Local bakery owner refuses to make gay couple's wedding cake

[dvdjs]

Of course I do. I just don’t believe in the ludicrous example you think proves your point, which seems to be, “since we don’t allow human sacrifice, religious free exercise can now be compromised in any way that suits a particular cause.”

No it simply means that “free exercise” is not totally unconstrained; there are limits, there are requirements to balance. Accordingly, arguments against a particular limit or balance as violations of “free exercise” are devoid of substance. The relevant issue is whether or not the limit or balance is proper, not that limits and balance are intrinsically improper.

That, of course, can be applied to any enumerated right. I can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, therefore public university campuses can keep conservatives from speaking on campus.
The list goes on.

Yep. So perhaps you can put aside the absolutist arguments, since you recognize that it is alien to our law.

 

[dvdjs]

Congress shall make no law…
From that point, government can regulate commerce, but not compromise constitutionally protected inherent human and individual rights. beliefs.

oops back to the absolutist mantra that you do not believe.

 

[dvdjs]

Actually, he would, and did. In his autobiography, he goes into some detail of his reasons for voting against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He voted for the 1957 and 1960 acts. He also mentions how LBJ voted against civil rights measures.
He writes:

pg.172, Goldwater, Barry Goldwater with Jack Casserly. Doublday, 1988

The quote is from the time and reflects his thinking at the time. He was against federal protections in the realm of fair employment and public accommodation practices. He rejected claims that this was alignment with views in the South was part of a new Republican Southern strategy.

I cannot find any link, unfortunately, to an interview with him that I had heard in which he indicated that he stood firmly behind the idea of a limited federal government, but recognized the making that case in the realm of fair labor practices or public accommodations was not the right cause. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that this conservative icon, who in his later years opposed fellow conservatives on gay rights and abortion legality would stand by his position of allowing states to find their own interesting ways on fair labor and public accommodation practices. Who but the fringe would?

I suspect that he was not trying to launch the Southern strategy, but in a landslide loss he took, part from his home state, LA, MS, AL, GA, and SC. And the rest is history.

 

[lmachine]

That’s about the third time I have heard the authoritarian dictate of telling people what profession they can enter.

The government regulates hundreds, probably thousands of professions. There’s nothing authoritarian about saying “You can’t discriminate against gay people.” If that isn’t compatible with some people’s religious beliefs that’s on them, not the government.

 

[lmachine]

Congress shall make no law…
From that point, government can regulate commerce, but not compromise constitutionally protected inherent human and individual rights. There is no discrimination in the actions of a baker who chooses not to participate in an event that is contrary to his/her religious beliefs.

And again, you likely believe there’s nothing discriminatory in the actions of a baker who chooses not to participate in a black wedding or a mixed-race wedding that is contrary to his/her religious beliefs. Thankfully we have a society have moved on from this ridiculous viewpoint.

 

[lmachine]

What if the employer has already been doing business for a number of years and then the new law is enacted?

Business regulations change over time. Complying with changing regulations is one of the costs of doing business.

And, in this case, the argument is that the discrimination is not directly against servicing gay people per se, but rather against servicing a behavior that is contrary to one’s religious beliefs.

It’s an old and stupid argument.

So if a straight person were buying a cake for a gay couple’s marriage, that straight person might also be discriminated against by the baker for the use of the cake in a gay wedding.

The discrimination in this case would still be against the couple. If the straight person tried to sue there’d likely be a court decision that they don’t standing, but since they’re an agent of the gay couple the couple would still have experienced discrimination and have grounds to sue.

 

[JonNC]

No it simply means that “free exercise” is not totally unconstrained; there are limits, there are requirements to balance. Accordingly, arguments against a particular limit or balance as violations of “free exercise” are devoid of substance. The relevant issue is whether or not the limit or balance is proper, not that limits and balance are intrinsically improper.

Yep. So perhaps you can put aside the absolutist arguments, since you recognize that it is alien to our law.

But it is still an absolute. Again, my right to swing my fist ends st your nose, because when I hit your nose, your right to not be hit is violated, and my action in now license.
OTOH, if government comes in and says The baker must participate in an event that is in opposition to her beliefs, or in the case of the Trump themed cake, her political beliefs, then it is her “nose” that is hit by government.

 

[dvdjs]

But it is still an absolute.

No.

ab·so·lute
adjective
1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.

Really it is OK to make a case that says: for these reasons I beleive the limit should be here, not there. But to try to make the case that there should be no limit at all is baseless. And tedious.

 

[JonNC]

No.

ab·so·lute
adjective
1. not qualified or diminished in any way; total.

Really it is OK to make a case that says: for these reasons I beleive the limit should be here, not there. But to try to make the case that there should be no limit at all is baseless. And tedious.

