Baking Cakes and Discrimination: Or, "What Would Jesus Do?"

[Cutlass]

You never can tell with satan. He's such a joker. His followers, though, those are the real freaks.

 

[Farm Boy]

Man I dunno, I'm not really a fan of obliging people their labor but if you're a premier cakemaker in town and others are opting not to compete because the position is filled it's pretty evil to be hatin' like that. Why should the democratic state grant you corporate charter?

A google search of cakeshops in Lakewood, Colorado in the immediate proximity of Denver, Colorado, makes this an exceptionally generous argument to make on behalf of the Colorado Human Rights Commission.

 

[Ajidica]

To clarify: freedom of expression and freedom of religion means that the government cannot force an artist to do work he does not want to do, nor can the government force a religious person to break their vows/go against their religious belief. Therefore forcing a baker to bake a cake in support of something against his beliefs is unconstitutional.

Question: Would you support a Muslim taxi driver who did not want to drive customers with alcohol in their belongings because they consider it a violation of their freedom of religion?
Question: Would you support a Christian shop owner who refused to sell to Jews because he considered them to be Christ-killers?
Question: Would you support a Muslim who refused to sell to Hindus because they are kafir?

As far as I am aware, this media-whore cake shop owner has structured his business as a for-profit business and is not running it as a legal part of a religion institution. The purpose of a for-profit business is, surprise surprise, to make money. Not to carry out religious tasks. If the media-whore cake shop owner believes he is unable to carry out his job of providing goods he commonly provides to paying customers then perhaps structure your cake shop so that it is legally part of a religious institution. Then, I would have no problem with the media-whore cake shop owner refusing to make cakes for whatever weird religious reason he wants -perhaps the wearing of polyester. Until then, as a business granted legal protections by the government he is to provide to any paying customer goods he regularly provides in his line of work.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

I have decided not to bite your self-righteous flame bait.

 

[miaasma]

homophobes calling non homophobes self-righteous is beautiful

 

[Ajidica]

I have decided not to bite your self-righteous flame bait.

Cool story bro.

 

[JollyRoger]

If he is running his business as a sole proprietorship, discriminate away. If he is seeking the protection from individual liability by running his business as a corporation or LLC, then the state should be able to stop him from discriminating.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

I’m not homophobic. I’m gay myself (mostly homosexual but bidemiromantic). However, the Bill of Rights is written in plain English and is very easy to interpret. Rules as Written and Rules as (originally) Intended barely requires any historic knowledge but I have enough historic knowledge to fully understand. Besides, the Founding Fathers expected The Constitution to be amended every 19 years. Really, antidiscrimination should be written as an amendment (the Americans with Disabilities Act was closest to becoming an Amendment).

Also, Hobby Lobby set a precedent.

 

[Farm Boy]

If he is running his business as a sole proprietorship, discriminate away. If he is seeking the protection from individual liability by running his business as a corporation or LLC, then the state should be able to stop him from discriminating.

I think we were onto something earlier with the non-profit for profit thing. It's like what goes on in my town, the animal shelter is non-profit, it pays it's CEO and chief vet over 200,000 a year, then begs charity and labor off of people making less than 20k.

Seems like he should be able to leverage something like that*.

Spoiler :

*That's super sarcastic.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I have enough historic knowledge to fully understand.

You claim to have this wealth of knowledge and understanding, yet claim to be buying this "I'm not a commercial baker, I'm an artist" line that is an obvious grasp at a very thin straw by an oftentimes wide open unabashed bigot. The knowledge does not juxtapose well with the naivety, so it seems like one of your claims must be false.

 

[Ajidica]

Freedom of expression appears nowhere in the bill of rights (one of "penumbras" Thomas has such a hate-boner for).
To start with, you yourself said:

To clarify: freedom of expression and freedom of religion means that the government cannot force an artist to do work he does not want to do, nor can the government force a religious person to break their vows/go against their religious belief. Therefore forcing a baker to bake a cake in support of something against his beliefs is unconstitutional.

Based on a literal meaning of the text -as you propose doing- the media-whore cake baker has no recourse to protect his discrimination. No mention of expression in the bill of rights and the First Amendment only stops Congress from prohibiting the exercising of his religion - which, correct me if I am wrong, he is still able to go to church and be a professing Christian whether or not he makes a cake for some gays or not. The SC has upheld a prohibition on polygamy -which the Mormons claimed was part of their religion- and permitted businesses to fire employees who failed a drug test due to using drugs in religious ceremonies.

Also, Hobby Lobby set a precedent.

