SCOTUS Sides With Baker in LGBT Wedding Cake Case

[Senkaku]

Sadly for them, since we live in a society that allows people freedom of religious belief, they have to accept the state's laws rather than their god's to govern their lives.

That's also an oversimplification since we live in a society where the First Amendment has been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment. Additionally many states have passed RFRA's which provide even greater protections under the Free Exercise analysis than does the original First Amendment. It's not the case that you can just say "state law > religious conviction", there is an analysis that needs to be done.

Sure, and it seems to me that in this case, the analysis should be pretty fucking cut and dried- religious freedom is not an excuse to discriminate against whoever you'd like. Otherwise you could basically bring Jim Crow or any number of other old discriminatory practices back at a stroke and say they were based on strong religious convictions- selling houses to Jews, selling land to Japanese, et cetera, ad nauseum.

[Mallorea and Riva]

I think characterizing the bakers as "just being assholes" is a dangerous way to think about it. It cuts out the religious explanation for the action which means you can miss an incredibly important motivating factor, one which is constitutionally protected to an extent. The baker sincerely believed that serving the couple would be a burden upon his free exercise rights. Things get a little tricky when you start telling people to ignore God and listen to the laws of the State of Colorado, because it doesn't matter that you think they have God's word wrong what matters is that they think they have it right.

That's the entire point of Secularism though. The laws of god don't matter. Only the laws of the State do. You can have your personal religion all you want, but as long as the state forbids you from doing something (which is my understanding of the situation here) or tells you to do something (Admittedly, this one is rare, since most legal systems work on a 'don't do that' basis instead), the law of god doesn't even get to come into it. Else, what would the point of legislation even be?

That's a worldview that exists, but it certainly doesn't exist in its pure form in the USA. Snipped from earlier:

That's also an oversimplification since we live in a society where the First Amendment has been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment. Additionally many states have passed RFRA's which provide even greater protections under the Free Exercise analysis than does the original First Amendment. It's not the case that you can just say "state law > religious conviction", there is an analysis that needs to be done.

[Senkaku]

Sadly for them, since we live in a society that allows people freedom of religious belief, they have to accept the state's laws rather than their god's to govern their lives.

Problem is that when you put people in that position they don't.

You have to understand these are people who truly deeply and completely believe that there is a vengeful sky god out there who is going to judge their every action looking for even the slightest violation of his commands to sentence them to an eternity of torture. People have died to escape that. People have allowed them self to be tortured to death for it. History is full of martyrs for this very reason.

And more importantly in our modern case people are willing and able to fight against a government that puts them in such a situation. So if you don't want to abandon freedom of religion and just embrace state atheism you have to give them some concessions. Otherwise they will rise up against you or force your hand into starting religious persecution.

Secularism and fucking "state atheism" aren't the same thing. Good fucking lord. The mere suggestion that yes, the state's laws trump any religious laws of any given religion adhered to by the state's citizens, since the state lets its citizens adhere to whatever religion they'd like, is not fucking "state atheism."

[Mallorea and Riva]

That's also an oversimplification since we live in a society where the First Amendment has been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment. Additionally many states have passed RFRA's which provide even greater protections under the Free Exercise analysis than does the original First Amendment. It's not the case that you can just say "state law > religious conviction", there is an analysis that needs to be done.

Sure, and it seems to me that in this case, the analysis should be pretty fucking cut and dried- religious freedom is not an excuse to discriminate against whoever you'd like. Otherwise you could basically bring Jim Crow or any number of other old discriminatory practices back at a stroke and say they were based on strong religious convictions- selling houses to Jews, selling land to Japanese, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Sure you can absolutely make that conclusion on the analysis. The concern I have seeing this debate is the number of people skipping right over how we get to the answer and just deciding on an answer. The process matters.

[Purpelia]

That's also an oversimplification since we live in a society where the First Amendment has been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment. Additionally many states have passed RFRA's which provide even greater protections under the Free Exercise analysis than does the original First Amendment. It's not the case that you can just say "state law > religious conviction", there is an analysis that needs to be done.

