Canadian SC: Christian law school can't forbid students from gay sex

Belk said:

How can I misrepresent the issue when I made no mention of it?

Click to expand...

Do you remember what you were responding to?

PeaceByJesus said:

It need not be precise, plus what one may be legally culpable for is not necessarily the same thing as being morally culpable, and SCOTUS considers this in cases as the one at issue. A sabbatarian is normally protected from having to provide the service he otherwise agreed to if it conflicts with his sincere religious convictions, but he would not be doing anything legally wring by working in his day of worship.

Click to expand...

You're right. There is a concept of complicity. You can be guilty for driving the getaway car even though you didn't commit the crime. But gay marriage wasn't a crime.

I'm not aware of complicity being used in free exercise cases. Are you? Consider the implications. Muslim cab drivers refuse to drive the getaway car after you have committed shirk by worshipping in a Christian church.

Incidentally, it's not so clear that there is a constitutional requirement to exempt people from working on the Sabbath. Indeed in Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled a state law giving such a right unconstitutional. This requirement was created by legislation, Title VII. One difference between Title VII and the law found unconstitutional is that Title VII requires companies to provide reasonable accommodation, while the law required companies to provide the Sabbath off, without regard to the impact on the company.

It's not so clear what the relevance of this is to Phillips.

Actually, there's a better set of cases. Some county clerks attempted to avoid complicity in gay marriage by not signing marriage licenses. That didn't reach the Supreme Court, but I think current opinion is that they couldn't do that. The Davis case didn't go further because Kentucky removed the requirement that the clerk sign the licenses. (Incidentally, I think that accommodation was a good thing.)

PeaceByJesus said:

Do you remember what you were responding to?

Click to expand...

Yes, the one where I agreed that you correctly stated his claims?

Belk said:

Yes, the one where I agreed that you correctly stated his claims?

Click to expand...

I saw your description of "a cake conveying a message" as misrepresenting the claim by once again reducing it to being just "A cake. A piece of confection," and with the claim of `conveying a message not being validated by any court ruling.

However, the fact is that a cake with writing on it, as well as providing a special "wedding cake" sends a message. The Ireland court recognized the first, and invoked SCOTUS in recognizing a cake as conveying a particular message, with the acquitting factor in both cases being that it was the message itself that was the cause for the denial of service, irrespective of how/what the person was, though that was the reason the respective customers wanted the cake.

"The important message from the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is that there is a clear distinction between refusing to produce a cake conveying a particular message, for any customer who wants such a cake, and refusing to produce a cake [conveying a particular message] for the particular customer who wants it because of that customer’s characteristics.”

"The bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics." - UK's top court: Refusing to make cake with 'Support Gay Marriage' slogan not discrimination

hedrick said:

You're right. There is a concept of complicity. You can be guilty for driving the getaway car even though you didn't commit the crime. But gay marriage wasn't a crime.

Click to expand...

It was not a lawful marriage, while the issue is moral complicity.

I'm not aware of complicity being used in free exercise cases. Are you? Consider the implications. Muslim cab drivers refuse to drive the getaway car after you have committed shirk by worshipping in a Christian church.

Click to expand...

This analogy should be that of taking one to a Christian church, and yes, as analogous that would be a valid slippery-slope concern. There are always lines to be drawn. Where is the issue, versus zero tolerance for moral convictions in conflict with required functions.

Incidentally, it's not so clear that there is a constitutional requirement to exempt people from working on the Sabbath. Indeed in Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled a state law giving such a right unconstitutional. This requirement was created by legislation, Title VII. One difference between Title VII and the law found unconstitutional is that Title VII requires companies to provide reasonable accommodation, while the law required companies to provide the Sabbath off, without regard to the impact on the company.

Click to expand...

Correct: I was describing "reasonable accommodation," and which is a example of line drawing, for there is unreasonable accommodation (no one to drive the ambulance).

It's not so clear what the relevance of this is to Phillips.

Click to expand...

