U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Cake Maker

[steve_bank]

You do not grasp the wider context. Religion as a practical matter is a major part of our culture and is not going away anytime soon. You can not dismiss their rights because you do not like them.

While I have never been religious and have issues with organizes religion I support the right to be religious in any form it takes, short of civil law.

That is what pluralism means, no suppression of divergent thinking from any side.

When Piss Christ came out publically Christians were angry, but there was also background acknowledgement of constitutional rights of expression. There were no Christian riots.

Our culture exists on the idea of tolerating that which you dislike in the interest of your own freedom to be as you choose.

That is what it is all about.

Modern systems that tried to suppress religion as govt policy ended up authoterian and short on overall individual liberty. Soviets, Chinese Communism, North Korea, Cuba. Modern states that impose religion are equally authoterian. Iran, Saudi Arabia.

The founders were fully aware of the history of religion and set up a system that precludes imposition of religion and limits religion from suppressing thought and actions. They did a good job on that.

ilby, that is my American view. I do not know a lot of specific details of religion and rights in UK. Enlighten me.

 

[Opoponax]

You do not grasp the wider context. Religion as a practical matter is a major part of our culture and is not going away anytime soon. You can not dismiss their rights because you do not like them.

While I have never been religious and have issues with organizes religion I support the right to be religious in any form it takes, short of civil law.

That is what pluralism means, no suppression of divergent thinking from any side.

When Piss Christ came out publically Christians were angry, but there was also background acknowledgement of constitutional rights of expression. There were no Christian riots.

Our culture exists on the idea of tolerating that which you dislike in the interest of your own freedom to be as you choose.

That is what it is all about.

Modern systems that tried to suppress religion as govt policy ended up authoterian and short on overall individual liberty. Soviets, Chinese Communism, North Korea, Cuba. Modern states that impose religion are equally authoterian. Iran, Saudi Arabia.

The founders were fully aware of the history of religion and set up a system that precludes imposition of religion and limits religion from suppressing thought and actions. They did a good job on that.

ilby, that is my American view. I do not know a lot of specific details of religion and rights in UK. Enlighten me.

Yep. I'd actually written a whole Constitutional analysis of this, but then decided against it because it's an especially sore subject here.

I happen to think that LGBTQ people are entitled to a higher level of scrutiny than they're currently protected by, but until SCOTUS makes that ruling (which they really should), the Court made the only ruling they could've possibly made in this case.

 

[Juma]

You do not grasp the wider context. Religion as a practical matter is a major part of our culture and is not going away anytime soon. You can not dismiss their rights because you do not like them.

While I have never been religious and have issues with organizes religion I support the right to be religious in any form it takes, short of civil law.

That is what pluralism means, no suppression of divergent thinking from any side.

When Piss Christ came out publically Christians were angry, but there was also background acknowledgement of constitutional rights of expression. There were no Christian riots.

Our culture exists on the idea of tolerating that which you dislike in the interest of your own freedom to be as you choose.

That is what it is all about.

Modern systems that tried to suppress religion as govt policy ended up authoterian and short on overall individual liberty. Soviets, Chinese Communism, North Korea, Cuba. Modern states that impose religion are equally authoterian. Iran, Saudi Arabia.

The founders were fully aware of the history of religion and set up a system that precludes imposition of religion and limits religion from suppressing thought and actions. They did a good job on that.

ilby, that is my American view. I do not know a lot of specific details of religion and rights in UK. Enlighten me.

You choose religion but you do not choose gender or ancestry.
Freedom of religion can never be excuse for discriminating people for their gender or skin color.

 

[Juma]

I watched the baker being interviewed. He says he has done cakes for gays but the particular case of a gay wedding was not something he would do. He also said he has refused work based on non gay issues as well.

Does he do cakes for straight weddings? If so, the baker is fucked.

Would you cater a skinhead party or refuse the work?

It is about general rights for all. Should a gay business be forced to cater a conservative anti gay church event?

