supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[durangodawood]

Well Jack Phillips obvious imbibes the Christian conception of marriage being between man and woman, which was until yesterday the universal way the rites and unions were understood in society.

Presumably he could discriminate against a hetero-sexual couple if they asked him to make a cake that had something he objected to. Say a Polygamous Trio came in and wanted a cake to symbolise their union. Say a Satanist couple came in and wanted a cake which was decorated with Satanic symbols. Say a transsexual man and transsexual woman come in and want a cake symbolising their union and their transitions. There are numerous possible circumstances I could imagine a heterosexual couple being denied. It's up to the baker to decide that though.

Well you are choosing bases for discrimination that arent about (hetero) sexual orientation at all, and then just arbitrarily assigning "hetero" to them. Satanic = hetero? Come on.

I was saying a cake maker cannot discriminate against hetero weddings, as hetero weddings. Of course a business can discriminate for various other reasons.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well you are choosing bases for discrimination that arent about (hetero) sexual orientation at all, and then just arbitrarily assigning "hetero" to them. Satanic = hetero? Come on.

I was saying a cake maker cannot discriminate against hetero weddings, as hetero weddings. Of course a business can discriminate for various other reasons.

An absurd example yes though stranger stories have happened, such as women marrying themselves or weird Japanese men marrying their anime body pillow. The point is there could be circumstances wherein heterosexuals could be denied service on the grounds of the service provider's personal beliefs.

I am not sure about your reasoning for why the cake baker can't discriminate against heterosexual people if he wants to. He certainty could.

 

[iluvatar5150]

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.

That's why I included this:

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.

In hindsight, my wording wasn't quite as broad as I'd intended, so allow me to clarify:

If you enter a marketplace, you agree to submit yourself to the wishes of the clients and whatever regulations and norms guide the space in which you're working.

In the case of this baker, he opened his business and his services to the public and, in doing so, subjected himself to the laws governing public accommodations.

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.

For the most part, Halloween is not a religious observation, so his objection to it likely wouldn't be affected by civil rights laws. Marital status, however, is a protected status, so it's conceivable that his divorce party objections could cross the line, but without more details it's hard to say one way or another.

More clear-cut analogies would be if:

• The couple were interracial,
• The couple were interfaith (with one being Christian), or
• At least one of the individuals had been married previously.

Many Christians hold sincere religious beliefs against at least one of these, and for a public accommodation such as his to refuse to bake a cake on any of these grounds would have been absolutely 100% illegal. In the state where his business was located, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is also illegal.

It doesn't matter that he would have offered some subset of his services to this couple (i.e. selling them some other, non-wedding type of cake). What matters is that he refused them at least one of the services that he offered to the rest of the public.

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

I didn't follow the video, but if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't kick them out for being Christians. He kicked them out for disseminating offensive material effectively equating homosexuality with murder. Material that was offensive enough that when I posted it here on CF, mods removed it and gave me a warning.

Also, I think you have a flawed idea of what sort of discrimination that liberals are ok with.

I don't believe it is a fundamental right to be entitled to service, because it isn't.

You're wrong.

Why must only Christians be subject to such a standard?

They're not. The law applies to anyone.

 

[durangodawood]

...The point is there could be circumstances wherein heterosexuals could be denied service on the grounds of the service provider's personal beliefs....

Of course discrimination could incidentally cut against a hetero, or a gay, or a white person.

Like those no shoes no shirts signs. Same thing.

Or I wont make a cake with eggs, because vegan.

But thats not the point of this at all.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That's why I included this:



In hindsight, my wording wasn't quite as broad as I'd intended, so allow me to clarify:

If you enter a marketplace, you agree to submit yourself to the wishes of the clients and whatever regulations and norms guide the space in which you're working.

In the case of this baker, he opened his business and his services to the public and, in doing so, subjected himself to the laws governing public accommodations.




For the most part, Halloween is not a religious observation, so his objection to it likely wouldn't be affected by civil rights laws. Marital status, however, is a protected status, so it's conceivable that his divorce party objections could cross the line, but without more details it's hard to say one way or another.

More clear-cut analogies would be if:

• The couple were interracial,
• The couple were interfaith (with one being Christian), or
• At least one of the individuals had been married previously.

Many Christians hold sincere religious beliefs against at least one of these, and for a public accommodation such as his to refuse to bake a cake on any of these grounds would have been absolutely 100% illegal. In the state where his business was located, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is also illegal.

It doesn't matter that he would have offered some subset of his services to this couple (i.e. selling them some other, non-wedding type of cake). What matters is that he refused them at least one of the services that he offered to the rest of the public.





I didn't follow the video, but if it's the one I'm thinking of, he didn't kick them out for being Christians. He kicked them out for disseminating offensive material effectively equating homosexuality with murder. Material that was offensive enough that when I posted it here on CF, mods removed it and gave me a warning.

Also, I think you have a flawed idea of what sort of discrimination that liberals are ok with.

A brief reply. You might be right concerning the state laws but I would simply that it goes to show that the state law around protected persons is simply wrong. I am not arguing from a legal perspective but from a moral perspective. Ultimately either the state's laws will be undermined by the higher court or strengthened by it. I hope for the former.

Also you have the story wrong regarding Bedlam coffee. They were Pro-life Activists who had simply entered the shop to receive coffee. They weren't handing out their materials there, they weren't preaching there. They were simply customers having a coffee. The Homosexual owner said he would have sex with his partner in front of them and that if Jesus were there he would also have sex with him in front them and told them to leave, not for anything they had done in the store but for what they had done outside of it. I believe he had the right to do it, even if he was a buffoon and clownishly offensive. Now it seems to me, in order for you to be consistent he must be prosecuted and be forced to serve his political opponents in future and perhaps pay damages up to thousands of dollars to the pro-life advocates.

