Man sues because of religious discrimination when baker refuses to make anti-gay cake

[pancreasman]

If we're talking about how the law OUGHT to be, here's some people who think they know:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/g...s-in-oklahoma/

Oklahoma Republicans are fighting the legalization of marriage equality in their state with a number of bills restricting same-sex or atheist couples from being able to wed.

The Daily Oklahoman reported that, under one bill submitted by state Rep. Todd Russ (R), only “an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination” would be allowed to sign marriage certificates.

The measure, House Bill 1125, would bar county judges from performing weddings, and local clerks would not be allowed to issue marriage licenses. Couples are also allowed to file affadavits for common law marriages if they do not want their weddings performed by a church official. However, as KSWO-TV reported, Oklahoma does not currently recognize common law marriages.

[Christy]

conservative Christian doctor could refuse to treat a gay person if he knew the patient was going to get married soon.

How is this like the other examples?

[Joel]

It seemed that the gist of the OP and the general thrust of the thread was not "What should the law be?" but "If the law demands X, then X should apply to everyone." I took you as arguing that if a baker had to provide service to same-sex couples then a baker should have to provide service to someone requesting objectionable content. I noted that these are actually distinct situations, governed by distinct parts of the law.

Okay. Before this thread I was not aware of CO's legal distinction regarding content. Thank you for informing me. Was the former case of a gay ceremony cake not a "commissioned work"? Likewise for the photographers?

But what I had originally intended to talk about is freedom of association. I think it's wrong to force either baker, and for the same reason in each case. I would not be happy if the lawsuit in the OP succeeds.

I personally find it anachronistic and desperately uninteresting. The idea that the government can and should...protect at least some groups from discrimination on a broad scale hardly seems like it should be a contentious topic at this point in history.

This seems like the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
If my arguments are unsound, I want to know that. If they are sound, then popular opinion doesn't change their conclusion.

And the reference to protection of "some groups" there would seem to imply a violation of equal protection of the law. Equal protection demands each person be protected equally, without distinction of persons (e.g. according to groups).

If that's the future of the thread, rather than the slightly more interesting topic of public accommodation/general service/commissioned work, y'all have fun. We have a fundamental difference of opinion which neither of us will budge on that philosophy.

You should know that I am not un-budge-able in my position. I know this because my position on this point has changed over time, as I have been persuaded by arguments.

You are free to refuse to continue participating in the discussion if you like, because of your freedom of association! Lucky for you I believe in your freedom of association and am opposed to your being forced to continue interacting with me. Cheers.

[Meta Knight]

If we're talking about how the law OUGHT to be, here's some people who think they know:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/g...s-in-oklahoma/

In other words, they're getting the government out of marriage.

You know, like what most Republicans want.

[Joel]

In other words, they're getting the government out of marriage.

You know, like what most Republicans want.

You made me curious, so I looked up the actual text of the bill:
https://legiscan.com/OK/text/HB1125/2015

Mainly what it would do is eliminate the normal first step of having to apply to the state for a license. Instead the minister who officiates the marriage makes up a certificate including a list of required information, and then that certificate gets recorded by the county clerk. Those records are the official arbiter of who is legally married.

Secondly, it would make judges no longer able to solemnize the marriage and issue a certificate. Only ministers can do so.

The state still has laws restricting who can be married, and it is a misdemenor for a minister to issue a certificate that doesn't comply.

This bill does not bar same-sex marriages.
The requirement of a minister may offend some people, but on the other hand it's pretty easy for anyone to go online and find an "church" that will ordain them for free. I could see how atheists might object to the requirement of a minister (or even the long-standing requirement of solemnization) on principle. But it doesn't actually bar atheists from getting married.

The bill leaves government still involved in marriage to the extent that:
- the state still sets rules on who may not get married (e.g. close relations)
- the state's records are the official arbiter of who is legally married (there still exists a concept of who is legally married in the eyes of the state)
- the goverment still treats married people differently from unmarried people (e.g., taxes them differently)

The only thing that this bill changes is that it eliminates government officials being involved in issuing (or not issuing) licenses or solemnizing marriages, and deletes the word "license" everywhere, leaving only the "certificate".

