Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 3:30 PM
29 online now:
jar, JonF, PaulK (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,865 Year: 11,901/19,786 Month: 1,682/2,641 Week: 191/708 Day: 18/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9293
94
9596
...
99Next
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1396 of 1484 (855416)
06-19-2019 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1394 by PaulK
06-19-2019 1:32 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Decorations are a tougher case, but unless the baker advertises that they will provide any decoration the customer asks for, it is generally accepted that there will be some limits.

If a customer part of a hunting club wanted the depiction of a dead deer on his cake came into a bakery owned by vegetarians, should the vegetarian be compelled to honor that request or should they reserve the right to say that it goes against their beliefs and that by doing so potentially harm's their business?


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1394 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2019 1:32 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1398 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2019 1:51 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 1397 of 1484 (855417)
06-19-2019 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1395 by Hyroglyphx
06-19-2019 1:35 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
The difference is the decoration.

Before any talk of decoration the baker refused to take the order because, this is the important point, he did not want to provide any product intended to for use in a gay wedding. The business request was that the baker do the baker thing and provide a wedding cake. A generic off the shelf wedding cake suitable for any wedding was all that was requested. The baker refused because the customer was gay.

Your scenario is considerably different. It requires the baker to use his talents to create a message. That makes it a free speech issue not a discrimination issue.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1395 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-19-2019 1:35 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1399 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-19-2019 2:27 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1398 of 1484 (855418)
06-19-2019 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1396 by Hyroglyphx
06-19-2019 1:41 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
quote:

If a customer part of a hunting club wanted the depiction of a dead deer on his cake came into a bakery owned by vegetarians, should the vegetarian be compelled to honor that request or should they reserve the right to say that it goes against their beliefs and that by doing so potentially harm's their business?

See what I said above. In addition, consider the fact that hunters are not a protected class. Also consider the fact that there is no great tradition of cakes to celebrate dead deer, or dead deer as a decoration for cakes.

Really, you should have been able to work that out without my help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1396 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-19-2019 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1400 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-19-2019 2:33 PM PaulK has responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1399 of 1484 (855420)
06-19-2019 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1397 by AZPaul3
06-19-2019 1:51 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
The difference is the decoration.
Before any talk of decoration the baker refused to take the order because, this is the important point, he did not want to provide any product intended to for use in a gay wedding. The business request was that the baker do the baker thing and provide a wedding cake. A generic off the shelf wedding cake suitable for any wedding was all that was requested. The baker refused because the customer was gay.

Where are you getting that information? The information I have seen is that Phillips offered other accommodations. His one stipulation was that he not bake a wedding cake in reference to the decorations.

From a VOX article:

quote:
"Phillips appealed the case to the US Supreme Court. He argued that he’s not really discriminating against same-sex couples because he would have served Craig and Mullins any non-wedding goods that they asked for. His only issue is that from his perspective, baking the couple a wedding cake would force him to celebrate an act he’s opposed to — and forcing him to do that, he argued, violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression.

Likewise, the distinction was brought up by Justice Kennedy:

quote:
"One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker’s refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning—that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these details might make a difference.

The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker’s refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of possibilities that seem all but endless."


If Phillips had said, "this store does not serve homosexuals" we wouldn't be having this conversation at it would be an incontrovertible civil rights violation of a protected class of people. Phillips offered his services, but stated that he would specifically not bake a cake supporting what he believes are contrary to his religious beliefs.

But lets come to a consensus. Would we agree that Phillips could be compelled to bake a nondescript cake with no decorations? Would he be protected from being forced to decorate it in a manner that conflicts with his religious beliefs? Where's the line?


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1397 by AZPaul3, posted 06-19-2019 1:51 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1403 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2019 2:55 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 1404 by AZPaul3, posted 06-19-2019 3:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5718
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 1400 of 1484 (855421)
06-19-2019 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1398 by PaulK
06-19-2019 1:51 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
See what I said above. In addition, consider the fact that hunters are not a protected class. Also consider the fact that there is no great tradition of cakes to celebrate dead deer, or dead deer as a decoration for cakes.

There's also no great tradition of wedding cakes celebrating gay marriage, as it was not only illegal in Colorado in 2012 but only recently passed into law. There is, however, a long and storied tradition of traditional marriage which, while misguided in my opinion, formed the basis of his religious objections.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1398 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2019 1:51 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1401 by PaulK, posted 06-19-2019 2:41 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 1402 by Theodoric, posted 06-19-2019 2:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 1401 of 1484 (855423)
06-19-2019 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1400 by Hyroglyphx
06-19-2019 2:33 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
quote:

There's also no great tradition of wedding cakes celebrating gay marriage, as it was not only illegal in Colorado in 2012 but only recently passed into law.

But there is a great tradition of wedding cakes. Singling out gay marriage in that respect is an aspect of discrimination.

quote:

There's also no great tradition of wedding cakes celebrating gay marriage, as it was not only illegal in Colorado in 2012 but only recently passed into law.

There is also a long tradition of homophobia, and of opposition to gay rights which had far more to do with it. Indeed, gay marriage does nothing to threaten traditional marriage, so it doesn't seem much of a motivation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1400 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-19-2019 2:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6393
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 1402 of 1484 (855424)
06-19-2019 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1400 by Hyroglyphx
06-19-2019 2:33 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
There's also no great tradition of wedding cakes celebrating gay marriage, as it was not only illegal in Colorado in 2012 but only recently passed into law.

