Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    Yes, they exist. And yeah their interpretations of the Bible are as bad as those who based anti-miscegenation laws on the Bible.
    This is your opinion, other equally sincere Christians disagree. As I’ve said before, there can be no way to resolve conflicting biblical interpretations about moral issues when some Christians hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive to those held by other Christians.

    No, they can't. That's not what I claimed. People can claim the Bible supports a variety of different ideas, and while its true a particular reading of the Bible cannot be approached entirely independently of the zeitgeist of the reader, none the less there are good principles of exegesis that can be applied. So its true you can find small cults who believe the Bible teaches reincarnation, if you want to find someone who makes that claim. But if you examine the Bible, and take into account why, where and who wrote it, then its clear that it doesn't.
    And yet for several centuries in America it was applied to proscribe miscegenation marriage and relationships...not by some “small cult” but by a majority of Americans (in the southern states in particular). Many still do oppose it in their hearts as we heard after the Charlottesville march.

    No doubt, and that was a crime against humanity, however it was also Christians who argued that such a use of scripture was illicit. People were trying to justify what their cultural by the Bible, rather than conforming them.
    Some say the same of a rigid and literal interpretation of passages against homosexual relationships.

    Of course not, he is producing a good to be supplied to the public. A service like that can't be withheld because of the customer.
    Agreed regarding bakers opposed to miscegenation marriages! But you say the same doesn't apply to wedding cakes for gay couples. And yet they are both claiming to object according to "deeply held religious beliefs".

    However, the same does not apply to artistic freedom. A Christian tested the fairness of how these laws were applied by asking a gay baker to bake a cake with scripture quote on it, just the name of a book and the numbers of the verse. That's all. The baker refused, and argued 'artistic freedom' considering decorating a cake with calligraphy to convey a message was a work of art. An artist has the freedom to refuse a commission for various personal reasons.

    And even more ironically, some of these bakers also started using exactly the same arguments as the Christians did, "I'm willing to bake them a normal blank cake, and then give them the supplies so they can decorate and write the messages themselves."

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/th...iage-cake.-now

    So here its pretty clear that some people in the LGBTQ wants legal muscle to do things and harass Christians, without themselves being subject to the same kind of limitations. In this case I side with religious freedom to refuse to produce artistic works that are fundementally against your own values, and by the linked to examples, so are the LGBTQ, they want the same laws we Christians are going for, but I don't think they should get a special immunity from them themselves. If they get to refuse creative works, so should Christians.
    Specious argument and invalid! The same service (including artwork) should be supplied to all customers...Evangelical and gay and miscegenation couples alike.

    Except the baker, as I heard it at least, didn't refuse to bake a cake for them. But it would not be decorated, they'd have to do that himself.
    In short he was not providing the same full service as that provided to other customers, which is discrimination and thus contrary to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      This is your opinion, other equally sincere Christians disagree.
      At best that's a truism Tassman, I can say the same thing about any single belief you have in a similar fashion. If you believe racism is wrong, I can find you atheists who explicitly and loudly say the opposite, same with homosexuality, same with abortion, with all sorts of issues really. I can find you tons and tons of atheists who think Donald Trump is the best thing that happened to the US.

      It doesn't matter if some other group disagree with me, that does not invalidate what I say.

      Homosexuality is considered sinful according to the Bible. I respect those Christians who agree with that, but for personal reasons can't make themselves believe it. They would at least show intellectual integrity, even if their lives wouldn't conform to that.

      But the arguments for reading those passages as supporting homosexual unions, or for only being about temple prostitution are often very strained and poor. You're free to offer them, defend them, but if you're not going to, then I don't see the point you mentioning the opinions of others in this context Tassman.

      As I’ve said before, there can be no way to resolve conflicting biblical interpretations about moral issues when some Christians hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive to those held by other Christians.
      That would depend on why they hold them. Is it through sound biblical exegesis? If the beliefs are based upon that, then we can proceed with a discussion. If we're taking the Bible serious, then we have a foundation to talk about what sorts of beliefs can be derived. If however they're nominally Christian, and simply reinterpret the Bible to fit secular beliefs, then that can be pointed out and a discussion can be had about those things.

      You start with why. It isn't that hard.

      And yet for several centuries in America it was applied to proscribe miscegenation marriage and relationships...not by some “small cult” but by a majority of Americans (in the southern states in particular).
      And it was Christians who later argued that they were wrong. You appear to be having trouble acknowledging that. And now virtually no Christians believe miscegenation is a sin.

