SCOTUS gay rights case

[Metaphor]

You, and all the others that want to enshrine the right to discrimination, have yet to say just how far a gay couple has to drive to gain access to a service until their civil rights are being unfairly infringed.

I reject the premise of your question. There is no distance at all that justifies compelling the labour of somebody else to provide specialised art or craft celebrating your event.

That isn't rejecting the premise of the question, that is stating that you think a gay couple can be incapable of finding places to do business and that's okay.

Yes: I reject the premise that a gay couple's 'civil rights' are being violated unless you compel the labour of others.

Just out of curiosity, what other people should be allowed to be discriminated and incapable of doing business? Can a black-white couple getting married be discriminated as well?

Just out of curiousity, why do you think other people's creative labour should be compelled?

So, the implied answer from you is that you think minorities can be discriminated on, and not able to have access to privileges and services, potentially across the entire nation.

Where do you get 'minorities' from?

If there was a baker who catered solely to same-sex unions, I don't want the State to compel him to provide his creative labour to opposite-sex unions.

See, I get you are an Aussie and are ignorant of American History, but I figured the plight of African Americans in America is kind of a known quantity even to Aussies, so I'm shocked you don't get that we've been there and done that... and fixed it... and now people want to break it again in America.

There are thousands of businesses that love the pink dollar so much they specialise in catering to queers, but oh no! Some baker somewhere doesn't want to create a wedding cake for a same-sex union that he doesn't agree with! You have to got to go to him!

Go to who? Do they advertise they refuse service to gay couples who want to get married... or gay couples in general?

The baker can't refuse to sell a person a pastry scroll based on the person's sexual orientation. But he ought be able to refuse a bespoke product made to a customer's specifications.

Do you think a commercial artist, who advertises her drawing and painting skills, should be compelled to take any commission whatsoever?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Where have I implied I ask about the political leanings of any of the people I do business with? Is there something about the statement "I don't want a gay wedding cake from a baker who doesn't believe in gay weddings" very difficult to understand? Do you think it implies "and therefore, I test any potential baker for his gay-wedding policy before all my gay weddings"?

How in the world can you know their stance on gay weddings, if you don't ask? You said it, not me.

I didn't claim I would know without asking. I didn't claim I would go out of my way to find out any such thing.

Then why bring it up?

Well... I'd never want a cake from a guy who didn't believe in gay weddings.

But I ain't about to find out whether they care or not.

I don't want my hairdresser to be cutting my hair after he's used the toilet without washing his hands, but I don't enquire about it before I get a haircut.

I don't know, washing hands with city water is political expression for support of municipal control over utilities.

But if we lived in a world where the State did not compel people's creative labour, I assume a business that didn't want to do gay weddings would say so, and I wouldn't go to them for my gay wedding related needs.

Got it... you think people openly advertise their discriminatory practices. Where the heck do you live?

 

[Metaphor]

Where have I implied I ask about the political leanings of any of the people I do business with? Is there something about the statement "I don't want a gay wedding cake from a baker who doesn't believe in gay weddings" very difficult to understand? Do you think it implies "and therefore, I test any potential baker for his gay-wedding policy before all my gay weddings"?

How in the world can you know their stance on gay weddings, if you don't ask? You said it, not me.

I didn't claim I would know without asking. I didn't claim I would go out of my way to find out any such thing.

Then why bring it up?

Because I think the people who seek out bakers to legally destroy is like begging a kid on the playground to be your friend and then when he won't, going to teacher and teacher forcing him to play with you. I don't want to play with people who don't want to be in my company.

Well... I'd never want a cake from a guy who didn't believe in gay weddings.

But I ain't about to find out whether they care or not.

I am not about to make active enquiries, no.

If a gay wedding cake need arises in the future for me, I would probably either scope out bakeries online, or get word of mouth recommendations. I think it would be clear to me from interacting with the baker how pleased they are to create a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding.

I don't want my hairdresser to be cutting my hair after he's used the toilet without washing his hands, but I don't enquire about it before I get a haircut.

I don't know, washing hands with city water is political expression for support of municipal control over utilities.

But if we lived in a world where the State did not compel people's creative labour, I assume a business that didn't want to do gay weddings would say so, and I wouldn't go to them for my gay wedding related needs.

Got it... you think people openly advertise their discriminatory practices. Where the heck do you live?

