Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
America's Debate > Policy Debate > Constitutional Debate
Google
nebraska29
As you all know, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal regarding a Christian business owner's refusal to bake a cake for a gay couple. Playing a prominent role in this situation has been the Colorado Commission of Civil Rights and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act

Court brief on behalf of Phillips.

I'll borrow the debate question directly from the court case question to be addressed.

1.)Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

Google
Blackstone
1.)Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

Given that the Court has already held that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act is unconstitutional insofar as it attempts to limit state law, I'd have a hard time seeing how they could possibly find against the state in this case.

I will say, however, that your poll question may be a bit misleading if it's intended to be understood as representing the question before the Court. They are not called on to inquire whose rights were "more" violated (that's a separate, more philosophical question), but only whether or not the baker's 1st Amendment rights were violated at all.
droop224
This should be an interesting debate between in Blackstone and Entspeak. I have no bone in this fight, because like so much of gender and sexuality orientated politics, the fight seems more fore social acceptance via law. Do I have the right as a Black man to say "hey make the man on my cake, a Black man, but with light skin" I'm not sure, I don't think so. But do i have the right as a Black man to go to a shop and buy a wedding cake if they sell wedding cakes? I feel I do.

But the thing about some professions, especially something like a wedding, it requires you to take part in the celebratory nature of the event. So if i am a photographer i have to take part in the event. If I am baking "custom" cakes, well then i would be baking a cake according to the event, in this case same sex marriage. Its not like they went to grocery store to buy a cake and were refused.

So as with much gender\sexuality constitutionality questions, I remain slightly torn and slightly indifferent. Theirs is a fight for normalcy and and acceptance which they generally equate to struggle of equality. This is an example of that. Homosexuality is CLEARLY against the religious values of many people of the world to include Americans. its not some recently contrived doctrine being used by the losing side of the marriage debate. And it is but one step away from forcing churches and pastors to actually marry homosexuals against their will.

But like I said, I'm torn because the case could easily create the basis of other services denying their service on faux religious premises, but in reality they just don't want to serve the LGBT community.

I'm sure our resident legal scholars will pretend that there is some actual factual way to judge the Constitutionality of this issue, but truth is the only thing that truly can determine it is the opinions of of the individuals on the USSC sure to be a 5-4, maybe 6-3, vote. And such unclear issue where competing constitutional ramifications either way. I'll pop some popcorn and watch and see. Either way no one is losing much in terms of freedom and equality.

I'm waiting on liberals to once again get their priorities straight again on which struggles are highlighted. Because people are dying in the streets due to State brutality. And whether someone get to make some one take their pictures or bake them a cake, just doesn't compete with the life and death issues or even issues of inequity that are out there.
Mrs. Pigpen
1.)Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.


Yes, it violates his rights.
Imagine for a moment that the KKK grand wizard demands that Phillips produce a cake honoring his organization. Obviously he could (and should) refuse to do so.
It might be argued that the difference is one cannot discriminate based on race, gender, ect....so the KKK isn't protected but homosexual marriage is, under those grounds.

But look a bit further at the intent of the anti-discrimination law. Would Phillips object to serving homosexuals cakes under any circumstances? Or is it just in this particular circumstance when the particular event violates his religious beliefs? Would Philips sell the homosexual couple a cake for their business celebration, for example?
That should be the litmus test for discrimination versus first amendment religious freedom.
Blackstone
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 7 2017, 01:13 PM) *
Would Phillips object to serving homosexuals cakes under any circumstances? Or is it just in this particular circumstance when the particular event violates his religious beliefs? Would Philips sell the homosexual couple a cake for their business celebration, for example?

I can tell you definitively that no one is claiming a First Amendment right to do any of those other things, and it's an important distinction that often gets lost in this controversy (and often intentionally by agenda-driven media types, I would argue).

QUOTE
That should be the litmus test for discrimination versus first amendment religious freedom.

I agree. Unfortunately that horse kinda left the barn in Obergefell, when the Court just up and decided that homosexuals are "discriminated" against when their preferences aren't treated the same as others'. The baker might be able to use that same logic in his defense, though. But it's unfortunate that it should come down to that. The Court really muddied the waters there.
AuthorMusician
The situation can be analyzed as such:

What is different about baking a cake for a wedding that involves a heterosexual couple verses a homosexual couple? Do the ingredients or processes change in any way? Are the nutritional needs of a homosexual couple different from those of a heterosexual couple?

