supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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

Obviously this baker. He is not allowed to make cakes the way he wants to according to his conscience and so must be forced to provide a product he doesn't want to. I also think Liberals would generally support this coffee Shop owner who kicked out Christian activists for merely being in his store (I've already seen one attempt to justify it on here already).

Gay Coffee Shop Owner Blasts Anti-Abortion Activists In Viral Video

Discrimination is simply a part of business. Liberals would be fine, like most people would, for discriminating by secular reasoning. Say a man comes into the store, looks dirt poor, has a bag, is going around the isles, looking back and forth. You keep a good eye on him while he's there despite the fact he might be doing nothing and might be just really weird. A more positive example of discrimination from my personal life working at a gas station would be seeing a Sikh pick up the pump. I open it without hesitation because I have never experienced a drive off by a Sikh man or woman ever.

The sort of religious discrimination exhibited by the baker here reflects his values and the types of commissions he receives indicates the sort of person they are. You might call them hateful, but the baker here seems very reasonable and this should extend to not just Christians but everyone. If a gay Printer was asked to print Anti-homosexual marriage tracts, should they be forced to? If consistent you should say yes.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

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.

Even if it was, why does that matter? Is it the government's job to police the correct opinions?

 

[FireDragon76]

Even if it was, why does that matter? Is it the government's job to police the correct opinions?

Anti-gay animus motivated behavior towards the public in businesses is not protected by the laws in Colorado. The baker's argument is that he's not being anti-gay, he's merely expressing religious speech. But if you discount the romantic and pietist nonsense underpinning that, the religious arguments evaporate.

As a Lutheran I believe religion happens in a church- as did most Protestants historically, including the founders of this country who framed our Constitution. Sure, we take Jesus in our hearts out with us, hopefully, but our religion ends at the doors of the church (our faith is a different matter, and that is something that is not "religion" proper).

This baker's mistake is assuming that baking a cake is inherently religious, and it's not. This is the barbaric and uncivil thinking of the primitive savage in the boonies, who lives in a society without structured institutions. And we don't have to tolerate barbarism in the name of religion in a civilizd society.

This has been the consensus for decades, it would be wrong for the courts to overturn this now and allow in a novel interpretation of religion to take hold.

 

[grasping the after wind]

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 right to private property is the basis for all other rights. "Human Dignity" is just a vague phrase with no concrete meaning.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes, anti-gay animus motivated behavior in businesses is not protected by the laws in Colorado. The baker's argument is that he's not being anti-gay, he's merely expressing religious speech. But if you discount the romantic and pietist nonsense underpinning that, the religious arguments evaporate.

As a Lutheran I believe religion happens in a church- as did most Protestants historically, including the founders of this country. Sure, we take Jesus in our hearts out with us, hopefully, but our Divine Service ends at the doors of the church.

As if those things can't be true though. Not all objections to Homosexuality lie in some hatred of them and I see no reason to believe that the position of this baker. Nor personally do I think it a problem if a bigot of any type, gay, straight, white, black, Christian, Atheist, whatever doesn't want to provide a service to someone.

As to your conception of the Church building being the beginning and ending of public expression of religious faith, one wonders why the Apostles and early Christians made themselves so distinct by refusing Military service, refusing to give incense to Caesar, refusing to eat meat sacrificed to Idols and generally in the aspects they could put their faith into practice beyond that of the Temple of Jerusalem by speaking about Christ aloud.

Fr John Meyendorf perhaps envisions the Orthodox conception of religion, that every action we take should be a glorification of God, even something as simple as eating since we are what we eat.

 

[durangodawood]

Even if it was, why does that matter? Is it the government's job to police the correct opinions?

No. The business owner can hate latinos all he wants. But he still has to serve them.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Being a Christian does not have to involve imposing your religion on others.

Refusing to not engage in sin is not imposing one's religion on others. I don't recall anything in this case where the baker tried to prevent the wedding, only that he refused to participate in it, directly or indirectly. God commands us not to sin. It's a pretty fundamental thing.

I am curious though, why is it okay for your church to refuse to participate in gay weddings but not okay for a baker to do the same?

 

[FireDragon76]

You sound like you are over-extending Meyendorff's theology to absurd lengths. Nobody has the right to force such piety on their neighbor, and piety is not religion as our Founders understood it. Our founders were not opposed to the public display of piety as long as it did not infringe on the civility and good order of society. And this baker has, which makes him a scroundrel, no matter how much he fancies himself glorifying God. Behavior counts.

