Religious base Discrim & Public Figures

So the Colorado cake baker is back in the news, and I find this discussion perplexing and confusing.

First of all, it appears the debate focuses entirely on the LGTB community. Can anybody argue against that? Because, at this point, the only people who feel they are being discriminated based on their sin or lifestyle, is the LGTB community.

Secondly, why should the LGTB community feel like they are prime targets, and should they be? If you support these religious freedom laws, please clarify if you support businesses discriminating against other people based on sins, lifestyles, or even another incorrect religious affiliation?

I know some fundamental Christians, and they say anybody who doesn't accept Jesus is wrong. So should they have a right to discriminate or refuse to bake a cake for Jews, Muslims, etc.? Should all religious groups be protected from lawsuit for discriminating against other religious groups?

And then there are public figures, well known people in communities, and bad reputations. Nobody is perfect, and most religious teach that and teach that everybody sins. Public figures and bad reputations make people easy targets, so should it be acceptable to discriminate for all the following reasons:

President Trump - known to have multiple affairs on his wife, accused of sexual assault, and not a good personal reputation. Should it be legal to discriminate on a current president like Trump? What about a previous president like Clinton?

Stormi Daniels - porn star and stripper

All other porn stars, strippers, and people involved in sex work

Madonna, Britney Spears, and Katy Perry - made it cool to kiss another girl

Amy Fisher and George Zimmerman - admitted to killing or attempting to kill another person

All ex convicts and felons found guilty of murder or serious crime

Anybody who had an abortion previously, and you know it

Ask yourself this:

Does a Mormon owned hotel or diner refuse to sell coffee or caffeine products? No.

Then,

If it is OK for a religious person to serve a sinner, why do they single out one particular sin like homosexuality?

Answer: Because they are homophobes.

SheWolf said:

So the Colorado cake baker is back in the news, and I find this discussion perplexing and confusing.

First of all, it appears the debate focuses entirely on the LGTB community. Can anybody argue against that? Because, at this point, the only people who feel they are being discriminated based on their sin or lifestyle, is the LGTB community.

Secondly, why should the LGTB community feel like they are prime targets, and should they be? If you support these religious freedom laws, please clarify if you support businesses discriminating against other people based on sins, lifestyles, or even another incorrect religious affiliation?

I know some fundamental Christians, and they say anybody who doesn't accept Jesus is wrong. So should they have a right to discriminate or refuse to bake a cake for Jews, Muslims, etc.? Should all religious groups be protected from lawsuit for discriminating against other religious groups?

And then there are public figures, well known people in communities, and bad reputations. Nobody is perfect, and most religious teach that and teach that everybody sins. Public figures and bad reputations make people easy targets, so should it be acceptable to discriminate for all the following reasons:

President Trump - known to have multiple affairs on his wife, accused of sexual assault, and not a good personal reputation. Should it be legal to discriminate on a current president like Trump? What about a previous president like Clinton?

Stormi Daniels - porn star and stripper

All other porn stars, strippers, and people involved in sex work

Madonna, Britney Spears, and Katy Perry - made it cool to kiss another girl

Amy Fisher and George Zimmerman - admitted to killing or attempting to kill another person

All ex convicts and felons found guilty of murder or serious crime

Anybody who had an abortion previously, and you know it

Click to expand...

The whole Baking issue only has happened because Same Sex Marriage was legalized and some religious nut balls are pissed and still fighting against it. That's it. It wasn't a huge issue before hand.

Vadinho said:

Ask yourself this:

Does a Mormon owned hotel or diner refuse to sell coffee or caffeine products? No.

Then,

If it is OK for a religious person to serve a sinner, why do they single out one particular sin like homosexuality?

Answer: Because they are homophobes.

Click to expand...

One can elaborate.

The stupidly dishonest gambit is to claim that use of a product in a reception after a wedding ceremony - that may or may not be religious anyway - is participation in the wedding itself. So where are all the carpet manufacturers? The cutlery manufacturers? The speaker manufacturers? Where are all the manufacturers of all the things that are used in these post-wedding parties? Hell, where are all the other Orthodox religious people who have a problem with gay people AND who run bakeries?

