Christian Baker Case About First Amendment, ‘Compelled Speech’
Sen. Mike Lee is warning that the case of a Colorado baker in legal peril for refusing to bake a specialty wedding cake for a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony is about more than religious liberty or LGBT rights, but about whether the government can compel speech.
“The government cannot force you to speak where you would choose to remain silent.” @SenMikeLee says.
Lee, R-Utah, was among what GOP members said are at least 86 members of Congress signing onto an amicus brief that will be filed in support of the plaintiffs in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which the Supreme Court will be considering in its upcoming term, which begins next month.
“This is a compelled-speech case,” Lee said at a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday. “The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment, in addition to doing all the things that it does, prohibits the government from requiring individuals from making a particular statement with which they disagree. The government cannot force you to speak where you would choose to remain silent.”
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more > >
Lee, a constitutional scholar and the author of the 2015 book “Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America’s Founding Document,” also said the case is not a public-accommodations case, but rather, is a viewpoint-discrimination case.
“This isn’t a case where someone refused to sell a pre-made good to someone else, based on their sexuality or their orientation,” said Lee, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006-2007.
“It is instead one in which the couple at issue requested the cake baker make a specialty cake, not a pre-ordered, pre-made, pre-designed sort of thing. But, [they were] asking the baker to use the baker’s talents and specialty to craft a cake carrying a message with which the baker disagrees. So these cases are different than cases involving public accommodations.”
The members of Congress were joined by Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, as well as by Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. Members of Congress have asked the Supreme Court to consider the Stutzman case as well, after the state took punitive action against her for not providing flowers for a same-sex wedding. SEARCH
CONNECT
MENU
LAWNEWS
Sen. Mike Lee: Christian Baker Case About First Amendment, ‘Compelled Speech’
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / September 07, 2017 / comments
"A government that tells you what you must say, and what you must do, and punishes you if you don’t, is frightening," says Rep. Vicky Hartzler. (Photo: David Munns/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
Sen. Mike Lee is warning that the case of a Colorado baker in legal peril for refusing to bake a specialty wedding cake for a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony is about more than religious liberty or LGBT rights, but about whether the government can compel speech.
“The government cannot force you to speak where you would choose to remain silent.” @SenMikeLee says.
Lee, R-Utah, was among what GOP members said are at least 86 members of Congress signing onto an amicus brief that will be filed in support of the plaintiffs in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which the Supreme Court will be considering in its upcoming term, which begins next month.
“This is a compelled-speech case,” Lee said at a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday. “The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment, in addition to doing all the things that it does, prohibits the government from requiring individuals from making a particular statement with which they disagree. The government cannot force you to speak where you would choose to remain silent.”
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more > >
Lee, a constitutional scholar and the author of the 2015 book “Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America’s Founding Document,” also said the case is not a public-accommodations case, but rather, is a viewpoint-discrimination case.
“This isn’t a case where someone refused to sell a pre-made good to someone else, based on their sexuality or their orientation,” said Lee, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006-2007.
“It is instead one in which the couple at issue requested the cake baker make a specialty cake, not a pre-ordered, pre-made, pre-designed sort of thing. But, [they were] asking the baker to use the baker’s talents and specialty to craft a cake carrying a message with which the baker disagrees. So these cases are different than cases involving public accommodations.”
The members of Congress were joined by Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, as well as by Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. Members of Congress have asked the Supreme Court to consider the Stutzman case as well, after the state took punitive action against her for not providing flowers for a same-sex wedding.
In the Colorado case, Phillips declined to bake a cake with a rainbow image celebrating a ceremony for a same-sex union. Phillips said he would have gladly sold any baked goods to the couple, but declined to specifically create a cake with an image that violated his conscience.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined the cake shop violated public-accommodations laws.
“Every American artist has the right to create or not to create,” Phillips said.
In the Washington state case, the state attorney general’s office sued Stutzman, claiming she violated the state’s anti-discrimination law in declining to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.
“This is not just about my freedom, but about everyone’s freedom,” Stutzman said.
The other members of Congress at the press conference were Reps. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo.; Mike Johnson, R-La.; Doug Lamborn, R-Colo.; and Jody Hice, R-Ga. They agreed the case could set a seismic First Amendment precedent.
“Government coercion of speech that violates the religious conscience of the speaker is not only a violation of the First Amendment; it is also patently un-American, and it’s a violation of personal liberty,” Hartzler said. “A government that tells you what you can’t say is bad enough. But a government that tells you what you must say, and what you must do, and punishes you if you don’t, is frightening. That kind of state power should scare all of us, no matter where we stand on this issue.”
Lamborn, who represents a district near Phillips’ shop, agreed.
“If you can restrict free speech in one area, nothing can stop government from restricting free speech in other areas,” he said. http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/07/sen-mike-lee-christian-baker-case-about-first-amendment-compelled-speech/
“The government cannot force you to speak where you would choose to remain silent.” @SenMikeLee says.
Lee, R-Utah, was among what GOP members said are at least 86 members of Congress signing onto an amicus brief that will be filed in support of the plaintiffs in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which the Supreme Court will be considering in its upcoming term, which begins next month.
“This is a compelled-speech case,” Lee said at a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday. “The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment, in addition to doing all the things that it does, prohibits the government from requiring individuals from making a particular statement with which they disagree. The government cannot force you to speak where you would choose to remain silent.”
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more > >
Lee, a constitutional scholar and the author of the 2015 book “Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America’s Founding Document,” also said the case is not a public-accommodations case, but rather, is a viewpoint-discrimination case.
“This isn’t a case where someone refused to sell a pre-made good to someone else, based on their sexuality or their orientation,” said Lee, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006-2007.
“It is instead one in which the couple at issue requested the cake baker make a specialty cake, not a pre-ordered, pre-made, pre-designed sort of thing. But, [they were] asking the baker to use the baker’s talents and specialty to craft a cake carrying a message with which the baker disagrees. So these cases are different than cases involving public accommodations.”
The members of Congress were joined by Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, as well as by Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. Members of Congress have asked the Supreme Court to consider the Stutzman case as well, after the state took punitive action against her for not providing flowers for a same-sex wedding. SEARCH
CONNECT
MENU
LAWNEWS
Sen. Mike Lee: Christian Baker Case About First Amendment, ‘Compelled Speech’
Fred Lucas / @FredLucasWH / September 07, 2017 / comments
"A government that tells you what you must say, and what you must do, and punishes you if you don’t, is frightening," says Rep. Vicky Hartzler. (Photo: David Munns/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
Sen. Mike Lee is warning that the case of a Colorado baker in legal peril for refusing to bake a specialty wedding cake for a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony is about more than religious liberty or LGBT rights, but about whether the government can compel speech.
“The government cannot force you to speak where you would choose to remain silent.” @SenMikeLee says.
Lee, R-Utah, was among what GOP members said are at least 86 members of Congress signing onto an amicus brief that will be filed in support of the plaintiffs in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which the Supreme Court will be considering in its upcoming term, which begins next month.
“This is a compelled-speech case,” Lee said at a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday. “The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment, in addition to doing all the things that it does, prohibits the government from requiring individuals from making a particular statement with which they disagree. The government cannot force you to speak where you would choose to remain silent.”
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more > >
Lee, a constitutional scholar and the author of the 2015 book “Our Lost Constitution: The Willful Subversion of America’s Founding Document,” also said the case is not a public-accommodations case, but rather, is a viewpoint-discrimination case.
“This isn’t a case where someone refused to sell a pre-made good to someone else, based on their sexuality or their orientation,” said Lee, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006-2007.
“It is instead one in which the couple at issue requested the cake baker make a specialty cake, not a pre-ordered, pre-made, pre-designed sort of thing. But, [they were] asking the baker to use the baker’s talents and specialty to craft a cake carrying a message with which the baker disagrees. So these cases are different than cases involving public accommodations.”
The members of Congress were joined by Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, as well as by Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, Washington. Members of Congress have asked the Supreme Court to consider the Stutzman case as well, after the state took punitive action against her for not providing flowers for a same-sex wedding.
In the Colorado case, Phillips declined to bake a cake with a rainbow image celebrating a ceremony for a same-sex union. Phillips said he would have gladly sold any baked goods to the couple, but declined to specifically create a cake with an image that violated his conscience.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined the cake shop violated public-accommodations laws.
“Every American artist has the right to create or not to create,” Phillips said.
In the Washington state case, the state attorney general’s office sued Stutzman, claiming she violated the state’s anti-discrimination law in declining to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding.
“This is not just about my freedom, but about everyone’s freedom,” Stutzman said.
The other members of Congress at the press conference were Reps. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo.; Mike Johnson, R-La.; Doug Lamborn, R-Colo.; and Jody Hice, R-Ga. They agreed the case could set a seismic First Amendment precedent.
“Government coercion of speech that violates the religious conscience of the speaker is not only a violation of the First Amendment; it is also patently un-American, and it’s a violation of personal liberty,” Hartzler said. “A government that tells you what you can’t say is bad enough. But a government that tells you what you must say, and what you must do, and punishes you if you don’t, is frightening. That kind of state power should scare all of us, no matter where we stand on this issue.”
Lamborn, who represents a district near Phillips’ shop, agreed.
“If you can restrict free speech in one area, nothing can stop government from restricting free speech in other areas,” he said. http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/07/sen-mike-lee-christian-baker-case-about-first-amendment-compelled-speech/
Tags
Who is online
404 visitors
Good article. The speech issue was left out of media reports.
Should a Jewish baker be required to put anti semitic words on a cake a white supremacist orders?
If it becomes a speech argument the baker could win.
Well said and it has come up where other bakers have refused successfully to put racist messages on a cake among others. Making it a speech issue is the way to go until we get a stronger national religious freedom restoration act.
How are those two things even remotely similar?
Both are a speech issue. That is how they are similar.
Does a person have the right to refuse to say or write what someone else wants them to say or write? Can I, under force of law, compel you to say Trump is great or write it on a cake?
It was a rainbow - you know, that thing Christians want to " take back ".
Does a person have the right to refuse to say or write what someone else wants them to say or write?
A owner of a company doing business with the public does not have the right to discriminate on the basis of a number of categories including sexual identity or preferences in many states, CO and OR being two of them.
They do have to bake the cake. They don't have to decorate that cake with anything they object to. That would be compelled speech. That violates their first amendment rights.
Does the government have the constitutional power to compel speech? Won't answer that will you?
Actually, the issue isn't about freedom of speech. It's about discrimination.
09/08/17 08:24:20AM @hal-a-lujah:
How are those two things even remotely similar?
E.A Interesting that " Free speech " to so many is only the " Spoken word of NOW " and not History, literature, Museum art works, Individual artistic talents, one has to wonder, what " Free " means ?
Should a Jewish baker be required to put anti semitic words on a cake a white supremacist orders?
So, you seem to know what message was requested on the cake and that it had to do with hate. Why don't you share that information with us?
The example is about the government's power to compel speech. Does the government have the power to do that?
The example is about the government's power to compel speech.
And neither you nor anyone else making that claim has told us what that speech, i.e., the message on the cake that was so abhorrent was to this bigoted POS baker. And we know why. It's a total bullshit claim. This stinking fuck just wanted to use a religious excuse to do something that the founder of his religion expressly tried to preach against do to one's fellow man. He's a religious phony and so is everyone who supports his his ugly cause.
It is whatever the baker decided was objectionable. Government can't compel anyone to speak or write anything they don't want to. If they can please cite the statute and supreme court rulings that enforce that.
Until you answer the constitutional question. Can the government compel a person to say or write anything they don't want?
I don't want to do my 1040 forms this coming April. Can the government force me to write them?
I don't want to write my name when I get my driver's license. Can the government force me to?
I don't want to do my 1040 forms this coming April. Can the government force me to write them?
I don't want to write my name when I get my driver's license. Can the government force me to?
Taxes are a constitutional obligation being forced to write or decorate a cake isn't
You do not have to petition the government for a dl. If you do then it is your responsibility and not the government's to write your name on the dl.
Taxes are a constitutional obligation
So you're saying that the government can force you to write something against your will. Thank you for your support.
The government is forcing you to pay taxes. Not write something against your will. Filling out the form is how you avoid paying more taxes than you should.
It is whatever the baker decided was objectionable.
That will never fly as a "protected speech" argument. Courts can't stand immensely broad criteria like that make it possible for all sorts of mischief. It's the reason many laws are struck down. Claiming a rainbow was objectionable just because it was a gay couple requesting it is the very definition of singling out a small group for discrimination. The fact that a rainbow decoration could be requested and given by anyone else would prove that. BTW, the rainbow flag doesn't just stand for gay rights but also the idea that all colors and stripes of people are welcome in this country. And if you're bothered by the fact that white isn't on that flag I'd remind you of a basic property of light is that white is the combination of all colors of the visible spectrum.
Atheist......"stinking fuck"? That's bad language there. What's it to you if the baker didn't want to do the cake?
"The speech issue was left out of media reports." I'm guessing because it didn't pertain to the issue in the first place and I'm also wondering why the fuck these (R) reps. are getting involved in this in the first place.
It seems the Trump administration agrees:
Trump’s DOJ Just Got Involved In The Supreme Court’s Biggest Religious Freedom Case
The Trump administration weighed into one of the marquee cases of the coming Supreme Court term Thursday, backing a Christian baker in a dispute over public accommodations laws and religious liberty.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus (or “friend-of-the-court”) briefsupporting a Christian baker in Colorado who declined to create a wedding cake with a pro-LGBT message for a gay couple planning their nuptials. The baker, Jack Phillips, was sanctioned by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for violating the state’s public accommodations law, which prohibits discrimination against certain protected classes in commercial transactions. The Justice Department argues the state is coercing Phillips into creating expression with which he disagrees, in violation of the First Amendment.
“The Department filed an amicus brief in this case today because the First Amendment protects the right of free expression for all Americans,” Justice Department spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said in a statement. “Although public-accommodations laws serve important purposes, they—like other laws—must yield to the individual freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees. That includes the freedom not to create expression for ceremonies that violate one’s religious beliefs.”
It seems the Trump administration agrees:
Which, though not needed, simply adds to the BS and hate level of your case. Why you'd think that'd be a selling point suggests something very disturbed is going on.
It seems the Trump administration agrees:
Which, though not needed, simply adds to the BS and hate level of your case. Why you'd think that'd be a selling point suggests something very disturbed is going on.
I don't understand why they stuck their noses into this in the first place. It sets a bad precedent!
I don't understand why they stuck their noses into this in the first place. It sets a bad precedent!
It is their right to do so.
The bad precedent is the government using it's power to enforce the right to get a cake decorated the way they wanted by of one citizen over another citizen's right to refuse to violate his religious beliefs.
No, what I said is the bad precedent - not what you said.
There is no precedent in an administration filing a friend of the court brief with the US Supreme Court on any given issue. It happens all the time.
You'd think that such a religious guy would want to bake them a cake. That way he could pray over it and send it to the wedding reception like a Trojan horse. Prayer works, right?
It's about what the cake says and not the cake. If it were a generic cake the baker would be wrong to refuse to bake it.
This is a first amendment issue.
I don't know if the baker has prayed for the couple. That is something we Christians are required to do.
Matthew 5:44King James Version (KJV)
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
"In the Colorado case, Phillips declined to bake a cake with a rainbow image celebrating a ceremony for a same-sex union."
You Christians really need to make up you mind on this rainbow thing.
No we don't. The rainbow was a sign from God to humanity that He would never again destroy the whole world with a flood. It's the gays who took over a religious symbol for their use.
Oh, ok. Then the most effeminate man in the world should be able to sashay on into this guy's bakery, and order a rainbow cake because his church is planning a party to take back the rainbow. Am I wrong?
I won't play hypotheticals with you.
The issue is free speech. Can a person be forced to say or write anything under penalty of law?
Right. Only your version of rainbow cakes is a free speech issue. How convenient for you.
It isn't about me. It's about whether or not the government can force a person to say or write something.
The first and fifth say they can't.
How do you justify forcing a person to write anything under penalty of law? What is the constitutional basis of your argument?
It's a rainbow, not a collection of words. If you want to make this argument, then you need to find a gay couple who were refused a cake that said "Adam loves Steve", or something of that nature.
Pictures have meaning as well.
Once again what is the constitutional basis for the baker to be forced to write what he doesn't want to?
A rainbow? Like the rainbow that is being cast all over the replica of Noah's fake Ark? How is that a symbol that a Christian can't agree with? It represents God's promise to never murder the earth again. Just ask C4P.
So you have no argument on the constitutional issue?
You and I both know what the deal is here. This is nothing but a Buffet Christian justification for overt discrimination. There is no way this guy is going to ask a customer if they have been faithful or previously divorced, to determine their cake worthiness in the eyes of the lord. He's not going to question anything about the customer other than the things he personally finds distasteful.
You still have no constitutional argument for the government compelling a person to write or say anything. Before the court that will be the issue.
And you are in denial of the underlying issue. This man is prejudiced, and he broke the law. Laws are there for a reason - don't like them, then lobby to change them. Good luck.
Laws are there for a reason - don't like them, then lobby to change them.
I doubt you want first amendment protections changed do you?
Still can't make a case why the government can compel speech?
It's not a first amendment issue, no matter how many times you repeat that deflection ... with your laser focus. Screaming FIRE in a crowded theatre is not a first amendment right for a similar reason - there are other laws that override for the benefit of society.
So the government can compel you to say or write something against your will? That will be the issue before the court.
"Pictures have meaning as well.
Once again what is the constitutional basis for the baker to be forced to write what he doesn't want to?"
I won't play hypotheticals with you.
I won't play hypotheticals with you.
The constitution is hypothetical?
Do you mean, like this?
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
"Why do you call me 'Lord,Lord' and not do what I tell you"
Luke 6:46
"It's about what the cake says and not the cake." What does it say? I'm real curious about this message you keep talking about but won't say what it is.
Does the government have the power to make a citizen say or write anything? That is a simple question. If you say yes then cite the constitution's granting of that power.
What does it say?
"That is a simple question."
Which you refuse to answer with your laser focus.
What does it say?
That isn't the legal question. This is. Can the government force a person to say or write what violates a citizen's beliefs?
Nope. It's about religious extremists and their bigotry. Has always been. Is now. Always will be.
What is the constitutional basis you have for forcing him to write something or be punished by the government?
So, it looks like you have no idea what the message on the cake was to have been so we'll add that to the complete ignorance on the religious bigots' side for not only of the facts of the case but on the law. CO has an anti-discrimination law that prevents bigots like this pseudo-christian-fuck-baker from persecuting and shaming same-sex couples.
Still can't answer the question I see.
Still can't answer the question I see
You still can't!
Can the government compel a person to write or say anything they don't want to.
Hopefully this case will say that no government at any level can coerce someone into speech that goes against their closely held religious beliefs.
Next thing you know they'll be calling us names. Ooooooops!!!! They already have.
They have profanity too. So erudite.
Some say it makes a strong argument. I say it weakens it. Anything that distracts from the point weakens the argument.
Like divorce?
Only fascists could make a case of bigotry and hate into a free-speech lie. And what was the message on the cake that was so objectionable to the rightwing "christian" bigoted hate monger?
This isn't about bigotry and hate, this is about forcing people to agree with a subject that they are either not comfortable with or disagree with. According to the Constitution we have the freedom to say what we think. To tell people they cannot refuse a business proposal (which is what making a customized cake is) is taking away their rights.
From your link below.
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal,” Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian said in the final order.
And, you show you didn't read either the seeded article or my link. Or, you would have realized that the baker involved in the case going in front of the Supreme Court is from Colorado, while the bakery in my article was in Portland Oregon. These are two separate, but similar cases.
Does this baker refuse to bake cakes for divorced people who are remarrying? Does he refuse to bake cakes for Jews? Does he screen his customers for criminal records and refuse to bake cakes for felons?
