supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[bhsmte]

You're ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room. I'm done trying to point it out.

Cool

 

[Almost there]

Exactly my point.

If no existing legislation exists, to address certain questions, the supreme court must use their interpretation of how the constitution, addresses the question being asked.

That sounds good on the surface, but let me give you an example of the SCOTUS ruling when there was nothing for legislation to do:

It is already illegal to murder another human being, so, naturally, a lot of states have laws making it illegal to kill a human being in the womb. But the SCOTUS, via Roe V Wade, decides that that particular human being does not have basic human rights. Now, the correct action would have been to simply ignore the court's decision as non-binding since they were trying to define what is and is not a human being without any authority to do so.

And plain reality can get so twisted in SCOTUS cases that it can be laughable. A good example is the decision to let the federal health care exchanges stand even though they clearly and obviously, at every level, violate the constitution of the US, yet the SCOTUS used "creative" interpretation of normally plain english to come to the decision they wanted because Obamacare was "too big to fail".

I have absolutely no respect for our SCOTUS as a single body. Zero. They are a laughing stock, even when "my side" wins, because the decision is not unanimous.

 

[bhsmte]

That sounds good on the surface, but let me give you an example of the SCOTUS ruling when there was nothing for legislation to do:

It is already illegal to murder another human being, so, naturally, a lot of states have laws making it illegal to kill a human being in the womb. But the SCOTUS, via Roe V Wade, decides that that particular human being does not have basic human rights. Now, the correct action would have been to simply ignore the court's decision as non-binding since they were trying to define what is and is not a human being without any authority to do so.

And plain reality can get so twisted in SCOTUS cases that it can be laughable. A good example is the decision to let the federal health care exchanges stand even though they clearly and obviously, at every level, violate the constitution of the US, yet the SCOTUS used "creative" interpretation of normally plain english to come to the decision they wanted because Obamacare was "too big to fail".

I have absolutely no respect for our SCOTUS as a single body. Zero. They are a laughing stock, even when "my side" wins, because the decision is not unanimous.

I disagreed with the ruling on the affordable care act as well.

The thing is though, they are human and they rule as they see it. Also, as I have already stated, there has been a conservative majority on the court since the 80's, so I imagine things could be worse for you.

 

[FenderTL5]

In many cases, your best witness isn't to take a stand against something, but to show up and do your job in a professional, respectful, dignified, and skillful manner.

I too would have made the cake.
“You don’t become holy by fighting evil. Let evil be. Look towards Christ and that will save you. What makes a person saintly is love.”
— St. Porphyrios

Just imagine if Christ refused to associate with sinners.

 

[Almost there]

I too would have made the cake.
“You don’t become holy by fighting evil. Let evil be. Look towards Christ and that will save you. What makes a person saintly is love.”
— St. Porphyrios

Just imagine if Christ refused to associate with sinners.

First, Disclosure: Everything below is said sincerely. It is not sarcasm. I'm simply working it out "verbally".

That is an interesting take. In fact, I'm seeing a certain amount of wisdom in it. So, as a Christian baker, I can say, "I will bake your cake and I will do the best job that I can. I in no way support, morally the event, but it is not my choice. It is yours.

However, does that mean that as a bass player I'd be willing to play bass on the soundtrack to a triple x movie? Or should I decorate a cake that will carry an inscription that mocks Christ. Or if I have a wedding venue, would I allow an event that had a party that looked like a scene out of Coligula? I'm asking sincerely for your opinion on that.

i.e. where does one draw the line?

 

[FireDragon76]

First, Disclosure: Everything below is said sincerely. It is not sarcasm. I'm simply working it out "verbally".

That is an interesting take. In fact, I'm seeing a certain amount of wisdom in it. So, as a Christian baker, I can say, "I will bake your cake and I will do the best job that I can. I in no way support, morally the event, but it is not my choice. It is yours.

However, does that mean that as a bass player I'd be willing to play bass on the soundtrack to a triple x movie? Or should I decorate a cake that will carry an inscription that mocks Christ. Or if I have a wedding venue, would I allow an event that had a party that looked like a scene out of Coligula? I'm asking sincerely for your opinion on that.

i.e. where does one draw the line?

Listening to the Colorado state gives its side of the case, the law states people are free to not express speech in their business that is hateful, including towards a particular religion (so you would not have to bake an anti-Christ cake). The issue is, is baking a caking, in itself, speech? The state of Colorado doesn't see it that way, they see it as a service. What goes on the cake, however, is potentially speech. But the baker and the ADF see the cake itself as a speech act.