Sure, and it seems to me that in this case, the analysis should be pretty fucking cut and dried- religious freedom is not an excuse to discriminate against whoever you'd like. Otherwise you could basically bring Jim Crow or any number of other old discriminatory practices back at a stroke and say they were based on strong religious convictions- selling houses to Jews, selling land to Japanese, et cetera, ad nauseum.

But what would be so wrong about that?

I mean, obviously the state should newer discriminate against its people because it is a thing that is supposed to serve those people. And you can even make an argument for large quasi-monopolistic corporations being forbidden from discriminating on the grounds that they control the market too much. But why should individuals not be able to discriminate against anyone they like? What is the harm there? The rejected customer can always take his money elsewhere. And the only one loosing anyone is the discriminator.

[Gospel Power]

Those LGBT matters are so frustrating, alongside with politics and conflicts, all this business is annoying, too many questions, just live

[Senkaku]

Sure, and it seems to me that in this case, the analysis should be pretty fucking cut and dried- religious freedom is not an excuse to discriminate against whoever you'd like. Otherwise you could basically bring Jim Crow or any number of other old discriminatory practices back at a stroke and say they were based on strong religious convictions- selling houses to Jews, selling land to Japanese, et cetera, ad nauseum.

Sure you can absolutely make that conclusion on the analysis. The concern I have seeing this debate is the number of people skipping right over how we get to the answer and just deciding on an answer. The process matters.

Sounds like wishy-washy bullshit to me. People arrive at their answers based on their own processes of analysis and reasoning, which have all been laid out quite a few times over the course of this thread and others. I'd suggest reading them more thoroughly if that's your only concern, and it should be quite thoroughly alleviated.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Sure you can absolutely make that conclusion on the analysis. The concern I have seeing this debate is the number of people skipping right over how we get to the answer and just deciding on an answer. The process matters.

Sounds like wishy-washy bullshit to me. People arrive at their answers based on their own processes of analysis and reasoning, which have all been laid out quite a few times over the course of this thread and others.

Yeah which explains the mass confusion over how SCOTUS got to an answer, and what that answer was in this case.

[Pilarcraft]

That's a worldview that exists, but it certainly doesn't exist in its pure form in the USA. Snipped from earlier:

That's also an oversimplification since we live in a society where the First Amendment has been incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment. Additionally many states have passed RFRA's which provide even greater protections under the Free Exercise analysis than does the original First Amendment. It's not the case that you can just say "state law > religious conviction", there is an analysis that needs to be done.

I'm not talking about the legal application of secularism in the US. I'm talking about Secularism as a legal concept.
By definition The Law requires everyone to obey it and it requires everyone to obey it equally. The Law can't give exceptions, else it won't be a law. You can't just have even a single person to butt over it by a phony "it's my religion" excuse, and then expect it to remain law if your legal system works by Stare decisis.
If your religion can get you leeway from obeying the very law of the land, then your land doesn't have laws in the first place. That's like, the basis of how law works.
Now, mind, The Law could just plain not be secular, but in the US, the law is secular. We don't use the Bible, or any other religious text or teaching, to assign punishment or criminalize actions. Therefore, the law of the state shouldn't be ignored for any reason. This isn't an analysis of US Law. it's an analysis of Law in general. not even that, it's like basic common sense of how law works.

You could say that "well, Colorado shouldn't have that type of law in the first place", but fact is that it does. And the actions of the SC have the potential to become Legal Landmarks.

[Galloism]

I think characterizing the bakers as "just being assholes" is a dangerous way to think about it. It cuts out the religious explanation for the action which means you can miss an incredibly important motivating factor, one which is constitutionally protected to an extent. The baker sincerely believed that serving the couple would be a burden upon his free exercise rights. Things get a little tricky when you start telling people to ignore God and listen to the laws of the State of Colorado, because it doesn't matter that you think they have God's word wrong what matters is that they think they have it right.

That's the entire point of Secularism though. The laws of god don't matter. Only the laws of the State do. You can have your personal religion all you want, but as long as the state forbids you from doing something (which is my understanding of the situation here) or tells you to do something (Admittedly, this one is rare, since most legal systems work on a 'don't do that' basis instead), the law of god doesn't even get to come into it. Else, what would the point of legislation even be?

I would point out that you're arguing that West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette was decided incorrectly.