No. I kind of said the opposite of that. People can't openly advertise like that because the State forbids it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, the implied answer from you is that you think minorities can be discriminated on, and not able to have access to privileges and services, potentially across the entire nation.

Where do you get 'minorities' from?

The real world. The people that will actually be targeted. You can hear no evil-see no evil this all you want, but that is the result of allowed discriminations. Minorities are disproportionally (close to exclusively) impacted.

See, I get you are an Aussie and are ignorant of American History, but I figured the plight of African Americans in America is kind of a known quantity even to Aussies, so I'm shocked you don't get that we've been there and done that... and fixed it... and now people want to break it again in America.

There are thousands of businesses that love the pink dollar so much they specialise in catering to queers, but oh no! Some baker somewhere doesn't want to create a wedding cake for a same-sex union that he doesn't agree with! You have to got to go to him!

Go to who? Do they advertise they refuse service to gay couples who want to get married... or gay couples in general?

The baker can't refuse to sell a person a pastry scroll based on the person's sexual orientation. But he ought be able to refuse a bespoke product made to a customer's specifications.

Specifications? It's a wedding cake! Type of cake, type of frosting, color, decorations (flowers, piping, etc...), tiers, shape. All of which don't speak to the orientation of a marrying couple!

Do you think a commercial artist, who advertises her drawing and painting skills, should be compelled to take any commission whatsoever?

WEDDING CAKE! That'd be paint by number. We aren't talking about compelling someone to create a depiction of a gay orgy on a flat sheet cake.

 

[laughing dog]

And to belabor the point.

If no one has a right to discriminate then Neo Nazis and all the rest have the same protections.

If I has d a restaurant and Neo Nazis in Nazi regalia sat at a table I would have to serve them.

If they wanted to rent a room in the restaurant and have a Nazi meeting catered I'd have a real problem with that. I might have black, Jewish, and gay employees.

If SCOTUS rules Christians can not decline gay work then I would legally be bound to sevice the Nazis.

You are simply mistaken. People can choose to be Neo-Nazis. In general, people do not choose their sex, race, ethnic origin or sexuality.

 

[laughing dog]

The baker is not a real Christian anyway. You've all been duped. A real Christian is here to serve sinners as a representative of Christ by loving sinners and showing them the way to salvation. Turning people away because of their sin is not Christ like.

Mark 2:15-17 New International Version (NIV)​

While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

This self serving baker is better described as a modern day Pharisee than a Christian. If Jesus ate with sinners to reach them then a baker should bake for sinners to reach them.

Yeah, but did Jesus eat with the "icky" sinners? That is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[Gospel]

I am "conflating" that a women's only gym is discrimination by sex and they are allowed.

One is an excusive club and the other isn't. Glad I can help.

The other what?

I forgot who I was talking to. Women's only gym's (in some not all states) are legal because they (women's only gyms) are intertwined with right to privacy laws. Similar to women's & men's restrooms. It's a complicated issue that your conflation/marginalization attempts to cram into a point that can only be characterized as the big crunch. The bakery in question is a public accommodation with next to no grounds to argue right to privacy. They are not even the same issue, I mean they are close but not quite the same.

 

[Politesse]

If you are gay find a non conservative Christian service to use

That is not equal treatment under the law.

 

[Gospel]

If you are gay find a non conservative Christian service to use

That is not equal treatment under the law.

Give steve a break. I don't think the argument being made here is really about a Christian's right to deny service. I think it's really about having personal roads that no one else is allowed to use. We've all been there. Stuck in traffic, frustrated we have to be around all these other people and we fantasize about a road to everywhere that only we get to use. Have some sympathy.

Honestly I only ever wanted to run for president because the roads would be cleared for my motorcade. That's the closest any of us can get to personal roads in reality.

With that said we should give the baker the right to overrule another citizens right to not be discriminated against in order to protect his Christian values. We should also give Muslims the right to overrule our right to not be killed to allow them to protect there right to kill apostates from Islam.

 

[jab]

So if I am a Jewish sculptor and a Neo Nazi wants to hire me to make a statute of Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler I can not refuse?

Not if you have previously made statues of Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler for non-Nazi customers, no, you can't refuse.

If you haven't, then yes, you can refuse.

So, if you are commissioned to, say, draw a political cartoon where Hitler and Trump are eating Big Macs and you do it, then you can't refuse any cartoon that involves Hitler or Trump, since you drew them in a cartoon before?

huh?

