Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v CCCR

What's there to talk about?

Now that SCOTUS is hearing the case, just let them decide and move on from there.

 

I don’t think there is anything to talk about, everyone’s mind is made up as to who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Now we get to sit back and see what the Supreme Court says.

 

I can live with whatever they decide.

 

I'll be interested in which judge's ask what questions. Should be an interesting argument and opinion.

 

nothing more to say

 

A couple of other fun quotes from Leviticus (sure to be Trump favorites as well):

God Shuns Those With Disabilities (Lev. 21:16-23). This one should also be really, really, irking. God explicitly tells Moses that pretty much anyone with a disability is a second-class citizen and isn’t worthy enough to “come near to offer the food of his God.”

Women Are Worth Less (Lev. 27:1-4). This is one of those passages that really, really should make believers—especially women—question just how much of the Old Testament we can take seriously. According to Leviticus, a man’s worth—in “dedicating a person to the LORD”—is 50 shekels. A woman, however, is only worth 30.

So... no more cakes for women or the handicapped, because God.

 

Given there was no message on the cake it should be completely clear cut.

 

Just like in Obergefell, this will come down to Kennedy, IMHO. In the arguments today, he was concerned that a baker could put up a sign saying he would not make cakes for gay couples, and that would be an affront to the gay community. However, he also expressed a real concern that Colorado had not been sufficiently tolerant of the baker's religious views, and reiterated that tolerance of different points of view and practices are essential in a free society.

Interesting tidbit is that the new US Solicitor, Noel Francisco, was arguing on behalf of the United States in favor of the baker.

 

hasn't this been litigated before?

see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.

 

It's no different than civil rights, only it's now under the guise of "religious freedom". The right to discriminate, whether against a minority for the color of their skin or a gay couple for their sexual orientation, puts us on a slippery slope and IMO would set us back as a country.

 

Source.

 

This isn’t true.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/12/you-don-t-say

 

While I believe that anyone should be free to refuse service to anyone else for whatever stupid reason they cite, (and then be put out of business by boycotts and loss of business), this is a case where the defendant broke the law of the state in which he resides. That's the core of the case. If he doesn't like the law in his state he can work to change it, (while abiding by it) or move. Or at least that's what conservatives like to say when they bring up the so-called states rights issues. Regardless, I will be interested to see how this turns out and if the SCOTUS overturns the state law.

 

Now, does this religious liberty apply to Muslims who don’t want to bake cakes for Christian couples, or people who want to wear their religious garb in schools and such? One thing I’ve noticed about religious freedom and rights is it tends to favor one religion....

 

I think if it’s just a cake they should certainly have to, whether they should have to bake “Jesus is the son of god” is a little less clear to me.

 

The interesting questions raised by some justices is where does the religious exemption stop? Can a deli counter making a sandwich refuse service to a gay couple only because they are gay? Can a private school refuse to admit children of gay couples on the basis of having gay parents? Can a mechanic refuse to do an oil change? Also, how do you define "artistic expression"? While most of us may not consider making a cheeseburger to be artistic expression, surely there is a chef out there that does. Does that give all burger restaurants the right to deny service to anyone their religion disapproves of? What if a religion disapproves of black people? Or women? How do you test whether something is a bonafide religious belief?

 

No, they really weren't breaking their own law as sexual orientation was covered by the law. As for the core of the issue, it depends on which direction you are coming at it from.

 

Exactly. I think it is a very slippery slope and I don't know how you narrow the laws in such a way that people don't discriminate against others based on a broad "artistic" definition.

Not an easy issue either way. I don't want to discriminate against people's religious beliefs, but as a gay man I also don't want to be discriminated against either.

 

I don't think saying a service provider cannot deny service based solely on the basis of a customer's sexual orientation is discrimination against the service provider.

But for me, the main factor is religion. To really respect religion and religious beliefs, and to prevent the government from injecting itself into private religious life by dictating who or what is legitimate, we cannot test religiousness in courts. There should be no test for whether someone is a bonafide believer or not, and for that reason we should have as few laws based on someone's religious beliefs as possible - or better yet none at all. It sounds backwards, but to preserve religious independence, the court must rule against the baker's religious belief argument.

Unfortunately for the baker and other service providers, that also means their right to project their religious beliefs on others ends at the doors of their homes and places of warship. If super conservative orthodox jews can figure out how to run an online consumer electronics company (B&H Photo) while still observing the strictest of shabbat rules, I'm sure even the most conservative christians can figure something out for themselves too. If they can't, they shouldn't be a public-facing service provider.