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 12th July 2017, 04:33 AM   #281
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
He should be required to provide a blank cake and a piping bag for them to finish it off themselves. That's the point at which the item starts being offensive to him, isn't it?

In this case, the baker should be required to make the same kind of wedding cake he'd make for a straight couple, but give the couple the second dude to put on top of the cake. If they don't opt for anything explicitly gay, the cake itself can't be objectionable, can it?
I still don't understand the point of not selling wedding cakes to gays. Would he not sell a lawnmower to a married gay couple were he in that business just because he has moral qualms about "sodomy"?
__________________
<Roar!>
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 12th July 2017, 04:42 AM   #282
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,518
Ah! I get where the custom cake thing is coming from. In googling for a transcript of the conversation I came across this filing, which mentions
Quote:
[The Colorado Court of Appeals] reached this conclusion despite the artistry of Phillips’ cakes and the Commission’s exemption of other cake artists who declined to create custom cakes based on their message.
So by insisting that it was only a custom cake that was objectionable, the lawyer's hoping to lump this case in with existing precedent of rejecting cakes based on offensive custom messages.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon
I still don't understand the point of not selling wedding cakes to gays. Would he not sell a lawnmower to a married gay couple were he in that business just because he has moral qualms about "sodomy"?
Weirder things have happened. They call it "discrimination." Unfortunately it's still a thing.
Beelzebuddy 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 12th July 2017, 05:59 AM   #283
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's not silly and moot: The question is about a scenario where there it is NOT targeted. In that scenario, do we allow the armed forces to refuse Sikhs because they don't want to obey the dress code?
You just moved the goal posts yet again. This isn't the military but a private club doing the dress code.

Turbans in place of properly protective head gear is a big issue, but it is not one that specifically targets religion as there is a clear secular goal. And that still has nothing to do with the legion under discussion.
__________________
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 12th July 2017, 06:03 AM   #284
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You just moved the goal posts yet again. This isn't the military but a private club doing the dress code.
I used the military in my hypothetical scenario to find out how far the principle goes.

Can I get an answer to my *********** question?
__________________
<Roar!>
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 12th July 2017, 06:10 AM   #285
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I used the military in my hypothetical scenario to find out how far the principle goes.

Can I get an answer to my *********** question?
And they are not fighting turbans as part of uniforms, not sure how they deal with facial hair and gas masks and turbans vs helmets in combat.

Your moving the goalposts dramatically changes dynamics.

Here is a canadian judge ruling the motorcycle helmet laws serve a practical purpose and don't count as religious discrimination.

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/2008/0...met-exemption/

Of course we have not gotten to protective equipment from being exempt from anti discrimination laws.
__________________
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 12th July 2017, 06:11 AM   #286
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,560
I still don't get what makes decorating a cake "expression" to a degree beyond any other service job.

The "Sandwich artist" at Subway can't refuse to my my 6" cold cut trio with mayo because he doesn't agree with the flavor profile that would make.

Just because there's a visual artistic expression to decorating cake doesn't make it special. It's still just a service that is being paid for by a customer.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

Last edited by JoeBentley; 12th July 2017 at 06:15 AM.
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 12th July 2017, 06:14 AM   #287
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Your moving the goalposts dramatically changes dynamics.
It's not moving the goalposts to look at hypothetical scenarios to analyse a principle!

Quote:
Here is a canadian judge ruling the motorcycle helmet laws serve a practical purpose and don't count as religious discrimination.
Good! So if it weren't targeted towards a particular group, it would probably be seen as legitimate. Why was it so hard to answer my question?
__________________
<Roar!>
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 12th July 2017, 06:21 AM   #288
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,792
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And they are not fighting turbans as part of uniforms, not sure how they deal with facial hair and gas masks and turbans vs helmets in combat.

Your moving the goalposts dramatically changes dynamics.

Here is a canadian judge ruling the motorcycle helmet laws serve a practical purpose and don't count as religious discrimination.