[Senkaku]

But why should individuals not be able to discriminate against anyone they like? What is the harm there? The rejected customer can always take his money elsewhere. And the only one loosing anyone is the discriminator.

I feel like this argument has already been comfortably addressed when we decided to get rid of segregation and Jim Crow- relegating a class of people to a lower tier of society based on their identity and providing them with second-class goods and services is bad and wrong, and it's retarded to pretend as if it's just one bigoted shop-owner or restaurateur in any town or city who will promptly just be bypassed by the consumers.

[Senkaku]

Sounds like wishy-washy bullshit to me. People arrive at their answers based on their own processes of analysis and reasoning, which have all been laid out quite a few times over the course of this thread and others.

Yeah which explains the mass confusion over how SCOTUS got to an answer, and what that answer was in this case.

No? I think that's entirely attributable to this story having already been in headlines and the subject of much debate, and people thus not pausing to read the SCOTUS decision and rather continuing the debate over the clickbait headline, which by the way is the actual meaty moral debate to have and the argument that interests people (I don't think anyone here has really been arguing over the commission's actions and whether they were proper or not, unless I've missed something).

[Mallorea and Riva]

That's a worldview that exists, but it certainly doesn't exist in its pure form in the USA. Snipped from earlier:

I'm not talking about the legal application of secularism in the US. I'm talking about Secularism as a legal concept.
By definition The Law requires everyone to obey it and it requires everyone to obey it equally. The Law can't give exceptions, else it won't be a law. You can't just have even a single person to butt over it by a phony "it's my religion" excuse, and then expect it to remain law if your legal system works by Stare decisis.
If your religion can get you leeway from obeying the very law of the land, then your land doesn't have laws in the first place. That's like, the basis of how law works.
Now, mind, The Law could just plain not be secular, but in the US, the law is secular. We don't use the Bible, or any other religious text or teaching, to assign punishment or criminalize actions. Therefore, the law of the state shouldn't be ignored for any reason. This isn't an analysis of US Law. it's an analysis of Law in general. not even that, it's like basic common sense of how law works.

You could say that "well, Colorado shouldn't have that type of law in the first place", but fact is that it does. And the actions of the SC have the potential to become Legal Landmarks.

The problem you're having is that the USA, in the secular manner of having a constitution and statutes, has protected certain religious exceptions. So what happens when the Law, on its face, allows for categorized exceptions? I don't think anyone would argue that the US does not have the rule of law. I'm having trouble tracking your argument that the law is secular in the US which prohibits exceptions and yet exceptions are provided for.

[Pilarcraft]

That's the entire point of Secularism though. The laws of god don't matter. Only the laws of the State do. You can have your personal religion all you want, but as long as the state forbids you from doing something (which is my understanding of the situation here) or tells you to do something (Admittedly, this one is rare, since most legal systems work on a 'don't do that' basis instead), the law of god doesn't even get to come into it. Else, what would the point of legislation even be?

I would point out that you're arguing that West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette was decided incorrectly.

The precedent for that is constitutional law. The Constitution does not allow you to refuse service to others however,

[Azokhistan]

Is it not a religious persons right to refuse service if it is in their religious doctrines? Should we have to reject our belies in order to please a fraction of the population.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Yeah which explains the mass confusion over how SCOTUS got to an answer, and what that answer was in this case.

No? I think that's entirely attributable to this story having already been in headlines and the subject of much debate, and people thus not pausing to read the SCOTUS decision and rather continuing the debate over the clickbait headline, which by the way is the actual meaty moral debate to have and the argument that interests people (I don't think anyone here has really been arguing over the commission's actions and whether they were proper or not, unless I've missed something).

Something about the phrase "meaty moral debate" is deeply unsettling but I can't figure out what it is.

I think the SCOTUS decision and the process which leads to it is important to provide context to the meaty moral debate. I think it matters that we understand that no matter what the morally right answer is there is a system in place which creates a legal answer, so that we can see whether the legal answer matches up with our normative one. Otherwise we get arguments which are great in the ivory tower in which they occur, but rather pointless since they never make their way back down to Earth.

[Pilarcraft]

Is it not a religious persons right to refuse service if it is in their religious doctrines? Should we have to reject our belies in order to please a fraction of the population.