These questions bring to light the absurdity of a cake being some sort of religious expression of approval or disapproval. A cake is merely a cake, nothing more.

Of course if this were a communion wafer, it would mean something religious only after the priest does the magical transformation into human flesh of a godly nature, but this is not the case. The cake remains just a cake without some sort of established religious action that makes it otherwise.

Now what about the baker's reluctance to participate indirectly with the marriage ceremony? It is indirect because the baking of the cake has no part in the actual marriage ceremony. It remains the non-religious action of baking, unless it can be shown that a particular religion clearly bans this indirect participation. That would require someone other than the baker, someone who is considered an expert on the religion, to determine. Otherwise anyone can justify discrimination based on sexual orientation, or race or any dang thing, for any situation just by flipping out the religion card.

But what about the baker's personal feelings? Suck it up, snowflake. The rest of us have to do all sorts of things that go against our personal feelings, such as sending in tax dollars that support wars and tax-exempt religions. Poor baby, gotta bake the cake for the gays. Gotta accept the gays' business, forced by law to make a profit (kinda). Life is so, so cruel cry.gif
Mrs. Pigpen
Should the law compel a Muslim bakery to produce an Easter cake, with the inscription "Christ Saves", if that's what the customer wants?

Guess these laws need to apply to every type of artist. Don't see why this would be exclusive to cakes.
Musicians, authors, painters should be compelled by law to perform whatever work anyone decides he/she is willing to pay them for.
Can't refuse on the grounds it violates their personal belief system or personal taste.
Danzig should be compelled to sing Jesus Loves Me (Suck it up, Snowflakes!).
If a cake is just eggs and flour...well, music is just noise, writing is just bytes and/or ink, and painting is just pigment.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 8 2017, 03:58 AM) *
Now what about the baker's reluctance to participate indirectly with the marriage ceremony? It is indirect because the baking of the cake has no part in the actual marriage ceremony.


The cake is designed to celebrate the occasion. The baker is being compelled by law to create an item to celebrate an occasion that violates his belief system.

Edited to add:
I'm reminded of an old joke:
If a town has one lawyer, he rides a bicycle. If it has two lawyers, they both drive Mercedes.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 8 2017, 06:27 AM) *
Should the law compel a Muslim bakery to produce an Easter cake, with the inscription "Christ Saves", if that's what the customer wants?

Guess these laws need to apply to every type of artist. Don't see why this would be exclusive to cakes.
Musicians, authors, painters should be compelled by law to perform whatever work anyone decides he/she is willing to pay them for.
Can't refuse on the grounds it violates their personal belief system or personal taste.
Danzig should be compelled to sing Jesus Loves Me (Suck it up, Snowflakes!).
If a cake is just eggs and flour...well, music is just noise, writing is just bytes and/or ink, and painting is just pigment.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 8 2017, 03:58 AM) *
Now what about the baker's reluctance to participate indirectly with the marriage ceremony? It is indirect because the baking of the cake has no part in the actual marriage ceremony.


The cake is designed to celebrate the occasion. The baker is being compelled by law to create an item to celebrate an occasion that violates his belief system.

Edited to add:
I'm reminded of an old joke:
If a town has one lawyer, he rides a bicycle. If it has two lawyers, they both drive Mercedes.

Maybe if any of your hypothetical ideas actually happen, I'll have something to say about them.

As for a cake being designed in any way, how does that work? What is it about the cake that makes it unique to any particular religion? Or is it just a cake with no religious meaning? Would a wedding taco be the same?

The baker is certainly a snowflake for bringing such a silly situation all the way to the SCOTUS. It's similar to the fight over the Civil War battle flag being displayed, except I can't tell by a cake how stupid the baker is. The battle flag carries so much more meaning with it -- ignorance of history, for example, especially when seen in West Virginia.

Anyway, try to keep in mind that this case is about the freedom to exercise your religion under the First Amendment. Seems reasonable to me that the first thing that has to be established involves what is and what is not exercising one's religion.

Making a cake is really stretching the concept. Or do you know of a religion that bans the making of cake for homosexuals? I know about stoning them to death -- maybe that should be allowed too? Maybe have the baker identify the homosexuals for the bloodthirsty religious mobs?