 

[TomC]

There are businesses who specialise solely in same-sex union celebrations, and the progressives want to give money to the bigots. It beggars belief.

They don't even have to specialize. Just wanna make money. Gay customers money spends just as well as straight customers.

About 15+ years ago, before SCOTUS decision, a local couple saw a business opportunity on the internet. A website promoting all sorts of wedding/union related vendors, provided the vendors were gay friendly. They knew how many upscale customers would choose against a business that refused gay customers.

It flopped, miserably.

Not because all those brides forking out $10K for a caterer didn't care. It's because they already knew. If a caterer turned down a banquet for a gay union, word got around fast. Bakers, florists, venues, bands, jewellers, limos, everything. You can't stay in business long with a "No Gays" business plan, and that's here in southern Indiana. Because your competitors will eat you alive.
Tom

 

[jab]

For this particular case, why do you think it would be at all reasonable for a constitutional court to rule that a vanilla law trumps the constitution?

It wouldn't. But they should, reasonably, rule that refusing service to a specific class of customers, is not the same as having the right not to say things you don't want to say.

And if a gay couple came to Smith and asked her to design a website for their daughter's marriage to her boyfriend, she'd be up for it. So it's not a class of customers she's turning away; it's a type of job.

Selling stuff to customers isn't saying anything about those customers. Or about anything else, for that matter.

Serving customers as part of one's business isn't a case of "speech", and to suggest that there's a constitutional issue here at all is therefore to make a category error.

What's "speech" and what's "stuff" is a continuous spectrum. There will always be disagreement among reasonable people about where to draw that line, and of course no court's caselaw is going to satisfy everyone. I can sympathize with someone arguing that a fancy cake doesn't qualify as "speech", even though it's hard to see how that doesn't clear a bar so low that setting a flag on fire counts as "speech".

It isn't hard if you try. Setting a flag on fire is a protest - clearly political speech. Making ______ (fill in the blank) for money is not speech, it is commerce.

so Michaelangelo's painting the Sistine Chapel was not speech, but commerce, Madonna's "Like a Virgin' video was not speech, but commerce.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't hard if you try. Setting a flag on fire is a protest - clearly political speech. Making ______ (fill in the blank) for money is not speech, it is commerce.

so Michaelangelo's painting the Sistine Chapel was not speech, but commerce, Madonna's "Like a Virgin' video was not speech, but commerce.

Those are both examples of art as expression... for money. It is speech. Making a pretty cake to sell is baking and decoration, not speech.

 

[jab]

It isn't hard if you try. Setting a flag on fire is a protest - clearly political speech. Making ______ (fill in the blank) for money is not speech, it is commerce.

so Michaelangelo's painting the Sistine Chapel was not speech, but commerce, Madonna's "Like a Virgin' video was not speech, but commerce.

Those are both examples of art as expression... for money. It is speech. Making a pretty cake to sell is baking and decoration, not speech.

a very narrow definition of "art as expression". So what about photography, quilts, clothing design, knitting, crochet, embroidery, other "handicrafts"? Where do you draw the line. and then, of course, there's the issue of web design.

 

[BH]

In the Bible there is the story of Namaan. He was a Syrian general who heard about Elijah the Prophet and how Allah enabled Elijah to do miracles. Namaan had leprosy and wentto Elijah and asked to be healed and was. Namaan was worried about part of his official duties where he had to go to a pagan temple and bow with his king and asked Elijah what Allah thought about it. He had to bow presumably to help the king to get back up but not make it seem that way. Elijah told him not to worry about it.


I think worrying about being perceived as an idol worshiper is higher on the concern list than baking a gay persons cake. Just look at it like you are Namaan. your doing it as part of an official duty and you dont believe in it or agree and dont have to.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It isn't hard if you try. Setting a flag on fire is a protest - clearly political speech. Making ______ (fill in the blank) for money is not speech, it is commerce.

so Michaelangelo's painting the Sistine Chapel was not speech, but commerce, Madonna's "Like a Virgin' video was not speech, but commerce.

Those are both examples of art as expression... for money. It is speech. Making a pretty cake to sell is baking and decoration, not speech.

a very narrow definition of "art as expression". So what about photography, quilts, clothing design, knitting, crochet, embroidery, other "handicrafts"?

When I made our wedding cake... the whole expression was "pretty", "elegant", "sharp", "clean". I assure you, I achieved none of those goals, but the one thing it clearly didn't express was the sexual orientation of the couple getting married.

