Supreme Court Sides with baker who turned away gay couple

[jdshock]

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.

Alright, I'm going to try to put my question one more way and then I'm gonna call it because I feel like I'm spinning my wheels. I understand your perspective, but I'm testing what you do with religious beliefs you don't agree with.

You have gone on record as saying a baker should not have to make a cake for a same-sex wedding because that might interfere with the baker's personal religious beliefs. What if that baker has the belief that interracial marriages are sinful? The baker says "I'm not going to bake that cake for that wedding because the marriage is sinful." Is that acceptable? If yes, fine. We'll agree to disagree. If no, how do you propose the government determine which religious beliefs are legitimate enough to warrant discrimination and which ones are not as legitimate?

[jdmee]

For the sake of the argument than if he can show that it indeed violates his church's religious beliefs than yes. But I don't think you would find that religion.



I just have an issue with people using this to jump to the conclusion and say "look jdmee just said people can discriminate over anything and justify it as a religion thing".

[MoValley John]

First, while both sexual orientation and minority races are protected classes, nobody should confuse the two as anything similar. But I digress............

The biggest challenge I have is the artistic nature of cake decorator, photographer etc. As I've purchased a wedding cake, the decision on the cake had everything to do with presentation. As a Catholic, had out baker said, "I hate Catholics and don't bake their wedding cakes." I would leave and find an artist that didn't have the same objections. I wouldn't sue, and I don't think I would have much of a case.

Now if that same baker refused to sell me a sheet cake out of the display case, that would be a different story.

[jdshock]

First, while both sexual orientation and minority races are protected classes, nobody should confuse the two as anything similar. But I digress............

Sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal law.

And not all protected classes are created equally. Under federal law, it's a lot easier to discriminate on sex than it is on race.

This is just a thought experiment to determine where to draw the line.

[MoValley John]

Sexual orientation is not a protected class under federal law.

And not all protected classes are created equally. Under federal law, it's a lot easier to discriminate on sex than it is on race.

This is just a thought experiment to determine where to draw the line.

Locally, sexual orientation is, almost everywhere, and certainly in Co. This was simply a test case in an attempt to broaden that brush judicially.

[jdshock]

The majority of states do not define sexual orientation as a protected class. I do not know anything about the stats on individual municipalities. I disagree that it is protected "almost everywhere."

I don't really know what you mean when you say it was an "attempt to broaden that brush judicially." Broaden what brush? I admittedly am no expert on this particular case, but I do not believe they were arguing anything about the Civil Rights Act and trying to broaden it to include sexual orientation. At some point in time in the next five years, I think the Supreme Court will decide whether sexual orientation is covered by the Civil Rights Act. I do not believe this was that case. As you say, Colorado did have such a law.

[MoValley John]

20 states do, plus DC, PR Guam, etc. Nebraska doesn't, but noth omaha does. That red stripe down the middle of the Central Plains doesn't, but over 200 municipalities including, Kansas city, St. Louis, lawrence, Dallas, Austin and more.

You can play obtuse if you will, or maybe you are just parsing my post for the sake of playing, but you know exactly my point.

[MoValley John]

Places where sexual orientation and gender identity are protected.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/cities-and-counties-with-non-discrimination-ordinances-that-include-gender

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_State s

[MoValley John]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_employment_discrimination_in_the_United_States

[MoValley John]

Hope that helps you realize just how broadl that sexual orientation and gender identity has become a protected class. We are only a couple of scotus decisions away from becoming federally protected classes.

[jdshock]

I wasn't trying to get into a pissing match. I just wanted to point out a couple of things that I thought were worth correcting. If the Supreme Court said tomorrow sexual orientation is already covered under the Civil Rights Act, the reaction shouldn't be "well, it was already protected almost everywhere." It would be a HUGE change in law. "Protected class" has a specific meaning, and under federal law sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Definitely not playing obtuse, though. I truly do not know what you intended when you said "broaden that brush judicially." This case was not, as far as I know, an attempt to define sexual orientation as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act. Again, I don't know all the details, so someone can definitely correct me if I'm wrong about that. But it doesn't need to be that because Colorado has a law in place. If the Supreme Court had said the baker unlawfully discriminated against the couple, it would not have broadened the federal protections for sexual orientation and it wouldn't have changed the law in states without those protections (i.e., the majority of states).

[wufan]

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.

You are correct on my thoughts on the matter. I probably draw the line on “immutable characteristics”. This would supersede religious beliefs. It’s okay to deny anyone anything (IMO) on an idea or stance. So, in the case of homosexuality, is that a choice or a characteristic? I grew up learning that they were born that way. In this manner, I would consider it to be an IC. Some of the recent intersectional discussion says that one can be whatever one wants with gender identity and sexual attraction. That would be a choice. Maybe the two shouldn’t be conflated, but I’m undecided.