It's about compelled speech not baking the cake. If he doesn't want to decorate the cake with words or depictions he finds personally objectionable then he can't be compelled to do so. He does have to bake the cake for anyone who walks through the door.
Can the government force a person to say or write anything they don't want to?
"isn't about bigotry and hate, this is about forcing people to agree with a subject that they are either not comfortable with or disagree with. "
That is the fact as far as most thinking individuals are concerned. Unfortunately, liberals think they should be able to force people to do damn near anything they want them to..and no one should be allowed speech or thought that is not in step either. Welcome to Nazi USA!
And conservatives think they are above the law.
Please cite the law that says the government can force anyone to write or speak anything they don't want to.
Nonsense. This guy is picking and choosing what religious doctrine he agrees with to discriminate against what he thinks is icky. He is breaking the state's law in doing so.
He is being forced to use his skills to express what he doesn't believe. Can the government force you to express what you don't believe?
What if I believe that black people are unworthy of my cakes?
You still have to bake them a cake. You don't have to decorate it the way the customer wants if what the customer wants is objectionable to you.
So I can tell them they will have to get their kwanza decorations done somewhere else, because I believe black people and their celebrations are inferior?
The baker still must bake the cake but if the baker objects to Kwanza then he doesn't have to decorate the cake.
He is being forced to use his skills to express what he doesn't believe. Can the government force you to express what you don't believe?
Bull!!! He is using religion as an excuse to discriminate. Has he denied anyone a wedding cake if one of them had previously been divorced? Much bigger "no no" in the New Testament. Seeing as how the divorce rate in this country is now over 50%, I will personally guarantee that he has violated his "religious belief" in regards to divorce. Unless his God allows him to pick and choose which rules to follow.
Bull!!! He is using religion as an excuse to discriminate.
Can the government compel a person to say or write what they don't want to?
I really appreciate your substantive contributions to this article where you say pretty much the same damned thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and you had the nerve to berate me ony contributions. Jesus H. Christ
The article is about compelled speech. You want to make it about something else. That is called deflection.
Can't answer the simple question? Can the government compel speech that is against the person's beliefs?
They can compel a person to bake a cake if they are open to the public. They can't force a person to decorate the cake with anything that the person doesn't want to.
The government regularly compels you to provide information, your ssn, your signature, your photo, sometimes even your biometrics. You want a drivers license, take off the Islamic thing covering your face. You want to teach kids, you get fingerprinted. You want to use publicly funded infrastructure to funnel customers to your business, you pay your taxes (unless you are a megachurch netting millions of dollars tax free). You want a license to operate a business, don't discriminate against your tax paying customers. It's that simple.
You want a license to operate a business, don't discriminate against your tax paying customers. It's that simple.
In your example you are doing business with the government. The government sets the rules for that business.
The baker is not government and must abide by the constitution. While the government can require him to bake the cake they can't take away his first amendment right and make him decorate it any way the customer wants. That would be illegal compelled speech.
The baker is doing business with the government of the people as well. He has been authorized to conduct business, and there are laws that he needs to follow to maintain that authorization. He cannot choose to deny customers of decorations that don't break other laws. This is a secular nation, not a theocracy.
The customer can't force the baker to write or put decorations on the cake that violate his first amendment rights.
The baker must bake the cake but isn't submissive to the customer's demand to violate his first amendment right.
The issue the court is going to decide is if any government in the USA can compel or coerce a person to express speech that is against everything they believe in. There have been conscience clauses done in the past to prevent people from having to violate their religious beliefs in speech and action on other matters. Some states have been stopped from forcing crisis pregnancy centers to publish or express info promoting abortion. That precedent can be used here.
The issue the court is going to decide is if any government in the USA can compel or coerce a person to express speech that is against everything they believe in
What if the Christian guy pumping gasoline refuses to sell to a Jewish motor vehicle operator because the Jewish guy doesn't accept Jesus as the Messiah?
What one believes and what is contrary to law as it applies in the secular space doesn't entitle the believer to violate the law with impunity.
What if the Christian guy pumping gasoline refuses to sell to a Jewish
He must sell the gas and the baker must bake the cake. What the baker puts on the cake is the issue.
I would say it depends specifically on what exactly was requested for the top of the cake.
I posted earlier a line of questioning that would address your very contention.
It comes down to using the government to force someone to violate a person's right to not write anything.
Wait, you found a place where they pump your gas for you? Outside New Jersey?
Funny how 'conscience clauses' are only subject to the things the individual deems important, instead of all the things that make up their doctrinal identity. This guy would probably get a kick out of making a cake for a divorce party. I bet he would have no problem making a cake for a straight person who belongs to a gay friendly church. But conservatives want him to be able to tell Latinos, Muslims, gays, and librarians to find a different baker if he so chooses.
If you tried to make a point....what was it......
If you tried to make a point....what was it......
You want a license to operate a business, don't discriminate against your tax paying customers. It's that simple.
Sorry.....wasn't to you.
Refusing to make the cake because the customer was gay would be discrimination. Refusing to decorate the cake the way the customer wanted is protected speech.
It's a really simple argument. I don't think any of those posting against it have understood it yet. It's like Political Correctness when you are around someone who has the right to say things you could never do, you just marvel at their freedom to say things you wish you had the privilege of saying, not that you would even say them in the first place, but to hear the privileged express themselves freely without restraint is refreshing and liberating.
Well said Six!
Do gay couples have the right of saying what they want to say on their own wedding cake?
The baker who puts their words on their cake hasn't compromised his own religious beliefs; he's merely a contractor ... not an advocate!
The baker who puts their words on their cake hasn't compromised his own religious beliefs;
He sees it differently. I don't think I would write something I didn't believe. As you know I can get pretty stubborn.
So, in your opinion, every baker who has ever written the words "I love you" on a cake was in love with the person purchasing it? That would, of course, be the implication if the decorations of a cake are considered speech by the person baking the cake, rather than a message from the person commissioning the cake to the person receiving it.
The question is can the government compel you to write a message that goes against your values for another citizen?
That is what the court will have to balance out since there are competing rights.
If we've established that the message on the cake, the decoration, is not speech by the baker but instead speech by the person purchasing the cake, then what is the competing right? And if there is any remaining question as to whether the decoration of the cake constitutes speech by the baker, consider the situation of someone going to a baker and commissioning a birthday cake for their child, a child whom the baker has never met. Do we assume that the "Happy Birthday" on the cake is a personal expression of the baker's personal wish that this child, who they have never met and may never meet, have a happy birthday? Or do we assume, as no doubt the child would, that these words are an expression of their parent's wish that they have a happy birthday?
The question is can the government compel you to write a message that goes against your values for another citizen?
How long are you going to keep posting this phony rationalization without having the faintest idea what the "message" was? Or, another way of putting it: Comment removed for CoC violation [ph] Special note: Atheist, I have noticed a pattern of personal attacks on ausmth. This will stop. Anything you have to say to him in a discussion can be said with a civil tongue.
How long are you going to keep posting
As long as my fingers can touch the keyboard and I don't make a habit of violating the CoC.
"As you know I can get pretty stubborn." Is that what they're calling it these days?
Is that what they're calling it these days?
I said the word stubborn and that is what I meant. Care to share what you mean?
Seems the baker is an artist and refuses to make a creation with his artistic talents displaying something that he feels is wrong.
A. Mac., as a talented photographer (and you are), you sell photos. Can you refuse to take a photo of something if it was something appalling to you? If it violated your beliefs?
I can see both sides of this argument. If I went into a business and they refused my business for whatever reason, I would go elsewhere and spend my money and make sure everyone I know knew about the business that refused my money....what do they say? Word of mouth? Do something great and I'll tell 100, do something wrong and I'll tell 1000.
What of places that have the 'We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service' sign?
"What of places that have the 'We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service' sign?" That's usually in specific instances - like no shirt, no shoes, no service. Do you have specific examples?
A. Mac., as a talented photographer (and you are), you sell photos. Can you refuse to take a photo of something if it was something appalling to you? If it violated your beliefs?
I'm not sure the two are comparable if Amac is simply taking a photo. What if the customer asked Amac to use his skill to cast something appalling in a favorable light . . . like making Hitler look compassionate or man/boy love look beautiful or photos that take a look under the hoods of the KKK to see what wonderful people they are in everyday life.
If I was a commercial photographer operating a studio type business taking commissioned work, if I took wedding pictures/jobs but refused to photograph particular denominational weddings, without lying about "being booked on a particular date," I could see someone filing a discrimination complaint.
Am I the only one here to see the hypocrisy of declining a job on the basis of my religious beliefs ... and lying about time constraints to avoid what I knew to be discrimination,
I offer my photography to publishers and to the public but not by soliciting or accepting commissions; I submit and place my images as take-it-or-leave-it.
The baker on the other hand opens his business to the public and markets openly to public requests. When a legal request is declined for religious reasons, it may well be discriminatory.
The customer requests the decoration content, the baker expresses the customer's choice of that content ... creating the colors, lines, shapes and words are the baker's craft ... he may express himself artistically but he does not do so contextually.
The baker's defenders ask the wrong question regarding can the government compel an artist to draw, etc. .
The baker has chosen a business in which the client dictates the drawing ... Not the government!
That is the fake fact as far as most thinking individuals all bigoted, phony christian liars are concerned.
Edited for accuracy.
Please cite the law that allows the government to force a person to write or say anything.
How many times are you going to say the same damned thing
Until you answer the constitutional question. Can the government compel a person to say or write anything they don't want?
We don't need to say anything to them besides what you mentioned. It's a first amendment free speech issue and that aspect of the case is all that matters and it's pointless to talk to them about anything but that they advocate coerced speech and enslaving people to do their bidding and express speech over their own conscience and beliefs. Nothing else matters here.
It's a first amendment free speech issue and that aspect of the case is all that matters
Does your free speech allow you to violate that of others?
Gay marriage is legal and whether or not your freedom to your religious beliefs agrees with what the law allows, under no circumstances does it give you a legal bypass around that law.
I realize the dilemma, but same-sex marriage, while violating you religious beliefs, in no way violates any law causing you adverse feelings.
Does your free speech allow you to violate that of others?
Good question.
The issue is forcing speech. The government can't force anyone to say "I love Trump". The customer can't either.
If the "I" in the "I love Trump" is the customer, then as long as statement is not i. e. hate speech, slender or libelous, if the baker had created basically similar but cakes for other customers, another customer denied might have a case.
Good points. Content won't be as much the issue as the government compelling the content.
This will end up being a landmark first amendment case I have a feeling.
All I need to make this one of the best conversations ever would be to get David in on it. I hope you get a chance to talk to him. His handle is maninthebooth. I would have my conservative friends and liberal friends in one place!
I'm going to disagree that this is about the "government requiring content."
I see it as the opposite, namely, in this case, the baker denying the right of individuals to determine the content on their own wedding cake.
Whether the baker likes, agrees with, or does not believe in what the client wants to say on his cake, as long as it is not illegal, and as long as the baker has not denied generically, previous similar transactions, it's discriminatory.
I'm going to disagree that this is about the "government requiring content."
I don't see it that way either. I see it as the government compelling a person to write what they don't want to.
It probably will come down to conflicting individuals rights. We will just have to see where the black robes land on the question.
Glad it's them and not me.
When rights conflict the courts decide. In this case the Right being asserted here is the first amendment to the constitution itself vs some local state or federal code. Those seeking the service have alternatives to getting their wants fulfilled. A person who owns or works for a business so coerced have to alternatives if their free speech rights are not protected. It is far more practical for a service seeker to get their needs met by another provider than it is to force a person to go against everything they believe in or else lose everything they own if they don't betray their conscience.
How many times are you going to say the same damned thing
Just asked him the same thing and the answer appears to be "forever." He thinks he's come up with some great argument but he just keeps making a fool of himself. This wasn't about any "message." He doesn't even know what the "message" was or even if there even was a "message." This is about a fucking bigoted hypocrite of a phony christian refusing to provide a product that he advertises and sells publicly under the laws of the state which forbid him from discriminating on the basis of sexual preferences of his customers. Likewise do the ranks (and double entendre intended) phony bigoted christians rush to this scumbag's defense using that very most "christian" of justifications: LIES.
How many times are you going to say the same damned thing
"Just asked him the same thing and the answer appears to be "forever." He thinks he's come up with some great argument but he just keeps making a fool of himself. This wasn't about any "message." He doesn't even know what the "message" was or even if there even was a "message." This is about a fucking bigoted hypocrite of a phony christian refusing to provide a product that he advertises and sells publicly under the laws of the state which forbid him from discriminating on the basis of sexual preferences of his customers. Likewise do the ranks (and double entendre intended) phony bigoted christians rush to this scumbag's defense using that very most "christian" of justifications: LIES."
I agree with you 1,000%! He says he's stubborn. Well I have another word for that but I will keep it to myself.
He thinks he's come up with some great argument but he just keeps making a fool of himself.
So now I am a fool?
Please cite the law that allows the government to force a person to write or say anything.
It is not a matter of what "the government can force a person to write or say," the issue, IMO, is whether or not an individual doing business in the public space can deny a would-be customer's request for entirely legal goods or services.
Like it or not, agree with it or not … same sex marriages where legal, are protected from discriminatory practices. A baker can no more legally decline to serve anyone on the basis of sexual orientation as he could on the basis of age, race, religion, gender, etc. .
It is not a matter of what "the government can force a person to write or say,"
actually it is. The baker must bake the cake but the customer can't force the baker to decorate it the way the customer dictates.
The baker must bake the cake but the customer can't force the baker to decorate it the way the customer dictates.
And now the argument takes a downward turn as it swirls the bowl. Does this one even know that the whole case turns on the refusal of the scumbag baker to bake the cake?
Technically, if the baker owns the property that his business is on, it is not public land.
You clearly do not know anything about the laws concerning businesses serving the public which is your position for discussing any subject--Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Sadly, this case comes too late to help the bakery involved with this issue:
If these folks were smart they would just price the cake at $10,000.00 and if taken to court for gouging, they can just say they charge more for difficult customers.
You mean use a guise so completely transparent and false that it would probably have added to the fine. Brilliant. You don't think courts have seen that kind of BS before? Thinking that's "smart" explains why a psychopathic moron like Trump got any votes.
That's probably what Trump tried to do when black, I mean difficult people applied to rent his properties.
And that worked so well for him, didn't it?
Can't put a price tag on creativity. He was asked to create a cake, therefore, his artistic ability has no price tag to anyone other than himself.
Can't put a price tag on creativity. He was asked to create a cake, therefore, his artistic ability has no price tag to anyone other than himself.
Incorrect in this case; based on comparable cakes created by the baker, price gouging gay individuals would not hold up under law … in fact, by virtue of prices established by the baker himself, a hugely disparate price tag on a same-sex-marriage cake would incriminate itself.
@a-macarthur
It is not price gouging. As an artist, I can put any price I want to on my paintings. You either think they are worth it or you don't. If you don't.......then
I don't have to sell my creative works for what YOU think they are worth. And, that's a f act!
It is not price gouging. As an artist, I can put any price I want to on my paintings. You either think they are worth it or you don't. If you don't.......then
I don't have to sell my creative works for what YOU think they are worth. And, that's a f act!
But as a BAKER selling BAKED GOODS WITH YOUR ART WORK ON THE BAKED GOODS, YOU'RE A BAKER … and if you have sold similar baked goods at essentially fair market value to "straight" customers … BUT CHARGE GREATLY INFLATED PRICES TO A GAY CUSTOMER … you could be guilty of "discriminatory animus".
As for the world of ART and the world of ARBITRATION … I sort of know something about both.
Maybe if the court finds for the plaintiffs, the baker could from then on in a similar situation just use a stale base cake, and make the icing somewhat bitter rather than sweet. The Bride and Bride, or the Groom and Groom as the case may be will not know until the wedding reception and on then discovering it can complain to the baker, who can either bake them another cake (Too late, too bad) or give them their money back. So sorry, mesdames, or so sorry, gentlemen. Of course, in a country filled with litigious maniacs and lawyers who covet them, the baker would probably still get sued for causing embarrassment and emotional distress.
"Maybe if the court finds for the plaintiffs, the baker could from then on in a similar situation just use a stale base cake, and make the icing somewhat bitter rather than sweet. The Bride and Bride, or the Groom and Groom as the case may be will not know until the wedding reception and on then discovering it can complain to the baker, who can either bake them another cake (Too late, too bad) or give them their money back. So sorry, mesdames, or so sorry, gentlemen. Of course, in a country filled with litigious maniacs and lawyers who covet them, the baker would probably still get sued for causing embarrassment and emotional distress."
That's really petty and vindictive and spiteful and so typical of 'christians'
Read some of the articles on the baker ... He has decorated cakes with religious themes in the past.
IMO, that implies selectivity and a choice to discriminate.
"That's really petty and vindictive and spiteful and so typical of 'christians'"
Then maybe my tongue-in-cheek remark was made because I'm not a 'christian'.
How many people do you think will still solicit this bakery now that they know he's a bigot? Bigots and phony christians, sure, but other folks will boycott this bigot and rightly so.
I don't even eat junk food but would stop in to help him out.
Phillips said it has also spiked a boom in his business, which he said has doubled since the incident.
Yeah, and we can trust everything this POS says, right? Of course, he'd claim this as some sort of victory. This is what fake christians do.
Phillips said it has also spiked a boom in his business, which he said has doubled since the incident.
Proving either that any publicity might drive business, or, that we are a nation with lots of haters.
Maybe if the court finds for the plaintiffs, the baker could from then on in a similar situation just use a stale base cake, and make the icing somewhat bitter rather than sweet.
I'll leave my response about the ugliness of that "remedy" for the baker to the end of this comment. First, as if often true for you, I want to point out that you seem to be working off of misinformation or misunderstanding about the legal situation of this case. You seem to think that the baker is being "sued" by the people who requested the cake and that leads you to the mistaken idea that the "plaintiffs" in it are those innocent people who just asked to have a cake with a rainbow frosting. In fact, the plaintiffs in the case is the baker who is appealing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's finding that the baker violated the state's anti-discrimination laws. In short, you have (again) got everything backwards.
Now to your idea for how such horrible people as this baker could "get back" at customers they don't like. I lived in Toronto for four years so I'm well aware that this notion that Canadians are just nicer people in general is a silly myth Comment removed for skirting the CoC.[ph]
I thank you, Atheist, for correcting my careless misinterpretation of the proceedings, but not for your insult.
You state that I have "again' got everything backwards. Please tell me what I got "backwards" besides my misinterpretation of the proceedings.
No thanks expected. You earned it.
He was asked to create a cake, therefore, his artistic ability has no price tag to anyone other than himself.
Now there's a new absurdity in the defense of this scumbag baker that even the baker hadn't thought of: artistic sensitivity. You people are a collective hoot.
You mean use a guise so completely transparent and false that it would probably have added to the fine.
That's no fine. That money went to the plaintiffs and their attorneys.
The Lefties are organized in that respect. They're always looking for someone they can sue.
That's no fine. That money went to the plaintiffs and their attorneys.
Is there any aspect of this case you haven't got completely wrong? You think fines by the government are given to plaintiffs? Either the stupidity or the complete ignorance of that statement is jaw-dropping. Skiring the CoC [ph] Those are the only three options.
Is dishonestly in keeping with Christianity?
I'm starting to think that some Christians believe it is.
Is dishonestly in keeping with Christianity?
You were doing so well at putting down the flame thrower until this one.
I'm calling out hypocrisy where I see it. If you don't like it, you are free not to engage. I don't see you on the moderator list.
Calling out hypocrisy is good. How it is called out creates problems. It drowns out the topic and becomes the conversation.
She did call out hypocrisy. Your problem is that you can't comprehend anyone else's opinions on what flamethrowing involves but yours.
Your problem is that you can't comprehend
Would that be flame throwing or a personal attack?
When Sandy objected to a term I use for people who oppose the use of fossil fuel I changed the term. I wanted a conversation with her and will not allow a term she finds offensive to get in the way of that. My goal is a conversation. Isn't that why we are here?
