ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gay rights issues , religious rights issues , supreme court cases

Reply
Old 29th June 2017, 04:47 AM   #81
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
Thought for the day:

When the gay couple in this case was turned down by Masterpiece, other area bakers rallied round an provided them a free cake, decorated with a rainbow.

Are cakes expression?
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2017, 04:52 AM   #82
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,527
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
...
The problem with the Masterpiece case is that the wedding events are binary. They are either same-sex or not same-sex. The tent renter can claim to provide to all women’s events with certain exceptions. In the case of weddings, Masterpiece is making the same claim to provide for all wedding with a single exception. But with only two options, that exclusion necessarily does not allow for other inclusions of the same class. It completely eliminates accommodation for the other class, which has to be interpreted as discriminatory even if the actual reason is based on opposition to the event rather than discrimination. That’s a tough nut to crack without opening a whole can of worms.
You seem to have got a bit muddled with your own analogy here..
Women are a protected group in the same way that homosexuals are. So the comparison is between women's events and homosexual events, not wedding events. Masterpiece would have to claim to provide for all homosexual events with a single exception. If they supplied cakes for homosexual birthdays, bar mitzvahs, leaving parties etc. then they might have an argument.
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2017, 05:02 AM   #83
sphenisc
Illuminator
 
sphenisc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,527
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And as barbecue is an art, forcing Piggie Park to seat black people is an unconstitutional imposition on their free speech about their religious beliefs of the appropriate rolls of the races.

Fundamentally all antidiscrimination laws violation the first amendment protections for free speech and free religion.
So it's not just cakes then?
__________________
"The cure for everything is salt water - tears, sweat or the sea." Isak Dinesen
sphenisc is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2017, 05:05 AM   #84
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Thought for the day:

When the gay couple in this case was turned down by Masterpiece, other area bakers rallied round an provided them a free cake, decorated with a rainbow.

Are cakes expression?
And what about the doxing and putting their name out there for harassment? That is also clearly religious freedom there.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2017, 05:08 AM   #85
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,039
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Are cakes expression?
So what if they are?

I really don't get why you are so fixated with this angle and what difference it would make.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2017, 05:08 AM   #86
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
So it's not just cakes then?
Of course not, it is about viewing all businesses as an extension of the owners to the extent that a business can have its religious rights violated. So all businesses can not have religious beliefs. This dramatically undercuts so many anti discrimination laws very easily.

For example any real christian business would obey the bible and refuse to put women in positions of authority over men. And they have that right in their hiring and promotional practices as it is their religious belief.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2017, 07:58 AM   #87
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,520
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
But I can understand where the baker is coming from. Letís say a white customer requests a cake (specific size, flavor, and frosting) from a black baker. Itís just a basic cake. No images or message. The baker takes the order. But then the customer says it is for a KKK rally. So the baker refuses the order because he is against such a rally and doesnít want to be a part of the success of any such rally.
I don't really see what the purpose of the cake has to do with it in this situation. If the cake has no images or messages, it's just FOOD. Flour, sugar, eggs, etc. I could as well order a cake and then throw it off a rooftop as part of a gravitational experiment on cakes, or to see it explode on impact. What relevance is that to the baker?
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

Polaris (wrt cluelessforum) - Bunch of sewer-chewing douche nozzles.
sylvan8798 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2017, 04:39 PM   #88
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
So what if they are?

I really don't get why you are so fixated with this angle and what difference it would make.
Because that's what the case is about.

The Supreme Court doesn't decide cases based on fairness, or justice, or who they think is a better person. It's about the law and the constitution. They will decide if Mr. Phillips' rights were curtailed when he was fined and, if so, was there a compelling interest in curtailing those rights.

