supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[FireDragon76]

Supreme Court sounds skeptical of Colorado baker's refusal to make a wedding cake for gay couple

It looks interesting, it's not exactly what I expected. There's lots of tough questions. Justice Kennedy agrees that Colorado's statute shows bias against religion which isn't acceptable in a pluralist society, but he's still concerned about the implications for human dignity by allowing establishments to refuse to serve gays. Several justices are skeptical of the notion that baking a cake is a speech act.

Kennedy is going to find human dignity a persuasive reason to judge in favor of Colorado. It does not surprise me that as a Catholic that is what gives him pause. That was also a principle he emphasized in Obergefell. What the rest of the court judges, I don't know.

 

[bhsmte]

I Think they may give a limited ruling and punt back to lower court.

 

[Arcangl86]

I Think they may give a limited ruling and punt back to lower court.

Honestly, I expect the same. Not sure how they could limit it, but even the Chief Justice seemed skeptical which surprised me. Then again, oral arguments are not known for being reliable indicators.

 

[durangodawood]

The defendant counsel was trying to argue that cake design is speech, while floral design, and invitation design, and venue decoration isnt. That's funny.

 

[FireDragon76]

The defendant counsel was trying to argue that cake design is speech, while floral design, and invitation design, and venue decoration isnt. That's funny.

Yeah, that's insulting to florists.

The issue is whether the fact its speech override human dignity. I agree with my church's Amicus in the case, there can be no religious freedom without respect for human dignity. Human dignity is the basis for all rights.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yeah, that's insulting to florists.

The issue is whether the fact its speech override human dignity. I agree with my church's Amicus in the case, there can be no religious freedom without respect for human dignity. Human dignity is the basis for all rights.

The baker likely has some dignity at least equal to that of the Homosexuals who demand he make the cake for them.

I have a feeling in my stomach that the court will rule against the baker and we will find that no one is able to bring their personal beliefs into a business or service except large multi-million dollar companies.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The baker likely has some dignity at least equal to that of the Homosexuals who demand he make the cake for them.

I have a feeling in my stomach that the court will rule against the baker and we will find that no one is able to bring their personal beliefs into a business or service except large multi-million dollar companies.

Better that than a country with state approved discrimination based on who someone loves.

 

[FireDragon76]

Human dignity is the basis for all rights and all true religion. That is why we in the ELCA and Episcopal Church filed an Amicus in favor of the state of Colorado.

Being a Christian does not have to involve imposing your religion on others. We proclaim God's reign in our hearts, not by shoving it down our neighbor's throats, but by living lives of hidden holiness that are peaceful and civil.

 

[Liza B.]

Supreme Court sounds skeptical of Colorado baker's refusal to make a wedding cake for gay couple

It looks interesting, it's not exactly what I expected. There's lots of tough questions. Justice Kennedy agrees that Colorado's statute shows bias against religion which isn't acceptable in a pluralist society, but he's still concerned about the implications for human dignity by allowing establishments to refuse to serve gays. Several justices are skeptical of the notion that baking a cake is a speech act.

Kennedy is going to find human dignity a persuasive reason to judge in favor of Colorado. It does not surprise me that as a Catholic that is what gives him pause. That was also a principle he emphasized in Obergefell. What the rest of the court judges, I don't know.

It's not identity-based discrimination. It's event-based discrimination, and this has been the case throughout. In all cases, the bakers/florists have been clear that they will sell gay people products for birthdays, retirements, etc. But not for gay weddings.

I will be very discouraged if the SC weighs that, in America, if you own a business, you must be indentured by the government to serve any request that comes through the door pertinent to your business, even if it violates your moral conscience. That is not freedom. Would it surprise me? No.

I will look forward to that being tested when a Muslim bakery is then forced to bake a cake for a gay couple, or if a gay baker is then forced to bake a certain cake for a Bible study. It WILL happen, and it should. I wonder a certain faction feel about that...

 

[Tom 1]

Yeah, that's insulting to florists.

