U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Cake Maker

[laughing dog]

So I've been rolling around other scenarios. Imagine a halal butcher where the owner is orthodox muslim. Imagine that the butcher does special orders on request. Now imagine that I walked in the door and asked him to special order a rasher of bacon for me. Would he be within his rights, based on religious protection, to refuse me service because it violated his truly held belief?

Not if he served bacon to other people. If he doesn't serve bacon at all, then no.

Let's step it up a notch, and let's say I came into his store as a woman with my hair uncovered. Would he be within his rights to refuse to do business with me, on the basis that his truly held religious belief is that women with uncovered heads are obscene? I have the right to not be discriminated against on the basis of my gender... and there are no laws prohibiting me from showing my hair to all and sundry... but to him, it would be sinful to interact with me.

I don't think be legal for him to deny you service in that case.

 

[James Madison]

Nope. Read the opinion. The Court said the law was not applied neutrally. The remedy is to apply the law neutrally.

My understanding is that the Court did not opine on the appropriate outcome of a neutral application of the law. In other words, it is my understanding that if a neutral application of the law (per the SCOTUS standards) was that the baker was violating the law, that ruling would be constitutional.

Based on Employment Division v Smith, which held a law that burdens religious conduct on the basis of a religious belief, is permissible when the law is neutral and of general applicability. Kennedy affirmed this point in the majority opinion. The problem, according to Kennedy and the majority, was the Colorado law was not applied neutrally.

Otherwise, every Christian baker in America MUST comply with state public accommodation laws and their religious beliefs and conduct consistent with those beliefs must yield to the law should they conflict, or pay fines. Kennedy made this point very clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steve_bank]

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.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So to end viewpoint discrimination they allow the baker to discriminate?

What the hell?

This is so twisted it smells of after the fact desperation.

I disagree with your subjective opinion on this subject.

 

[untermensche]

So to end viewpoint discrimination they allow the baker to discriminate?

What the hell?

This is so twisted it smells of after the fact desperation.

I disagree with your subjective opinion on this subject.

Too bad you have no subjective justification.

 

[Emily Lake]

So, if this baker has made cakes celebrating divorce, a child out of wedlock or any other of the myriad of things deemed 'sins' in Christianity, then he DID in fact discriminate and the decision is wrong.

I wasn't under the impression that the decision was that he didn't discriminate - it looked like they pretty much side-stepped that question altogether.

 

[Emily Lake]

That wasn't a good parallel.

Why isn't that one a good parallel?

You make it sound like it is discriminating against one person or the other and we need to rank it.

To a degree, I think that is the case. I certainly have my own ranking in place, framed in terms of my own beliefs and values. It's not much fun, but to some degree, I do think we need to acknowledge that there can be competing rights in some situations. Just as there can be competing values in some decisions. Sometimes rights will come into conflict with each other - how else do you propose that we resolve those conflicts than with some reasoned approach to ranking? I'm certainly open to suggestion.

My comment indicated that if this were about color, there wouldn't be a question. It merely exists for gays because it is still a bit acceptable to discriminate against gays... for religious reasons, of course. Just like how inter-racial marriage bans were for religious reasons.

I don't know if this is as clear-cut as you might think. It's been my observation that most of us on this forum (including myself), are much more inclined to tolerate anti-christian sentiment than to tolerate anti-muslim sentiment. In this case, I think it's very easy for most of us to think that the cake-maker was using his christianity as a shield instead of just admitting that he hates gay people (paraphrasing, of course).

I think that if he were muslim, and had the exact same objection to baking a cake for a homosexual marriage on religious grounds, there'd be more consideration given to his religious freedom.

I could be wrong, of course, but that's my guess. I suspect it has more to do with christianity being the common and dominant religion in the US, which makes it seem like it should need less protection. Whereas islam is much less common, so discrimination against muslims is seen as a much worse thing.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So to end viewpoint discrimination they allow the baker to discriminate?

What the hell?

This is so twisted it smells of after the fact desperation.

I disagree with your subjective opinion on this subject.

Too bad you have no subjective justification.

I have an objective justification though. Nothing you wrote indicates that you've read the court's opinion.

 

[untermensche]

Too bad you have no subjective justification.

I have an objective justification though. Nothing you wrote indicates that you've read the court's opinion.

The court's opinion is the opinion of a few people.

It has meaning in the law due to power structures that can enforce it.

The power of the government to allow discrimination.

It means nothing to me.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Too bad you have no subjective justification.

I have an objective justification though. Nothing you wrote indicates that you've read the court's opinion.

The court's opinion is the opinion of a few people.

But did you read it?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

 

[untermensche]

The court's opinion is the opinion of a few people.

But did you read it?

Did you read my opinion?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The court's opinion is the opinion of a few people.

But did you read it?

Did you read my opinion?

Your opinion is evidence you didn't read their opinion.

 

[fast]

The distinction, though subtle, between denying service and not serving is critical. I sell (and only sell) Pepsi--not Coke. If someone wants to buy Coke from me, then although I'm not selling that someone Coke, I'm not denying to sell him Coke. On the other hand, if I do sell Coke but refuse to sell it, then that is a denial.