Nowhere, because of course you're right that it's about bigotry. And like most if not all bigotry, it is craven. They hide behind a claim of "religion", a false invocation of the constitution.

Vadinho said:

Ask yourself this:

Does a Mormon owned hotel or diner refuse to sell coffee or caffeine products? No.

Then,

If it is OK for a religious person to serve a sinner, why do they single out one particular sin like homosexuality?

Answer: Because they are homophobes.

Click to expand...

The difference is that with a homosexual wedding cake, you are being asked to provide a service for a public display of sin. I don't think that there's any baker that would refuse any random cake for a homosexual. It's being asked to be part of public sin that's the issue.

SheWolf said:

So the Colorado cake baker is back in the news, and I find this discussion perplexing and confusing.

First of all, it appears the debate focuses entirely on the LGTB community. Can anybody argue against that? Because, at this point, the only people who feel they are being discriminated based on their sin or lifestyle, is the LGTB community.

Click to expand...

Not arguing against anything, but it was the addition of sexual orientation as a protected class that touched off this specific controversy, so it makes sense to me. New law, new controversies.

If the other protected classes were suddenly refused service, the violator would seem completely alien to many of us. Can you imagine some refusing to service based on race or gender as a stated policy?

When these were new ideas, people resisted them also, and then it became normal, and now it seem like it's always been that way.

For many of us, these rules are older than we are, so it always HAS been that way, in our experience.

Secondly, why should the LGTB community feel like they are prime targets, and should they be? If you support these religious freedom laws, please clarify if you support businesses discriminating against other people based on sins, lifestyles, or even another incorrect religious affiliation?

Click to expand...

This is the next phase of the gay marriage/gay rights push that started getting traction a few years ago. You might remember it was a pretty hot topic in some corners, and now it's settled law in most places?

I know some fundamental Christians, and they say anybody who doesn't accept Jesus is wrong. So should they have a right to discriminate or refuse to bake a cake for Jews, Muslims, etc.? Should all religious groups be protected from lawsuit for discriminating against other religious groups?

Click to expand...

They're free to say whatever they want, and exclude whoever they like from their religion. They just can't run a business that is subject to public accommodation regulations if they refuse to serve based on a protected class.

And then there are public figures, well known people in communities, and bad reputations. Nobody is perfect, and most religious teach that and teach that everybody sins. Public figures and bad reputations make people easy targets, so should it be acceptable to discriminate for all the following reasons:

President Trump - known to have multiple affairs on his wife, accused of sexual assault, and not a good personal reputation. Should it be legal to discriminate on a current president like Trump? What about a previous president like Clinton?

Stormi Daniels - porn star and stripper

All other porn stars, strippers, and people involved in sex work

Madonna, Britney Spears, and Katy Perry - made it cool to kiss another girl

Amy Fisher and George Zimmerman - admitted to killing or attempting to kill another person

All ex convicts and felons found guilty of murder or serious crime

Anybody who had an abortion previously, and you know it

Click to expand...

It's the context of the discrimination that counts.

You can loudly mock these people in public, if that's your thing.

You can rail against them at church.

You can send hate mail (probably should avoid death threats.)

But if you run a business that is under the sway of public accommodation laws (which you agree to follow for licensing) you can't legally refuse them service based on a protected status.

I think most people would get the hint they weren't welcome, and simply leave and do their business elsewhere.

If they decided to make an issue of it though, then they'd have the law on their side, and unless you're a better excuse-maker than the world's most famous anti-gay marriage "cake artist," you'll likely be fined and/or have your license revoked.

phattonez said:

The difference is that with a homosexual wedding cake, you are being asked to provide a service for a public display of sin. I don't think that there's any baker that would refuse any random cake for a homosexual. It's being asked to be part of public sin that's the issue.

