Discussion: LGBTQ+ Rights XVI - Part 6

[Spider-Fan]

This case sets a bad precedent. So if I am a cake maker who disagrees with your life style based on religious values, I don't have to make the cake. Even if you're paying me for it. Okay. What if I am the same guy who disagrees with same sex marriage on religious grounds, but now I own a diner. Can I not allow you to eat at my diner? Or not serve your wedding reception?

This is a dark ruling with dark implications. Sad day in my eyes.

 

[_Superman_]

He does not believe they have the right to be married because they are gay, even as it is the law of the land. He thinks they deserve less rights then him because they are gay. He sees them as lesser then him. Explaining nicely why someone is lesser then you does not make it any less that. I can fault a man for being a bigot, which he is.

If he refused to make a cake for an interracial wedding do to his religious beliefs, would that be okay?

No one is saying that all because you don't believe in gay marriage that the person is lesser than you or beneath you. I am a Christian (who's brother is gay) and I don't think lesser of him nor am I close minded or insensitive to his feelings or point of view. See this is where the problem really lives if someone doesn't feel the same way as others they are labeled a bigot. If I don't believe in abortion then I am close minded and that is not the case. It is just a difference of opinions.

I am a black man and my wife is white I don't go around calling her a raciest when we have a difference of opinion on certain things. The man is not a bigot he is just standing up for his religious belief. If he had called them some sort of name and had been rude about things from the very start then yes I would say he is a bigot. However all accounts even by them people who brought the case to court says the man was nice and polite so that's not a bigot that is just a difference of opinions.

 

[_Superman_]

This case sets a bad precedent. So if I am a cake maker who disagrees with your life style based on religious values, I don't have to make the cake. Even if you're paying me for it. Okay. What if I am the same guy who disagrees with same sex marriage on religious grounds, but now I own a diner. Can I not allow you to eat at my diner? Or not serve your wedding reception?

This is a dark ruling with dark implications. Sad day in my eyes.

More than likely we will see a lot more private business pop up in those fields. Then deal with the headache and risk of losing their business due to legal battles.

 

[Spider-Fan]

More than likely we will see a lot more private business pop up in those fields. Then deal with the headache and risk of losing their business due to legal battles.

What this ruling is creating is institutional discrimination. In this case based on sexual orientation. My question is how far does that go? There will be people that push the boundaries on this and test this ruling. But, the fact we're allowing discrimination at an institutional level troubles me.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No one is saying that all because you don't believe in gay marriage that the person is lesser than you or beneath you. I am a Christian (who's brother is gay) and I don't think lesser of him nor am I close minded or insensitive to his feelings or point of view. See this is where the problem really lives if someone doesn't feel the same way as others they are labeled a bigot. If I don't believe in abortion then I am close minded and that is not the case. It is just a difference of opinions.

I am a black man and my wife is white I don't go around calling her a raciest when we have a difference of opinion on certain things. The man is not a bigot he is just standing up for his religious belief. If he had called them some sort of name and had been rude about things from the very start then yes I would say he is a bigot. However all accounts even by them people who brought the case to court says the man was nice and polite so that's not a bigot that is just a difference of opinions.

Being polite negates homophobic and bigoted behavior how exactly?

If you don't think another person has the right to get married to another person because they are the same sex, how is that not seeing them as lesser? Please explain how denying someone the right to be married is not seeing them as lesser. Not believing in gay marriage is fundamentally no different then not "believing" in interracial marriage. If someone told you they couldn't bake a cake for you and your wife when you were married because you are black and she is white and it is against their religious beliefs, would that make them a bigot?

There is disagreeing on what age someone should consume alcohol and there is disagreeing on the fundamental rights of a human being based on how they were born. This isn't a difference of opinion. This is bigotry and just like how religion was used to justify racism, it is being used to justify homophobia.

 

[Sithborg]

This case sets a bad precedent. So if I am a cake maker who disagrees with your life style based on religious values, I don't have to make the cake. Even if you're paying me for it. Okay. What if I am the same guy who disagrees with same sex marriage on religious grounds, but now I own a diner. Can I not allow you to eat at my diner? Or not serve your wedding reception?

This is a dark ruling with dark implications. Sad day in my eyes.

From what I have read, the ruling is very, very narrow in terms of precedent set. They essentially ruled the way they did because the baker was called a bigot by the state commission. They are not saying you can discriminate. But, much as a baker can refuse to make a cake with racist rhetoric, this baker cannot be forced to make a custom cake.

