Supreme Court seems divided in case of baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple

[jayjayj 571]

Just now, bcking said:

He doesn't have to celebrate their marriage. He just has to bake the cake.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

We can't pick and choose when we want to read the Constitution literally and when we want to make assumptions. Since I assume you would prefer a literal reading of another amendment, you have to go with a literal reading of this.

 

We would not be providing the free exercise of his religion. He is still perfectly capable of practicing his religion. He can go to church, he can pray, he can believe they are sinning.

 

This kind of "freedom of religion" is NOT spelled out in the Constitution. So those "strict constructionists" are going to be incredibly hypocritical if they rule that it is.

 

 

I didn't say he has to celebrate their marriage.  He is being forced to create something that is one of the main focuses of the celebration - a celebration of something he doesn't agree with due to his religion.  They are forcing him to be part of something that goes against his religious beliefs.  The fact that he would be forced to do that means he isn't being allowed to freely exercise his religion.

 

You can make all the arguments you want, but it doesn't change the fact that half or most likely a majority of the SCOTUS agree with me.  You can't dismiss their legal opinions as a joke.  We will get both sides of the argument in much more detail, when the majority and minority opinions are written.    

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, jayjayj said:

I didn't say he has to celebrate their marriage.  He is being forced to create something that is one of the main focuses of the celebration - a celebration of something he doesn't agree with due to his religion.  They are forcing him to be part of something that goes against his religious beliefs.  The fact that he would be forced to do that means he isn't being allowed to freely exercise his religion.

 

You can make all the arguments you want, but it doesn't change the fact that half or most likely a majority of the SCOTUS agree with me.  You can't dismiss their legal opinions as a joke.  We will get both sides of the argument in much more detail, when the majority and minority opinions are written.    

You're right I can't dismiss it. But I can call it extremely hypocritical for supreme Court justices and citizens who would try to be "textualists" or limit themselves to a strict reading of the amendments in some situations.

 

This would not have limited his ability to practice or exercise his religion. His religion is not about who he decorates a cake for. He can continue to hold his own beliefs, attend his church, pray. He has not sinned just because he made a cake.

 

As I also said before - Jesus would be ashamed. As would the founding fathers. This isn't about protecting his religion. His religion isn't under attack. It is about protecting a group of people that many would prefer to marginalise in the name of "religious freedom". I absolutely know who Jesus would support if he were around.

 

Yes the SC mat very well rule in the baker's favour. It will make several of things (if the vote goes down the line we all expect) hypocrites. You can't argue for literal readings one day and then loose interpretation the next. I guess the SC isn't excluded from the rest of government in that regard anymore.

[Dashinka 24,793]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

You're right I can't dismiss it. But I can call it extremely hypocritical for supreme Court justices and citizens who would try to be "textualists" or limit themselves to a strict reading of the amendments in some situations.

 

This would not have limited his ability to practice or exercise his religion. His religion is not about who he decorates a cake for. He can continue to hold his own beliefs, attend his church, pray. He has not sinned just because he made a cake.

 

As I also said before - Jesus would be ashamed. As would the founding fathers. This isn't about protecting his religion. His religion isn't under attack. It is about protecting a group of people that many would prefer to marginalise in the name of "religious freedom". I absolutely know who Jesus would support if he were around.

 

Yes the SC mat very well rule in the baker's favour. It will make several of things (if the vote goes down the line we all expect) hypocrites. You can't argue for literal readings one day and then loose interpretation the next. I guess the SC isn't excluded from the rest of government in that regard anymore.