      Many still do oppose it in their hearts as we heard after the Charlottesville march.
      You think the majority of the alt-right are Christian?

      Oh good grief. I hate to break it to you, but the majority of the alt-right are atheists, some of them are spiritual, some of them like viking stuff, but most of them are atheists. You really need to get out more Tassman. At the best they think Christianity, and its symbols, is important to Europe and the West as an identity, but these aren't god fearing folk.

      Or if they are, we'll have to accept that there can be atheistic christians.

      Some say the same of a rigid and literal interpretation of passages against homosexual relationships.

      Agreed regarding bakers opposed to miscegenation marriages! But you say the same doesn't apply to wedding cakes for gay couples.
      Looks like you didn't read very carefully then.

      Specious argument and invalid! The same service (including artwork) should be supplied to all customers...
      That is precisely what is under contention, do artists have a freedom to say no to commissions for personal reasons? And it would appear that they have. The question is then whether calligraphic decorations can be considered art. If they can, then of course the baker can object. If not, then the gay baker can't object either.

      In short he was not providing the same full service as that provided to other customers, which is discrimination and thus contrary to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
      He was willing to sell a wedding cake, but whether he artistically would decorate it according to the customers wishes appears to be something he can say no to.

      Its really very simple here. And I side with the baker 100%, and I know others who do so as well, including a gay in a loving relationship.
      Last edited by Leonhard; 07-12-2018, 05:51 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
        Which I wasn't discussing. Yes, that may have been the general purpose of the thread, but I was responding to your sub-claim that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional to begin with, and that Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States (which upheld it) was therefore wrong. I did not believe your claim was correct.
        Yet you agreed that if a hotel or restaurant did not accept out of state customers then the Commerce clause would not apply. Refusing those customers would be perfectly legal. In other words there is nothing actually in the Constitution that would prevent denial of services. And there is nothing actually in the Constitution that would compel one man to serve another man.

        Indeed, unless I missed something, in no part of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Masterpiece Cake Shop decision is it ever indicated by any justice that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act is itself unconstitutional, not even in the concurrences by Gorsuch (joined by Alito) or Thomas (joined by Gorsuch). Their criticisms are all aimed at applications of it; no suggestion is ever made that the law itself should be struck down. For example, the law says it is unlawful to "directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of... sexual orientation... the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation." Gorsuch's concurrence (in my view, correctly) argued that this is not what happened as service was refused due to the nature of the product itself being ordered, not the sexual orientation (or any other aspect) of the customer themselves. This would mean the law, at least as written, does not apply to begin with, and the issue is the application rather than the law itself.
        Let me as you Terraceth, there is another case winding its way through the courts. A Christian woman, photographer, refused to photograph a homosexual wedding. Should she be forced by law to violate her beliefs and provide that service? Of face fines and possibly jail time?
        Last edited by seer; 07-12-2018, 07:18 AM.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          You haven’t addressed my question: Could an anti-miscegenation baker cite “free exercise of religion” and "deeply held beliefs" for refusing to make a wedding cake for a racially mixed couple? Would he be right to do so?
          I'll answer differently from Leonhard. As I argued earlier, everyone has the human right to withhold consent for any or for no reason. So, yes, I'd say the baker could cite those reasons or no reasons at all.
          As for your second question: "Would he be right to do so?" I think the answer is clearly no. That would be a rather uncharitable thing to do.
          By saying he has the right to do so doesn't mean doing so is good. It only means that it is also wrong to force it upon him (e.g. by force of law). And the latter is wrong for the same reason that rape and theft are wrong (i.e., absence of consent).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Joel View Post
            I'll answer differently from Leonhard. As I argued earlier, everyone has the human right to withhold consent for any or for no reason. So, yes, I'd say the baker could cite those reasons or no reasons at all.
            As for your second question: "Would he be right to do so?" I think the answer is clearly no. That would be a rather uncharitable thing to do.
            By saying he has the right to do so doesn't mean doing so is good. It only means that it is also wrong to force it upon him (e.g. by force of law). And the latter is wrong for the same reason that rape and theft are wrong (i.e., absence of consent).
            You make, intended or not, an interesting point - that the ordering of a wedding cake is, essentially, a contract, either party of which has the option to decline.
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Yet you agreed that if a hotel or restaurant did not accept out of state customers then the Commerce clause would not apply. Refusing those customers would be perfectly legal. In other words there is nothing actually in the Constitution that would prevent denial of services. And there is nothing actually in the Constitution that would compel one man to serve another man.
              There are two issues here. The first is whether the requirements put upon the businesses in Title II of the Civil Rights Act violate anything in the constitution. The answer, according to the various precedents I cited, seems to clearly be no, that it does not violate anything in the constitution. That decided, the next question becomes if the federal government has the power to enact the legislation (something can be otherwise constitutional but if it does not fall within congresses's assigned powers, it cannot be enacted by the federal government). The claimed justification was the Commerce Clause, and it had the power to enact the legislation due to the federal government having the ability to regulate commerce among the states.