That reasonable accommodation is enabled in which due to religious one does not have to provide the service he otherwise agreed to if not essential. The nature of the business must be considered. A transportation company should not be able to deny any person a ride based on amoral aspects such as race or religion, but a airline or bus can determine what locations it will go to, a cab company would face challenges it it advertised it does not give rides to strip joints, since the nature of the business is different. But which challenges are a result of the locality legalizing strip joints.

Likewise by choosing to define marriage by legalizing homosexual marriage, and thus effectively punishing some who do not recognize and this not provide/facilitate "non-kosher" wedding, SCOTUS is faced with the dilemma expressed in its conclusion in MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMM'N.

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be re- solved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market. The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals is re- versed

Meanwhile, I have a operating system i am waiting to install (yet another forum to attend to also) and i think we have gone about as far as warranted on this thread.

PeaceByJesus said:

I saw your description of "a cake conveying a message" as misrepresenting the claim by once again reducing it to being just "A cake. A piece of confection," and with the claim of `conveying a message not being validated by any court ruling.

However, the fact is that a cake with writing on it, as well as providing a special "wedding cake" sends a message. The Ireland court recognized the first, and invoked SCOTUS in recognizing a cake as conveying a particular message, with the acquitting factor in both cases being that it was the message itself that was the cause for the denial of service, irrespective of how/what the person was, though that was the reason the respective customers wanted the cake.

"The important message from the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is that there is a clear distinction between refusing to produce a cake conveying a particular message, for any customer who wants such a cake, and refusing to produce a cake [conveying a particular message] for the particular customer who wants it because of that customer’s characteristics.”

"The bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics." - UK's top court: Refusing to make cake with 'Support Gay Marriage' slogan not discrimination

Click to expand...

Yes, there is indeed a clear distinction between these two cases. I do not see anywhere in the decision where it is claimed that simply baking a cake conveys a message, however. The decision points out that the case under discussion is clear since there was a written message. They also point out that the court is divided on the issue and that the question of a cake, being a message by itself, has yet to b resolved.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-judgment.pdf

The important message from the Masterpiece Bakery case is that there is a
clear distinction between refusing to produce a cake conveying a particular message,
for any customer who wants such a cake, and refusing to produce a cake for the
particular customer who wants it because of that customer’s characteristics. One can
debate which side of the line particular factual scenarios fall. But in our case there
can be no doubt.

Click to expand...

TuxAme said:

Cave to Canada's social vision or lose your accreditation?

Click to expand...

Sure, don't you know that if you don't acquiesce, you can't do business?! That's how things work...

... at least that's what I've been told.

Belk said:

Yes, there is indeed a clear distinction between these two cases. I do not see anywhere in the decision where it is claimed that simply baking a cake conveys a message, however. The decision points out that the case under discussion is clear since there was a written message. They also point out that the court is divided on the issue and that the question of a cake, being a message by itself, has yet to b resolved.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0020-judgment.pdf

Click to expand...

There you go again. It was never about "simply baking a cake" and just "a cake, being a message by itself," but about a special kind of cake, a contracted, custom creation for the expressed purpose of celebrating a specific event, which meant the baker recognized and facilitated that celebration, and which Ireland saw as analogous to conveying a particular message by actual writing (in both cases "a cake conveying a particular message"). When you know what something will specifically be used for, and voluntarily choose to provide it, you are or can be complicit in it to some degree.

That's it. With this post I am done here after about 50 or more posts.

PeaceByJesus said:

It was not a lawful marriage, while the issue is moral complicity.

Click to expand...

I understand the concern. But I don't think this is a legal category. I'm not aware of any constitutional cases establishing a right not to contribute to someone else's act that you consider immoral.

It would be different if the act was actually unlawful, of course. But gay marriage wasn't unlawful. It just didn't have any legal effect. It was thus like many other events -- first communion, bar mitzvah, etc -- that one might want to celebrate with a cake but which have no legal status. I'm not aware of cases where someone covered by a public accomodations law has been allowed to not be involved in such an act.

