Supreme Court Sides with baker who turned away gay couple

[wufan]

Most of you are refusing to see that the baker has rights too even though he would tell you that he isn't the only one with rights in this instance. He is not saying that he will refuse service to anyone, and he isn't saying that he won't hire a gay man or woman. He has said that he serves gays every day in his business. He has said that he is willing to do those things because those people have freedoms and rights too. The baker and the florist in Washington are saying that they will help them find bakers and florists who do believe in gay marriage even though their belief and their bible tell them that a "holy" marriage is between one man and woman. They do not see how they can maintain their faith and support these marriages.

There has to be a middle ground that allows everyone their first amendment beliefs.

The middle ground is super tricky. If you state that everyone has rights to your labor, then you are taking away something akin to property rights. If you say that you must put a requested message on the cake, then that is akin to “compelled” speech. Both of those things are violations of rights. Are those acceptable rights to violate?

None of the above is meant to say that it’s okay to discriminate against an immutable characteristic. In the case of gay rights, 10 years ago, I would have stated that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. I’m less sure now. There are trans sexual and pan sexuals that choose to be gay or straight from day-to-day. I am not currently able to reconcile homosexuality and non-binary gender claims.

[wufan]

I do not believe that can happen without repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'll even go further to say that there's a serious possibility we see sexual orientation get covered under the Civil Rights Act in the next few years. There seems to be a growing minority of courts that are willing to say "you would hire a woman that's married to a man, but you won't hire a man that's married to a man. That is sex discrimination."

I get that it's a hard law to enforce 100% of the time. It does get enforced well sometimes. And, I believe, there are incredibly few situations where someone is found to have violated the act when they did not intend to discriminate. There appear to be significantly more instances of someone intending to discriminate but getting away with it.

I do not think I could even entertain the idea of repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even if the free market would do a pretty good job of punishing business owners that act with overt racism today, the free market would have done a terrible job at punishing those businesses in 1964.

I agree.

[wufan]

Well, to be fair, I don't think anyone is really talking about the merits of this particular case since it basically just got punted. As far as I can tell, the most recent posts are discussing a broader philosophical question.

But it's also definitely not that simple. During the civil war, many religious people were convinced of biblical support for slavery. That wouldn't fly today. I would bet dollars to donuts if the baker had said "I won't make cakes for any interracial marriages because of religious beliefs," it wouldn't have gotten to the Supreme Court.

Regardless of the fact that I’m super happy that we no longer allow slavery or have Him Crow laws, both were versions of encroachment on freedom. Liberty and property rights were at odds during slavery, and it was likely much less clear who the bad guys were at that time. Abortion is similar today...who’s the bad guy, the person that values life or the one that values liberty?

[AZ Shocker]

There has to be a middle ground that allows everyone their first amendment beliefs.

And yet there is this "middle ground" still available in 2018. Yes there still is. You simply go to another baker or florist. Pretty simple.

[jdmee]

Shockm, but the test for religious belief isn't what you personally view as a reasonable interpretation of the Bible. If someone can refuse to serve a gay couple or hire a gay employee based on the manager/owner's religious beliefs, you have to also allow someone to deny service to people based on interracial marriages, etc. (Obviously, this is assuming that sexual orientation is a protected class)

Otherwise, you're trusting the federal government to determine how reasonable a person's religious beliefs are.

But it is a completely different leap to say I am opposed to gay marriage so therefor I won't serve/hire them vs therefor I can not be apart of the marriage services.

[SHOCKvalue]

No one asked for my opinion, but I think both sides in this matter - baker and gay couple - come off looking like silly, petty nincompoops.

Dear baker: On a personal level, my core beliefs on the matter probably aren't far from yours, but really... you're simply a business owner producing a good. I'm guessing if you knew the personal lives of all of your clientele, only a tiny minority would be on the same wavelength as yourself, so why does this particular brand of sinners (which we all are) offend you more than the next? I support your right to have an opinion, and not to be forced by the hand of the government to do something you are not comfortable with, but dying on this hill for your business and your faith is helping further neither in the big picture.

Dear gay couple: Share your story far and wide at the stupidity of the baker, and take your business to someone who is more driven to earn a buck. Pretty simply, isn't it? But using the power of the government and the courts to try and kill off a small business just because it hurt your feelings is asinine on all levels.

Both parties need to learn to live and let live.

#LibertarianEnlightenment

[jdmee]

....

Dear baker: On a personal level, my core beliefs on the matter probably aren't far from yours, but really... you're simply a business owner producing a good. I'm guessing if you knew the personal lives of all of your clientele, only a tiny minority would be on the same wavelength as yourself, so why does this particular brand of sinners (which we all are) offend you more than the next? I support your right to have an opinion, and not to be forced by the hand of the government to do something you are not comfortable with, but dying on this hill for your business and your faith is helping further neither in the big picture.

But from my understanding it wasn't based upon this "particular brand of sinners" that was the baker's issue. He was willing to bake them a sheet cake. He provided the names of other bakers who would do a wedding cake for them. What he wasn't willing to do was participate in that "particular brand of sin".