              You object that using the Commerce Clause as justification doesn't work, because it would mean that a restaurant that refuses out of state customers should be exempt from it. Which would be a more reasonable objection if not for the fact this is explicitly covered by the law, as it limits itself to businesses that can be reasonably assumed to be affecting interstate commerce. For example, for places engaged in selling food, the law only applies if "it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce [i.e. taken from another state]." Thus, the law puts restrictions on itself in accordance with the Commerce Clause, negating your objection.

              Let me as you Terraceth, there is another case winding its way through the courts. A Christian woman, photographer, refused to photograph a homosexual wedding. Should she be forced by law to violate her beliefs and provide that service? Of face fines and possibly jail time?
              Not being sufficiently familiar with the specific facts of the case, I will decline to comment. I will note, however, that whatever the answer to these questions are, they have no bearing on the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                At best that's a truism Tassman, I can say the same thing about any single belief you have in a similar fashion. If you believe racism is wrong, I can find you atheists who explicitly and loudly say the opposite, same with homosexuality, same with abortion, with all sorts of issues really. I can find you tons and tons of atheists who think Donald Trump is the best thing that happened to the US.

                It doesn't matter if some other group disagree with me, that does not invalidate what I say.

                Homosexuality is considered sinful according to the Bible. I respect those Christians who agree with that, but for personal reasons can't make themselves believe it. They would at least show intellectual integrity, even if their lives wouldn't conform to that.

                But the arguments for reading those passages as supporting homosexual unions, or for only being about temple prostitution are often very strained and poor. You're free to offer them, defend them, but if you're not going to, then I don't see the point you mentioning the opinions of others in this context Tassman.



                That would depend on why they hold them. Is it through sound biblical exegesis? If the beliefs are based upon that, then we can proceed with a discussion. If we're taking the Bible serious, then we have a foundation to talk about what sorts of beliefs can be derived. If however they're nominally Christian, and simply reinterpret the Bible to fit secular beliefs, then that can be pointed out and a discussion can be had about those things.

                You start with why. It isn't that hard.



                And it was Christians who later argued that they were wrong. You appear to be having trouble acknowledging that. And now virtually no Christians believe miscegenation is a sin.



                You think the majority of the alt-right are Christian?

                Oh good grief. I hate to break it to you, but the majority of the alt-right are atheists, some of them are spiritual, some of them like viking stuff, but most of them are atheists. You really need to get out more Tassman. At the best they think Christianity, and its symbols, is important to Europe and the West as an identity, but these aren't god fearing folk.

                Or if they are, we'll have to accept that there can be atheistic christians.

                Some say the same of a rigid and literal interpretation of passages against homosexual relationships.



                Looks like you didn't read very carefully then.



                That is precisely what is under contention, do artists have a freedom to say no to commissions for personal reasons? And it would appear that they have. The question is then whether calligraphic decorations can be considered art. If they can, then of course the baker can object. If not, then the gay baker can't object either.



                He was willing to sell a wedding cake, but whether he artistically would decorate it according to the customers wishes appears to be something he can say no to.

                Its really very simple here. And I side with the baker 100%, and I know others who do so as well, including a gay in a loving relationship.
                I’ve already made I clear that as an atheist I’m not interested in who’s got it theologically right in this discussion. I’m merely making the point that there are many contradictory views espoused by Christians on the issue of homosexuality and crackpot beliefs such as opposition to mixed marriages or Jews as Christ-killers etc. All claim, rightly or wrongly, to have biblical support for their views. By your argument they all have a right to refuse service to certain customers on the basis of these “deeply held religious beliefs”. My argument is that none have that right according to The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin.
                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Leonhard
                  By your argument they all have a right to refuse service to certain customers on the basis of these “deeply held religious beliefs”.
                  That's a strawman Tassman, because I didn't claim that they could refuse any service. We come back to artistic license. Some gay t-shirt makers have been comissioned to make t-shirts with biblical slogans on them supporting marriage, and have refused, and apparently that was okay. But a baker, who again, didn't mind selling them the wedding cake (but would give them the means to decorate it themselves), is in the wrong?