Also, it's actually not even enough to have a compelling interest. It has to be a compelling interest that cannot be satisfied by a less intrusive means.
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2017, 04:44 PM   #89
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
I don't really see what the purpose of the cake has to do with it in this situation. If the cake has no images or messages, it's just FOOD. Flour, sugar, eggs, etc. I could as well order a cake and then throw it off a rooftop as part of a gravitational experiment on cakes, or to see it explode on impact. What relevance is that to the baker?
That's not it. The baker offered to make them food. If it were just food, then there would be no issue. He would make them lots of different kinds of mixtures of flour, sugar, and eggs, but he wouldn't make a wedding cake.

He sells food to gay people. He would be willing to provide food to a gay wedding. In his mind, there is something different about food and a wedding cake.

(That was an issue at the Colorado court, as Devil's Advocate has brought up. In my opinion, the conversation was too short to truly establish what he would and would not be willing to make. The conversation was cut short when the complainants left the bakery. However, he did have time to say he would make them food, just not where, exactly, he drew the line on what he was willing to make.)
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2017, 05:59 PM   #90
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,604
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The one thing that I think mitigates against this interpretation is that Masterpiece also refused other business when it violated his religious beliefs. He can credibly claim consistency on those grounds, and if they rule against him the court will be forced to say that his religious beliefs don't really matter.
Masterpiece refused to make cakes with certain themes, rather than for certain events. His past practice of refusing cakes with certain themes does help his case. I think Masterpiece will have to focus on the idea that a wedding cake has an inherent theme of celebration of marriage (this is where it could get into arguments over what is or is not a “wedding cake”). Because wedding cakes are (almost) always custom made, Masterpiece can argue that a particular wedding cake has an inherent theme of a celebration of that particular marriage.

That gets back to that issue of context that we were talking about. If someone orders a bat-themed cake for their son’s Batman themed party, Masterpiece would presumably agree to make the cake. But if someone ordered the same bat-themed cake for a Halloween party, Masterpiece would presumably refuse because they don’t make Halloween themed cakes. The context of the use of the cake can transform its expression from a “Batman” cake to a “Halloween” cake. They can argue that in the same way, a cake (of essentially any description) that is used to celebrate a same-sex marriage that on an expression of celebration of same-sex marriage.

The tricky part is making a compelling argument that there is something special about a wedding cake. Otherwise we could end up with a white supremacist who refuses to sell new cars to black people because he has a personal belief that blank people shouldn’t drive and that cars are an expression of celebration of driving and because new cars are custom made (color, options, accessories) that making and selling such a car would be an expression that he is protected from by the First Amendment. The court can’t allow such a gaping interpretation of protected speech that it would allow such rather obvious circumvention of discrimination laws.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2017, 06:38 PM   #91
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,039
If "baking a cake" is an art form that falls under free speech then all service jobs are and all possible legal concepts of discrimination just went out the window.

Outside of just arbitrarily calling one "an artform" that makes it "an expression" there is no difference between a cake maker not selling a cake to a gay couple and a landlord not renting out to black people.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2017, 08:01 PM   #92
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,576
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
If "baking a cake" is an art form that falls under free speech then all service jobs are and all possible legal concepts of discrimination just went out the window.

Outside of just arbitrarily calling one "an artform" that makes it "an expression" there is no difference between a cake maker not selling a cake to a gay couple and a landlord not renting out to black people.
The argument, though, isn't that all acts of baking a cake constitute a form of expression, but that this particular act of baking a cake does.

Meadmaker offered an example of baking a cake that seems to me to have been pretty obviously an example of expression. That doesn't mean that every act of baking a cake is.

Each case should be looked at on it's merits.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 12:02 AM   #93
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,104
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
.

Outside of just arbitrarily calling one "an artform" that makes it "an expression" there is no difference between a cake maker not selling a cake to a gay couple and a landlord not renting out to black people.
There is a very big difference if the cakemaker naively believes homosexuality is a choice
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With todayís Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 02:12 AM   #94
Hevneren
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 103
Originally Posted by sphenisc View Post
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And as barbecue is an art, forcing Piggie Park to seat black people is an unconstitutional imposition on their free speech about their religious beliefs of the appropriate rolls of the races.