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/2008/0...met-exemption/

Of course we have not gotten to protective equipment from being exempt from anti discrimination laws.
A Sikh can't exempt themselves from a safety rule that places only themselves at risk, but religion can be invoked to be exempt from vaccination which raises potential risks for all of society.

Good to know.



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 12th July 2017, 06:21 AM   #289
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,560
Alright the Elephant in the room just cleared his throat.

Here's the thing. Nothing in the letter or spirit of either the broad legal concept of religious freedom or any specific implementation of it equates to this "It's the government duty to make sure nothing in my job and my religion ever come into conflict" stance.

If you decide to go into the cake decorating business where "wedding cakes" are a significant portion of that an a portion of those wedding cakes are from non-traditional marriages and your religious beliefs are against non-traditional weddings than maybe cake designer isn't the job for you.

If you have a problem handing out a specific medication, don't become a pharmacist.

If you have a problem handling booze or pork, don't become a grocery cashier.

Jobs are voluntary. This isn't a dystopian sci-fi future where you are just randomly assigned a job when you reach adulthood.

If a common part of the job you choose to be employed under comes into conflict with the religious beliefs you choose to follow... what do you expect the rest of the world to do?
__________________
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 12th July 2017, 06:22 AM   #290
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,792
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
Alright the Elephant in the room just cleared his throat.

Here's the thing. Nothing in the letter or spirit of either the broad legal concept of religious freedom or any specific implementation of it equates to this "It's the government duty to make sure nothing in my job and my religion ever come into conflict" stance.

If you decide to go into the cake decorating business where "wedding cakes" are a significant portion of that an a portion of those wedding cakes are from non-traditional marriages and your religious beliefs are against non-traditional weddings than maybe cake designer isn't the job for you.

If you have a problem handing out a specific medication, don't become a pharmacist.

If you have a problem handling booze or pork, don't become a grocery cashier.

Jobs are voluntary. This isn't a dystopian sci-fi future where you are just randomly assigned a job when you reach adulthood.

If a common part of the job you choose to be employed under comes into conflict with the religious beliefs you choose to follow... what do you expect the rest of the world to do?
Acknowledge the supremacy of your superior prerogative?

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 12th July 2017, 06:23 AM   #291
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's not moving the goalposts to look at hypothetical scenarios to analyse a principle!
And you accuse me of strawmen when ever I do that. Clearly you like your own legion of strawmen.

Quote:
Good! So if it weren't targeted towards a particular group, it would probably be seen as legitimate. Why was it so hard to answer my question?
And are we talking about by american or canadian law? They are different and you have gotten them thoroughly mixed up in this.
__________________
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 12th July 2017, 06:28 AM   #292
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,560
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Acknowledge the supremacy of your superior prerogative?
Well I mean obviously. Everyone in the argument, both sides, knows full well what this is actually about. Every "religious freedom" argument we've ever had in the social sphere in my lifetime has obviously been an attempt to promote one religion.

I'm just trying figure out what the ostensible angle is.
__________________
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 12th July 2017, 06:34 AM   #293
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And you accuse me of strawmen when ever I do that.
Do what? Discuss the actual topic? Don't make me laugh. Ascribing an opinion or position to someone that that person never uttered or implied is not the same thing as examining a hypothetical in order to test the limits of a moral or legal principle.

Quote:
Clearly you like your own legion of strawmen.
Quote me making a strawman here.
__________________
<Roar!>
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 12th July 2017, 07:45 AM   #294
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,518
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I still don't get what makes decorating a cake "expression" to a degree beyond any other service job.

The "Sandwich artist" at Subway can't refuse to my my 6" cold cut trio with mayo because he doesn't agree with the flavor profile that would make.

Just because there's a visual artistic expression to decorating cake doesn't make it special. It's still just a service that is being paid for by a customer.
Whenever I can't see at all where someone is coming from, it helps me to try to find an analogy where I can agree with them, or at least understand them, and work backwards from there.

