SCOTUS to take the cake

[Jimmy Higgins]

From what I read, he is stating his art / expression is violated by baking and selling the cake on religious grounds.

As I noted, allowing this just takes us back to the 50's where it becomes okay to discriminate against the right type of people, in this case people who are not heterosexual.

No, he is clearly asserting that making "custom" wedding cakes is an art, an art involving expressive conduct, and expressive conduct is protected by the speech clause of the 1st Amendment.

I pretty much said as much. He is claiming his expression is being violated by being forced to sell a cake.

SCOTUS has ruled bribery is free speech, pieces of paper can have religion, so why not capitalism is expression?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, we've heard these exact arguments against the blacks in the 50's and 60's.

You've got the "we" part wrong because I don't remember people saying "people can have their own beliefs, but maybe not once leftists get done" back in the 50's.

Not being alive and stuff.

Nice try to cop out.

 

[LordKiran]

Fine but 'their' beliefs have no basis in scripture and thus, are not religious in nature.

and what test has the Supreme court used for validating whether something is a religious belief? Are they scholars on the interpretation of the different religious books?

Personal beliefs=/=Religious beliefs

If it has no basis in scripture it isn't religious. Easy enough. Christians (And any other religious group in America really) are not Celtic Pagans who never wrote anything down. If it's important to their religion in some way, it was written down somewhere for posterity.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Harry loves hamsters. He has opened a specialized pet shop that sells hamsters, hamster food, hamster exercise wheels, and everything else a hamster needs to have a long and happy life. Many of his customers send him photographs showing their happy moments with their hamsters. He treasures them and posts them on the wall by the cash register. Sam loves snakes. He wants to buy hamsters from Harry to feed to his snakes. Should we force Harry to sell hamsters to Sam?

Mohammed is Muslim and very devout. He runs a Muslim book store and sells Qurans to the local Muslim community. April used to also be Muslim, but now April is an Apostate and is passionate about her opposition to Islam. She wants to buy Qurans from Mohammed so she can burn them in protest. Should we force Mohammed to sell Qurans to April?

Mohammed's estranged son, Hassan, is Homosexual. He believes that Islam more liberal than his father does and that it is or should be accepting of homosexuality, including gay marriage. He has fallen in love with Harry, who has converted to Islam following his traumatic experience of having to sell his beloved hamsters as food to Sam. Hassan and Harry want to get married in the local mosque, with the same ceremony that is performed for all Muslim couples. Should we force the mosque to perform the ceremony?

Mohammed, an elder at the mosque, objects to the mosque performing the marriage. He says that this is not discrimination. He says that the mosque will not marry Harry to a man, but would be happy to marry him to a woman, so it is not discrimination. He suggests that maybe April could convert back to Islam and marry Hassan, and then he would be happy to sell Qurans to April for her use in prayer. Likewise, Harry would be happy to sell hamsters to Sam, if Sam wasn't feeding them to snakes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Harry loves hamsters....

*gets out the big clippers*

*SNIP!!!*

Analogy fallacy. Let's stick to the actual subject.

 

[James Madison]

and what test has the Supreme court used for validating whether something is a religious belief? Are they scholars on the interpretation of the different religious books?

Personal beliefs=/=Religious beliefs

If it has no basis in scripture it isn't religious. Easy enough. Christians (And any other religious group in America really) are not Celtic Pagans who never wrote anything down. If it's important to their religion in some way, it was written down somewhere for posterity.

CA's question to you was in regards to what test or formulation does SCOTUS rely upon to ascertain the religious veracity of a professed religious belief? The answer is none. Why?

The Supreme has been unequivocally clear, neither they nor any other court in America may test the religious validity of a professed religious belief.

 

[dismal]

and what test has the Supreme court used for validating whether something is a religious belief? Are they scholars on the interpretation of the different religious books?

Personal beliefs=/=Religious beliefs

If it has no basis in scripture it isn't religious. Easy enough. Christians (And any other religious group in America really) are not Celtic Pagans who never wrote anything down. If it's important to their religion in some way, it was written down somewhere for posterity.

If my position is people should be free to refuse service to anyone based on any reason why would it matter if its religious or not?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Harry loves hamsters....

*gets out the big clippers*

*SNIP!!!*

Analogy fallacy. Let's stick to the actual subject.

There is nothing neccesarily fallacious about making an analogy. Nor was this meant as a direct and perfect analogy. This was meant to explore the root ideas of which the case at hand is merely one manifestation.

- - - Updated - - -

Personal beliefs=/=Religious beliefs

If it has no basis in scripture it isn't religious. Easy enough. Christians (And any other religious group in America really) are not Celtic Pagans who never wrote anything down. If it's important to their religion in some way, it was written down somewhere for posterity.

If my position is people should be free to refuse service to anyone based on any reason why would it matter if its religious or not?

Because you give special rights to religion, because.... well I'm sure there is some good reason.... right? *scratches head*

 

[laughing dog]

I think the freedom of speech argument needs a very clear ruling. I can see a surgeon making the same argument - that surgery is as much an art as it is a science and how the treatment is performed is also a mode of expression. Do we think a surgeon should be able to deny needed surgery to a person because it may violate her or his freedom of expression?

 

[starwater]

This bakery is literally within walking distance of my old office. I'm surprised they are still in business. Other businesses around them refuse to discuss anything about it if asked. There were lots of protests outside of it when this went done several years ago.

 

[LordKiran]

Personal beliefs=/=Religious beliefs

If it has no basis in scripture it isn't religious. Easy enough. Christians (And any other religious group in America really) are not Celtic Pagans who never wrote anything down. If it's important to their religion in some way, it was written down somewhere for posterity.

