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 7th July 2017, 09:29 AM   #161
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Certainly, the case can generalize, either way.

At this point in history, which side of the slope is more slippery?
I'd say that post Hobby Lobby, Sessions, a couple hundred unfilled federal judge posts, and here we have Gorsuch and possibly losing Kennedy, the path to Christian hegemony over the next 3 years has a very high likelihood, if that's the question you're asking.

"expression" is the cover story, it's what they have to do to get what they want, which is Christian license. It's not about expression, it's not about cake. It's about letting Christians mistreat minorities, and time is on their side.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; 7th July 2017 at 09:31 AM.
blutoski 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 7th July 2017, 10:31 AM   #162
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,673
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I'd say that post Hobby Lobby, Sessions, a couple hundred unfilled federal judge posts, and here we have Gorsuch and possibly losing Kennedy, the path to Christian hegemony over the next 3 years has a very high likelihood, if that's the question you're asking.

"expression" is the cover story, it's what they have to do to get what they want, which is Christian license. It's not about expression, it's not about cake. It's about letting Christians mistreat minorities, and time is on their side.
That was indeed the question I was asking. I see the answer differently. I see the incredibly rapid erosion of Christian power over the last two decades, and I don't think gays or atheists have anything to fear. There are people desperately trying to hold back that erosion, but for the most part, they are failing, and I don't see that changing any time in the future.
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 7th July 2017, 11:16 AM   #163
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,713
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
That was indeed the question I was asking. I see the answer differently. I see the incredibly rapid erosion of Christian power over the last two decades, and I don't think gays or atheists have anything to fear. There are people desperately trying to hold back that erosion, but for the most part, they are failing, and I don't see that changing any time in the future.
Yeah. I mean, I can be fired from a job or evicted from my home for being gay, but apart from those trivial matters I'm perfectly secure. Oh and if my sister dies I might not be able to get custody of her kids. Oh well!
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey 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 7th July 2017, 11:26 AM   #164
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
That was indeed the question I was asking. I see the answer differently. I see the incredibly rapid erosion of Christian power over the last two decades, and I don't think gays or atheists have anything to fear. There are people desperately trying to hold back that erosion, but for the most part, they are failing, and I don't see that changing any time in the future.
I'm not sure what your definition of 'failing' is - they now control all three branches of the federal government.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 7th July 2017, 01:44 PM   #165
paulhutch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 1,909
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I'm not sure what your definition of 'failing' is - they now have always and still control all three branches of the federal government as well as state and local of governments.
FTFY
paulhutch 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 7th July 2017, 02:14 PM   #166
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by paulhutch View Post
FTFY
I'm thinking specifically the [Christian Dominionists] and what's left of the [Christian Reconstructionists] (eg: DeVos is a Reconstructionist).
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 7th July 2017, 02:24 PM   #167
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,226
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I'd say that post Hobby Lobby, Sessions, a couple hundred unfilled federal judge posts, and here we have Gorsuch and possibly losing Kennedy, the path to Christian hegemony over the next 3 years has a very high likelihood, if that's the question you're asking.

"expression" is the cover story, it's what they have to do to get what they want, which is Christian license. It's not about expression, it's not about cake. It's about letting Christians mistreat minorities, and time is on their side.
The bakery didn't force this test case. Christian expression was effectively the status quo, when the couple walked in, demanded a cake, and took the baker to court when he refused.

Christian expression was the statuses quo, and the world didn't burn down. This case isn't about the right trying to establish Christian expression, it's about the left trying to stamp it out.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige 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 7th July 2017, 02:48 PM   #168
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The bakery didn't force this test case. Christian expression was effectively the status quo, when the couple walked in, demanded a cake, and took the baker to court when he refused.

Christian expression was the statuses quo, and the world didn't burn down. This case isn't about the right trying to establish Christian expression, it's about the left trying to stamp it out.
I partly agree: this is an attempt to return to a status quo, not so much stopping progress, but nationally speaking, the rights that have been granted recently are at risk of being rolled back nationally (as opposed to just state by state, so far). So that's the first thing.

The second thing is that the risk I'm specifically concerned about is that this is part of a handful of cases that could become pivotal in this alleged culture war, and could shift the application of the First Amendment for a couple of generations. I'm particularly concerned about the always tentative inclusion of Atheists as a protected religious belief.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski 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 7th July 2017, 05:45 PM   #169
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,673
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Yeah. I mean, I can be fired from a job or evicted from my home for being gay, but apart from those trivial matters I'm perfectly secure. Oh and if my sister dies I might not be able to get custody of her kids. Oh well!
https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/201...-gay-employees.