In this case, consider a tattoo parlor. Artist, right? It says so right there in the job: tattoo artist.

While you're considering this tattoo parlor, in walks a skinhead. He wants a "god hates fags" tattoo. Would you have any problem with the owner objecting on religious grounds? I wouldn't.

But instead of a skinhead, suppose it's a gay atheist hipster (a gaytheipster) who only wants it ironically. Does the owner's religious objection trump the protected class status of the customer? I would say so, and I'd expect most of the people I disagree with to say so as well. This is where their argument generally ends.

But what if this is a skinhead tattoo parlor, the owner of which routinely draws "god hates fags" tattoos on his fellow skinheads. And in walks the gaytheipster, with more balls than brains, asking for a similar tattoo. Is the owner's "religious objection" still valid? I'd say not. It's not the expression that is the problem, no matter what the owner says, it's the person for whom he is expressing.


So. This cake. This "custom" cake. Was it a giant dildo cake? Was it a rainbow? Was it to be frosted with the words "God is dead. Satan is triumphant. May he bless Dylan and Craig's unholy union?" Or was it essentially the same cake he's made for years for straight marriages without complaint, only this time it's for a class of people he objects to, in which case he ought to just shut it and make the damned cake?

Originally Posted by JoeBentley
I'm just trying figure out what the ostensible angle is.
It's a challenge to sexuality as a protected class. Every private business would be free not to serve homosexual customers with no further justification required. They'd have to couch it as a "religious objection" if anyone gets uppity about it, but that's easy enough to do after the fact.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 12th July 2017 at 07:50 AM.
Beelzebuddy 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 12th July 2017, 07:59 AM   #295
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
But instead of a skinhead, suppose it's a gay atheist hipster (a gaytheipster) who only wants it ironically. Does the owner's religious objection trump the protected class status of the customer? I would say so, and I'd expect most of the people I disagree with to say so as well. This is where their argument generally ends.

But what if this is a skinhead tattoo parlor, the owner of which routinely draws "god hates fags" tattoos on his fellow skinheads. And in walks the gaytheipster, with more balls than brains, asking for a similar tattoo. Is the owner's "religious objection" still valid? I'd say not. It's not the expression that is the problem, no matter what the owner says, it's the person for whom he is expressing.
Yesterday we discussed this and you were saying that you'd rather have a list of reasons than a list of protected classes, but here you argue that the crucial difference is the class. I'm a bit confused here.
__________________
<Roar!>
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 12th July 2017, 08:20 AM   #296
paulhutch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 1,912
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I still don't get what makes decorating a cake "expression" to a degree beyond any other service job.

The "Sandwich artist" at Subway can't refuse to my my 6" cold cut trio with mayo because he doesn't agree with the flavor profile that would make.
That is only because management of Subway does not allow it. If management allowed it, the sandwich artist most certainly can refuse to make particular combinations and would not be violating any laws.
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 12th July 2017, 08:36 AM   #297
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
These are issues the court will have to deal with. On the one hand, I think Kennedy+4 will be inclined toward supporting the baker, but will struggle with how to write their order in such a way that it protects the free speech rights of the baker without gutting civil rights laws and, just as importantly, actually clarifies a law instead of creating hopeless confusion. After their ruling, will the various people who write and enforce civil rights law know where the limits of those laws may extend?
I don't think it will be that hard. All they will do is state that a custom crafted cake is a piece of art, and as such, the standard rules / case law on public accommodations. They'll likely follow the same general ideas as in the Hobby Lobby case: a closely held company can't be forced to do something against the owners religious beliefs unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

I can't think of any compelling reason why a baker should be forced to create whatever custom cake his/her customers want, while also offering to sell any standard cake on display or in the catalog, can you?
__________________
"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 12th July 2017, 08:38 AM   #298
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
I don't think it will be that hard. All they will do is state that a custom crafted cake is a piece of art, and as such, the standard rules / case law on public accommodations. They'll likely follow the same general ideas as in the Hobby Lobby case: a closely held company can't be forced to do something against the owners religious beliefs unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