 

[Almost there]

Listening to the Colorado state gives its side of the case, the law states people are free to not express speech in their business that are hateful, including towards a particular religion. The issue is, is baking a caking, in itself, speech? The state of Colorado doesn't see it that way, they see it as a service. What goes on the cake, however, is potentially speech. But the baker and the ADF see the cake itself as a speech act.

One can make the argument that supplying services to an event that you abhor is a speech act supporting it. You are helping it to be successful. It's a bit like the jewish slaves in a nazi factory assembling cartridges that may be used to kill them or their family. Of course that is hyperbole, but the concept is the same. A person in a "free" country is forced to supply his labor to an event, thereby participating in it's success, though he finds the event abhorent to his personal sensibilities, religious or otherwise.

Imagine there is something on this planet that you consider a terrible and evil abomination. Imagine that you may be wrong, or you may be right, but regardless, it is what you believe and how you feel to your core. Now imagine that the government, via the power of the gun, forces you to either support this thing with your labor, or bankrupt you.

Is that a place where you would want to live?

 

[FireDragon76]

People participate in "distasteful" acts all the time though and it's generally upheld as civil behavior. Like suppose a Christian retail clerk is selling condoms to a man that is not married, is that wrong per se? Is that participation in sin?

Moral theologians traditionally would say no, because in these interactions once you give the cake or the condoms to somebody else, you are not longer party to them and they aren't your moral responsibility. In a real sense, once somebody wants them and they have the money for them, the moral responsibility passes off to them.

Some conservative Christians are worreid alot about what kind of statement their actions make, because witnessing is an important part of their practice (I am presuming), and they feel it is their duty to uphold societal holiness. However, they don't understand semiotics (the philosophy of symbols). A thing does not always symbolize just one thing, things can be somewhat fluid in their meaning as symbols, and its not the governments job to arbitrate the meaning of symbols like that. Which is sort of what the ADF is hoping that the government will do in this case, and say that a wedding cake somehow means "I affirm your marriage". In reality, the cake itself is empty of meaning and its the peoples use of the cake that gives it meaning.

And the baker can't really determine the use of the cake, can he? Perhaps the gay couple will go home and just put it in the freezer, or feed it to their dog, or slather it on like sunscreen. The baker has no power to determine what they do with it, realistically.

 

[FireDragon76]

This case has made me realize how much American evangelicals can buy into a symbolically mediated worldview. Which is fascinating because evangelicals in the US usually reject that symbols mediate the thing they signify, at least in much of religion. Think of common evangelical understandings of the Lord's Supper. Few would understand that the bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ, yet somehow a cake is supposed to mediate holiness in marriage? Almost no evangelical traditionally thought this way. Puritans in England opposed the use of wedding rings for this very reason at one time, because they believed they were empty gestures devoid of real meaning (and therefore suspect as "popery", because they reminded them of the symbolically mediated religion they previously rejected).

It's a little off topic but it's an interesting observation. My guess is that the need to mediate the divine has crept back into evangelical religion.

 

[Almost there]

People participate in "distasteful" acts all the time though and it's generally upheld as civil behavior. Like suppose a Christian retail clerk is selling condoms to a man that is not married, is that wrong per se? Is that participation in sin?

Moral theologians traditionally would say no, because in these interactions once you give the cake or the condoms to somebody else, you are not longer party to them and they aren't your moral responsibility. In a real sense, once somebody wants them and they have the money for them, the moral responsibility passes off to them.

Some conservative Christians are worreid alot about what kind of statement their actions make, because witnessing is an important part of their practice (I am presuming), and they feel it is their duty to uphold societal holiness. However, they don't understand semiotics (the philosophy of symbols). A thing does not always symbolize just one thing, things can be somewhat fluid in their meaning as symbols, and its not the governments job to arbitrate the meaning of symbols like that. Which is sort of what the ADF is hoping that the government will do in this case, and say that a wedding cake somehow means "I affirm your marriage". In reality, the cake itself is empty of meaning and its the peoples use of the cake that gives it meaning.

And the baker can't really determine the use of the cake, can he? Perhaps the gay couple will go home and just put it in the freezer, or feed it to their dog, or slather it on like sunscreen. The baker has no power to determine what they do with it, realistically.

