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

[peeonme]

To me, when you put your shingle out there you are offering your services to any and all.

When tool and die went dead back in the late 70's-early 80's, I went in to selling real estate. In the northern suburbs there were and still are black areas and white areas. Not to say that there are some blacks or whites in the area that is predominately occupied by those of another color.

I told my broker when I was hired that I would not play the game of showing people houses in the community that most reflected their ethnic heritage.
You got the bucks or the credit, you get what ever house you desire, plain and simple.

To me, if I sold wedding cakes, you got the bucks, you get the cake.
Now, if it were a pair of Nazis and they wanted a Swastika on the cake, I would bake them a nice cake and provide them with instructions for decorating it. It would still be a generic wedding cake.

The government can't make me draw a Swastika, it can tell me not to discriminate.

 

[Benvolio]

To me, when you put your shingle out there you are offering your services to any and all.

When tool and die went dead back in the late 70's-early 80's, I went in to selling real estate. In the northern suburbs there were and still are black areas and white areas. Not to say that there are some blacks or whites in the area that is predominately occupied by those of another color.

I told my broker when I was hired that I would not play the game of showing people houses in the community that most reflected their ethnic heritage.
You got the bucks or the credit, you get what ever house you desire, plain and simple.

To me, if I sold wedding cakes, you got the bucks, you get the cake.
Now, if it were a pair of Nazis and they wanted a Swastika on the cake, I would bake them a nice cake and provide them with instructions for decorating it. It would still be a generic wedding cake.

The government can't make me draw a Swastika, it can tell me not to discriminate.

If the government can't make you draw a Swastika—and it can’t—it also can’t make you write “joe loves Jim”.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Now, if it were a pair of Nazis and they wanted a Swastika on the cake, I would bake them a nice cake and provide them with instructions for decorating it. It would still be a generic wedding cake.

You lost me on the instructions. I don't give customers instruction on how to artistically modify a product they've bought so it looks a certain way after they've bought it. After it is sold, unless they have questions on breakage or materials/process used, they are on their own. I certainly would not be sending detailed instructions to nazi's who bought masks on how to best accomplish their racism-induced creation.

Giving them instructions would mean they paid for you to join in the creative process for the specific swastik-y addition. Or you gave them instructions for free? There's only two choices, free or paid, and you just explained you had no intention of creating a swastika while giving instructions on how to ...create a swastika.

How is your version of the law similar to your version of what you would've done? It still involves the subject, a baker, actively helping in the creation of something you just said you didn't agree to personally put effort in creating. That's not letting another person have the job at all, it's the same damn concept the baker volunteered! You're still doing the job!

 

[luckynumbah7]

That's not letting another person have the job at all, it's the same damn concept the baker volunteered! You're still doing the job!

If the issue is forced creation against one's belief, could anyone please explain how people either providing instructions for further artistic modification / offering to bake the cake but only change its name are not actually participating in the commissioned object's creation?

I'm also fairly certain it's not legal to require either an individual or a company to give further instructions for modifying their product in whatever way the buyer wishes. That's ...not how these things go.

 

[Kulindahr]

Which brings us right back to consistency. There are verses against a trillion things that people do every day but the baker isn't refusing service to people guilty of those acts, which means he isn't exercising religious freedom rather selective (I'm so sick of even typing this word) discrimination.

Yes, I am aware that I'll get blood from a stone before I'll get consistency from a religious person.

No, it doesn't mean that. You're essentially demanding that a religious person be omniscient and omnicompetent, both of which are ridiculous.

If we applied your approach to politics, the result would be that no one would ever vote, because they'd be requiring every candidate to perfectly match every one of their wishes. That's silly in politics and just as silly in religion: people pick their battles.

And it's already been explained why it isn't inconsistent in the first place, because by their view homosexuality will bring God's judgment on the nation but nothing else will. You can insist he follow your view of consistency, but that's all that it is -- your view. It isn't his view, or the view of millions of others. And the fact that they're wrong about what the Bible says doesn't change that either.