Click to expand...

The wording is so funny. What if you baked a cake for a stripper to jump out of, would that also be a public display of sin?

SheWolf said:

The wording is so funny. What if you baked a cake for a stripper to jump out of, would that also be a public display of sin?

Click to expand...

Obviously.

WillyPete said:

Not arguing against anything, but it was the addition of sexual orientation as a protected class that touched off this specific controversy, so it makes sense to me. New law, new controversies.

If the other protected classes were suddenly refused service, the violator would seem completely alien to many of us. Can you imagine some refusing to service based on race or gender as a stated policy?

When these were new ideas, people resisted them also, and then it became normal, and now it seem like it's always been that way.

For many of us, these rules are older than we are, so it always HAS been that way, in our experience.




This is the next phase of the gay marriage/gay rights push that started getting traction a few years ago. You might remember it was a pretty hot topic in some corners, and now it's settled law in most places?




They're free to say whatever they want, and exclude whoever they like from their religion. They just can't run a business that is subject to public accommodation regulations if they refuse to server based on a protected class.




It's the context of the discrimination that counts.

You can loudly mock of of these people in public, if that's your thing.

You can rail against them at church.

You can send hate mail (probably should avoid death threats.)

But if you run a business that is under the sway of public accommodation laws (which you agree to follow for licensing) you can't legally refuse them service based on a protected status.

I think most people would get the hint they weren't welcome, and simply leave and do their business elsewhere.

If they decided to make an issue of it though, then they'd have the law on their side, and unless you're a better excuse-maker than the wold most famous anti-gay marriage "cake artist," you'll likely be fined and/or have your license revoked.

Click to expand...

You make some good points, but I am still confused. You're saying that it's the context of discrimination that counts, but what about the religious perspective? Felons, strippers, porn stars, presidents, celebrities, and artists are not protected classes. Protected classes include race, religion, national origin, age over 40, gender, disability, veteran, etc. It seems there is room in the federal law for people with perceived moral flaws, based on religious views, to be discriminated against. That's how this debate is framed by religious groups anyway.

However, in my OP, I did state that I find the debate and framing confusing.

You have made a good point on why the LGBT community is the prime target though.

SheWolf said:

So the Colorado cake baker is back in the news, and I find this discussion perplexing and confusing.

First of all, it appears the debate focuses entirely on the LGTB community. Can anybody argue against that? Because, at this point, the only people who feel they are being discriminated based on their sin or lifestyle, is the LGTB community.

Secondly, why should the LGTB community feel like they are prime targets, and should they be? If you support these religious freedom laws, please clarify if you support businesses discriminating against other people based on sins, lifestyles, or even another incorrect religious affiliation?

I know some fundamental Christians, and they say anybody who doesn't accept Jesus is wrong. So should they have a right to discriminate or refuse to bake a cake for Jews, Muslims, etc.? Should all religious groups be protected from lawsuit for discriminating against other religious groups?

And then there are public figures, well known people in communities, and bad reputations. Nobody is perfect, and most religious teach that and teach that everybody sins. Public figures and bad reputations make people easy targets, so should it be acceptable to discriminate for all the following reasons:

President Trump - known to have multiple affairs on his wife, accused of sexual assault, and not a good personal reputation. Should it be legal to discriminate on a current president like Trump? What about a previous president like Clinton?

Stormi Daniels - porn star and stripper

All other porn stars, strippers, and people involved in sex work

Madonna, Britney Spears, and Katy Perry - made it cool to kiss another girl

Amy Fisher and George Zimmerman - admitted to killing or attempting to kill another person

All ex convicts and felons found guilty of murder or serious crime

Anybody who had an abortion previously, and you know it

Click to expand...

People do discriminate in all sorts of ways on a daily basis.

They decide who they do and don't want to be friends with, where they do and don't want to shop. What religious belief they want to follow and which ones they want to avoid.