No. You have to reject your beliefs because it's the freaking law of the land lmao.

[Galloism]

I would point out that you're arguing that West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette was decided incorrectly.

The precedent for that is constitutional law. The Constitution does not allow you to refuse service to others (due to, you know, the fact that we have Seven Legal Landmark cases where Discrimination based on sexual orientation is concerned).

All seven cases were religiously based?

(Not that this case was decided on those grounds - the court merely found the commission cannot be overtly discriminatory against the religious, as they apparently were)

And incidentally, the extant case - WV SBoE vs barnette, the state mandated children salute the flag. Children objected for religious reasons. The court sided with the children (overturning a previous case).

[Pilarcraft]

The precedent for that is constitutional law. The Constitution does not allow you to refuse service to others (due to, you know, the fact that we have Seven Legal Landmark cases where Discrimination based on sexual orientation is concerned).

All seven cases were religiously based?

(Not that this case was decided on those grounds - the court merely found the commission cannot be overtly discriminatory against the religious, as they apparently were)

Those seven cases have nothing to do with the matter of discrimination in commerce. Which is why I edited my post shortly after posting it. Technically none of them were religiously based (since four out of the seven used the amendments as precedent, and one of the other three was overruled by another one of the seven)

[Mallorea and Riva]

The precedent for that is constitutional law. The Constitution does not allow you to refuse service to others (due to, you know, the fact that we have Seven Legal Landmark cases where Discrimination based on sexual orientation is concerned).

All seven cases were religiously based?

(Not that this case was decided on those grounds - the court merely found the commission cannot be overtly discriminatory against the religious, as they apparently were)

And incidentally, the extant case - WV SBoE vs barnette, the state mandated children salute the flag. Children objected for religious reasons. The court sided with the children (overturning a previous case).

Great line from that case "Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." Written in the context of the rise of Nationalist Germany and WWII.

[Greater Catarapania]

In seriousness, however, a wedding cake is - to a certain extent - a stamp of approval on the ceremony. Giving them a cake is saying "look how happy everybody should be for them!" That's why liberals get so riled up by this incident - he's refusing to admit that the LGBT agenda is something that should be celebrated, and that's unacceptable to them.

Nonsense. A flag maker that happens to make North Korean flags as part of his extensive vexillographical repertoire doesn't mean that the flag maker kowtows to Kim Jong-un...

Would you blame a flag maker if he decided not to make a Confederate flag for a skinhead?

[The New California Republic]

Those LGBT matters are so frustrating, alongside with politics and conflicts, all this business is annoying, too many questions, just live

I'm sorry that my sexuality frustrates you. I will attempt to LGBT a bit quieter in the future...

[Galloism]

All seven cases were religiously based?

(Not that this case was decided on those grounds - the court merely found the commission cannot be overtly discriminatory against the religious, as they apparently were)

And incidentally, the extant case - WV SBoE vs barnette, the state mandated children salute the flag. Children objected for religious reasons. The court sided with the children (overturning a previous case).

Great line from that case "Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." Written in the context of the rise of Nationalist Germany and WWII.

Personally, I loved "To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds."

But that's veering off topic a bit, so back to this case...

I'd say that the supreme court's decision here was so narrow that it means nearly nothing from the perspective of precedent. Other than "don't be overtly discriminatory against the religious in regulatory proceedings or we'll kick it out".

[The New California Republic]

Nonsense. A flag maker that happens to make North Korean flags as part of his extensive vexillographical repertoire doesn't mean that the flag maker kowtows to Kim Jong-un...

Would you blame a flag maker if he decided not to make a Confederate flag for a skinhead?

Not what you said. Those goalposts stay right the fuck where they are. You said that the products that a craftsman makes somehow reflects the craftsman's own views. They don't.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Great line from that case "Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard." Written in the context of the rise of Nationalist Germany and WWII.

Personally, I loved "To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds."

But that's veering off topic a bit, so back to this case...

I'd say that the supreme court's decision here was so narrow that it means nearly nothing from the perspective of precedent. Other than "don't be overtly discriminatory against the religious in regulatory proceedings or we'll kick it out".

Mmmm good stuff.

Even then I don't see much value from the precedent perspective. Neutrality was already overtly required by Smith.