This isn't a Hobby Lobby or Obergfell type ruling, with wide ranging precedent.

The ruling is actually kind of a bad signal for Trump's travel ban.

 

[Spider-Fan]

From what I have read, the ruling is very, very narrow in terms of precedent set. They essentially ruled the way they did because the baker was called a bigot by the state commission. They are not saying you can discriminate. But, much as a baker can refuse to make a cake with racist rhetoric, this baker cannot be forced to make a custom cake.

This isn't a Hobby Lobby or Obergfell type ruling, with wide ranging precedent.

The ruling is actually kind of a bad signal for Trump's travel ban.

It may not seem that way, but there will be people seeking to use this ruling as a basis for other examples of discrimination. Like I was saying in a different conversation about this, this may seem like a small battle about cakes. But before you know it, the pigs will have taken the animal constitution and altered the wording until the farm now resembles exactly what it fought against.

 

[Marvolo]

I think there is a way for both sides to be tolerant towards each other without treating anyone like an inferior POS. If a baker is a Muslim and doesnt want to bake a cake for a christian wedding or is a Muslim or christian and doesnt want to bake a cake for a gay wedding I think that can be all right as long as the baker is respectful and kind about it and the engaged couple isnt pissed off or upset. For example, an exchange like this, "I'm happy to bake you a cake for any other occasion, but my personal beliefs dont allow me to get involved in gay weddings. I'm sorry about the inconvenience, and I can recommend other bakers that can make you a wedding cake.", seems fine to me. Its an attempt to be respectful and an attempt to adhere to ones on beliefs. And obviously tells the engaged couple that the baker doesnt hate them or even hate their marriage but the baker just cant take part in their rituals of marriage. If the baker refuses to serve them at all and is a total POS and treats the couple like they are disgusting scum then I think that's a serious problem and should be addressed.

And yes I'm sure some people will use this to be mean and cruel, and those people should be reprimanded in some way for that awful behavior.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It is not respectful to tell a couple their marriage isn't real or lesser then a "real" marriage because your religion says it isn't. Again, would you apply the same logic to an interracial wedding?

A wedding in the USA is a legal union.

 

[Marvolo]

It is not respectful to tell a couple their marriage isn't real or lesser then a "real" marriage because your religion says it isn't. Again, would you apply the same logic to an interracial wedding?

A wedding in the USA is a legal union.

Where in my post did I say that is is ok to say that? Not wanting to be involved in a particular ritual in no way implies that you dont think that ritual is legitimate. I dont want to be involved in baptisms or baptismal ceremonies, which is a legal ceremony, but that doesnt mean I dont consider baptism real or meaningful to those who do it.

This is another thing that both sides need to stop doing. Making assumptions about what the other side is thinking and accusing them of thinking and saying things they didnt. If a baker says what I said in that hypothetical exchange how hard is it for the couple to ask whether the baker considers their marriage "real"? Why just jump to the conclusion that the baker is condemning the marriage? Clearly the baker isnt condemning the marriage because the baker offers to recommend other bakers that could make the couple a cake for the wedding.

If a Jewish butcher tells a christian that they cant sell the christian a slab of pork for a barbeque that's not a condemnation of the Christian's beliefs or the pork itself or a barbeque meal with friends and family. The jew just doesnt want to sell a meat that their religion says they should avoid.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Where in my post did I say that is is ok to say that? Not wanting to be involved in a particular ritual in no way implies that you dont think that ritual is legitimate. I dont want to be involved in baptisms or baptismal ceremonies, which is a legal ceremony, but that doesnt mean I dont consider baptism real or meaningful to those who do it.

This is another thing that both sides need to stop doing. Making assumptions about what the other side is thinking and accusing them of thinking and saying things they didnt. If a baker says what I said in that hypothetical exchange how hard is it for the couple to ask whether the baker considers their marriage "real"? Why just jump to the conclusion that the baker is condemning the marriage? Clearly the baker isnt condemning the marriage because the baker offers to recommend other bakers that could make the couple a cake for the wedding.

If a Jewish butcher tells a christian that they cant sell the christian a slab of pork for a barbeque that's not a condemnation of the Christian's beliefs or the pork itself or a barbeque meal with friends and family. The jew just doesnt want to sell a meat that their religion says they should avoid.