Ah well, one can dream up all sorts of unlikely situations, eh?
Julian
It seems to me that the root of this case is the baker's unwillingness to tell a little white lie as to why they wouldn't take this order.

They could have said "I'm sorry, we're just too busy that weekend". Or "My mother is scheduled for heart surgery and I need to close the bakery to go look after her that weekend". Anything, really.

Instead, they felt compelled to say (presumably to the faces of the gay couple) "I cannot make this cake for you because I'm a righteous Christian and you're an abomination and I cannot possibly condone your pollution of the sanctity of marriage by taking your money to do what I make a living from doing under all other circumstances". Or words to that effect. The gist being "I cannot make a wedding cake for you because of my religious beliefs".

I can only imagine the gay couple have pursued this through the courts because they not only felt let down (other bakers are available, after all) but insulted. Feelings were hurt - never a great basis for lawyering up, IMO. And they could have just shrugged to each other and walked away thinking "that's the last time we use that &%%hole's cake store" but no, they had to chase it down.

And the trouble with enumerated rights are that, sometimes, they clash. That is, after all, what the courts are there for - to decide which right trumps the other when two rights clash. And the court needs to be careful, here. This specific case is about the provision of goods and services for a gay wedding celebration, and not the right to refuse the provision of goods and services for anyone you don't like the looks or the lifestyle of AND the right tell them exactly why you disapprove of them. Of course, lots of other bloody-minded people WANT to be able to do that, but that's not what the Founders wrote the Bills of Rights for, nor is it what the courts are there to enforce.

One thing that occurs to me is that cake is part of the wedding party after the actual marriage ceremony has taken place, so baking one is not an endorsement of anything much. If a man walks into this baker in five years' time and says "I want a cake for my wedding anniversary that says 'Happy Anniversary, My Darling'", is the baker exercising his constitutional right to religious freedom ask if the man who wants the cake is married to a man or a woman, and to refuse in one case but agree in the other? Yes, but he's also being:
1. Rude
2. An a$$hole

He's exercising his right to commercial freedom if he turns down business for any whim or reason, and a shrewder business person would have just turned down the business while mumbling some indeterminate politeness. They aren't obliged to say why. And if they choose to do so, and the reasons they give are discriminatory, it serves them right for being sued.

On the other hand, the gay couple are trying to use equal rights law so that nobody can refuse them anything. If they win this, how long before a gay man sues a straight man, whom he fancies, for rejecting the gay man's sexual advances because, well, he just isn't gay? How long before RuPaul sues the entire population of the USA for not electing him president? So the gay couple in this case are being:
1. Extraordinarily thin-skinned
2. A$$sholes

As far as precedent goes, the judgement in this case should make it clear that the only instances where it applies are to the provision of goods and services for a gay wedding celebration where the service provider's religious beliefs prevent them from providing it. Doesn't matter which religion they are, but it does matter if they straightforwardly refuse to serve anyone that they can conjure a religious excuse for not serving because that's a much broader argument.

And, of course, the only reason this has escalated to the national debate it is now (international, I guess, now I'm chipping in) is that the baker and the gay couple are not the only bloody-minded fools involved.

This case is about getting the State and the constitution to decide which puckered, hairy sphincter of two puckered, hairy sphincter is the bad a$$hole and which one is the good a$$hole. The court should show good sense and tell both parties to talk a long walk off a short pier.

Bloodymindedness is sometimes a good thing, but in this case I don't think either side emerges with much credit. A plague on both their houses.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Julian @ Aug 8 2017, 11:53 AM) *
It seems to me that the root of this case is the baker's unwillingness to tell a little white lie as to why they wouldn't take this order.

They could have said "I'm sorry, we're just too busy that weekend". Or "My mother is scheduled for heart surgery and I need to close the bakery to go look after her that weekend". Anything, really.

Instead, they felt compelled to say (presumably to the faces of the gay couple) "I cannot make this cake for you because I'm a righteous Christian and you're an abomination and I cannot possibly condone your pollution of the sanctity of marriage by taking your money to do what I make a living from doing under all other circumstances". Or words to that effect. The gist being "I cannot make a wedding cake for you because of my religious beliefs".

