Author Topic: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.  (Read 3693 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #45 on: June 24, 2018, 02:02:01 AM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5861
  • Tommy Points: 15
Any normal person would just have went to another baker.

Yup.

I support their right to refuse, I would not do if I was a business owner and I support Gay Marriage but unlike many here I don't believe in forcing my views on others via the court system.

I commend you for supporting the right to refuse in spite of your personal stance on gay marriage.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

ó C.S. Lewis

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #46 on: June 24, 2018, 07:58:33 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35347
  • Tommy Points: -27785
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Owner cannot do that in California look up the Unruh Act.
that act does not bar this conduct

It actually did up until the 'Baker' case just decided by the Supreme Court. I remember learning that all those signs at business establishments that said 'we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone' were illegal under Unruh. This new Supreme Court ruling I admit may render unconstitutional that aspect of Unruh Act.

Iím not familiar with Unruh, but itís very unlikely the Supreme Courtís recent decision affected it.

The recent decision held that the state canít have contempt for religion. It said nothing about situations that donít involve religious objections, or when a valid religious objection conflicts with an equal protection statute. Thereís no generalized ďright to refuseĒ validated by the court ruling.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #47 on: June 24, 2018, 08:46:31 AM »

Offline eja117

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18901
  • Tommy Points: 1235
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/06/23/622869966/the-hypocrisy-of-eating-at-mexican-restaurants?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=nprstoriesfromnpr&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180623

Two other members of the administration were rejected at restaurants too. This is why I haven't really grasped the "Trump as Nazi" stuff. Does anyone remember if members of Hitler's inner circle were ever kicked out of restaurants?

And now our cake and Stephen Miller threads link up.

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #48 on: June 25, 2018, 10:28:01 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19163
  • Tommy Points: 906
Supreme Court sends the florist case back down for a reexamination based on the baker case. 

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #49 on: June 25, 2018, 10:36:05 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35347
  • Tommy Points: -27785
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Supreme Court sends the florist case back down for a reexamination based on the baker case.

No surprise there, but it resolves pretty much nothing. What happens if and when the State finds that itís a legit religious reason, but finds that protecting classes of citizens is more compelling?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #50 on: June 25, 2018, 10:48:30 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Supreme Court sends the florist case back down for a reexamination based on the baker case.

No surprise there, but it resolves pretty much nothing. What happens if and when the State finds that itís a legit religious reason, but finds that protecting classes of citizens is more compelling?
Maybe we all need to think long and hard about what our expectations are for a "legit religious reason".
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #51 on: June 25, 2018, 11:27:35 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35347
  • Tommy Points: -27785
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Supreme Court sends the florist case back down for a reexamination based on the baker case.

No surprise there, but it resolves pretty much nothing. What happens if and when the State finds that itís a legit religious reason, but finds that protecting classes of citizens is more compelling?
Maybe we all need to think long and hard about what our expectations are for a "legit religious reason".

We canít just ignore the First Amendment because itís inconvenient.  People have the right to practice their religion. In a self-employment situation especially, I think that needs to be respected.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #52 on: June 25, 2018, 11:47:24 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Supreme Court sends the florist case back down for a reexamination based on the baker case.

No surprise there, but it resolves pretty much nothing. What happens if and when the State finds that itís a legit religious reason, but finds that protecting classes of citizens is more compelling?
Maybe we all need to think long and hard about what our expectations are for a "legit religious reason".

We canít just ignore the First Amendment because itís inconvenient.  People have the right to practice their religion. In a self-employment situation especially, I think that needs to be respected.
No to repeat myself, but figuring out what this actually means is nontrivial.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #53 on: June 25, 2018, 12:37:53 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35347
  • Tommy Points: -27785
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Supreme Court sends the florist case back down for a reexamination based on the baker case.

No surprise there, but it resolves pretty much nothing. What happens if and when the State finds that itís a legit religious reason, but finds that protecting classes of citizens is more compelling?
Maybe we all need to think long and hard about what our expectations are for a "legit religious reason".

We canít just ignore the First Amendment because itís inconvenient.  People have the right to practice their religion. In a self-employment situation especially, I think that needs to be respected.
No to repeat myself, but figuring out what this actually means is nontrivial.

Well, in this case itís pretty straight forward. The baker 1. doesnít participate in gay weddings; and 2. doesnít make Halloween cakes.  He seems to be a fairly fundamentalist Christian.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #54 on: June 25, 2018, 12:50:12 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4300
  • Tommy Points: 371
Here's the thing about balancing the religious freedom vs discrimination:
Bakers either violate their faith or go out of business and lose everything. The persons asking for the cake has the option to find a baker that will make what they ask for.

I don't believe a person should be forced to give up a business they worked at building in order to stay true to their faith.


Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #55 on: June 25, 2018, 01:01:17 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4300
  • Tommy Points: 371
Bummed for the Americans who were denied service for no good reason.

In other words, nobody.