Our problem is with you voting yourself arbiter of who is flame-throwing, and whether it's appropriate. You seem to want to make the rules for conversation. I choose not to follow your rules. If you can't handle it when I point out the hypocrisy of advising Christians to lie to "defend" their beliefs, thereby betraying those beliefs, well, tough. I'm going to do it, and you can call it flame-throwing, but I really don't give a damn.
I am not the arbiter. I am falling back into teacher mode. After doing it for 34 years it's hard to leave it behind.
You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. The decision is yours. Do you want a conversation or just a place to rant about things you don't like about this, this, and that?
If you want something other than just shouting past each other then let the flame thrower gather dust in the corner.
It's up to you.
Asking if Christians are advocating for lying is a rant?
I'm just going to go ahead and answer my own question.
It's not. It was a pointed question, but it was not a rant.
It's not. It was a pointed question, but it was not a rant.
After rereading the whole exchange I think you are correct. My apologies for calling that comment flame throwing.
Accepted, and thank you.
Perhaps we can start again, on a better note? I think we tend to agree more than we disagree.
Thank you Sandy
I promise I won't talk past you. When I am wrong I will say so.
Sandy, there is no standard of honesty or decency these people won't violate based on their primitive ideas of faith. I do believe they think that that corrupted idea makes them think they can get away with anything and they'll be saved. It would be comical if they weren't so toxic to society.
Sadly, this case comes too late to help the bakery involved with this issue:
Exactly what I said.
Those Lefties really get pissed when they can't make you do what they want you to do and like it too. Now if it were you or me, we would just say "screw you" and get our cake made somewhere else, but not the Lefties, you have to do it and like it or it really pisses them off.
Of course there is another deceptive reason behind this as well. If they find someone who won't do what they want them to do, they can carry it to court and with all the Lefty judges scattered around this country having partners of their own, they have a pretty good chance of getting a nice settlement and that is what they are really looking for is that cash.
And just think - instead of us talking about a baker who is making money and making customers happy, we're talking about a bigot who bankrupted himself.
We are talking about a person who is paying the price for refusing to be compelled to write what he doesn't want to.
Really? A wedding cake with writing on it?
I've been to quite a few weddings. And none of the cakes had writing on them.
Cool. Irrelevant to the current discussion.
Except that it's not, when we're talking about someone being "forced" to write something on a wedding cake.
Except that it's not, when we're talking about someone being "forced" to write something on a wedding cake.
The baker in not being forced to decorate the cake … the baker chose to open his bakery, applied for the appropriate business license, is subject to local and state laws with regard to that business as well as anti-discrimination laws.
Further, it is safe to assume that the baker had previously decorated hundreds, if not thousands of cakes without objection.
I'm going to compare this to a secretary, court recorder or other chosen occupation which entails the writing, recording, printing, transcribing, etc. of information that neither originate from, nor necessarily reflect the views/beliefs nor objections thereof, of the individual responsible for such job-related assignments.
The baker, be he the business owner or one of his employees, nevertheless established his own precedent each time he decorated a cake according to client specification (provided the specification itself did not violate obscenity or other laws).
09/10/17 10:23:38AM @ a-macarthur,
EXACTLY. Let's be clear, the groups that are pushing this issue are seeking to drive (another) wedge into the marketplace.
Free speech or in this case the prevention of compelling another into speech they don't agree with is a wedge issue? Since when is the first amendment a wedge issue?
09/10/17 07:31:58PM @ redding-shasta-jefferson-usa,
I am not calling this a wedge issue. I see it as an attempt to divide, carve up, make a hodge-podge of services to participants in the regular business marketplace. Christians, right-wing evangelicals specifically, wanting a new form of segregation in the marketplace.
The Appeals Court determined in its final analyses, after looking at many sides of the debate, that this is not a speech issue. The court pulled the covers back on this and found a simple issue: sexual orientation discrimination. In other words, what the plaintiffs ask for is an exception in the law to allow for full service to heterosexuals and partial service or limited services to homosexuals. Both groups qualified legal citizens.
As Christians where do we stop this? Where should we stop this? Is it any wonder that the secular community takes our faith to task in this country and around the world. Apparently Jefferson, we, fellow countrymen and women, living in the best of all times, have hatred toward each other. This makes me very sad.
It exposes something more material also. Many groups in this country expose the weakness in the Constitution: It can not stop us from preferring segregation over diversification.
09/10/17 11:50:12PM @redding-shasta-jefferson-usa:
gay persecutors who target 🎯 Christian businesses to provide them what they could just as easily get from other providers.
>>
"Gay persecutors."
My brother those are loaded words. The Administrative Law Judge and the Colorado Appeals Court determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop's owner and Others violated Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). Moreover, these organizations, specifically the bakery was sued for failing public accommodation due to sexual orientation discrimination, to my understanding.
On background testified to in court papers there is no mention of "targeting." Let's soften the rhetoric—the ALJ and CO Appeals court did.
Here is a copy of the Appeals Court document for your review:
Those Lefties really get pissed when they can't make you do what they want you to do and like it too.
And those self-righteous, sanctimonious righties go ballistic if they can't stomp all over people's rights and dignity as human beings.
Very proud of my state on that case. Hate is not tolerated in the public market place here.
This "christian" baker is a perfect example of the "pharisee:" the sanctimonious hypocrite at whom Jesus (assuming there was a "Jesus") took particular aim time and time again.
Did Jesus force anyone to say or do anything they didn't want to do?
Can the government force you to read a prayer to Jesus? Can they force you to write how much you love Trump?
Did Jesus force anyone to say or do anything they didn't want to do?
Don't know … but he is reputed to have said stuff like …
John 13:34
A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love one another.
If you are going to make a religious-based argument … I think I might have you on that.
In law and in religion, those provisos can be a real bitch, my friend.
09/08/17 07:38:07PM @a-macarthur:
Did Jesus force anyone to say or do anything they didn't want to do?
Don't know … but he is reputed to have said stuff like …
John 13:34
A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love one another.
If you are going to make a religious-based argument … I think I might have you on that.
In law and in religion, those provisos can be a real bitch, my friend.
E.A But lets avoid the whole of Matthew Chapter 7 and 15 right, choose what suits!
Is there a name for that?
I was responding specifically to a question asked by ausmith.
E.A Lets see what the " Spirit " of the whole chapter is without Misquotes, shall we?
3Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands and that he had come from God and was going to God, 4arose from the supper and laid aside his garments and took a towel and girded himself. 5After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded. 6Then he came to Simon Peter, and Peter said unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? 7Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou dost not understand now, but thou shalt understand afterwards. 8Peter said unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. 9Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. 10Jesus said to him, He that is washed needs only to wash his feet because he is completely clean, and ye are clean, but not all. 11For he knew who should betray him; therefore, said he, Ye are not all clean. 12So after he had washed their feet and had taken his garments and had sat down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? 13Ye call me Master and Lord; and ye say well, for so I am. 14If I then, the Lord and the Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15For I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you. 16Verily, verily, I say unto you, The slave is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him. 17If ye know these things, ye shall be blessed if ye do them.
E.A SO far, what the KEY Point that the one that has so often been misquoted making? about Self and Father ? and why?
More to come!
E.A Note that He knew that " not all where what they CLAIMED to be "
18I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen; but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eats bread with me has lifted up his heel against me, 19now I tell you before it is done, so that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I AM. 20Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receives whomsoever I send receives me, and he that receives me receives him that sent me. 21When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit and testified and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. 22Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spoke. 23And one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was seated at the table beside Jesus. 24Simon Peter therefore beckoned to this one that he should ask him who it was of whom he spoke. 25He then, reclining on Jesus’ breast, said unto him, Lord, who is it? 26Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 27And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then Jesus said unto him, That which thou shalt do, do it more quickly. 28Now no one at the table understood for what purpose he spoke this unto him. 29For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we need for the feast, or that he should give something to the poor. 30He then having received the sop went immediately out, and it was now night.
E.A SO who was fooling WHOM, and who was NOT fooled but was aware of " what needed to take place "?
E.A SO then in Context of " Hypocrites, hypocrisy and Cowardly Treason " what was Jesus " new Command and for Whom"?
31Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, 32If God is clarified in him, Now is the Son of man clarified, and God is clarified in him.God shall also clarify him in himself and shall straightway clarify him. 33Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me; and as I said unto the Jews, Where I go, ye cannot come, so now I say to you. 34A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 35By this shall everyone know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
36Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, where goest thou? Jesus answered him, Where I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. 37Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my soul for thy sake. 38Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy soul for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow until thou hast denied me three times.
E.A So why so many so often take THIS out of Context to " twist it to their own .... "?
So was Jesus saying to have " Unconditional love for all "
No, so why twist what he said, and why are even those that do NOT believe it Jesus quote him?
So was Jesus saying to have " Unconditional love for all "
No, so why twist what he said, and why are even those that do NOT believe it Jesus quote him?
I was responding to a specific question by ausmith.
So why twist what I said?
09/08/17 08:06:43PM @a-macarthur:
So was Jesus saying to have " Unconditional love for all "
No, so why twist what he said, and why are even those that do NOT believe it Jesus quote him?
I was responding to a specific question by ausmith.
So why twist what I said?
E.A Show me where I said that " Unconditional Love " was just what YOU said?
Or are you saying that you have not heard that widely spoken of?
But
I says BUT
tell me, does reading the WHOLE chapter change the meaning of what was misquoted?
Did I mention that I was responding to a specific question from ausmith?
09/08/17 08:12:36PM @eagle-averro:
But
I says BUT
tell me, does reading the WHOLE chapter change the meaning of what was misquoted?
E.A yes or No will do!
So was Jesus saying to have " Unconditional love for all "
Yep, that was pretty much the message: for neighbor as for self if I recall. Even for those who persecute you. As the story goes, even on the cross Jesus asked his god (confusing, yes, but I didn't write it) to forgive his tormenters. It's one of my favorite tasks as an atheist to remind "christians" of the words of their god.
I was responding to a specific question by ausmith.
A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love one another.
Good one A-Mac! You got me on that one!
Did Jesus force anyone to say or do anything they didn't want to do?
I'm not surprised anymore that believers know so little about the man/god they worship:
The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!" John 2: 13-22
I'd say that's a pretty clear example of the use of force. I guess his modern followers would compare him to the antifa and condemn such violence. Like I said: today's Pharisees.
Did Jesus force anyone to say or do anything they didn't want to do?
I'm not surprised anymore that believers know so little about the man/god they worship:
The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves "Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father's house a marketplace!" John 2: 13-22
I'd say that's a pretty clear example of the use of force. I guess his modern followers would compare him to the antifa and condemn such violence. Like I said: today's Pharisees.
He turned the temple back into the temple instead of a marketplace. He corrected what man had corrupted and defiled.
He wasn't ordering them to go against scripture.
He turned the temple back into the temple instead of a marketplace. He corrected what man had corrupted and defiled.
He wasn't ordering them to go against scripture.
I knew you'd come up with some lame justification for ignoring the message and trying to have it both ways. That's what your sort is called a "cafeteria 'Christian'."
Jesus never told a person to write or say anything against their will. Your example about the cleansing of the temple is not an example of that.
Going back to name calling again I see. Please discuss the topic without the flamethrowing. It adds nothing.
Jesus never told a person to write or say anything against their will.
Every comment from you about Jesus provides mounting evidence that you apparently know nothing about the man/god you worship. And, I think you're typical of many of your sort. The gospels are full of Jesus admonishing, scolding, instructing and even dressing down his followers on how to live. But please keep commenting. This atheist enjoys it immensely.
Every comment from you about Jesus provides mounting evidence that you apparently know nothing about the man/god you worship.
And your comment reflects your bias against believers. Using scripture out of context is using them as a club to beat an opponent.
I understand the context and history of the words used.
Jesus never told anyone what to say or write. He taught his disciples and all who would listen. All could then decide for themselves whether to believe or not.
I can't get NT to load some of your other comments so I can respond. This whole thread is taking forever to load.
Way to stand up to the atheists. Your points are right on. It's amazing how much some atheists spend reading The Bible quoting one they don't believe exists to us who know by faith who He is and what He said.
Thanks.
09/08/17 03:24:39PM @atheist:
This "christian" baker is a perfect example of the "pharisee:" the sanctimonious hypocrite at whom Jesus (assuming there was a "Jesus") took particular aim time and time again.
E.A I wonder if it id the Pinnacle of Hypocrisy to quote ohh wait to MISquote from some one, that the misquoter might or might not believe in, to make fun to show bigotry to one that out and out claims to be a believer!!
Now watch what happens to MY comment!
If liberals had the sense to just take their business elsewhere instead of trying to force people to do something they don't want to, no one would even be having this conversation.
The men getting married could have easily gone to another bakery.
If liberals had the sense to just take their business elsewhere
Variations on that theme over time in this country (and not a few fascist ones):
If blacks had the sense to just take their business elsewhere
If Jews had the sense to just take their business elsewhere
If Micks/Spics/Pollocks, etc. etec. had the sense to just take their business elsewhere
Bigots got to be bigots and their tactics and rationalizations haven't changed much over the eons.
He must sell the customer a cake. He doesn't have to decorate the cake the way the customer tells him to.
And, the Irish and the Italians. What's your point?
I don't go anywhere that I am not accepted for who I am. Life is much easier that way.
Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph] Did they hurt you? Cause you pain? I am so sorry for your anguish!
"If blacks had the sense to just take their business elsewhere
If Jews had the sense to just take their business elsewhere
If Micks/Spics/Pollocks, etc. etec. had the sense to just take their business elsewhere"
I'll bet they do, and that's the end of it.
I've got an old story that is somewhat relevant.
An immigrant Jewish woman was shopping at a fruit store for oranges, and was looking at some nice big ones. The grocer came over and asked her: "Are you looking for oranges for juice?" Somewhat embarrassed, she replied: "Yes, they are for Jews." The grocer then said: Well, okay, then take these small spotted ones."
That was yesteryear. Today with the ACLU and the SPLC and the ADL and a crowd of greedy lawyers that would be taken all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Their lives revolve around making a wave, being discontented. Life is always a struggle to them. They must be miserable human beings.
Mag, if there's one thing has is clear about you, it's that you don't have much capacity to put yourself in others shoes. If some form of discrimination doesn't impact you, then it's just not discrimination to you.
You've indicated that you are a long time cigarette smoker, so I assume when you walk in it smells like an ashtray followed you in. Most non smokers find that smell to be pretty gross and offensive. Would you like it if non smokers were permitted to deny service to smokers?
"Their lives revolve around making a wave, being discontented. Life is always a struggle to them. They must be miserable human beings."
The only thing I think that is miserable about them is they have to face discrimination all the time where it should be equality for all.
If liberals had the sense to just take their business elsewhere instead of trying to force people to do something they don't want to, no one would even be having this conversation.
That is true, but then they wouldn't have received the $135,000 either. I'm sure they really suffered tremendously. You know Lefties suffer and suffer.
By taking their business elsewhere, what that actually means ... Taking their business to a proprietor who will not discriminate against them ... And THAT is the only issue here.
The question is:
Does religious belief trump the law in the public space?
It's not about liberals or conservatives ... It's about whether or not public transactions can be legally denied to any demographic on the basis of the religious beliefs of the one imposing the denial.
09/08/17 11:22:43PM @a-macarthur
EXACTLY. This is plainly an attempt my a set of influential republicans to extent their heft to the weight of SCOTUS conservatives in order to finesse a desirable outcome by giving them an out in the law. In other words, here Justices take something (else) you can consider to "muddy the thinking" of your votes!
This case is as plain as the Colorado courts decided it. However, we get to see if SCOTUS conservatives take this congressional offering of a biased view of the Constitution at it founding to lessen the freedom of an emerging group today.
@atheist
Why is he is a sanctimonious hypocrite because he didn't want to bake a special cake for a gay marriage? The men getting married could have easily gone to another bakery. So, it became not about a wedding cake, but this bakery.
Why is he is a sanctimonious hypocrite because he didn't want to bake a special cake for a gay marriage?
It's fascinating that you'd have to have that explained to you, as a purported "christian" I suspect. Using his religion as a guise or pretext to express his hatred for homosexuals is about as unchristian as it gets.
It is fascinating to me that you said that I am a "purported Christian". Nothing purported about it.....I am a Christian. You go day after day giving your opinions.....well, so do I! Would I, as a purported Christian turn him away? No. I have a different take on it, but I don't judge him like you do. And, you have no right to. When you can face life and people with a clean record, then, you will be entitled to judge. But, since that will never happen....
Nothing purported about it.....I am a Christian.
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Would I, as a purported Christian turn him away? No.
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
I guess you know It all.
The men getting married could have easily gone to another bakery.
Maybe, maybe not. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
It has everything to do with it.
Yes, if the "it" is just plain, ugly, stinking bigotry....and it is.
If I don't want to rent to black people, am I entitled to deny them because they can find someone else to rent from? You are incredibly naïve about this.
I don't have a problem with that same with blacks that would prefer not to rent to whites. It should be their choice.
That's why you're a fringe libertarian.
So, what's wrong with being a libertarian?
Why have laws and protections at all?
I have every right to rent to whomever I please. My property....my right. When you start paying my bills, then, let me know.
I love it.....the old argument if you don't want to rent to a black family!
I may not want to rent to you! Sue me!
You are so out of your league right now. You remind me of one of the dumbest clients I ever had. We were designing a self storage facility for him, and it needed to include a handicap parking space, because that is federal law. He said "I refuse to hire a disabled person, so why do I need to have a place for one to park?" It's the law, dumbass, and what you just said can get you sued.
I may not want to rent to you! Sue me!
He would and wait for one of those "Judges with Partners" to rule in his favor. Cool $100,000 for all his suffering.
I'm assuming the baker would also have to bake a cake and sell for the KKK rally?
False equivalency rears its ugly head again.
I'm assuming the baker would also have to bake a cake and sell for the KKK rally?
Well, I don't see why not. I know I wouldn't bake a cake with "KKK" on the top of it and I doubt anyone on here would do it, but based on the decision from this judge it would be illegal to deny the customer service, especially if the baker had baked a cake for the Black Panthers. No one would say a thing about that though.
No different than when Obama wrote his illegal executive order for the so-called Dreamers. They didn't stop him, but when Trump wrote his executive order to temporarily restrain people from entering this country from the same countries Obama had put on watch for Jihadist training, the Leftist Judges appointed by Obama and Clinton kicked it in the ditch. Now they're saying these people can not only come here, but bring any damn body who can claim a relationship including cousins and beyond.
We will hopefully get at least two more Supreme Court Justices and a number of District and Repeal Justices. That's the only thing that may delay this country for awhile before it becomes a Totalitarian Federal government.
Then no one will even attempt to express their rights because they won't have any unless the government grants them.
Yeah, that's the new black, isn't it? Everything is a false equivalency with the left. Nothing false about this, other than the left's take. Bad when a Christian doesn't want to service a gay couple, but okay when the Christian doesn't want to service a KKK member. We get it. The left is all for civil rights, until those rights apply to a group the left doesn't agree with.
Doesn't that just frost you?
You are comparing the revulsion one feels towards the kkk with the revulsion one feels towards gays ... in a snarky comment intended to deny any sense of false equivalency.
But, [they were] asking the baker to use the baker’s talents and specialty to craft a cake carrying a message with which the baker disagrees. So these cases are different than cases involving public accommodations.”
I am curious as to what the "message" in question was.
If I were questioning the baker, I would ask if the baker would create a cake with the message … "Congratulations on Your Wedding Day," "John & Mary, Bride and Groom," then ask about a number of images to be illustrated … like a Bride and Groom, Wedding Bells, Hearts, etc …
Assuming the baker would agree to all such messages and designs, I would then ask about messages such as … "May God Bless Your Marriage," "May God Bless Your Marriage" -- With a Cross Illustration, "May God Bless Your Marriage" -- With a Star of David Illustration …
Eventually, I would ask a question of this type to which the baker would respond … "No, I would not create that cake." A question like "To the Happy Couple" (with no other information or illustration -- BUT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE COUPLE WAS SAME-SEX).