It seems to me that in this case people are trying to make a test case out of this particular baker. It's not as if he is the ONLY baker in the area, and IMO if some store doesn't want my business I just find one that does and let it go at that.

Now if he were the ONLY baker within a reasonable commuting distance? I'd expect him to bake me a cake, but again if he states he can't add certain designs based on his religious views it doesn't stop him from making me a cake he has no problems with.

I am aware of videos showing that Moslem bakers will refuse to bake certain types of designs or even participate at all in providing services for certain wedding or ceremonies...yet I don't see anyone trying to force THEM to conform in such ways.

Is this selective outrage, or just a hope that once a test case forces some "Christian" to serve, all other religions will simply bow down and follow suit? I don't think that is how hard-core religious believers of any sect tend to think, but who knows?

Mr Person said:

One can elaborate.

The stupidly dishonest gambit is to claim that use of a product in a reception after a wedding ceremony - that may or may not be religious anyway - is participation in the wedding itself. So where are all the carpet manufacturers? The cutlery manufacturers? The speaker manufacturers? Where are all the manufacturers of all the things that are used in these post-wedding parties? Hell, where are all the other Orthodox religious people who have a problem with gay people AND who run bakeries?

Nowhere, because of course you're right that it's about bigotry. And like most if not all bigotry, it is craven. They hide behind a claim of "religion", a false invocation of the constitution.

Click to expand...

You made a good point. However, (playing devils advocate) suppose the baker in question considers himself an artist and makes original cakes of his own design and talent? Should he be forced to create art for something he doesn't agree with? And if he submits to making one cake for a homosexual wedding then would he be forced to make more cakes for other LGTB weddings, as well?

What about singers and musicians who refuse to play a gig because they didn't agree with someone's politics or beliefs?

Moot said:

You made a good point. However, (playing devils advocate) suppose the baker in question considers himself an artist and makes original cakes of his own design and talent? Should he be forced to create art for something he doesn't agree with? And if he submits to making one cake for a homosexual wedding then would he be forced to make more cakes for other LGTB weddings, as well?

What about singers and musicians who refuse to play a gig because they didn't agree with someone's politics or beliefs?

Click to expand...

I'm on board with anti-discrimination laws targeting businesses open to the public. If you open a shop presenting yourself as a baker who will sell to people that walk in, you have to follow those laws (or, I want them to. Local/state laws and state constitutions can be more protective than the federal constitution and federal laws). Obviously, SCOTUS has the last word federally, right or wrong.

On the other hand, if you present yourself as a private artist who might do work on commission, I think you can do what the bloody hell you want.



The distinction is in what I cited. Anti-discrimination laws focus on "protected classes." In layman's terms these are categories of person who have been discriminated against based on the category they belong to which category generally isn't something you pick. Sex, race, gender....these aren't thinks you decide to have. Recent research adds homosexuality to that group and I have little doubt it'll add trans status to that group.

(And anyone who raises an eyebrow at that: really? You can see yourself as being able to fall in love with the same sex and/or to take on a life as the opposite sex? Really? You're lying if so, whichever reader it is).





Speech - aka political belief as expressed - is not a protected class. There's no "Hillary supporter" protected class and there's no "Trump supporter" protected class, neither is there an "I love Jill Stein" protected class. That's the first distinction re; bands.

The second is that bands aren't businesses open to the public. They'd have to sit in a shop and offer a menu of songs they will play live for an incomer, or something analogous on those key points. They're private artists doing commission. And a private entity can do what it wants, just like the KKK. That's the second distinction.

Similarly, a business open to the public can put up a sign saying "no shirt/no shoes? No sale". The shirtless and shoeless are not protected classes by virtue of their lack of clothing.

SheWolf said:

You make some good points, but I am still confused. You're saying that it's the context of discrimination that counts, but what about the religious perspective? Felons, strippers, porn stars, presidents, celebrities, and artists are not protected classes. Protected classes include race, religion, national origin, age over 40, gender, disability, veteran, etc. It seems there is room in the federal law for people with perceived moral flaws, based on religious views, to be discriminated against. That's how this debate is framed by religious groups anyway.