To be frank, I don't think whether they sell the cake to the homosexuals or not is any of the government's business. It's theirs. However, I agree that my personal beliefs would not stop me from sellling the cake for whatever purpose. Where I would personally draw the line is regarding the type of ornamentation or any wording or symbols I had to put on the cake.

But I'm not God. The decision should be up to the baker. The cake is the product of his labor, not mine, nor the couple getting married, nor the SCOTUS. Forcing them to bake it simply because they were asked to is making them slaves.

 

[Maren]

First, Disclosure: Everything below is said sincerely. It is not sarcasm. I'm simply working it out "verbally".

That is an interesting take. In fact, I'm seeing a certain amount of wisdom in it. So, as a Christian baker, I can say, "I will bake your cake and I will do the best job that I can. I in no way support, morally the event, but it is not my choice. It is yours.

However, does that mean that as a bass player I'd be willing to play bass on the soundtrack to a triple x movie? Or should I decorate a cake that will carry an inscription that mocks Christ. Or if I have a wedding venue, would I allow an event that had a party that looked like a scene out of Coligula? I'm asking sincerely for your opinion on that.

i.e. where does one draw the line?

I think you answered where the line is drawn. You need to sell whatever item, to a protected class, that you would sell to any other person. If you make wedding cakes, you would need to sell a wedding cake to a gay person. If you sell groceries, you'd need to sell groceries to a Black person. If you sell Christian books, then you must sell one of your Christian books to an atheist.

This does not mean you are required to work for a company doing something you don't like (such as your bass player example). It does not mean you must decorate a cake in a way that bothers you (such as your cake that mocks Christ). It does not mean you need to allow things that violate the standards you have set for your business (so no party scene out of Caligula). I will grant, the standards you set must not be discriminatory; they must apply equally to all groups, but you can set the standards that all must abide by.

But since you went with the WWII example, what about a wage worker in a factory (possibly in you neck of the woods) today? Shouldn't he have rights, at least based on your perfect world, if he is involved in the manufacture of a firearm? How does he know it won't get sold to a murderer or terrorist, and be used to kill his family? Why should only a business owner have that right to determine who gets to buy the products he offers for sale?

 

[KCfromNC]

One can make the argument that supplying services to an event that you abhor is a speech act supporting it.

Just not very successfully, given how the courts have ruled so far.

A person in a "free" country is forced to supply his labor to an event, thereby participating in it's success, though he finds the event abhorent to his personal sensibilities, religious or otherwise.

Yes, when they decided to open a business to the public they decided to sell things to members of the public - even the abhorrent ones. If that isn't what they want to do, they made a bad choice. They can either complain about it or find a different line of work where they're protected from having to associate with abominations.

Imagine there is something on this planet that you consider a terrible and evil abomination. Imagine that you may be wrong, or you may be right, but regardless, it is what you believe and how you feel to your core. Now imagine that the government, via the power of the gun, forces you to either support this thing with your labor, or bankrupt you.

Is that a place where you would want to live?

Just to keep this in context, historically you're talking about how bad it is that businesses have to serve black people and communities can't prohibit Jews from living in good upstanding Christian neighborhoods. So the rhetoric sounds good but the actual examples leave quite a bit to be desired.

 

[bhsmte]

One can make the argument that supplying services to an event that you abhor is a speech act supporting it. You are helping it to be successful. It's a bit like the jewish slaves in a nazi factory assembling cartridges that may be used to kill them or their family. Of course that is hyperbole, but the concept is the same. A person in a "free" country is forced to supply his labor to an event, thereby participating in it's success, though he finds the event abhorent to his personal sensibilities, religious or otherwise.

Imagine there is something on this planet that you consider a terrible and evil abomination. Imagine that you may be wrong, or you may be right, but regardless, it is what you believe and how you feel to your core. Now imagine that the government, via the power of the gun, forces you to either support this thing with your labor, or bankrupt you.

Is that a place where you would want to live?

You can make any argument you like. Whether it holds up, is another story.

 

[FireDragon76]

From a Lutheran standpoint, we are suposed to be servants to our neighbor. I can't cotton to any political philosophy that says we don't have a common good together as society. That offends my religious sensibilities far more than what two people do in their bedrooms. I think that shows how we are on different pages religiously.