I can only imagine the gay couple have pursued this through the courts because they not only felt let down (other bakers are available, after all) but insulted. Feelings were hurt - never a great basis for lawyering up, IMO. And they could have just shrugged to each other and walked away thinking "that's the last time we use that &%%hole's cake store" but no, they had to chase it down.


That is one way of looking at it. More likely there are two sides and each sees things differently.
Perhaps they were insulted or perhaps they went in with the intention of forcing the issue.
That isn't such a stretch in the age of social media. Lots of intentionally manufactured outrage out there, empowered with partial information that looks very very damning until the entire truth comes out and then...yeah, suddenly things become more understandable.

It states in the appeal Philips offered to make them a cake, but could not for that particularly occasion due to his religious beliefs.
A wedding cake is a pretty big deal. It's a longstanding traditional part of the ceremony.
I've read that during the war when folks were rationing a community would combine everyone's coupons and save to give them to a couple for the wedding cake for their big day.
It's legitimate to say this is a pretty fundamental part of the celebration of this event.
I eloped and even I had a wedding cake (and saved a layer for the year anniversary, as is also tradition).
It also stated that he refused to do a number of different types of cakes, to include Halloween. Nothing with offensive written messages and no cakes celebrating events or ideas that violate his beliefs (for example, no divorce cakes), no anti-American or anti- family themes, atheism, racism, or indecency. The Halloween one in particular probably costs him significant revenue so I would say his belief system appears to be very sincere whether you or I would agree with it or not.
Google
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Julian @ Aug 8 2017, 12:53 PM) *
It seems to me that the root of this case is the baker's unwillingness to tell a little white lie as to why they wouldn't take this order.

Agreed, so there's more going on here than meets the eye. And the SCOTUS will be determining how this situation turns out, which will then result in ripple effects on our laws.

Now that Trump and the Senate has put a conservative majority in the Court, the case could establish religion as a means to discriminate against groups of citizens due to pretty much anything -- blacks are inferior human beings, couples living out of wedlock can be denied housing, unfertile women can be ostracized, children can be beaten . . . the possibilities are chilling and rather broad.

I gotta laugh because otherwise I'd be crying. On the plus side, it'd be something to play the blues about, not that I really need more reasons to do so. Life can be so hard on the major scale and perfect intervals!


Blackstone
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 9 2017, 12:56 PM) *
Now that Trump and the Senate has put a conservative majority in the Court, the case could establish religion as a means to discriminate against groups of citizens due to pretty much anything -- blacks are inferior human beings, couples living out of wedlock can be denied housing, unfertile women can be ostracized, children can be beaten . . . the possibilities are chilling and rather broad.

So just to recap, when Mrs. Pigpen asked "Should the law compel a Muslim bakery to produce an Easter cake, with the inscription 'Christ Saves', if that's what the customer wants?" you came back with "Maybe if any of your hypothetical ideas actually happen, I'll have something to say about them." But hers are one hell of a lot less ridiculous than yours. This is, after all, at its core a case about constitutionality protected expression. Where child-beating comes into this only you know.

You said you gotta laugh? So do I, like whenever liberals guffaw at "slippery slope arguments" raised by conservatives (even when they turn out to be 100% accurate), right before launching into some pretty zany ones of their own.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Aug 9 2017, 06:31 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 9 2017, 12:56 PM) *
Now that Trump and the Senate has put a conservative majority in the Court, the case could establish religion as a means to discriminate against groups of citizens due to pretty much anything -- blacks are inferior human beings, couples living out of wedlock can be denied housing, unfertile women can be ostracized, children can be beaten . . . the possibilities are chilling and rather broad.

So just to recap, when Mrs. Pigpen asked "Should the law compel a Muslim bakery to produce an Easter cake, with the inscription 'Christ Saves', if that's what the customer wants?" you came back with "Maybe if any of your hypothetical ideas actually happen, I'll have something to say about them." But hers are one hell of a lot less ridiculous than yours. This is, after all, at its core a case about constitutionality protected expression. Where child-beating comes into this only you know.

You said you gotta laugh? So do I, like whenever liberals guffaw at "slippery slope arguments" raised by conservatives (even when they turn out to be 100% accurate), right before launching into some pretty zany ones of their own.

Everything I brought up has indeed happened with the justification that scripture supports the discrimination. When stuff has actually happened, it's not a slippery slope argument; it is a reminder. Questionable slippery slope arguments come from what might happen, not from what has actually happened.

