supreme court sounds skeptical on baker's case

[Almost there]

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.

Me neither. If this is actually how this case went down, I can not imagine how the court could find against the bakery. The message they send will be clear: The are not interested in preserving constitutionally protected human rights. They are the enemy of freedom in the US.

But we'll see how they rule. It should be 9/0.

 

[HannahT]

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.

That isn't what this case is about though. You aren't using the context at all.

The case is about him using his artistic talents on a cake.

That doesn't mean you can't find another person to decorate it. In the past the law was used to STOP the other person from decorating it, and that isn't what we are talking about.

In the past the law allowed you to NOT sell due to skin color, religion, etc. That isn't what we are talking about here either.

Yet, that is the 'rhetoric' people are using to force someone to decorate a cake - remember he didn't have a problem selling them goods. It was the decorating the cake that was against his belief system.

Now, if he stopped them from finding another person to decorate it? If he refused to sell them goods at all? If he had the force the law behind him to STOP all other locations from doing the same? You might have a point. Then you would have your historical context, but without those factors that aren't present? It's not there.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've talked about elsewhere, especially on Theologia Crucis, but Mr. Philip's case is really a subtle threat to religious liberty because it's getting the government involved in adjudicating what amounts to a dispute about religious sensibilities (even the gay couple has a religious opinion, I am sure, after all, and their side isn't really being heard much in this debate). The Alliance Defending Freedom is really quite Orwellian as a name, in that regard, because their stance ultimately undermines religious freedom in civil society. The courts could be drawn into a neverending series of cases about what is, and is not, religious expression, which effectively means that there will be religious establishment, but instead of Mullahs like in Iran, we will have 9 unelected judges.

 

[FenderTL5]

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 didn't want this to go unanswered.
I know of no example from Christ or the Church that would allow my individual right(s) to supersede those of my neighbor. I would tend to think that the overwhelming consensus is that when there is conflicting 'rights' that I, as a Christian, should yield to my neighbor. There are numerous examples from scripture on this, but the one that is first to mind is the Apostle Paul teaching on food offered to idols.. even though I could rightfully eat it, I yield to my brother who doesn't.
As it applies to those things identified as sin, again the teaching seems clear; if your hand offends cut it off, flee from immorality, etc - we don't stand and fight it, we should get rid of it. So if your property/business causes you to sin, get rid of it

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.

Interesting.
I'm curious why you wouldn't apply the same principle/logic to baking a cake as you would working in the factory? There is no sin in baking a cake. You bake the cake, as if to the Lord.
How it is used afterwards is not on you.

 

[HannahT]

Interesting.
I'm curious why you wouldn't apply the same principle/logic to baking a cake as you would working in the factory? There is no sin in baking a cake. You bake the cake, as if to the Lord.
How it is used afterwards is not on you.

lol the case isn't about BAKING a cake! It's about using his artistic talents to decorate it.

The couple in question was free to buy the baked cake. People are able to buy anything on his shelves.

 

[Almost there]

I didn't want this to go unanswered.
I know of no example from Christ or the Church that would allow my individual right(s) to supersede those of my neighbor. I would tend to think that the overwhelming consensus is that when there is conflicting 'rights' that I, as a Christian, should yield to my neighbor. There are numerous examples from scripture on this, but the one that is first to mind is the Apostle Paul teaching on food offered to idols.. even though I could rightfully eat it, I yield to my brother who doesn't.
As it applies to those things identified as sin, again the teaching seems clear; if your hand offends cut it off, flee from immorality, etc - we don't stand and fight it, we should get rid of it. So if your property/business causes you to sin, get rid of it


Interesting.
I'm curious why you wouldn't apply the same principle/logic to baking a cake as you would working in the factory? There is no sin in baking a cake. You bake the cake, as if to the Lord.
How it is used afterwards is not on you.

It's not the cake. It's the message you put on it. If all they are asked to do is bake the cake, I have no real problem with it. My issue is with the government forcing them to. I can't sit in judgement of their moral compass, whether it's based on Christian convictions, or some weird atheist convictions. If they don't want to do it, they should be allowed to not do it.

And regarding the business causing you to sin: It is not the business that is the problem. It is the nanny state forcing you to do a thing that goes against your principles.

And all of this is a direct violation of the first amendment. The only way to get around it is to argue that it is to preserve a "higher principle". However, who is to say it is higher, and since the principle is not called out in the constitution, it doesn't exist, legally. If it's important, they can pass a constitutional amendment. You know, like prohibition.

 

[FenderTL5]

lol the case isn't about BAKING a cake! It's about using his artistic talents to decorate it.

Is there a difference between baking and decorating?
Are you saying that decorating the cake would be sinful but baking would not?