(It was an appeals court ruling, so it only covers part of America, and only if the Supreme Court doesn't take the case. I don't know if there is any intention to appeal.)

The point is, though, that supporters of gay rights are winning again and again, in legislatures, courts, and public opinion battles. Is everything perfect, yet? No, but unless there is a sudden reversal of the tide, the trends are clear. If things go very, very, badly in the near future, you might find that you have taken three steps forward very, very, quickly, and now you might be forced to take one step back. I doubt it. I think it's more likely that you will just have to hold your position for a few years.
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 7th July 2017, 06:51 PM   #170
paulhutch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 1,909
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I'm thinking specifically the [Christian Dominionists] and what's left of the [Christian Reconstructionists] (eg: DeVos is a Reconstructionist).
Shudder, thankfully they have never been a large percentage of government.

Out of curiosity I looked up the percentage of Christians in Congress, it's 89.3%. couldn't find a breakdown giving the House percentage but I did find the Senate is 88% so obviously the House is Higher than 89.3%.
paulhutch 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 7th July 2017, 08:17 PM   #171
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,769
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/201...-gay-employees.


(It was an appeals court ruling, so it only covers part of America, and only if the Supreme Court doesn't take the case. I don't know if there is any intention to appeal.)

The point is, though, that supporters of gay rights are winning again and again, in legislatures, courts, and public opinion battles. Is everything perfect, yet? No, but unless there is a sudden reversal of the tide, the trends are clear. If things go very, very, badly in the near future, you might find that you have taken three steps forward very, very, quickly, and now you might be forced to take one step back. I doubt it. I think it's more likely that you will just have to hold your position for a few years.
Look how great it is being so much closer to being treated like an equal!

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 8th July 2017, 01:12 AM   #172
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
The only sane handling of such situation, is that if you SELL stuff, be it art , services or mass produced stuff, in a venue open to the public, then you are not allowed to refuse a sale except in one case : the sale would be illegal (alcohol to minor).

That is pretty much how it function in many countries, and you don't have those shenanigan of "not selling to gay/colored/other gender/religion is freedom of expression" bovine excrement. As soon as you start to sell to the public, you sell to everybody or you sell to nobody.
Aepervius 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 8th July 2017, 06:18 AM   #173
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,673
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Look how great it is being so much closer to being treated like an equal!

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
The point is not that the current situation is good, or even that the current situation is acceptable.

The point is that we are not on the verge of becoming a "Christian hegemony". We are not one step away from going back 15 years to when states still had laws banning homosexual sex. We are not about to establish a theocracy.

I asked which slope is more slippery at this point in time.
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 8th July 2017, 06:26 AM   #174
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,713
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The point is not that the current situation is good, or even that the current situation is acceptable.

The point is that we are not on the verge of becoming a "Christian hegemony". We are not one step away from going back 15 years to when states still had laws banning homosexual sex. We are not about to establish a theocracy.
It doesn't have to be a theocracy. We weren't a theocracy for the two hundred years that gay sex was illegal. And what do you mean, "when states still had laws banning homosexual sex"? Some of them still have those laws, they're just not enforceable thanks to a Supreme Court ruling. Which means that if (when) a similar case winds up before the now increasingly conservative, Republican-controlled Supreme Court and they rule the other way, then wham! It's illegal again.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey 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 8th July 2017, 06:31 AM   #175
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
The only sane handling of such situation, is that if you SELL stuff, be it art , services or mass produced stuff, in a venue open to the public, then you are not allowed to refuse a sale except in one case : the sale would be illegal (alcohol to minor).

That is pretty much how it function in many countries, and you don't have those shenanigan of "not selling to gay/colored/other gender/religion is freedom of expression" bovine excrement. As soon as you start to sell to the public, you sell to everybody or you sell to nobody.
When the Westboro baptist church walks into a bakery and demands a "god hates fags" cake, the baker should just go ahead and make it then?
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit 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 8th July 2017, 06:38 AM   #176
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,713
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
When the Westboro baptist church walks into a bakery and demands a "god hates fags" cake, the baker should just go ahead and make it then?
Does the bakery sell "god hates fags" cakes? Is that a thing? Because wedding cakes have a long tradition, and are something that bakery normally sold. It wasn't that the customers desired a new product of their own invention that wasn't normally made; they just wanted a current product the bakery sold to other people, but the bakers objected to the customers, not the cake.