 

[peeonme]

If the government can't make you draw a Swastika—and it can’t—it also can’t make you write “joe loves Jim”.

I agree, bake the cake and tell the couple where to get whatever is needed to decorate it with who loves who. Problem solved.
But, the baker is using this as an excuse to not serve a legitimate customer because of bias.

 

[mikey3000]

Wow, another one of my posts gets unilaterally deleted. Why? Is ingesting bodily fluids a taboo subject all of a sudden? Should I've posted that NEWS article in fetishes?

 

[opinterph]

Wow, another one of my posts gets unilaterally deleted. Why? Is ingesting bodily fluids a taboo subject all of a sudden? Should I've posted that NEWS article in fetishes?

December 11th, 2017, 12:01 PM [US ET]
This post has been deleted by opinterph.
Reason: apparent attempt to hijack thread; topic deviation

 

[opinterph]

@ mikey3000

This is an important topic which I would very much enjoy keeping in Hot Topics. Please.

 

[mikey3000]

And YOU think the MSM news article was somehow inappropriate? Right. Got it. judge and jury, eh? So let me re phrase it:

On such an important occasion as your wedding, would you really trust someone who was forced to bake your wedding cake, to bake something decent enough to feed to your family and friends?

Opinterph

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

because by their view homosexuality will bring God's judgment on the nation but nothing else will

That's categorically false, a deliberate manipulation of the text. and still discrimination is discrimination no matter how much eye-liner, eye shadow, foundation and lipstick you put on it.

 

[opinterph]

… let me re phrase it:

On such an important occasion as your wedding, would you really trust someone who was forced to bake your wedding cake, to bake something decent enough to feed to your family and friends?

What you interjected is a rather bizarre topic deviation.

Health codes are a whole different ballgame.

 

[frankfrank]

Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr
because by their view homosexuality will bring God's judgment on the nation but nothing else will

That's categorically false, a deliberate manipulation of the text. and still discrimination is discrimination no matter how much eye-liner, eye shadow, foundation and lipstick you put on it.

Looks, to me, like Kuli was simply giving his observation about HOW THESE PEOPLE ACT. There are a lot of sins listed in the text, but they're all about homosexuality...AND, OFTEN, NOTHING ELSE.

These "freedom of religion" defenses are ALL about the right to discriminate against LGBT...and that's it.

At least for now. If they end up getting their way on this, "people who aren't white" (i. e. most of humanity) will be next as they will grab on their victory to drag this country forward to the 18th Century.

A current candidate in Alabama who is very high-profile (because the direction of this country is in the balance with that election), would also love to take away the right of women to vote, etc. (because, after all, all of the 17 most recent Constitutional Amendments are rubbish, he says).

These very same people certainly are fine-and-dandy with sexual assault on women.

 

[mikey3000]

What you interjected is a rather bizarre topic deviation.

Is it? The repercussions of forcing people in the food services industry to submit to the demands of a few is a deviation from topic? Well, since no one else gets to opine on the topic except you, it doesn't really matter anymore. I'll just go find the 10 different threads featuring secret jizz recipes and contemplate my society. But thanks for the validation.

 

[opinterph]

This thread is now designated “On-Topic.”

 

[Kulindahr]

That's categorically false, a deliberate manipulation of the text. and still discrimination is discrimination no matter how much eye-liner, eye shadow, foundation and lipstick you put on it.

The law can't require them to be either intelligent enough or informed enough to understand the Bible as it was meant to be understood by the original writers.

If a Jehovah's Witness were a baker and got asked to make a birthday cake, he could well refuse that as being against his conscience since the JWs don't believe in celebrating birthdays (or Christmas, for that matter). However stupid a position that is based on the Bible (even their mutilated "version"), the government can't require them to change their belief.

