1) They would make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, but they reserved in what would go in a custom cake. In most cases it reached the point they just would make only a generic one.
2) They stopped making any wedding cakes altogether. They got tired of people asking for 'custom' wedding cakes with any phrases or symbols they disagreed with, including heterosexual couples.
That's what we're talking about here, and that's the case. It's about what can be defined as a "custom cake" and what has to be provided, or what say the provider has in that.
This is what gets to me about people these days, and sometimes "infects" lawyers (who get beat down by the judges), argue the actual case, not the news and rhetoric.
1) They would make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, but they reserved in what would go in a custom cake. In most cases it reached the point they just would make only a generic one.
2) They stopped making any wedding cakes altogether. They got tired of people asking for 'custom' wedding cakes with any phrases or symbols they disagreed with, including heterosexual couples.
That's what we're talking about here, and that's the case. It's about what can be defined as a "custom cake" and what has to be provided, or what say the provider has in that.
This is what gets to me about people these days, and sometimes "infects" lawyers (who get beat down by the judges), argue the actual case, not the news and rhetoric.
That’s what you’re talking about, everybody else is talking about denying someone service because of their sexuality. They asked for a wedding cake and he said no.
'This is what gets to me about people these days, and sometimes "infects" lawyers (who get beat down by the judges), argue the actual case, not the news and rhetoric.'
If the case is as simple as that, then it shouldn't even be in the courts.
And people wonder why the SCOTUS issued a dual-ruling (which both the left and right said were "conflicting" -- but they weren't) on The Ten Commandments? No one pays attention to the details, just the news and rhetoric.
1) They would make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, but they reserved in what would go in a custom cake. In most cases it reached the point they just would make only a generic one.
2) They stopped making any wedding cakes altogether. They got tired of people asking for 'custom' wedding cakes with any phrases or symbols they disagreed with, including heterosexual couples.
That's what we're talking about here, and that's the case. It's about what can be defined as a "custom cake" and what has to be provided, or what say the provider has in that.
This is what gets to me about people these days, and sometimes "infects" lawyers (who get beat down by the judges), argue the actual case, not the news and rhetoric.
Listen, I honestly think Philips is going to lose.
I think their lawyers went about it with the wrong argument -- the "artist" argument is a slippery slope. While I agree they were known for, and even sought after by, the plantiff because they created some beautiful, custom cakes, in the end, the courts are probably going to label them a for-profit business with no artistic protections.
The greater issue at stake here is ... how far do we go?
Understand we're already at the point where any Christian faith-based businesses and, worse yet, non-profit charities are now having to provide services that are completely against their beliefs, based on what the government says they must provide. This in itself is a greater issue with the "totalitarian state" (and even "corporate statism") beyond basic "regulation." Yet we seem to grant all sorts of exceptions to Islamic faith-based businesses and, worse yet, non-profit charities** that we do not to Christian faith-based, under the guide of "minority" or other "protected status."
Even the courts and the lawyers are tired of the inconsistency.
**The added, sad fact is a couple of these Islamic faith-based charties have made terrorist lists at a later date.
What I hope the SCOTUS does, and it will depend on how much they can rule and how much they can just advise ...
1) All organizations must render the same services, regardless of creed, culture, race, religion and, as of 2015** (per the SCOTUS ruling), sexual orientation
**
One complication is that this case begins in 2012, before the 2015 SCOTUS ruling. What might happen is that the ruling is retroactive -- as in the case of any civil liberties -- but any 'violators' cannot be held liable -- at least not federally -- for things prior to 2015.
2) Organizations can decide to limit what they provide in custom goods or services via words, symbols or representation if it goes against their beliefs or is taken to be offensive to their creed, culture, race or religion, but must still provide the basic good or services that they would otherwise serve to anyone
3) Most specifically, the government cannot define what "words" or "symbols" or other "representation" is offensive or against various believes of private individuals and entities, and they will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through due process of law to see if they clash with anti-discrimination or other issues, while still serving the need for the right to religious tolerance
That's what I would do if I'm a Supreme Court Justice. We'll see what happens.
Of the Justices ...
Of the allegedly conservative Justices, Roberts made the most Libertarian argument about Catholic Legal Services, and what they have to provide, how to craft a ruling to deal with the ultimate effects that will reach every faith-based business and charity.
Kennedy is typically very Contrarian, especially now that Scalia is gone**. He played Devil's Advocate for both. He brought up the concept of 'religious tolerance,' that people shouldn't seek out families with a strong faith-based basis if they are just going to challenge their beliefs. But in counter, he said that the only way to warn people of such was to post signs, which is also a serious problem.