For fucks sake!!! Being a skinhead is a choice, being gay isnt! How hard can it be understand the implications of this?

 

[Juma]

People on both sides of religion need to embrace the idea of tolerance and mutually assured survival.

So the gays should ”compromise”? How do you ”compromise” on what you where born to be?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here is an excellent breakdown of what happened (and the ramifications) by someone who actually knows what he’s talking about for anyone interested: I Represented The Wedding Cake Couple - We Lost The Battle But Won The War

 

[bilby]

You do not grasp the wider context. Religion as a practical matter is a major part of our culture and is not going away anytime soon. You can not dismiss their rights because you do not like them.

While I have never been religious and have issues with organizes religion I support the right to be religious in any form it takes, short of civil law.

That is what pluralism means, no suppression of divergent thinking from any side.

When Piss Christ came out publically Christians were angry, but there was also background acknowledgement of constitutional rights of expression. There were no Christian riots.

Our culture exists on the idea of tolerating that which you dislike in the interest of your own freedom to be as you choose.

That is what it is all about.

Modern systems that tried to suppress religion as govt policy ended up authoterian and short on overall individual liberty. Soviets, Chinese Communism, North Korea, Cuba. Modern states that impose religion are equally authoterian. Iran, Saudi Arabia.

The founders were fully aware of the history of religion and set up a system that precludes imposition of religion and limits religion from suppressing thought and actions. They did a good job on that.

ilby, that is my American view. I do not know a lot of specific details of religion and rights in UK. Enlighten me.

I wouldn't know; I haven't lived in the UK for two and a half decades.

 

[untermensche]

Or care.

I'm impressed. You've just admitted you don't know what you're talking about.

If you read the opinion you might have been able to compare it to your principles, such as they are.

I know the facts of the case.

I do not need any more.

Why do you?

Why do you need other people to think for you?

That is a problem.

My opinion is based on how all humans should be expected to behave. None should be allowed to be ignorant bigots in their business practices. Fortunately for me my mind is not polluted by all the subjective crap they call the law.

This is a case of religious bigotry and ignorance.

Unfortunately it was decided by people with religious delusions and bigotry as well. People who are clever enough to mask their bigotry and ignorance behind some convenient technicality they discovered by desperately wanting to find one.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or care.

I'm impressed. You've just admitted you don't know what you're talking about.

If you read the opinion you might have been able to compare it to your principles, such as they are.

I know the facts of the case.

I do not need any more.

Why do you?

Why do you need other people to think for you?

That is a problem.

My opinion is based on how all humans should be expected to behave. None should be allowed to be ignorant bigots in their business practices. Fortunately for me my mind is not polluted by all the subjective crap they call the law.

This is a case of religious bigotry and ignorance.

Unfortunately it was decided by people with religious delusions and bigotry as well. People who are clever enough to mask their bigotry and ignorance behind some convenient technicality they discovered by desperately wanting to find one.

*bump*

- - - Updated - - -

You do not grasp the wider context. Religion as a practical matter is a major part of our culture and is not going away anytime soon. You can not dismiss their rights because you do not like them.

They have lots of rights, the same ones I have. If I ran a bakery, I couldn't deny the exact same customers their business.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

To reiterate (because many itt do not know what actually happened):

Here is an excellent breakdown of what happened (and the ramifications) by someone who actually knows what he’s talking about for anyone interested: I Represented The Wedding Cake Couple - We Lost The Battle But Won The War

Snippets for those too lazy to click on the link:

