SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Cow Poke]

Civil rights do not encompass hate speech.

First amendment rights do.

[rogue06]

Taking a stand against who someone is (e.g., black, gay, female, short, disabled) is not the same as taking a stand against what someone believes (e.g., Christian, xenophobe, climate denier/supporter, etc.).

So, at least according to you, it is perfectly alright to discriminate against anyone who believes in gay marriage. Got it.

[Littlejoe]

Yes...they are. You may not see it in those terms...but "who we are" (in this context) is something we are genetically coded to be, or physically are. What we believe is not. No one is genetically programmed to have one religious belief or another. We are genetically coded to be white, black, female, male, short, tall, congenitally disabled, etc. We can also be physically disabled by injury in some fashion. All of these are immutable parts of who we are and should not, cannot, be permitted to be the basis for discrimination or prejudice in society.

Religious belief is not an immutable. The claim "I am right" does not confer on the speaker immunity from consequences for their choices.

Infidels...?

I'm sorry, but, there is no way you can possibly know whether or a propensity for religious belief is genetically coded or not.

[Cow Poke]

[Yttrium]

Now I'm curious as to what would happen in the following situation:

A black and white couple in Colorado go to a baker to get a wedding cake. The baker is religiously opposed to interracial marriages, and refuses to make a cake for them. The couple takes it to court, claiming racial discrimination. What happens?

[Cow Poke]

Now I'm curious as to what would happen in the following situation:

A black and white couple in Colorado go to a baker to get a wedding cake. The baker is religiously opposed to interracial marriages, and refuses to make a cake for them. The couple takes it to court, claiming racial discrimination. What happens?

For me, personally, that would be difficult to defend, as there is no biblical basis for being against inter-racial marriages. In fact, in Numbers 12, "Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman". (Cush was in Africa, south of Ethiopia, as I recall) God called them to task.

[JimL]

Now I'm curious as to what would happen in the following situation:

A black and white couple in Colorado go to a baker to get a wedding cake. The baker is religiously opposed to interracial marriages, and refuses to make a cake for them. The couple takes it to court, claiming racial discrimination. What happens?

The interacial couple wins their discrimination suit and the baker pays the damages.

[JimL]

For me, personally, that would be difficult to defend, as there is no biblical basis for being against inter-racial marriages. In fact, in Numbers 12, "Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman". (Cush was in Africa, south of Ethiopia, as I recall) God called them to task.

But this question is concerning the bakers religious beliefs, not yours.

[Cow Poke]

But this question is concerning the bakers religious beliefs, not yours.

I'm well aware of that, Jim, I was giving my opinion.

Which is why I said...

For me, personally,...

[JimL]

I'm well aware of that, Jim, I was giving my opinion.

Which is why I said...

Sure, but answering for you personally is an obfuscation and doesn't answer the question posed.

[Cow Poke]

Sure, but answering for you personally is an obfuscation and doesn't answer the question posed.

I've missed seeing you around, Jim, but I really don't miss the combative nonsense we've been engaged in. I'm glad to see you back, but there's no need to pick fights where there are none.

I offered my opinion, such as it is, and I'm still thinking on this.

There's no "obfuscation", I merely expressed my opinion, which I'm free to do, OK?

[Yttrium]

The interacial couple wins their discrimination suit and the baker pays the damages.

That's been my impression, and I assume that this kind of thing has been held up in court. So there would be precedent for denying a religious argument in the case of discrimination.

So I would think that if the gay rights case hadn't been thrown out on a technicality, the justices would have ruled against the baker. And I don't see how it could be a close vote.

[thewriteranon]

That's been my impression, and I assume that this kind of thing has been held up in court. So there would be precedent for denying a religious argument in the case of discrimination.

So I would think that if the gay rights case hadn't been thrown out on a technicality, the justices would have ruled against the baker. And I don't see how it could be a close vote.

Not all discrimination. A racial discrimination case has a number of federal statutes backing it up as precedent, but, e.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect sexual orientation, only "race, color, religion, national origin, or sex." Even such statutes have sometimes complicated exceptions, not normally applying to general businesses (as opposed to, e.g., churches or religious schools) though sometimes with a "private club" exception. It's actually a lot more complicated, which is why about 1/3-1/2 of my property exam was on such kind of laws...

There's also the fact that the case was built on a number of claims, including one about artistic expression. Masterpiece cited Hurley, which was a case in which the Court unanimously ruled that a St. Patrick's parade did not have to include an LGBT float. A large part of the back and forth has been about whether cake decorating is sufficiently analogous.

[Littlejoe]

Now I'm curious as to what would happen in the following situation:

A black and white couple in Colorado go to a baker to get a wedding cake. The baker is religiously opposed to interracial marriages, and refuses to make a cake for them. The couple takes it to court, claiming racial discrimination. What happens?

I'd say the chances are greater that the baker would lose...but I think it would be wrong for that to happen. I don't know of any religions (not that I've done ANY research on it) that is opposed to interracial marriages. I also am not opposed to interracial marriage because as CP pointed out, Moses married a Cushite woman who most believe was a black woman. Miriam Moses sister was struck with leprosy when she opposed it.

I for one, believe an owner of a business has a right to serve or not serve anyone he wishes to. If he wants to be stupid enough to turn down business for any reason he deems fit, then he most likely will go out of business. I would not patronize his business, and I imagine many would not. But, I don't think it's the Gov'ts job to force him to comply. I think this is especially true with a commissioned product such as a specialty item such as a cake etc.

Let me ask an alternate hypothetical:

A heterosexual couple go into a bakery owned and run by an Gay person and ask for a wedding cake. The gay baker says: "I only make gay marriage cakes, I do not make hetero wedding cakes for religious reasons". Should he be allowed decline that commission or be forced to make it? If the hetero couple sues, what happens?

IMO, he should ALSO be able to refuse to be forced to do a commissioned work for something he does not believe in.

[DesertBerean]

I'd say the chances are greater that the baker would lose...but I think it would be wrong for that to happen. I don't know of any religions (not that I've done ANY research on it) that is opposed to interracial marriages. I also am not opposed to interracial marriage because as CP pointed out, Moses married a Cushite woman who most believe was a black woman. Miriam Moses sister was struck with leprosy when she opposed it.

I for one, believe an owner of a business has a right to serve or not serve anyone he wishes to. If he wants to be stupid enough to turn down business for any reason he deems fit, then he most likely will go out of business. I would not patronize his business, and I imagine many would not. But, I don't think it's the Gov'ts job to force him to comply. I think this is especially true with a commissioned product such as a specialty item such as a cake etc.

Let me ask an alternate hypothetical:

A heterosexual couple go into a bakery owned and run by an Gay person and ask for a wedding cake. The gay baker says: "I only make gay marriage cakes, I do not make hetero wedding cakes for religious reasons". Should he be allowed decline that commission or be forced to make it? If the hetero couple sues, what happens?

IMO, he should ALSO be able to refuse to be forced to do a commissioned work for something he does not believe in.

The only thing I would question is what religious reason he could cite for that claim. Is there a recognized religious prohibition or is it a sincerely held belief? That's the sticking point I think. I believe the Baker won his point because he was CONSISTENT in his practice whereas the Commission showed themselves hypocrites.