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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The point is that he can't refuse to make them something he would make for a straight couple.

A straight couple's wedding, as such, would not desecrate his religion's view of marriage.

What if the straight couple said they wanted a cake or some donuts made for the purpose of feeding the rats in their ally, or maybe to feed their beloved cat. They could be exactly the same donuts or cake in appearance and ingredients as those on the bakers pre-baked shelf, but they didn't want those ready in stock, rather they wanted some specially made up for the purpose. Would the baker not be allowed to refuse such a request?

If the straight couple said they wanted cakes or cookies to enliven their orgy that evening, not just to eat but to place them in erogenous orifices. Would the baker be allowed to refuse to sell his wares for such purposes?

Would the baker not be allowed to refuse his wares on the basis for which they were to be used? Given that the pre-made items in stock were not baked with the intention that they would be used in ways that his religion prohibited, it would not be his sin but the consumer's sin for the purpose in which they were used. But if the baker was asked, specifically, to bake goods for a purpose which his religion forbad, by baking explicitly for that purpose, he would be intentionally participating, and so be personally complicit in the sin.

Sexuality need not be the cause in any of the above examples.

He did not reject the design, he rejected making a cake for them. If he said, I will make a cake, but I ask for the right to decline certain phrases or designs, this would likely not been heard at the lower level.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, he rejected, not on the grounds of sexuality, but on the basis of his religious beliefs. The scope of those beliefs would in some cases involve straight couples as well.

And if, as you say, the court would not likely have entertained the case if certain phrases or designs were requested, then that would be the "difference without a distinction." If the phrases or designs were intended to celebrate gay marriage, then the cake would be celebrating gay marriage, which the cake would do without the phrases and designs if it were intended to be used for a gay marriage. The purpose and use for which the cake is made, not its particular design, is what makes the baker intentionally complicit in a sacrilegious ceremony.

His pre-baked goods were not made with those intentions. If he is required to sell whatever he has made and displayed to all comers, he has no control of how his goods are used once they leave the store. But he does have the volition not to make those goods in the first place. But if he makes them with the intention that they be used for unholy purposes, then he is complicit in those purposes and shares the sin.

That may sound silly or "odd" to a non-believer, but to a devout faithful it is religious worship.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Again, he rejected, not on the grounds of sexuality, but on the basis of his religious beliefs. .

Religious beliefs about sexuality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Religious beliefs about sexuality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Bill Of Rights says that no law shall interfere with the free exercise of religion. It does not say "except in the case of issues of sexuality".

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases, that religious issues of a sexual nature are still protected. The SC ruled that the ObamaCare laws that mandated that Christian business owners pay for birth control and abortion-like procedures, were unconstitutional.

I

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The Bill Of Rights says that no law shall interfere with the free exercise of religion. It does not say "except in the case of issues of sexuality".

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

He's on autopilot now...just reposting the same thing over and over.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

He's on autopilot now...just reposting the same thing over and over.

Because the text of the first amendment, and how that has been interpreted, is all that matters. You can go on and on about how bigoted and close minded the guy is, and it's worth having that discussion on the issue of gay marriage (the liberals convinced me that gay marriage is something I should support).

But if the question is whether or not the baker has this right, all that matters is that sentence in the bill of rights. Your opinions of what a jerk this guy is (and he may be a jerk), mean absolutely nothing to the question of whether or not he has the legal right to do it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

"You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings"

I posted one legal proceeding (the Muslim truck drivers) that was exactly on point. If you have legal decisions to suggest that Americans must forfeit their religious freedom to avoid hurting the feelings of others, please share. I mean that sincerely, that wasn't a wise-ass comment.

"Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause?"

Can you cite examples?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings"

I posted one legal proceeding (the Muslim truck drivers) that was exactly on point.

"Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause?"

Can you cite examples?

I am moving on from this because it is redundant, but again, your truck driver example is one case with different circumstances than the baker. You choose to view it as on point because it matches your view. You clearly don't recognize any nuance, so it is a waste of my time to provide you with the dozens of nuanced rulings. You can look them up.

There were almost 100 years before the 14th amendment changed that states could abridge the free excerise clause. It wasn't the founders who did that, a congress a century later did that. If you believe in the absolutism of the document as created by the founders, you should also recognize that they, the founders, gave the states the right to abridge it. Others took that right away generations later.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

If you believe in the absolutism .....

who are the absolutists now?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I am moving on from this because it is redundant, but again, your truck driver example is one case with different circumstances than the baker. You choose to view it as on point because it matches your view. You clearly don't recognize any nuance, so it is a waste of my time to provide you with the dozens of nuanced rulings. You can look them up.

There were almost 100 years before the 14th amendment changed that states could abridge the free excerise clause. It wasn't the founders who did that, a congress a century later did that. If you believe in the absolutism of the document as created by the founders, you should also recognize that they, the founders, gave the states the right to abridge it. Others took that right away generations later.

It was done by the amendment process which the Founders put in the Constitution. It wasn't a matter of someone later just negated the Founders will.

And the First Amendment rights were not taken away. They were made stronger and more expansive by applying them to the states.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

At the time the First Amendment was drafted, it applied to the federal government. It now still applies to the federal government but also to the states.