There should be no limit unless it violates the right of another. The problem with your argument is exactly the way you phrased it: “the limit should be here, not there.” For progressives generally, that is the opening through which to drive a truck of government power. We see it time and again.
The fact is that rights are not subject to government tinkering in order to benefit one group or another. There is no comparison between a baker who has a religious or political conviction and a sect that wants to practice human sacrifice.

 

[dvdjs]

There should be no limit unless it violates the right of another.

So we agree that there should be limits.
And now we also have to contend with the problem of hierarchy of rights.
You are beginning to approach the settled jurisprudence on the matter.

The problem with your argument is exactly the way you phrased it: “the limit should be here, not there.” For progressives generally, that is the opening through which to drive a truck of government power.

No. However arbitrarily you might draw the line, the courts have not been arbitrary. The courts have established tests. Those tests - not caprice - are the basis of “here, not there”.
You may not like the outcome, but that is where the discussion is; not at the absolutists level, which you yourself do not uphold.

 

[Peter_J]

So if a straight person were buying a cake for a gay couple’s marriage, that straight person might also be discriminated against by the baker for the use of the cake in a gay wedding.

That wasn’t directed at me but I’ll respond anyhow: I think you’re just being silly.

 

[meltzerboy]

That wasn’t directed at me but I’ll respond anyhow: I think you’re just being silly.

Why am I being silly? I am making the point that the baker is not necessarily discriminating against the gay couple for being gay, but rather for their behavior with regard to ordering a cake for a gay wedding in which the cake plays an integral part.

I am not saying I wholeheartedly agree with this (although I lean in the direction of the baker provided violation of religious conscience can be proven); but I understand the argument for it.

 

[meltzerboy]

Business regulations change over time. Complying with changing regulations is one of the costs of doing business.

It’s an old and stupid argument.

The discrimination in this case would still be against the couple. If the straight person tried to sue there’d likely be a court decision that they don’t standing, but since they’re an agent of the gay couple the couple would still have experienced discrimination and have grounds to sue.

Why is it a stupid argument? And how old can it be?

 

[Peter_J]

Why am I being silly? I am making the point that the baker is not necessarily discriminating against the gay couple for being gay, but rather for their behavior with regard to ordering a cake for a gay wedding in which the cake plays an integral part.

I am not saying I wholeheartedly agree with this (although I lean in the direction of the baker provided violation of religious conscience can be proven); but I understand the argument for it.

Actually, I guess we mostly agree. Like I told someone else, a store can decide what they sell, but not whom they will sell to.

Like hypothetically let’s say a bakery’s lowest priced wedding cake has no personalization/customization options at all. (I doubt that would ever be the case even for lowest priced, but just suppose.) Then it’s not a “gay wedding cake” so much as a generic wedding cake, but a customer could add his/her own decoration and then use it for a gay wedding, and I don’t believe the store could refuse to sell it even if they knew it would be used that way.

 

[lmachine]

There should be no limit unless it violates the right of another.

Agreed. A gay couple’s rights were violated in this instance.

 

[lmachine]

Why is it a stupid argument? And how old can it be?

Centuries-old. People have been using religious beliefs to justify slavery, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and other racial injustices since long before the Civil War. We don’t buy the argument when it comes to black people, and we shouldn’t buy it when it comes to gay people.

 

[Peter_J]

Centuries-old. People have been using religious beliefs to justify slavery, Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and other racial injustices since long before the Civil War. We don’t buy the argument when it comes to black people, and we shouldn’t buy it when it comes to gay people.

Whether the baker’s reasons are religious or not is beside the point. If a baker chooses not to carry sex-same figurines for wedding cakes, there’s nothing illegal about that regardless of whether the baker is Methodist or Atheist.

 

[ATraveller]

Tough times for Christians in a world that rebels against God but Jesus offered these words:
Matthew 7:13-15
Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves
Matthew 24:9-13
They will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Romans 12:2
Do not be conformed to this world [a]
[a]Greek age

 

[JonNC]

Agreed. A gay couple’s rights were violated in this instance.

No. they aren’t. They can take their business to a bakery that will make a contractual arrangement with them. Requiring the baker to participate in the event against his will violates the baker’s religious free exercise rights.

 

[dvdjs]

No. they aren’t. They can take their business to a bakery that will make a contractual arrangement with them. Requiring the baker to participate in the event against his will violates the baker’s religious free exercise rights.

We will see what the court says in this instance. But we know that the “They can take their business to a bakery that will make a contractual arrangement with them.” argument is not the winning argument in civil rights cases.civil rights law. You may wish it were still 1963, but it isn’t. Thankfully, America is greater than that.