|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
From The New York Times:
Supreme Court Won’t Rule on Clash Between Another Bakery and a Gay Couple For the second time, the Supreme Court refuse to rule on an appeal by bakers of wedding cakes against their states' anti-discrimination laws. As we recall, reading above in this thread, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that a baker's religious rights were violated because members of the adjudicating body acted like assholes. But they never ruled on the direct question on where bakers can be compelled to provide service to gay couples' weddings. Since then, appeals courts have continue to uphold states' anti-discrimination laws. In this second case, a baker in Oregon similarly was fined for violating the state's anti-discrimination laws. The Supreme Court has refuse to hear the case, so the lower courts' judgement against the baker will stand. In this case, the Court was being asked to overturn Employment Division v. Smith, where
in a majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that neutral laws of general applicability could not be challenged on the ground that they violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Its a tough.... Most of this case is pretty easy. States have the authority to enact laws prohibiting discrimination in public accomodations against members of traditionally marginalized groups, and religious beliefs don't create exemptions to this. The "tough" part seems to be the question whether creating specifically a wedding cake for specifically a same sex wedding is an expression of acceptance. Me, I don't think so, and I think Ginsburg and Sotomayor's dissent in Masterpiece is a good explanation why.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
...it's the Bible believer who acts on his/her conscience who will obey God and nobody else and take whatever the secular society metes out for the "crime." Does God command you to bake wedding cakes? Probably not since not every Christian does. It seems that a lot of these problems could be avoided if people would avoid occupations that require duties that go against their conscience.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
To me, freedom of speech and religion is much more important than my feelings. That's fine. Except that this really isn't about "freedom of religion" - surely "freedom of religion" can't mean "freedom to pick and choose which laws you're going to obey"? This is about what are the appropriate restrictions that can be placed on a business, especially one that is a "public accommodation". Most of us feel it is entirely appropriate to prohibit discrimination against people who have historically suffered discrimination. And some of us feel that being gay is no different than being black or being a Jehovah's Witness. If you feel differently, you are free to lobby to remove (or to not add) sexual orientation to your jurisdiction's anti-discrimination statutes. P. S. Congratulations on your marriage. I wish you joy and happiness together!It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
...freedom of speech.... This, of course, is a little more troublesome, as the Court acknowledges. But Ginsburg points out in her dissent that in Masterpiece Cakeshop's advertisements, the wedding cakes had no writing or no figures or anything at all that would indicate what kind of wedding the cake is intended for, and Phillips (the owner) refused to bake the wedding cake before there was any discussion about any decorations to be put on thecake. She points out, correctly in my opinion, that a cake by itself is not a message, and doesn't become one just because it's intended for a particular customer.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
For the sake of the argument, if a gay baker had a customer that came in wanting a cake that has a bible verse that is hostile towards homosexuality, would the baker be legally obligated to provide that to the customer? According to Ginsberg's dissent, William Jack's order including two grooms with an X and a hostile Bible verse was a message, and not one the baker was legally obligated to provide. I'm sure that it's the same for your swastika example in your next reply, If a customer went into Jack Phillips' shop and ordered a cake with the words "Gay Marriage Totally Rocks!", Phillips would be legally entitled to refuse. But a plain cake, even if it is obviously a wedding cake, is not a message. All by itself, it is not an expression in support of same sex marriage. And it doesn't magically turn into an endorsement just because it turns out to be intended for a same sex marriage. In the same way, if William Jack just ordered a Bible shaped cake with no text, it wouldn't magically turn into a message if it turns out he's bringing the cake to an anti-gay rights rally. I don't know, though, whether a refusal to provide this service would run afoul of Colordo's anti-discrimation statutes.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Providing specific themed decoration, not just generic wedding but specifically gay motifs, is another matter altogether. Me, I would agree with this with the understanding that "gay motif" would be something like rainbow-flag colored icing. Simply writing "Congratulations James and Frederick" or putting two generic wedding cake brides on the top wouldn't count as "gay motif"; it would just be part of what a wedding cake looks like. The courts might disagree, though. The cases haven't had a chance to get into that kind of specific detail, so we can't (yet) know how this would play out.
