A Muslim Iman that I actually like and wish the best. . . but

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

From an OP Ed

Recognizing, perhaps, the weakness of the religious-freedom argument,

Why is the religious freedom argument weak, exactly?

Is it because he was willing to sell them a pre-made cake for use at a gay wedding, but not make another cake? That would seem to weaken his case I guess...I didn't know he was willing to give them an already made cake.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Excellent, the Bible gives me the provision to have my son stoned for misbehavior. Glad to see I have a green light under the Constitution.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

They wanted a cake. They didn't say they wanted a "gay" cake. They didn't say they wanted it to be rainbow colored .

Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors). Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October. But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

"It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter," Mullins says. "We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, '#^&#^&#^&#^& you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Excellent, the Bible gives me the provision to have my son stoned for misbehavior. Glad to see I have a green light under the Constitution.

you've lost a lot on your fastball

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Excellent, the Bible gives me the provision to have my son stoned for misbehavior. Glad to see I have a green light under the Constitution.

Nope. As Obama's EEOC lawsuit on behalf of Muslim truck drivers said, we need to allow religious folks to maintain their convictions, where reasonable alternative accommodations are possible. Were there no other bakers?

When the Obama administration sued on behalf of the Muslim truck drivers, I'll bet you $5 that you weren't concerned that it would lead to human sacrifices. You only raise the red flag, when people you don't agree with, seek the same protections.

Try making that wrong.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors).

I'm beginning to wonder if they are really gay. C'mon Teal and Red....talk about clashing. They should know better

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

, I said, '#^&#^&#^&#^& you and your homophobic cake shop.' And I may or may not have flipped him off."

Sure. Because of liberal tolerance and respect and inclusion. Right?

No irony there, nope.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you've lost a lot on your fastball

Trump has had that effect on a lot of liberals.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Why is the religious freedom argument weak, exactly?

Is it because he was willing to sell them a pre-made cake for use at a gay wedding, but not make another cake? That would seem to weaken his case I guess...I didn't know he was willing to give them an already made cake.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/o...mendment.html\

As to Mr. Phillips’s free exercise of religion claim, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment is not a license to discriminate in the face of neutral, generally applicable laws like Colorado’s. In 1968, a few years after the Civil Rights Act passed, the court ruled unanimously against the owner of a South Carolina barbecue chain who invoked his religious freedom to refuse to serve black people. The act “contravenes the will of God,” he claimed. The court called that argument “patently frivolous.”

That was the paragraph above the one I started quoting. He is argueing more on the freedom of speach than a religious one.

I think all of his wedding cakes where considered "custom" cakes. He would sell them cup cakes or pies - same as everyone else.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by scottw

you've lost a lot on your fastball

More like an eephus pitch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/01/o...mendment.html\

As to Mr. Phillips’s free exercise of religion claim, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment is not a license to discriminate in the face of neutral, generally applicable laws like Colorado’s. In 1968, a few years after the Civil Rights Act passed, the court ruled unanimously against the owner of a South Carolina barbecue chain who invoked his religious freedom to refuse to serve black people. The act “contravenes the will of God,” he claimed. The court called that argument “patently frivolous.”

That was the paragraph above the one I started quoting. He is argueing more on the freedom of speach than a religious one.

I think all of his wedding cakes where considered "custom" cakes. He would sell them cup cakes or pies - same as everyone else.

"As to Mr. Phillips’s free exercise of religion claim, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment is not a license to discriminate in the face of neutral, generally applicable laws like Colorado’s"

I don't see that law as "neutral", it forces someone to abandon their beliefs, and for no good reason, assuming there are other bakers nearby.

It's going to bean interesting decision.

[DZ]

Some comic levity.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

"

Not sure where you found that quote, but court record has it that design was never discussed with Philips before he refused them

"The gay couple never even had the opportunity to discuss designs with Phillips, because the baker made it immediately clear that he would not sell them any wedding cake at all. " https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/o...ding-cake.html

“We went in with a bunch of ideas,” said Mullins, 33. “But [Phillips] came in, asked who the cake was for and then he said he wouldn’t make a cake for us. We were shocked and mortified and got up and left.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...912-story.html

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But if his objection is based on religious beliefs, he absolutely has that right. How do you read the first amendment and not agree?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Legal precedent.

I know you said you are a simple guy, so you can appreciate this line from US vs Lee (1982): Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.

"... the Supreme Court has set limits on freedom of speech and religion. "

Civil Rights Act of 1964 has withstood more than a half century of tests.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I Believe by quote-unquote custom cake he means a wedding cake. Has nothing to do with the wording. He would sell them cupcakes brownies excetera but not a wedding cake regardless if they wanted wording on it or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

His religion would not want Mr. Phillips to deny gays, or anyone else, their right to eat. Sinners are to be fed as well as the faithful. Participating in their right to eat would not be prohibited by his religion, it might even be encouraged by it. But when the food is used to celebrate what is forbidden by his religion, he feels compelled not to participate in what is forbidden. That position applies to all of his customers regardless of their sexual orientation. Straights who want to buy any of his goods to celebrate some festivity that his religion condemns, presumably, would also be rejected.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Legal precedent.