I can't think of any compelling reason why a baker should be forced to create whatever custom cake his/her customers want, while also offering to sell any standard cake on display or in the catalog, can you?
Was it custom or made to order from a list of options? Not everything made to order is a artistic creation. Or will someone finally argue that piggy park was wrongly decided and that a barbecue restaurant could refuse to seat blacks because of the religious beliefs of the company.
__________________
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 12th July 2017, 08:47 AM   #299
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Was it custom or made to order from a list of options? Not everything made to order is a artistic creation.
If it's in a catalog of options then it's not art and the baker should lose the case.

Quote:
Or will someone finally argue that piggy park was wrongly decided and that a barbecue restaurant could refuse to seat blacks because of the religious beliefs of the company.
The state has already made a successful case on why it can force businesses that sell food to sell it to indiscriminately.
__________________
"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 12th July 2017, 08:55 AM   #300
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
If it's in a catalog of options then it's not art and the baker should lose the case.
The idea that it was some terribly unique artistic creation seems to be limited to this forum. The actual case seems to be about forcing them to sell a cake to a gay wedding, nothing about unique artistic creations. No different than refusing to rent out space to a gay wedding vs say a birthday party for a gay individual.

It is all about the businesses religious rights and how those should be protected.

Quote:
The state has already made a successful case on why it can force businesses that sell food to sell it to indiscriminately.
But only white people can demand special orders. Blacks can not do substitutions, that is strictly for white people. That would be totally legal as that would be individual art.

So for the arguments I have seen anywhere else it would seem to fit well into the arguments being made in this case. It is just tied into gay marriage instead of basic racism so people what to pretend the principles are different.
__________________
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 12th July 2017, 09:12 AM   #301
Shepherd
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 182
Should an artist be legally required to provide the backdrop scenery for a stage production he finds to be offensive? I would have to say no.

...but I only want him to make us a generic street scene like those he has made for other people's plays before. He's an artist. That's his job. That's what he does. It's just a generic street scene. Why won't you make him provide us a generic street scene?! Hey, that's not fair! Waaah!

Because although you are perfectly free to put on your disgustingly vile play, assuming you were somehow even able to find a venue for it, I still don't want to be associated with it! ...not to mention, I believe your actors suck so badly that that their mere presence on the stage before my wonderful stage art would defile it!

So, if you feel you must have a street scene for your play, then, I would suggest you hit the streets! ...and/or look for a crap artist who doesn't mind being associated with disgustingly repulsive work such as yours.

If you people really do have no shame, though, and an appeal to common decency can't even stop you, why don't you just ask that Kirk Cameron fellow if he knows somebody who could do your scenery for you? He does a lot of crap work like yours!

...lol
Shepherd 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 12th July 2017, 09:15 AM   #302
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Originally Posted by Shepherd View Post
Should an artist be legally required to provide the backdrop scenery for a stage production he finds to be offensive? I would have to say no.
Aw, I thought artists were all about pushing the boundaries of the acceptable!

Quote:
...but I only want him to make us a generic street scene like those he has made for other people's plays before. He's an artist. That's his job. That's what he does. It's just a generic street scene. Why won't you make him provide us a generic street scene?! Hey, that's not fair! Waaah!

Because although you are perfectly free to put on your disgustingly vile play, assuming you were somehow even able to find a venue for it, I still don't want to be associated with it! ...not to mention, I believe your actors suck so badly that that their mere presence on the stage before my wonderful stage art would defile it!

So, if you feel you must have a street scene for your play, then, I would suggest you hit the streets! ...and/or look for a crap artist who doesn't mind being associated with disgustingly repulsive work such as yours.

If you people really do have no shame, though, and an appeal to common decency can't even stop you, why don't you just ask that Kirk Cameron fellow if he knows somebody who could do your scenery for you? He does a lot of crap work like yours!