Click to expand...

To be clear, the new law related to our cake dude is a Colorado state law, rather than federal. It's a public accommodation law, specifically intended to regulate how businesses operate.

If it's not protected, discriminate away, knowing you'll be judged by your customers accordingly.

Let's say they are a member of multiple classes and only one is protected, like maybe we have an old black gay jewish felon trying to buy our holy widgets. If you discriminate against them, you'd better make it pretty clear what you're discriminating against, or you open yourself up to a reasonable accusation.

The perspective where this applies is "business that falls under public accommodation law." I'll allow it must put some religious business folk in a weird space, but the choices seem very simple to me:

Follow the law.
Relocate to a region that has laws you can abide.
Convert the business to a form that does not fall under public accommodation laws (such as a private club.)
Close the business.

However, in my OP, I did state that I find the debate and framing confusing.

You have made a good point on why the LGBT community is the prime target though.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I'm trying. It IS confusing stuff, because it very much intersects with religious freedom, but my view is these people opted-in when they decided to open the business. They volunteered to follow these laws in exchange for the benefits of having a business license.

Not liking the law has never been a good reason not to follow it, and they have options that don't have these issues.

In a decade or two, it will seem just as normal as serving black folks the same as white, or letting women vote, I promise.

SheWolf said:

So the Colorado cake baker is back in the news, and I find this discussion perplexing and confusing.

First of all, it appears the debate focuses entirely on the LGTB community. Can anybody argue against that? Because, at this point, the only people who feel they are being discriminated based on their sin or lifestyle, is the LGTB community.

Secondly, why should the LGTB community feel like they are prime targets, and should they be? If you support these religious freedom laws, please clarify if you support businesses discriminating against other people based on sins, lifestyles, or even another incorrect religious affiliation?

I know some fundamental Christians, and they say anybody who doesn't accept Jesus is wrong. So should they have a right to discriminate or refuse to bake a cake for Jews, Muslims, etc.? Should all religious groups be protected from lawsuit for discriminating against other religious groups?

And then there are public figures, well known people in communities, and bad reputations. Nobody is perfect, and most religious teach that and teach that everybody sins. Public figures and bad reputations make people easy targets, so should it be acceptable to discriminate for all the following reasons:

President Trump - known to have multiple affairs on his wife, accused of sexual assault, and not a good personal reputation. Should it be legal to discriminate on a current president like Trump? What about a previous president like Clinton?

Stormi Daniels - porn star and stripper

All other porn stars, strippers, and people involved in sex work

Madonna, Britney Spears, and Katy Perry - made it cool to kiss another girl

Amy Fisher and George Zimmerman - admitted to killing or attempting to kill another person

All ex convicts and felons found guilty of murder or serious crime

Anybody who had an abortion previously, and you know it

Click to expand...

The only "target" here is the Christian baker.

Mr Person said:

One can elaborate.

The stupidly dishonest gambit is to claim that use of a product in a reception after a wedding ceremony - that may or may not be religious anyway - is participation in the wedding itself. So where are all the carpet manufacturers? The cutlery manufacturers? The speaker manufacturers? Where are all the manufacturers of all the things that are used in these post-wedding parties? Hell, where are all the other Orthodox religious people who have a problem with gay people AND who run bakeries?

Nowhere, because of course you're right that it's about bigotry. And like most if not all bigotry, it is craven. They hide behind a claim of "religion", a false invocation of the constitution.

Click to expand...

They hide behind a claim of "religion", a false invocation of the constitution

Click to expand...

How have they falsely invoked the Constitution?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WillyPete said:

Not arguing against anything, but it was the addition of sexual orientation as a protected class that touched off this specific controversy, so it makes sense to me. New law, new controversies.

If the other protected classes were suddenly refused service, the violator would seem completely alien to many of us. Can you imagine some refusing to service based on race or gender as a stated policy?