Legally there is no "gay" marriage and separate "traditional" marriage. There is only marriage.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1400 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-19-2019 2:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 1403 of 1484 (855425)
06-19-2019 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1399 by Hyroglyphx
06-19-2019 2:27 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
quote:


The difference is the decoration.
Before any talk of decoration the baker refused to take the order because, this is the important point, he did not want to provide any product intended to for use in a gay wedding. The business request was that the baker do the baker thing and provide a wedding cake. A generic off the shelf wedding cake suitable for any wedding was all that was requested. The baker refused because the customer was gay.

Where are you getting that information? The information I have seen is that Phillips offered other accommodations. His one stipulation was that he not bake a wedding cake in reference to the decorations.

If you read the quote it is quite clear that the “other accommodations” did not stretch to even a generic wedding cake


Phillips appealed the case to the US Supreme Court. He argued that he’s not really discriminating against same-sex couples because he would have served Craig and Mullins any non-wedding goods that they asked for.

A generic wedding cake is not a “non-wedding” good.

Philips’ argument is that he is not prejudiced against gays because he would sell them other items but not any sort of wedding cake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1399 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-19-2019 2:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 1404 of 1484 (855426)
06-19-2019 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1399 by Hyroglyphx
06-19-2019 2:27 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Customer wants a wedding cake. No talk of decoration. Baker refused because customer is gay. Offer of providing cupcakes or scones was not the order. Just a wedding cake. And the baker reused the order before any talk of decoration took place.

Baker provides wedding cakes but refused to do business, offers cupcakes instead, because they were gay. Didn't want to appear to be supporting gay marriage. Is this any different then refusing a mixed race couple because he didn't want to appear to be supporting integration?

Providing specific themed decoration, not just generic wedding but specifically gay motifs, is another matter altogether.

Would we agree that Phillips could be compelled to bake a nondescript cake with no decorations?

He can be compelled to provided wedding cake with customary and usual decorations since that is what he advertises to the public he offers and it is what his public business licence expects.

Would he be protected from being forced to decorate it in a manner that conflicts with his religious beliefs?

Yes.

Where's the line?

The decoration.

Baker was not asked to perform anything special outside his normal business. He refused because the customer was gay. That is discrimination under the law.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1399 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-19-2019 2:27 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1406 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2019 4:04 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6693
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 1405 of 1484 (855427)
06-19-2019 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1393 by Hyroglyphx
06-19-2019 1:25 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1393 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-19-2019 1:25 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1418 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-20-2019 11:17 AM Chiroptera has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6693
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1406 of 1484 (855428)
06-19-2019 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1404 by AZPaul3
06-19-2019 3:02 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1404 by AZPaul3, posted 06-19-2019 3:02 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1407 by AZPaul3, posted 06-19-2019 6:36 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1407 of 1484 (855434)
06-19-2019 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1406 by Chiroptera
06-19-2019 4:04 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Now that is interesting, Chiroptera. A Bride/Groom topper is customary and usual. Is a groom/groom topper a special? Especially if no other gay motifs are present?

I might think it would be, but that's what courts are for.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1406 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2019 4:04 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1410 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2019 7:50 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1408 of 1484 (855435)
06-19-2019 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1384 by Tangle
06-19-2019 8:44 AM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
If you think I'm looking forward to Armageddon, which is a horrific war prophesied for the very end of time, no you do not know me at all. Yes I look forward to the Rapture. You don't seem to know what these things mean.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1384 by Tangle, posted 06-19-2019 8:44 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1419 by ringo, posted 06-20-2019 11:57 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1409 of 1484 (855436)
06-19-2019 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1385 by Chiroptera
06-19-2019 9:12 AM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

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."

That is the whole point to my mind and there is no other point to be considered. This isn't something a court or anyone else can decide, only the person put in the position of obeying or denying God according to his or her own understanding. Whether it's about a message on the cake, mannikins, decorations or just the fact that it is for a gay wedding, it's the baker's conscience that's engaged and nobody else can decide this.

But it does need to be kept in mind that a wedding cake is a very special custom-made and often personally designed item, from the ingredients in the cake itself to the structure of it to the decorations on it. It's a creative work by the baker for a special purpose. If a cake off the shelf would do I'm sure there would be no problem, but this sort of special creation puts the baker in a particular dilemma.

It seems that a lot of these problems could be avoided if people would avoid occupations that require duties that go against their conscience.

Melissa, who with her husband was the owner of the wedding cake business in Oregon, that was vandalized, fined and eventually put out of business, had been in business for years, had always wanted to make wedding cakes, considered it a calling. The law that brought all this grief down on her is a very recent thing so it's a little late to ask her to avoid the occupation. She and her husband were very polite to the lesbian couple who asked for a wedding cake but declined on the basis of their Christian belief. They had known the lesbian girls for some time and had no problem with selling them any other item they made.

If the law stays as it is such people really have no option but to refuse and take the consequences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1385 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2019 9:12 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1411 by Chiroptera, posted 06-19-2019 7:55 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1413 by PaulK, posted 06-20-2019 12:11 AM Faith has responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6693
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 1410 of 1484 (855440)
06-19-2019 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1407 by AZPaul3
06-19-2019 6:36 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1407 by AZPaul3, posted 06-19-2019 6:36 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
9293
94
9596
...
99Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019