...lol
What in the blue hell are you babbling about?
__________________
<Roar!>
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 12th July 2017, 09:29 AM   #303
Shepherd
Thinker
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 182
There's a box of rotten tomatoes at the door for those who don't get it. ...lol.
Shepherd 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 12th July 2017, 09:37 AM   #304
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Originally Posted by Shepherd View Post
There's a box of rotten tomatoes at the door for those who don't get it. ...lol.
"If you don't get it, I won't explain it to you", given that "if you do get it, I won't explain it to you", is pretty stupid.
__________________
<Roar!>
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 12th July 2017, 09:52 AM   #305
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,518
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yesterday we discussed this and you were saying that you'd rather have a list of reasons than a list of protected classes, but here you argue that the crucial difference is the class. I'm a bit confused here.
Your confusion is why it'd be much easier if we only had a list of reasons to refuse service. But we don't. We have that and a list of reasons you can't refuse service to particular someones, with a complicated, ambiguous and at times contradictory interface between the two. It'd be nice if we could simplify things, but we can't, so at least for now we have to deal with the issues at hand.

The crucial difference is not the class of customer, but the implicit invalidation of the stated reason to refuse service. The tattoo artist routinely provides the service to everyone else, so the service itself can't be objectionable. Which leaves discrimination based on the customer. In our current legal structure, even that is okay, unless the category being discriminated against falls into a certain set of protected classes, in order to stop exactly this sort of chicanery. It's ridiculous and unnecessarily complicated compared to the more intuitive sentiment of "you need a good reason to refuse service to someone," but that's how it is.
Beelzebuddy 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 12th July 2017, 10:08 AM   #306
ahhell
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 458
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
I still don't get what makes decorating a cake "expression" to a degree beyond any other service job.

The "Sandwich artist" at Subway can't refuse to my my 6" cold cut trio with mayo because he doesn't agree with the flavor profile that would make.

Just because there's a visual artistic expression to decorating cake doesn't make it special. It's still just a service that is being paid for by a customer.
Trivial side note but he totally could. He'd get fired but if Subway decided it was the wrong flavor profile they could refuse to sell a 6" cold cut trio with mayo. It would be bad business but they could do it. Example, go try and get a rare burger at McDonalds.

Last edited by ahhell; 12th July 2017 at 10:09 AM.
ahhell 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 12th July 2017, 10:23 AM   #307
paulhutch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Blackstone River Valley, MA
Posts: 1,912
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
while also offering to sell any standard cake on display or in the catalog, can you?
This would probably not make the owner of masterpiece bakery completely happy. He went on the record at his court appearance acknowledging that he refused to sell cup cakes to a previous couple when they asked for cup cakes after having been refused a wedding 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 12th July 2017, 11:52 AM   #308
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by paulhutch View Post
This would probably not make the owner of masterpiece bakery completely happy. He went on the record at his court appearance acknowledging that he refused to sell cup cakes to a previous couple when they asked for cup cakes after having been refused a wedding cake.
I haven't read that. However, I have read that he would have offered any of his standard cakes, just not a custom cake, through his attorneys. Take that with however many grains of salt you feel appropriate. (I have no idea of the cup cakes were supposed to be custom/unique cakes either)
__________________
"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 12th July 2017, 12:19 PM   #309
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I don't know. The list for the former seems a lot longer than that of the latter. I think the simple principle is whether the discrimination is based on justified or unjustified characteristics.
The problem is that this is how we got here. For many states "because he's colored" was a completely justified characteristic for discrimination.

Its exclusion had to be made explicit.
__________________
"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 12th July 2017, 12:25 PM   #310
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,185
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
The problem is that this is how we got here. For many states "because he's colored" was a completely justified characteristic for discrimination.