Where do you draw the line. and then, of course, there's the issue of web design.

I draw the line at expression. Actual expression. If I show a picture of a wedding cake, it'd be near impossible to tell whether the couple was gay or straight.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In the Bible there is the story of Namaan. He was a Syrian general who heard about Elijah the Prophet and how Allah enabled Elijah to do miracles. Namaan had leprosy and wentto Elijah and asked to be healed and was. Namaan was worried about part of his official duties where he had to go to a pagan temple and bow with his king and asked Elijah what Allah thought about it. He had to bow presumably to help the king to get back up but not make it seem that way. Elijah told him not to worry about it.


I think worrying about being perceived as an idol worshiper is higher on the concern list than baking a gay persons cake. Just look at it like you are Namaan. your doing it as part of an official duty and you dont believe in it or agree and dont have to.

But this has little to do with religion. This has to do with the old school status quo. People seem to think life in the 50s was the epitome of human existence. Most of these people didn't live as adults in the 50s.

 

[laughing dog]

It isn't hard if you try. Setting a flag on fire is a protest - clearly political speech. Making ______ (fill in the blank) for money is not speech, it is commerce.

so Michaelangelo's painting the Sistine Chapel was not speech, but commerce, Madonna's "Like a Virgin' video was not speech, but commerce.

It is both. But you miss the point. Michaelangelo should not have the right refused to paint a scene in a syngagogue or Buddhist temple because they are not Christian.

 

[Metaphor]

So, the implied answer from you is that you think minorities can be discriminated on, and not able to have access to privileges and services, potentially across the entire nation.

Where do you get 'minorities' from?

The real world. The people that will actually be targeted. You can hear no evil-see no evil this all you want, but that is the result of allowed discriminations. Minorities are disproportionally (close to exclusively) impacted.

See, I get you are an Aussie and are ignorant of American History, but I figured the plight of African Americans in America is kind of a known quantity even to Aussies, so I'm shocked you don't get that we've been there and done that... and fixed it... and now people want to break it again in America.

There are thousands of businesses that love the pink dollar so much they specialise in catering to queers, but oh no! Some baker somewhere doesn't want to create a wedding cake for a same-sex union that he doesn't agree with! You have to got to go to him!

Go to who? Do they advertise they refuse service to gay couples who want to get married... or gay couples in general?

The baker can't refuse to sell a person a pastry scroll based on the person's sexual orientation. But he ought be able to refuse a bespoke product made to a customer's specifications.

Specifications? It's a wedding cake! Type of cake, type of frosting, color, decorations (flowers, piping, etc...), tiers, shape. All of which don't speak to the orientation of a marrying couple!

Do you think a commercial artist, who advertises her drawing and painting skills, should be compelled to take any commission whatsoever?

WEDDING CAKE! That'd be paint by number. We aren't talking about compelling someone to create a depiction of a gay orgy on a flat sheet cake.

So you don't want to answer my question.

 

[Metaphor]

There are businesses who specialise solely in same-sex union celebrations, and the progressives want to give money to the bigots. It beggars belief.

They don't even have to specialize. Just wanna make money. Gay customers money spends just as well as straight customers.

About 15+ years ago, before SCOTUS decision, a local couple saw a business opportunity on the internet. A website promoting all sorts of wedding/union related vendors, provided the vendors were gay friendly. They knew how many upscale customers would choose against a business that refused gay customers.

It flopped, miserably.

Not because all those brides forking out $10K for a caterer didn't care. It's because they already knew. If a caterer turned down a banquet for a gay union, word got around fast. Bakers, florists, venues, bands, jewellers, limos, everything. You can't stay in business long with a "No Gays" business plan, and that's here in southern Indiana. Because your competitors will eat you alive.
Tom

Oh, I believe that. Years ago, a person in Australia who did custom wedding cake toppers (making it so the figurine of the bride and groom actually looked like them) was asked for a gay union ceremony one (this was long before Australia legalised same-sex marriage). The artist turned down the commission and said she was not skilled in making same-sex depictions.

I know about this only because a friend did a shamepost on Facebook asking for advice on internetland about what steps to take to so she could force the artist into making the piece, whether she could sue, etc. Most of the replies were extremely supportive of the friend and basically stopped short of 'let's hunt this woman down and crucify her'.

I did not put anything on the post, but for the life of me I could not figure out why somebody wanted a wedding topper made under duress. What a sad thing to want and to be willing to sue for.