**The mainstream media only posted Scalia's right-wing contrarian comments, virtually never his left-wing ones. Scalia could be the best Liberal at times, but you never heard them. He is greatly missed on the bench by the Liberal justices for this reason, he could be a killer ally for them at times. Scalia was the ultimate, yesteryear, classic American Libertarian, forcing people to look at the original meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments, when they were written, and why.
Sotomayer scared me the most, as she usually does. She used the phrase "state interest legislating behavior." She believes in using government to legislate behavior. The problem with doing that is that it creates a backlash. Germany has learned this over the last half-century. It's reversing course as a result.
In the 1970s, Americans warned that anti-discrimination laws could lead to not just gay acceptance, which is what the American Libertarian party championed from Day 1 in 1971 -- separating from the Republican party, and still quite unaccepted by Democratic party (even 25 years later) -- but forcing everyone to accept gay behavior in all aspects of their lives.
I have no problem with that as a person, it's why I'm a Libertarian.
But we're also going to be looking at all faith-based businesses and charities having to provide any and all services for gay couples, if the SCOTUS doesn't issue at least an advisement of some sort on this matter. If there is any doubt to why Phillips is getting a lot of support, that's exactly why.
I.e., even if Phillips loses, they are hopeful for some advisement in the matter.
How is this any different than the government forcing Christian organizations to carry insurance for birth control even though it's against their beliefs?
Listen, I honestly think Philips is going to lose.
I think their lawyers went about it with the wrong argument -- the "artist" argument is a slippery slope. While I agree they were known for, and even sought after by, the plantiff because they created some beautiful, custom cakes, in the end, the courts are probably going to label them a for-profit business with no artistic protections.
The greater issue at stake here is ... how far do we go?
Understand we're already at the point where any Christian faith-based businesses and, worse yet, non-profit charities are now having to provide services that are completely against their beliefs, based on what the government says they must provide. This in itself is a greater issue with the "totalitarian state" (and even "corporate statism") beyond basic "regulation." Yet we seem to grant all sorts of exceptions to Islamic faith-based businesses and, worse yet, non-profit charities** that we do not to Christian faith-based, under the guide of "minority" or other "protected status."
Even the courts and the lawyers are tired of the inconsistency.
**The added, sad fact is a couple of these Islamic faith-based charties have made terrorist lists at a later date.
What I hope the SCOTUS does, and it will depend on how much they can rule and how much they can just advise ...
1) All organizations must render the same services, regardless of creed, culture, race, religion and, as of 2015** (per the SCOTUS ruling), sexual orientation
**
One complication is that this case begins in 2012, before the 2015 SCOTUS ruling. What might happen is that the ruling is retroactive -- as in the case of any civil liberties -- but any 'violators' cannot be held liable -- at least not federally -- for things prior to 2015.
2) Organizations can decide to limit what they provide in custom goods or services via words, symbols or representation if it goes against their beliefs or is taken to be offensive to their creed, culture, race or religion, but must still provide the basic good or services that they would otherwise serve to anyone
3) Most specifically, the government cannot define what "words" or "symbols" or other "representation" is offensive or against various believes of private individuals and entities, and they will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through due process of law to see if they clash with anti-discrimination or other issues, while still serving the need for the right to religious tolerance
That's what I would do if I'm a Supreme Court Justice. We'll see what happens.
Of the Justices ...
Of the allegedly conservative Justices, Roberts made the most Libertarian argument about Catholic Legal Services, and what they have to provide, how to craft a ruling to deal with the ultimate effects that will reach every faith-based business and charity.
Kennedy is typically very Contrarian, especially now that Scalia is gone**. He played Devil's Advocate for both. He brought up the concept of 'religious tolerance,' that people shouldn't seek out families with a strong faith-based basis if they are just going to challenge their beliefs. But in counter, he said that the only way to warn people of such was to post signs, which is also a serious problem.
**The mainstream media only posted Scalia's right-wing contrarian comments, virtually never his left-wing ones. Scalia could be the best Liberal at times, but you never heard them. He is greatly missed on the bench by the Liberal justices for this reason, he could be a killer ally for them at times. Scalia was the ultimate, yesteryear, classic American Libertarian, forcing people to look at the original meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments, when they were written, and why.
Sotomayer scared me the most, as she usually does. She used the phrase "state interest legislating behavior." She believes in using government to legislate behavior. The problem with doing that is that it creates a backlash. Germany has learned this over the last half-century. It's reversing course as a result.
In the 1970s, Americans warned that anti-discrimination laws could lead to not just gay acceptance, which is what the American Libertarian party championed from Day 1 in 1971 -- separating from the Republican party, and still quite unaccepted by Democratic party (even 25 years later) -- but forcing everyone to accept gay behavior in all aspects of their lives.
I have no problem with that as a person, it's why I'm a Libertarian.