Its exclusion had to be made explicit.
Yeah but that's because most people didn't think it was justified.
__________________
<Roar!>
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 12th July 2017, 12:30 PM   #311
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,518
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
I haven't read that. However, I have read that he would have offered any of his standard cakes, just not a custom cake, through his attorneys. Take that with however many grains of salt you feel appropriate. (I have no idea of the cup cakes were supposed to be custom/unique cakes either)
Here you go: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...-and-craig.pdf

It's pretty much only their lawyer talking about a "custom" cake, for legal reasons I mention above. The court proceeding make it very clear that he's refusing to bake any cake.

I know we're supposed to only quote the most relevant bits so it doesn't go on too long but dang, legalese and pith just don't go together, so spoilered for length:
Originally Posted by page 39, search for "conversation"
The Charging Party states that on or about
July 19, 2012, he visited the Respondent’s place of
business for the purpose of ordering a wedding cake
with his significant other, David Mullins (“Mullins”),
and his mother Deborah Munn (“Munn”). The
Charging Party and his partner planned to travel to
Massachusetts to marry and intended to have a
wedding reception in Denver upon their return. The
Charging Party and his significant other were
attended to by the Respondent’s Owner, Jack Phillips
(“Phillips”). The Charging Party asserts that while
viewing photos of the available wedding cakes, he
informed the owner that the cake was for him and
his significant other. The Charging Party states that
in response, Phillips replied that his standard
business practice is to deny service to same-sex
couples based on his religious beliefs. The Charging
Party states that based on Phillips response and
refusal to provide service, the group left the
Respondent’s place of business.
(so no, a cake from the book wouldn't have been acceptable)

Originally Posted by page 40, search for "conversation"
In an affidavit provided by the Charging Party
during the Division’s investigation, Stephanie
Schmalz (‘‘S. Schmalz”) states that on January 16,
2012, she and her partner Jeanine Schmalz (“J.
Schmalz”) visited the Respondent’s place of business
to purchase cupcakes for their family commitment
ceremony. S. Schmalz states that when she
confirmed that the cupcakes were to be part of a
celebration for her and her partner, the Respondent’s
female representative stated that she would not be
able to place the order because “the Respondent had
a policy of not selling baked goods to same-sex
couples for this type of event.” Following her
departure from the Respondent’s place of business, S.
Schmalz telephoned the Respondent to clarify its
policies. During this telephone conversation, S.
Schmalz learned that the female representative was
an owner of the business and that it was the
Respondent’s stated policy not to provide cakes or
other baked goods to same-sex couples for wedding-type
celebrations.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 12th July 2017 at 12:40 PM.
Beelzebuddy 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 12th July 2017, 12:31 PM   #312
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,689
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
... I can't think of any compelling reason why a baker should be forced to create whatever custom cake his/her customers want, while also offering to sell any standard cake on display or in the catalog, can you?
Indeed I can. Civil law is supreme in civil society, at least, it was, until Hobby Lobby. It was the basis, for example, for outlawing polygamy, essentially overruling a religious practice. Google and wiki lead to other cases. If civil law is not supreme, then what you have is no law. Consider the effect of one simply founding religions to make any given law(s) inapplicable, or of contradictory teachings (silent contemplation vs "you and your damn church bells/loudspeakers"). Keywords: arbitrary and capricious. They are also the terms historians will use for US social and political thought in the early 21st.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes 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 12th July 2017, 12:41 PM   #313
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,744
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Here you go: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...-and-craig.pdf

It's pretty much only their lawyer talking about a "custom" cake, for legal reasons I mention above. The court proceeding make it very clear that he's refusing to bake any cake.
This matches my understanding and why I voiced concern above about generalization.

The defendant's objection is not about expression, but rather, seeking a ruling supporting their hope that a religious belief should either circumvent legal protection of a class (sexual orientation in this case, but race or religion are in the original version of the Act), or that the Act should be revoked.
__________________
"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 12th July 2017, 01:16 PM   #314
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Here you go: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...-and-craig.pdf

It's pretty much only their lawyer talking about a "custom" cake, for legal reasons I mention above. The court proceeding make it very clear that he's refusing to bake any cake.