Also, hypotheticals are different from slippery slopes in that hypotheticals are always what-if arguments. So what if a musician is asked to perform for pay at a venue that the musician wouldn't normally hang around? Well, that musician would show up, perform, and hopefully get paid. That is how the business works. Even famous musicians play crap venues, such as sports stadiums, so fame doesn't change the reality a whole lot. You do get paid better, so that reduces the annoyance.

Now what if the musician were to be told to play Christian music, but the musician only plays jazz instrumentals? Well, similar things have happened, and the musicians wind up playing their regular sets. I saw this happen in reverse, where the Christian musicians played an American Communist Party rally. The crowd was quiet, rather grim actually, but the performers did get paid. Support the working class, I suppose.

This was the summer of 1972, BTW. So we're talking about real Christians, not bigots with Bibles. I really admired the musicians' courage. One was my lady friend who turned out to be gay, more than hetero, but she liked my style a lot. Also what I was doing with music mrsparkle.gif

Holy cow, we were only 20(ish) back then -- and so beautiful. Strawberry fields don't last forever, but if you don't partake, that's on you.

Was the baker asked to bake a cake out of his normal repertoire of cakes? Doesn't seem so. He just didn't like the venue, but he didn't have to go -- just the cake. To a working musician, he is being a wimp, or in the right-wing vernacular today, a snowflake.

I liken it to a musician complaining about some politician, usually Republican, using his/her recordings without permission. Except making payment makes everything OK. This snowflake wants to set a precedence for discriminating against gays, and that is how the other evils will become reality -- again.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 11 2017, 06:35 AM) *
When stuff has actually happened, it's not a slippery slope argument; it is a reminder. Questionable slippery slope arguments come from what might happen, not from what has actually happened.

The examples I gave aren't slippery slope arguments. Your examples are beyond slippery slope...they're frictionless slope.
Here is an example of a slippery slope argument:

A argues: "If we allow homosexual marriage then in the future people with private businesses might be compelled by law to celebrate these occasions.

B responds: "HAHA! Slippery slope! Just because homosexuals are entitled to marriage does not mean anyone will be forced to take part in the celebration. Tolerance is not ipso facto acceptance and people still have the right to freedom of religion, association, and expression. I mean, that would be like forcing a Muslim to celebrate Christmas!"

In the above argument, B is right...but apparently A has now been proven right too.

QUOTE
Also, hypotheticals are different from slippery slopes in that hypotheticals are always what-if arguments.


Those hypotheticals aren't examples of slippery slope arguments. They are related DIRECTLY to the precedent established with this case.

QUOTE
Now what if the musician were to be told to play Christian music, but the musician only plays jazz instrumentals? Well, similar things have happened, and the musicians wind up playing their regular sets.


So the cake artist could have elected to produce a traditional man and wife cake instead of producing the rainbow pride celebration cake that the couple chose for their event? You're essentially claiming the cake could effectively actually be a protest of the event, and the couple would foot the bill. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the couple would sue over that one too, and in that hypothetical scenario they would actually have a good reason to take the case to court.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 11 2017, 08:38 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 11 2017, 06:35 AM) *
When stuff has actually happened, it's not a slippery slope argument; it is a reminder. Questionable slippery slope arguments come from what might happen, not from what has actually happened.

The examples I gave aren't slippery slope arguments. Your examples are beyond slippery slope...they're frictionless slope.

So you maintain that religion has never been used to justify racist laws in this country? Abuse of women and children?

Perhaps a review of US history is in order. You don't have to go very far back either, although if you do go all the way to colonial times, you might understand why the separation of church and state was so important.

Also, you have made a point that the baker must really believe that gay marriage is against his religion, so is that the legal touchstone, sincere belief? Kinda opens the door for a Christian version of Sharia law.

My primary point is that there's more to this than simply marriage and cake styles. It won't end at refusing service with the Court configured as it is, so I guess you'll get your way. No cake for you gay people! Also a lot fewer rights than good Christian citizens have. Go, sin no more, and we might let you do some things we get to do. Otherwise forget it.

It is interesting that Colorado is in the mix. This is where true believers got Amendment 2 pushed through, which a less conservative SCOTUS shot down. Yeah, maybe this time it'll work?