Fundamentally all antidiscrimination laws violation the first amendment protections for free speech and free religion.
So it's not just cakes then?
Please check your spelling, ponderingturtle
Hevneren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 02:25 AM   #95
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,050
Originally Posted by Hevneren View Post
Please check your spelling, ponderingturtle
2D6 - roll for racial bias.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 04:14 AM   #96
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
If "baking a cake" is an art form that falls under free speech then all service jobs are and all possible legal concepts of discrimination just went out the window.

Outside of just arbitrarily calling one "an artform" that makes it "an expression" there is no difference between a cake maker not selling a cake to a gay couple and a landlord not renting out to black people.
There are a few differences. The Supreme Court will have to decide whether those differences are significant. The question will be whether they can manage to articulate a legal principle that separates them. At least four of the justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Roberts) will very much want to do so, but will they be able to, and will Justice Kennedy join them?

As for the differences:

First, we aren't talking about "selling a cake". If we were, the baker's case would be far, far, weaker. Kennedy would never go along with it. There is no act of creation involved in selling a cake. There is an act of creation of baking and decorating one. I state again, there was a rainbow on the cake that the couple ended up getting. Clearly, that rainbow was an act of expression. How could one say that the rainbow was clearly an act of expression, but that a traditional wedding cake is not?

Second, the idea of gay people or interracial couples cohabiting might offend the religious sensibilities of some people, and they may wish to avoid participating in those acts of sin by renting to couples that they don't think ought to be having sex together, but there is nothing inherently religious about renting an apartment. A wedding ceremony, on the other hand, is historically associated closely with religion. A cake baker, or a photographer, florist, or musician, is a contributor to that ceremony.

Third, there are very specific laws related to housing discrimination that do not apply to anything except housing discrimination.

Fourth, somewhat related to the third point, is the all important question of "compelling interest'. The impact of being denied your choice of housing due to race or sexual orientation could be pretty extreme. It truly affects your life, and so courts would certainly uphold the idea that the state has a compelling interest to ensure equal access to housing. The impact of being denied access to your choice of wedding cake is a bit less extreme, and a court may decide there's no compelling interest that would justify limiting the baker's first amendment rights.

These are factors the court will have to weigh when deciding. As I said, my sentiment is with the baker on this one. It's not that I approve of his actions on a personal level, but I believe in freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, and I have enough of a libertarian streak to get very nervous about government meddling in such an insignificant matter as a baker who won't bake a wedding cake.

However, the implications of the case go beyond wedding cakes. Depending on how they rule, they could end up gutting civil rights laws, or they could end up declaring that any time money changes hands, even when it comes to activities sponsored by and occurring within churches, all civil rights laws must be followed, which could seriously erode freedom of religion. Whatever happens, the case of the baker will not be decided solely on the merits of this particular case. The justices will have their eyes looking down the road to the next case when they right their opinion on this one.
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 04:24 AM   #97
Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,432
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
A wedding ceremony, on the other hand, is historically associated closely with religion. A cake baker, or a photographer, florist, or musician, is a contributor to that ceremony.
Just a minor point. The cake forms no part of the ceremony, it is part of the celebration - which I think could easily be argued tend to be non-religious in nature.

I think the 'historically associated with religion' thing is a bit of a red herring. There are plenty of secular routes to marriage that I would assume this baker would be perfectly happy in servicing. (I admit, that is an assumption, but I'd be interested in knowing if he had any objections in providing cakes to couples who were going down the 'civil' route).
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 05:14 AM   #98
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The baker's case is that the cake is an artwork, and therefore an act of expression. You cannot be compelled against your will to participate in an expressive act that violates your religious beliefs.
On the one hand, I agree with the principle that you shouldn't be compelled to do what you don't want to do. However, I think that laws should supersede your religious beliefs. After all if my deeply-held religious beliefs include human sacrifice, I don't think that would fly (though I wouldn't put it past the left these days).
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 06:22 AM   #99
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 77,244
You want to run a public business, you abide by the restrictions the public puts on you. If you don't want to do that run a different business.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 07:16 AM   #100
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,951
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You want to run a public business, you abide by the restrictions the public puts on you. If you don't want to do that run a different business.
Which is why it is incumbent on the public to have good rules and not violate people's rights in the process. So we are right back in the same place asking the same questions.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 07:49 AM   #101
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You want to run a public business, you abide by the restrictions the public puts on you. If you don't want to do that run a different business.
So, tyranny of the majority? If the public (as represented by their elected government) says you can't sell that book, then you can't sell that book. But if the government says you have to sell the book, you have to sell the book. Simple, eh?