The issue is whether the fact its speech override human dignity. I agree with my church's Amicus in the case, there can be no religious freedom without respect for human dignity. Human dignity is the basis for all rights.

The biblical basis for human dignity as I understand it is our having been made in the image of God. People who live a homosexual lifestyle are degrading that image (as we all do to one degree or another in different ways). Makes me think if Romans 1:27, the ‘due penalty’ part, is referring to what people voluntarily give up when they choose that lifestyle, i.e their dignity. The question for me though is to what degree it’s healthy or necessary to mix church and state.

 

[Liza B.]

The biblical basis for human dignity as I understand it is our having been made in the image of God. People who live a homosexual lifestyle are degrading that image (as we all do to one degree or another in different ways). Makes me think if Romans 1:27, the ‘due penalty’ part, is referring to what people voluntarily give up when they choose that lifestyle, i.e their dignity. The question for me though is to what degree it’s healthy or necessary to mix church and state.

For me, the human dignity part comes in here: in what are they asking me to participate? In making birthday cupcakes? Sure, I'm glad they were born. In a retirement cake? Sure, I'm glad they've had a long and productive career. In a celebration cake for the end of a long production of a play or something? Same goes.

For gay wedding? Nope, it's the event that violates my conscience, and I hope the attorneys made that case. It's not the persons; it's the event.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's not identity-based discrimination.

Considering in some cases business owners had to go on social media to figure out details of their customer's personal lives, that seems like a tough argument to make.

It's event-based discrimination, and this has been the case throughout. In all cases, the bakers/florists have been clear that they will sell gay people products for birthdays, retirements, etc. But not for gay weddings.

And what's the difference between a gay and straight wedding? The identity of the people getting married.

I will be very discouraged if the SC weighs that, in America, if you own a business, you must be indentured by the government to serve any request that comes through the door pertinent to your business, even if it violates your moral conscience. That is not freedom. Would it surprise me? No.

People thinking this way lost the battle when they had to sell houses to Jews in good upstanding Christian neighborhoods. And when they couldn't turn away Irish people applying for jobs. And when they had to serve black customers at their restaurants. Guess every generation or so we have to relearn the same truths.

 

[bhsmte]

For me, the human dignity part comes in here: in what are they asking me to participate? In making birthday cupcakes? Sure, I'm glad they were born. In a retirement cake? Sure, I'm glad they've had a long and productive career. In a celebration cake for the end of a long production of a play or something? Same goes.

For gay wedding? Nope, it's the event that violates my conscience, and I hope the attorneys made that case. It's not the persons; it's the event.

If certain life events are scary for some christian business owners, they should refrain from voluntarily inviting the public in their doors. It is called a public accomodating business, for a reason.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Anybody who goes into business serving the creative needs of clients has to sacrifice at least some of their voice/speech for the sake of the client's desires. It's exceedingly rare for a creative person to be hired onto a project and given carte blanch - most have to fit into some kind of existing context or stylistic conventions, or at the very least, a theme that the clients want to present.

Visual art is speech, but if the NY Times hires you to be a graphic designer for their web site, you can't change the background to orange.

Music is speech, but if Coca Cola hires you to write a jingle for their super bowl ad, you can't submit a polyrhythm prog jazz opus.

Speech is speech, but if the President of the United States hires you to be White House Communications Director, you can't publicly accuse one of your colleagues of attempting autofellatio.

It doesn't matter how much you want to express those ideas - you can't do it. If you want artistic carte blanch, either seek out those kinds of commissions (which do exist) or create & sell your own work on your own time. But if you agree to work for a regular client, you agree to submit yourself to their wishes and whatever other regulations and norms guide the space in which you're working.

 

[FireDragon76]

The religious objection in this case is dead, it won't stand. Government is not in the business of adjudicating God's will, and we cannot allow every possible behavior that one might just happen to deem religious. So they fall back on the free speech argument primarily.

