On Topic Discussion So, should the baker be legally compelled to make the gay wedding cake? (US Supreme Court)

[ChickenGuy]

Please explain your interpretation of the meaning and/or context of that term.

That all the citizens of a country are given equal rights with regard to (in the U.S.) the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other amendments etc. and so therefore this will include (pertinent to this case) both the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws.

Whatever is legally applied either for or against any group, by another group, in principle MUST be applied in reverse. Not to do so in any circumstance would create some citizens who had superior rights to other citizens.

Refusal of general service on the grounds of sexuality should be illegal. Just as any other group.

But if an individual is being coerced or compelled by the state, through threat of punishment, to indulge in a forced act of speech or (in this case) expression, when it is against an individual's personal religious belief, then this absolutely should be illegal. It is an affront to the very concepts of a free society, and starts moving it into the realms of authoritarianism.

That is why I said 'both or neither' to my examples. That is what I believe equality means.

 

[frankfrank]

Let's say a few years into the marriage they find a leak in their roof, should the roofer say that he knows what takes place under that roof and will have no part in it? Should the mechanic refuse to work on their car?

According to too many of the people who believe that "Freedom of Religion" laws are needed in their states, YES. In fact, doctors should be able to refuse all medical treatment, and state agencies should have the right not to register an LGBT person to vote, or renew their driver's license, because RELIGION. Mark my words, these laws will show up in most of the "red states" if the decision rules in favor of the baker.

I think the big reason the date for a ruling is so far out is because Kennedy is going to try to draw as fine a line as possible, and he's the deciding vote...

No, the reason for the June 2018 date is that Supreme Court cases almost always take around half a year, or even longer. This isn't the least bit unusual.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

According to too many of the people who believe that "Freedom of Religion" laws are needed in their states, YES. In fact, doctors should be able to refuse all medical treatment, and state agencies should have the right not to register an LGBT person to vote, or renew their driver's license, because RELIGION. Mark my words, these laws will show up in most of the "red states" if the decision rules in favor of the baker.

Nobody else seems to be concerned about the precedent this could set, that's almost more disturbing than them supporting discrimination. To call a spade a spade JUB is largely white males, group in America who isn't often on the receiving end of discrimination. They think they're simply being fair and impartial not realizing that when you give people this inch it could be the court case cited when someone wants a mile.

"Why should I have to sell this faggot a car? I'm Christian." "Why should I have to let this homo couple enroll their child in my school? I"m Christian they're taking my freedom of religion." I think people voting in favor of the baker are a knee-jerk reaction attempting to be diplomatic without giving this real contemplation.

 

[Benvolio]

I have approved this post, but have no idea what you are talking about.

Gorsuch suggested that requiring the employer to instruct his employees on the law prohibiting discrimination could be an infringement of freedom of speech.

 

[Kulindahr]

As I understand the case, the baker is ostensibly selling a product that includes unique artistic expression. If that is true, then “an employee” [who does not object to producing cakes for gay weddings] may not be able to render the “artistic quality” that the store is intent to produce and may therefore damage the brand they wish to project, which in turn causes pecuniary harm to “the artist(s)”.

The only "gay" part of a cake would be names and human figures. Those can't be that hard to do.

Unless the guy is arguing that he couldn't even make a generic cake if he knew it was for a gay couple.

But at that point there's another way to do it: the 'artist' just does cakes without knowing who they're for, and a "finisher" adds the personal details. Thus the 'artist' need never know it's anything but a cake.

 

[Kulindahr]

What happens if he breaks his arm? If he doesn't have a business plan for dealing with situations where he cannot do the work himself he is not likely to stay in business long. If there is a not an employee able to do the work then subcontract the work to another bakery. You might wind up taking a loss on the job but nobody said having convictions is to be cost-free.

Interesting comparison. Of course the baker will object to having his faith compared to having a broken arm, but if justice is blind the comparison is solid because the significant element is a barrier to making the cake.

Maybe you should write to Justice Kennedy with this!

 

[Kulindahr]

Mr Justice Gorsuch asked a question suggesting this argument: Colorado requires the baker to give instructions to his emoployeed so compliance with the non discrimination law; that, he suggests is a violation of his freedom of speech. He pointed out that the law does not just require that the employees be trained, but that the employer must inform then.