In law, as in less civil arenas of conflict, you can lose a battle but win the war. That’s what happened in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case pitting a Christian baker against a gay couple who sought to buy a wedding cake on the same terms as any other customers. The ACLU represented the gay couple; I argued their case in the Supreme Court. The court ruled Monday in favor of the baker, but on the exceedingly narrow ground that the state civil rights commission’s consideration was biased by hostility toward religion. Importantly, the court declined to adopt the baker’s principal argument — and the only argument made by the Trump administration — that “expressive” businesses that object to gay and lesbian weddings have a First Amendment right to discriminate. On the contrary, the court reaffirmed our main point: that there is no general First Amendment exception to laws protecting LGBT customers from discrimination.
...
[T]he commissioner’s statement that one cannot invoke religion to harm others is actually black-letter constitutional law, as is the notion that one cannot invoke religion to avoid complying with a general rule requiring businesses not to discriminate. The Supreme Court itself said just that in 1990 in Employment Division v. Smith, ruling that a Native American tribe could not invoke its religious beliefs in peyote use to avoid the state’s criminal prohibition on smoking peyote.

But what’s critical is that this reasoning is a one-time ruling for this case only. The court made clear that states are free to require businesses, including bakers, to serve gay and lesbian customers equally, including in the provision of wedding cakes. In fact, Charlie Craig and David Mullins could go right back into Masterpiece Cakeshop today and request a cake to celebrate their wedding anniversary — and if Jack Phillips refused them, he would have no First Amendment right to turn them away.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Or care.

I'm impressed. You've just admitted you don't know what you're talking about.

If you read the opinion you might have been able to compare it to your principles, such as they are.

I know the facts of the case.

You have demonstrated otherwise.

 

[repoman]

You choose religion but you do not choose gender or ancestry.
Freedom of religion can never be excuse for discriminating people for their gender or skin color.

In the US, I think that only things that when churches rent out their spaces outside of religious services that they have to be exactly like a secular business in who they accept or refuse. Things could get weird if there was say an anti gay conversion group wanting to rent space at a Pentecostal Church's meeting hall. But I bet they could win some sort of judgment.

But I think that a pastor, imam or rabbi have the right to not admit/marry/etc anyone for any reason to a religious service. They can refuse interracial, gay, interfaith marriages.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm just gonna go ahead and ignore the completely unnecessary hostility in your post and focus on this:

I don't give a darn what he is using to justify the refusal of servicing their customer solely based on their identity. It is wrong. If the customers were black, this religion angle carries no weight (anymore). So why does it carry any weight because they are gay?

To the best of my knowledge, however, there are no acknowledged organized religions that view blackness as a sin. So there is no conflict between competing rights. Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a religion out there that teaches that blackness is a choice and is sinful?

On the other hand, there are several religions (and sects within those religions) that teach that homosexuality is a choice and is sinful. I disagree with that belief, and I think it's a stupid belief... but it IS a part of that religious foundation. Seriously, there's a whole crap-ton of stuff in christianity and islam that I find horribly offensive and discriminatory toward women, and I disagree with it quote strongly and think it's incredibly dumb... but it's *still* actually a part of the beliefs of those religions.

- - - Updated - - -

People on both sides of religion need to embrace the idea of tolerance and mutually assured survival.

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.

That really depends on the religion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To the best of my knowledge, however, there are no acknowledged organized religions that view blackness as a sin.

Religion was a major backstop to Virginia's defense of its anti-inter-racial marriage laws.

So there is no conflict between competing rights. Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a religion out there that teaches that blackness is a choice and is sinful?

Have you not studied history prior to the 1970s?

 

[Juma]

I'm just gonna go ahead and ignore the completely unnecessary hostility in your post and focus on this:



To the best of my knowledge, however, there are no acknowledged organized religions that view blackness as a sin. So there is no conflict between competing rights. Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a religion out there that teaches that blackness is a choice and is sinful?

On the other hand, there are several religions (and sects within those religions) that teach that homosexuality is a choice and is sinful. I disagree with that belief, and I think it's a stupid belief... but it IS a part of that religious foundation. Seriously, there's a whole crap-ton of stuff in christianity and islam that I find horribly offensive and discriminatory toward women, and I disagree with it quote strongly and think it's incredibly dumb... but it's *still* actually a part of the beliefs of those religions.

- - - Updated - - -

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.