I find it strange that social conservatives are championing free speech when I can remember in my youth many were opposed to certain forms of speech, like burning flags. If flag burning is wrong because it's hateful to veterans and soldiers who have died , then surely telling two gay men that they cannot be served because that would infringe on your right to humiliate them through your speech, despite the fact they are law-abiding in their behavior, would be equally problematic.

The ADF case sounds very ad-hoc and I am surprised so many on the court are taking it seriously.

 

[FenderTL5]

The defendant counsel was trying to argue that cake design is speech, while floral design, and invitation design, and venue decoration isnt. That's funny.

Isn't this the same bunch (with limited turnover) that decided campaign contributions by corporations is protected speech?

For me, the human dignity part comes in here: in what are they asking me to participate? In making birthday cupcakes? Sure, I'm glad they were born. In a retirement cake? Sure, I'm glad they've had a long and productive career. In a celebration cake for the end of a long production of a play or something? Same goes.

For gay wedding? Nope, it's the event that violates my conscience, and I hope the attorneys made that case. It's not the persons; it's the event.

I don't see a distinction from your earlier examples to the wedding cake. There is no more requirement on the baker's part in one example from the other.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Better that than a country with state approved discrimination based on who someone loves.

It's hardly state approved if it's a private individual. There are plenty of people with odious opinions or practices (such as the owner of Bedlam Coffee) yet we don't view as endorsement if the government chooses not to get involved. The state approved discrimination angle does fit in with the liberal side of this particular argument, in that there is argument being made that people who believe in traditional marriage to the rejection of Homosexual marriage should be forced to provide for marriage they disapprove of.

Liberals could have an argument if they were consistent and wanted to force everyone to provide any service to all people if that service is offered, but they only want to force certain people and exempt certain people who do discriminate on certain basis. This whole event is a war of ideologies. Its not about equality or the dignity of anyone.

 

[FireDragon76]

I wonder if the reason that the court seems so "complicated" on this matter isn't due to the typical romantic and pietistic notions we have about religion and its role in human life. The baker has strong feelings, ergo his religious expression must be taken seriously (it can't simply be seen as anti-gay animus). I find this idea as a Lutheran with an Eastern Orthodox background, ludicrous. Feel all you want, but behavior counts. Coddling somebody's interior life doesn't seem like justice at all.

 

[durangodawood]

....Liberals could have an argument if they were consistent and wanted to force everyone to provide any service to all people if that service is offered, but they only want to force certain people and exempt certain people who do discriminate on certain basis.....

The liberals are ok with business discrimination against....who exactly?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Anybody who goes into business serving the creative needs of clients has to sacrifice at least some of their voice/speech for the sake of the client's desires. It's exceedingly rare for a creative person to be hired onto a project and given carte blanch - most have to fit into some kind of existing context or stylistic conventions, or at the very least, a theme that the clients want to present.

Visual art is speech, but if the NY Times hires you to be a graphic designer for their web site, you can't change the background to orange.

Music is speech, but if Coca Cola hires you to write a jingle for their super bowl ad, you can't submit a polyrhythm prog jazz opus.

Speech is speech, but if the President of the United States hires you to be White House Communications Director, you can't publicly accuse one of your colleagues of attempting autofellatio.

It doesn't matter how much you want to express those ideas - you can't do it. If you want artistic carte blanch, either seek out those kinds of commissions (which do exist) or create & sell your own work on your own time. But if you agree to work for a regular client, you agree to submit yourself to their wishes and whatever other regulations and norms guide the space in which you're working.

The problem with your examples is that the Baker didn't enter into a contract with the men, he refused outright. Even in your examples, while there might be penalties or some conditions generally it would not be objectionable for someone to walk out on a project and simply not get paid or get paid for the work they did. It's only in the case of this baker refusing a particular commission that he cannot walk away, he must be forced through the government to provide a service.

I think there are some important facts to know about this case. He was willing to sell any of the cakes he had in his store, he only refused to decorate it with anything that would recognise the homosexual event the cake was for. The baker also refused to make Halloween themed cakes or Divorce party cakes which he probably cannot refuse because his objections to those are religious in nature.