What if instead of coke you're selling a photography service. Coke = clothes on. Pepsi = naked.
Should you have the right to turn away clients who want you to film their 'Pepsi' honeymoon snaps? If yes, that's discrimination.

The term "discrimination" has a negative connotation (for good reason); however, not all forms of discrimination (from a denotative perspective) are negative. Let us presuppose that not all forms of discrimination are negative despite the prevalence of its negative connotation. I'm trying to use a broader more palatable use of the term.

Underlying my thought pattern is a distinction (a general distinction) between what we might dub as people discrimination and product discrimination.

On the "people discrimination" front, suppose you adopt a rule that says something to the effect that if you're willing to do for one, you're willing to do for all, and if you're not willing to do for one, you'll do for none. For instance, if I sell Pepsi (actual Pepsi--not the alternative naked example), then no matter who from a protected group comes to purchase a Pepsi, I'll serve them or else serve no one.

I am still being discrimatory, but it's not people discrimination but rather product discrimination. Whether my reasoning is based in bias or bigotry doesn't alter that. If I won't sell figurines depicting two guys holding hands, that might very well be based on homophobia, but the distinction still holds. If I'm willing to sell figurines depicting only men and women holding hands, then despite homophobia, I must be willing to sell figurines depicting men and women holding hands to anyone who wants to purchase them.

If someone accuses me of being discrimatory, they're right, and if they say its based on homophobia, they may very well still be right, but so long as I don't turn away homosexuals willing to buy what it is that I'm only willing to sell, then I should not be found guilty of both kinds of discrimation.

Now, if a person wants me to photograph them naked, and if it's not a service that I provide, then naked people are welcome to come see me, but since it's not a service I provide (as I'm only in the business of photographing clothed people) they're application won't even be accepted.

Only accepted applications will be approved or rejected. This particular point has more to do with what I originally said to which you responded to than your question that I addressed in this post prior to this paragraph.

Imagine three people using a bow and arrow trying to hit a target. Some try and succeed while others try and fail. A little boy walks up with no bow and arrow and says, did I miss the target? One says, "you didn't hit the target, so you missed the target." In this instance, although it's true that he didn't hit the target, it's not true that he missed the target.

If a gay couple won't be served because of time constraints, they aren't being refused service even though they are not being serviced. The point here is just to expound on the idea that words we use have implications. Juma spoke of "denying service." Denying service implies not providing service, but the inverse is not true--kind of like how knowledge implies belief but not the other way around.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To a degree, I think that is the case.

That's great. Except we are dealing with a case of a person's civil rights verses a business. Granted, these days businesses can find religion, but when it comes to sales, as long as the customer is seeking what the business partakes in and there is no obscenity or offensive requests, the customer is in the right.

My comment indicated that if this were about color, there wouldn't be a question. It merely exists for gays because it is still a bit acceptable to discriminate against gays... for religious reasons, of course. Just like how inter-racial marriage bans were for religious reasons.

I don't know if this is as clear-cut as you might think.

What, that if this were a black couple this would still go to court? Or that it isn't okay to discriminate against gays?

It's been my observation that most of us on this forum (including myself), are much more inclined to tolerate anti-christian sentiment than to tolerate anti-muslim sentiment.

Very true. Evidence can be seen of this in laughing dog's OP "Why I support a Muslim cake baker denying a gay couple the right to a wedding cake."

In this case, I think it's very easy for most of us to think that the cake-maker was using his christianity as a shield instead of just admitting that he hates gay people (paraphrasing, of course).

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?

I think that if he were muslim, and had the exact same objection to baking a cake for a homosexual marriage on religious grounds, there'd be more consideration given to his religious freedom.

Indeed, like expressed in bracesforimpact's thread "Fuck the fags, Muslims must win in this discrimination case".

I could be wrong, of course, but that's my guess.

Yeah, a guess I suppose. Or something else that is pulled from one's buttocks.

I suspect it has more to do with christianity being the common and dominant religion in the US, which makes it seem like it should need less protection. Whereas islam is much less common, so discrimination against muslims is seen as a much worse thing.

Yeah, you have a nice theory going there. Feel free to join back up with the actual discussion at any time.

 

[steve_bank]

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?

 

[untermensche]

Did you read my opinion?

Your opinion is evidence you didn't read their opinion.

Or care.

The law is a collection of some subjective sense and some subjective absurdities.

I care about principles.

I have doubts in lawyers.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Did you read my opinion?

Your opinion is evidence you didn't read their opinion.

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.

 

[steve_bank]

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

 

[bilby]

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

Religion is the antithesis of tolerance.

If there is an omnipotent entity on your side, who has set the rules of behaviour by fiat, then anyone who is not in complete agreement with your position is doomed by definition. The best you can do for them is pity them, or try to convert them; The best you can do for yourself is disregard them and carry out your God's wishes to ensure your eternal salvation.

Compromise is only possible if you either don't have a religious position at all, or don't understand your own position, and therefore don't apply coherent reason in determining what you should do.