SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Sparko]

You outright declared earlier that beliefs are not protected when you asserted that "If they are being excluded because of their beliefs - that's “free speech”," so it should be okay to discriminate against anyone who believes that gay marriage is okay regardless of whether they are gay themselves.

That's kind of what i just said in my last post. Genetics might determine sexual orientation but that doesn't determine what they believe about marriage or sex. There are "gay" people who live their entire lives as heterosexuals. And there are heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts. There are gay people who believe gay marriage is OK and there are heterosexual people who believe gay marriage is OK. There are gay people who think gay marriage is wrong just like heterosexual people who think gay marriage is wrong.

The baker believed that gay marriage was wrong because of his religion. He made cakes for gay people for other occasions so he wasn't against gay people. And the supreme court agreed with him, so why is carp still arguing about it?

[oxmixmudd]

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?

Assuming there is some legitimate religion in the world where that is a core moral teaching, they should go to a different bakery (and tell all their friends so they can boycott that fellows bakery). He should not have to create what violates his conscience. That said, there is nothing anywhere that says patrons have to buy cakes from a fellow that believes that way.

However, back to reality, the most likely case is he is just making it up, and it's a case of discrimination.


Jim

[Sparko]

Assuming there is some legitimate religion in the world where that is a core moral teaching, they should go to a different bakery (and tell all their friends so they can boycott that fellows bakery). He should not have to create what violates his conscience. That said, there is nothing anywhere that says patrons have to buy cakes from a fellow that believes that way.

However, back to reality, the most likely case is he is just making it up, and it's a case of discrimination.


Jim

Yeah I don't get the obsession with trying to force someone who you think dislikes you to serve you.

My brother is a police officer. There are some places that welcome him and a few that have told him that they don't serve cops (a local restaurant) so guess what? He and the other police don't go there. The place has actually gotten robbed because people know cops don't go there.
He told me that he wouldn't go into that store even if he was not in uniform. Because he has no respect for them, and if they recognized him he is afraid they would tamper with his food. But he said if they were being robbed he would respond and do his duty.

One of the reasons a lot of businesses actually have police discounts is because they want police hanging around to discourage crime. A local Thornton's minimart where I stop regularly always has a cop car parked in the lot when I go by. Apparently they give out free food and stuff to cops at that location. I bet it keeps down robberies.

I say let businesses serve who they want. Even if it is discriminatory. 70 years ago, it would mean that minorities would suffer and not get services, but in today's society, it would backfire on the business big time. They would have to close down because of the boycotts and protests.

[Yttrium]

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...

However, the lack of a federal protection doesn't prevent a state protection. The Colorado Law applies in this case. It's up to the Supreme Court to determine whether that law is properly applied and constitutional. I haven't seen anything yet that would suggest it isn't properly applied and constitutional.

I don't know of any religions (not that I've done ANY research on it) that is opposed to interracial marriages.

I've met a few Christians who believed it violated their version of Christianity, although that was a long time ago. I don't know what their justification was.

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.

I'm sympathetic to both sides. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of forcing the baker to make a cake he doesn't want to make. On the other, I don't like the idea of the couple not being able to get a professional cake made because of discrimination.

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?

In Colorado, I would assume that he should be forced to make it. For other places, it would depend on the local laws. Personally, since I sympathize with both sides, I'll go with the law for now.

[thewriteranon]

However, the lack of a federal protection doesn't prevent a state protection. The Colorado Law applies in this case. It's up to the Supreme Court to determine whether that law is properly applied and constitutional. I haven't seen anything yet that would suggest it isn't properly applied and constitutional.

I was just pointing out that the analogy doesn't hold well considering the robust statutory precedent for racial discrimination cases. Even with a state precedent, it is complicated. The constitutional question here wasn't entirely about right of association, but also included rights of speech and expression, which tend to have a higher rate of protection in case law.

Also, I just got my grades back and I got the Harvard equivalent of an A in property law (we have obfuscated grades), so I am basically the tsar of property now.

ETA: in fact, sexual orientation discrimination cases have much more mixed to negative case law, see, e.g., Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc.; Dale v. Boy Scouts of America. You can (and the oral args did) argue to distinguish this case, but it's not clear-cut.