Agree or disagree with the baker I don't care, but I feel it is important to distinct between refusing to do something because of who/what the client is and refusing to do something because of what it is you are asked to do.


Just like there is a difference between having a doctor treat a person who has had an abortion and having a doctor perform an abortion.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Shockm, but the test for religious belief isn't what you personally view as a reasonable interpretation of the Bible. If someone can refuse to serve a gay couple or hire a gay employee based on the manager/owner's religious beliefs, you have to also allow someone to deny service to people based on interracial marriages, etc. (Obviously, this is assuming that sexual orientation is a protected class)

Otherwise, you're trusting the federal government to determine how reasonable a person's religious beliefs are.

I think this is an important point. People have used religious beliefs to justify slavery and laws against interracial marriage (as others have pointed out). I personally want government as far away from religion as possible--and vice versa.

The first amendment protects our right to practice our religion. And I don't think the government should go much further than that. In this situation, I think the test needs to be, "Is the baker's right to exercise his religious beliefs violated by the gay person's right for equal treatment?" And conversely, "Is the gay person's right for equal treatment violated by the baker's right to practice his religious beliefs?"

The answers would be the baker's exercise of his religious beliefs were not violated, but the gay person's right for equal treatment was. The baker's religious belief is that gay marriage is wrong, therefore legally he should not be required to either marry a person of the same gender or cause such a marriage to take place. He wouldn't be participating in the offending marriage, supporting it, condoning it, or making a statement on it. He would simply be providing a product to two individuals who happen to be gay. A different scenario would be if he were an officiant who refused to conduct the actual wedding ceremony--he would compromise his religious objection to gay marriage by actually causing a legally recognized gay marriage.

Otherwise you'll start having accountants who refuse to do gay couple's tax returns. Or restaurants that refuse service to gay people. And so on.

I recognize this is a narrow definition of religious rights, but I have trouble buying the argument that it's OK to treat someone differently because they have made a choice that you disagree with on purely religious grounds.

[jdmee]

Otherwise you'll start having accountants who refuse to do gay couple's tax returns. Or restaurants that refuse service to gay people. And so on.

Again the difference is the baker was asked to do something for the wedding. The accountant and the restaurant is not partaking with the actual wedding.

The restaurant owner should be able to not cater the wedding reception due to religious grounds. The baker should have to sell a gay couple doughnuts in the morning.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

But from my understanding it wasn't based upon this "particular brand of sinners" that was the baker's issue. He was willing to bake them a sheet cake. He provided the names of other bakers who would do a wedding cake for them. What he wasn't willing to do was participate in that "particular brand of sin".

Agree or disagree with the baker I don't care, but I feel it is important to distinct between refusing to do something because of who/what the client is and refusing to do something because of what it is you are asked to do.


Just like there is a difference between having a doctor treat a person who has had an abortion and having a doctor perform an abortion.

Interesting. I think I misunderstood your original point at first. The doctor analogy is exactly similar to mine, though. The baker would not actually be performing the ceremony, nor contributing to the ceremony or marriage in any meaningful manner as to actually cause it to happen, thereby violating his beliefs. To me, he is providing a product to two people who happen to be gay, and I struggle to understand how that violates his free practice of religion.

To me, in your analogy the baker is more like the guy who makes the "get well soon" flower arrangement someone sends to the patient after her abortion.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Again the difference is the baker was asked to do something for the wedding. The accountant and the restaurant is not partaking with the actual wedding.

The restaurant owner should be able to not cater the wedding reception due to religious grounds. The baker should have to sell a gay couple doughnuts in the morning.

Our posts are overlapping each other a little. My post above is a little redundant because of that. I see your point in that the cake is part of the actual wedding. I don't see it as encompassing as that, and I have a little narrower definition of what it means to "partake in the wedding." So let me think about that and consider your point.

[jdshock]

Again the difference is the baker was asked to do something for the wedding. The accountant and the restaurant is not partaking with the actual wedding.

The restaurant owner should be able to not cater the wedding reception due to religious grounds. The baker should have to sell a gay couple doughnuts in the morning.

If a baker has a sincere religious belief against interracial marriages, should the baker be able to say "I will not make you a cake for your wedding because it is against my religious beliefs to have an interracial marriage" or should they not be allowed discriminate for that reason? Your prior post said there's a difference between not serving them and not partaking in the wedding ceremony, but there's not really a difference if the service you sell is making wedding cakes. A sock manufacturer could claim the same exception and say "well, these socks were going to be used in the wedding!" But we can even certainly make it even stronger and say it is about partaking in the ceremony, and we can say there's an owner of a local farm owned through an LLC (so not a religious organization) that gets used for wedding ceremonies. Can the owner of the property deny someone because they are opposed to interracial marriages?

There's a reason cases like this get punted. The Supreme Court wants to make a final determination when it comes to them and they don't want there to be endless litigation over "well, they said it only applies to bakers" or whatever. For the purposes of this question, we're assuming sexual orientation is a protected class, we're assuming any of the facts to make this the strongest discrimination case we can... It's just a question of whether or not you want people to be able to discriminate for genuine religious beliefs.