At which point, the baker would likely answer "NO," or, "YES … as long as there was no reference on the cake to the marriage being 'same sex'."
Either way, because the baker's objection fits the definition of "discrimination", I will have made a case for "Discriminatory Animus" as it applies to doing business in the public space.
"The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex."
Where Can Discrimination Occur?
Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination against members of protected groups (identified above) in a number of settings, including:
Public accommodations (Access to buildings and businesses)
By all means … challenge me on this … but please, no one-liners, no dismissive comments … make your counter argument … if it's viable, I'll state … "AGREED"!
Hi A-Mac,
The issue is can the government force anyone to violate their first amendment right by forcing them to say or write anything that is against their personal beliefs?
The Baker must make the cake but isn't required to decorate it the way the customer wants if what they want violates the bakers free speech right.
We can't be compelled by government to say or write, draw, decorate anything that goes against our wishes.
The Jewish Baker must make the skinhead a cake but he doesn't have to decorate it with swastikas. Government can compel the cake but not the speech.
This will end up an interesting first amendment case. The liberal justices are very strong on protecting speech. I doubt it ends up 5-4.
The Jewish Baker must make the skinhead a cake but he doesn't have to decorate it with swastikas. Government can compel the cake but not the speech.
I will disagree … the placement of a swastika may legitimately be deemed as a symbol of verifiable hatred with a history of such … unless you can give me an example of a relevant design on a gay wedding cake …
But … interesting debate.
But … interesting debate.
It sure is! This is how it should be done. Point counterpoint and enjoyment in the exchange!
To me the issue is still compelled speech. Nobody has the right to compel speech from anyone especially government!
It was so important to the founders it is found in two places in the constitution. The first and fifth. The first is the right to speak and the fifth prohibits the government from compelling speech.
But does the baker have the right to deny the free speech of a gay couple ... Assuming the wording on the cake violates no law, this, when the same baker has placed such legal messages on many other cakes prior?
That by definition is discriminatory ... Why the 1000 cakes before and not the gay one today?
But does the baker have the right to deny the free speech of a gay couple
That is a great question. That will be one for the court to come up with. Balance the right of the couple or protect the baker from compelled speech.
If it comes down to the individual level the baker could supply the cake and let the couple write whatever they wanted. They both have their right protected because the couple has the right to write whatever they want and the baker isn't compelled to write what he doesn't want to.
I guess that's why nine people in black robes exist. I guess that's why lady justice holds scales.
And since justice is blindfolded, she is not supposed to see color, gender, sexual orientation ... Soooooo ...
The baker does not get to decide what to do because he doesn't get to decide whether or not a LEGAL Union is subject to his personal beliefs!
And since the baker has created cakes for numerous other LEGAL unions without imposing value judgements or personal dogmas, the exception constitutes discrimination under the LAW.
Consider the more extreme cases where Jehovah Witnesses declined on a religious basis to decline medical treatment for their daughter -- who died unnecessarily.
Religious belief does not Trump law.
I believe the parents were sentence to prison.This is all ridiculous if a baker doesn t want to bake your cake.. fuck them, find a different baker.
WTF ?
@321steve
And, that's a fact.
I am kind of like you Steve. I wouldn't trust someone to make my cake if they were hard to get along with.
Neither would I, but that's not the point. This is about discrimination in general. Write this off, and you set a precedent for writing off other forms of discrimination. If you can tell gays that you won't serve them, why can't you tell any other demographic that you won't serve them? It's not about religious belief, it's about endorsing homophobia and bigotry. If it were about religious belief, this guy would have to refuse to serve anyone who isn't a Christian.
I hope you have been reading the conversation I have had with A-Mac. We get into those issues.
What the court will decide is how to balance the right of an individual to not be compelled to write or speak words against their will and the right of a couple to have the cake decorated the way they wanted.
It comes down to this. Can the government force an individual to speak or write what another individual wants them to. How is it balanced out?
The outcome will be landmark for sure!
Can the government force an individual to speak or write what another individual wants them to.
Can a printer refuse a print job because he doesn't like the language? Printing is his job, just like baking and decorating cakes is a baker's job. If there are three places in your area that print signs, and the owners are all voting for the same candidate, does that mean the other candidates have no right to having signs made? This is an issue that could branch in a million directions. The bottom line is that if you want the right to tell someone you will not make a sign for them, then don't go into the sign making business.
If I owned a bakery and one of my employees refused to decorate a cake the (legal) way the customer wants, I'd fire them for damaging my customer base and reputation. They would not have any recourse via the first amendment. You want to work for me, you perform your duties or you won't have a job.
The printer can refuse the job. I have print shop experience. How jobs get refused is simply say "I can't meet your deadline".
No customer or government can force a person to say or write anything.
If I come into your print shop shortly after your "can't meet the deadline" and order the same or similar work for the same or close date and you accept the job, if I set you up because I suspected your shop to practice discrimination, you might cry "entrapment," but you still might be found to have discriminated.
For legitimate reasons, a public proprietor can decline goods and services, but to disingenuously decline for discriminatory reasons ... while a complaint would require the satisfaction of the burden of proof, the devout Christian, in his defense, would need to bear false witness.
Ironic isn't it?
I won lots of cases in my day ... Figuratively beating people with their own metaphorical sticks.
Very satisfying I might add.
Ironic isn't it?
It would be for sure! Good point!
I think you know that the government can, in fact, compel you to serve clients in a print shop. Is that not, in fact, why you make up the excuse of not having time for their order, rather than simply declining on the basis of disagreeing with the item they have requested you print? Or are you actually making the case that a print shop can, legally, decline to print all religious materials of religions other than the shop's owner or employees?
I think you know that the government can,
The printing business is very time sensitive. The government can't force a printer to drop one job just to do another. If you think they can please explain.
In that narrow sense, you're correct, the government likely cannot step in fast enough to compel you, in real-time, to fulfill any particular order any more than they could step in, in real-time, to compel a restaurant to serve a black couple lunch if a racist owner or manager tried to deny them service. However, in a broader sense, the government _can_ compel your compliance, as they have the capacity to fine you for noncompliance and even forcefully shut down your business if you choose not to follow nondiscrimination laws. That you suggest print shops would simply lie about not being able to meet the deadline, rather than be up-front about the basis for their objections, shows that you are already aware of the fact that there would be legal ramifications to such discrimination. Those legal ramifications are the exact ones the baker in this case is now facing, and which you have been referring to as "compelled speech".
In a print shop situation it would be impossible to prove the lie. Jobs are constantly stacked up waiting for press time.
If it were legal to decline an order because the religious content of the order conflicted with the religious convictions of the print shop owner or employees, then there would be no need for a lie. Whether or not it is possible to prove the lie is a superfluous point, the fact that you know the owner would *need* to lie in such a situation in order to escape the legal consequences of their act shows that you know the discriminatory act is itself illegal. Which settles the speech question entirely, both in the case of the print shop and in the case of the baker.
Which settles the speech question entirely,
Actually it doesn't since it is going to SCOTUS.
The question is compelled speech.
If a conspicuously gay, etc. customer came into a print shop to commission a job with a deadline date of "X", and was turned away because of "time constraints," and later in the day, another customer ... obviously straight (not gay), came into the print shop to commission a different job, but one of the same volume, parameters and time frame as the earlier, gay customer ... and the printer accepted that commission … if the two set you up and filed a complaint, you might have a problem.
Does a Christian printer decline a client surreptitiously because of his Christian principles ... by way of a lie?
Not very Christian in my opinion if not complete hypocrisy?
And what about render unto Caesar, etc.?
Would you then deny a client because of religion or sexual orientation but disingenuously claim that your time/deadline constraints were the reason for the denial?
Would you then deny a client because of religion or sexual orientation
No. But if I had to set the type on something I found that violated my conscience then I would. In a print shop it's not so much a lie as a convenient excuse since jobs are stacked up and customers want their job yesterday.
"This is all ridiculous if a baker doesn t want to bake your cake.. fuck them, find a different baker."
I indicated my take on the reason for the lawsuit in a comment above. I'll repeat it here:
Today with the ACLU and the SPLC and the ADL and a crowd of greedy lawyers that would be taken all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
As well, the "victims" could write a book about it, even sell movie rights - make a fortune.
09/08/17 08:20:59PM @321steve
The case is being fought to establish a precedent going forward. The couple could have already married and are enjoying its fruits, no pun intended. This is a serious matter. They may not ever eat the cake, if offered. Donate it to charity or some such well-deserving action.
It all condenses down to principle: The commerce marketplace; is it truly opened to all legal citizens or just an exercise in eclectic tastes. Is legal tender "good" everywhere in the United States or can money be discriminated against.
Sorry. I do not have time right now to read the entire thread:
Should a Jewish baker be required to put anti-Semitic words on a cake a white supremacist orders?
1. That would be a different class of speech: Hate speech. It is illegal.
2. As for this push to argue on the grounds of compelled speech; that argument could work in the private sector. This case is in the commerce marketplace where rules of fair trade exist. Therefore, the state has an interest.
The argument is this: Can a merchant with a door open to the public offer cake drawings/messages or flower services/messages to select members of the public and not all the public at large. Colorado state courts say, "No!"
If the symbol does not violate any laws and the baker has created cakes with other symbols that do not violate any laws, on what legal basis is the baker denying a service to one customer that he has not denied to others?
This not about "I have the right to break laws as long as I cite a religious tenet that my belief system tells me supersedes such laws."
Hate speech. It is illegal.
No, it isn't. Even hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.
So the question becomes, is the rainbow design on the cake "speech"? Perhaps, but I'd say it may still be illegal to decline to decorate the cake as ordered. If a 10-year-old girl wants a rainbow on her birthday cake, and I'm willing to bet that some have, then can the baker legally refuse to decorate somebody else's cake with a rainbow?
So the question becomes, is the rainbow design on the cake "speech"?
Is art speech? It is. Can the government force an artist to draw something the artist doesn't want to draw?
Maybe the couple just likes rainbows. Lots of people do. Hell, some Christians are even trying to "take back the rainbow". If I go to Hallmark and look at cards, a good percentage of the sappy or religious ones will have rainbows, just because people like them. If he's ever decorated another cake with a rainbow, and I'll bet he has, then he's still refusing to do a design for one group that he's done for others.
Hate speech. It is illegal.
No one can compel another person to utter hate speech. If I want to utter hate speech from my own mouth or in my own group I may be covered. But, in the context of the question, no one can compel another person to right something "hateful" for them. I am pretty sure of it. Context is important to the question.
No one can compel another person to utter hate speech.
That's not the same as hate speech being illegal.
09/08/17 11:16:20PM @ calbab wrote:
Sorry. I do not have time right now to read the entire thread:
Should a Jewish baker be required to put anti-Semitic words on a cake a white supremacist orders?
1. That would be a different class of speech: Hate speech. It is illegal.
The context is important. I am referring to "compelled speech" as it relates to the question asked by a NT commentor. I feel sure that a such a form of speech will not be "required" of a Jewish baker as everyone knows the historic culture of the U.S. Jewish community. I will research to find such a "cut-out" in law for this kind of situation, if it exist. I think it does. I am willing to deep-dive and get back with an answer one way or the other.
Generally, the Supreme Court has ruled hate speech is legal.
Hate speech is not illegal.
The argument is this: Can a merchant with a door open to the public offer cake drawings/messages or flower services/messages to select members of the public and not all the public at large. Colorado state courts say, "No!"
The issue will be compelled speech.
09/09/17 07:06:15AM @ ausmth:
The issue will be compelled speech.
>>>
Only if the conservatives of the Bench allow it will it come up. My understanding is compelled speech is not a part of the original case.
The issue is "DISCRIMINATORY ANIMUS"!
I doubt it will be the only issue discussed. Justices can ask anything they want.
It will come up.
Should a Jewish baker be required to put anti-Semitic words on a cake a white supremacist orders?
I have concluded my research on this question: No,a Jewish baker is not required to put anti-Semitic words on a cake order, period. Actually, the answer is inside the question. Since Congress * and George Bush signed the The Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 (and even further back in time) world-wide acts of anti-Semitism have been documented. And, in the United States anti-Semitic acts will be investigated by the FBI.
Therefore, it is safe to say that a Jewish baker is not obligated to accept such a request.
_______________________________
* SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the United States Government should continue to strongly support efforts to combat anti-Semitism worldwide through bilateral relationships and interaction with international organizations such as the OSCE, the European Union, and the United Nations; and
(2) the Department of State should thoroughly document acts of anti-Semitism that occur around the world.
An anti-semite would NEVER knowingly order a cake from a Jewish baker.
Unless he or she thought that they could use a law to compel that Jew to do something against their will that also promotes their anti Semite agenda.
09/10/17 06:38:28PM @redding-shasta-jefferson-usa,
Anti-Semitism is a grave issue in this country and in the world. Thus, Congress and the world look unflavorably upon it as a scourge that needs to be erased from the modern world. Homosexuality does not face such treatment in the Western world. The Muslim world notwithstanding. Anti-Semitism is a brand of hatred that is powerful enough to act and it does (not probably) change outcomes for Jewish people.
It is a category error to compare anti-Semitism to a regular routine of commerce or religion, in my opinion.
IMO America is full of litigious maniacs - SUE SUE SUE, because there are lawyers there who take cases on a contingency basis and if they smell even the possibility of MONEY, they will roam the hospitals and funeral parlours and anywhere there is a possibility of picking up a client and telling them "Hey, you don't have to pay me. I'll take my percentage when I win a lot of money for you."
Lawyers in Canada are not permitted to litigate on a contingency fee basis. That immediately cuts down on the number of frivolous cases wasting the courts' time.
Personally, if I saw a sign on a store that said "No Canadians Allowed" I might be insulted but I wouldn't make a big deal out of it, and I'd just take my business elsewhere. Of course, that might be because I have the attributes of a Canadian, not an American.
As many of us have pointed out in another discussion, this is due partly to our struggle for equal rights for all. If you're from Canada, you never had to deal with Jim Crow laws. When a significant portion of your population in living memory has been denied the right to drink from a water fountain, use a restroom, or stay in a hotel room just because of the color of their skin, well, get back to us. Sometimes, suing is the only way to force others to acknowledge your right to live as any other citizen in our nation, from eating at a diner to going to decent schools to buying a wedding cake.
Re: 09/09/17 12:22:57PM @ sandy-2021492,
Sandy, you strike deep into the heart of the matter with this one. Thank you.
You think Canada has never experienced discrimination? For a long time, and probably still, the French Canadians and the English in Canada have discriminated against each other, but nothing was so bad as the discrimination against Jews, and the French Canadians still say: "moudjie Juif" ("fucking Jew"). But up until the 1940s the discrimination against Jews was rampant and legally permitted, such as restrictions on real estate titles forbidding sale of property to Jews, restrictions at Golf and Skiing and other clubs with signs "No dogs or Jews allowed" (I actually saw such a sign back then), and when the Prime Minister of Canada, McKenzie King, when asked at the end of WWII how many Jewish refugees he would allow into Canada, his reply was so iconic it became the title of a book about the era: "None is Too Many". So don't think Canada has not had its experience with ethnic and religious discrimination which is really not much different from racial discrimination. As for racial discrimination you should be aware of how the Chinese railroad workers were treated in the USA, which was about the same as they were treated in Canada. Finally, ask any black person in Canada if they feel they are treated by white Canadians in Canada absolutely no dfferently than white Canadians. Perhaps it is more subtle in Canada because of the generally more polite personalities of Canadians, although there are examples of true benevolence, such as in the case of Hurricane Carter.
I never said Canada had never experienced racism or bigotry.
Was it mandated? We have an entire region of our country where racism was mandated - "separate but equal" schools and so forth. Many in that region still harbor the attitudes that led to those mandates, and would discriminate against anyone but white Christians if they could. In a rural area that is overwhelmingly white and Christian, if those folks were legally allowed to discriminate, well, those they discriminated against may well have to leave the area to find a place to shop, eat, sleep, swim, go to school, etc., just because they may be unable to find another baker, lunch counter, or school.
And some still do try to discriminate, legal or not.
An awful lot of people fought much too hard for the right to sit on the bus, to drink from the water fountain, to have access to education, to be allowed to sleep in the hotel, to marry the person they loved, to take a step backward just to keep the peace. To accept quietly the taking away of those rights betrays those who fought for them.
I was simply trying to make the point that discrimination is not unknown in Canada. However, Sandy, I am very much aware of what you are referring to in the US. In the 1950s as a teenager I went with my parents for a vacation in Miami Beach, and I still in my mind's eye can see, in a department store, a nice shiny stainless steel water cooling fountain with a sign over it "Whites only" and a few feet away a simple cheap fountain over a ceramic basin with a sign over it "Colored only". I wonder to this day what would have happened if I had taken a drink from the "Colored" fountain. However I was not confused about what would happen when I got on a bus there and went and sat in the back, where I always liked to sit on a bus, and the driver yelled at me to come up to the front. I didn't move, and then he yelled that he would not drive if I didn't come to the front. There were a lot of people up front staring at me so I decided, not being a civil righs activist like Rosa Parks, that I had to go sit in the front. So I guess I did have at least some experience with your "Jim Crow" culture.
And the point that I'm trying to make is that lawsuits are, unfortunately, a useful method for forcing rights to be recognized. Do I wish they weren't necessary? Yes. But when someone is discriminated against, I support their rights to use the court system to remedy that. That's one of the reasons that civil courts exist - to enforce rights.
In my opinion, if there is another way to settle a dispute than a lawsuit, go for it. I think Shakespeare was right when he wrote:
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
If you're from Canada, you never had to deal with Jim Crow laws.
This point has been made more than once, including by me, to "Buzz" but it doesn't seem to get through. It seems his ignorance of our history is just as great as ours of his.
You see the term 'snowflake' thrown around by the right about the left so often, but as this comment section illustrates, the opposite is true. Rather than honoring their customers by simply putting a rainbow on a cake, theocrat conservatives are going through extensive mental gymnastics to wiggle out of such an insignificant exercise of their duty as a business owner. They want the freedom to deny service to anyone they don't like, and if they can't get it legally they vow to get around the law by lying to the customer about how much it would cost and how long it would take. Seems like there a conflict on interest right there, if you call yourself a Chridtian. It's a rainbow, snowflakes. Nobody is asking you to attend the wedding, but you act like you're being forced to toast the brides and grooms.
Nobody is asking you to attend the wedding,
Photographers are being forced to take pics at weddings.
Is that compelled speech? Slavery? Being forced to work when you don't want to.
The up side to this is that a new industry was created. Business specializing in same sex weddings. If I were gay that is the direction I would go. No worry about sabotage.
The good thing is that the court will decide. We will revisit it then.
Take out the flame language and this was a good conversation Hal. I hope they continue to get better.
Why anyone would want to not take a advantage of a surge in their own market is beyond me. They'd rather complain about it. That's as poor of a business model as it is a human model.
Some people hold their values dearly and are willing to go out of business than have the government force them to do what they find contrary to their beliefs.
On a personal level I would bake the cake and decorate it.
09/09/17 12:27:21PM @ ausmth,
Then, go out of business they should. Similar to Woolworth's lunch counters segregation (though a secular discriminatory issue), these defendant shop owners are attempting to stand on religious principle in a secular setting - wanting law to allow them to selectively decide whom they do what for. The commerce marketplace does not allow for this.
Indeed, the local business community should get involved in writing an amicus brief to the Court, if it has not already.
On another point, it strikes me that Christianity, in the form of Right-wing evangelicalism is applying to the government (courts) for a religious business exception of its own. Certain religions have been granted exceptions because of their historic cultural norms. Christianity, to my knowledge has never applied for a general exception in society based on its cultural norms. This appears to be new ground being exposed to plowing.