If the Westboro folks wanted a "Congratulations, Graduate!" cake or a birthday cake, they can have it.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey 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 8th July 2017, 07:49 AM   #177
paulhutch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 1,909
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Does the bakery sell "god hates fags" cakes? Is that a thing? Because wedding cakes have a long tradition, and are something that bakery normally sold. It wasn't that the customers desired a new product of their own invention that wasn't normally made; they just wanted a current product the bakery sold to other people, but the bakers objected to the customers, not the cake.

If the Westboro folks wanted a "Congratulations, Graduate!" cake or a birthday cake, they can have it.
I suspect Newtons Bit is referring to the case where a bigot requested an ordinary cake with anti-gay slurs written on it (Azucar Bakery in Denver).

The baker refused but did offer to sell him the cake and include the everything he needed to add the words himself. The bigot filed a public accommodation discrimination complaint. That case was instantly thrown out because it obviously violates the free speech right of refusal of the 1st amendment.

AFAIK there are zero SCOTUS justices who would be in favor of denying that fundamental 1st amendment right. In fact the case before the court is trying to extend the right from writing and decoration on the cake to the entire cake.
paulhutch 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 8th July 2017, 09:17 AM   #178
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by paulhutch View Post
I suspect Newtons Bit is referring to the case where a bigot requested an ordinary cake with anti-gay slurs written on it (Azucar Bakery in Denver).

The baker refused but did offer to sell him the cake and include the everything he needed to add the words himself. The bigot filed a public accommodation discrimination complaint. That case was instantly thrown out because it obviously violates the free speech right of refusal of the 1st amendment.

AFAIK there are zero SCOTUS justices who would be in favor of denying that fundamental 1st amendment right. In fact the case before the court is trying to extend the right from writing and decoration on the cake to the entire cake.
I'm actually referring specifically to Aepervius' statement that if you sell any art (and presuming writing letters on a cake constitutes art) that you must sell it to everybody. There are times that individuals should be allowed to exercise discernment in what they create. If someone wants a baker to write "god hates fags", or something else offensive, then I think that baker should be able to tell them to get lost without financial consequences.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit 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 8th July 2017, 10:16 AM   #179
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,769
The false equivalence there is that "God hates fags" is not an immutable characteristic.

There's a world if difference between objecting because of something about the request vs. objecting because of something about the person making the request.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 8th July 2017 at 10:18 AM.
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 8th July 2017, 11:41 AM   #180
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
The false equivalence there is that "God hates fags" is not an immutable characteristic.

There's a world if difference between objecting because of something about the request vs. objecting because of something about the person making the request.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit 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 8th July 2017, 01:25 PM   #181
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
When the Westboro baptist church walks into a bakery and demands a "god hates fags" cake, the baker should just go ahead and make it then?
Yes. Next question ?
Aepervius 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 8th July 2017, 01:35 PM   #182
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,226
This test case must have seemed like a total slam dunk, back when Hillary was going to be president, and she was going to stack the Supreme Court, and the Dems were going to take back the legislature, and the progs were going to dominate the socio-cultural direction of the country for the next brazillion years.

Now it seems there's a serious risk this case will go the other way, and re-activate a bunch of regressive crap that wasn't really up for grabs before.

Maybe resolving cultural disputes and social controversies by judicial fiat *isn't* the best way to make progress as a nation.
theprestige 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 8th July 2017, 01:55 PM   #183
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,769
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This test case must have seemed like a total slam dunk, back when Hillary was going to be president, and she was going to stack the Supreme Court, and the Dems were going to take back the legislature, and the progs were going to dominate the socio-cultural direction of the country for the next brazillion years.

Now it seems there's a serious risk this case will go the other way, and re-activate a bunch of regressive crap that wasn't really up for grabs before.

Maybe resolving cultural disputes and social controversies by judicial fiat *isn't* the best way to make progress as a nation.
No, but it tends to have to be the courts when the executive and legislature won't.

Because by that point, history shows us, the only venue left to be heard is in the streets.

Judicial fiat may not be ideal, but it is a much preferred alternative to that.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 8th July 2017 at 01:57 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 8th July 2017, 09:06 PM   #184
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,673
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
The false equivalence there is that "God hates fags" is not an immutable characteristic.

