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

[Nous]

For everyone who believes the Court will rule in favor of Phillips:

Please explain why you believe Justice Kennedy--the author of Obergefell, and Lawrence v. Texas, and Windsor--will vote to strike down CADA.

 

[Nous]

Where's the argument that serving the Muslim family somehow forced the proprietor's hand into going against some part of his moral code?

Where's the argument that serving a same-sex couple "forced the proprietor's hand into going against some part of his moral code?"

 

[Revoltingest]

But we do have a choice in the matter. The people can choose whichever government they want.

That's a rather groupthink view which somewhat justifies whatever government does as OK.
The individual cannot choose one government over another (without emigrating).
In this case, I'd prefer to limit government's authority.

If people make the wrong choices, then there may be consequences with that.

What's "wrong" to one person might be right to another.
And this is often a very gray area.

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?

Sure there's an interest in prohibiting discrimination.
But discrimination against whom, discrimination in what manner, & to what extent is it sanctioned?
This is not something clear or widely agreed upon when looking at actual application.

Example:
My town, Ann Arbor, allows discrimination based upon age & educational affiliation when the "public accommodation" involves discounts for movies & food. But it prohibits it for leasing real estate.
Are senior & student discounts wrong or right?
What is the extent of the harm?
Should punishment for discrimination be severe if they're so willy nilly about where its allowed & where it isn't?
Complicated, eh?

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.

The 'justice' system cuts cops far more slack than is appropriate.
Some of this is systemic (giving more weight to cops' testimony),
& some of it is corruption of the "blue wall" variety. But it's all
tolerated by government.

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.

There are people who provoke cops, & do so with cause,
eg, people who record brutality or corruption, people who are vocal about their rights.
I don't think they should be punished for this "choice", despite the fact that cops have
the authority to do so, albeit by stretching the law (with tacit governmental approval).

Buying a cake at one bakery instead of another isn't much damage.

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

Should Jewish bakers or WW2 veterans be forced to bake a cake for Hitler or Tojo?
The question about Westboro Baptist Church is more compelling cuz Hitler is a person
rather than a protected group, but WBC is a all about religion, & therefore protected.
The question points out the difficulties of the larger picture of bakeries, discrimination,
& compelled speech.

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.

It's ridiculous to many, but not to a business faced with prosecution & tort remedies.

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.

That's a valid perspective.
But it's also a valid question about how far government should go in requiring service
which runs counter to the provider's values. Does it really advance social good to
require bakers to write messages which offend them so? How far would you have
government extend this authority, & over which groups?

I don't see sufficient benefit to justify government requiring such compelled speech.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

You're saying that religion isn't a choice, but a political affiliation is not.
I disagree. Choice can be involved in either, but in some cases not.

There's a common perception that discrimination based upon political affiliation
is acceptable, but religion is not. I see no rational basis for this....it seems more
an ad hoc justification to stick it to people disliked.

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?

To rent a rototiller doesn't compel speech by the provider.
So there's a difference between refusing to serve someone, & refusing to provide a particular service.

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.

I'm not aware that political affiliation is a protected group.
Where would this be law?

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.

Again, I'm not addressing refusal to serve the protected group,
but rather the requirement to provide a particular service.
(This is not an easy distinction to get across.)

 

[Revoltingest]

BTW, it sounds like you voted according to how you want the Court to rule, not how you think the Court will rule.

I clearly stated that in my first post.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I side with the baker. I do not think it is morally right to force a man to do something that he considers morally wrong.

Making a cake is not immoral.

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

Yes.

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?

Yes.

1) It forces unwanted speech upon the baker.

It is not the business owner's speech.

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.

No one is asking the Christian bakers to marry the same gender. They're asking the Christian bakers to bake a stupid cake.

Well, it's also religion being involved, too. If an individual puts his own religious principles ahead of business, then that's certainly his choice, but if he faces financial ruin because of that choice, that's still on him, not the government.

And if a business owner chooses to flaunt the anit-discrimination laws, then s/he faces financial ruin because of that choice.

First off, being homesexual is not a "lifestyle". It's not a "choice". Science has proven this. Just look at nature. Are homsexual animals making a "lifestyle choice"?

I don't entirely agree. Being "gay" is not a choice; that much is clear; but the choice to engage in matrimonial partnership with a member of the same gender IS a choice. In short, "being" is not a choice but "doing" certainly is.