His only chance of winning is on speech. Can the government force a person to do or say anything that another citizen wants?
09/09/17 02:13:36PM @ausmth:
His only chance of winning is on speech. Can the government force a person to do or say anything that another citizen wants?
>>
Congressman Mike Lee and his associates are trying to trigger the Supreme Court to consider a different point of law on this case. In the past, Chief Justice Roberts has been known to do just that! When the Patient Care and Affordable Care Act (aka. ACA) came before the high court to be decided on tax law arguments, CJ Roberts opined the case in favor of commerce law argument. So, this court has traversed cases in this manner before.
Interestingly, it is commerce vs. religious freedom and potentially vs. speech.
It's what they do. Chase their own POV.
09/09/17 04:43:16PM @ ausmth,
There is one other thing Congressman Lee and his amicus brief have to consider: The high court will weight Colorado's commerce POV substantially stronger from the outset, in my opinion. This will cause any compelled speech argument to have to measure up and be coupled with religious freedom arguments, in an effort to defeat it.
This will cause any compelled speech argument to have to measure up
Not so sure about your thinking. I see a court that takes speech very seriously. The consequences of ignoring compelled speech could be serious. If the government can be used as a club to force a person to act on this issue then what others could their first amendment rights be curtailed. Free speech outweighs a cake.
Re: 09/09/17 06:13:11PM ausmth.
Hi ausmth! I agree courts take speech issue seriously. Now I want to point you in the direction that the Colorado Court of Appeals dealt with this very question in its opinion against Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., and any successor entity, and Jack C. Phillips, Respondents-Appellants, and Colorado Civil Rights Commission. (See page 30/31 excerpt below.)
The opinion is comprehensive it turns out. That is, "compelled speech" is fully addressed by this Appeals Court. The court document is impressive reading. Here is just a portion of it.
¶ 55
Masterpiece’s contentions involve claims of compelled expressive conduct. In such cases, the threshold question is
whether the compelled conduct is sufficiently expressive to trigger First Amendment protections. See Jacobs, 526 F.3d at 437-38 (threshold question in plaintiff’s claim that school uniform policy constituted compelled expressive conduct is whether the wearing of a uniform conveys symbolic messages and therefore was expressive).
The party asserting that conduct is expressive bears the burden of demonstrating that the First Amendment applies and the party must advance more than a mere “plausible contention” that its conduct is expressive. Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U.S. 288, 293 n.5 (1984).
¶ 56
Finally, a conclusion that the Commission’s order compels expressive conduct does not necessarily mean that the order is unconstitutional. If it does compel such conduct, the question is then whether the government has sufficient justification for regulating the conduct. The Supreme Court has recognized that “when ‘speech’ and ‘non-speech’ e[l]ments are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in
[Page] 30
regulating the non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.” O’Brien 391 U.S. at 376. In other words, the government can regulate communicative conduct if it has an important interest unrelated to the suppression of the message and if the impact on the communication is no more than necessary to achieve the government’s purpose. Id.; see also Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 567-68 (1991); Johnson, 491 U.S. at 407.
[Page] 31
Good post.
It will end up as a balancing act. Where compelled speech differs from the cited cases is that the government is enforcing speech of one citizen against another.
School uniforms are required if the student wants to attend that school. If they don't want to wear a uniform they could go to a public school. That meant there was no major suppression of the student's expression.
Glad I don't wear a black robe!
I am enjoying this conversation. It is refreshing to not deal with flame throwers.
"Glad I don't wear a black robe!"
I had no choice. If I hadn't the judge would say "I don't hear you."
If anyone's interested, it's for sale. Rarely worn silk robe and vest in perfect condition. Throw in the white tabs for free.
Good one Buzz!
Re: 09/09/17 08:24:37PM @ ausmth:
Good post.
It will end up as a balancing act. Where compelled speech differs from the cited cases is that the government is enforcing speech of one citizen against another.
>>
From the Appeals Court:
The Supreme Court has recognized that “when ‘speech’ and ‘non-speech’ e[l]ments are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in
[Page] 30
regulating the non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.” O’Brien 391 U.S. at 376. In other words, the government can regulate communicative conduct if it has an important interest unrelated to the suppression of the message and if the impact on the communication is no more than necessary to achieve the government’s purpose. Id.; see also Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 567-68 (1991); Johnson, 491 U.S. at 407.
This is the "weight" I suggested the state of Colorado has a higher governmental interest in seeing that citizens are lawfully treated fairly in the commerce marketplace. Thus, commerce speech in this situation ought to outweigh the cake makers and flower shop owners religious non-speech. What do you (all) think?
Now then, I understand Trump's DOJ is putting the weight of the federal government against this Appeal Court ruling and siding with baker and florists.
The same sex couple is simply asking that there speech be recognized the same as other elements of speech in the marketplace. . . . Now on to the Jewish question and that interesting Crowder (Muslim) video!
Thus, commerce speech in this situation ought to outweigh the cake makers and flower shop owners religious non-speech. What do you (all) think?
I think there is a more important issue than a cake. If the court rules for the couple then it opens a method for activists to use the government to target those who oppose their deeply held beliefs.
Where CO got it wrong by using the school uniform case as precedence is that the students had other alternatives. The couple did as well.
09/09/17 10:22:48PM @ ausmth:
I think there is a more important issue than a cake. If the court rules for the couple then it opens a method for activists to use the government to target those who oppose their deeply held beliefs. Where CO got it wrong by using the school uniform case as precedence is that the students had other alternatives. The couple did as well.
>>
Great thoughts. Now be patience with me:
1. This is about more than cake. It is about religious freedom, commerce, and compelled speech.
2. The court has to consider if setting a precedence will be proper for the nation. It took the case just so. If Church wishes to bring private beliefs into the commerce marketplace, then they are within their bounds to step forward, be heard, and receive adjudication. Activists have a similar set of actions and expectations. The outcome will stand for all states.
3. The CO Appeals Court decision offered way more examples of compelled speech failing to make muster in this case. I opted to put forward this one for openers. The court is comprehensive but not excessively verbose. The court's opinion makes a quite delightful reading. And is wise beyond words. See link below.
And, sexual orientation.The Appeals Court in its final conclusion decided this case is about sexual orientation.
I am at the point of waiting to see what SCOTUS does.
This has been a great discussion and I look forward to having more like it with you. I appreciate the absence of flame throwing. I really like the thoughtful approach you bring to a subject.
Thank you for a great conversation Calbab.
09/10/17 06:26:08AM @ausmth
I am waking up to a good message. Much appreciated, ausmth! Thank you for sharing. As I am fond of saying, "I am having a ball."
You are welcome. I look forward to more!
For some, their conscience and values they live by are more important than a few extra dollars in their business or career. Even if some would take away their livelihood and everything they own in retaliation of them living their beliefs even in their business
You're a baker and your conscience is bothered by decorating a cake for a wedding you have nothing to do with. And you call the left snowflakes.
09/09/17 01:25:30PM @ sixpick
To be honest, there is a lot of food for thought in the top video. I will have to watch in again slower than I did just now and reflect on it. Watch this space. The bottom video does not play.
No pun intended. (Get it? "Top" and "Bottom.")
I can't open the top one, and the second one doesn't play for me either.
09/09/17 01:25:30PM @sixpick,
I have watched this Crowder POV several times now. Mr. Crowder has a valid point. To my knowledge, Muslim bakeries do not have a special exception to serving all people who come through their doors. In my opinion, this specific question has not come up in this country. Mr. Crowder has served the nation well to expose it. It is time the Muslims face civil rights laws!
When the Supreme Court answers this question, it will apply to all businesses in this country. Muslim businesses included!
Kudos to Mr. Crowder for putting his video together.
I was wondering if there would be a similarity to this issue if this were the circumstance:
A blind man walks into a Muslim bakery, holding, as they do, his service dog (a/k/a seeing eye dog) on a solid leash. The Muslim baker says get that dog out of here. We don't allow dogs in our store because of our religion.
Loved it!
Does this baker realize that his doctor, grocery clerk, waitress, mailman, child's teacher, mechanic...might be Gay?
Does this baker realize that his doctor, grocery clerk, waitress, mailman, child's teacher, mechanic...might be Gay?
That isn't the issue. It is can the government compel a citizen to write or speak against his beliefs to benefit another citizen.
I feel what I wrote is DEFINITELY part of the issue. You just disagree.
To the court what you wrote isn't an issue they will address. This discussion is about the pending SCOTUS case.
And the courts may have to consider other occupations and beliefs.
If those cases come before them.
That isn't the issue. It is can the government compel a citizen to write or speak against his beliefs to benefit another citizen.
What if a women's mother and grandmother have a history of endometriosis and is thus predisposed to uterine cancer … BUT THE CHRISTIAN DOCTOR WON'T WRITE the prescription for the medication BECAUSE IT IS ALSO A BIRTH CONTROL MEDICATION!
Let's talk the slippery slope of RELIGION USED AS A BASIS OF DISCRIMINATION!
BUT THE CHRISTIAN DOCTOR WON'T WRITE the prescription for the medication BECAUSE IT IS ALSO A BIRTH CONTROL MEDICATION!
The balance between a physical ailment and religious freedom would be weighed. Physical health and well being would win.
Please don't shout at me A-Mac. I don't do it to you.
OK, no all caps.
The issue is not the nature or urgency of the goods or services being denied … the issue is denying to one, that which is offered to others, in this case on the discriminatory basis of a religious objection.
There are conscience clauses already for medical persons from doctors to nurses to pharmacists to avoid writing Rx's for birth control and refusing to participate in an abortion. The medical field is already protected from having members of it doing things that violate their religious beliefs. We just need to do the same for all businesses, owners and employees across the board. Some states already have protected their florists, photographers, bakers and the like from coerced speech and the appeals court where Mississippi is ruled a 180 differently than the one Colorado is in did on Mississippi's religious freedom law. The compelled speech aspect from Colorado combined with the other appeals court upholding Mississippi may well lead to national conscience clauses for all like the medical field and religious community already has
What if a women's mother and grandmother have a history of endometriosis and is thus predisposed to uterine cancer … BUT THE CHRISTIAN DOCTOR WON'T WRITE the prescription for the medication BECAUSE IT IS ALSO A BIRTH CONTROL MEDICATION!
Can you force him to do it if the medication's ONLY purpose is birth control?
Doctors are subject to another obligation - the Hippocratic Oath. For example, when a relative of the Hamas leader had to be treated in an Israeli Hospital, the Jewish doctors did not hesitate to do their best. As well, the clinics set up in Israel near the Syrian border treat Syrians, even if they are enemy soldiers. Of course, I doubt that the reverse situation would lead to the same result.
Can you force him to do it if the medication's ONLY purpose is birth control?
Apparently …
It is against the law for states or municipalities to prohibit buying BC (as of Griswold v. Connecticut), but apparently there is no law requiring a doctor or pharmacist to prescribe or sell them.
But what a physician or pharmacist cannot legally do is i.e. to deny the prescription or sale of birth control pills to Catholic women while prescribing and selling them to women of all other religions.
In other words, if denials or non-denials are not selective/discriminatory, then there's no case for discrimination.
he being contracted to create special art for them? No.
Yes ... But no ... I will explain.
Any decoration that is ordered by a customer is "special" because it is unique for the customer who orders it.
BUT ... The baker is in the business of making such special art as part of his public business. By refusing to provide this or any other service to one but not to all, and, to do so for religious reasons, constitutes discriminatory animus.
Nah. If an artist is asked to paint a mural depicting graphic sex between two men, is he obligated to spend 6 weeks of his time on this project that he finds repugnant? No, he is not.
If he refused to sell any of his premade products, that would be discrimination.
Nah. If an artist is asked to paint a mural depicting graphic sex between two men, is he obligated to spend 6 weeks of his time on this project that he finds repugnant? No, he is not.
If he refused to sell any of his premade products, that would be discrimination.
If the subject matter requested does not violate any laws, and, the artist has painted legal subjects in conjunction with his public business for other clients, if the denied client files a complaint of discrimination, while the artist might have a legitimate reason for the denial, he may still have to address the complaint.
But here's where I think you are off the mark; while the mural you describe certainly raises the question of being offensive with a possible refusal on that basis, a same-sex-wedding (emphasis on wedding) where legal, while subjectively and religiously repugnant to some, is not by legal standards.
Ultimately, regardless of the goods and services in question, as long as they are legal, if offered in the public space, they must be offered uniformly and not based on anything but the ability to pay (and, in some cases, the buyer is of legal age).
Mac,
My point is that creating custom art is different than not allowing you into my restaurant. You can't compel an artist to create content that he does not want to.
Mac,
My point is that creating custom art is different than not allowing you into my restaurant. You can't compel an artist to create content that he does not want to.
The issue still comes down to, not the subject matter … rather, if there is a discriminatory motive for declining to paint the requested subject matter.
Let's say the artist has painted 100 pieces of Christianity subjects … one day a client requests a painting of a Rabbi and a Bar Mitzvah boy … and the artist, like the baker, refuses to paint the subject because it is not "Christian".
Of course this is a contrived scenario, but nevertheless a parallel.
We are not likely to agree but this is a really good discussion.
I would think the artist would still be ok. If his artistic genre was Christian art, he could not be compelled to paint a Satanic scene.
I would think the artist would still be ok. If his artistic genre was Christian art, he could not be compelled to paint a Satanic scene.
But here's where I think you are off the mark; while the mural you describe certainly raises the question of being offensive with a possible refusal on that basis, a same-sex-wedding (emphasis on wedding) where legal, while subjectively and religiously repugnant to some, is not by legal standards.
So, in states where same sex marriage is not legal, the baker can refuse? If the court weaves your opinion into its own, then states have a good reason to refuse the legalization of same sex marriage and refuse to add sexual orientation to the categories of prohibited discrimination. Unlike race, gender, and national origin, homosexuality is a behavior and people should have the right to decide which behaviors offend their religious beliefs and act accordingly. They do, after all, have a first amendment right to the free exercise of religion.
Does this baker realize that his doctor, grocery clerk, waitress, mailman, child's teacher, mechanic...might be Gay?
They're not requiring him to express himself at all, let alone contrary to his religious beliefs.
09/09/17 08:55:48PM @1ofmany:
Does this baker realize that his doctor, grocery clerk, waitress, mailman, child's teacher, mechanic...might be Gay?
E.A I hope they are all GAY, Being HAPPY is a fundamental part of any " Good Business relationship " if one is not GAY, Happy, one should GO elsewhere!!!
They're not requiring him to express himself at all, let alone contrary to his religious beliefs.
The baker wasn't asked to express "himself" … he was asked to decorate a cake according to the expressed preference of the couple ordering the cake. Had the baker simply done that, in no way would he have compromised his religious beliefs since neither the cake nor the decoration were part of the wedding ceremony nor its legal standing.
In your opinion. It is up to the baker, florist, photographer to determine what their closely held religious beliefs are and what they can do within their conscience. It is not up to you to arbitrarily dictate what their beliefs, response, actions in the free expression thereof of their speech or beliefs should be from on high condescending down upon the unwashed masses you talk down to. It's a free speech case now and we shall see what the courts shall do with free speech when its religious speech or lack there of is in constitutional play here.
It is up to the baker, florist, photographer to determine what their closely held religious beliefs are
How convenient for the Buffet Christian bigots!
How convenient for the Buffet Christian bigots!
His statement is true. You decide what is important for you.
(You can do much better than flame throwing)
And you can do much better than disingenuousness.
What good is there in flame throwing? One can ask pointed questions and give on point answers without the flames.
Presenting the argument by staying on the topic creates good discussion. Using flame terms that some like to throw around like fake Christian, bigot, fascist, nazi and more kills a conversation. The conversation becomes a trip down the rabbit hole. Then it becomes shouting past each other.
What good is it to insist that your idea of flamethrowing is the correct one? One man's idea of colorful contributions is another man's idea of flaming. You were not elected to be that judge. There is such a thing as a Buffet Christian bigot. It's not flaming to write about things that exist in reality - even when they offend your delicate sensibilities.
Use of the terms will only inflame. It comes down to whether or not one wants a conversation or just a chance to jab their opponent. Talk or shout past each other.
That is something each of us decide when we hit the keyboard. What is the goal?
I just finished two great conversations with Calbab and A-Mac. There was no flamethrowing or partisan jabs but an honest discussion about the legality of the baker's cake. Not much change in position but more understanding of the complexity of the issue. Isn't that the goal?
Look, you have repeatedly responded to numerous posts here with the same impenetrable comment about supposed government coercion. You are not playing by any rules yourself, so don't act so sanctimonious. Your position amounts to not much more than the government should not be allowed to stop people from yelling fire in a crowded theatre. You routinely stifle conversations with your overly galvanized position, and then use this flamethrowing distraction when others get frustrated with your inability to accept that having permission to run a bakery comes with certain conditions.
are not playing by any rules yourself,
Actually I am. Staying on topic is how good conversation happens. It's also one of the rules here. Not doing that sends the conversation down the rabbit hole. I won't go there anymore. I have before and it never really ends well. Some get frustrated when I refuse to follow them down the hole.
There is such a thing as a Buffet Christian bigot. It's not flaming to write about things that exist in reality - even when they offend your delicate sensibilities.
If you use the term buffet Christian bigot, then I will use the term butthole surfing, gender confused simpleton. Rather than hurling insults, like we're in a food fight in the animal house movie, he's just suggesting that we have a civil exchange of different points of view without insulting each other. I enjoy a good food fight every now and then but I can respect a request for civil discussion.
I agree that staying on topic and doing so in a calm civil way promotes the best dialogue and discourse here. The topic of this seed is the excercise of free speech and whether one can be compelled to speak in a way that is against everything they believe in or not.
You decide what is important for you.
Well, blow me down. That's the first time I've ever seen a "Christian" actually admit what's been the obvious for hundreds years: That they just pick and choose the things they like about their founder's teaching and feel free to ignore the hard things.
It is up to the baker, florist, photographer to determine what their closely held religious beliefs are and what they can do within their conscience. It is not up to you to arbitrarily dictate what their beliefs,
Decorating a cake is not in any way the baker's expression of his religious beliefs or disbelief or a conflict-of-conscience; the cake decoration is not a manifestation of the baker's approval or disapproval of same-sex marriage just as his decoration of a cake for a "traditional" marriage is not a personal expression regarding that!
Baking the cake and decorating the cake is the service the baker provides to the public and it is not his legal prerogative to accept or decline business based on his personal, religious beliefs. Doing so is by definition, "religious discrimination" … ironic that one can commit religious discrimination by imposing one's religious beliefs in order to deny the request for a legal business transaction! That is what's arbitrary.
Baking the cake and decorating the cake is the service the baker provides to the public and it is not his legal prerogative to accept or decline business based on his personal, religious beliefs. Doing so is by definition, "religious discrimination" … ironic that one can commit religious discrimination by imposing one's religious beliefs in order to deny the request for a legal business transaction!
The first amendment prohibits the government from restricting the free exercise of religion and the baker has a right to express his views in his business. Customers have rights too. Clearly, one person's beliefs may conflict with another's. If the government steps in, then it must use the least restrictive means possible to enable both rights to be preserved. The baker should bake the cake but not be required to provide offensive customized decoration. The customer can decorate it himself.
09/09/17 10:41:45PM @redding-shasta-jefferson-usa :
. . . .we shall see what the courts shall do with free speech when its religious speech or lack there of.
>>
From Colorado Appeals Court Opinion:
As in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc, 547 U.S. 47, 61 (2006)
(hereafter FAIR) we conclude that, because CADA [Colorado Anti-discrimination Act] prohibits all places of public accommodation from discriminating against customers because of their sexual orientation, it is unlikely that the
public would view Masterpiece’s creation of a cake for a same-sex wedding celebration as an
endorsement of that conduct. Rather, we conclude that a reasonable observer would understand that
Masterpiece’s compliance with the law is not a reflection of its own beliefs.