Hmm, so SCOTUS is great when they re-write a Law to make it constitutional instead of sending it back to the legislative branch to be fixed, but in this case they may be hypocrites?  I tend to disagree, when a cake artist, or photographer, or flower arranger or caterer, are booked to work on a wedding, they become active participants.  In this specific case, if the couple only wanted one of his cakes, they were available and the baker would have taken their money and all would be good.  Instead, they asked for a customized cake making the baker an active participant in their celebration and he refused on religious grounds which I believe should be his option.  Forcing anyone to give up their first amendment rights is wrong, and the fact that the couple chose to take this to the state instead of just buying one of the cakes he was offering smacks of punishing someone for not agreeing with them which seems petty fascist to me.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Hmm, so SCOTUS is great when they re-write a Law to make it constitutional instead of sending it back to the legislative branch to be fixed, but in this case they may be hypocrites?  I tend to disagree, when a cake artist, or photographer, or flower arranger or caterer, are booked to work on a wedding, they become active participants.  In this specific case, if the couple only wanted one of his cakes, they were available and the baker would have taken their money and all would be good.  Instead, they asked for a customized cake making the baker an active participant in their celebration and he refused on religious grounds which I believe should be his option.  Forcing anyone to give up their first amendment rights is wrong, and the fact that the couple chose to take this to the state instead of just buying one of the cakes he was offering smacks of punishing someone for not agreeing with them which seems petty fascist to me.

This isn't a first amendment issue, in my opinion. Making a cake doesn't violate his religion. He can disagree with their wedding and still make the cake. They aren't restricting his "free exercise of religion". His "exercise of religion" does not dictates whom he bakes cakes for.

 

That of course is using a traditional interpretation of the constitution, which many conservative judges on the SC tend to do. However of course in this situation they will forget about their traditional interpretation and instead give an opinion based on their religious views. 

 

They are supposed to be unbiased and principled. They will be hypocrites in my opinion. 

[Dashinka 24,793]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

This isn't a first amendment issue, in my opinion. Making a cake doesn't violate his religion. He can disagree with their wedding and still make the cake. They aren't restricting his "free exercise of religion". His "exercise of religion" does not dictates whom he bakes cakes for.

 

That of course is using a traditional interpretation of the constitution, which many conservative judges on the SC tend to do. However of course in this situation they will forget about their traditional interpretation and instead give an opinion based on their religious views. 

 

They are supposed to be unbiased and principled. They will be hypocrites in my opinion. 

Like the Mueller probe?

 

 I know we will disagree with this, but actively forcing someone to participate in something they disagree with is wrong, and making a customized cake is doing just that.  This guy didn’t refuse to serve anyone, he refused to participate in something he doesn’t agree with.  What would have happened if he simply said no and didn’t qualify it as against his religion, does he have a right to do that?

[bcking 3,157]

24 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Like the Mueller probe?

 

 I know we will disagree with this, but actively forcing someone to participate in something they disagree with is wrong, and making a customized cake is doing just that.  This guy didn’t refuse to serve anyone, he refused to participate in something he doesn’t agree with.  What would have happened if he simply said no and didn’t qualify it as against his religion, does he have a right to do that?

As we've talked about in other places, generally speaking in politics we can't expect people to be principled and consistent. The places where I think we can both agree that we SHOULD expect it would be the Supreme Court, FBI, Special Counsels. Discussing the principals and consistencies of the Special Counsel is off topic here, we are talking about the Supreme Court. 

 

I am completely okay with disagreeing. With you, and with members of the SC. I disagree with several members of the SC court on several issues. What grinds my gears is when people aren't consistent in their arguments and principals. I don't claim to be perfect, but it is at least something I strive for and would hope other people (particularly Supreme Court justices) would strive for as well. The Supreme Court shouldn't be considered to be "in politics" in the same way that legislators are. While unfortunately these days they are becoming more and more entangled with it (mostly because of the politicization of their appointments), I think that is doing a huge disservice to their reputation. 

 

As it currently stands sexual orientation is not a protected group. So if he simply refused and said "no", they could ask "why" and he could respond "because you're gay" (which is essentially what happened). It doesn't really matter why he isn't doing it because they are gay. He could be an atheist who hates gay people and technically right now he would have the right to refuse them. In my view that is why this issue is so important. I think the list of "protected groups" needs to be expanded, and I think sexual orientation needs to be included. I also think something needs to be included to protect those with stigmatized health issues (HIV/AIDS, though we are far better now than we were a few decades ago in that respect). 