I know we're supposed to only quote the most relevant bits so it doesn't go on too long but dang, legalese and pith just don't go together, so spoilered for length:

(so no, a cake from the book wouldn't have been acceptable)


Still not seeing any confirmation about whether this was for an already produced item or a custom item. Looking at photos of his shop, however, he has very few already made items for sale. There are cupcakes, but it looks like he has maybe a dozen or two. If that couple wanted more, for a future event, it's likely to fall under the same legal theory as the wedding cake.
__________________
"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 12th July 2017, 01:18 PM   #315
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Indeed I can. Civil law is supreme in civil society, at least, it was, until Hobby Lobby. It was the basis, for example, for outlawing polygamy, essentially overruling a religious practice. Google and wiki lead to other cases. If civil law is not supreme, then what you have is no law. Consider the effect of one simply founding religions to make any given law(s) inapplicable, or of contradictory teachings (silent contemplation vs "you and your damn church bells/loudspeakers"). Keywords: arbitrary and capricious. They are also the terms historians will use for US social and political thought in the early 21st.
That's not what I was asking.
__________________
"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 12th July 2017, 01:24 PM   #316
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 39,292
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
Still not seeing any confirmation about whether this was for an already produced item or a custom item. Looking at photos of his shop, however, he has very few already made items for sale. There are cupcakes, but it looks like he has maybe a dozen or two. If that couple wanted more, for a future event, it's likely to fall under the same legal theory as the wedding cake.
Wait I thought if it was a made to order item and not a truly custom item then the baker is in the wrong. Now doing anything for an individual order is enough to count as it being custom. So which is it?
__________________
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 12th July 2017, 01:39 PM   #317
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,518
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Wait I thought if it was a made to order item and not a truly custom item then the baker is in the wrong. Now doing anything for an individual order is enough to count as it being custom. So which is it?
Reading their briefs (all of these documents are available here), it looks like they're trying to claim that baking even the most generic, nondescript cake is still a "customized work of expression" and that all of this focus on not having any messages or symbols on the cake is beside the point.

Quote:
Moreover, forcing Phillips to create a
“nondescript” custom wedding cake for a same-sex
couple, C&M 3; Colorado 6, would still compel him to
speak a well-defined (unconscionable) message, which
is “that a wedding has occurred, a marriage has
begun, and the couple should be celebrated,” App.
280a.
In other words they're trying to standardize the cake and customize it too.

[ETA] Oh I /quoted too soon, you gotta read the rest of this

Quote:
...Phillips tailors that message to each “specific
couple” through an artistic design process that
includes an in-depth “consultation with the
customer(s) in order to get to know their desires, their
personalities, their personal preferences and learn
about their wedding ceremony and celebration.” App.
278-79a. Only then is he able to “sketch out the cake
on paper,” “bake a sheet cake and then sculpt the
desired shape or design,” mix “the desired colors for
frosting and decorations,” “actually create[] the cake
itself and decorat[e] it” through painting and other
artistry, and then determine which “symbolic items”
to place “on the top.” App. 278-80a.
I wonder if one of the "photos of the available wedding cakes" the gay couple flipped through had a tiny violin?

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 12th July 2017 at 01:44 PM.
Beelzebuddy 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 12th July 2017, 01:56 PM   #318
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Wait I thought if it was a made to order item and not a truly custom item then the baker is in the wrong. Now doing anything for an individual order is enough to count as it being custom. So which is it?
It's the one where you try to read things for comprehension and not try to form straw men.
__________________
"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 12th July 2017, 02:06 PM   #319
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,518
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
It's the one where you try to read things for comprehension and not try to form straw men.
If someone doesn't understand you, the fault's at least half yours for not explaining properly the first time.
Beelzebuddy 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 12th July 2017, 02:12 PM   #320
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
If someone doesn't understand you, the fault's at least half yours for not explaining properly the first time.
********. ponderingturtle has already done this multiple times in this thread. He wants to play the bickering game. I choose not to.
__________________
"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
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 03:22 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.