Anyway, there isn't a whole lot that can be done now. The minority has spoken, Trump is POTUS, and onward we go. I'm pretty sure that bigots with Bibles will have their way for the next three or four generations, but there is a chance that conservatives will move toward the center of politics. Seems like a pretty slim chance right now. My expectation is that things will become a lot darker before this turns around, but I am more than willing to be surprised in the nice way.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 13 2017, 04:57 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 11 2017, 08:38 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 11 2017, 06:35 AM) *
When stuff has actually happened, it's not a slippery slope argument; it is a reminder. Questionable slippery slope arguments come from what might happen, not from what has actually happened.

The examples I gave aren't slippery slope arguments. Your examples are beyond slippery slope...they're frictionless slope.

So you maintain that religion has never been used to justify racist laws in this country? Abuse of women and children?


Just about everything has been "used to justify" all sorts of things.
That doesn't mean this follows:
IF business can turn down creating a custom homosexual marriage cake
THEN there will be sanctioned beatings

And I think you know that. This isn't a separation of church and state issue either.
The man is running a private business, not a government one.
If the government decides to subsidize homosexual couple cakes and that man works for the public company, he would have to either comply or quit.
You're not even arguing apples and oranges, you're arguing arguing oranges and orangutans.

QUOTE
Also, you have made a point that the baker must really believe that gay marriage is against his religion, so is that the legal touchstone, sincere belief? Kinda opens the door for a Christian version of Sharia law.


No, not really. Does he have a hanging tree next to his business where they string up homosexuals and display them as a warning to others? That would be Sharia law.

QUOTE
My primary point is that there's more to this than simply marriage and cake styles.

I couldn't agree more!

QUOTE
It won't end at refusing service with the Court configured as it is, so I guess you'll get your way. No cake for you gay people!


Hurray for me! I don't want any cakes for gay people!! YAR.
Are you earthly serious?!? blink.gif
There were three other stores in the area that offered to make the couple a cake.
The one they received for the occasion was custom made, by a different business, free of charge.
Hell, if I were a baker I would've made them a cake and wished them luck.
I couldn't care less.
I do care a great, great deal when someone is forced by law to celebrate something that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.
I care because not only do I think that is cruel for the individual and a direct violation of his rights...it sets a very bad precedent.
entspeak
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Aug 6 2017, 07:39 AM) *
As you all know, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal regarding a Christian business owner's refusal to bake a cake for a gay couple. Playing a prominent role in this situation has been the Colorado Commission of Civil Rights and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act

Court brief on behalf of Phillips.

I'll borrow the debate question directly from the court case question to be addressed.

1.)Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

Being that we are talking about custom cakes and the baker doesn't generally refuse to serve gays and lesbians - he will sell other goods to them, I'm inclined to side with the baker here. The government shouldn't compel artists to express ideas that go against their strongly held religious beliefs.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 13 2017, 08:19 AM) *
I do care a great, great deal when someone is forced by law to celebrate something that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.
I care because not only do I think that is cruel for the individual and a direct violation of his rights...it sets a very bad precedent.

Okay, noted. I care about the separation of church and state, and I see this as being another attempt at justifying the use of religion to impact our laws, specifically civil rights in this case.

These will likely be the issues argued at the SCOTUS.

I do take note also on how you think the cake issue is at its core absurd. I agree from a different viewpoint, and the fact that the case has been accepted by the Court indicates that a lot more is at stake. How far can the claim of sincere religious belief go? How far can the claim of discrimination go?

I understand your argument that I'm worrying over nothing. I just don't agree, given the current state of our national political and judiciary leadership.

Speaking of precedence, if the baking of a cake is also taking part in an action done with the cake, i.e. celebrating the marriage of a gay couple, would the manufacturing of a firearm also be taking part in an illegal action done with the firearm? Notice that religion has no part in the logic. It's whether the making of a product is also taking part in whatever is done with the product.


Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 15 2017, 12:55 AM) *
Speaking of precedence, if the baking of a cake is also taking part in an action done with the cake, i.e. celebrating the marriage of a gay couple, would the manufacturing of a firearm also be taking part in an illegal action done with the firearm? Notice that religion has no part in the logic. It's whether the making of a product is also taking part in whatever is done with the product.


And now we're going from sanctioned beatings to murder?