Dred Scott and Korematsu also set precedent.
Not all precedent is good precedent.
(EDIT: Also, was Burwell even cited by Kennedy in the opinion? Haven't read it myself but all the reporting indicated the SC ignored the merits of the case and focused on alleged persistent bias and malice by the Colorado government board rendered the whole thing moot. And if we are going to talk about precedent, I think a bigger issue with precedence is that Kennedy wrote a ruling that otherwise valid government actions can be overturned if the underlying conduct was driven by malice; and then a week later turn around and uphold a Muslim Ban -that was clearly driven by malice- on the grounds it wasn't the courts job to determine how the government came to an action if the action itself is valid.)

 

[miaasma]

I’m not homophobic. I’m gay myself (mostly homosexual but bidemiromantic). However, the Bill of Rights is written in plain English and is very easy to interpret. Rules as Written and Rules as (originally) Intended barely requires any historic knowledge but I have enough historic knowledge to fully understand. Besides, the Founding Fathers expected The Constitution to be amended every 19 years. Really, antidiscrimination should be written as an amendment (the Americans with Disabilities Act was closest to becoming an Amendment).

Also, Hobby Lobby set a precedent.

most gay people i know don't practically verbatim parrot right wing homophobic rhetoric, but you do you

 

[Azem.Ocram]

My preferred means of arguing on forums and social media is presenting facts that support the least popular opinion among the posters regardless of my opinion. Depending on reactions, I might then discredit the unpopular opinion in support of mine, or point out the flaws of posters already triggered.

Another favorite is to use the terminology of one group to support a position contrary to their own.

 

[miaasma]

triggered.

ah

it's one of those

 

[Ajidica]

FWIW we've had posters who have done similar things, and all it accomplished was to get them ignored or automatically assumed to be trolls. There is a general assumption that you are putting forward your opinion and beliefs honestly.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

I usually point out my opinion clearly when I share it. I also admit when I’m wrong and when I’ve been triggered. I’ve triggered posters who triggered me, but such flame wars are rare from me and usually limited to facebook.

EDIT: Though I usually take a pill to keep me from getting emotional, much like in the dystopian science fiction Equilibrium.

My opinion is that the legal system is unfair and that anti-discrimination should be amended into the Constitution. However, according to the Constitution and several precedents, including Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court decision for the Colorado gay wedding cake was expected.

 

[zxcvbob]

Freedom of expression appears nowhere in the bill of rights (one of "penumbras" Thomas has such a hate-boner for).
To start with, you yourself said:

Based on a literal meaning of the text -as you propose doing- the media-whore cake baker has no recourse to protect his discrimination. No mention of expression in the bill of rights and the First Amendment only stops Congress from prohibiting the exercising of his religion - which, correct me if I am wrong, he is still able to go to church and be a professing Christian whether or not he makes a cake for some gays or not. The SC has upheld a prohibition on polygamy -which the Mormons claimed was part of their religion- and permitted businesses to fire employees who failed a drug test due to using drugs in religious ceremonies.


Dred Scott and Korematsu also set precedent.
Not all precedent is good precedent.
(EDIT: Also, was Burwell even cited by Kennedy in the opinion? Haven't read it myself but all the reporting indicated the SC ignored the merits of the case and focused on alleged persistent bias and malice by the Colorado government board rendered the whole thing moot. And if we are going to talk about precedent, I think a bigger issue with precedence is that Kennedy wrote a ruling that otherwise valid government actions can be overturned if the underlying conduct was driven by malice; and then a week later turn around and uphold a Muslim Ban -that was clearly driven by malice- on the grounds it wasn't the courts job to determine how the government came to an action if the action itself is valid.)

"Freedom of expression" is not mentioned in the 1st Amendment, but freedom of speech is. I think the question then is, is art speech? (and the second question is, is a custom decorated cake art?) The Supreme Court has weighed in on this. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 1952. More recently, a US district court case Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences v. City of New York. If I'm interpreting Burstyn correctly, the answer is a qualified yes. (Burstyn dealt with motion pictures) It is speech, but the more abstract the art, the less protection it receives. And the more political the speech (or art), the more protection it receives.

 

[Broken_Erika]

EDIT: Though I usually take a pill to keep me from getting emotional, much like in the dystopian science fiction Equilibrium.

Same here, i have my daily Effexor happy pills. Without them bad things happen....

 

[Ajidica]

I agree in general that freedom of expression is one of the rights necessary for other rights to work and is protected.* However, Azem was making (or pretending to make) the point that we can rely on the plain wording of the Bill of Rights without relying on the Supreme Court - which is sort of ludicrous as it did not support the position he was taking.

*Though obviously freedom of expression is limited. I don't have the right to express myself by taking the bus to work naked.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

Freedom of Expression is a secondary right to Freedom of Speech, just like Roe vs Wade determined that Freedom to Arbortions is a secondary right to Freedom of Privacy and the EU determined the Right to be Forgotton another secondary right to that of privacy.