Added by edit: Oops. Maybe that's what you were saying when you wrote:
He can be compelled to provided wedding cake with customary and usual decorations.... Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
That's alright. I admit my legal reasoning may be wrong. I admit that I may be an extremist when it comes to religious beliefs getting special privileges and I might come too reflexively down to the side: "Religious people just need to grit their teeth and obey the laws like non-religious people do."
Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo. Edited by Chiroptera, : Corrected the wrong typo.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
If the law stays as it is such people really have no option but to refuse and take the consequences. It appears to me that there are three options. Don't make wedding cakes at all. Continue making wedding cakes, but recognize the law is what it is and just grit one's teeth and sell them to all customers equally. Willfully disobey the law by selling wedding cakes except to same sex couples until the fines bankrupt the business. Are you saying that only the first and third are allowed options? That if a Christian follows the middle one then they are committing a sin?It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
That said, those antics were in fact integral in showing SCOTUS that the CCRC reacted with hostility and bias towards Phillips due to his religious predilections. No, it was statements made on record by members of the Commission itself that showed hostility and bias. That the difference between the two situations was never adequately explained in the prior venues was a minor point and only becomes relevant in light of the explicit hostility shown by the Commission. -
According to what? According to the written opinions by the Justices themselves. Ginsburg was very clear about what she saw as the difference between the two situations. She stated that plain cakes are not messages. Messages are inferred by what is explicitly expressed by the decorations. -
The shame of this case is that it was essentially dismissed on a technicality. I agree that it's a shame. By I can't fault the Court in this. We both agree that this is an issue that requires careful consideration and perhaps some compromises among people who have passionate beliefs. Jack Phillips was certainly entitled to an unbiased, respectful hearing. -
...the line seems to be that Phillips ought not to be compelled to decorate a cake if it conflicts with his religious belief, but must provide basic accommodations that he otherwise commonly advertises for sale. I may personally feel that the line should be closer to one end than the other, but I can see how people may want the line further to the other end. But as AZPaul points out, it's the duty of the Courts to listen to our arguments about what is and is not Constitutional, taking into account how the law affects people in the real world, and gives us a judgement as, hopefully, an unbiased and neutral referee.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member
|
So some are now on the record saying marriage isn't about love?
And marriage is all about raising children? Except when a gay couple have children, but marriage is still about raising children? And marriage is all about producing children? Except when a heterosexual couple cannot produce children, but it's still about producing children? You know, people really shouldn't try to make secular arguments against same-sex marriage. They should just stick with, "The god I worship thinks gay marriage is evil," and leave it at that. It wouldn't cut ice with me and wouldn't work as a legal argument, but at least it would limit how much of a fool they make themselves. Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
In the history of the human race, marriage has usually been about property. And alliances between families and clans.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The only "targeting" case that I'm aware of is William Jack's search for a bakery that would refuse his "hate cake".
I'm sure that there are individuals here and there who might go through the trouble of getting a marriage license just so they can make trouble for a bigot; if so then in the United States the most obvious "targets" are Christian evangelicals who make a big public show of their religious exceptionalism. Because of the anti-Muslim bigotry in this country, American Muslims tend to keep a lower profile. If anyone has good statistics (hey, conservatives, that's not linking to a couple of individual examples!) on the relative frequencies violations of discrimination against sexual orientation anti-discrimination laws by businesses owned by Christians versus by Muslims, you're free to supply them. At any rate, I only know of three high profile cases: Masterpiece Cake Shop, Sweet Cakes, and Elane Photography v Willock which made it to the New Mexico Supreme Court. None of these involved "targeting". I'm guessing that in the majority of the same-sex wedding situations, a couple walks into a business, the owner states their objection, and the couple the moves onto another business because they don't want to hassle with a lawsuit. In the few cases where the couple decide to fight for their rights, once the business owner gets the official letter that says to knock that shit off (or, if they're stubborn, when they're hit with the first fine), they decide to comply with the law because they don't want to hassle with the lawsuit. In the vast majority of cases, there aren't any problems because both business owners and engaged couples have better things to spend their time and money on than lawyers. If Muslims are less likely to end up in court of this issue than Christians are, it's not because of "selective targeting." I suspect it'll be because they are less likely to fight this in court.It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024