 

[Almost there]

I think you answered where the line is drawn. You need to sell whatever item, to a protected class, that you would sell to any other person. If you make wedding cakes, you would need to sell a wedding cake to a gay person. If you sell groceries, you'd need to sell groceries to a Black person. If you sell Christian books, then you must sell one of your Christian books to an atheist.

This does not mean you are required to work for a company doing something you don't like (such as your bass player example). It does not mean you must decorate a cake in a way that bothers you (such as your cake that mocks Christ). It does not mean you need to allow things that violate the standards you have set for your business (so no party scene out of Caligula). I will grant, the standards you set must not be discriminatory; they must apply equally to all groups, but you can set the standards that all must abide by.

But since you went with the WWII example, what about a wage worker in a factory (possibly in you neck of the woods) today? Shouldn't he have rights, at least based on your perfect world, if he is involved in the manufacture of a firearm? How does he know it won't get sold to a murderer or terrorist, and be used to kill his family? Why should only a business owner have that right to determine who gets to buy the products he offers for sale?

We actually agree quite a bit. I would disagree on just two points, one of which is one of my core beliefs.

First, the worker in a factory that makes guns. That's really no different than a factory that sells cars, and one might be used in a drive by shooting. Or wrenches, and one might be used to bludgeon someone to death.

But my core belief is violated by this one: Group protection.

The constitution rests on a foundation of protecting the individual citizen. You do not need to belong to some sacred "group" to enjoy the full rights and protections of any other citizen. The constitution, by its very nature, precludes us from singling out a particular "group" regarding the relationship between the government and its citizens. This is why I was so opposed to affirmative action.

One of the things that really damages people is their belief that they must claim membership in a particular group in order to gain rights. I have my rights because of the constitution, not because I belong to an "extra specially protected group".

Any law that calls out protections for people who are members of a particular group is unconstitutional on the face of it. This is why we no longer have Jim Crow or it's twin, Affirmative action.

 

[Almost there]

Just not very successfully, given how the courts have ruled so far.



Yes, when they decided to open a business to the public they decided to sell things to members of the public - even the abhorrent ones. If that isn't what they want to do, they made a bad choice. They can either complain about it or find a different line of work where they're protected from having to associate with abominations.



Just to keep this in context, historically you're talking about how bad it is that businesses have to serve black people and communities can't prohibit Jews from living in good upstanding Christian neighborhoods. So the rhetoric sounds good but the actual examples leave quite a bit to be desired.

Your argument is that when you choose to earn your living by means other than being someone else's employee, you give up your constitutional rights.

I'm gonna have to disagree with that one.

 

[KCfromNC]

Your argument is that when you choose to earn your living by means other than being someone else's employee, you give up your constitutional rights.

You'd be more convincing if you read what I wrote rather than trying to tell me what I think. Especially when you get it totally wrong.

 

[Almost there]

You'd be more convincing if you read what I wrote rather than trying to tell me what I think. Especially when you get it totally wrong.

I was responding specifically to this:

Yes, when they decided to open a business to the public they decided to sell things to members of the public - even the abhorrent ones. If that isn't what they want to do, they made a bad choice. They can either complain about it or find a different line of work where they're protected from having to associate with abominations.

 

[Almost there]

Just to keep this in context, historically you're talking about how bad it is that businesses have to serve black people and communities can't prohibit Jews from living in good upstanding Christian neighborhoods. So the rhetoric sounds good but the actual examples leave quite a bit to be desired.

In a free country, people are free to act badly, and reap the just rewards. In a free country, people do the right thing because they choose to, and enjoy the rewards of making such a choice.

Jim Crow laws actually FORCED people who do business with the public to discriminate. Once that was removed, those geographical locations were able to catch up with the rest of the country.

 

[HannahT]

This does not mean you are required to work for a company doing something you don't like (such as your bass player example). It does not mean you must decorate a cake in a way that bothers you (such as your cake that mocks Christ). It does not mean you need to allow things that violate the standards you have set for your business (so no party scene out of Caligula). I will grant, the standards you set must not be discriminatory; they must apply equally to all groups, but you can set the standards that all must abide by.

From what I'm reading about the case? The baker offered the cake to the couple, but did not feel he could decorate it. He had done the same for other messages on cakes he didn't feel right about due to his beliefs. It wouldn't bother me personally to decorate a cake for the couple in question, but it does seem to me that they are asking him to be forced to decorate it.

In other words, you can't turn down work that uses your artistic talents. You are forced to use them regardless of the message otherwise it is discrimination.

That just makes no sense to me.