CA's question to you was in regards to what test or formulation does SCOTUS rely upon to ascertain the religious veracity of a professed religious belief? The answer is none. Why?

The Supreme has been unequivocally clear, neither they nor any other court in America may test the religious validity of a professed religious belief.

Who knows? Likely something to do with the state not defining one's faith. Nevertheless, if you draw your religious legitimacy from a work of scripture, anything not in accordance with said scripture cannot and should not be considered a part of that religion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Analogy fallacy. Let's stick to the actual subject.

There is nothing neccesarily fallacious about making an analogy.

Typically on the Internet, yes, there is because the analogies decide to swerve well off topic.

 

[LordKiran]

Personal beliefs=/=Religious beliefs

If it has no basis in scripture it isn't religious. Easy enough. Christians (And any other religious group in America really) are not Celtic Pagans who never wrote anything down. If it's important to their religion in some way, it was written down somewhere for posterity.

If my position is people should be free to refuse service to anyone based on any reason why would it matter if its religious or not?

it has to do with the topic. the baker's complaint stems from a supposed infringement upon their religious freedoms. Keep in mind, Christianity is not some newage hippy movement where "You just feel what's in your heart maaaaan!" It's a clearly defined group of denominations who all have their tenants based in some type of literary doctrine. If someone does not fall in line with said doctrine, how can they be called 'christian' or a member of whatever denomination they fall under?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If my position is people should be free to refuse service to anyone based on any reason why would it matter if its religious or not?

it has to do with the topic. the baker's complaint stems from a supposed infringement upon their religious freedoms. Keep in mind, Christianity is not some newage hippy movement where "You just feel what's in your heart maaaaan!" It's a clearly defined group of denominations who all have their tenants based in some type of literary doctrine. If someone does not fall in line with said doctrine, how can they be called 'christian' or a member of whatever denomination they fall under?

Christianity has so many subgroups because those doctrines and texts are so often and so easily disregarded or "interpreted" different ways (even directly against their literal meaning), to reflect whatever the speaker fees in their heart maaaaan.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is nothing neccesarily fallacious about making an analogy.

Typically on the Internet, yes, there is because the analogies decide to swerve well off topic.

Looking at analogies, and pointing out how they differ and looking into if it matters to the principles being discussed is an excellent tool at getting to the root of a matter, and at eliminating prejudices, assumptions, etc that will make you say A for one scenario but B for another that runs with the same principles you claimed was the basis for saying A for the first. Dismissing analogies and saying they don't show anything and are of no use, just because they are analogies, is actually the fallacy here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The question is who's rights matter more, the right to not be discriminated against or the right to discriminate (for religious purposes) or if capitalism is a form of expression that is protected beyond any reasonable standard.

You bring up issues that have absolutely no bearing on the case:
- hamsters used as food
- forcing religious institutions to perform acts that are counter to their religion

This is about a business entity trying to discriminate against a customer based on their identity.

 

[dismal]

If my position is people should be free to refuse service to anyone based on any reason why would it matter if its religious or not?

it has to do with the topic. the baker's complaint stems from a supposed infringement upon their religious freedoms. Keep in mind, Christianity is not some newage hippy movement where "You just feel what's in your heart maaaaan!" It's a clearly defined group of denominations who all have their tenants based in some type of literary doctrine. If someone does not fall in line with said doctrine, how can they be called 'christian' or a member of whatever denomination they fall under?

And, of course, you are in a better position than the baker to know what the baker believes.

 

[James Madison]

CA's question to you was in regards to what test or formulation does SCOTUS rely upon to ascertain the religious veracity of a professed religious belief? The answer is none. Why?

The Supreme has been unequivocally clear, neither they nor any other court in America may test the religious validity of a professed religious belief.

Who knows? Likely something to do with the state not defining one's faith. Nevertheless, if you draw your religious legitimacy from a work of scripture, anything not in accordance with said scripture cannot and should not be considered a part of that religion.

And that is not for the courts to decide and fortunately, the courts do not determine whether a religious belief is a legitimate religious belief.

No test exists by the courts because they do not inquire whether a religious belief is legitimate.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dismal]

The question is who's rights matter more, the right to not be discriminated against or the right to discriminate (for religious purposes) or if capitalism is a form of expression that is protected beyond any reasonable standard.

You have no right to have someone bake you a cake. You must gain their consent.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The question is who's rights matter more, the right to not be discriminated against or the right to discriminate (for religious purposes) or if capitalism is a form of expression that is protected beyond any reasonable standard.

You bring up issues that have absolutely no bearing on the case:
- hamsters used as food
- forcing religious institutions to perform acts that are counter to their religion

This is about a business entity trying to discriminate against a customer based on their identity.

Your rights for be discriminated against are only for a right the government to not discriminate against you, not anybody else. If I say I don't like peopled nammed Jimmy that is perfectly fine because there is no right for you from me. However if the government said we aren't going to give driver's licenses to people named Jimmy then you would have a case.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The question is who's rights matter more, the right to not be discriminated against or the right to discriminate (for religious purposes) or if capitalism is a form of expression that is protected beyond any reasonable standard.

You bring up issues that have absolutely no bearing on the case:
- hamsters used as food
- forcing religious institutions to perform acts that are counter to their religion

This is about a business entity trying to discriminate against a customer based on their identity.

Your rights for be discriminated against are only for a right the government to not discriminate against you, not anybody else.

You think it is still legal to what whites only counters at a restaurant.

If I say I don't like peopled nammed Jimmy that is perfectly fine because there is no right for you from me. However if the government said we aren't going to give driver's licenses to people named Jimmy then you would have a case.

See, this is why that whole analogy thing I mentioned earlier is bullshit because that is a bullshit analogy. You not liking people named Jimmy has no affect on anything.