What makes the baker's case different from supplying chairs, renting a room or driving a cab is the baker's claim that making a cake is an expressive act, and thus that it would be compelled expression. In no other respect is this case different from cab drivers, etc. It may well be that this difference is found to be significant. But if so, it won't establish any general exemption from public accommodation laws to avoid moral complicity with an act that is legal but to which you object.

PeaceByJesus said:

There you go again. It was never about "simply baking a cake" and just "a cake, being a message by itself," but about a special kind of cake, a contracted, custom creation for the expressed purpose of celebrating a specific event, which meant the baker recognized and facilitated that celebration, and which Ireland saw as analogous to conveying a particular message by actual writing. When you know what something will specifically be used for, and voluntarily choose to provide it, you are or can be complicit in it to some degree.

That's it. I am done here after about 50 or more posts.

Click to expand...

Yes. No matter how many times you demand that I do so I will not see it in the same terms you do. No, Ireland's court did not in see the cake as conveying the meaning as a written message. They found that the written message requested was a violation of the rights of the baker. The written message, not the cake.

essentialsaltes said:

Canada’s top court has ruled in favour of denying accreditation to a Christian law school that banned students from having gay sex.

Friday’s ruling against Trinity Western University in British Columbia (BC) was closely watched by both religious freedom and gay rights advocates.

The university made students promise not to have extra-marital or gay sex.

The Supreme Court found that protecting LGBT students from discrimination trumped religious freedom.

Click to expand...

Woe to those who call evil good. So sad!

Arcangl86 said:

I think God does agree with me that Christians shouldn't force their faith upon others.

Click to expand...

And we shouldn't force people not to sin either. However, we do have a right not to allow sin in our midst. The bible teaches that. Do you agree that homosexuality is a sin?

rjs330 said:

And we shouldn't force people not to sin either. However, we do have a right not to allow sin in our midst. The bible teaches that. Do you agree that homosexuality is a sin?

Click to expand...

Does it matter who does or doesn't agree?

TLK Valentine said:

Does it matter who does or doesn't agree?

Click to expand...

Yes it does as this thread indicates. The court doesn't agree with the Christian college so their beliefs are irrelevant.

rjs330 said:

Yes it does as this thread indicates. The court doesn't agree with the Christian college so their beliefs are irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Very good; you've gotten the point.

What Christians, non-Christians, or anyone else agree or don't agree on the topic of "sin" is irrelevant... the law is relevant, and the courts interpret the law.

TLK Valentine said:

Very good; you've gotten the point.

What Christians, non-Christians, or anyone else agree or don't agree on the topic of "sin" is irrelevant... the law is relevant, and the courts interpret the law.

Click to expand...

And in Canada they don't believe in freedom of religion. Denying a college accreditation because of their beliefs smashes the concept of freedom of religion and the idea of private colleges. But it's Canada so it's no surprise. Socialism at it's finest.

rjs330 said:

And in Canada they don't believe in freedom of religion. Denying a college accreditation because of their beliefs smashes the concept of freedom of religion and the idea of private colleges. But it's Canada so it's no surprise. Socialism at it's finest.

Click to expand...

You think this has something to do with Socialism? How nice.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if such a ruling would also be upheld here in the U.S. of A... after all, the college has no such prohibitions against heterosexual shenanigans... did fornication stop being a sin?

rjs330 said:

And in Canada they don't believe in freedom of religion. Denying a college accreditation because of their beliefs smashes the concept of freedom of religion and the idea of private colleges. But it's Canada so it's no surprise. Socialism at it's finest.

Click to expand...

TLK Valentine said:

You think this has something to do with Socialism? How nice.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if such a ruling would also be upheld here in the U.S. of A... after all, the college has no such prohibitions against heterosexual shenanigans... did fornication stop being a sin?

Click to expand...

Do you know what the college would so with someone caught in adultery?