When these were new ideas, people resisted them also, and then it became normal, and now it seem like it's always been that way.

For many of us, these rules are older than we are, so it always HAS been that way, in our experience.




This is the next phase of the gay marriage/gay rights push that started getting traction a few years ago. You might remember it was a pretty hot topic in some corners, and now it's settled law in most places?




They're free to say whatever they want, and exclude whoever they like from their religion. They just can't run a business that is subject to public accommodation regulations if they refuse to serve based on a protected class.




It's the context of the discrimination that counts.

You can loudly mock these people in public, if that's your thing.

You can rail against them at church.

You can send hate mail (probably should avoid death threats.)

But if you run a business that is under the sway of public accommodation laws (which you agree to follow for licensing) you can't legally refuse them service based on a protected status.

I think most people would get the hint they weren't welcome, and simply leave and do their business elsewhere.

If they decided to make an issue of it though, then they'd have the law on their side, and unless you're a better excuse-maker than the world's most famous anti-gay marriage "cake artist," you'll likely be fined and/or have your license revoked.

Click to expand...

But if you run a business that is under the sway of public accommodation laws (which you agree to follow for licensing) you can't legally refuse them service based on a protected status.

Click to expand...

The licensing aspect is not determinative whether someone can “legally refuse them service” on the basis of conduct based on a religious belief and protected under the 1st Amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NotreDame said:

The licensing aspect is not determinative whether someone can “legally refuse them service” on the basis of conduct based on a religious belief and protected under the 1st Amendment.

Click to expand...

We've gone around on this a couple times. You seem to be really hung up on specific language and terminology. I'm not the guy you're looking for.

I see no problem with revoking a license (or fining, or otherwise punishing) someone who doesn't follow the laws related to being licensed.

Folks with these objections have perfectly good options that are within the law and allow them their full range of expression. The 1st doesn't give you a right to run a business however you like.

They can pick one of those, or they can resist and eventually be compelled.

SheWolf said:

So the Colorado cake baker is back in the news, and I find this discussion perplexing and confusing.

First of all, it appears the debate focuses entirely on the LGTB community. Can anybody argue against that? Because, at this point, the only people who feel they are being discriminated based on their sin or lifestyle, is the LGTB community.

Secondly, why should the LGTB community feel like they are prime targets, and should they be? If you support these religious freedom laws, please clarify if you support businesses discriminating against other people based on sins, lifestyles, or even another incorrect religious affiliation?

I know some fundamental Christians, and they say anybody who doesn't accept Jesus is wrong. So should they have a right to discriminate or refuse to bake a cake for Jews, Muslims, etc.? Should all religious groups be protected from lawsuit for discriminating against other religious groups?

And then there are public figures, well known people in communities, and bad reputations. Nobody is perfect, and most religious teach that and teach that everybody sins. Public figures and bad reputations make people easy targets, so should it be acceptable to discriminate for all the following reasons:

President Trump - known to have multiple affairs on his wife, accused of sexual assault, and not a good personal reputation. Should it be legal to discriminate on a current president like Trump? What about a previous president like Clinton?

Stormi Daniels - porn star and stripper

All other porn stars, strippers, and people involved in sex work

Madonna, Britney Spears, and Katy Perry - made it cool to kiss another girl

Amy Fisher and George Zimmerman - admitted to killing or attempting to kill another person

All ex convicts and felons found guilty of murder or serious crime

Anybody who had an abortion previously, and you know it

Click to expand...

its really simple really... its not Christians or Christianity or any religion. its loony toon nutters. They dont represent the religion.
Yes they CLAIM something is about thier religion but honest educated objective people dont fall for itst super transparent.


as per one of your examples this is way the vast majority of Christians have no problem running business. Its because they are not bigoted nutjobs trying to infringe on peoples rights and or treat people as lessers :shrug:

Moot said:

You made a good point. However, (playing devils advocate) suppose the baker in question considers himself an artist and makes original cakes of his own design and talent? Should he be forced to create art for something he doesn't agree with? And if he submits to making one cake for a homosexual wedding then would he be forced to make more cakes for other LGTB weddings, as well?

