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

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[zimmy]

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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

"he can't refuse to make them something he would make for a straight couple"

One can make a compelling case, that the first amendment says he can, as long as his refusal to do so, is based on religion. At least 3 SC justices will say he can (probably).

When Obama's EEOC argued that Muslim truck drivers could not be forced to abandon their religion, the EEOC didn't say "unless anyone is offended, in which case they can be forced to abandon their religion."

[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.

[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 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?

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

It is discriminatory to refuse the service of baking the cake because of the association between where/when it is eaten and the clients' sexuality
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is interesting how those who claim that the First Amendment or other rights derived from the structure of the Constitution are not absolute, yet then claim an absoluteness to various legal interpretations of those Amendments and rights.

As I have said several times in other threads, constitutional rights cannot contradict themselves. They work in concordance with each other. The right of free association, and the right to freely dispose of or use personal property cannot negate another's right to the same.

Granted that a seller of property cannot, without contractual agreement, prohibit how the buyer uses that property once it is paid for, nor prohibit with whom the buyer associates when using his product once it is paid for. But it is also the right of the seller not to sell, and also the right of the seller to associate with whom he chooses. Neither, in either case, is denying the other's "rights." If one or the other is forced to deny his own right to satisfy the other's desire, that is tyranny, not a case of constitutional property rights, nor an instance of freedom of association, certainly not a support, in this case, of religious freedom.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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

As I have said, over and over, rights must conform and be in concordance, in ultimate agreement, with all other rights. Those are the only limitations on rights. They are limited by their encroachment on other rights.

When sexual rights encroach on other rights, there must be a concordance of those rights. Sexual rights are not absolute against other rights. The right to sexuality does not trump all other rights. You cannot force your sexuality on someone who wants no part of it.

The reasons for resisting someone's sexuality are various and numerous. One of those reasons is religious beliefs. Those religious beliefs may range from celibacy, to premarital sex, and to marriage.

Sexuality, in and of itself, is a personal right. But the rights of others not to participate in your sexuality must not be abridged so long as it does not curtail your right to your personal sexuality. The right not to participate in your sexuality because of religious beliefs should not be abridged if it does not curtail your sexual rights. Not materially, nor otherwise, participating in your marriage because of religious views does not prohibit you from marrying or from celebrating your marriage, or from practicing your sexuality.

[detbuch]

Freedom of speech (now referred to as expression) and the free exercise of religion were meant to be freedoms practiced in the public, as well as the private, square. So there must be accommodations for those freedoms and others when they conflict.

If gay couple has right to buy whatever a baker sells, does the baker have a right not to sell certain products? Obviously, he has that right. He doesn't have to bake or sell Middle Eastern pastries, for instance. Would that be considered ethnic discrimination? No, it would be ethnic discrimination if he refused to sell the wares he makes to a Middle Easterner.

So why, if he must sell whatever he makes to gays, should a baker have the right not to sell a wedding cake meant to be served at a gay wedding? If he practices his business according to his Christian beliefs, there is nothing in his religion that says he must not sell his wares to a non-believer. ln general, his baked goods have no religious connotation, with the exception of special occasions such as Easter and weddings. On those special occasions, his religion is paramount in the conception of the products meant to celebrate them. In his religion, those occasions represent a holy day or a holy sacrament. He cannot force anyone to buy his Easter cookies.

In his religion, marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a holy sacrament. Marriage between same sex couples would be sacrilegious. For a Christian baker, if he is devout, there is no such thing as a gay wedding, and there would be no such wedding cake for him to make. Asking to bake such a cake would be asking him to participate in a blasphemy. Does he have a right to refuse such a request under his right to freedom of religion?

If he is willing to sell to gays any of his wares which he has made with no intention that they serve some irreligious purpose, then in that respect he does not discriminate against them. But in matters of freedom of religion, as practiced in his public life, should he be forced to trespass his faith by participating in something that counters it? Is there no accommodation there between gay rights and religious rights?

Sure there is. As was said above, he will sell any of the wares he creates in which he has or had no intention that they be used to blaspheme his religion. All the products pre-made and on his shelves are of that nature. If you prefer to have him bake something rather than buying a pre-made product, don't ask him to do so with the intention of serving some purpose that is contrary to his faith. That is asking him to participate in what he religiously believes is wrong. Just ask him to bake a cake. Then do whatever you want with it. Even ask for a wedding cake, but you don't have to tell him what it's for. If he asks you what it's for, and your honest, don't expect him to comply with your request if it makes him complicit in what he considers sin.

His right to practice his religion in the public square does not negate a homosexual's right to marry. Both sides can be accommodated and made whole if neither is forced to deny their rights to accommodate the other's.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Both sides can be accommodated and made whole if neither is forced to deny their rights to accommodate the other's.

yes...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Both sides can be accommodated and made whole if neither is forced to deny their rights to accommodate the other's.

Exactly.

But that's not good enough for the liberals, at least on this issue. Everyone must be forcibly made to agree with them.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Exactly.

Everyone must be forcibly made to agree with them.

this is abundantly clear....

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If gay couple has right to buy whatever a baker sells, does the baker have a right not to sell certain products? Obviously, he has that right. He doesn't have to bake or sell Middle Eastern pastries, for instance. Would that be considered ethnic discrimination? No, it would be ethnic discrimination if he refused to sell the wares he makes to a Middle Easterner.

The couple wasn't demanding a sugar-free baklawa, they were looking for the same sort of wedding cake the baker made every day.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The couple wasn't demanding a sugar-free baklawa, they were looking for the same sort of wedding cake the baker made every day.

You keep repeating this shortened version and avoiding the rest of the story.