As for the Americans who were denied service for a good reason, it's because Americans have a right to free exercise of religion.  Whether somebody disagrees or not, the religious texts followed by Jews, Muslims and Christians are at least in part hostile to homosexuality.  That makes it a complicated issue:  an explicit Constitutional right (free exercise) versus another Constitutional right (equal protection based upon orientation).  One doesn't -- and shouldn't -- automatically outweigh  the other.

As for the ruling itself, it's a fairly narrow one.  Rather than saying that religion trumps, or that free speech carries the day, it simply finds that Colorado's decision in this case showed open hostility to a religious defense, which the government is not allowed to do.  Kagan / Breyer wrote a concurrence in which they indicated their belief that a fairer process without such hostility may have resulted in the same decision (i.e., that the baker had violated the law).  The majority opinion is silent on that point.

But, there are all kinds of implications for cases like this, and I intend to agree with JSD:  business owners shouldn't be required to violate their religion.  Should Muslim caterers be required to service pig roasts?  Could a devout Mormon wedding singer refuse to perform at a drag wedding?

I think, too, there's a difference between providing a service available to everyone -- selling a cake in the display case -- and requiring somebody to provide custom services, such as designing a cake for a gay wedding and personally inscribing the cake.  The latter covers the situation in this ruling.  Requiring somebody to participate in a practice that violates their religion just seems wrong.
The massive problem with that is it allows anyone to blame whatever they want on their religion. If you deny services to black people because you're racist, you can just reference some obscure religion that is "in part hostile to" black people as your own religion. There are endless religions out there that you can practice. That doesn't make denying services to someone ok because you are a bigot but want to get away with under your so called religion.

Except these aren't obscure religions.  Judaism, Islam and Christianity predate our country by thousands of years.  This isn't a pretext to justify hate.  Rather, it's a long-held religious tenant of religions that billions of people practice. 

"Free exercise" has to have some meaning.
As a Jew, I have a very hard time with anyone in modern society relying on often mistranslated texts from 2500 years ago to support their bigotry, especially when those same people ignore all of the other teachings from those same texts.  You can't pick and choose what you want to believe and practice just to support your own bigotry.  That isn't religion, it is using religion to support your own hatred.  It was what we as a society did to find support for slavery, or to keep women at a lesser level then men, or the countless other bigotries that have existed because of religion.

Some people are like that.  Other people are devout.  Why lump them in all together?

What you view as bigotry many people legitimately believe is an edict from God.  They're not making it up; people have been reading the same passages from the same book for centuries. 

Free exercise is at the center of our country.  You can't ignore it just because you disagree with it.  "Live and let live" is such an interesting concept.  Generally, it's interpreted as "Let me live the way I want, while I impose my views on you".
I have absolutely no problem with someone that practices everything.  I have a great deal of respect for the Amish, Hassidic Jews, etc. that live fully by the teachings and don't pick and choose what they want to believe and what they want to follow.  My issue is with those that claim homosexuality is a sin (by relying on ancient texts), but they do all sorts of other sins from the exact same texts because well, just because.  I mean, should we put adulterers to death as Leviticus commands.  Should we put those to death that curse their mother and father.  Should we cast out those that have sex with a women on her period.  I mean those are some of the many teachings of Leviticus in the same book as one of the widely reported bans on homosexuality.  Picking and choosing what you want to believe to support your own bigotry is hypocritical, and frankly should be against the law, when that bigotry is also protected by the law.  Using Religion as a shield to be an awful person was never the intent of the Constitution.

The problem with is is you're asking the courts to determine how Christian one person is. It's not up to us to decide of someone is right with the faith or not. No person is perfect or follows their faith perfectly at all times. Under this standard, you could claim everyone is a fraud and no one ever has the right to raise an objection based on religious grounds.

Sure there could be some that hide behind religion so they can discriminate, but should we punish those that are acting according to what they believe?

The question we need to ask ourselves is, do we want to set up an economy where religious people can't pursue owning their own business because doing so puts them at a great risk?



Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #56 on: June 25, 2018, 01:02:42 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19163
  • Tommy Points: 906
Here's the thing about balancing the religious freedom vs discrimination:
Bakers either violate their faith or go out of business and lose everything. The persons asking for the cake has the option to find a baker that will make what they ask for.

I don't believe a person should be forced to give up a business they worked at building in order to stay true to their faith.
What if it wasn't gay weddings that he objected to, but a wedding between a black couple, or a Mexican, Chinese, etc. couple, or an interracial couple, or persons of the Jewish, Hindu, or Islamic faith, etc. 

Would that be ok?

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #57 on: June 25, 2018, 01:05:30 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19163
  • Tommy Points: 906
Bummed for the Americans who were denied service for no good reason.

In other words, nobody.

As for the Americans who were denied service for a good reason, it's because Americans have a right to free exercise of religion.  Whether somebody disagrees or not, the religious texts followed by Jews, Muslims and Christians are at least in part hostile to homosexuality.  That makes it a complicated issue:  an explicit Constitutional right (free exercise) versus another Constitutional right (equal protection based upon orientation).  One doesn't -- and shouldn't -- automatically outweigh  the other.