If I'm following your clumsy grammar here correctly, Gorsuch is suggesting that explaining the law cones under freedom of speech. That's ridiculous on the face of it, which can be easily illustrated by a comparison: it would then by extension by a violation of a school teacher's freedom of speech to explain the view of Jews held by the Nazis in Germany in 1942.

 

[Kulindahr]

That all the citizens of a country are given equal rights with regard to (in the U.S.) the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and other amendments etc. and so therefore this will include (pertinent to this case) both the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws.

Whatever is legally applied either for or against any group, by another group, in principle MUST be applied in reverse. Not to do so in any circumstance would create some citizens who had superior rights to other citizens.

Refusal of general service on the grounds of sexuality should be illegal. Just as any other group.

But if an individual is being coerced or compelled by the state, through threat of punishment, to indulge in a forced act of speech or (in this case) expression, when it is against an individual's personal religious belief, then this absolutely should be illegal. It is an affront to the very concepts of a free society, and starts moving it into the realms of authoritarianism.

That is why I said 'both or neither' to my examples. That is what I believe equality means.

Citizens are not given rights by government, they have rights by virtue of being sentient. Government can only endeavor to define them clearly and either enforce rights or protect them.

While comparing gay rights to religious beliefs is a bit shaky: religious people have a creed (formal or otherwise) which may prohibit them from doing certain things, whereas gays don't. But that brings the focus to a serious question: how to tell the difference between a seriously held religious belief and a personal preference? The government actually has guidelines for that, developed for conscientious objectors during the Vietnam draft.

 

[Kulindahr]

According to too many of the people who believe that "Freedom of Religion" laws are needed in their states, YES. In fact, doctors should be able to refuse all medical treatment, and state agencies should have the right not to register an LGBT person to vote, or renew their driver's license, because RELIGION. Mark my words, these laws will show up in most of the "red states" if the decision rules in favor of the baker.

Actually, no: existing case law has already established that government employees are not acting in their own right but as, to put it bluntly, cogs in a machine, and that therefore their personal beliefs cannot interfere with or alter the performance of their duties. That's been applied regularly, although not entirely consistently (if I recall my studies of how courts have ruled with respect to school teachers).

But for doctors --yes, but: if the place they work receives government funding, they're bound by the same rules as if they were government employees. And in that connection, courts have ruled that if a doctor accepts Medicare payments that counts as receiving government funding.

But neither of these really apply, because the essential aspect of the case isn't a religious belief, but being required to perform an act contrary to a religious belief -- i.e. coercion to behave contrary to the free exercise of one's religion. So a doctor would only have grounds for refusal if the medical procedure in question was somehow a violation of his/her beliefs.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nobody else seems to be concerned about the precedent this could set, that's almost more disturbing than them supporting discrimination. To call a spade a spade JUB is largely white males, group in America who isn't often on the receiving end of discrimination. They think they're simply being fair and impartial not realizing that when you give people this inch it could be the court case cited when someone wants a mile.

"Why should I have to sell this faggot a car? I'm Christian." "Why should I have to let this homo couple enroll their child in my school? I"m Christian they're taking my freedom of religion." I think people voting in favor of the baker are a knee-jerk reaction attempting to be diplomatic without giving this real contemplation.

But it isn't about who they are, it's about whether the state can coerce people into actions contrary to the free exercise of their religion. If the case were about who the customers were, it would never have reached SCOTUS because the ruling against the baker would be so obvious. I doubt there is any religion which counts selling a car as immoral.

And that's why the court took this, really: to draw the line carefully between violating the free exercise of a person's religion by government, and requiring businesses to serve all equally. The first is something forbidden by the Constitution; the second is a matter of settled law, so the task at hand is to carefully distinguish between the person and the business.

 

[Kulindahr]

Gorsuch suggested that requiring the employer to instruct his employees on the law prohibiting discrimination could be an infringement of freedom of speech.

On the premise, I presume, that the right to do a thing requires the right to not do that thing. It's still ludicrous, because explaining something to someone does not mean endorsing it. I can explain that young-earth creationists believe the world was created with the appearance of being billions of years old when it really isn't, but that doesn't mean I'm endorsing their view; so the baker can explain what the law says even though he disagrees with it. If the baker were being required to agree with the law, Gorsuch would have a point.