What about singers and musicians who refuse to play a gig because they didn't agree with someone's politics or beliefs?

Click to expand...

When it comes to alleging one is an artist and is creating “art,” whether they have engaged in speech is evaluated under the jurisprudence regarding expressive conduct when written words are not involved.

The 1st Amendment protects expressive speech. Flag burning, Texas v. Johnson, is expressive speech. Wearing a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War is expressive speech (Tinker v. Des Moines). Displaying the U.S. flag upside down with a peace symbol affixed to the flag is expressive speech. Spence v. Washington. Nude dancing is also expressive speech. Barnes v. Glen Theatre. Art comes within the same parameter of expressive speech.

So, there are several considerations in determining whether some conduct is expressive speech under the free speech clause. First there is not unlimited conduct which qualifies as expressive speech just because the person engaging in the conduct intends to communicate a message. Texas v. Johnson quoting O'Brien v. U.S.

For expressive conduct to qualify as speech requires 1.) Intent to communicate a particular message, 2..) the likelihood is great those viewing the conduct would understand the message. Texas v. Johnson quoting O'brien v. U.S.

However, even expressive conduct, which is speech, may be infringed upon by the government. The government "has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the spoken or written word." Texas v. Johnson. The government cannot, however, infringe upon the expressive conduct "because it has expressive conduct." Id. Where "speech and non-speech are combined in the same course of conduct," an important governmental interest in regulating the "non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on the 1st Amendment freedoms, "Texas v. Johnson quoting O'brien v. U.S. This lenient standard is only applicable where "the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression."

Ok. So, assuming the baker's act of making a custom wedding cake is expressive speech (in which the compelled speech doctrine is applicable, a right not to speak, see Wooley v. Maynard, West Virginia State Board v. Barnette, and Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston) may the Colorado public accommodation law infringe upon his speech rights?

I think so, under the doctrine above. For a tantalizing back and forth, here are some links. https://reason.com/v...akeshop-decisio http://www.scotusblo..._unity_fund.pdf
https://reason.com/v...e-equality-of-r

Eugene Volokh, a 1st Amendment free speech scholar and expert, lawyer, and law professor, co-wrote the amicus brief. (Second link), and the first link is to his article at the Volokh Conspiracy. Yes, he is the eponymous creator of website Volokh Conspiracy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Captain Adverse said:

People do discriminate in all sorts of ways on a daily basis.

They decide who they do and don't want to be friends with, where they do and don't want to shop. What religious belief they want to follow and which ones they want to avoid.

It seems to me that in this case people are trying to make a test case out of this particular baker. It's not as if he is the ONLY baker in the area, and IMO if some store doesn't want my business I just find one that does and let it go at that.

Now if he were the ONLY baker within a reasonable commuting distance? I'd expect him to bake me a cake, but again if he states he can't add certain designs based on his religious views it doesn't stop him from making me a cake he has no problems with.

I am aware of videos showing that Moslem bakers will refuse to bake certain types of designs or even participate at all in providing services for certain wedding or ceremonies...yet I don't see anyone trying to force THEM to conform in such ways.

Is this selective outrage, or just a hope that once a test case forces some "Christian" to serve, all other religions will simply bow down and follow suit? I don't think that is how hard-core religious believers of any sect tend to think, but who knows?

Click to expand...

You didn't really answer my questions, and that is a major part of confusion that I have on this discussion. Would you support somebody refusing to service to porn stars, strippers, sex workers, reputation, legal history, etc. based on their religious views? And since this is often framed as religious freedom, shouldn't all religious groups have the right to discriminate based on their own moral views?

Moot said:

You made a good point. However, (playing devils advocate) suppose the baker in question considers himself an artist and makes original cakes of his own design and talent? Should he be forced to create art for something he doesn't agree with? And if he submits to making one cake for a homosexual wedding then would he be forced to make more cakes for other LGTB weddings, as well?

