The Off Topic Topic

[crazy canuck]

Yeah, if the service he provided to the public was selling wedding cakes with bible verses he would likely be fine. 

We have an amendment protecting freedom of speech.

And in that state there is a statute with is constitutionally valid that prohibits the denial of a service generally available to the public on the basis of sexual orientation.  So what is your point?

A state statute isn't going to be able to override a federal constitutional right.

Again not sure what your point is.  There is no question about the constitutional validity of the statute.

[alfred russel]

Again not sure what your point is.  There is no question about the constitutional validity of the statute.

I think you are smart enough to understand what my point is.

[The Minsky Moment]

Here are some facts about the cake case - consider as you wish:

+ The Masterpiece Cake shop website gives no indication on its face of its owner's religious beliefs
+ The website does advertise that it was "The Knot" best of weddings pick for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2012.  The couple here came to the shop in 2012
+ The couple testified that the reason they went to that shop is that it was very close to the restaurant they chose for their reception
+ There was no request for any particular art or iconography or words of any kind.  The baker refused to sell wedding cake in the abstract
+ This was not a lawsuit by the couple. They filed a complaint with the state civil rights commission.  The commission investigated and found multiple instances of similar conduct. Then the commission then prosecuted the case


Separately - I wonder how many of the people celebrating the outcome of this case would also give equally strong support for the rights of NFL players to express their viewpoints by kneeling during the national anthem . . .

[Valmy]

In any case it looks like in the great war to treat people like shit and use religion as a weak-sauce disingenuous excuse this case is probably a draw.

YOu know, that's exactly the sentiment that sunk the civil rights commission on the Masterpiece Cake Shop case - that the commissioners just automatically assumed any opposition to gay marriage citing religion was disingenuous.

But we are talking about baked goods. That is a bit of a stretch in what it means to have a religious definition of marriage. This is about wanting to fuck with people you don't like and pretending your religion is the reason. This is not about demanding a church perform a marriage it does not approve of or something religious in nature.

[The Minsky Moment]

In any case it looks like in the great war to treat people like shit and use religion as a weak-sauce disingenuous excuse this case is probably a draw.

YOu know, that's exactly the sentiment that sunk the civil rights commission on the Masterpiece Cake Shop case - that the commissioners just automatically assumed any opposition to gay marriage citing religion was disingenuous.

Correct.  Had the commissioners held their tongues, they would have won the case. 

[Valmy]

I take all sorts of completely disingenuous arguments very seriously at my cases at work. I know damn well that most people who pretend they are terrified of getting powerline cancer really only care about their property values. But I still go along with and accommodate their BS, because I have no basis for pointing out that their testimony is garbage. I would certainly do the same in this case.

[Barrister]

In any case it looks like in the great war to treat people like shit and use religion as a weak-sauce disingenuous excuse this case is probably a draw.

YOu know, that's exactly the sentiment that sunk the civil rights commission on the Masterpiece Cake Shop case - that the commissioners just automatically assumed any opposition to gay marriage citing religion was disingenuous.

But we are talking about baked goods. That is a bit of a stretch in what it means to have a religious definition of marriage. This is about wanting to fuck with people you don't like and pretending your religion is the reason. This is not about demanding a church perform a marriage it does not approve of or something religious in nature.

Why?  Remember the baker in question was willing to sell them anything other than a wedding cake.  That sounds like a decent basis that it was in fact a religious objection, and not just "wanting to fuck with people you don't like".

Conflict of rights cases are hard, because two separate values we hold (in this case, freedom from discrimination, and on the other, freedom of conscience) are in conflict.  There are no easy answers.  But you can't just wave your hands and make one of the rights disappear, or automatically subordinate to other rights.

[crazy canuck]

Again not sure what your point is.  There is no question about the constitutional validity of the statute.

I think you are smart enough to understand what my point is.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.  But I am genuinely curious as to what point you are trying to make.  There is no question that the statute is constitutionally valid. So why are you saying the statute cannot violate the constitution?

[Barrister]

I take all sorts of completely disingenuous arguments very seriously at my cases at work. I know damn well that most people who pretend they are terrified of getting powerline cancer really only care about their property values. But I still go along with and accommodate their BS, because I have no basis for pointing out that their testimony is garbage. I would certainly do the same in this case.

Hey V - so how much do power lines reduce property values anyways?  I'm just curious because we have some very large ones behind out house.  Personally I don't mind 'em because it just means that nobody lives behind us (instead there's a big open field), but I know others do.

[Valmy]

Why?  Remember the baker in question was willing to sell them anything other than a wedding cake.  That sounds like a decent basis that it was in fact a religious objection, and not just "wanting to fuck with people you don't like".