As for the ruling itself, it's a fairly narrow one.  Rather than saying that religion trumps, or that free speech carries the day, it simply finds that Colorado's decision in this case showed open hostility to a religious defense, which the government is not allowed to do.  Kagan / Breyer wrote a concurrence in which they indicated their belief that a fairer process without such hostility may have resulted in the same decision (i.e., that the baker had violated the law).  The majority opinion is silent on that point.

But, there are all kinds of implications for cases like this, and I intend to agree with JSD:  business owners shouldn't be required to violate their religion.  Should Muslim caterers be required to service pig roasts?  Could a devout Mormon wedding singer refuse to perform at a drag wedding?

I think, too, there's a difference between providing a service available to everyone -- selling a cake in the display case -- and requiring somebody to provide custom services, such as designing a cake for a gay wedding and personally inscribing the cake.  The latter covers the situation in this ruling.  Requiring somebody to participate in a practice that violates their religion just seems wrong.
The massive problem with that is it allows anyone to blame whatever they want on their religion. If you deny services to black people because you're racist, you can just reference some obscure religion that is "in part hostile to" black people as your own religion. There are endless religions out there that you can practice. That doesn't make denying services to someone ok because you are a bigot but want to get away with under your so called religion.

Except these aren't obscure religions.  Judaism, Islam and Christianity predate our country by thousands of years.  This isn't a pretext to justify hate.  Rather, it's a long-held religious tenant of religions that billions of people practice. 

"Free exercise" has to have some meaning.
As a Jew, I have a very hard time with anyone in modern society relying on often mistranslated texts from 2500 years ago to support their bigotry, especially when those same people ignore all of the other teachings from those same texts.  You can't pick and choose what you want to believe and practice just to support your own bigotry.  That isn't religion, it is using religion to support your own hatred.  It was what we as a society did to find support for slavery, or to keep women at a lesser level then men, or the countless other bigotries that have existed because of religion.

Some people are like that.  Other people are devout.  Why lump them in all together?

What you view as bigotry many people legitimately believe is an edict from God.  They're not making it up; people have been reading the same passages from the same book for centuries. 

Free exercise is at the center of our country.  You can't ignore it just because you disagree with it.  "Live and let live" is such an interesting concept.  Generally, it's interpreted as "Let me live the way I want, while I impose my views on you".
I have absolutely no problem with someone that practices everything.  I have a great deal of respect for the Amish, Hassidic Jews, etc. that live fully by the teachings and don't pick and choose what they want to believe and what they want to follow.  My issue is with those that claim homosexuality is a sin (by relying on ancient texts), but they do all sorts of other sins from the exact same texts because well, just because.  I mean, should we put adulterers to death as Leviticus commands.  Should we put those to death that curse their mother and father.  Should we cast out those that have sex with a women on her period.  I mean those are some of the many teachings of Leviticus in the same book as one of the widely reported bans on homosexuality.  Picking and choosing what you want to believe to support your own bigotry is hypocritical, and frankly should be against the law, when that bigotry is also protected by the law.  Using Religion as a shield to be an awful person was never the intent of the Constitution.

The problem with is is you're asking the courts to determine how Christian one person is. It's not up to us to decide of someone is right with the faith or not. No person is perfect or follows their faith perfectly at all times. Under this standard, you could claim everyone is a fraud and no one ever has the right to raise an objection based on religious grounds.

Sure there could be some that hide behind religion so they can discriminate, but should we punish those that are acting according to what they believe?

The question we need to ask ourselves is, do we want to set up an economy where religious people can't pursue owning their own business because doing so puts them at a great risk?
The Supreme Court did just that.  They in fact now require the lower courts in this case to weigh the various rights and weigh them accordingly, which invariably will require an analysis on whether or not the religious beliefs are in fact true or just a shield of bigotry. 

And I have absolutely no problem with someone that is violating the law by discriminating against someone else with going out of business. 

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #58 on: June 25, 2018, 01:09:34 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Supreme Court sends the florist case back down for a reexamination based on the baker case.

No surprise there, but it resolves pretty much nothing. What happens if and when the State finds that itís a legit religious reason, but finds that protecting classes of citizens is more compelling?
Maybe we all need to think long and hard about what our expectations are for a "legit religious reason".

We canít just ignore the First Amendment because itís inconvenient.  People have the right to practice their religion. In a self-employment situation especially, I think that needs to be respected.
No to repeat myself, but figuring out what this actually means is nontrivial.

Well, in this case itís pretty straight forward. The baker 1. doesnít participate in gay weddings; and 2. doesnít make Halloween cakes.  He seems to be a fairly fundamentalist Christian.
Except it isn't, unless you can adequately explain where you draw the line. You don't get a free pass on inflammatory behavior just because you hold a religious belief, however sincere. I'm sure some people sincerely believe that men of a certain color were created superior by divine providence.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: Big 1st amendment win - Court rules for baker in gay wedding case.
« Reply #59 on: June 25, 2018, 01:11:09 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Sure there could be some that hide behind religion so they can discriminate, but should we punish those that are acting according to what they believe?
It is fairly simple. I know for a fact that some people sincerely believed that people of color are inferior. Now what?
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com