                  Clearly matters that cover artistic license should be given freedom.

                  And yes if there's an anti-miscegenation t-shirt maker out there who are against making t-shirts with various slogans, let him have the freedom to deny his service of designing logos and t-shirts supporting those things. Let his business suffer because of that.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    That's a strawman Tassman, because I didn't claim that they could refuse any service. We come back to artistic license. Some gay t-shirt makers have been comissioned to make t-shirts with biblical slogans on them supporting marriage, and have refused, and apparently that was okay. But a baker, who again, didn't mind selling them the wedding cake (but would give them the means to decorate it themselves), is in the wrong?

                    Clearly matters that cover artistic license should be given freedom.

                    And yes if there's an anti-miscegenation t-shirt maker out there who are against making t-shirts with various slogans, let him have the freedom to deny his service of designing logos and t-shirts supporting those things. Let his business suffer because of that.
                    The topic is the right of cake makers to refuse making wedding cakes for gay weddings on the basis that it violates their religious beliefs. In so doing they are discriminating against some customers on the basis of their religious beliefs in violation of the Civil Rights Act. There is no distinctive artistic license involved that does not equally apply to cakes for heterosexual weddings.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      The topic is the right of cake makers to refuse making wedding cakes for gay weddings on the basis that it violates their religious beliefs. In so doing they are discriminating against some customers on the basis of their religious beliefs in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
                      You're repeating yourself Tassman.

                      The question remains whether the decoration of the cake with a particular message constitutes an artistic commission. If it does, then I believe they should have the right to say no to such a commission.

                      If it doesn't then neither can feminist artists say no to commission for pro-life slogans (expected to be done to the same level of standard and care as their other works), nor can t-shirt makers say no to printing t-shirts with Christian slogans (which has happened), etc... Either customers get the right to have their way, or the artists get the right to say no.

                      This is a zero-sum game, and I'm on the side of freedom of choice here.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post

                        The question remains whether the decoration of the cake with a particular message constitutes an artistic commission. If it does, then I believe they should have the right to say no to such a commission.
                        It constitutes a decorated wedding cake, no more than that.

                        This is a zero-sum game, and I'm on the side of freedom of choice here.
                        You mean as opposed to outlawing discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin...as per the Civil Rights Act.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          You're repeating yourself Tassman.

                          The question remains whether the decoration of the cake with a particular message constitutes an artistic commission. If it does, then I believe they should have the right to say no to such a commission.

                          If it doesn't then neither can feminist artists say no to commission for pro-life slogans (expected to be done to the same level of standard and care as their other works), nor can t-shirt makers say no to printing t-shirts with Christian slogans (which has happened), etc... Either customers get the right to have their way, or the artists get the right to say no.

                          This is a zero-sum game, and I'm on the side of freedom of choice here.
                          This is where Tassy digs in his heels and just keeps repeating himself because he has nothing else and is too stubborn to admit he is wrong.

                          He thinks if he repeats himself long enough, you will get tired and go away and he can claim some sort of victory by outlasting you.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            This is where Tassy digs in his heels and just keeps repeating himself because he has nothing else and is too stubborn to admit he is wrong.

                            He thinks if he repeats himself long enough, you will get tired and go away and he can claim some sort of victory by outlasting you.
                            This is where Sparko resorts to personal denigration instead of contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              It constitutes a decorated wedding cake, no more than that.
                              I'll disagree with that and advocate for the bakers and florists case. You're free to disagree with me.

                              You mean as opposed to outlawing discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin...as per the Civil Rights Act.
                              Comparing apples to oranges here.

                              Nice talking with you, since I don't expect any further development in this argument I'm bowing out.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                This is where Tassy digs in his heels and just keeps repeating himself because he has nothing else and is too stubborn to admit he is wrong.
                                Eh, its his job to make a convincing case, if he can't, he can't, if he can that's interesting. I definitely have no further interest in this conversation.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                72 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X