I do believe you are okay with what that cafe owner did. If not, then I am wrong. Firedragon already defended the man in a previous thread.

 

[durangodawood]

...They were Pro-life Activists who had simply entered the shop to receive coffee. They weren't handing out their materials there, they weren't preaching there. ...

I'm interested in this.

Can a business legally discriminate strictly on an ideological basis? Nothing to do with intrinsic identity like "no whites", but more like "no republicans"?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm interested in this.

Can a business legally discriminate strictly on an ideological basis? Nothing to do with intrinsic identity like "no whites", but more like "no republicans"?

Personally I would say they should be allowed to. I would think it silly but they should be allowed to.

 

[iluvatar5150]

A brief reply. You might be right concerning the state laws but I would simply that it goes to show that the state law around protected persons is simply wrong. I am not arguing from a legal perspective but from a moral perspective. Ultimately either the state's laws will be undermined by the higher court or strengthened by it. I hope for the former.

Federal civil rights laws (i.e. the ones which would've prohibited this baker from discriminating against an interracial or interfaith wedding) have been around for 50+ years and have been repeatedly been held up in court.

Some states supplement those federal laws by adding sexual orientation to the list of protected classes.

Regarding the moral aspect of this issue: would you have a problem with the baker being forced to bake a cake for an interracial or interfaith wedding? Or would you prefer that he be allowed to follow his conscience on those issues as well?

Also you have the story wrong regarding Bedlam coffee. They were Pro-life Activists who had simply entered the shop to receive coffee. They weren't handing out their materials there, they weren't preaching there. They were simply customers having a coffee. The Homosexual owner said he would have sex with his partner in front of them and that if Jesus were there he would also have sex with him in front them and told them to leave, not for anything they had done in the store but for what they had done outside of it.

Yes, I know they were not handing out the material inside the cafe. They were disseminating it outside, in the immediate vicinity of the cafe.

I do believe you are okay with what that cafe owner did. If not, then I am wrong. Firedragon already defended the man in a previous thread.

I believe the cafe owner was within his legal rights to eject them from his cafe for the reasons he did so (i.e. because he found their actions, not their religion, offensive). I have no opinion on whether or not ejecting them was a good idea or a bad one, but I think the manner in which he did it was clownish, disgusting, and likely counterproductive to his cause.

 

[durangodawood]

I believe the cafe owner was within his legal rights to eject them from his cafe for the reasons he did so (i.e. because he found their actions, not their religion, offensive). I have no opinion on whether or not ejecting them was a good idea or a bad one, but I think the manner in which he did it was clownish, disgusting, and likely counterproductive to his cause.

What actions were offensive? They just went in to get coffee?

 

[Phil 1:21]

I'm interested in this.

Can a business legally discriminate strictly on an ideological basis? Nothing to do with intrinsic identity like "no whites", but more like "no republicans"?

You mean like if the CEO of a camping supply retailer said that anyone who agreed with a particular statement made by Donald Trump was not welcome at his stores? I really couldn't care less. I would just take my business elsewhere.

 

[iluvatar5150]

What actions were offensive? They just went in to get coffee?

Their dissemination of offensive material - material which, as I pointed out earlier, was enough to get my post edited and earn me a warning from the mods here.

 

[durangodawood]

You mean like if the CEO of a camping supply retailer said that anyone who agreed with a particular statement made by Donald Trump was not welcome at his stores? I really couldn't care less. I would just take my business elsewhere.

Yes. That kind of thing is exactly what I mean.

 

[durangodawood]

Their dissemination of offensive material - material which, as I pointed out earlier, was enough to get my post edited and earn me a warning from the mods here.

Well absolutely the cafe owner can tell people not to distribute or post stuff in his cafe. I dont think thats even controversial.

The interesting question is: can you refuse service because of what materials people hand out elsewhere?

 

[trunks2k]

The interesting question is: can you refuse service because of what materials people hand out elsewhere?

Legally, most likely. Political views are generally not covered by anti discrimination laws.

Morally? That's a murkier issue.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The interesting question is: can you refuse service because of what materials people hand out elsewhere?

Yes. You can refuse someone service for a multitude of reasons, legitimate or stupid. However, the law prohibits refusing service on the basis of a handful of protected criteria including gender, race, religion, marital status, and in some states, sexual orientation. Political activity is not protected.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

It also doesn't say you have constitutional rights to get the privileges associated with opening a business to the public without actually opening it to the public.

 

[KCfromNC]

The problem with your relating Jim Crow to this case is that the baker was willing to sell any of the cakes he had pre-made and were on display. What he was unwilling to do was craft a specific cake for this specific function or decorate it with symbols that indicated the union of two men.

Interesting. One could say he had a separate but equal set of services available only to heterosexuals.

 

[KCfromNC]

A brief reply. You might be right concerning the state laws but I would simply that it goes to show that the state law around protected persons is simply wrong. I am not arguing from a legal perspective but from a moral perspective.

Looks more like an assertion to me.

 

[Almost there]

It also doesn't say you have constitutional rights to get the privileges associated with opening a business to the public without actually opening it to the public.

I think you have rights mixed up with privileges.

 

[bhsmte]

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?

If a public accommodating business owner, is going to pick what they deem as selective sins they will refuse to serve people on, they shouldn't be in a business to serve the public.