But of course it doesn't work that way in the United States, nor in most of Europe. The US, where this case will be decided, has specific standards for when the government can place a restriction on a business or an individual. It has been codified under a general concept called "substantive due process". Simply put, the government can only tell you what to do if it's somehow the government's business. Meanwhile, the standard for deciding if it's the government's business can vary based on situations. If the restriction would place a restriction of freedom of speech or religion, there's a higher standard, referred to as the "strict scrutiny" test.

What that means is that in order to restrict someone's constitutionally protected rights, e.g. expression or religion, the government must show two things.

1. The government has a compelling interest in making the restriction
and
2. No lesser restriction would satisfy the compelling interest of the government.

That's going to be the standard applied here. I really don't know how they will apply it. On the one hand, I can't see how to allow the baker to pick and choose which events he will support without opening up a really big can of worms. On the other hand, I can't see how the same court that said it was unconstitutional to force employers to provide birth control (Hobby Lobby case) will rule that it is acceptable to force self employed individuals to bake cakes or take photographs.
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 07:51 AM   #102
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
On the one hand, I agree with the principle that you shouldn't be compelled to do what you don't want to do. However, I think that laws should supersede your religious beliefs. After all if my deeply-held religious beliefs include human sacrifice, I don't think that would fly (though I wouldn't put it past the left these days).
I think most people, and every court, would agree that preventing human sacrifice constituted a compelling interest of the government.
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 07:58 AM   #103
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
So, tyranny of the majority? If the public (as represented by their elected government) says you can't sell that book, then you can't sell that book. But if the government says you have to sell the book, you have to sell the book. Simple, eh?


But of course it doesn't work that way in the United States, nor in most of Europe. The US, where this case will be decided, has specific standards for when the government can place a restriction on a business or an individual. It has been codified under a general concept called "substantive due process". Simply put, the government can only tell you what to do if it's somehow the government's business. Meanwhile, the standard for deciding if it's the government's business can vary based on situations. If the restriction would place a restriction of freedom of speech or religion, there's a higher standard, referred to as the "strict scrutiny" test.
.
Yes the christians been really upset since the IRS threatened to revoke Bob Jones Universities tax exempt status because they only admitted proper christians(meaning of course white). This is what created the modern political christianity after all, the desire to follow their religious beliefs and exclude blacks.

I am sure you side with them in that too.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:01 AM   #104
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I think most people, and every court, would agree that preventing human sacrifice constituted a compelling interest of the government.
What does that even mean "compelling interest"? The question is whether or not an act violates the laws of the country.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:05 AM   #105
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What does that even mean "compelling interest"? The question is whether or not an act violates the laws of the country.
It means it is ok for the government to force them to treat blacks as people but not gays.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:10 AM   #106
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What does that even mean "compelling interest"? The question is whether or not an act violates the laws of the country.
Ask the supreme court, or its surrogate, Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:19 AM   #107
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,951
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What does that even mean "compelling interest"? The question is whether or not an act violates the laws of the country.
The law is the law has to be a lawful law. So part of the question is if the law is lawful.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:31 AM   #108
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The law is the law has to be a lawful law. So part of the question is if the law is lawful.
Laws are lawful by definition, unless they violate another more fundamental law (e.g. the constitution).
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:43 AM   #109
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,951
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Laws are lawful by definition, unless they violate another more fundamental law (e.g. the constitution).
That is what I was trying to say with a jab at funny repetition. Your post 104 did not seem interested in what the fundamental law says on the issue.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:54 AM   #110
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That is what I was trying to say with a jab at funny repetition. Your post 104 did not seem interested in what the fundamental law says on the issue.
Since I mentioned laws, your claim here that I was not interested in laws is a bit ridiculous. Par for the course, mind you.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:58 AM   #111
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,951
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Since I mentioned laws, your claim here that I was not interested in laws is a bit ridiculous. Par for the course, mind you.
"Compelling interest" is part of US foundational law. So the following said by you