A baptism is a religious ceremony. Where is it a legal ceremony?

If you cannot make them a wedding cake for their ceremony because his religion says he can't, because a wedding between same sex partners, how is that not condemning the wedding? You are, by your decision to not participate for any other reason then it is two people of the same sex are getting married, is condemning same sex marriage, and seeing it as illegitimate.

Your Jewish butcher argument is the exact point I am making. The baker would make a cake for a wedding between a man and a woman. He would not do it for a same sex couple. A Jewish butcher would not sell pork to anyone. If the Jewish butcher sold pork only to Jewish people, that would be an issue. That would be selective, that would be discrimination.

I also see a lot of avoiding of this simple question. Neither you or Superman have answered it. If someone claimed, do to their religion, they could not bake a cake for an interracial couple, would that be fine?

 

[Matt]

This case sets a bad precedent. So if I am a cake maker who disagrees with your life style based on religious values, I don't have to make the cake. Even if you're paying me for it. Okay. What if I am the same guy who disagrees with same sex marriage on religious grounds, but now I own a diner. Can I not allow you to eat at my diner? Or not serve your wedding reception?

This is a dark ruling with dark implications. Sad day in my eyes.

Nah. The holding is way too narrow and case specific to set any practicable precedent. This case totally boils down to improper state action by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Court dodged all of the speech and religious implications. In fact, the dicta by Kennedy will probably guide lower courts into finding that such discrimination is not permissible. But yeah, the ruling comes down entirely to state action in a very factually specific set of circumstances. As a result, it sets virtually no workable precedent and isn’t really harmful to the LGBT community at all. If anything, the constitutional question remains ambiguous, which is exactly what the Court wanted.

 

[Sithborg]

Thanks Matt, I was worried what I had read was misleading me a bit.

Of course the bigots will be emboldened. But that was always going to be the case with Pence and Beuraguard in power.

 

[Donner]

Darth makes a good point with the Jewish butcher. Not providing a service or product is up to the company, not providing a service or product to certain people sets a dangerous tone.

There is enough evidence to prove that, in certain areas in the US, banks discriminate against minorities when it comes to approving mortgages and their rates.

It's a slippery ****ing slope. In these cases, you can only hope that the public dishes out its own justice in the form of a boycott, but how are people supposed to boycott banks and mortgage rates? Targeting businesses is easy, targeting institutions is much more difficult.

 

[Aximili86]

He does not believe they have the right to be married because they are gay, even as it is the law of the land.

And you're allowed to do that. You're allowed to believe the law is wrong, and not want to participate in helping homosexuals to get married.

It's ethically wrong in my eyes, but you're allowed to hold those views. He's not allowed to see two guys walking into his store holding hands and be all "we don't serve yerrr kiiiindddd, git out!", that rises to crossing the legal bar for discrimination.

This wasn't that. What they found is, he didn't believe two guys should be able to marry on religious grounds, and didn't want to participate in that. He'd still sell 'em a cake, he just wasn't going to decorate it with wedding stuff as a custom piece.

He's not interfering in them getting married, trying to shut it down, picketing it with protests, threatening them. He's just "good luck to you, I can't be a part of it though. Here's a list of bakers who can."

That...I dunno, I can't get too militant at the guy over that. This is Ned Flanders, it's not David Duke.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I feel like this sums up the whole contradiction of using religion to claim that one does not think lesser of the LGBTQ community:

https://www.theindychannel.com/news...g-indy-gym-s-decision-to-cancel-pride-workout

INDIANAPOLIS -- A CrossFit corporate leader has been fired after he offered support for an Indy gym’s decision to cancel a pride-themed workout this week.

CrossFit's Chief Knowledge Officer Russell Berger Tweeted early Wednesday that he encouraged the gym's decision to refuse to hold the workouts, and thanked them for standing by their convictions and "refusing to celebrate sin."

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And you're allowed to do that. You're allowed to believe the law is wrong, and not want to participate in helping homosexuals to get married.

It's ethically wrong in my eyes, but you're allowed to hold those views. He's not allowed to see two guys walking into his store holding hands and be all "we don't serve yerrr kiiiindddd, git out!", that rises to crossing the legal bar for discrimination.

This wasn't that. What they found is, he didn't believe two guys should be able to marry on religious grounds, and didn't want to participate in that. He'd still sell 'em a cake, he just wasn't going to decorate it with wedding stuff as a custom piece.