Page 35
I ask: Did Masterpiece Cakeshop and Phillips trigger this speech question on purpose. Here, the court seems to take a position that this did not have to rise to such a level.
The baker wasn't asked to express "himself" … he was asked to decorate a cake according to the expressed preference of the couple ordering the cake. Had the baker simply done that, in no way would he have compromised his religious beliefs since neither the cake nor the decoration were part of the wedding ceremony nor its legal standing.
The cake is part of the celebration of a biblical abomination so he can say that facilitating it violates his beliefs. If someone requested that a gay baker write "let there be a world without faggots", I bet the left would find all kinds of reasons why he doesn't have to do it.
I think the compelled speech argument is an interesting approach. The baker should have to provide the cake but should not be compelled to decorate the cake with speech and symbols offensive to him. You can order a weeding cake simply to harass the baker. Even if two racists are getting married, Jewish bakers should not be compelled to write "Heil Hitler" or adorn a cake with swastikas. Black bakers should not be required to write "long live the KKK". Nobody should be forced to put vulgar language on a cake etc. Give the unadorned cake to the customer and tell him he can put whatever he wants on the cake himself. That way, the rights of both sides are protected.
Alternatively, exercise your own right to free speech. Play a sermon against same sex marriage as you take the order, put the cake in a box that says "homosexuality is an abomination before God", tell them you'll pray for their filthy souls, and usher them out the door.
Because racism and homosexuality are equal.
Because racism and homosexuality are equal.
Because I shouldn't be forced to support either whether they're equal or not.
I guess nobody should be forced to accept heterosexual marriage either then. In fact, let's throw in fat people and smokers while we're at it.
Ultimately, are we not talking about equal protection under the law and discriminating against s particular class of individuals?
Ultimately, are we not talking about equal protection under the law and discriminating against s particular class of individuals?
Heterosexuality, fat people, and smokers aren't protected classes under federal law. If homosexuals want equal treatment, then they shouldn't be protected either. What they're trying to do is get a protected class status like race, gender, and national origin even though homosexuality is a behavior. All states don't make homosexuality a protected class under state law and they should avoid making it one. That way, the baker would have less of a problem or no problem at all.
Is that your position on disabled people too? Ever heard of the ADA? If it didn't exist, many of my clients wouldn't lift a finger to accommodate someone in a wheelchair. ADA exists because of them, and their disinterest in anything other than their bottom line and what is important to them.
Is that your position on disabled people too? Ever heard of the ADA? If it didn't exist, many of my clients wouldn't lift a finger to accommodate someone in a wheelchair. ADA exists because of them, and their disinterest in anything other than their bottom line and what is important to them.
A disability is not a behavior and homosexuality is not a disability. Compare homosexuality to other behaviors and you'll be closer to my position.
And gay marriage is about much more than homosexuality. This is a concept that you are incapable of grasping, because every time the issue of marriage equality comes up, you see a penis entering an anus. It is the equivalent of a guy who thinks only about what sex positions the boss's wife enjoys when he first meets her. It's actually a telling aspect of your own sexuality as well.
And gay marriage is about much more than homosexuality. This is a concept that you are incapable of grasping, because every time the issue of marriage equality comes up, you see a penis entering an anus . . .
I'll try to make it clear for you . . . again. I don't care what people do. What I care about is trying to force me to accept what they do as normal. I'm not going to do that.
So gay couples should enjoy every benefit that straight couples legally enjoy? Like the right to not be discrimated against over the centerpiece of a celebration that has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with two consenting adults wanting to spend their lives with one another.
So gay couples should enjoy every benefit that straight couples legally enjoy?
They should enjoy every benefit that straight roommates enjoy.
Lol. That's not discrimination at all!
Ultimately, are we not talking about equal protection under the law and discriminating against s particular class of individuals?
What about the DL photo? When some women were told to remove their head scarfs it became an issue that it was their religion and a big deal was made. What about wearing clothing with the entire face except the eyes covered? Again, they claimed it was religion. Another big deal.
There are so many big deals floating around!
Ultimately, are we not talking about equal protection under the law and discriminating against s particular class of individuals?
I believe so. I like how you have presented your position. L
"Alternatively, exercise your own right to free speech. Play a sermon against same sex marriage as you take the order, put the cake in a box that says "homosexuality is an abomination before God", tell them you'll pray for their filthy souls, and usher them out the door."
How deplorable some folks are. Talk about 'filthy' souls.
Talk about 'filthy' souls.
It's almost as if they enjoy revealing their ugly, phony-christian selves. They actually seem proud that they've perverted everything their spiritual founder taught.
"Alternatively, exercise your own right to free speech. Play a sermon against same sex marriage as you take the order, put the cake in a box that says "homosexuality is an abomination before God", tell them you'll pray for their filthy souls, and usher them out the door."
How deplorable some folks are. Talk about 'filthy' souls.
If they don't want to hear what the baker thinks bout their behavior, then they should keep their asses out of his shop rather than expect him to violate his religious beliefs just to sell them a cake.
Man, this is one of those cases where there is no good solution, so in my estimation, you have to default to protecting the First Amendment because ultimately, that is our most important right as citizens, but it also sucks because it serves to empower the act of discrimination in doing so, in this circumstance.
It was wise of the legal team to shift the 1st amendment issue from free excercise there of to free speech. It will be different getting a court to protect one from having to engage in speech against their will when the first amendment is so strong in free speech protections. Of course if the Supreme Court made Mississippi religious freedom law nation wide then the whole issue is mute. The appeals court Mississippi as in already upheld it so some states will protect religious beliefs and others not in the time being.
09/10/17 09:39:59PM @ yourlordandsavior:
Man, this is one of those cases where there is no good solution, so in my estimation, you have to default to protecting the First Amendment because ultimately, that is our most important right as citizens, but it also sucks because it serves empowers the act of discrimination in doing so, in this circumstance.
>>
And that is just the kind of 'dirty' the groups opposing same-sex marriage hope for. Distract the public (and preferably judges) into defending against an attack on the first amendment—since religious freedom, did not inflame the irreligious. The Colorado Appeals Court determined that this is a sexual orientation case-after condensing all the arguments/sides down. That court dealt with every question offered by the plaintiffs and decided in favor of the defendant same-sex couple.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs are looking for new angles to press and stress come the Supreme Court. More to the point, the plaintiffs are looking for a "friendly" court!
Maybe the baker could agree to make a cake and find someone else to decorate it ? Wait, that's too easy.
Ha ha!!! But we're dealing with principles here, not practical solutions.
But we're dealing with principles here, not practical solutions.
The only "principle" this scumbag baker has is bigotry.
But we're dealing with principles here, not practical solutions.
The only "principle" this scumbag baker has is bigotry.
The only "principle" these ass flies have is bending the world to accommodate their perversion. If he's a "scumbag" for asserting his rights, then they're ass flies for asserting theirs.
09/11/17 12:05:43AM @pat-wilson
EXACTLY. Once the plaintiffs completely lose in the Supreme Court, as they have done in other courts, then a third-party contractor will be brought in tp do 'special projects" or a "public accommodation staff asset" will be hired.
If the plaintiffs win, then Mr. Phillips and Others will have no requirement to modify their business model.
"Government coercion of speech that violates the religious conscience of the speaker is not only a violation of the First Amendment; it is also patently un-American, and it’s a violation of personal liberty,” Hartzler said. “A government that tells you what you can’t say is bad enough. But a government that tells you what you must say, and what you must do, and punishes you if you don’t, is frightening. That kind of state power should scare all of us, no matter where we stand on this issue.”
This is beyond grotesque and gross coming from someone who's admitted to having the goal of forcing his religious beliefs onto an entire world through force.
It's apparent to me that the Supreme Court decided to hear this case, not because the outcome is clear, but because it's not. This baker offers both custom designed wedding cakes and o rebaked goods. Anybody can buy his orebaked good, no questions asked, but he has limits on what he'll custom design. For instance, he won't bake cakes celebrating holloween or that use profanity or anything else he finds offensive.
The custom cakes are expensive, ranging from $400 to $800, and people buy them for his artistic custom expression not the taste. Although the customers are the ones ordering the cake, they are paying for his creative expression (not their own) and his creative expression (to him) must honor God. He believes that marriage can only honor God if it's between a man and a woman.
Prior cases have held that creative expression is a form of speech but his argument is that the government can't compel creative expression. Public accommodation cases may be inapplicable because they don't involve freedom of speech issues. Any obligation the baker may have to accommodate same-sex couples may end with offering them goods that don't require creative expression . . . after all, how can you celebrate something through creative expression if you find it revolting?
Some may see it as simply a discrimination case but others may see it as a test of how far the government can go to compel people to treat a behavior as normal when it is, to them, a biblical abomination.
The Trump administration has entered the case on the side of the baker.
So, apparently he finds rainbows offensive...but do we seriously think he'd have the same reaction to a birthday cake for a 6 year old if she wanted a rainbow on it? I'd bet if we'd had a chance to see the kinds of art work he's done in the past we'd find a variety of rainbow themes which, no doubt, have been removed from the photo album. And even more doubtless would be that he'll do them if he knows who the cakes for. Like so many of his scummy ilk, he's a bigot trying to cover his bigotry with a perversion of religion.
So, apparently he finds rainbows offensive...but do we seriously think he'd have the same reaction to a birthday cake for a 6 year old if she wanted a rainbow on it?
He does custom cakes and I doubt anybody would pay $400-800 for a 6 years olds birthday cake.
I'd bet if we'd had a chance to see the kinds of art work he's done in the past we'd find a variety of rainbow themes which, no doubt, have been removed from the photo album.
Or maybe they're not in the photo album because he's never done a rainbow theme and, even if he had, it doesn't mean he can summon his creative expression for something he finds revolting.
And even more doubtless would be that he'll do them if he knows who the cakes for.
It's not an over the counter transaction. As far as I know, he meets with people to get to know them before creating a design.
Like so many of his scummy ilk, he's a bigot trying to cover his bigotry with a perversion of religion.
Ok I'll play. His religious belief is directly out of the Bible and he shouldn't have to change his beliefs just because two butthole surfing ass flies want him to help them celebrate an abomination before God.
It is of no relevance regarding what subject matter the baker finds "offensive." If the subject matter does not violate obscenity or other laws, and the baker objects to the subject matter because it violates his religious beliefs, in this case, beliefs regarding homosexuality, he is guilty of discrimination.
It's not an over the counter transaction. As far as I know, he meets with people to get to know them before creating a design.
Because the baker is licensed to provide goods and services to the public, it must be an "over-the-counter-transaction" (whether it is offered over an actual counter, via telephone, etc. . However the transaction rejection was conveyed, because it was rejected for reasons of "discriminatory animus".
Animus-Based (or Taste-Based) Discrimination occurs when agents' personal prejudices or “tastes” against associating with members of a particular group (in a particular way) affect their treatment of those individuals.
It is of no relevance regarding what subject matter the baker finds "offensive." If the subject matter does not violate obscenity or other laws, and the baker objects to the subject matter because it violates his religious beliefs, in this case, beliefs regarding homosexuality, he is guilty of discrimination.
All religion is an exercise of discriminating between bad and food behavior. The question is can the state compel him to create. If the answer were clear, the Supreme Court wouldn't have needed to hear it.
It's not an over the counter transaction. As far as I know, he meets with people to get to know them before creating a design.
Because the baker is licensed to provide goods and services to the public, it must be an "over-the-counter-transaction" (whether it is offered over an actual counter, via telephone, etc. . However the transaction rejection was conveyed, because it was rejected for reasons of "discriminatory animus".
That doesn't mean that he can be compelled to create. We'll have to see what the court decides.
All religion is an exercise of discriminating between bad and food behavior. The question is can the state compel him to create. If the answer were clear, the Supreme Court wouldn't have needed to hear it.
Individuals are free to be discriminating in their personal and religious lives; they are not free however to perpetrate acts of discriminate in public interactions … that on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.. You are playing with words.
That doesn't mean that he can be compelled to create. We'll have to see what the court decides.
He is in the business of decorating cakes … you are confusing the process of artistic creation, the execution of a work of art … painting, drawing, application of line, color, etc., with origin and meaning of the subject matter … the theme, subject, content … which in the baker's business, originates vis that which he is commissioned by a customer, to execute through an artistic process.
You are confusing process with product … execution with content/meaning.
All religion is an exercise of discriminating between bad and food (good) behavior. The question is can the state compel him to create. If the answer were clear, the Supreme Court wouldn't have needed to hear it.
Individuals are free to be discriminating in their personal and religious lives; they are not free however to perpetrate acts of discriminate in public interactions … that on the basis of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.. You are playing with words.
There is no play on words. Individuals are free to exercise their religious beliefs and religious beliefs necessarily judge behavior. He didn't refuse to sell them non-customized items; he declined to customize something that violates his religious beliefs. The customer is not creating a thing. Instead they want him to do it. The issue is whether discrimination laws are in conflict with his constitutional rights and, if so, whether they can be reconciled or whether one must give way to the other.
That doesn't mean that he can be compelled to create. We'll have to see what the court decides.
He is in the business of decorating cakes … you are confusing the process of artistic creation, the execution of a work of art … painting, drawing, application of line, color, etc., with origin and meaning of the subject matter … the theme, subject, content … which in the baker's business, originates vis that which he is commissioned by a customer, to execute through an artistic process. You are confusing process with product … execution with content/meaning.
I'm not confusing anything. He says he's an artist and that is supported by the large sums of money people are willing to pay him for his work. Artistic expression has been held to be a form of speech. If he doesn't want to create because the subject/theme is contrary to his religious beliefs, then the issue is precisely whether the state can compel artistic expression.
He does custom cakes and I doubt anybody would pay $400-800 for a 6 years olds birthday cake.
Playing dodge-ball, we see.
He does custom cakes and I doubt anybody would pay $400-800 for a 6 years olds birthday cake.
Playing dodge-ball, we see.
You threw the ball; I threw it back.
"Ok I'll play. His religious belief is directly out of the Bible and he shouldn't have to change his beliefs just because two butthole surfing ass flies want him to help them celebrate an abomination before God." Me thinks thou protests too much. Homophobe much?
Homophobe much?
A made up slur to insult those who disagree with them. So if you're asking if I disagree a lot with the gay cabal, then yes I do.
What's a gay cabal? Again, me thinks thou doth protest too much. I got your number.
Again, me thinks thou doth protest too much. I got your number.
Your hackneyed insinuation won't stop me from objecting so you can say it over and over until you turn blue. Nor will it do any good to throw slurs like bigot, homophobe, neanderthal, knuckle dragger etc. because I'll respond with slurs of my own. I got your number too.
It's funny you use Yoda as an avatar. He was wise. You? I don't think so.
It's funny you use Yoda as an avatar. He was wise. You? I don't think so.
Who cares what cats think.
Yeah and who cares what Dicks think?
The state of Colorado didn't violate this bigot's rights. He violated the couple's rights.
The state of Colorado didn't violate this bigot's rights. He violated the couple's rights.
That has yet to be decided . . . by anybody that counts.
The state of Colorado didn't violate this bigot's rights. He violated the couple's rights.
Cato filed a brief with the court that paints a different picture.
I think it's a good argument. What creates a direct clash is the fact that homosexuality is a behavior, rather than an immutable characteristic (like race and gender). Religion is based on separating good behavior from bad. Prohibiting the baker from exercising his religious beliefs, when Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]had other alternatives, is going to be an issue.
Homosexuality is not a behavior (code for nuture) anymore than heterosexuality is a nurture response.
In the same way that conservatives simultaneously oppose birth control and abortion, I contend that if it were determined homosexuality was a genetic "disorder" ... and that it could be reversed through embryotic stem cell replacement, etc. ... conservatives would legislate against the process.
When demagoguery, religiosity and hatred are your TRUMP cards, you don't want to change your stacked deck.
Homosexuality is not a behavior (code for nuture) anymore than heterosexuality is a nurture response.
Homosexuality is absolutely a behavior. You're disputing what causes it. I think it's nurture, not nature. You can believe the opposite and cite all the studies you like but the scientific community has NEVER decided the question so you can't possibly prove me wrong. Plus, identical twins have the same genes and are rarely both gay. If homosexuality were genetic, they would both be gay because their genes are identical. Yes I'm aware of theories explaining the difference but they're theories not proof. I've been through all of this many times before and you have about as much chance of changing my mind as I have of changing yours. To me, the gay "identity" is a complete fiction invented to cast a sexual behavior as an immutable characteristic (like race and gender) so they can pretend to be discriminated against for being different rather than deviant. No doubt, you see it differently. In the end, we will have to agree to disagree so we might as well do it now.
09/14/17 10:39:08PM @1ofmany.
Let us talk about something you imply you know a great deal about: Is heterosexuality inherent or nurture? Did someone teach you opposite sex attraction at that moment of first physical attraction?
Let us talk about something you imply you know a great deal about: Is heterosexuality inherent or nurture? Did someone teach you opposite sex attraction at that moment of first physical attraction?
The obvious and undisputed purpose of sex is reproduction. Our sexual organs are dsiegned for opposite sex connection . . . they go together as clearly as sockets and plugs. No one has to teach it any more than animals teach it and even animals have figured out what to do with their sexual organs. Same sex attraction deviates from the natural purpose of sex and is, therefore, a deviant behavior.
And, no, it doesn't matter that heterosexual couples have sex without intending to reproduce. No it doesn't matter that heterosexual couples can misuse their sexual organs the same way same sex couples can. No, it doesn't matter that some animals will hump the same sex . . . they can't talk and tell you why they do it. No, homosexual behavior in animals is not normal just because it occurs . . . a two-headed snake is natural (in the sense that it occurs) but it's clearly not normal.
So, I'll just ask you a question since you "imply you know a great deal" about this. If a dog humps a fire hydrant, was the dog born to be attracted to it? Did someone teach the other dogs how to properly mate? What would become of a population of same-sex attracted dogs and would that obvious result be normal to you?
1ofmany,
I am sorry, but I see no need to descend on "all-fours" in this please. While there is truly much that can be said, the intelligent question is why? For instance, we are skirting the "Christian baker case" as it is.
Remember my point for engaging you on this "issue" is because of your unique word phrasings, which I won't repeat here. The proper use of body parts is not sufficient for debate, in my opinion. Technically speaking you can "get off" in any number of sexual variations (did I go there?). Okay, let me get back up HERE where I belong.
In my opinion, we should be discussing human sexual attraction. No?
I am sorry, but I see no need to descend on "all-fours" in this please. While there is truly much that can be said, the intelligent question is why? For instance, we are skirting the "Christian baker case" as it is.
Nobody asked you to get on all fours. All I did was expand the inquiry into nature in general because part of my reasoning is based on it even if yours isn't.
Remember my point for engaging you on this "issue" is because of your unique word phrasings, which I won't repeat here. The proper use of body parts is not sufficient for debate, in my opinion. Technically speaking you can "get off" in any number of sexual variations (did I go there?). Okay, let me get back up HERE where I belong.
My "unique phasings" are in response to repeated insults by members who use slurs to label those who disagree with them. I won't list their slurs here even though you seem to only remember mine. As for the proper use of body parts, I'm sorry to disagree but the proper use of body parts is exactly the point because it's what undergirds my view of what is normal.
In my opinion, we should be discussing human sexual attraction. No?
Depends. Human sexual attraction doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's part of the natural order of things and, in the natural order of things, the purpose of sex is to perpetuate the species. Yes?
1ofmany,
In discussing human sexual attraction (higher order) we seek to understand what draws one human being to another human being. What makes the attraction last longer than a chance/curious encounter or a set of "one night stands." Why sexual attraction baselines last a lifetime.
I am starting to drift too far away from the main article discussion. I will try posting this 'case' as a new article under a different name--as I will be the author--I can come to terms with the content. It may not be long "lived" but we hopefully can clear up some things.
What say you? I am off to get it done.