We have discrete institutions such as houses of worship for a reason, separate from government. Freedom of religion must also include freedom from YOUR religion.

 

[Almost there]

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.

The problem is twofold:
1. the Constitution trumps "human dignity". And the "human dignity" case applies to both sides.
2. They are not refusing to serve homosexuals. They do it all the time. But even more important, the constitution protects their right to refuse to serve anyone, for whatever reason. Anything else would make them slaves.

 

[Almost there]

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.

What do you mean by "human dignity"? The constitution mentions religious freedom rights, but I didn't see any "human dignity" rights. I don't know of a standard for "human dignity". I've heard the phrase "human rights", but not "human dignity".

 

[FireDragon76]

Refusing to not engage in sin is not imposing one's religion on others.

This man is no martyr for his beliefs. A true martyr of Christian principles would accept that he is breaking the law and refrain from selling wedding cakes to anyone, which he is free to do. No one is forcing him to do what he is doing, that is all in his imagination.

That people even compare this man's actions to the blessed martyrs who gave their lives refusing to honor Caesar as a god, is sacrilege.

 

[Almost there]

dig·ni·ty
ˈdiɡnədē/
noun

1. the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.

So, since he serves homosexuals he can be said to be honoring their human dignity. However, refusing to participate in a particular event is refusing to give the subject of the event (same sex marriage) dignity. The baker should have as much right to do that as a jew would have the right to not give a neo-nazi event dignity.

i.e. the human dignity argument is a straw man.

 

[Almost there]

This man is no martyr for his beliefs. A true martyr of Christian principles would accept that he is breaking the law and refrain from selling wedding cakes to anyone, which he is free to do. No one is forcing him to do what he is doing, that is all in his imagination.

That people even compare this man's actions to the blessed martyrs who gave their lives refusing to honor Caesar as a god, is sacrilege.

It's still playing out.

 

[FireDragon76]

I am curious though, why is it okay for your church to refuse to participate in gay weddings but not okay for a baker to do the same?

Because our church is a religious institution, the bakery is a business. The baker is not performing a religious function, regardless of what the ADF fancies.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Because our church is a religious institution, the bakery is a business. The baker is not performing a religious function, regardless of what the ADF fancies.

Oh, I see now. So your outrage over "discrimination" stops at the doors of your church. You feel it's okay for your church to do that which you abhor in a guy running a bakery?

That's a little (scratch that) a LOT upside down.

 

[Almost there]

Because our church is a religious institution, the bakery is a business. The baker is not performing a religious function, regardless of what the ADF fancies.

The baker is a human being with religious convictions. The constitution doesn't protect organizations. It protects individual human beings. It doesn't say you only have constitutional rights if you earn your living as an employee.

 

[durangodawood]

Obviously this baker. He is not allowed to make cakes the way he wants to according to his conscience and so must be forced to provide a product he doesn't want to. I also think Liberals would generally support this coffee Shop owner who kicked out Christian activists for merely being in his store (I've already seen one attempt to justify it on here already).

Gay Coffee Shop Owner Blasts Anti-Abortion Activists In Viral Video

Discrimination is simply a part of business. Liberals would be fine, like most people would, for discriminating by secular reasoning. Say a man comes into the store, looks dirt poor, has a bag, is going around the isles, looking back and forth. You keep a good eye on him while he's there despite the fact he might be doing nothing and might be just really weird. A more positive example of discrimination from my personal life working at a gas station would be seeing a Sikh pick up the pump. I open it without hesitation because I have never experienced a drive off by a Sikh man or woman ever.

The sort of religious discrimination exhibited by the baker here reflects his values and the types of commissions he receives indicates the sort of person they are. You might call them hateful, but the baker here seems very reasonable and this should extend to not just Christians but everyone. If a gay Printer was asked to print Anti-homosexual marriage tracts, should they be forced to? If consistent you should say yes.

No one argues against discrimination generally. Not when pressed, anyway. Pretty much everyone is ok with "no shoes, no shirts, no service". There's many legitimate bases for business discrimination, like behavior & dress.

But we frown on discrimination on the basis of who someone basically is. Those old "no blacks" signs give me the creeps. And we have generally decided that such policies are incompatible with civilized society. We're starting to realize that "no gays" is basically the same thing.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes, anti-gay animus motivated behavior in businesses is not protected by the laws in Colorado. The baker's argument is that he's not being anti-gay, he's merely expressing religious speech. But if you discount the romantic and pietist nonsense underpinning that, the religious arguments evaporate.

