" in some way. But at the same time, businesses should not be allowed to actively discriminate clientele based on their own obscure beliefs about a subject/race/creed/gender.

And, of course, the law stands that services shouldn't be denied based on such criteria. Which, I feel, was rightly called upon in this situation - even if only so that idiots like this baker can be taken to court and their businesses made a laughing stock and likely take an economic hit due to what will undoubtedly be overwhelmingly bad press on the situation. The baker asked for it, in my opinion.

 

[Windwalker]

You are not being rational or you would see why forcing people to labor against their will is bad.

Do you believe we should support White's Only restaraunts again? Roll back all the civil rights laws of the 60's because you consider this to be forcing people to labor against their will, as if they were a "slave" as you call it? Yes, or no? If no, explain your rationality to me.

I can certainly explain rationally why discrimination is bad, if you need me to. Do you need me to? Maybe some emotion, or basic empathy is what is needed, instead of just rational justifications for prejudice? Bottom line, it's about protecting people. "I have an apartment for rent, but not if you're black or gay or Muslim." There is a reason for these laws. Personal biases are not allowed to deny people access to goods and services. That is a rational, and human reason for these laws. We've seen the other side of this where there were no such laws. How did that fare? You think we should go back? I hope not.

 

[Nous]

As a business owner, the cake owner should have the freedom to provide or not provide services to whom he wishes at the time of his choosing.

Public accommodations laws are valid laws, according to the Court. In Roberts v. US Jaycees, the Court held that there is a compelling governmental interest in prohibiting discrimination against certain classes of people.

 

[Nous]

Should a Jewish bakery have to decorate a cake celebrating Hitlers birthday

Hitler and Nazis are not included in Colorado's public accommodations law. Business-owners may discriminate against Hitler and Nazis.

 

[Nous]

When weighing 2 competing types of civil liberty, there must be give &/or
compromise. Someone will lose. This is especially so when neither liberty
is clearly expressed in the Constitution.

I voted in favor of the baker, not because I know how the USSC will rule,
but because I find the requirement to put an offensive (to the baker)
message on a cake to be wrong.
1) It forces unwanted speech upon the baker.
2) It has too little benefit to the customer to justify #1.
3) The baker isn't refusing to do business with the customer,
just limiting the service performed in a very narrow way.

(1) CADA does not compel business-owners to speak or host the government's message. Phillips is free to speak any message he wants (other than informing people that he will discriminate against them in violation of the law).

(2) The Court has held that the anti-discrimination provisions of public accommodations laws perform a compelling governmental purpose.

(3) Phillips refused Craig and Mullins the service he publicly offers and commonly provides to different-sex couples.

BTW, it sounds like you voted according to how you want the Court to rule, not how you think the Court will rule. Do you think Kennedy is going to vote to strike down CADA as it pertains to sexual orientation? That's the question that the poll asks.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

On this topic I voted in favor of the baker. The reason I feel this way is that I feel it is not as much about discrimination as it is about forcing someone to manufacture something they do not feel right about. Example, someone comes into the store and wants to buy a dozen donuts and he refuses because he does not serve whatever group they happen to be. That would be a clear case of discrimination. I feel if the couple would have bought something he offered he would have sold it to them. They wanted something he did not offer because of his beliefs.

But he does supply wedding cakes.

This would be like a person going into a book store and asking for pornography, the store owner says we do not sell that here. Is he discriminating because the store owner does not order it for him.

But he does sell wedding cakes.

I feel a store owner should have the right to sell what ever offering they want to carry. I know this is a bit different because he can make the cake an does make cakes complicating the matter. But in this case I think the basis of the suit is, if I remember correctly is that what is being asked is for him to artistically make something he feels is wrong. Can he be made to use his artistic talents to produce something he does not believe in. In this case being more lake a portrait photographer being asked to do a nude photo shot when they do not feel comfortable doing that.

So if I offer my services as a painter, and am asked by a black couple to paint their bedroom, I can deny them that service on the basis of "not painting black bedrooms" as an artistic choice?

 

[Sanzbir]

Rights Commission pits the anti-gay-marriage beliefs of a cake baker against the rights of a same-sex couple to purchase a cake for a specific event.

FIFY.

 

[Nous]

You are not being rational or you would see why forcing people to labor against their will is bad.