[Sam]

Okay. Before this thread I was not aware of CO's legal distinction regarding content. Thank you for informing me. Was the former case of a gay ceremony cake not a "commissioned work"? Likewise for the photographers?

But what I had originally intended to talk about is freedom of association. I think it's wrong to force either baker, and for the same reason in each case. I would not be happy if the lawsuit in the OP succeeds.

This seems like the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
If my arguments are unsound, I want to know that. If they are sound, then popular opinion doesn't change their conclusion.

And the reference to protection of "some groups" there would seem to imply a violation of equal protection of the law. Equal protection demands each person be protected equally, without distinction of persons (e.g. according to groups).

The problem with this topic being revived, in my opinion, isn't that the logic on either side is unsound. I'm fairly certain I remember having at least two conversations along these lines in your threads over the past two (three?) years and they always come down to something of a "first principles" disagreement. Your logic is consistently libertarian and not unsound ... but numerous logical arguments on open-ended topics like this can be sound. And that's where what looks to you like an argumentum ad populumallany

You should know that I am not un-budge-able in my position. I know this because my position on this point has changed over time, as I have been persuaded by arguments.

You are free to refuse to continue participating in the discussion if you like, because of your freedom of association! Lucky for you I believe in your freedom of association and am opposed to your being forced to continue interacting with me. Cheers.

[Epoetker]

"The circle shape does not fit the square hole. Rather than find a hole that it does fit, I'm going to force it in and lean on it to get it through incrementally. It seems doable."

The protection of persons on the basis of sexual orientation is sufficiently broad and sufficiently doable at the present time that state and federal law to that effect is both right and reasonable.

You don't even have a good definition of 'person', 'right', or 'reason.' Having not had the basic discipline to stop trying to force things when they create misery and discord, I'd advise you stop talking and start learning again.

[RumTumTugger]

and lets not forget the case where a T-shirt shop in Lexington KY was forced to create Gay Pride Parade T-shirts.

or the case of the photographer being forced to participate in a same sex union Ceremony.

[Tassman]

No Sam, we are only at odds with recent history, and no we certainly are not at odds with The Constitution. I would like to know which constitutional principle claims that any man has a right to my labor.

You are at odds with the Constitution as interpreted by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was drawn up specifically to eliminate the sort of discrimination you're demanding in the name of your personal religious beliefs:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION: SEC. 201.

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action.......

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?...age=transcript

[Darth Executor]

You are at odds with the Constitution as interpreted by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964

Laws don't interpret the Constitution, idiot. Do you even know what a constitution is?

[Sparko]

You are at odds with the Constitution as interpreted by the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was drawn up specifically to eliminate the sort of discrimination you're demanding in the name of your personal religious beliefs:

TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION: SEC. 201.

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action.......

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?...age=transcript

Ah so you are saying that the baker did not have the right to refuse to make the ant-gay bible cake then?

---

Have you ever lived in the USA? Even visited? You seem to have a lot of opinions about another country, given that you are Australian and not American.

[phank]

Ah so you are saying that the baker did not have the right to refuse to make the ant-gay bible cake then?

That would be my reading. He can't refuse to bake a cake. He CAN refuse to paint an objectionable message on it.

[Meta Knight]

That would be my reading. He can't refuse to bake a cake. He CAN refuse to paint an objectionable message on it.

Except that then the man ordering the cake with the message is being denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services based on his religion.

[Meta Knight]

Laws don't interpret the Constitution, idiot. Do you even know what a constitution is?

Also the CRA is unconstitutional, so you know, whatever.

[Sam]

Except that then the man ordering the cake with the message is being denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services based on his religion.

One's religious protection does not, excepting extreme circumstances, trump another's freedom of speech. A homosexual individual can't make Phyllis Schlafly write "Gay is good" on the inside cover of one of her books at a signing party, even if she has to sell that book to homosexual individuals, too.