The same would be true of Seventh Day Adventists and some things they believe -- though from the SDAs I've known, they would already have a procedure in place, like sending them to a friend who isn't SDA for whatever it was.

Whether or not it's discrimination is irrelevant, because the Constitution flat out says the government cannot make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It doesn't say sensible religion, it doesn't say intelligent or well-informed religion, it just says religion. So however the comes down on this, they cannot force an individual to act against his religion (at least so long as that religion is not requiring endangering someones life, and even then its actions are limited).

Think on the flip side: if the government can require a baker to act contrary to his religion, it can require all men to marry women -- no exceptions for gays, no bachelors allowed. If we don't want the government to have that power, then we'd better defend the baker in his personal actions -- we can require his business to make provisions, but we cannot require him to violate his beliefs.

 

[Kulindahr]

Looks, to me, like Kuli was simply giving his observation about HOW THESE PEOPLE ACT. There are a lot of sins listed in the text, but they're all about homosexuality...AND, OFTEN, NOTHING ELSE.

These "freedom of religion" defenses are ALL about the right to discriminate against LGBT...and that's it.

At least for now. If they end up getting their way on this, "people who aren't white" (i. e. most of humanity) will be next as they will grab on their victory to drag this country forward to the 18th Century.

No -- it's already well established that no one can refuse service based on the prospective customer's membership in any certain class. There has to be an actual activity which treads on the free exercise of an individual's religion.

If they're on the ball, they'll nail this one with the same provisions that protected conscientious objectors from the draft: you can't just say it's against your conscience, you have to show membership in a religious or similar group which has an objection to the specific activity. So if this baker belongs to a church which specifically states that participation in or support of anything on the "homosexual agenda" is forbidden, he's golden; if he doesn't, he's probably screwed.

Yes, they'd love to be able to not even allow gays into their shops, but that isn't something any federal court is going to hand them. The decision is going to be narrowly tailored, and if they follow precedent in dealing with objections of conscience it will be very narrow indeed (and I expect all sorts of "evangelical" churches will be adding items opposing supporting gay rights to their statements of belief).

 

[Kulindahr]

Is it? The repercussions of forcing people in the food services industry to submit to the demands of a few is a deviation from topic? Well, since no one else gets to opine on the topic except you, it doesn't really matter anymore. I'll just go find the 10 different threads featuring secret jizz recipes and contemplate my society. But thanks for the validation.

As was the case when the ACLU successfully argued that Jehovah's Witnesses could not be required to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance, it is not a matter of making anyone "submit to the demands of a few", it's about protecting the right of everyone to not be coerced into behaving contrary to their conscience. The case is merely one symptom of a broader issue. Whether or not you or I would ever encounter a situation where we found it against our conscience to serve someone is irrelevant; the point is that if we did, we would have the same protections the Court guarantees to the plaintiffs in such a case.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wow, another one of my posts gets unilaterally deleted. Why? Is ingesting bodily fluids a taboo subject all of a sudden? Should I've posted that NEWS article in fetishes?

It's irrelevant to this topic... unless you can find a religion that would somehow require someone to add bizarre ingredients to a cake in some instance.

That's what people are missing here: this isn't about discrimination based on membership in a class, it isn't about what in general goes on or into a cake, it's about a constitutionally-protected right to freely exercise one's religion by not contributing to an activity that religion objects to.

 

[peeonme]

It's irrelevant to this topic... unless you can find a religion that would somehow require someone to add bizarre ingredients to a cake in some instance.

That's what people are missing here: this isn't about discrimination based on membership in a class, it isn't about what in general goes on or into a cake, it's about a constitutionally-protected right to freely exercise one's religion by not contributing to an activity that religion objects to.

So, just to get us on the same page, is being gay the activity? Or is it 2 men getting married? Or is it practicing homosexuality?
If it's gay sex, what if the guy sold mattresses? Would he be contributing by selling 2 men a mattress?