There's a world if difference between objecting because of something about the request vs. objecting because of something about the person making the request.
If I, a heterosexual male, went into Masterpiece Cakeshop, and said, "My friends, Susan and Helen, are getting married next week. I would like to work with you to design a cake for their wedding." do you think he would make me a cake?

It is not something about the person making the request.

Also, if a gay person says, "My friends Mike and Linda are getting married..." he would make a cake for him.

It's not the identity of the customers. It isn't some immutable characteristic of the customers. It's about the statement made by the cake, including the context of that statement.

The courts may decide that there is no practical way to separate the actions based on such fine points, and decide that anti-discrimination laws don't stop just at the identity of the customers, but extend to any aspect of the commercial activity which is influenced by the identity of the customers. Or, they may decide that the law goes to far by limiting the right of free expression without a compelling interest. I really don't know what they will do, and I don't think there is an obvious, clear, right answer. As I've said before, I expect a 5-4 decision. I just don't know which side will have 5.
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 8th July 2017, 09:12 PM   #185
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 43,713
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If I, a heterosexual male, went into Masterpiece Cakeshop, and said, "My friends, Susan and Helen, are getting married next week. I would like to work with you to design a cake for their wedding." do you think he would make me a cake?

It is not something about the person making the request.

Also, if a gay person says, "My friends Mike and Linda are getting married..." he would make a cake for him.

It's not the identity of the customers. It isn't some immutable characteristic of the customers. It's about the statement made by the cake, including the context of that statement.
You're just substituting a proxy in there for the discriminated-against customers, but the result is the same. It's still discrimination against gay people if the baker refuses to sell to the straight intermediary because he knows the cake is going to gay people. If the intermediary doesn't reveal he's acting on the behalf of gays he'll likely get the cake, but it will be because of deception, not because of fairness on the part of the seller.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey 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 9th July 2017, 10:14 AM   #186
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,673
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You're just substituting a proxy in there for the discriminated-against customers, but the result is the same. It's still discrimination against gay people if the baker refuses to sell to the straight intermediary because he knows the cake is going to gay people. If the intermediary doesn't reveal he's acting on the behalf of gays he'll likely get the cake, but it will be because of deception, not because of fairness on the part of the seller.
The Colorado Supreme Court agreed, and I think it's a legitimate argument.

My point was that it was not a simple case of "I won't sell to gay people." It's more of "I won't create this specific item for this specific use." That still discriminates against gay people, but it's not as simple as it is often made to sound.

The Supreme Court will have to deal with two questions.

1. Was the statute violated?
2. Is the statute, as enforced by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, constitutional?

On the first point, I think the baker loses, even though, as noted above, it isn't as simple as saying that the baker wouldn't sell to gay people. Still, I don't thing he stands a chance of winning an argument that he is discriminating against a gay wedding instead of gay people. Courts have consistently turned similar arguments down.

It's the second one where the controversy will be. The statute, as interpreted, clearly steps on his rights of free expression and freedom of religion. Generally, that's forbidden under the constitution. That brings us back to compelling interest. Does the state have a compelling interest to restrict the baker's rights?
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 9th July 2017, 01:47 PM   #187
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,613
This will no longer be an issue when my cake decorating vending machines hit the sidewalks.

Buy a blank unfrosted cake, insert it into the machine and design your own. Upload an image file or just enter plain text. "I Hate Jews", "Satan Rules", "God Hates You", "I Love My Nipples"...whatever. In five minutes you have a perfect cake that is as offensive as you desire.


Anyways, check out this Yelp! review for my bakery:

Quote:
Thanks, mgidm86, for the "BLM Loves Dead Cops" cake. It looked even better than the "Little Girls Give Great Head" (see photos) pie you made us last time. The picture of the cops head exploding was so gory - thanks! Just, thanks!
Business owners need some leeway here. I would not want my bakery connected in any way to cakes like that. I also would not want to be forced to design NAMBLAs website, or the DNC or GOP, or Black Lives Matter or the KKK. My name will be attached to any work I do, and I want control over that.

Selling a shirt at a retail store is one thing. Designing something custom is another, and the two need to be separated somehow.

Should a bakery owner who happens to be Muslim be forced to draw a depiction of Muhammad since that is against their religion? How about Mohammad screwing a chicken? And maybe the cake says "Mohammad Was A Chicken Rapist"

Should a black baker be forced to make a cake that.....you get where I'm going. I don't think they should.
mgidm86 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 9th July 2017, 02:09 PM   #188
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,769
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
This will no longer be an issue when my cake decorating vending machines hit the sidewalks.