What about singers and musicians who refuse to play a gig because they didn't agree with someone's politics or beliefs?

Click to expand...

An artist creates artwork of his own design, but not for his own purpose. The purpose is up to the buyer, and how the buyer wants to display or use the art. How could an artist regulate the purpose of his art? A financial transaction between artist and buyer, means the artist is no longer the owner.

Religious base Discrim & Public Figures

WillyPete said:

We've gone around on this a couple times. You seem to be really hung up on specific language and terminology. I'm not the guy you're looking for.

I see no problem with revoking a license (or fining, or otherwise punishing) someone who doesn't follow the laws related to being licensed.

Folks with these objections have perfectly good options that are within the law and allow them their full range of expression. The 1st doesn't give you a right to run a business however you like.

They can pick one of those, or they can resist and eventually be compelled.

Click to expand...

Licenses cannot lawfully be revoked on the basis a constitutionally protected right was exercised.

The 1st doesn't give you a right to run a business however you like.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but I never made any such claim.

The problem is you labor under the incorrect notion that since someone received a license by the government, and a license is an agreement to follow all the laws, then those laws are superior to any constitutional rights, and they must follow those laws which implicate their rights or their license can be revoked.

The decision of Citizens United v FEC, and the long list of cases recognizing the free speech rights of corporations, undermines your position.

They can pick one of those, or they can resist and eventually be compelled

Click to expand...

No other options? Just your false dilemma?

I have a third option. They can challenge the law infringing upon their rights, as they did in Citizens United v FEC, and as in that case, perhaps have the Court decide the law unconstitutionally infringes upon their rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr Person said:

One can elaborate.

The stupidly dishonest gambit is to claim that use of a product in a reception after a wedding ceremony - that may or may not be religious anyway - is participation in the wedding itself. So where are all the carpet manufacturers? The cutlery manufacturers? The speaker manufacturers? Where are all the manufacturers of all the things that are used in these post-wedding parties? Hell, where are all the other Orthodox religious people who have a problem with gay people AND who run bakeries?

Nowhere, because of course you're right that it's about bigotry. And like most if not all bigotry, it is craven. They hide behind a claim of "religion", a false invocation of the constitution.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. This bakery was sought out to make an example of them. They knew going in that the guy was a Christian and wouldn't bake their cake. The attack here is on the baker, not the gay couple. They could have bought a cake in any of dozens of places. This is all about the left punishing those who refuse to accept their morality as correct.

WillyPete said:

We've gone around on this a couple times. You seem to be really hung up on specific language and terminology. I'm not the guy you're looking for.

I see no problem with revoking a license (or fining, or otherwise punishing) someone who doesn't follow the laws related to being licensed.

Folks with these objections have perfectly good options that are within the law and allow them their full range of expression. The 1st doesn't give you a right to run a business however you like.

They can pick one of those, or they can resist and eventually be compelled.

Click to expand...

The weird thing is that I have came across a lot of people in America, who think desegregation was wrong and business owners are being oppressed because they can't discriminate based on race.

Some people use religion as a tool for thier own selfish wants and to try and force things on others so they pick and choose what matters and when its pure hypocrisy
Some people dont support ANY PA/AD laws,, i think thats anarchy and insanity and thank god our country isnt run like that
Some people want special treatment and special rights based on what they feel thier religion is and thank good our country inst run like that either

the reality is though biased views and hypocrisy comes from all sides thought right, left, center, religious and non religious. Nutters exist in all groups.

Thankfully when it comes to rights for the most part we all have to play by the same rules. My religions rights are the same as everybodys and they are fully protected and PA/AD laws factually dont infringe on them in anyway. Also what people need more of is thinking like this . ..my religion is for ME, my religious views are MINE, its not for others or to be pushed on them. I am completely free to practice and believe without forcing it on anybody else. many people have a very tough time with that.