There are actually laws against complicity to murder.
If you really want to draw out the analogy to compare a cake art to murder, that would be the proper comparison as there is no doubt the reason and purpose of that "specifically modified" cake.
If the gun dealer knows that I want the weapon to murder a coworker or shoot up a school and he sells it to me (particularly if it were, as a corollary, specifically modified for that purpose), he is complicit.
Same with any other means of murder.

OTOH, the gun dealer/manufacturer is not complicit if he sells the gun to a presumably law abiding person as there is no reason to suspect the person is going to use the weapon for non defensive reasons.
Same with a toaster. I might use it to kill someone in a bathtub, but the toaster manufacturer isn't responsible for the murder. Same with a car, knife, pool, bow and arrow, speargun, sling shot, darts, nail gun, hammer...ad nauseum ect.

I must admit, I'm pretty astounded that you are continuing to argue about this using increasingly absurd comparisons.
Is it truly that difficult to see things from the side of the person forced to celebrate something violating their belief system?
What about "conscientious objectors"?
If you want to consider a comparison, that one is a lot closer than your sanctioned beating/murder hypotheticals.
You keep invoking the first amendment as though that supports your argument somehow.
It's the opposite.
entspeak
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 8 2017, 03:58 AM) *
The situation can be analyzed as such:

What is different about baking a cake for a wedding that involves a heterosexual couple verses a homosexual couple? Do the ingredients or processes change in any way? Are the nutritional needs of a homosexual couple different from those of a heterosexual couple?


This a custom cake and so, the artistic expression is different for each cake. If this baker simply made generic cakes and a same sex couple came in, pointed to a fresh cake in the display and said, "I'll take that one," and the baker refused to sell it, it'd be a different story. In that instance, I believe the couple would have a case for discrimination. Once you create a piece of artistic expression and put it up for sale, you really have little control over who uses it and how. But a cake that is made custom to the customer's wishes is a different ball of wax. The government can't compel an individual to engage in expression that violates the individual's core beliefs.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(entspeak @ Aug 16 2017, 04:06 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 8 2017, 03:58 AM) *
The situation can be analyzed as such:

What is different about baking a cake for a wedding that involves a heterosexual couple verses a homosexual couple? Do the ingredients or processes change in any way? Are the nutritional needs of a homosexual couple different from those of a heterosexual couple?


This a custom cake and so, the artistic expression is different for each cake. If this baker simply made generic cakes and a same sex couple came in, pointed to a fresh cake in the display and said, "I'll take that one," and the baker refused to sell it, it'd be a different story. In that instance, I believe the couple would have a case for discrimination. Once you create a piece of artistic expression and put it up for sale, you really have little control over who uses it and how. But a cake that is made custom to the customer's wishes is a different ball of wax. The government can't compel an individual to engage in expression that violates the individual's core beliefs.

Can you provide some background on this? It sounds like it might be true, but I'm wondering how artistic expression is defined.

To me, custom cake decoration is right up there with a custom paint job on a motorcycle tank, i.e., pretty far down on the scale of what's considered art, about parallel with what's generally considered folk art.

But there is another question in this: What differs in a cake for a gay wedding from those used for hetero weddings? I've heard reference to rainbow colors, but wouldn't it have to have something to do with sexual orientation -- and how do rainbow colors fit into that?

This revolves to how custom is the cake. Might it be a generic cake with modifications in appearance, like the difference in wall paint colors? Or is there sexual imagery involved?

I'm being specific here because the government cannot approve discrimination based on vagueness. Or at least it shouldn't.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 17 2017, 04:46 AM) *
To me, custom cake decoration is right up there with a custom paint job on a motorcycle tank, i.e., pretty far down on the scale of what's considered art, about parallel with what's generally considered folk art.


1) The time involved doesn't really matter, the principle (of protected freedom) applies regardless.

2) Cake art is DEFINITELY "real" art.
The person in this particular case in question has been a cake artist for about two decades.
Those types of cakes take a great deal of time and require a high skill level.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 17 2017, 02:38 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 17 2017, 04:46 AM) *
To me, custom cake decoration is right up there with a custom paint job on a motorcycle tank, i.e., pretty far down on the scale of what's considered art, about parallel with what's generally considered folk art.


1) The time involved doesn't really matter, the principle (of protected freedom) applies regardless.

2) Cake art is DEFINITELY "real" art.
The person in this particular case in question has been a cake artist for about two decades.
Those types of cakes take a great deal of time and require a high skill level.