Buy a blank unfrosted cake, insert it into the machine and design your own. Upload an image file or just enter plain text. "I Hate Jews", "Satan Rules", "God Hates You", "I Love My Nipples"...whatever. In five minutes you have a perfect cake that is as offensive as you desire.


Anyways, check out this Yelp! review for my bakery:

Business owners need some leeway here. I would not want my bakery connected in any way to cakes like that. I also would not want to be forced to design NAMBLAs website, or the DNC or GOP, or Black Lives Matter or the KKK. My name will be attached to any work I do, and I want control over that.

Selling a shirt at a retail store is one thing. Designing something custom is another, and the two need to be separated somehow.

Should a bakery owner who happens to be Muslim be forced to draw a depiction of Muhammad since that is against their religion? How about Mohammad screwing a chicken? And maybe the cake says "Mohammad Was A Chicken Rapist"

Should a black baker be forced to make a cake that.....you get where I'm going. I don't think they should.
Still a world apart between refusing to deliver a specific design and refusing service because of immutable qualities.

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 9th July 2017, 02:20 PM   #189
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,673
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Still a world apart between refusing to deliver a specific design and refusing service because of immutable qualities.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Being married is not an immutable quality.
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 9th July 2017, 02:28 PM   #190
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,769
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Being married is not an immutable quality.
That might hold up if the baker refused to supply cakes for any weddings.
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 10th July 2017, 03:29 AM   #191
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,586
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Business owners need some leeway here. I would not want my bakery connected in any way to cakes like that. I also would not want to be forced to design NAMBLAs website, or the DNC or GOP, or Black Lives Matter or the KKK. My name will be attached to any work I do, and I want control over that.

Selling a shirt at a retail store is one thing. Designing something custom is another, and the two need to be separated somehow.

Should a bakery owner who happens to be Muslim be forced to draw a depiction of Muhammad since that is against their religion? How about Mohammad screwing a chicken? And maybe the cake says "Mohammad Was A Chicken Rapist"

Should a black baker be forced to make a cake that.....you get where I'm going. I don't think they should.
But this is back again to the product itself. If the bakery doesn't make cakes with Muhammad on them for ANYONE, then he isn't discriminating against a particular customer he's discriminating against a particular object. If he would make the exact same cake for Adam and Eve, but not for Adam and Steve, then he's discriminating against the couple, not the cake itself.
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 03:41 AM   #192
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
That was indeed the question I was asking. I see the answer differently. I see the incredibly rapid erosion of Christian power over the last two decades, and I don't think gays or atheists have anything to fear. There are people desperately trying to hold back that erosion, but for the most part, they are failing, and I don't see that changing any time in the future.
They have been gaining power, they were not politically motivated until the Bob Jones case and they had to integrate their colleges. Then they picked up abortion as an issue when protestants did not used to care about that at all, it was a catholic thing.

Frankly this just shows how much you buy into their narrative.
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 03:48 AM   #193
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
This will no longer be an issue when my cake decorating vending machines hit the sidewalks.

Buy a blank unfrosted cake, insert it into the machine and design your own. Upload an image file or just enter plain text. "I Hate Jews", "Satan Rules", "God Hates You", "I Love My Nipples"...whatever. In five minutes you have a perfect cake that is as offensive as you desire.


Anyways, check out this Yelp! review for my bakery:

Business owners need some leeway here. I would not want my bakery connected in any way to cakes like that. I also would not want to be forced to design NAMBLAs website, or the DNC or GOP, or Black Lives Matter or the KKK. My name will be attached to any work I do, and I want control over that.

Selling a shirt at a retail store is one thing. Designing something custom is another, and the two need to be separated somehow.

Should a bakery owner who happens to be Muslim be forced to draw a depiction of Muhammad since that is against their religion? How about Mohammad screwing a chicken? And maybe the cake says "Mohammad Was A Chicken Rapist"

Should a black baker be forced to make a cake that.....you get where I'm going. I don't think they should.
Did they even ask for any kind of original unique cake or just a bog standard wedding cake? Certainly all the weddings I have been to had pretty generic wedding cakes not those unique sculpture ones.
__________________
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 10th July 2017, 04:47 AM   #194
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,506
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
But this is back again to the product itself.
It'll always come back to the product, because if it can't be the couple whom the cake is for that is objectionable, it must be the cake itself. Otherwise the case is laid bare as a straightforward challenge to sexuality as a protected class.
Beelzebuddy 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 10th July 2017, 04:52 AM   #195
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,007
The gay people will lose this one since right wing hacks are the majority of the court.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken 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 10th July 2017, 05:13 AM   #196
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 28,835
Originally Posted by sylvan8798 View Post
I'm sure the Supreme Court won't try to judge the validity of the religious arguments, but it still seems to me like they would be carving out too narrow a niche in terms of what beliefs qualify or don't qualify for this expressive discrimination. For example, the Catholic Church holds that God doesn't recognize a marriage between a Catholic and a non-catholic. If God doesn't recognize their marriage, then they are "living in sin and hell-bound".