Public accommodations laws do not "force people to labor against their will". CADA only requires him to refrain from discriminating on the basis of certain listed characteristics such as race, gender, religion, sexual orientation.

Phillips doesn't argue that CADA forces him to labor against his will, because that argument goes nowhere. You should inform yourself of the arguments he does make.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, I agree that they do offer wedding cakes and I assume he is talented enough to make any type someone would want.

Let me try to explain slightly differently. Say you go into a card shop they have wedding cards, some for heterosexual couples most with no indication of the couples preference at all. If the card shop does not have a card that indicates a homosexual couple should they be made to include a section on it?

That's another inaccurate analogy, because the baker wouldn't have to get anything "new" in stock - everything they needed to make the cake is something they already have and offer freely. It would be more like a card shop offering a "Personalize your own card" service for weddings, but refusing to offer the service on the grounds of the wedding being gay or interracial.

And if so, how about for Christians, Muslims, Jewish and all other groups that are identified.

As I said I think the case is about making someone use an artistic talent to make something they would have not normally make because of their beliefs.

They offer a service in exchange for goods and services, and doing so comes with the requirement to abide by certain laws and statutes - including anti-discrimination law. If they deny a service on the basis of the sexual preference of the customer, that contravenes anti-discrimination laws and is a denial of the rights of the consumer.

But in the long run it is not up to me, the court will most likely decide, unless they send the case back.

Hard to say, most of these cases come down on the side of the customer, but not all of them.

 

[Nous]

I agree with a lot of points in both camps. The baker should be allowed some room to choose what he is and isn't willing to use his talents toward - provided it can be shown that the specification of the cake requests customization that requires the baker "break his moral code" in some way.

Would you say the same about a restaurant throwing out a Muslim family?

That's the sort of thing public accommodations laws forbid. The Court has never struck down a public accommodations law as an infringement on a business-owners rights.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hitler and Nazis are not included in Colorado's public accommodations law. Business-owners may discriminate against Hitler and Nazis.

Poor Hitler - that guy gets discriminated against everywhere these days...

 

[Enoch07]

Do you believe we should support White's Only restaraunts again? Roll back all the civil rights laws of the 60's because you consider this to be forcing people to labor against their will, as if they were a "slave" as you call it? Yes, or no? If no, explain your rationality to me.

Of course not. Nobody is asking to roll back the laws. We just don't want to see more law taking away more freedoms.

Take my advice. Speak with your money. It's the only thing business people understand.

 

[Nous]

As should have been clear, what I consider offensive and disrespectful is forcing a Christian baker to step over his beliefs that marriage is a sacred institution of man and woman and write a message on the cake that openly opposes it (in whatever provocative way the couple may insist, examples of which I already listed in my previous post), preferably with his name under it. That is offensive.

CADA does not require any business-owner to speak or host any message. Moreover, if you were to read the Colorado court's opinion, you would learn that Phillips did not even seek to find out what sort of cake Craig and Mullins wanted. He refused them service as soon as he learned that they wanted a cake for their wedding reception.

 

[Nous]

Poor Hitler - that guy gets discriminated against everywhere these days...

But probably not as often as some of those people protected against discrimination by public accommodations or employment laws.

 

[Nous]

A person with a business should be free to choose his customers.

Not according to the Court. Public accommodations laws are a valid government exercise, and their anti-discrimination provisions achieve a compelling governmental purpose.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Would you say the same about a restaurant throwing out a Muslim family?

That's the sort of thing public accommodations laws forbid. The Court has never struck down a public accommodations law as an infringement on a business-owners rights.

Where's the argument that serving the Muslim family somehow forced the proprietor's hand into going against some part of his moral code? Guess I am just not seeing that part. Also, note that I fully support the laws on the books prohibiting such discrimination (which I said in my original post) and I also fully support the Muslim family taking the restaurant owner to task legally and either obtaining restitution or, again, simply marring the crap out of the restaurant's name. My main point is/was... regardless where the count falls on a decision over something more "gray area" like the crafting of a customizable cake - taking the legal route and slapping the business owner who took the idiotic stance of being obstinate over making customers happy and making money is a form of justice anyway - without a doubt there will be some customers who don't rally to the business owner's side, and they'll lose business.