 

In my view one of the core purposes of government is to protect those who would be marginalized, discriminated against, and pushed aside without the government. Protect those who can't protect themselves, or who are in the minority and would otherwise be "drowned out" by others. I think this is a perfect example of that. In this individual case I absolutely think they should have just gone and found a baker that would do it for them. However I think the reason why this is going this far is because of the precedent it sets. I think the precedent that someone can arbitrarily refuse to do things for others on the basis of their religion (even if we make the caveat that it is only applying to "artistic expression") is far more dangerous than saying that people can't refuse service to those of a group that, while they may disagree with, as a country we recognize as deserving the same rights as everyone else. It's wrong in the same way that it was wrong for business to refuse to serve black people, way back when. We can't force people to think a certain way. You can hate gay people (or black people), you don't have to support their relationship. But if you offer a service to people you can't choose to refuse them just because you don't agree with "who they are". 

 

Yes I think ultimately we just disagree about this, and I don't expect the entire country to ever agree on the issue. I also agree that most likely the SC will vote in favour of the baker. Assuming the argument is that the baker has the "freedom to exercise his religion", I think that will be incredibly hypocritical of those justices who typically argue for a traditional, more literal interpretation of the constitution. It will be an example of them "picking and choosing" their principals, just like every other politician. That, in the long run, hurts their credibility in my eyes. Of course my opinion doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things though

Edited December 8, 2017 by bcking

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, jayjayj said:

Sure it does.  They want him to bake a cake celebrating something that is against his religion.  That violates his rights to religious freedom, making it discriminatory.  At least half, if not a majority of the SCOTUS agrees with me.  You can't just dismiss it as a joke.

 

  The bible does not once mention same sex marriage. Just sayin.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

  The bible does not once mention same sex marriage. Just sayin.

Even if it did...

 

The cake celebrates the marriage. That doesn't mean the baker has to celebrate it. He can still think they are evil, think their marriage is reprehensible. Baking the cake doesn't "go against his religion" in any way, even if attending the marriage and supporting it would. 

 

His job is baking cakes, and if he would do it for anyone else he shouldn't be able to pick and choose and not do it for them. Sexual orientation should be protected just like the color of our skin (That is my opinion only, I realize that isn't the law as it currently stands). They weren't asking for anything that he wouldn't do for anyone else. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, bcking said:

Even if it did...

 

The cake celebrates the marriage. That doesn't mean the baker has to celebrate it. He can still think they are evil, think their marriage is reprehensible. Baking the cake doesn't "go against his religion" in any way, even if attending the marriage and supporting it would. 

 

His job is baking cakes, and if he would do it for anyone else he shouldn't be able to pick and choose and not do it for them. Sexual orientation should be protected just like the color of our skin (That is my opinion only, I realize that isn't the law as it currently stands). They weren't asking for anything that he wouldn't do for anyone else. 

 

   The baker's contention was always that providing the cake is equated with condoning the union. I agree with you that's BS. I'm just saying there is no biblical justification for it anyway . There is also no legal justification. The bible has been used by polemicists throughout the ages, often extrapolated, as a tool to justify beliefs which are not mentioned in it or taken out of context.

[yuna628 9,713]

11 hours ago, jayjayj said:

Has the baker ever made a rainbow colored cake before?  If they haven't, then forcing them to learn how to do that would seem wrong, according to many argument in this thread - you can't force a cook to learn how to cook something they don't know how to.

This is the best example in my opinion.

I see no claims to him saying he did not know how to make such a cake. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a very good baker.

3 hours ago, jayjayj said:

Sure it does.  They want him to bake a cake celebrating something that is against his religion.  That violates his rights to religious freedom, making it discriminatory.  At least half, if not a majority of the SCOTUS agrees with me.  You can't just dismiss it as a joke.