Is it up to me as a baker to verify that all marriages for which I'm making cakes are approved by God in one fashion or another? If the underlying idea is that God isn't tolerating my approval of sin, then fornication gets the same slapdown as homosexuality. Would this same baker make a cake for a baby shower for an unwed mother? ...

If it's in accordance with their own religious beliefs, sure. Jesus went to hang with the sinners, not the saints, and all that. For a baby shower, they could see it as being nice so as not to drive people further away from Jesus, whereas they might see homosexual marriage as just going too far, and it's time to turn around, whack the dust of that sinful town off your sandals, and walk away.

And the Supreme Court has ruled over and over it isn't for the government to determine the validity of religious beliefs (even arguments that "such and such is actually officially disclaimed by your religion, so you are wrong to claim this" are disallowed.)
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 10th July 2017 at 05:18 AM.
Beerina 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 10th July 2017, 05:29 AM   #197
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,769
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
If it's in accordance with their own religious beliefs, sure. Jesus went to hang with the sinners, not the saints, and all that. For a baby shower, they could see it as being nice so as not to drive people further away from Jesus, whereas they might see homosexual marriage as just going too far, and it's time to turn around, whack the dust of that sinful town off your sandals, and walk away.

And the Supreme Court has ruled over and over it isn't for the government to determine the validity of religious beliefs (even arguments that "such and such is actually officially disclaimed by your religion, so you are wrong to claim this" are disallowed.)
Or even when those beliefs are factually incorrect. Hobby Lobby can deny coverage for some contraceptives because the owners really super-seriously believe they are abortofacients or that preventing ovulation, fertilization, or implantation are still the same degree of moral offense.



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 10th July 2017, 08:14 AM   #198
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,673
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
The gay people will lose this one since right wing hacks are the majority of the court.
Right wing hacks? This is the same court that ruled in Obergefell. The only change has been substituting Gorsuch for Scalia.

ETA: To amplify on this, if it were just a simple case of "we are for gay rights", then this would be a slam dunk on the liberal side. This court has consistently made the pro-gay rulings again and again. If we follow that reasoning, then surely this will be a 5-4 win, with the baker on the losing side.

Furthermore, it we talk about big changes and important cases, Obergefell went a lot farther and make a much bigger change. This is the court that said we could have gay marriages, and not just symbolic commitment ceremonies, but real, legally binding, agreements. Would you expect the same court that said we will overturn centuries of tradition to suddenly run away and say that we won't protect the civil rights of gay people?

I certainly wouldn't, if that was what this case was about. An awful lot of people want Supreme Court cases to be about good guys winning and bad guys losing, but that's not what it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be about protecting rights, as defined by the law and the constitution. In this particular case, what is at issue is that the government is going to shut down a bakery unless the bakery operator falls into line with the approved ideology.

And when you put it like that, identifying which side is really the liberal side becomes a bit more difficult.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 10th July 2017 at 08:31 AM.
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 10th July 2017, 08:30 AM   #199
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Right wing hacks? This is the same court that ruled in Obergefell. The only change has been substituting Gorsuch for Scalia.
That is a definite shift to the right. You will get your christian dominion that Gorsuch if for.

And it is also the court that found corperations have religious beliefs, and can discriminate based on them in Hobby Lobby.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

Last edited by ponderingturtle; 10th July 2017 at 08:31 AM.
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 10th July 2017, 08:32 AM   #200
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
a
I certainly wouldn't, if that was what this case was about. An awful lot of people want Supreme Court cases to be about good guys winning and bad guys losing, but that's not what it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be about protecting rights, as defined by the law and the constitution. In this particular case, what is at issue is that the government is going to shut down a bakery unless the bakery operator falls into line with the approved ideology.
Protecting the rights of christian corporations to discriminate as they see fit. I expect to see Piggy Park overturned.
__________________
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
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 05:59 PM.
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.