I know you said you are a simple guy, so you can appreciate this line from US vs Lee (1982): Not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional.

"... the Supreme Court has set limits on freedom of speech and religion. "

Civil Rights Act of 1964 has withstood more than a half century of tests.

You make some good points.

But, according to Obama's federal government, if Muslim truckers don't want to transport alcohol for religious reasons, their employer was ordered to use other drivers. Using that same logic, why can't gay couples just use another baker who welcomes their trade. I don't see the difference.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You make some good points.

But, according to Obama's federal government, if Muslim truckers don't want to transport alcohol for religious reasons, their employer was ordered to use other drivers. Using that same logic, why can't gay couples just use another baker who welcomes their trade. I don't see the difference.

I would have to read the details of the ruling. One inherent difference is that one case apparently involves employees and the other involves a business owner.

I imagine the questions revolved around the burden placed on the business to use other drivers, but I am just guessing.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You make some good points.

But, according to Obama's federal government, if Muslim truckers don't want to transport alcohol for religious reasons, their employer was ordered to use other drivers. Using that same logic, why can't gay couples just use another baker who welcomes their trade. I don't see the difference.

Here you go. It is about an employer/employee relationship, not a business refusing a service.


"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion," said EEOC District Director John P. Rowe when the suit was filed...

If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...eliver-alcohol

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Here you go. It is about an employer/employee relationship, not a business refusing a service.


"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion," said EEOC District Director John P. Rowe when the suit was filed...

If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...eliver-alcohol

I absolutely hear what you are say9ng - and again, good points.

But I have to believe that (just as the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company owner could re-assign drivers), it would also be very easy for the engaged couple to get another baker. I guarantee that the vast majority of bakeries would be more than willing to cater a gay wedding. It cannot be an unreasonable hardship to get another baker.

What do you think?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I absolutely hear what you are say9ng - and again, good points.

But I have to believe that (just as the tr#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g company owner could re-assign drivers), it would also be very easy for the engaged couple to get another baker. I guarantee that the vast majority of bakeries would be more than willing to cater a gay wedding. It cannot be an unreasonable hardship to get another baker.

What do you think?

What if he was the only wedding cake baker in town?

[DZ]

What's lost in all this about the bakery is that potential customers with any kind of clear reasoning would have taken their business elsewhere if they found the bakery not conducive to their request. Something about a free market and decisions. Will be interesting to see how the SC rules. With the gay couples reasoning every baker should have to bake a penis cake whether it offends the baker or not. The reason I posted the video.

[spence]

Originally Posted by DZ

With the gay couples reasoning every baker should have to bake a penis cake whether it offends the baker or not. The reason I posted the video.

I don't think that's the issue at all though. There's a simple test, is the request for a cake that would be generally seen as offensive? A penis cake wouldn't pass this test.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What if he was the only wedding cake baker in town?

Constitutionally, I really don't see that it matters. The bill of rights doesn't say the freedoms only apply when it's sufficiently convenient.

These are deeply held beliefs. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean they aren't genuine and sacred to these people.

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution, the right to have a cake at your wedding. I do see the guaranteed right to exercise your religion as you see fit.

And I googled bakeries in Lakewood Colorado (where the bakery in question is), there's quite a selection. So in this case, it would have been easy (and dare I say, tolerant??) for the gay couple to leave this poor man alone and simply go elsewhere. But that's not what liberals tend to do when they don't get their way.

Because as much as the left (especially on this issue) claims that it's about "live and let live", that notion only applies to their side. They demand tolerance, but show none to others. They are the ones, not the Christians, forcing their beliefs on others. That cannot be denied. This baker isn't trying to outlaw gay marriage, he's trying to practice his religion as he sees it.

We need to stop acting as if we have the right to not have our feelings hurt.

[DZ]

That's my point Spence. If someone finds something offensive they have a right to refuse. Offensive is a "relative" term to each individual.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

From an OP Ed

Recognizing, perhaps, the weakness of the religious-freedom argument, Mr. Phillips now emphasizes his other First Amendment rights — freedom of speech and expression. His cakes are his artistic expression, he says, and he should not be forced to express ideas to which he is opposed.

I've thought, from the beginning of this, that speech rights and property rights were just as strong an argument as his religious right.

Mr. Phillips makes a good case that he is an artist. So might many others who sell the fruits of their labor to those celebrating a wedding. But that doesn’t give any of them the right to refuse service to people protected under an anti-discrimination law. If the couple had asked Mr. Phillips to write a message on their cake endorsing same-sex marriage and he had been punished for refusing, he would have a more plausible First Amendment claim, since he wouldn’t write that for anyone. But Colorado’s law doesn’t compel Mr. Phillips, or any proprietor, to say anything they don’t want to say, or to endorse any specific message. It requires only that they treat all customers equally.

"Equally" is a tricky word. "Equally" does not mean exactly the same. If Mr. Phillips applies his religious faith to all customers, he is treating them all equally, but not necessarily treating all of them in exactly the same manner or with the same outcome.