1ofmany, and All
I so hate to pivot off 'Jefferson's highly successful article, but I am having a hell of a time 'tracking' and reading new messages here at this point. (Again, 'Jefferson goes 600! Great showing, O boy!)
So, if you would not mind can you visit my new article on 'cake baker, photographers, and candlestick makers.' Of course, I am just poking you (all) with that one. Here you go:
Plus, identical twins have the same genes and are rarely both gay. If homosexuality were genetic, they would both be gay because their genes are identical.
There is so much ignorance in the entire comment with those two sentences but they stand out for particular mention since they illustrate complete ignorance about genetics. Having identical genes does not mean a set of twins will turn out exactly the same. Gene expression could be quite different. Identical twins don't always get the same genetically influenced diseases--some cancers for example. Eye color and can very between them since that trait is a function of multiple genes that can be expressed differently in each co-twin. Identical twins of inter-racial parents can have different skin color tones depending on the variable expression of melanin genes in each. There are also post-conception events that might have an effect on genes, even slight mutations. Finally, there's no evidence that there's a purely genetic basis for sexual preference. It's safe to say that it's a multifactorial process. One thing is absolutely clear though: the vast majority of homosexual men and women have shown signs of and were aware of same sex preference very early in childhood, long before the it could have been a "learned" behavior.
There is so much ignorance in the entire comment with those two sentences but they stand out for particular mention since they illustrate complete ignorance about genetics. Having identical genes does not mean a set of twins will turn out exactly the same. Gene expression could be quite different. Identical twins don't always get the same genetically influenced diseases--some cancers for example . . .
Let's examine your blather and why it gets you nowhere.
Eye color and can very between them since that trait is a function of multiple genes that can be expressed differently in each co-twin. Identical twins of inter-racial parents can have different skin color tones depending on the variable expression of melanin genes in each.
Eye and skin color are not behaviors and no genetic cause for homosexuality has ever been definitively identified. My point was not that identical twins are always identical in every respect because they obviously aren't. However, if one identical twin claims to be gay, the other rarely claims to be so. I can just as easily explain that by an environmental influence as you can a genetic one. For example, one could have been molested and the other was not.
There are also post-conception events that might have an effect on genes, even slight mutations.
And it "might" not. There are post-conception influences that have absolutely nothing to do with genes. You still can't prove that homosexuality is genetic and, even if you could, you may have only established that homosexuals are the result of genetic defects like a two-headed snake.
Finally, there's no evidence that there's a purely genetic basis for sexual preference. It's safe to say that it's a multifactorial process.
Of course there's no evidence. There's no evidence (other than bullshit theories) that homosexuality is genetic at all.
One thing is absolutely clear though: the vast majority of homosexual men and women have shown signs of and were aware of same sex preference very early in childhood, long before the it could have been a "learned" behavior.
And therein is the source of this entire fallacy. The environmental cause can go back further than they can remember or be caused by something innocuous. For instance, I saw a video by an ex-transgender man who said that when he visited his grandmother, she would dress him as a little girl and tell him how pretty he was. He didn't know why she did it but she made him feel good about himself when his parents did not. After a while, he took the dress home and would put it on to feel pretty. This eventually led to him believing that he should have been a female and, when he was able to do so, he had transition surgery. Now he can't go back. It had nothing to do with genetics and society helped him make a terrible mistake by encouraging his belief that people can be born in the wrong body.
Believe whatever the fuck you like but your opinion is just an opinion and no better than mine.
There is so much more of your additional fallacious reasoning that I'm going to have to break it down almost sentence by sentence:
Eye and skin color are not behaviors and no genetic cause for homosexuality has ever been definitively identified.
Those are two entire different subjects put together to seem related.
I can just as easily explain that by an environmental influence as you can a genetic one. For example, one could have been molested and the other was not.
No, you cannot "easily explain that." You can make up any environmental pretext you want but that's not "explaining" anything other than your determination to make it all come down to. Is this pretext that everyone who's molested as a child then decides to become gay? If not, what explains that it doesn't always result in that.
You still can't prove that homosexuality is genetic and, even if you could, you may have only established that homosexuals are the result of genetic defects like a two-headed snake.
I never claimed it was proven much less that I had done. The evidence is not conclusive but there is some evidence. There is no evidence that people homosexuals start out as heteros and decide to change. But I do like how you can't even hide your gay-hate when you call it a "defect" (I like to think people who are so ferociously bigoted toward them have one, too, btw and it may very well be to overcompensate for their own repressed homosexual urgings) and compare it to a two-headed snake.
Of course there's no evidence. There's no evidence (other than bullshit theories) that homosexuality is genetic at all.
For instance, I saw a video by an ex-transgender man who said that when he visited his grandmother, she would dress him as a little girl and tell him how pretty he was. He didn't know why she did it but she made him feel good about himself when his parents did not. After a while, he took the dress home and would put it on to feel pretty. This eventually led to him believing that he should have been a female and, when he was able to do so, he had transition surgery. Now he can't go back. It had nothing to do with genetics and society helped him make a terrible mistake by encouraging his belief that people can be born in the wrong body.
Ooo, boy, the "I knew a guy" evidence. Hard to refute that. But let's look a little closer at your example. Wonder why at a very young age, dressing as a girl made him "feel better?" You do know that cross-dressing and homosexuality are often not the same thing at all, right? So, I hope the doctors didn't do his surgery just because he liked putting on women's clothing. There's a rigorous psychological examination of people wanting to have that kind of surgery so either it was very poorly done, this man lied to the shrinks, he's BSing you or you're the BSer (far the most likely) in order to make the even more absurd case that "society made him do it." You'd never use that to defend any other minority's behavior you disliked but this seems to be a "special case."
Believe whatever the fuck you like but your opinion is just an opinion and no better than mine.
Well, at least you've admitted that yours is an opinion instead of pretending you had some evidentiary case to make. And if it's just both our opinions, at least mine isn't based on hate.
Eye and skin color are not behaviors and no genetic cause for homosexuality has ever been definitively identified.
Those are two entire different subjects put together to seem related.
i put them together because you brought them up.
I can just as easily explain that by an environmental influence as you can a genetic one. For example, one could have been molested and the other was not.
No, you cannot "easily explain that." You can make up any environmental pretext you want but that's not "explaining" anything other than your determination to make it all come down to. Is this pretext that everyone who's molested as a child then decides to become gay? If not, what explains that it doesn't always result in that.
Of course I can easily explain it. My environmental explanation is every bit as scientific as yours because science has never resolved whether homosexuality is the result of nature or nuture. All you're giving over and over is just your opinion.
You still can't prove that homosexuality is genetic and, even if you could, you may have only established that homosexuals are the result of genetic defects like a two-headed snake.
I never claimed it was proven much less that I had done. The evidence is not conclusive but there is some evidence.
Good, at lest you recognize that you can't prove you're right.
There is no evidence that people homosexuals start out as heteros and decide to change.
Yeah well point out the gay babies in the infirmary. I'll assume they're all normal until proven otherwise.
But I do like how you can't even hide your gay-hate when you call it a "defect"
You should be old enough to realize that disagreeing with somebody isn't hatred. But I'll play along. You can't hide your hatred for normal behavior.
(I like to think people who are so ferociously bigoted toward them have one, too, btw and it may very well be to overcompensate for their own repressed homosexual urgings) and compare it to a two-headed snake.
That's worth a chuckle. To you, the only people who object to insanity are those who are themselves insane. You must be a riot at the asylum.
For instance, I saw a video by an ex-transgender man who said that when he visited his grandmother, she would dress him as a little girl and tell him how pretty he was. He didn't know why she did it but she made him feel good about himself when his parents did not. After a while, he took the dress home and would put it on to feel pretty. This eventually led to him believing that he should have been a female and, when he was able to do so, he had transition surgery. Now he can't go back. It had nothing to do with genetics and society helped him make a terrible mistake by encouraging his belief that people can be born in the wrong body.
Ooo, boy, the "I knew a guy" evidence. Hard to refute that. But let's look a little closer at your example. Wonder why at a very young age, dressing as a girl made him "feel better?" [yeah grandma messed up his mind].
Well your "I've been gay as far back as I can remember" BS is so much more believable /s. Other minorities aren't behaviors unless you're talking about pedophilia, beastiality, and things like foot fetishes.
Believe whatever the fuck you like but your opinion is just an opinion and no better than mine.
Well, at least you've admitted that yours is an opinion instead of pretending you had some evidentiary case to make. And if it's just both our opinions, at least mine isn't based on hate.
I always knew mine is an opinion. It just took you forever to recognize that yours is just an opinion too.
09/15/17 07:22:31PM @ 1ofmany,
"Hot stuff coming through."
Gene expression could be quite different.
I am posting here because I still can't get your other comment to load.
You are correct about gene expression. The field of study is called Epigenetics. It is the study of gene communication and the chemical changes. I am not into eugenics. That was Margaret Sanger.
Homosexuality isn't a choice but biology. Acting on the biology, sex act, whether gay or straight is a choice.
Epigenetics is such a new field of study the understanding of it hasn't made it to the mainstream yet. Autism is another gene expression. What chemical action and reaction causes the gene expression to go the direction it did?
One study I read was looking at testosterone levels in the womb as a possibility for the homosexuality gene expression.
As our understanding of epigenetics improves the possibility exists to change gene expression. That will allow conditions that exist because of gene expression to be cured. No kid with autism wants to be autistic. No gay person wants to be different either. Who wants to be subject to the cruelty of others because a gene didn't express itself the way the vast majority of them do?
I am not into eugenics
And yet you seemed to be all in for a future where people with behaviors you find objectionable would be eliminated from society through genetic engineering. What would you call that? BTW, as even you seem to understand human sexuality is a very complex psychophysiologic process. So thinking that it might be a matter of altering a single or even a string of base pairs of a single gene with or without juggling the even more variable epigenetic factors is impossible to as near a certainty as it could get.
After the genome project was finished a whole new world opened. We are just scratching the surface of what is possible.
Is it Pandora's box? Is it the cure for all of those genetic issues? All I know is that so much more understanding into the human body has been revealed. I never imagined anything like this back in my hs bio class 50+ years ago.
Who knows? I am done with this article. I have enjoyed the conversation. It would have been better without the flames though.
I'll follow the A-Mac example and give you the last word.
Dean Moriarty,
I am not able to SEE my post after I post them to re-comment at least on this thread. But, I can read other folks. From your linked SCOTUS BLOG document this section of a paragraph on Page 14 squares the concerns of the case:
[Page] 14
By myopically focusing on the point of sale to the exclusion of all other aspects
of making a custom wedding cake — to sidestep any difficult free - speech questions
— the court effectively elevated Colorado’s antidiscrimination law above com-
pelled-speech concerns. But state - law rights cannot trump the First Amendment,as
Hurley and Tornillo show. See also Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 657 (2000)
(distinguishing Roberts v. U.S. Jay-cees 468 U.S.609, 657 (1984),because the law there
did not substantially burden First Amendment rights).
Very interesting, and gets to the gist of the matter: Is state law focusing too much on the first concern of sexual orientation discrimination (Mr. Phillips actually rejected the work before he knew creative work was needed, thus triggering discrimination) or should the case hang on going deeper exploring Mr. Phillips lawyerly written concern of compelled speech.
I hope that makes sense.
I likely will not be able to respond here. Dean, I wanted to let you know that I read the link completely and saw a valid argument there enough to comment on. This does not mean I agree with the argument on the merits, but I can see what SCOTUS will have to decide better.
Thank you. Great post!
Anybody can buy his orebaked good, no questions asked, but he has limits on what he'll custom design. For instance, he won't bake cakes celebrating holloween or that use profanity or anything else he finds offensive.
Assuming the subject matter is neither profane, obscene nor illegal, denial on the basis of content is, in-and-of-itself, not the issue; the issue is denying the content based on reason of discrimination. Halloween, for example, as content, does not represent a class of individuals and would not reasonably be associated with a specific class of individuals.
The custom cakes are expensive, ranging from $400 to $800, and people buy them for his artistic custom expression not the taste. Although the customers are the ones ordering the cake, they are paying for his creative expression (not their own) and his creative expression (to him) must honor God. He believes that marriage can only honor God if it's between a man and a woman.
Irrelevant; the quality of his designs is independent of the content … his artistic expression is a manifestation of his talent and artistic execution … not an expression of whether or not he is sympathetic with, in agreement disagreement with the content as requested by the customer.
Prior cases have held that creative expression is a form of speech but his argument is that the government can't compel creative expression. Public accommodation cases may be inapplicable because they don't involve freedom of speech issues. Any obligation the baker may have to accommodate same-sex couples may end with offering them goods that don't require creative expression . . . after all, how can you celebrate something through creative expression if you find it revolting?
"Creative expression" that represents the artist's ideology, philosophy or religious beliefs, if/when created with the intent of the artist's "self-expression," is not synonymous with "the process, quality and style of execution of artwork done at a customer's request … especially not when the artist/baker is in the business of literally creating artwork-for-hire.
Some may see it as simply a discrimination case but others may see it as a test of how far the government can go to compel people to treat a behavior as normal when it is, to them, a biblical abomination.
The government, by imposing an adverse action on the baker, in this case, is not ruling on the entirely subjective concept of "normalcy" as the bible defines it! That is exactly why the baker has violated the First Amendment rights of the clients, who, like it or not, have the legal right to their life style.
The Trump administration has entered the case on the side of the baker.
Oh well, if Bible-Thumper, Pussy-Grabber, Honest-as-the-Day-is-Long, Trump is on the baker's side …
… Birds of a feather …
Anybody can buy his orebaked good, no questions asked, but he has limits on what he'll custom design. For instance, he won't bake cakes celebrating holloween or that use profanity or anything else he finds offensive.
Assuming the subject matter is neither profane, obscene nor illegal, denial on the basis of content is, in-and-of-itself, not the issue; the issue is denying the content based on reason of discrimination. Halloween, for example, as content, does not represent a class of individuals and would not reasonably be associated with a specific class of individuals.
The question before the court is whether the state can compel creative expression so the content is precisely the issue.
The custom cakes are expensive, ranging from $400 to $800, and people buy them for his artistic custom expression not the taste. Although the customers are the ones ordering the cake, they are paying for his creative expression (not their own) and his creative expression (to him) must honor God. He believes that marriage can only honor God if it's between a man and a woman.
Irrelevant; the quality of his designs is independent of the content … his artistic expression is a manifestation of his talent and artistic execution … not an expression of whether or not he is sympathetic with, in agreement disagreement with the content as requested by the customer.
It's completely relevant because it supports his argument that you're paying, and paying handsomely, for his creative expression.
Prior cases have held that creative expression is a form of speech but his argument is that the government can't compel creative expression. Public accommodation cases may be inapplicable because they don't involve freedom of speech issues. Any obligation the baker may have to accommodate same-sex couples may end with offering them goods that don't require creative expression . . . after all, how can you celebrate something through creative expression if you find it revolting?
"Creative expression" that represents the artist's ideology, philosophy or religious beliefs, if/when created with the intent of the artist's "self-expression," is not synonymous with "the process, quality and style of execution of artwork done at a customer's request … especially not when the artist/baker is in the business of literally creating artwork-for-hire.
Nonsense. It makes no more sense to expect him to use his creative expression to help celebrate something abominable than it does to expect a poet to compose a love poem for someone he hates. They should sign an agreement to accept whatever his muse can produce, including an image of the couple being struck by lightning.
Some may see it as simply a discrimination case but others may see it as a test of how far the government can go to compel people to treat a behavior as normal when it is, to them, a biblical abomination.
The government, by imposing an adverse action on the baker, in this case, is not ruling on the entirely subjective concept of "normalcy" as the bible defines it! That is exactly why the baker has violated the First Amendment rights of the clients, who, like it or not, have the legal right to their life style.
The first amendment restricts state action, not his. The state may have violated his first amendment rights by trying to compel creative expression.
My business involves producing graphics and products with graphics. If someone came to me and asked me to produce imagery that I personally find offensive (for whatever reason) I'm pretty sure I have the right to decline the project.
I think this baker would be wise to display a list of imagery that he will not produce on the inside or outside his bakery.
Frankly I think this guy was out for his 15 minutes of fame and he got it. And maybe it was the couple looking for fame.
The couple wasn't looking for fame. They just wanted a cake.
The couple wasn't looking for fame. They just wanted a cake.
If all they wanted was a cake, then they could have have respected the baker's religious beliefs and bought the cake somewhere else.
"If all they wanted was a cake, then they could have have respected the baker's religious beliefs and bought the cake somewhere else." Did this bigot have a sign posted - I'll only make cakes for straights?
Did this bigot have a sign posted - I'll only make cakes for straights?
Would that have made a difference to these two ass flies?
What is an ass fly?
If all they wanted was a cake, then they could have have respected the baker's religious beliefs and bought the cake somewhere else.
If the baker wanted to open bakery and wanted to be able to discriminate in the conduct of his business, he could have established his business in a country that allowed discrimination!
If the baker wanted to open bakery and wanted to be able to discriminate in the conduct of his business, he could have established his business in a country that allowed discrimination!
Maybe the homosexuals should buy cakes in countries where religious freedom won't be an issue.
"Maybe the homosexuals should buy cakes in countries where religious freedom won't be an issue." Like America - where it shouldn't be an issue?
Maybe business owners should be able to pick and choose what work they want to do. GM wanted be to bid on designing and building tooling for them just prior to their bankruptcy. I didn't want to take the risk of not being paid. Should I have been forced to submit the bid knowing they were not a good customer?
Yeah. Had the baker simply said he would be unable to take that order, but not specified the reason, things would be more cut and dry. Once he made it an openly discriminatory decision, he opened himself up to everything that has followed. Often, once more information is offered, it changes the nature of the situation.
For example, you are running late for work. You get there and apologize for running late and leave it at that. Probably going to be okay. Or, you apologize for running late because you were having a cocktail with friends and lost track of time. Probably not okay. It's a loose example, but generally speaking, too much information gets people in trouble, especially when they are using it to qualify a reason why they aren't going to do something.
I will qualify what I just said (lol) though because unless this is a different case, I thought I remembered the gay couple making a point of going to that bakery because they already knew the baker was going to reject them. Which just further muddies the waters here, since that is a douchebag move as well if there were ANY other alternatives available to them.
"I thought I remembered the gay couple making a point of going to that bakery because they already knew the baker was going to reject them." So source please? Otherwise, nonsense.
"I thought I remembered the gay couple making a point of going to that bakery because they already knew the baker was going to reject them." So source please? Otherwise, nonsense.
Maybe business owners should be able to pick and choose what work they want to do. GM wanted be to bid on designing and building tooling for them just prior to their bankruptcy. I didn't want to take the risk of not being paid. Should I have been forced to submit the bid knowing they were not a good customer?
Business owners do pick and choose what work they want to do; but once making that choice, they cannot legally discriminate on the basis of race, religion, legal lifestyles … for whom they will perform that chosen work!
Business owners do pick and choose what work they want to do; but once making that choice, they cannot legally discriminate on the basis of race, religion, legal lifestyles … for whom they will perform that chosen work!
If the case were that cut and dry, the Supreme Court would have seen no need to review the matter and would have just let the Colorado court decision stand.
"Maybe the homosexuals should buy cakes in countries where religious freedom won't be an issue." Like America - where it shouldn't be an issue?
But it is an issue and it should be.
"But it is an issue and it should be." No it isn't and no it shouldn't.
"But it is an issue and it should be." No it isn't and no it shouldn't.
Write in to the Supreme Court and share your view with them. Those old farts could use a chuckle or two.
The facts of this case don't support that. They made a complaint to the CO Commission on Civil Rights and then went on their way. It's the baker and a bunch of extreme rightwing religious legal groups (for free) trying to get religious belief as a way to discriminate enshrined as "constitutional." They may actually succeed with this horrible new justice on the court.