Quote:
What does that even mean "compelling interest"? The question is whether or not an act violates the laws of the country.
Sounds like you don't know, or are purposely trying to make a point about the lack of value of foundational law.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 09:24 AM   #112
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
"Compelling interest" is part of US foundational law. So the following said by you

Sounds like you don't know, or are purposely trying to make a point about the lack of value of foundational law.
Not knowing <> not being interested.

Seriously, having to explain to you the fundamentals of language and humanity is getting more than a little tiresome. Goodbye.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 09:26 AM   #113
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,951
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Not knowing <> not being interested.

Seriously, having to explain to you the fundamentals of language and humanity is getting more than a little tiresome. Goodbye.
If you either don't know or have no interest then why did you make post 104?
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 02:23 PM   #114
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
When discussing these issues, we often look beyond the specific case to other possible applications of the same principle. If we allowed that, we would have to allow this.... If we force that, we will have to force this.... I assume the justices of the SC will do the same.

I thought of an example that, on an emotional level, is extremely different from wedding cakes, but I cannot come up with any difference at all on a legal level. (Actually, this is a second example, because the ketubah hypothetical also seems to have the same implications.) Let's say someone owns a bookshop. Within the bookshop, he has an "adult" section. He sells porn. However, he only sells heterosexual porn. When asked why he doesn't sell gay themed porn, he opines that homosexuality is sinful, and he does not want to endorse it.

Can he be sued for discrimination against homosexuals?

The legal issues are extremely similar here. There are some subtle differences, but they are indeed subtle. If you think the differences are very, very, different, then it's likely you are thinking emotionally, with some variation of "How can you possibly compare weddings to pornography!?"

One difference is in the nature of the product itself. In the case of the porn, there is an overt reference to the "sinful" activity, while in the case of the cake, it is possible to create a wedding themed cake, recognizable as a wedding cake, that has no overt reference to homosexuality, even if it will be used for a same sex marriage. On the other hand, I doubt that many here would think that would be enough of a difference to let the baker off the hook. i.e. I doubt many would tolerate his discrimination if he would make a "generic" wedding cake, but would refuse to write, "Best wishes Adam and Steve". This becomes even more obvious when the photographers are considered. Would he be allowed to do photographs of the wedding, but refuse to photograph anything that appeared to represent or endorse homosexual activity?

In another difference, the objection is religiously based, but in the case of porn there is no overt religious ritual (in the western tradition) associated with the activities displayed.

I don't see a major difference there, myself. The owner refused to carry stock that is of interest to gay people, and it is because he thinks they are sinning. Is that different than refusing to decorate a cake because it represents a "sinful" activity?
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 3rd July 2017 at 02:27 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 02:30 PM   #115
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by Worm View Post
Just a minor point. The cake forms no part of the ceremony, it is part of the celebration - which I think could easily be argued tend to be non-religious in nature.

I think the 'historically associated with religion' thing is a bit of a red herring. There are plenty of secular routes to marriage that I would assume this baker would be perfectly happy in servicing. (I admit, that is an assumption, but I'd be interested in knowing if he had any objections in providing cakes to couples who were going down the 'civil' route).
True, and I can see the justices possibly giving weight to that argument. It may also be part of the reason Masterpiece's lawyers decided to use the expression route over the religion route.
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 03:06 PM   #116
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,277
The government has a "compelling interest" in regulating commerce. To that end, individuals file to create licensed business entities which the government issues or denies. The business pays some fees and even bundles the government's cut of the sale right into every transaction.