Mr. Phillips claims he already does this. He’s happy to sell any of his pre-made products to gay people, he says, or to bake them a custom cake for another occasion.

None of his pre-made products, other than wedding cakes, were baked with any notion that they inherently were related to any principle of faith, other than the right to eat.

What he won’t do is custom-bake anything intended for use in a same-sex wedding. As the Colorado Civil Rights Commission said in ruling for Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig, that’s a distinction without a difference. Since only gay people have same-sex weddings, he’s discriminating against gay people.

It is not a distinction without a difference. There is a difference between baking a product which specifically applies to a principal of faith, such as marriage, as is a wedding cake, and baking a product that does not specifically apply to that principle, such as donuts or cookies. And, more meaningful, beyond that, there is the distinction that none of his pre-made products were baked specifically for a celebration that is counter to his faith. To custom make, on the other hand, any product with the specific intent to trespass his religious tenets would be an abrogation of his faith. There is a distinction between baking a product intended for general use and baking a product for a specific use. How a customer uses a product is not on the baker. What the baker intends the product to be used for is on the baker.

Some free-speech advocates argue that this case is simply a matter of deciding which sorts of expression merit First Amendment protection and which do not. Cake bakers may be a close call, but what about photographers? Florists? Caterers? Calligraphers? In fact, cases like these have already been brought around the country. If the justices rule for Mr. Phillips, they will be hard-pressed to find a clear limiting principle. And that would render public-accommodations laws like Colorado’s effectively meaningless.

If the Court rules against Mr. Phillips, the limiting principles against government overreach in the Constitution, especially in the First Amendment, will have been breached. Freedom of religion and Freedom of speech were meant to be freedoms held within society, not freedom in some sequestered place, out of public intercourse. Also the right to property will be further constrained than it already is.

Equality before the law will be further reduced to equality of outcome.

This, of course, is precisely the objective of the rear-guard action undertaken by religious objectors who, thwarted in their efforts to prevent gay couples from enjoying the rights and benefits that flow from marriage, are now invoking their own constitutional rights to avoid treating those same couples equally in the marketplace

There's that tricky word "equally" again. What is equality in the marketplace? Isn't equality the antithesis of a market . . . of a free market? Competition, lower prices here than there, porn here, bibles there, open mon-fri 9-5, open 24/7, Italian here, Chinese there. You go to the place that sells what you want when you want it. Going to a porn video store and demanding they sell you The Passion of Christ is not exercising equality. Nor is going to a general book store which does not stock bibles and demanding it sells you one. Going to a Christian baker and demanding he sell you a cake for a gay wedding--now THAT'S equality.

Precisely the objective of the vanguard action undertaken by Progressive militants is to undermine our constitutional government, dispense with so-called outdated 18th century notions of individual freedom and classical liberalism. And to replace that with a Post-Modern, Marxian one size fits all collective equality under the false notion of diversity.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think that's the issue at all though. There's a simple test, is the request for a cake that would be generally seen as offensive? A penis cake wouldn't pass this test.

The issue isn't the cake, either. The issue is the event the cake will be a part of. The same principle applies to Christian photographers, florists, restaurant owners, whatever.

You can not be forced to abandon your religion at work. The Muslim truck driver case makes that clear, as does the Hobby Lobby case and the Little Sisters Of The Poor case.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by DZ

That's my point Spence. If someone finds something offensive they have a right to refuse. Offensive is a "relative" term to each individual.

But if he refuses to make a penis cake for anyone who might enter his shop, he isn't discriminating against anyone. In this case, he is treating one class of customers very differently. If his basis for doing so is bigotry, that's illegal. If his basis for doing so is religion, the constitution protects that. It's sort of a specific kind of discrimination, that we have to tolerate if we pretend that the constitution means anything. If it only applies when everyone agrees, we don't need it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The issue isn't the cake, either. The issue is the event the cake will be a part of.

Actually it's all about the cake. The baker doesn't want to go through the artistic effort of making a cake he knows will be used for a same sex wedding...in a state where same sex marriage was legal at the time.

When he has no issue with some pre-made cupcakes being used for god knows what because he doesn't have a spiritual/artistic attachment to those baked goods any longer. He has let go.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

What if he was the only wedding cake baker in town?

he wasn't...this is a quote from Dave Mullins the day after the incident

The couple has now "decided to go to the gayest cake shop we could think of. We went to Le Bakery Sensual and had a great experience," Mullins says. "They made us feel great, and no one batted an eye. When we told them what had happened, more than a few eyebrows went up."

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

...in a state where same sex marriage was legal at the time.

.

I don't think it was.. "Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October."

Justice Samuel Alito pointed to this reality during oral arguments. At the time that Jack Phillips declined to bake a same-sex wedding cake, Colorado wouldn’t even recognize — let alone issue — same-sex marriage licenses. So the same-sex couple couldn’t get the state of Colorado to recognize their relationship as a marriage. “And yet when he goes to this bake shop, and he says I want a wedding cake, and the baker says, no, I won’t do it, in part because same-sex marriage was not allowed in Colorado at the time, he’s created a grave wrong,” Alito stated. “How does that all that fit together?”