That really depends on the religion.

No it doesnt. A religion is all about beleiving, and acting, on shit info. That is not how to build tolerance.

 

[Juma]

You choose religion but you do not choose gender or ancestry.
Freedom of religion can never be excuse for discriminating people for their gender or skin color.

In the US, I think that only things that when churches rent out their spaces outside of religious services that they have to be exactly like a secular business in who they accept or refuse. Things could get weird if there was say an anti gay conversion group wanting to rent space at a Pentecostal Church's meeting hall. But I bet they could win some sort of judgment.

But I think that a pastor, imam or rabbi have the right to not admit/marry/etc anyone for any reason to a religious service. They can refuse interracial, gay, interfaith marriages.

Can an american pastor/imam/rabbi refuse an ”interracial” marriage?
Really? 2018? How fucked up are you?

 

[Copernicus]

...To the best of my knowledge, however, there are no acknowledged organized religions that view blackness as a sin. So there is no conflict between competing rights. Maybe I'm wrong, and there's a religion out there that teaches that blackness is a choice and is sinful?...

Actually, for the sake of historical accuracy, you are not quite right. The Mormon Church historically used the  curse of Ham as an excuse to discriminate against blacks until 1978, when a sudden revelation from God reversed that practice. Until then, at least, Mormon bakers might have used that as an excuse to deny wedding cakes to black customers, but I doubt that the issue came up. In theory, one could use a religious doctrine to discriminate on the basis of race or anything else. This ruling did not go so far as to allow for that kind of discrimination, but the ruling was so nuanced that most people believe it did. A really bad example of SCOTUS trying to thread the needle and sticking it in the eye of the public.

 

[Emily Lake]

You choose religion but you do not choose gender or ancestry.

I get where you're coming from, but for the vast majority of humans, that really isn't the case. You don't choose your religion - your beliefs are based on what you were taught as a child. Most people who believe *don't* make any choice about it. It's how they were brought up, it's what their parents and their grandparents believed, and it was fed to them as very young children. Those early childhood "truths" that we're fed frequently form the foundation upon which we build our worldview.

It's not permanently etched into our DNA by any means, but it's incredibly hard to change, and it has impacts on how we see the world, what we view as true, and how we define morality. In short, I think that for most people, there's a lot less choice involved than you are assuming.

 

[Emily Lake]

No it doesnt. A religion is all about beleiving, and acting, on shit info. That is not how to build tolerance.

There are several sects of hinduism that are almost explicitly about tolerance (not hard when the cornerstone of that belief is that brahma is part of all things, all things are brahma). Similarly, Taosim is pretty seriously far from intolerant, as is buddhism. There might arguably be a fair bit of "shit info" involved in all of them, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that any of those religions aren't tolerant as a foundation of the beliefs themselves.

If you want to limit it to the pantheon of judaic religions, then you'd have a point. But those aren't the entirety of religions in the world.

 

[James Madison]

You choose religion but you do not choose gender or ancestry.
Freedom of religion can never be excuse for discriminating people for their gender or skin color.

In the US, I think that only things that when churches rent out their spaces outside of religious services that they have to be exactly like a secular business in who they accept or refuse. Things could get weird if there was say an anti gay conversion group wanting to rent space at a Pentecostal Church's meeting hall. But I bet they could win some sort of judgment.

But I think that a pastor, imam or rabbi have the right to not admit/marry/etc anyone for any reason to a religious service. They can refuse interracial, gay, interfaith marriages.

Can an american pastor/imam/rabbi refuse an ”interracial” marriage?
Really? 2018? How fucked up are you?

Yes, they could, and the Free Exercise of Religion Clause in the 1st Amendment protects their right to do so. Justice Kennedy, in the opinion, remarked pastors are exempt from public accommodation laws and this is dictated by the Constitution.

It’s not at all strange they would be exempted. There are some areas and aspects of life in which the reach of public accommodation laws is forbidden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk