SCOTUS to take the cake

[untermensche]

What specific speech?

"Good luck Rex and Ronnie."

They are allowed to oppose that?

What words are giving this baker problems with his religion?

If he says baking a cake is a form of art I can claim cooking eggs is a form of art and I can't do it for people going to a gay wedding afterward. I can't contribute to their sin by feeding them with my art.

Man, I do not want to repeat what you are capable of reviewing from my prior posts. I've already stated, in prior posts, the potential speech involved and referenced specifically to petitioner's brief. Petitioner's brief explicitly states the alleged speech involved. You can read it here. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-cert-petition.pdf

Petitioner's speech claim isn't frivolous and more nuanced than someone merely cooking eggs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice dodge.

The claim is frivolous because it is based on the assumption that practicing Christianity is being opposed to gay marriage.

That is a current opinion of some Christians which is nonsense.

And these kinds of opinions should in no way ever allow discrimination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Man, I do not want to repeat what you are capable of reviewing from my prior posts. I've already stated, in prior posts, the potential speech involved and referenced specifically to petitioner's brief. Petitioner's brief explicitly states the alleged speech involved. You can read it here. [url]http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-cert-petition.pdf [/URL]

Petitioner's speech claim isn't frivolous and more nuanced than someone merely cooking eggs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice dodge.

The claim is frivolous because it is based on the assumption that Christianity is opposed to gay marriage.

This is irrelevant. SCOTUS can not delve into every person's beliefs and judge whether they are reasonable within the context of whatever religion. If it is a truly held belief, that is pretty much that. Err... except polygomy. They ruled against that in 1879.

 

[James Madison]

What you are missing is that, in regards to the free speech claim, the discrimination isn't based on race or sexual orientation. They aren't allowed to refuse service because of race or sexual orientation. They must still serve blacks and gays generally.

The refusal here is based on an alleged free speech right in a specific and narrow sirusriom. An apparent subtle distinction for some but a fundamental distinction.

I'm most certainly hoping that the justices aren't stupid enough to fall for this.

Any legal filing that includes text that reads: "Cake making dates back to at least 1175 B.C." can't be taken too seriously. I'm surprised they didn't cite the rainbow as a symbolic gesture of a new covenant with man in the write-up.

In addition, Phillips argued that CADA should beread narrowly to avoid a constitutional violationbecause requiring him to create custom weddingcakes to celebrate a same-sex wedding ceremonywould violate the compelled speech doctrine and hisright to the free exercise of religion under the Firstand Fourteenth Amendments of the United StatesConstitution.

I don't see how this claim is not applicable to inter-racial couples as well.

I'm most certainly hoping that the justices aren't stupid enough to fall for this...Any legal filing that includes text that reads: "Cake making dates back to at least 1175 B.C." can't be taken too seriously. I'm surprised they didn't cite the rainbow as a symbolic gesture of a new covenant with man in the write-up.

Thanks for that vaunted analysis Higgins! It isn't too difficult to conceive of the plausible argument of why making custom cakes is an art and expressive conduct. My point, you are too easily dismissive of petitioner's argument as frivolous and their argument isn't frivolous.

 

[untermensche]

Nice dodge.

The claim is frivolous because it is based on the assumption that Christianity is opposed to gay marriage.

This is irrelevant. SCOTUS can not delve into every person's beliefs and judge whether they are reasonable within the context of whatever religion. If it is a truly held belief, that is pretty much that. Err... except polygomy. They ruled against that in 1879.

Sure they can. They can decide if this in any way constitutes "normal practice of religion". Does being opposed to the legal rights of others constitute religious practice?

They are allowed to define concepts.

If practicing a religion means being opposed to the legal rights of other people then the rights of the people to not be discriminated against are superior.

 

[James Madison]

Man, I do not want to repeat what you are capable of reviewing from my prior posts. I've already stated, in prior posts, the potential speech involved and referenced specifically to petitioner's brief. Petitioner's brief explicitly states the alleged speech involved. You can read it here. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-cert-petition.pdf

Petitioner's speech claim isn't frivolous and more nuanced than someone merely cooking eggs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice dodge.

The claim is frivolous because it is based on the assumption that practicing Christianity is being opposed to gay marriage.

That is a current opinion of some Christians which is nonsense.

And these kinds of opinions should in no way ever allow discrimination.

No dodge...I am not going to repeat the answer I provided in several posts over the course of several pages when you are perfectly capable of reviewing this thread's prior posts for the answer to your query.

And whether the "current opinion of some Christians...is non-sense" is not a determination the Court will make or rely upon in reaching its decision.

 

[James Madison]

This is irrelevant. SCOTUS can not delve into every person's beliefs and judge whether they are reasonable within the context of whatever religion. If it is a truly held belief, that is pretty much that. Err... except polygomy. They ruled against that in 1879.

Sure they can. They can decide if this in any way constitutes "normal practice of religion".

They are allowed to define concepts.

If practicing a religion means being opposed to the legal rights of other people then the rights of the people to not be discriminated against are superior.

Sure they can. They can decide if this in any way constitutes "normal practice of religion".

They can? This is contrary to what the Court has explicitly stated.

Well, the Court is likely to be confused as to what in the hell "normal practice of religion" means. What the hell does such a phrase mean?

 

[repoman]

Because you continue to be remiss in failing to acknowledge the free speech claim.

This is a non-issue for inter-racial marriage. If he denied an inter-racial couple a cake, he'd be refuted, and we wouldn't be here. The only reason why this case exists is that it is within the margins that potential discrimination against gays is still acceptable. I quite understand that his lawyers are claiming that his art/expression is speech. I don't care about if it is speech. Expression is protected by the Constitution. What isn't protected is discrimination. His lawyers claim he is being compelled to exert some speech that isn't his, and therefore being wronged by the State. The problem is that this can apply to any number of things that he may think is wrong for religious reasons. Paying blacks, inter-racial marriage, any number of things that used to be status quo in America.

Note this is sarcastic:

I added the bold italics.

Wait, if money is speech then being forced to pay blacks violates free speech.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If it is a truly held belief, that is pretty much that. Err... except polygomy. They ruled against that in 1879.

But Polygamy is not a religious belief.
The religious belief is that the more offspring you have, the more power you gain in Heaven. Polygamy is just the mechanism to maximizing offspring in the following generations.
People can still believe and practice the belief that your descendants pray through you to get to God, and that pass-through benefits you. They just can't take shortcuts to becoming a deity in their own right.

Or at least, they can't admit to it when the Feds drive past the homestead...

 

[untermensche]

No dodge...I am not going to repeat the answer I provided in several posts over the course of several pages when you are perfectly capable of reviewing this thread's prior posts for the answer to your query.

And whether the "current opinion of some Christians...is non-sense" is not a determination the Court will make or rely upon in reaching its decision.

But if it is clear to you it could have been summarized with less work than this reply.

I don't want to start some research project to try to find the answer.

What the hell was this religious nut's, who thinks part of religious practice is being opposed to the legal rights of others, problem?

 

[James Madison]

Because you continue to be remiss in failing to acknowledge the free speech claim.

This is a non-issue for inter-racial marriage. If he denied an inter-racial couple a cake, he'd be refuted, and we wouldn't be here. The only reason why this case exists is that it is within the margins that potential discrimination against gays is still acceptable. I quite understand that his lawyers are claiming that his art/expression is speech. I don't care about if it is speech. Expression is protected by the Constitution. What isn't protected is discrimination. His lawyers claim he is being compelled to exert some speech that isn't his, and therefore being wronged by the State. The problem is that this can apply to any number of things that he may think is wrong for religious reasons. Paying blacks, inter-racial marriage, any number of things that used to be status quo in America.

The only reason why this case exists is that it is within the margins that potential discrimination against gays is still acceptable.

No, the other reason "this case exists" is because there is a potential free speech issue the Court needs to address.

His lawyers claim he is being compelled to exert some speech that isn't his, and therefore being wronged by the State. The problem is that this can apply to any number of things that he may think is wrong for religious reasons. Paying blacks, inter-racial marriage, any number of things that used to be status quo in America.

This prose illustrates your problem. In one instance, you are discussing expression and free speech, and then immediately invoke "religious reasons." The free speech issue and "religious reasons" issue related to freedom of religion claim are two separate and distinct claims involving two separate and distinct clauses under the 1st Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a non-issue for inter-racial marriage. If he denied an inter-racial couple a cake, he'd be refuted, and we wouldn't be here. The only reason why this case exists is that it is within the margins that potential discrimination against gays is still acceptable. I quite understand that his lawyers are claiming that his art/expression is speech. I don't care about if it is speech. Expression is protected by the Constitution. What isn't protected is discrimination. His lawyers claim he is being compelled to exert some speech that isn't his, and therefore being wronged by the State. The problem is that this can apply to any number of things that he may think is wrong for religious reasons. Paying blacks, inter-racial marriage, any number of things that used to be status quo in America.

Note this is sarcastic:

I added the bold italics.

Wait, if money is speech then being forced to pay blacks violates free speech.

Witty! Most witty!

 

[untermensche]

Sure they can. They can decide if this in any way constitutes "normal practice of religion".

They are allowed to define concepts.

If practicing a religion means being opposed to the legal rights of other people then the rights of the people to not be discriminated against are superior.

Sure they can. They can decide if this in any way constitutes "normal practice of religion".

They can? This is contrary to what the Court has explicitly stated.

Well, the Court is likely to be confused as to what in the hell "normal practice of religion" means. What the hell does such a phrase mean?

It means what a rational person could conclude is legitimate religious practice.

Praying, helping the poor, trying to be good so you can get to heaven.

How the hell does anybody see religious practice as being opposed to the legal rights of others?

My religious practice is being opposed the rights of Asians to drive.

 

[coloradoatheist]

James,
Why wouldn't the logic used in Employement Divison vs Smith apply the same fee speech ask?

 

[James Madison]

Sure they can. They can decide if this in any way constitutes "normal practice of religion".

They can? This is contrary to what the Court has explicitly stated.

Well, the Court is likely to be confused as to what in the hell "normal practice of religion" means. What the hell does such a phrase mean?

It means what a rational person could conclude is legitimate religious practice.

Praying, helping the poor, trying to be good so you can get to heaven.

How the hell does anybody see religious practice as being opposed to the legal rights of others?

My religious practice is being opposed the rights of Asians to drive.

It means what a rational person could conclude is legitimate religious practice.

Which is something the Court has stated, repeatedly, it cannot do and has also stated no court in the U.S. may engage in such an inquiry.

 

[untermensche]

Sure they can. They can decide if this in any way constitutes "normal practice of religion".

They can? This is contrary to what the Court has explicitly stated.

Well, the Court is likely to be confused as to what in the hell "normal practice of religion" means. What the hell does such a phrase mean?

It means what a rational person could conclude is legitimate religious practice.

Praying, helping the poor, trying to be good so you can get to heaven.

How the hell does anybody see religious practice as being opposed to the legal rights of others?

My religious practice is being opposed the rights of Asians to drive.

It means what a rational person could conclude is legitimate religious practice.

Which is something the Court has stated, repeatedly, it cannot do and has also stated no court in the U.S. may engage in such an inquiry.

Bullshit.

The courts have tried all kinds of cases where people claimed the use of drugs was part of their religion. Or polygamy was part of their religion.

The issue has been approached.

Why any rational standard of what constitutes legitimate religious practice is abandoned here is due to underlying prejudice against homosexuals.

 

[James Madison]

James,
Why wouldn't the logic used in Employement Divison vs Smith apply the same fee speech ask?

Because Employment Division v. Smith didn't involve the Free Speech Clause but instead the Free Exercise of Religion Clause. The Court's jurisprudence in the two clauses is, generally, radically different from each other. And, at issue in Employment Division v. Smith was purely conduct, not expressive speech conduct, but religious conduct, which the Court held was different from a belief and the religious conduct could be burdened.

Here, we have expressive speech, expressive conduct, and a Free Speech principle that people cannot be compelled by the government to speak, which would also mean they cannot be compelled to engage in expressive speech/expressive conduct.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Sure they can. They can decide if this in any way constitutes "normal practice of religion".

They can? This is contrary to what the Court has explicitly stated.

Well, the Court is likely to be confused as to what in the hell "normal practice of religion" means. What the hell does such a phrase mean?

It means what a rational person could conclude is legitimate religious practice.

Praying, helping the poor, trying to be good so you can get to heaven.

How the hell does anybody see religious practice as being opposed to the legal rights of others?

My religious practice is being opposed the rights of Asians to drive.

It means what a rational person could conclude is legitimate religious practice.

Which is something the Court has stated, repeatedly, it cannot do and has also stated no court in the U.S. may engage in such an inquiry.

Bullshit.

The courts have tried all kinds of cases where people claimed the use of drugs was part of their religion. Or polygamy was part of their religion.

The issue has been approached.

Why any rational standard of what constitutes legitimate religious practice is abandoned here is due to underlying prejudice against homosexuals.

Except the reasoning in that case wasn't, they can't do it because it's not a valid religious belief. They used different logic to prevent it.

 

[James Madison]

Sure they can. They can decide if this in any way constitutes "normal practice of religion".

They can? This is contrary to what the Court has explicitly stated.

Well, the Court is likely to be confused as to what in the hell "normal practice of religion" means. What the hell does such a phrase mean?

It means what a rational person could conclude is legitimate religious practice.

Praying, helping the poor, trying to be good so you can get to heaven.

How the hell does anybody see religious practice as being opposed to the legal rights of others?

My religious practice is being opposed the rights of Asians to drive.

It means what a rational person could conclude is legitimate religious practice.

Which is something the Court has stated, repeatedly, it cannot do and has also stated no court in the U.S. may engage in such an inquiry.

Bullshit.

The courts have tried all kinds of cases where people claimed the use of drugs was part of their religion. Or polygamy was part of their religion.

The issue has been approached.

Why any rational standard of what constitutes legitimate religious practice is abandoned here is due to underlying prejudice against homosexuals.

Bullshit.

The courts have tried all kinds of cases where people claimed the use of drugs was part of their religion. Or polygamy was part of their religion.

The issue has been approached.

Wrong. Very wrong. The Court has never determined whether some belief or conduct was a "legitimate religious practice."

They have examined whether the person's/entity's religious beliefs are a "sincerely held religious belief" by the person/entity, but they have NEVER determined whether the belief/conduct was a "legitimate religious" belief or "practice."

 

[untermensche]

Why any rational standard of what constitutes legitimate religious practice is abandoned here is due to underlying prejudice against homosexuals.

Except the reasoning in that case wasn't, they can't do it because it's not a valid religious belief. They used different logic to prevent it.

Being opposed to the legal rights of others is part of no legitimate religious practice.

Courts decide which rights are legitimate.

Not religious leaders or followers.

 

[James Madison]

Sure they can. They can decide if this in any way constitutes "normal practice of religion".

They can? This is contrary to what the Court has explicitly stated.

Well, the Court is likely to be confused as to what in the hell "normal practice of religion" means. What the hell does such a phrase mean?

It means what a rational person could conclude is legitimate religious practice.

Praying, helping the poor, trying to be good so you can get to heaven.

How the hell does anybody see religious practice as being opposed to the legal rights of others?

My religious practice is being opposed the rights of Asians to drive.

It means what a rational person could conclude is legitimate religious practice.

Which is something the Court has stated, repeatedly, it cannot do and has also stated no court in the U.S. may engage in such an inquiry.

Bullshit.

The courts have tried all kinds of cases where people claimed the use of drugs was part of their religion. Or polygamy was part of their religion.

The issue has been approached.

Why any rational standard of what constitutes legitimate religious practice is abandoned here is due to underlying prejudice against homosexuals.

Except the reasoning in that case wasn't, they can't do it because it's not a valid religious belief. They used different logic to prevent it.

That is correct. The Court has specifically stated neither they or any court in America may determine whether some religious conduct/religious belief is a "legitimate religious" conduct or belief.

What they can ask is whether the religious belief/religious conduct of the person/entity is a "sincerely held" belief by the person/entity.

 

[untermensche]

Wrong. Very wrong. The Court has never determined whether some belief or conduct was a "legitimate religious practice."

They have examined whether the person's/entity's religious beliefs are a "sincere held religious belief" by the person/entity, but they have NEVER determined whether the belief/conduct was a "legitimate religious" belief or "practice."

The court has defined what is and is not a religion.

I cannot say that my religion is smoking marijuana and legally smoke it in places where it is forbidden by law.

That is in effect defining what is legitimate practice.

There is no reason the courts can't define what is and is not legitimate religious practice.

No law should ever enshrine something that is not legitimate religious practice.

To not take it into account here is to live in a fantasy world and to abandon reason.