Conflict of rights cases are hard, because two separate values we hold (in this case, freedom from discrimination, and on the other, freedom of conscience) are in conflict.  There are no easy answers.  But you can't just wave your hands and make one of the rights disappear, or automatically subordinate to other rights.

There are no religious requirements to eat cake at a wedding that would substantiate this position. Feel free to find the relevant scripture for me.

This is an old game the assholes in this country have been playing for hundreds of years (the game being that they are not being jerks, it is just that principle and justice and light compel them to act this way). Just because I find their position garbage and find them disingenuous liars worthy of my contempt and scorn does not mean they are not correct from a legal perspective. After all the whole point of freedom is the ability to do gross and reprehensible things and not be thrown in jail. People who do things that people like don't have to worry about that sort of thing.

[crazy canuck]

In any case it looks like in the great war to treat people like shit and use religion as a weak-sauce disingenuous excuse this case is probably a draw.

YOu know, that's exactly the sentiment that sunk the civil rights commission on the Masterpiece Cake Shop case - that the commissioners just automatically assumed any opposition to gay marriage citing religion was disingenuous.

But we are talking about baked goods. That is a bit of a stretch in what it means to have a religious definition of marriage. This is about wanting to fuck with people you don't like and pretending your religion is the reason. This is not about demanding a church perform a marriage it does not approve of or something religious in nature.

Why?  Remember the baker in question was willing to sell them anything other than a wedding cake.  That sounds like a decent basis that it was in fact a religious objection, and not just "wanting to fuck with people you don't like".

Conflict of rights cases are hard, because two separate values we hold (in this case, freedom from discrimination, and on the other, freedom of conscience) are in conflict.  There are no easy answers.  But you can't just wave your hands and make one of the rights disappear, or automatically subordinate to other rights.

This was not a conflicts of rights case.  The process was flawed because of comments made at the Commission level which were entirely irrelevant to the analysis of whether the Baker had acted in a discriminatory manner.  Whether he had a genuinely held religious belief was completely irrelevant to the decision they made.  If they had not made the comment this would have been a clear cut case of discrimination in violation of the statute.

[Valmy]

I take all sorts of completely disingenuous arguments very seriously at my cases at work. I know damn well that most people who pretend they are terrified of getting powerline cancer really only care about their property values. But I still go along with and accommodate their BS, because I have no basis for pointing out that their testimony is garbage. I would certainly do the same in this case.

Hey V - so how much do power lines reduce property values anyways?  I'm just curious because we have some very large ones behind out house.  Personally I don't mind 'em because it just means that nobody lives behind us (instead there's a big open field), but I know others do.

Realtors estimate something like 15% but obviously the entire concept of 'property values' is a bit dodgy anyway.

[Barrister]

This was not a conflicts of rights case.  The process was flawed because of comments made at the Commission level which were entirely irrelevant to the analysis of whether the Baker had acted in a discriminatory manner.  Whether he had a genuinely held religious belief was completely irrelevant to the decision they made.  If they had not made the comment this would have been a clear cut case of discrimination in violation of the statute.

I am well aware that was the basis the USSSC made their decision.  I've commented on that a few times.

But that IS how the case has been argued in the public sphere.

[crazy canuck]

This was not a conflicts of rights case.  The process was flawed because of comments made at the Commission level which were entirely irrelevant to the analysis of whether the Baker had acted in a discriminatory manner.  Whether he had a genuinely held religious belief was completely irrelevant to the decision they made.  If they had not made the comment this would have been a clear cut case of discrimination in violation of the statute.

I am well aware that was the basis the USSSC made their decision.  I've commented on that a few times.

But that IS how the case has been argued in the public sphere.

Right, so you know that the way the case is being argued in the public sphere is fundamentally inaccurate so you merrily join in.  Great.

[alfred russel]

Again not sure what your point is.  There is no question about the constitutional validity of the statute.

I think you are smart enough to understand what my point is.

Thanks for the vote of confidence.  But I am genuinely curious as to what point you are trying to make.  There is no question that the statute is constitutionally valid. So why are you saying the statute cannot violate the constitution?

The baker has free speech rights. That includes the ability to voice his opinion on gay marriage. A statute says he can't deny service on the basis of sexual orientation. If he voices his opinion on the cake, even over the objection of the customers, he is arguably:

-not denying service on the basis of sexual orientation,
-exercising his first amendment rights to voice his opinion on the topic.

There are counterarguments of course. He is operating commercially. As you've brought up, he is arguably not offering the same product for gay customers, as he doesn't write bible verses on all cakes. He could voice his opinion in ways other than on the cake, though that wouldn't make his point to anyone other than the person in the store.

Ultimately, I doubt the baker is in this story except to play the culture war game. For the baker, "The government is making me serve gay people" probably lacks the outrage factor of "the government won't let me put a bible verse on my cakes."