 

[Benvolio]

If I'm following your clumsy grammar here correctly, Gorsuch is suggesting that explaining the law cones under freedom of speech. That's ridiculous on the face of it, which can be easily illustrated by a comparison: it would then by extension by a violation of a school teacher's freedom of speech to explain the view of Jews held by the Nazis in Germany in 1942.

[Text: Removed] It is not a violation of freedom of speech for the teacher to explain.

 

[opinterph]

Gorsuch suggested that requiring the employer to instruct his employees on the law prohibiting discrimination could be an infringement of freedom of speech.

On the premise, I presume, that the right to do a thing requires the right to not do that thing. It's still ludicrous, because explaining something to someone does not mean endorsing it. I can explain that young-earth creationists believe the world was created with the appearance of being billions of years old when it really isn't, but that doesn't mean I'm endorsing their view; so the baker can explain what the law says even though he disagrees with it. If the baker were being required to agree with the law, Gorsuch would have a point.

As I understand it, Colorado ordered Mr. Phillips to provide comprehensive training to his staff, and it didn’t order him to attend a class of the government’s own creation or anything like that, but to provide comprehensive staff training.

Why isn’t that compelled speech and possibly in violation of his free-exercise rights? Because presumably he has to tell his staff, including his family members, that his Christian beliefs are discriminatory.

– Justice Neil Gorsuch

If I'm following your clumsy grammar here correctly, Gorsuch is suggesting that explaining the law cones under freedom of speech. That's ridiculous on the face of it, which can be easily illustrated by a comparison: it would then by extension by a violation of a school teacher's freedom of speech to explain the view of Jews held by the Nazis in Germany in 1942.

The argument Justice Gorsuch seems to be promoting is that forcing the baker to explain the non-discrimination law to his employees also forces the baker to admit to his employees that his sincerely held religious belief is discriminatory.

 

[Benvolio]

I don’t think he gets to that point. Requiring the employer is requiring him to speak and telling him what to say.
Of course the bakers refusal is discriminatory, but not everyone accepts that as an ultimate evil. Historicaly freedom of association has been regarded as a basic freedom. Beyond that we all discriminate in making choices; this person as a friend but not another. Not by race etc. But choosing a sex partner involves discrimination on some level; tall vs short, muscular vs fat, etc. We all have preferences. The word discrimination is not limited to race, creed etc. All preferences are within the definition of discrimination. Saying as person has discriminating taste is a complement.

 

[Benvolio]

The argument Justice Gorsuch seems to be promoting is that forcing the baker to explain the non-discrimination law to his employees also forces the baker to admit to his employees that his sincerely held religious belief is discriminatory.

I now see you are correct the Gorsuch is concerned the baker has to instruct that his beliefs are discriminatory. Requiring the speech could be a violation of freedom of speech. Required disagreement with his beliefs violates freedom of religion.

 

[Benvolio]

If I'm following your clumsy grammar here correctly, Gorsuch is suggesting that explaining the law cones under freedom of speech. That's ridiculous on the face of it, which can be easily illustrated by a comparison: it would then by extension by a violation of a school teacher's freedom of speech to explain the view of Jews held by the Nazis in Germany in 1942.

Employees speak with the voice of their employer; they can be told what to say and not to say. It is not a violation of freedom of speech because it is not state or government action, and because they have the choice of accepting the job or not. Can an announcer refuse to announce by freedom of speech? An actor refuse to act the part?

 

[ass eater]

Yes, he bakes cakes for multiple divorcee's, couples who are living together.

 

[likesmycock]

Should the baker be forced into being a human being?

 

[Benvolio]

Yes, he bakes cakes for multiple divorcee's, couples who are living together.

Does he know it? Have they requested a cake which shows that they are unmarried but living together?

 

[Kulindahr]

[Text: Removed] It is not a violation of freedom of speech for the teacher to explain.

Exactly. So it's not a violation of freedom of speech for the baker to explain.

After all, he can add that he thinks the law is stupid, or any other comment he wishes.

So Gorsuch is really off the wall with that one.