The point isn't art, it's discrimination based on religious belief that a whole group of people are wrong to exist and/or are inferior.

The so-called cake artist is discriminating based on sexual orientation. There's where this case is heading. Art has nothing to do with it.

If it did, I'd be against calling cooks and bakers artists. There's more to art than time and skill -- soul has a lot to do with it. Also, art that is eaten is actually food. Art that is ridden is actually transportation. The art part is an illusion born of hyperbole.

In my book, art has to make you feel something you wouldn't normally. It has to leave not only an impression but one with profound meaning. Can a wedding cake do that? I bet not as much as the ceremony itself, and that most powerfully for those actually getting married. It's all about them -- ideally, but many exceptions exist: marrying for money, power, combining money and power, avoiding the Vietnam draft (my surviving brother, didn't work, both avoidance and marriage), social status, getting laid (finally!), because they said so, because they'd discriminate if not married, because there's a shotgun . . . and so on.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2017, 04:02 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 17 2017, 02:38 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 17 2017, 04:46 AM) *
To me, custom cake decoration is right up there with a custom paint job on a motorcycle tank, i.e., pretty far down on the scale of what's considered art, about parallel with what's generally considered folk art.


1) The time involved doesn't really matter, the principle (of protected freedom) applies regardless.

2) Cake art is DEFINITELY "real" art.
The person in this particular case in question has been a cake artist for about two decades.
Those types of cakes take a great deal of time and require a high skill level.

The point isn't art,


If it isn't about art, why did you bring it up a number of times as though it were a relevant factor?
I didn't bring it up, you did (more than once). That is the sole reason I addressed it.

QUOTE
it's discrimination based on religious belief that a whole group of people are wrong to exist and/or are inferior.


But he offered to make them a different cake, just not a particular type of cake to celebrate this particular occasion.
We've been through this before.
What's the point in regurgitating the same argument again and again? to create a mobius outrage feedback loop? Sorry, can't comply.
AuthorMusician
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Oct 7 2017, 09:09 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 5 2017, 04:02 PM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Aug 17 2017, 02:38 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Aug 17 2017, 04:46 AM) *
To me, custom cake decoration is right up there with a custom paint job on a motorcycle tank, i.e., pretty far down on the scale of what's considered art, about parallel with what's generally considered folk art.


1) The time involved doesn't really matter, the principle (of protected freedom) applies regardless.

2) Cake art is DEFINITELY "real" art.
The person in this particular case in question has been a cake artist for about two decades.
Those types of cakes take a great deal of time and require a high skill level.

The point isn't art,


If it isn't about art, why did you bring it up a number of times as though it were a relevant factor?
I didn't bring it up, you did (more than once). That is the sole reason I addressed it.

QUOTE
it's discrimination based on religious belief that a whole group of people are wrong to exist and/or are inferior.


But he offered to make them a different cake, just not a particular type of cake to celebrate this particular occasion.
We've been through this before.
What's the point in regurgitating the same argument again and again? to create a mobius outrage feedback loop? Sorry, can't comply.

As I remember it, you brought up art:

QUOTE
Guess these laws need to apply to every type of artist.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...amp;p=100035060

Unless maybe you mean someone else first brought it up?

A big point I'm making is that art is subjective and will likely not be much of an argument in this case.

Yep, it's the same old discrimination-religion debate. It's pretty common in our nation's history. So far, discrimination based on religion hasn't done so well, as I think it should be. This case could reverse that trend.

Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Oct 7 2017, 08:07 PM) *
As I remember it, you brought up art:

QUOTE
Guess these laws need to apply to every type of artist.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...amp;p=100035060

Unless maybe you mean someone else first brought it up?


You brought up the fact that you didn't view it as real art, as though it were a significant detail.
That is why I provided the link.

Examples:
"Baking a cake is really stretching the concept" (of art)

"A cake is merely a cake, nothing more."

"Was the baker asked to bake a cake out of his normal repertoire of cakes? Doesn't seem so."
(this again seems intended to drive a point home that it isn't "real art" and the answer, as noted before: well yes, yes it was...custom made for each individual occasion)

"To me, custom cake decoration is right up there with a custom paint job on a motorcycle tank, i.e., pretty far down on the scale of what's considered art"
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.