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

The baker has chosen to bake and decorate cakes.

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

No, neither you nor the bakes are slaves; but you and the baker are held to a standard of anti-discrimination in the practice of your businesses. These rules were known the day the doors were opened.

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.

Great point. It is the role of government to protect its people; not just its popular people.

 

[Skwim]

I think this case is way too iffy to warrant the alarmist OP title: "Is Religious Freedom in the U.S. Broken Beyond Repair?"

Just to be clear, this is the title of the quoted article.

.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes.

Hey, I think you're the first to answer!

It is not the business owner's speech.

That is one reasonable view.
But not the only one.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Where's the argument that serving a same-sex couple "forced the proprietor's hand into going against some part of his moral code?"

Isn't that what the baker feels is happening? Isn't that what he would argue? That some part of it goes against his religious beliefs? And doesn't that claim ultimately boil down to a moral issue? I'm not saying it is, objectively, a moral issue, of course - I don't believe it is in the least. But there is obviously some reason the baker protested. Whatever grounds it is, the onus is now on someone to prove that it is discriminatory in nature - enough to be breaking the law, and the baker will have his own story to tell, obviously.

 

[Skwim]

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

To be clear here, Hitler doesn't fall into any of those categories wherein discrimination is banned.

"What Do the Anti-Discrimination Laws Say?

At the heart of the debate is a system of anti-discrimination laws enacted by federal, state and local governments. The entire United States is covered by the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by privately owned places of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. Places of “public accommodation” include hotels, restaurants, theaters, banks, health clubs and stores. Nonprofit organizations such as churches are generally exempt from the law.

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination by private businesses based on disability.

The federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, so gays are not a protected group under the federal law. However, about 20 states, including New York and California, have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In California, you also can’t discriminate based on someone’s unconventional dress. In some states, like Arizona, there’s no state law banning discrimination against gays, but there are local laws in some cities that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination."
source

.​

 

[Kemosloby]

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

Oh, I thought you were asking my opinion.

 

[Enoch07]

The baker has chosen to bake and decorate cakes.

Yes, and they should also have the freedom to not bake or decorate a cake anytime they see fit as well.

No, neither you nor the bakes are slaves; but you and the baker are held to a standard of anti-discrimination in the practice of your businesses. These rules were known the day the doors were opened.

Private citizens running a private business have the right to refuse service. Just as anyone who disagrees with that business, has the right to boycott that business. Which is the appropriate response, not more legislation.

 

[QuestioningMind]

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.

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. 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.

Except that this particular baker was NOT being asked to provide a service that he didn't normally provide to others. This baker routinely baked cakes for weddings. If the gay couple that the baker had turned away had claimed they were ordering the cake for a opposite sex couple's wedding, the baker would have provided the service. It wasn't WHAT the couple ordered that caused the baker to refuse, but rather WHO was making the request.

As for his 'artistic integrity'... if in fact he considers himself an ARTIST and not simply a baker then he has the option of opening up a PRIVATE business, in which he can turn away anyone asking for his services that he wants. But he insists on running a PUBLIC business, which means that he needs to follow the exact same rules that apply to ALL OTHER public business owners.

 

[Windwalker]

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

How is discrimination a freedom? That is what you just said.

 

[Nous]

Oh, I thought you were asking my opinion.

Where did you get that idea?

You can provide the explanation I asked for in #62 if you believe the majority on the Court will rule in favor of Phillips.

 

[Nous]

Yes, and they should also have the freedom to not bake or decorate a cake anytime they see fit as well.

They don't have a right to discriminate on the basis of the protected characteristics. It violates the public accommodations law.

Private citizens running a private business

Masterpiece Cakeshop is not a private organization. It's open to the public, and therefore subject to Colorado's public accommodations law.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't entirely agree. Being "gay" is not a choice; that much is clear; but the choice to engage in matrimonial partnership with a member of the same gender IS a choice. In short, "being" is not a choice but "doing" certainly is.

Of course marriage is a choice for anyone. To tell someone I won't service you because you choose to marry someone of the same gender, being a homosexual, while I support someone marrying the opposite gender being a hetrosexual is discrimation. Are you suggesting we should say to gays, you don't have the right to marry someone of the same gender? If so, then why do you have the right to marry the opposite gender being hetro?