[rogue06]

Yeah I don't get the obsession with trying to force someone who you think dislikes you to serve you.

That truly befuddles me as well and what I mean by

Not only is it wrong to try to force someone it is also incredibly moronic.

How often have we heard the wedding day being described as "the most important" or "special" day in someone's life? A day where so many are striving to make everything as perfect as possible So why in the world would anyone take the chance of spoiling it by involving someone who is fundamentally against what you are doing?

It would be oh so easy for a cake maker to "accidentally" add too much vanilla and make the cake nearly inedible. "Oops, my bad. Don't worry about having to pay me." Or even pull a Jesse Jackson by adding a noxious substance^[1]?

Personally, I'd think most people would want everything to go as perfectly as possible on that special day and wouldn't take such a chance. That is of course unless going perfectly for them is defined as deliberately rubbing it into the noses of anyone they think might not approve.








1. For those overseas, Jackson is a famous Civil Rights leader and one time presidential candidate who recounted in an interview that while younger and working as a waiter he would habitually spit in white customers food before serving it.

[Yttrium]

Also, I just got my grades back and I got the Harvard equivalent of an A in property law (we have obfuscated grades), so I am basically the tsar of property now.

Congratulations!

Hopefully, we'll see the Supreme Court get to the juicy part before long.

[KingsGambit]

Assuming there is some legitimate religion in the world where that is a core moral teaching

The only group I can think offhand is the Kinist movement within Christianity.

[carpedm9587]

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

You're right. However, we have no evidence (that I am aware of) that thoughts/beliefs are genetically coded. So if someone wants to make the claim that they are, they're going to have to support that claim. We DO have evidence that race, gender, height, eye color, and basic physical attributes of a human being are coded for genetically.

[carpedm9587]

So, Abe Lincoln said, just the other day, "A lawyer’s time and advice are his stock in trade."

So, let's say Abe's law practice was Constitutional Law.

A gay couple comes to him and says "we want legal advice on gay marriage".
Abe says, "well, you seem like nice enough fellas, but I don't do advice on gay marriage, but I'll be happy to assist you if you have questions about constitutional law!"
They are terribly insulted, and declare, "but you're a LAWYER, you give LEGAL advice!" and sue him for discriminating against gay couples.

Nobody would expect Abe to be forced to practice law in a field other than what he has CHOSEN.
And nobody disputes (I would hope) Abe's right to specialize in the field (or fields) of his choice.
By CHOOSING to specialize in constitutional law, Abe has chosen NOT to dispense legal advice in quite a number of other fields.

Correct. And if the baker elects not to make wedding cakes...no one will question their decision to not make wedding cakes for a gay couple getting married. If they they go into the wedding cake business - then they cannot morally (and hopefully - someday - legally) deny that service to a couple because they don't like comparative sex of the two people getting married.

[Littlejoe]

You're right. However, we have no evidence (that I am aware of) that thoughts/beliefs are genetically coded. So if someone wants to make the claim that they are, they're going to have to support that claim. We DO have evidence that race, gender, height, eye color, and basic physical attributes of a human being are coded for genetically.

Gender is a thought or belief IMO...I agree with you on all the others.

Just because they haven't found it doesn't mean that it does not exist...just as they have not found genetic markers for the propensity to be gay or transgender...that doesn't mean they don't exist either. It's a bit ironic though that you give the nod to one as though it's established truth (gender) but not the other (religion).

[carpedm9587]

One can have prejudice/bigotry regarding things other than biology, including beliefs. The article being discussed refers to a business owner boycotting all who are registered to vote Republican. The person is clearly pre-judging each person registered Republican. Probably assuming something that is not true of everyone registered Republican. Likewise someone could be prejudiced against "liberals", jumping to false conclusions about individual self-identified liberals. Or Muslims. etc.

A related question:
I think I understand that the distinction being made here is the idea that it's especially mean to treat someone ill for something they had no control over, like their biology. But is that even always the case? A person might care more about their beliefs, actions, and character than about superficial things like their biological characteristics. In which case ill treating them regarding the former might be more mean?