But we're also going to be looking at all faith-based businesses and charities having to provide any and all services for gay couples, if the SCOTUS doesn't issue at least an advisement of some sort on this matter. If there is any doubt to why Phillips is getting a lot of support, that's exactly why.
I.e., even if Phillips loses, they are hopeful for some advisement in the matter.
The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.
"The Bible says, 'In the beginning there was male and female,'" Phillips said. He offered to make any other baked goods for the men.
"At which point they both stormed out and left," he said.
The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.
"The Bible says, 'In the beginning there was male and female,'" Phillips said. He offered to make any other baked goods for the men.
"At which point they both stormed out and left," he said.
How is this any different than the government forcing Christian organizations to carry insurance for birth control even though it's against their beliefs?
That's where this is getting interesting, and both sides (not the mudslingers, but people actually interested in a ruling) want some resolution. Where's the line? Who had to do what? What accommodation is allowed ... or not?
Absolutists that want to make this about Rosa Parks or "whites only" are missing those details.
The CRA says everyone must be serviced, but Common Law has always made for "reasonable accommodation" too, and the right to not have to provide a good or service someone might consider "offensive." The problem is ... the government cannot define that, it never can.
"The Quran forbids me to consume or even be a party to the consumption of alcohol."
Where is the line? Where is "reasonable accommodation" and "religious tolerance"? Does it only apply to those of Islamic faith, as they are a 'protected minority,' and not Christians?
That last point is the one that trips up Progressives v. true Liberals.
How is this any different than the government forcing Christian organizations to carry insurance for birth control even though it's against their beliefs?
"The Quran forbids me to consume or even be a party to the consumption of alcohol."
Where is the line? Where is "reasonable accommodation" and "religious tolerance"? Does it only apply to those of Islamic faith, as they are a 'protected minority,' and not Christians?
That last point is the one that trips up Progressives v. true Liberals.
Does it matter that the couple drove out of their way, passing a lot of bakers who couldve made a cake for them? like say 120 miles out of the way and 60 some bakeries. does that matter?
Does it matter that the couple drove out of their way, passing a lot of bakers who couldve made a cake for them? like say 120 miles out of the way and 60 some bakeries. does that matter?
Because Progressives are notorious for saying "do your job" to Christians (and Jews), arguing "reasonable accommodation" doesn't exist.
But they then argue "reasonable accommodation" for minorities, saying it's not religious ... but also classify Muslims as minorities, not realizing that's completely hypocritical.
True Liberals recognize we have both minorities and the Constitutional right of "reasonable accommodation" for any "requested exception."
That's why true Liberals were arguing for marriage equality, while Democrats and Progressives were signing DOMA.
He denied them specific services (I'll even remove 'artistic' from the debate), based on his religion. That's the complete focal point here. You're trying to simplify this into a simple "do your job" when it's about "religious freedom" and possibly "reasonable accommodation."
Does it matter that the couple drove out of their way, passing a lot of bakers who couldve made a cake for them? like say 120 miles out of the way and 60 some bakeries. does that matter?
@MACHater02 is correct, it doesn't matter. Progressives can be a-holes, just like Conservatives, and they are both completely protected by the law. That's how civics works.
Although the courts are starting to factor in that Christians are slowly becoming a persecuted minority by the popular majority in the United States, which goes against the entire foundation of the nation. Several Justices took explicit issue with the words in the state of Colorado ruling, which I do as well.
The concept of "Reasonable Accommodation" is at the heart of the United States' foundation. The problem here is that the baker didn't exactly attempt to do that, at least not initially. I'm hoping the SCOTUS attempts to address this, although they may be limited by the specifics of the lawsuit and its appeal.
Make no mistake, as a private entity serving the public, the baker has to bake a cake for gays. The question is what all he has to do, and where he has some say.
He denied them specific services (I'll even remove 'artistic' from the debate), based on his religion. That's the complete focal point here. You're trying to simplify this into a simple "do your job" when it's about "religious freedom" and possibly "reasonable accommodation."
I'm hoping the Court clears this all up.
@MACHater02 is correct, it doesn't matter. Progressives can be a-holes, just like Conservatives, and they are both completely protected by the law. That's how civics works.
Although the courts are starting to factor in that Christians are slowly becoming a persecuted minority by the popular majority in the United States, which goes against the entire foundation of the nation. Several Justices took explicit issue with the words in the state of Colorado ruling, which I do as well.
The concept of "Reasonable Accommodation" is at the heart of the United States' foundation. The problem here is that the baker didn't exactly attempt to do that, at least not initially. I'm hoping the SCOTUS attempts to address this, although they may be limited by the specifics of the lawsuit and its appeal.
Make no mistake, as a private entity serving the public, the baker has to bake a cake for gays. The question is what all he has to do, and where he has some say.