The facts of this case don't support that. They made a complaint to the CO Commission on Civil Rights and then went on their way. It's the baker and a bunch of extreme rightwing religious legal groups (for free) trying to get religious belief as a way to discriminate enshrined as "constitutional." They may actually succeed with this horrible new justice on the court.
Not quite the same.
See that is a site wide policy. It is equally applied to everyone.
Now if I applied it only to badfishs then, you would have a case.
It's not because it's a private site, but because that is what my advertisers want.
Btw.. most women don't have a dildo aversion, although we do prefer the real thing.
but because that is what my advertisers want.
NT, Perrie's post brings up an interesting point in this issue.
An advertiser/customer wants to buy ad space in a private online newspaper. Can the advertiser/customer be rejected because the owner of the online paper objects to the content of the advertizing? Does the online paper have to take all ads? Can the online paper be compelled to publish what violates the owner's conscience?
As I have said before, I'm glad I am not on the bench handling this one!
Can the advertiser/customer be rejected because the owner of the online paper objects to the content of the advertizing? Does the online paper have to take all ads? Can the online paper be compelled to publish what violates the owner's conscience?
Objecting to the content of an advertisement must be consistent … if the content is religious, then the publication must, as a policy, reject all ads with religious content, etc. .
So if the baker consistently won't decorate a cake that offends his religious beliefs he shouldn't have a problem?
The Supreme Court isn't compelled to review this case. It takes a minimum of four justices to vote in support of a review. The fact that four justices voted to review it tells me that the case raises a legitimate and important issue that the court wants to resolve.
1ofmany,
Ok I'll play. His religious belief is directly out of the Bible and he shouldn't have to change his beliefs just because two butthole surfing ass flies want him to help them celebrate an abomination before God.
______________________________________________________________
This baker is invoking religious bias in a manner courts of Colorado determined to be discrimination against sexual orientation. The state sets the public accommodation laws and this baker knew what they were or acquired them appropriately as other public businesses. The two "shoppers" who simply ask not to be discriminated against (according to court documents the baker denied their request on its face ahead of any details) followed the law in Colorado. Why should they be denied services from a wedding cake business owner?
The real issue is with Colorada state law and one of its business owners, yes? Now then here is why I write you today: Why the repeat vulgar insults to homosexuals? Even the baker was not so expressive!
This baker is invoking religious bias in a manner courts of Colorado determined to be discrimination against sexual orientation. The state sets the public accommodation laws and this baker knew what they were or acquired them appropriately as other public businesses. The two "shoppers" who simply ask not to be discriminated against (according to court documents the baker denied their request on its face ahead of any details) followed the law in Colorado. Why should they be denied services from a wedding cake business owner?
The baker was invoking his constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Religion is based on separating good behavior from bad behavior. Homosexuality is a behavior and the Bible unequivocally says that it's an abomination. No details of the decoration were necessary because he told them point blank that celebrating a homosexual wedding, in his view, is contrary to God's word. All they asked was for him to violate his beliefs so they can buy a cake. All he asked them to do was respect his beliefs and either buy a non-custom product or buy somewhere else. So, yes, the question is whether the laws of Colorado can abridge his constitutional rights.
The real issue is with Colorada state law and one of its business owners, yes? Now then here is why I write you today: Why the repeat vulgar insults to homosexuals? Even the baker was not so expressive!
And I write back to say that I'm sick and tired of liberals feeling free to insult other people with slurs like bigot, homophobe, Neanderthal, and knuckle dragger while thinking they should be immune to insults themselves. They need a taste of their own medicine and I'm here to administer it. If you want to advise civility, then direct your advice to them. If they stop, I'll stop.
1ofmany, the baker and the photographer can invoke their constitutional right to sell artistic cakes/good and services to their memberships. Members only (like Sam's Club, Costco, and other such enterprises). At that point neither will have the public wandering off the streets to inquire about their wares.
Once you hang out a shingle and an open door to the public—local, state, and federal commerce laws apply; up-to-and-touching U. S. Constitution approved civil rights. The State (aka. secular government) regulates public accommodation not local churches. These businessman folks can argue freedom of speech once they take the appropriate steps to be "hidden' from public assess. Until then, they have not done all they can to protect themselves from public accommodation laws.
(I am rushing a bit here as I have to go away for a bit soon.)
_
For argument sake - you repeatedly have written that homosexuality is a behavior to which I inquire what do you mean by this exactly? Moreover, what experience do you bring to the table on the subject of homosexuality as a way of life? I have background on this subject matter. Additionally, I am a long-term practicing New Testament believer.
To be clear, which testament, or testaments, in your opinion do you understand the plaintiffs to be invoking religious freedom on? (I wonder if this folks are aware that modern Israel allows married homosexuals to civilly live, buy and sale, and prosper in Israel.
This leads to a deeper question: Can Right-wing "American" evangelicals be more righteous in their modern interpretations of the Jewish Old Testament than the state of Israel? Note: I am aware that Orthodox Jews disapprove of what their government has done in becoming secular.
Lastly, the couple could have dropped the matter and moved on. Only to have another "umpteenth" same-sex couple walk through his open door and face new discriminatory ("We do not provide custom services to your kind!") treatment.
Once you hang out a shingle and an open door to the public—local, state, and federal commerce laws apply; up-to-and-touching U. S. Constitution approvedcivil rights. The State (aka. secular government) regulates public accommodation not local churches. These businessman folks can argue freedom of speech once they take the appropriate steps to be "hidden' from public assess. Until then, they have not done all they can to protect themselves from public accommodation laws.
Hanging out a shingle does not mean that the businessman surrenders his constitutional right to the free exercise of religion or to be free from being compelled to speak. This baker's work is expensive and people pay him to create around a theme. The question here is whether the state can compel him to create when it violates his religious beliefs. Can an atheist compel a Christian baker to design a cake around a theme that God doesn't exist? Can a Muslim baker be compelled to design a cake around a theme that Mohammed is a terrorist? Can the man/boy love association compel a baker to create a tribute to the beauty of child bodies?
For argument sake - you repeatedly have written that homosexuality is a behavior to which I inquire what do you mean by this exactly?
They define themselves by what they do.
Moreover, what experience do you bring to the table on the subject of homosexuality as a way of life?
None. I also bring no experience as a murderer or pedophile or a thousand other things yet I have an opinion on them.
I have background on this subject matter. Additionally, I am a long-term practicing New Testament believer.
Good for you.
To be clear, which testament, or testaments, in your opinion do you understand the plaintiffs to be invoking religious freedom on? (I wonder if this folks are aware that modern Israel allows married homosexuals to civilly live, buy and sale, and prosper in Israel.
It's in the Old Testamen and it's common knowledge. Modern Israel is a secular state so what they do or don't do has no bearing on the Bible.
This leads to a deeper question: Can Right-wing "American" evangelicals be more righteous in their modern interpretations of the Jewish Old Testament than the state of Israel? Note: I am aware that Orthodox Jews disapprove of what their government has done in becoming secular.
I don't know about more righteous but American evangelicals can read the Bible for themselves.
Lastly, the couple could have dropped the matter and moved on. Only to have another "umpteenth" same-sex couple walk through his open door and face new discriminatory ("We do not provide custom services to your kind!") treatment.
They could have dropped it and moved on when he said that helping them celebrate an abomination with a custom designed cake (created out of his head) would violate his religious beliefs. Instead, they set all of this in motion by filing a complaint. Now the court can rule on the issue for all the umpteenth same sex couples who walk through the door.
1ofmany,
The question here is whether the state can compel him to create when it violates his religious beliefs.
_____________________
The question: Did the baker and others violate CODA :
A. Standard of Review
¶ 26 Whether Masterpiece violated CADA is a question of law reviewed de novo. § 24-4-106(7) B. Applicable
Law ¶ 27 Section 24-34-601(2)(a), C.R.S.2014, reads, as relevant here: It is a discriminatory practice and
unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of
. . . sexual orientation . . .the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations of a place of public accommodation . . . .
¶ 28 In Tesmer v. Colorado High School Activities Association , 140 P.3d 249, 254 (Colo. App. 2006), a division of
this court concluded that to prevail on a discrimination claim under CADA, plaintiffs must prove that, “but for” their
membership in an enumerated class, they would not have been denied the full privileges of a place of public
accommodation. The division explained that plaintiffs need not establish that their membership in the enumerated
class was the “sole” cause of the denial of services . Id.
Rather, it is sufficient that they show that the discriminatory action was based in whole or in part on their
membership in the protected class. Id.
¶ 29 Further, a “place of public accommodation” is “any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and
any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not
limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public.” § 24-34-601(1). Finally, CADA defines
“sexual orientation” as “an individual’s orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bi-sexuality, or
transgender status or another individual’s perception thereof .” § 24-34-301(7), C.R.S. 2014.
Reference:
[Pages 12 - 14]
* Coloration mine.
Caleb-- Why are you citing California law and precedent when the case is before the Supreme Court of the United States on a constitutional question?
It's Colorado. I'll avoid giving the well-deserved insult for your mistake.
Can an atheist compel a Christian baker to design a cake around a theme that God doesn't exist? Can a Muslim baker be compelled to design a cake around a theme that Mohammed [sic] is a terrorist? Can the man/boy love association compel a baker to create a tribute to the beauty of child bodies?
_______________________________________________
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
¶ 62 We conclude that the act of designing and selling a wedding cake to all customers free of discrimination does
not convey a celebratory message about same-sex weddings likely to be
[Page] 34
understood by those who view it. We further conclude that, to the extent that the public infers from a Masterpiece
wedding cake a message celebrating same-sex marriage, that message is more likely to be attributed to the customer
than to Masterpiece.
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
we conclude that the Commission’s order requiring Masterpiece not to discriminate against potential customers because
of their sexual orientation does not force it to engage in compelled expressive conduct in violation of the First
Amendment.
[Page] 42
_______________________________________________
1ofmany, the Appeals Court decided using argument and cases this is not a compelled speech case.1ofmany,
Modern Israel is a secular state so what they do or don't do has no bearing on the Bible.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Yes and no. "God's people" who gave us the Old Testament, are allowing homosexuality to go main-stream in the culture. That should give you pause in your argument to ask, why.
The baker was invoking his constitutional right to the free selective exercise of religion.
There you go - fixed.
The real issue is with Colorada state law and one of its business owners, yes? Now then here is why I write you today: Why the repeat vulgar insults to homosexuals? Even the baker was not so expressive!
Spot on!
Why the repeat vulgar insults to homosexuals? Even the baker was not so expressive!
Why do you consider words in the Bible vulgar?
The old testament, otherwise known as the Torah, is selectively used by present day Christians. There are 613 laws in there, and yet most of them are ignored. Do you eat pork? Wear wool and linen blends?, How about taking a rude child out for a stoning?
I just find it fascinating how people fixate on the parts that they find offensive and not take it as whole. You either accept it all, or you can't take the higher ground.
Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New testaments. Nothing selective about that.
Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New testaments. Nothing selective about that.
Never watched it when it was on so I don't plan on starting now.
Never watched it when it was on so I don't plan on starting now.
That is a cop out, my friend … the video could not be more directly relevant at this point in the thread!
I shouldn't have passed it up out of respect to you. I know the kind of left wing drivel Sorkin put in the West Wing and had no desire to watch the show.
I saw about 10 minutes of the show where the president rips a pastor for his scriptural stance and that was enough for me.
I'll watch the clip and let you know if it was fair or not.
I have read every one of your comments and commented on many ... it is disappointing that you would intentionally bypass one of mine.
Never watched it when it was on so I don't plan on starting now.
Just as well. You wouldn't have gotten it. It would have been wasted on you.
Sorry A-Mac but it was what I expected.
But it does show the "cafeteria Christian" mindset of many of those who zero in on homosexuality as the one "sin" they can't abide.
But it does show the "cafeteria Christian" mindset of many of those who zero in on homosexuality as the one "sin" they can't abide.
Good point! I agree some are prone to "rank sin". To God sin is sin. That means there is no order of worst to least. That is a manmade concept. Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world and not just for the top ten sins.
Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New testaments. Nothing selective about that.
When you go to church, are all the women required to cover their heads? Are they required to remain silent inside the church? Are they required to be submissive to the men inside the church? If not, your denomination is being selective in it's application of Corinthians.
Corninthians 1
" 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is just as if her head were shaved. 6 If a woman does not cover her head, let her hair be cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.…"
1 Corinthians 14:34 New International Version (NIV)
34 Women [ a ] should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
------------------------------------------------------
If we’re to find moral advice in these two books (Timothy and Corinthians), let’s look at a few other things they say.
Read more at
And you are applying your context to the scriptures. In the context of the letter to the Church at Corinth Paul is getting the believers to set themselves apart from the crowd. Don't act the same way the non believers do. As to your selective use of the passages on women. At the time in Corinth the worship of Aphrodite was common. The temple was run by women prostitute priests. Once again Paul is getting believers to break away from the local practices.
When studying scripture look for the constants throughout the Bible. The ten commandments are still law. The rules Paul laid out to the Corinthian Christians are for Corinth and other places that had similar problems. So! It isn't a problem if women's heads are uncovered unless one lives in a place with a lot of religions practicing prostitution as a religious rite. I have led a sheltered life so I don't know of too many of those places.
So you are allowed to interpret the Christian scriptures to your liking, but those who want to permit gays to live in peace are not?
The question was one of selectivity. When you dismiss the written word in favor of concerns about Aphrodite, you are being selective. Frankly, every interpretation of scripture is selective. That is the nature of it.
So you are allowed to interpret the Christian scriptures to your liking, but those who want to permit gays to live in peace are not?
In our constitutional society they have the same rights as everyone. Don't confuse the spiritual with the secular.
The question was one of selectivity. When you dismiss the written word in favor of concerns about Aphrodite, you are being selective. Frankly, every interpretation of scripture is selective. That is the nature of it.
What you missed is context of the scriptures especially Paul's letters. I do agree that selective use of scripture happens. It is usually by those who think people who don't want a big government nanny state are unChristian.
Homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New testaments.
But not in the Gospels. Jesus never uttered a word of condemnation of homosexuality and he didn't stint on condemnation. The bulk of the rest of the NT is Paul's work, not Jesus'.
Hi ausmth!
Do I consider words in the bible vulgar? Of course not. Though, sometimes I do blush when I read specific passages. I read the Bible from cover to cover and then start over again (I have been doing this for well over ten years now.): There is nothing close to a description of "butt__ files" in the Bible. The Bible uses a lot of imagery some humorous, even cringe-worthy, but I have searched my memory and I can not locate this gross item.
The Bible does not drill down into human sex acts - hetereosexual, homosexual, or fetishes.
I do a call to worship Psalm each Sunday. I won't be reading to the congregation much from the Song of Solomon:)
The Bible does not drill down into human sex acts - hetereosexual, homosexual, or fetishes.
Once it says that homosexuals should be put to death, there really isn't a lot more to say. The baker isn't advocating killing them. He just doesn't want to custom design a cake to celebrate an abomination.
If he's honoring his chosen religious doctrine as justification for refusing to serve this customer, then he is disingenuous to not honor all of it. Maybe strict scriptural adherence should be required of those who would rather discriminate buffet style. He shouldn't be selling wedding cakes to gluttons and non-virgins.
If he's honoring his chosen religious doctrine as justification for refusing to serve this customer, then he is disingenuous to not honor all of it. Maybe strict scriptural adherence should be required of those who would rather discriminate buffet style. He shouldn't be selling wedding cakes to gluttons and non-virgins.
The state can't tell him what to believe.
The state can't tell him what to believe.
They can't tell a hardcore racist what to believe either, but they can punish those who break laws.
They can't tell a hardcore racist what to believe either, but they can punish those who break laws.
Who will be punished if the Supreme Court decides that he acted within his constitutional rights?
Who will be punished if the Supreme Court decides that he acted within his constitutional rights?
Human beings and fellow citizens
The state can't tell him what to believe.
Nobody, not the state, the court or any other government or non-government agency or any person anywhere is telling this scumbag baker what to believe or not to believe. He wants a license to discriminate based on his personal likes or dislikes and that is not just offensive, but illegal in the public marketplace. If he wants to do that, he can go private and only do business with like-minded bigots and haters out of his home.
Almost 500 comments, and I bet not a single member has changed how they feel about marriage equality, or gays in general. How productive.
This article should have been history two or three days ago.
Good bump.
That wasn't the topic.
My attitude toward gay marriage hasn't changed in years. If the government grants marriage documents then it can't discriminate against adults who want to marry. I don't think the government should be in the marriage business at all. I am one of the old "who needs a paper" to give me permission to love '60s types.
My understanding of homosexuality has changed. I used to think it was a choice. I now better understand epigenetics and how chemical actions can cause genes to communicate with the brain differently. Homosexuality isn't a choice but biology. That means a cure can be found eventually. It will probably happen when a cure for autism, another epigenetic situation, is found.
Epigenetics is a very young field. Only about 60 years old.
That means a cure can be found eventually. It will probably happen when a cure for autism, another epigenetic situation, is found.
Wow, you're a eugenicist. Thanks for coming out.
How productive.
I am fascinated by how freshly more absurd each of the new haters' justifications for this scumbag baker become.
My understanding of homosexuality has changed. I used to think it was a choice. I now better understand epigenetics and how chemical actions can cause genes to communicate with the brain differently. Homosexuality isn't a choice but biology. That means a cure can be found eventually."
A cure for homosexuality? It's not a disease FFS.
A cure for homosexuality? It's not a disease FFS.
Indeed. But there's growing evidence that homophobia is. In fact, it often presents in people who have homosexual urges themselves and are desperately trying to suppress them. Just look at how many homophobic conservatives have been caught with their pants down as the saying goes. Here's just a partial history:
That list doesn't have one of the more recent and egregious examples: Denny Hastert.
I think gay couples should get their cakes at this place without any decoration that signifies a gay marriage. Then when they pick up the cake, they should open it in front of the bigot to inspect it, then apply one of those edible photos of the gay couple with some really gay captions, then cover the cake in the bigot's business cards mounted on toothpicks.
There are 59 comments on this thread that are exact duplicates of other comments.
Are the majority of them from ausmith?
Some of my comments are missing??
I see my "missing" comments. But, something still is happening where I can't get them properly.
“The government cannot force you to speak where you would choose to remain silent.” @SenMikeLee says.
Some "constitutional scholar." He doesn't seem to even have a grasp of the facts of this case in which the baker has been anything but silent. That one's given full-throated expression of his despicable bigotry. And as for being forced to put an image of a rainbow on a cake being forced to speak, then anything people ask for a cake could be considered "forced speech."
Badfish, I can not continue committing to your post, because I can no longer see it or what I post starting 09/13/17. I do not know nor can I discover what the problem is. It's very disorienting to respond what you can not read more than once.. So I am forced to stop.
Caleb--
I saw a comment from you in response to my question asking why you keep citing the laws and precedent of Colorado in connection with a case that is now before the US Supreme Court but I can't find it to respond. The Supreme Court is not reviewing whether the baker violated any laws or regulations in Colorado. This matter is before the Supreme Court on a constitutional question and it can find that the state of Colorado violated the baker's constitutional rights no matter what the laws of Colorado say and no matter what a Colorado court decided.
1ofmany;
That one is not from me to you. I can see it is from Atheist (to you).
Incidentally, I need to leave this conversation once and for all, as it is too hard to locate my comments to anyone! Care to start a new article where we can discuss it? I can read your reply, but the rest is convoluted.
1ofmany,
Modern Israel is a secular state so what they do or don't do has no bearing on the Bible.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Yes and no. "God's people" who gave us the Old Testament, are allowing homosexuality to go main-stream in the culture. That should give you pause in your argument to ask, why.
It gives me no pause at all. As a secular state, "God's people" can fall into the same morass as any other western society.
600!
🎉
I can not see where "600"posted by 'Jefferson but cheers to 'Jefferson!!! Your article 'broke' Newtalkers!! If it is a record set of postings—CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!