I'm going to respond once to the general question about the baker - in a separate post. Your observation here is a good one. It is not just about being "mean." It is about applying distinctions to someone based on their membership in a class that is unrelated to that class. That is the very essence of prejudice/bigotry. "I do not want to hire you to work in my office because you are black." There is nothing about being black that precludes working in the average office. On the other hand, there is nothing bigoted about the statement, "I do not want to hire you to play George Washington in my movie because you are black." George Washington was white, and if the intent is to do a historical portrayal, matching the sex and race of the character (and even the physical appearance) makes perfect sense.

I likewise do not think anyone should be "treated mean" because of their religious beliefs. The SCOTUS decision raised an awareness for me that I previously lacked: that the legal officials in the case had demonstrated a level of contempt for the religion and religious beliefs of the people involved. For that reason, I think their ruling in this instance made a certain amount of sense. The legal position should have been kept (from the outset) about the prejudice being shown. I'll address that in the next post.

That doesn't follow. I think it is likely that most of the time voters are casting votes against someone/thing, not for. Take the last U.S. presidential election, where both major candidates in the general election had very low approval ratings. Yet most voters cast a vote for one of the two. But most of them were not voting FOR either, but against the other. That there were other candidates on the ballot doesn't make a difference, because all of them were polling much lower. If your highest priority in voting was to prevent candidate X from getting into office, then it becomes rational to cast a vote for the next highest polling candidate Y, whomever that might be. That cannot be considered a vote FOR Y. Even more so because there is no "against X" box on the ballot. Voting for Y is simply the best "against X" option available on the ballot. Candidate Z might even be the candidate that the voter "wants most of the available list", and yet may still rationally cast for Y because the voter views preventing X to be more important.

That isn't what I do. I personally choose not to vote for the lesser evil. But I think most people do. And I can understand why they do. It's a serious flaw in the vote-for-one voting system. There are other voting systems that avoid that flaw, and I think we should switch systems.

And incidentally, there seems to be a great deal of prejudice against people who cast votes for Trump.

I had to think about this for a while, and I recognize what you are saying. However, you cannot get away from the reality that if someone voted for Clinton (even if it was because they didn't want Trump in office), they ultimately believed Clinton was better suited to the office than Trump. They may have wanted to vote for one of the other candidates, and did not do so because it might mean a victory for Trump - but that does not alter the fact that they ultimately decided to vote FOR Clinton, even if it was to avoid voting FOR Trump. The same is true in reverse.

I think this entire "I didn't vote for, I voted against" is just a convenient way to avoid responsibility for the choice. Trump is in office because more people voted for him (in the states that mattered) than voted for Clinton.

[carpedm9587]

Gender is a thought or belief IMO...I agree with you on all the others.

Just because they haven't found it doesn't mean that it does not exist...just as they have not found genetic markers for the propensity to be gay or transgender...that doesn't mean they don't exist either. It's a bit ironic though that you give the nod to one as though it's established truth (gender) but not the other (religion).

Actually - I give the nod to "sex." If I said "gender," then I misspoke. We know sex is genetically coded for. I am not aware of any evidence that "gender" is genetically coded for.

[carpedm9587]

You outright declared earlier that beliefs are not protected when you asserted that "If they are being excluded because of their beliefs - that's “free speech”," so it should be okay to discriminate against anyone who believes that gay marriage is okay regardless of whether they are gay themselves.

Ahh... I see. Yes. I have no problem with people voicing their discontent or unhappiness with people that believe same-sex marriage is OK. Likewise, I have no problem with people voicing their belief that same-sex marriage is not OK. Those are beliefs. People are entitled to their beliefs, and to speak their beliefs freely.

[Cow Poke]

Correct. And if the baker elects not to make wedding cakes...no one will question their decision to not make wedding cakes for a gay couple getting married. If they they go into the wedding cake business - then they cannot morally (and hopefully - someday - legally) deny that service to a couple because they don't like comparative sex of the two people getting married.

They wouldn't be denying it to "a couple" - they would be denying same sex wedding cakes equally to EVERYBODY, just like they deny Halloween cakes equally to everybody. But, apparently, you would use the hammer of justice to force the baker to bake whatever cake a customer wants. This "morally" thing is crap - you discard the right of the baker to respect his own morals, and substitute your own.

You're just wrong on this.