 

[QuestioningMind]

"If you’re secular or a progressive religious person, you might be thinking “yes”—especially in view of a high-profile case that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday (Dec. 5). Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission pits the anti-gay-marriage beliefs of a cake baker against the rights of a same-sex couple to live and marry free of discrimination.

​

It rightly irritates liberals to witness a conservative Christian merchant seeking exemption from laws prohibiting businesses from discriminating against gay people. But even though this and other recent invocations of religious freedom taste bad in progressive mouths, the long view — backward and forward — suggests that religious freedom still has much to recommend it, regardless of how the high court rules on the Colorado baker.

Technically, free speech is the issue in the baker’s case. But there’s no separating Jack Phillips’ anti-homosexuality religious views from the heart of this matter. Indeed, it’s his religious belief that motivated Phillips to say “no” to a gay couple who sought to employ his services for their wedding cake, putting the legal wheels in motion.

To liberal sensibilities, Phillips seems the epitome of an unsympathetic character. The religious group he’s part of — conservative Christians — remains the segment of the population most outside of society’s growing and commendable acceptance of same-sex relationships. Moreover, Phillips is part of a religious demographic that wields outsized power in politics and aligns most closely with a president who is every liberal’s nightmare.

It seems ridiculous to think that this evangelical baker in Colorado is somehow beleaguered and oppressed, in need of constitutional protection if he’s to continue living and believing — and discriminating — as he sees fit. Really, isn’t he the one who’s oppressing?

There’s something valid in this sentiment. It’s true that over the course of our history, vulnerable religious minorities — including nonbelievers — have often been the ones seeking protection under religious freedom and the principle that all citizens should be free to believe, or not, in accordance with their own consciences. Several landmark Supreme Court cases follow this storyline, from Amish people appealing for exemption from mandatory school attendance to conscientious objectors seeking to avoid military combat."
source​

Place your bets on the Supreme Court's ruling, and let's hear your reason.

So sad that we're having this ridiculous debate again. More that 50 years ago we decided as a nation that we were not going to allow people to try and use their 'religious beliefs' as an excuse to discriminate against people. This baker sounds just like my racists old granddaddy. He insisted that 'religious freedom' gave him every right to put NO COLOREDS ALLOWED and WE DON'T SERVE JEWS signs in the window of his hardware store. He claimed that being forced to interact with inferior races blatantly violated his religious principles. If we allow this baker to discriminate against gay people because of his religious beliefs then we'll have no choice but to allow bigots like my old granddaddy to put the NO COLOREDS ALLOWED and WE DON'T SERVE JEWS signs back up in their store windows. Personally, I hope that's not the nation we as a people want to be.

 

[Windwalker]

You're saying that religion isn't a choice, but a political affiliation is not.
I disagree. Choice can be involved in either, but in some cases not.

I don't know what you're saying here. I'm usually pretty clear and specific in my posts. I said in many cases both religious and political affiliations can be a matter of what you were enculturated with. At a later point, you may choose to something different, but that's less likely to occur due to a lot of social factors. I'm not sure what you thought I said.

There's a common perception that discrimination based upon political affiliation
is acceptable, but religion is not. I see no rational basis for this....it seems more
an ad hoc justification to stick it to people disliked.

Again, I'm not sure what you're thinking you're replying to in what I said.

To rent a rototiller doesn't compel speech by the provider.
So there's a difference between refusing to serve someone, & refusing to provide a particular service.

This has nothing to do with the case. There was no "compelled speech". There was the service of providing a cake he does to any customer, but he chose to deny giving them one because they were gay. Suppose it was a White man with a Black bride. The guy says, "I will not support your mixed marriage with my cakes. Go away." What's your opinion here? Is it still okay? What if they're a Black couple? Is okay to refuse then? What if they're Hispanic? Ok then?

Again, I'm not addressing refusal to serve the protected group,
but rather the requirement to provide a particular service.
(This is not an easy distinction to get across.)

There is no difference. And it's not a matter of "protected group", whatever the hell that means. It's a matter of a diversity of human beings all having equal rights and access to goods and services. That is an easy distinction to make.

 

[Revoltingest]

They don't have a right to discriminate on the basis of the protected characteristics. It violates the public accommodations law.

Masterpiece Cakeshop is not a private organization. It's open to the public, and therefore subject to Colorado's public accommodations law.

I believe the poster was addressing not the law as currently interpreted,
but instead expressing an opinion about what the law should be. Note
also that the USSC could rule such that the interpretation could change.