So if businesses discriminate and the government just shrugs and goes "oh well" then we have a problem with Equal Protection.

But again, the real problem is just try stating outright "no Christians allowed here" in your business and see if you can find free legal counsel and politicians drafting laws to protect your beliefs.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 05:32 PM   #117
shuize
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,969
I don't really care for religious exception laws. But it's amusing to watch the disappointment and frustration evidenced by our friends on the left when they discover that religious freedom laws they helped pass to protect groups they favor (peyote smoking Native Americans) might actually apply to other citizens, too.

Last edited by shuize; 3rd July 2017 at 05:37 PM.
shuize is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 06:21 PM   #118
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,277
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
I don't really care for religious exception laws. But it's amusing to watch the disappointment and frustration evidenced by our friends on the left when they discover that religious freedom laws they helped pass to protect groups they favor (peyote smoking Native Americans) might actually apply to other citizens, too.
Allowing someone to use otherwise barred substances for a religious ritual is in no way comparable to invoking religious belief to engage in bigoted discrimination.

That's without even opening the can of worms of personal religious beliefs applying to a business.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 3rd July 2017 at 06:25 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 07:04 PM   #119
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
The government has a "compelling interest" in regulating commerce. To that end, individuals file to create licensed business entities which the government issues or denies. The business pays some fees and even bundles the government's cut of the sale right into every transaction.

So if businesses discriminate and the government just shrugs and goes "oh well" then we have a problem with Equal Protection.

But again, the real problem is just try stating outright "no Christians allowed here" in your business and see if you can find free legal counsel and politicians drafting laws to protect your beliefs.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Not event one Supreme Court justice would agree that "regulating commerce" is, in and of itself, a compelling interest that would justify infringement on the right of expression or religion.

The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, but it doesn't guarantee equal protection from the actions of your fellow citizens.

The only real question is how many justices will believe that the desire to end anti-gay discrimination constitutes a compelling interest sufficient to use the force of law to compel cake decoration in the face of religious objections. I think three are practically guaranteed. I think a fourth is extremely likely. Getting to five will be much more difficult. That last step is a doozy.
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 3rd July 2017 at 07:08 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 07:43 PM   #120
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,277
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Not event one Supreme Court justice would agree that "regulating commerce" is, in and of itself, a compelling interest that would justify infringement on the right of expression or religion.
No, what I mean is that the government's regulation must happen in a way that ensures Equal Protection.

Quote:
The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, but it doesn't guarantee equal protection from the actions of your fellow citizens.
I'm resistant enough as it is with all of this corporation's are people nonsense, now they are citizens?

My objections are about commercial conduct. The whole idea of a "religious company" where either the otherwise non-sentient and non-corporeal entity evidenced by some paperwork in a Secretary of State's office is purported to believe in Jesus (we can take issue with other aspects of that sentence later)...or the business owner gets to infuse their personal beliefs into the business practices of the company and as long as it is "religiously inspired" belief, it can override government commercial business regulations?

Quote:
The only real question is how many justices will believe that the desire to end anti-gay discrimination constitutes a compelling interest sufficient to use the force of law to compel cake decoration in the face of religious objections. I think three are practically guaranteed. I think a fourth is extremely likely. Getting to five will be much more difficult. That last step is a doozy.
No, I'll grant you that's a practical consideration, but "the only real question" is just a weak dismissal of the immediate follow-on implications.

Opening this Pandora's Box means having a big fight over what gets to be a religion or not and thus conveniently ignore scientific facts and government regulations at will.

Something tells me the government doesn't just want everyone having their own rules to play by. So it's either a special select few (unjust on its face) or they rescind it once the point is made clear through cleverly presented test cases in the aftermath.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 3rd July 2017 at 07:45 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.