[jdmee]

If a baker has a sincere religious belief against interracial marriages, should the baker be able to say "I will not make you a cake for your wedding because it is against my religious beliefs to have an interracial marriage" or should they not be allowed discriminate for that reason? Your prior post said there's a difference between not serving them and not partaking in the wedding ceremony, but there's not really a difference if the service you sell is making wedding cakes. A sock manufacturer could claim the same exception and say "well, these socks were going to be used in the wedding!" But we can even certainly make it even stronger and say it is about partaking in the ceremony, and we can say there's an owner of a local farm owned through an LLC (so not a religious organization) that gets used for wedding ceremonies. Can the owner of the property deny someone because they are opposed to interracial marriages?

There's a reason cases like this get punted. The Supreme Court wants to make a final determination when it comes to them and they don't want there to be endless litigation over "well, they said it only applies to bakers" or whatever. For the purposes of this question, we're assuming sexual orientation is a protected class, we're assuming any of the facts to make this the strongest discrimination case we can... It's just a question of whether or not you want people to be able to discriminate for genuine religious beliefs.

I think you are asking about gay marriages and not interracial marriages. I am not sure of an active religion against interracial marriages unlike gay marriages.

As a catholic I can point you to the catholic church's teaching on gay marriage. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p3s2c2a6.htm) However, I could not show the same for an interracial marriage.




I am trying to say you shouldn't be able to make someone do something that is against their religious beliefs.

There is a difference between a baker having a wedding cake in their display that is for sell and a baker having to make a wedding cake from scratch. The purpose of the cake in the display is for the general public. The purpose of the cake to order is for the individual ceremony. It is a small difference but it is there. The baker should have to sell the first, but not have to make the second.

[jdshock]

I think you are asking about gay marriages and not interracial marriages. I am not sure of an active religion against interracial marriages unlike gay marriages.

As a catholic I can point you to the catholic church's teaching on gay marriage. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p3s2c2a6.htm) However, I could not show the same for an interracial marriage.




I am trying to say you shouldn't be able to make someone do something that is against their religious beliefs.

There is a difference between a baker having a wedding cake in their display that is for sell and a baker having to make a wedding cake from scratch. The purpose of the cake in the display is for the general public. The purpose of the cake to order is for the individual ceremony. It is a small difference but it is there. The baker should have to sell the first, but not have to make the second.

I'm asking about interracial marriages. The options as far as I see them are:

1. Allow all discrimination so long as someone can show it is a part of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
2. Allow none of the discrimination.
3. Allow the government to determine which types of religious beliefs are acceptable in terms of who gets to discriminate.

Look, no one is making a baker "do something against their religious beliefs" in the sense that he is voluntarily operating a for-profit business, not a religious organization. And like I said, I'm willing to grant you the "partaking in the ceremony" stuff. If you are founding a new government, and a property owner uses his land for weddings, and he says to an interracial couple that they cannot use the land for their wedding because it violates his religious beliefs, what do you do?

Edit to add: I'm not trying to trick anyone with this line of reasoning. I believe (and maybe I'm way off base here) wufan would probably say you shouldn't restrict the free market and so he'd go with option 1 (or really, some other option where you don't even have to prove religious beliefs). That's fine. I'm just trying to get people to recognize that it's not as simple as "this religious belief makes sense to me." There's a lot more involved here.

[jdmee]

I'm asking about interracial marriages. The options as far as I see them are:

1. Allow all discrimination so long as someone can show it is a part of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
2. Allow none of the discrimination.
3. Allow the government to determine which types of religious beliefs are acceptable in terms of who gets to discriminate.

Look, no one is making a baker "do something against their religious beliefs" in the sense that he is voluntarily operating a for-profit business, not a religious organization. And like I said, I'm willing to grant you the "partaking in the ceremony" stuff. If you are founding a new government, and a property owner uses his land for weddings, and he says to an interracial couple that they cannot use the land for their wedding because it violates his religious beliefs, what do you do?

Edit to add: I'm not trying to trick anyone with this line of reasoning. I believe (and maybe I'm way off base here) wufan would probably say you shouldn't restrict the free market and so he'd go with option 1 (or really, some other option where you don't even have to prove religious beliefs). That's fine. I'm just trying to get people to recognize that it's not as simple as "this religious belief makes sense to me." There's a lot more involved here.

But I don't see it as "Allow ALL discrimination". There are only very specific instances where you can deny a "service". I am just presenting a case of denying a "service" when that action is against the religious belief. It's also not as simple as just discriminating against because people are X vs. refusing to do a specific job that requires me to do something that is for X.


So I would fall along with a more modified 1.

I believe in God. Denying the belief in God is a sin. I should not have to decorate a cake saying "There is no God."

I believe in God. A person who I know doesn't believe in God wants a cake. I should have to make him a cake.


A person can't discriminate because of their religion, but they don't have do to something that is against their religion.