As to an an interracial marriage, are you free to love whomever you want, or is love something you’re destined into? Are you discriminating against a particular race?

I’m religious, but don’t have anything against homosexuality or interracial marriage (my family has multiple mixes). My father-in-law does have religious objections to homosexuality and interracial marriage, but doesn’t discriminate with his business dealings. I believe that trans-sexual behavior is a mental disorder.

Regardless of my thoughts on all this, my ideologically correct viewpoint is far from a utopia. There are many associated problems that aren’t easily or fairly overcome.

[wufan]

For the sake of the argument than if he can show that it indeed violates his church's religious beliefs than yes. But I don't think you would find that religion.



I just have an issue with people using this to jump to the conclusion and say "look jdmee just said people can discriminate over anything and justify it as a religion thing".

It’s all about immutable characteristics and protected classes.

[wufan]

First, while both sexual orientation and minority races are protected classes, nobody should confuse the two as anything similar. But I digress............

The biggest challenge I have is the artistic nature of cake decorator, photographer etc. As I've purchased a wedding cake, the decision on the cake had everything to do with presentation. As a Catholic, had out baker said, "I hate Catholics and don't bake their wedding cakes." I would leave and find an artist that didn't have the same objections. I wouldn't sue, and I don't think I would have much of a case.

Now if that same baker refused to sell me a sheet cake out of the display case, that would be a different story.

Hey!!! It’s MoValleyJohn!!!! How ya been?

[wufan]

Hope that helps you realize just how broadl that sexual orientation and gender identity has become a protected class. We are only a couple of scotus decisions away from becoming federally protected classes.

I’m glad you finally came out of the closet!

[MoValley John]

I’m glad you finally came out of the closet!

Damn! I'm so busted!

[jdshock]

You are correct on my thoughts on the matter. I probably draw the line on “immutable characteristics”. This would supersede religious beliefs. It’s okay to deny anyone anything (IMO) on an idea or stance. So, in the case of homosexuality, is that a choice or a characteristic? I grew up learning that they were born that way. In this manner, I would consider it to be an IC. Some of the recent intersectional discussion says that one can be whatever one wants with gender identity and sexual attraction. That would be a choice. Maybe the two shouldn’t be conflated, but I’m undecided.

As to an an interracial marriage, are you free to love whomever you want, or is love something you’re destined into? Are you discriminating against a particular race?

I’m religious, but don’t have anything against homosexuality or interracial marriage (my family has multiple mixes). My father-in-law does have religious objections to homosexuality and interracial marriage, but doesn’t discriminate with his business dealings. I believe that trans-sexual behavior is a mental disorder.

Regardless of my thoughts on all this, my ideologically correct viewpoint is far from a utopia. There are many associated problems that aren’t easily or fairly overcome.

I think this is a great post. Personally, I would take it kind of a different direction. This case, and similar cases, are really about the baker's free speech rights and the baker's religious rights. In terms of the religious rights, I think a religious organization should have the most leniency here. Obviously, Catholics should be allowed to discriminate based on sex for certain hiring decisions (not that we're anywhere close to that even really being in question). Churches shouldn't have to perform weddings for same-sex couples. If there were a church that believed interracial marriages were sinful, they would not be required to perform that wedding (so long as they can show it is their sincerely held religious belief).

Once you get into for-profit businesses, I think you start to get in trouble. But ultimately that's similar to the Hobby Lobby stuff I have a problem with. I don't know why our businesses have to have the right to freedom of religion. The employee of that business (e.g., a baker at a bakery) obviously has huge protections for his free exercise of religion, but I don't know why the business has to.

As for the general free speech stuff, I generally agree with the idea that a person should be allowed to pick and choose the works they do as an artist. I have two broad thoughts on this. First, if a baker is an "artist," I think it's really hard to define what isn't an artist. One of the briefs pointed out that Subway calls their employees "sandwich artists." Can any chain restaurant deny service on freedom of speech grounds so long as the employees are called an artist? Is a dress designer an artist? What about a tailor? Is the flower arranger? Second, it seems to me that there's probably something to the idea about the content vs the clientele, but I haven't considered enough about it to offer much nuance here. Hypothetically, let's say the same-sex couple wanted the artist to paint a portrait of two men engaged in sex with the caption "all gay men go to Heaven!" Maybe forcing an artist to do that is a violation of a free speech right. But if the content would be the same--as in the baker would've made an identical cake for a straight couple, with a different cake topper--then it comes down to the client rather than the content. I'm pretty sure I do not think a business should have the free speech rights to discriminate against clients just because they are a member of any class that is protected by an applicable law.