Just pointing out once again - he offered them a cake that he had already made. It wasn't a rainbow cake, but it certainly was a wedding cake. IF the mere act of giving them a cake is akin to him participating in the celebration of their wedding -- then his case starts to weaken, since he actually offered a cake that he made. If he had stood on the entire principle that giving them ANY wedding cake is against his religion, his case gets stronger. What he says happened and what the ADF says happened on his behalf are two different things - and I don't find that argument helps him. Wedding cakes to gay couples aren't against his religion, it's merely against his personal interpretation of that religion which says nothing of gay marriage and wedding cakes. We know that people have used their interpretation of religion as a linchpin to do abhorrent things. If we still had segregation, we'd have individuals arguing before the SCOTUS right now, that their ability to not serve an inter-racial couple or an African American, or a Jew, or an immigrant would also be against their religion.

Edited December 8, 2017 by yuna628

[jayjayj 571]

50 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  The bible does not once mention same sex marriage. Just sayin.

Because that would have been obsurd back then. 

 

[Dashinka 24,793]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

I see no claims to him saying he did not know how to make such a cake. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a very good baker.

Just pointing out once again - he offered them a cake that he had already made. It wasn't a rainbow cake, but it certainly was a wedding cake. IF the mere act of giving them a cake is akin to him participating in the celebration of their wedding -- then his case starts to weaken, since he actually offered a cake that he made. If he had stood on the entire principle that giving them ANY wedding cake is against his religion, his case gets stronger. What he says happened and what the ADF says happened on his behalf are two different things - and I don't find that argument helps him. Wedding cakes to gay couples aren't against his religion, it's merely against his personal interpretation of that religion which says nothing of gay marriage and wedding cakes. We know that people have used their interpretation of religion as a linchpin to do abhorrent things. If we still had segregation, we'd have individuals arguing before the SCOTUS right now, that their ability to not serve an inter-racial couple or an African American, or a Jew, or an immigrant would also be against their religion.

I still don't see it as the cake he offered was not produced for a special occasion and therefore needed no artistic input on his part for the specific celebration.  He would have had no way of determining what type of party it was for or if they even planned to eat it.  Instead they wanted to force him to use his artistic talent to participate something he is against.  Whatever one feels about any social topic, forcing someone to do something against their will just seems wrong when it applies to an individuals input and talent.

[yuna628 9,713]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I still don't see it as the cake he offered was not produced for a special occasion and therefore needed no artistic input on his part for the specific celebration.  He would have had no way of determining what type of party it was for or if they even planned to eat it.  Instead they wanted to force him to use his artistic talent to participate something he is against.  Whatever one feels about any social topic, forcing someone to do something against their will just seems wrong when it applies to an individuals input and talent.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. By all accounts he refused to give them the cake they asked for, but offered them a cake he had already made for the same purpose that they wanted. He knew what they were going to use it for all along. We'll find out how they rule soon enough... but I do recall that they once did decline to hear a case involving a photographer who refused to cover a lesbian wedding.

[bcking 3,157]

15 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I still don't see it as the cake he offered was not produced for a special occasion and therefore needed no artistic input on his part for the specific celebration.  He would have had no way of determining what type of party it was for or if they even planned to eat it.  Instead they wanted to force him to use his artistic talent to participate something he is against.  Whatever one feels about any social topic, forcing someone to do something against their will just seems wrong when it applies to an individuals input and talent.

He is participating in the baking of a cake. He is not against baking a cake.

 

The cake will then participate in the wedding. He doesn't need to participate in the wedding or condone the wedding. We picked up our cake from the baker (well my mother-in-law) on the day before the wedding. 

[TBoneTX 46,122]

How many Muslim taxi-drivers have refused, on the basis of their religion, to accept potential passengers who are obviously carrying alcoholic beverages?  Is this excusable?

 

Same questions regarding Hindu taxi-drivers and passengers with beef.

 

If these tip-of-the-forebrain hypothetical examples aren't parallel to the case in question, suggest some that are.