The couple in question was free to buy the baked cake. People are able to buy anything on his shelves.

If I understand the history, this isn't correct. The couple could have purchased anything on his shelves - except a wedding cake.

 

[Almost there]

Is there a difference between baking and decorating?
Are you saying that decorating the cake would be sinful but baking would not?

One is speech. A flag is speech. A picture of a naked lady is protected speech. Profanity is protected speech.

 

[RogerRoger]

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

This is brilliant

 

[HannahT]

Is there a difference between baking and decorating?
Are you saying that decorating the cake would be sinful but baking would not?

If I understand the history, this isn't correct. The couple could have purchased anything on his shelves - except a wedding cake.

I'm not saying anything. I have a difference of opinion with the baker, but being forced to decorate something he feels is against his moral belief system? Remember the bible verses about that too.

There is a difference between baking and decorating. lol we both know that!

They could have purchased the cake, and had it decorated elsewhere.

This case isn't about purchasing a baked good. It's about him not wishing to decorate it for them.

 

[KCfromNC]

That isn't what this case is about though. You aren't using the context at all.

My response was to someone who didn't want the government butting in and telling him who he could and couldn't kick out of his business. The context I mentioned is the one which anti-discrimination laws were written in.

The case is about him using his artistic talents on a cake.

It is about not selling a cake to a gay couple that he'd sell to a straight couple.

In the past the law allowed you to NOT sell due to skin color, religion, etc.

And now the law where the bakery is located doesn't allow a business to discriminate based on sexual orientation either.

Yet, that is the 'rhetoric' people are using to force someone to decorate a cake - remember he didn't have a problem selling them goods.

He admitted that he did have a problem selling a wedding cake specifically because the customers were members of a protected minority group. Seems pretty open and shut to me.

It was the decorating the cake that was against his belief system.

It wasn't the decorating that was the issue - it was the gender and sexual orientation of the particular customers he refused to sell a cake to.

 

[KCfromNC]

I was responding specifically to this:

Which didn't use the word constitutional or rights anywhere in it. Given that you don't explain how you got there from what I wrote I'm not really sure what it has to do with my point.

 

[Almost there]

Which didn't use the word constitutional or rights anywhere in it. Given that you don't explain how you got there from what I wrote I'm not really sure what it has to do with my point.

The purpose of the SCOTUS is to determine the constitutionality of laws. That is their only purpose.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Sounds like an argument against any laws at all, which is pretty obviously not going to work. With that out of the way, any ideas that might work here in reality?

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.

If that were true civil rights laws would have never been necessary.

 

[KCfromNC]

The purpose of the SCOTUS is to determine the constitutionality of laws. That is their only purpose.

Any chance you're going to address what I actually wrote?

 

[Almost there]

Sounds like an argument against any laws at all, which is pretty obviously not going to work. With that out of the way, any ideas that might work here in reality?



If that were true civil rights laws would have never been necessary.

Civil rights laws are unconstitutional. And no, I'm not saying no laws. Really, I think the laws should be in the hands of local governments. The FedGov gets involved when illegal activities and perps cross state lines. The Scotus gets involved when a state tries to pass a law that violates the federal constitution, such as Jim Crow and Affirmative Action.

 

[HannahT]

It is about not selling a cake to a gay couple that he'd sell to a straight couple.

And now the law where the bakery is located doesn't allow a business to discriminate based on sexual orientation either.

He admitted that he did have a problem selling a wedding cake specifically because the customers were members of a protected minority group. Seems pretty open and shut to me.

Actually, the case is about being forced to use his artistic talents on a cake.

He also mentioned other circumstances outside the 'protected minority group' that he didn't feel he could decorate for either.

My response was to someone who didn't want the government butting in and telling him who he could and couldn't kick out of his business. The context I mentioned is the one which anti-discrimination laws were written in.

The issue isn't about kicking people out of his business either. It about being forced to use his artistic talents to create something he doesn't feel comfortable with due to his beliefs.

As I mentioned above - he did the same thing to others that were NOT homosexual.

If he kicked them out of his business ONLY due to them being homosexual? You would have a point. Yet, he didn't...and that isn't what the case is about either.

 

[KCfromNC]

From what I'm reading about the case? The baker offered the cake to the couple, but did not feel he could decorate it.

No, he refused to sell them a wedding cake period. Read the initial Colorado decision, the findings of fact isn't all that long : Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece CakeShop - Decision

 

[Almost there]

Any chance you're going to address what I actually wrote?

I did.

 

[KCfromNC]

Civil rights laws are unconstitutional.

Citation needed.

Really, I think the laws should be in the hands of local governments.

You do realize that the law the bakery broke was a Colorado State law?