As a Lutheran I believe religion happens in a church- as did most Protestants historically, including the founders of this country who framed our Constitution. Sure, we take Jesus in our hearts out with us, hopefully, but our Divine Service ends at the doors of the church.

This baker's mistake is assuming that baking a cake is inherently religious, and it's not. This is the crazy, barbaric, and uncivil thinking of the primitive savage in the boonies. And we don't have to tolerate barbarism in the name of religion in a civilizd society.

As a Lutheran you are wrong to say religion happens in a church. First off we are the Church not some building you may go to on a Sunday. I would also advise you to read the writings of those founders you think had the notion that religion happens in a building one day a week. I suspect you will find that was not the case. If you read Paul you may notice that he has said that for everything you do you do it to the glory of God. So yes even baking a cake is part of the religion in that sense.
Despite what i have heard about the nature of the arguments of the defense team and of the [prosecution team , this case is not strictly about religious freedom or same sex discrimination . It is also about what can be demanded from a person regarding their own labor. Same sex discrimination is illegal, Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. The question is not can a merchant discriminate against people that have a same sex relationship. that is clearly not legal. The question also is not, can a person claim that their religious beliefs are over arching in all circumstances. that is clearly unreasonable. Either position would be without merit and not even considered by the Supreme Court. The question here is also how much can be demanded of a merchant by a customer. If a gun seller were told by a customer that he/she intended to put the gun to a use that the seller found to be in total contradiction to that seller's beliefs would the seller be wrong to refuse to sell that particular at gun to a patron? This is a few steps removed form the real life situation being adjudicated but it has relevance to it from a philosophic point of view. Had the baker simply refused to sell anything to the same sex couple because they were a same sex couple I could not see any merit in the baker's case but the baker only refused to sell a specific item to the couple while citing concerns of conscience based upon religious belief. As there were numerous alternative merchants more than willing to undertake the request, I can see no undue harm done to the plaintiffs other than being inconvenienced by going elsewhere to obtain the product they desired which was readily available in numerous other establishments. . In this case the only real harm that might have taken place would be to the baker by having the government use force to intimidate the baker into acting against the baker's conscience based upon the baker's religious beliefs. I cannot know if the baker is a truthful person or not. If I were to judge this case according to the law of the land then I must take what the baker says were the motivating factors of the baker's refusal as sincere unless proven otherwise. To punish the baker for a sincerely held religious belief because that baker's refusal to provide a specific service inconveniences a customer and because that customer claims discrimination based upon being denied a specific item and not because the customer was denied service in general does not seem reasonable to me.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You sound like you are over-extending Meyendorff's theology to absurd lengths. Nobody has the right to force such piety on their neighbor, and piety is not religion as our Founders understood it. Our founders were not opposed to the public display of piety as long as it did not infringe on the civility and good order of society. And this baker has, which makes him a scroundrel, no matter how much he fancies himself glorifying God. Behavior counts.

We have discrete institutions such as houses of worship for a reason, separate from government. Freedom of religion must also include freedom from YOUR religion.

Forgive me, I had my references wrong. I was referring to Alexander Schmemann's For the life of the World. I think he is right that every action, even the most menial should be a glorification of God and this division between the secular and the sacred, like the Gnostic division of flesh and spirit is a false dichotomy.

You are arguing no one has the right to force their peity on others. That's an important statement because the Baker here isn't forcing anyone to do anything, he is simply withholding his expertise which the couple wanted. How do we argue that the baker here is in acting force and the homosexual couple is not? I don't see how, it doesn't follow that withholding a service is the same as forcing someone to your religious viewpoint. I think it ironic that you think it perfectly acceptable for the Homosexual couple to force their peity, their love on unwilling participants. This seems like a purely partisan issue on your part, where your primary concern is not equality or fairness, but forcing us to accept Homosexuality even if it is coerced. That's a Phyrric victory, but a victory nevertheless if this case comes out in your favour.

 

[grasping the after wind]

No one argues against discrimination generally. Not when pressed, anyway. Pretty much everyone is ok with "no shoes, no shirts, no service". There's many legitimate bases for business discrimination, like behavior & dress.

But we frown on discrimination on the basis of who someone basically is. Those old "no blacks" signs give me the creeps. And we have generally decided that such policies are incompatible with civilized society. We're starting to realize that "no gays" is basically the same thing.

Where exactly was the "no gays" sign located in this bakery?