He's not interfering in them getting married, trying to shut it down, picketing it with protests, threatening them. He's just "good luck to you, I can't be a part of it though. Here's a list of bakers who can."

That...I dunno, I can't get too militant at the guy over that. This is Ned Flanders, it's not David Duke.

A well mannered bigot is still a bigot. He would make a wedding cake for a man and woman getting married. But hey, apparently claiming someone's existence is a sin is fine as long as you are polite about it.

 

[Aximili86]

It is, legally.

Was in the Obama years too. Ethically, that can be debated all day, and I'd side with you on that sense. The Supreme Court deals in law though, and this guy hadn't broken the discrimination law. Bakers who refuse to serve gay customers in general, are breaking the law, and even the conservatives on the court would have sided with the couple.

 

[Sithborg]

The Supreme Court absolutely did not say that. In fact, they did a lot of dancing around in order to not say that.

While in effect, that is essentially what the decision may seem like it says, what they actually said is important.

 

[Aximili86]

Of course it's what they said. Straight from Kennedy's mouth (the most left-leaning of those who voted this way along with Kagan)





Writing for the majority, justice Anthony Kennedy said the CCRC showed “hostility” to Phillips’ religious beliefs in ordering him to undergo anti-discrimination training.

“The laws and the constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights,” Kennedy wrote, “but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

“Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the state itself would not be a factor in the balance the state sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here.”

 

[Sithborg]

They are saying the state was wrong in how it handled the case. It is a delicate difference, but an important one.

 

[Aximili86]

...

"...but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."

And the second "That requirement, however, was not met here."

He's distinguishing between the accusation of refused service and what the guy actually did.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

I feel like this sums up the whole contradiction of using religion to claim that one does not think lesser of the LGBTQ community:

https://www.theindychannel.com/news...g-indy-gym-s-decision-to-cancel-pride-workout

"Why won't you tolerate my intolerance of you!?"

 

[Spider-Fan]

A baptism is a religious ceremony. Where is it a legal ceremony?

If you cannot make them a wedding cake for their ceremony because his religion says he can't, because a wedding between same sex partners, how is that not condemning the wedding? You are, by your decision to not participate for any other reason then it is two people of the same sex are getting married, is condemning same sex marriage, and seeing it as illegitimate.

Your Jewish butcher argument is the exact point I am making. The baker would make a cake for a wedding between a man and a woman. He would not do it for a same sex couple. A Jewish butcher would not sell pork to anyone. If the Jewish butcher sold pork only to Jewish people, that would be an issue. That would be selective, that would be discrimination.

I also see a lot of avoiding of this simple question. Neither you or Superman have answered it. If someone claimed, do to their religion, they could not bake a cake for an interracial couple, would that be fine?

I agree, the Jewish butcher refusing to sell pork is different. When you're a restaurant or a butcher, you have a menu. Your menu and hours of operation are basically outlines of your service. I sell XYZ at times ABC. If pork is not on your menu, then you have no obligation to offer pork to anyone. But, this guy sold wedding cakes. In other words, wedding cakes were on his menu when this happened. That is different. Now you're saying my "menu" only applies to certain clients. That is discrimination. That is wrong.

Nah. The holding is way too narrow and case specific to set any practicable precedent. This case totally boils down to improper state action by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Court dodged all of the speech and religious implications. In fact, the dicta by Kennedy will probably guide lower courts into finding that such discrimination is not permissible. But yeah, the ruling comes down entirely to state action in a very factually specific set of circumstances. As a result, it sets virtually no workable precedent and isn’t really harmful to the LGBT community at all. If anything, the constitutional question remains ambiguous, which is exactly what the Court wanted.

Well, I defer to your interpretation as our resident lawyer, LOL!

 

[Matt]

...

"...but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."

And the second "That requirement, however, was not met here."

He's distinguishing between the accusation of refused service and what the guy actually did.

That is called dicta. Its more or less the musing of the writer of the opinion. It is persuasive authority for lower courts, but they are not bound by it. Sithborg is right. The only precedent set by this case is that the state of Colorado overreached in their response.

The rest is basically just Kennedy saying "there are times when gay couples must have their civil rights protected. There are times when religious folks must have their right to free exercise protected. But I'm not going to define what those times are and set precedent regarding how we balance one against the other because we don't have to address that here. All we have to do is address the State of Colorado's Civil Rights Commision's overreach."