Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 44 of 44
  1. #41
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,326
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If the baker didn't consider it a message, then this wouldn't be an issue. Really, you are the one claiming the baker has no message when refusing to bake the cake.
    No, I'm not claiming that. Here is what I said:

    "You will need to support that the cake is the message. Maybe that's the way you personally see it but I'm unaware of any legal principle that would agree with that nor do I personally agree."

    I said that you will need to support your argument because I don't agree with it (if I agreed with it, I wouldn't ask you to support it). I didn't claim that the opposing position is true and just to save us the potential of arguing whether I did or did not claim that, I am currently not claiming that (so even if I did in the past, it's not a current claim of mine so I have no need to support it).

    So support or retract that the cake is a message.

    And I should point out that just thinking that what one is doing is "sending a message" does not make it so. If it were otherwise, then one could refuse to do anything by saying that doing so would be sending a message that they don't want to send. A kid could refuse to clean his room by saying that cleaning his room would be "sending a message" that he's in favor of tidiness and therefore it's a violation of his free speech rights to be punished for not cleaning his room. So if one is to argue that doing X would be sending a message, they are going to have to meet a higher bar than saying that they think it's sending a message. It would have to be agreed by a common observer that a message would be sent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What is the baker doing if not sending a message?
    Selling a cake.
    Last edited by mican333; May 26th, 2017 at 08:33 AM.

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,112
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, I'm not claiming that. Here is what I said:

    "You will need to support that the cake is the message. Maybe that's the way you personally see it but I'm unaware of any legal principle that would agree with that nor do I personally agree."

    I said that you will need to support your argument because I don't agree with it (if I agreed with it, I wouldn't ask you to support it). I didn't claim that the opposing position is true and just to save us the potential of arguing whether I did or did not claim that, I am currently not claiming that (so even if I did in the past, it's not a current claim of mine so I have no need to support it).

    So support or retract that the cake is a message.

    And I should point out that just thinking that what one is doing is "sending a message" does not make it so. If it were otherwise, then one could refuse to do anything by saying that doing so would be sending a message that they don't want to send. A kid could refuse to clean his room by saying that cleaning his room would be "sending a message" that he's in favor of tidiness and therefore it's a violation of his free speech rights to be punished for not cleaning his room. So if one is to argue that doing X would be sending a message, they are going to have to meet a higher bar than saying that they think it's sending a message. It would have to be agreed by a common observer that a message would be sent.




    Selling a cake.
    Except one problem with your theory. He didn't sell the cake.

    ---------- Post added at 10:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The Valeo case had nothing to do with anti-discrimination vs. freedom to exercise religion, so it is completely irrelevant. Further, how a business operates according to anti-discrimination laws and how political contributions and spending are done according to campaign finance laws are two completely different things altogether, with two completely different sets of laws governing them.
    Follow the bouncing ball here. You claimed spending money was not a form of speech. I offered the Valeo case to directly refute this. Valeo didn't address discrimination nor did I make such a claim. So, the question now is, do you concede that spending money is a form of free speech?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, you do - I'm merely highlighting the issues that would be caused by your attitude towards defending discriminatory views being expressed as business decisions. How do you think such a case would go over if such a religious exemption were instituted? Do you think the Muslim's right to make discriminatory business decisions would be protected just as fervently as the Christians'?
    This is little more than a slippery slope argument. I cannot predict how far such freedom would be taken nor how the courts would respond. All I can do is express that I support the freedom of speech and do not exclude people just because they own a business.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I already refuted this: by conducting one's business in accordance with the anti-discrimination laws, the business is doing just that. It is extrapolation to conclude that conducting a business in accordance with the anti-discrimination laws is the same as supporting any religious views. They're not expressing any views, they're just conducting their business the way the law requires them to. However, it's not a stretch to imagine that the business operator could be criticized by their religious peers, and that their fear of criticism is what leads them to extrapolate their business decisions into expression of religious views.
    Obviously, you and Mican are completely wrong here. The baker, in the example provided by Mican, was very clearly making a statement by expressing his first amendment rights to support his religious views. By disallowing his refusal of service, you have absolutely abridged his freedom of expression and have absolutely inhibited his right to express himself religiously. You can claim that you are doing this because you believe that anti-discrimination is more important than free speech, but you have clearly made a choice. The problem here is that the constitution does not have any sort of clause which demands that people refuse to discriminate against one another. This is an entirely invented right which encroaches on actual rights established in the Constitution. However, you make no apology for this. Rather, you insist that the ends must justify the means and your preferred ends are always justified. In this case, certain groups of people must not be discriminated against. However, we've already established that this anti-discrimination philosophy only goes so far and is immediately abandoned when the discriminated person isn't from an approved upon group. Your ends becomes nothing more than a means towards discrimination of someone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And you don't see how supporting exceptions which favour religion is unconstitutional according to the Anti-Establishment clause? Or are you willing to allow the violation of the very first clause of the very first amendment as well as anti-discrimination laws for the sole reason that you believe it would restore support for the 3rd clause for a select group of people?
    Here is where I'd like you to follow my argument more closely. In a perfect world, I wouldn't want religious exceptions to laws. In principle, I agree that religious exceptions could be unconstitutional. However, we do not live in a perfect world and bad bills get created. So, we have a problem. We have laws which violate religious freedom (i.e. 1st amendment rights). So, where an exception makes a bad law, less bad, then I support the exception. Grudgingly. But, some freedom is better than no freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Um, making discriminatory business decisions which violate anti-discrimination laws? I thought that was clear.
    So, you are claiming that the baker merely wanted to violate the law? He acted solely, without any purpose or plan, to simply violate a law. An anti-discrimination law. As an act of pure naivete. Just woke up and decided, hey, there's a gay bloke and I'm going to refuse to bake him a cake and go to jail. He probably hoped, in the back of his head, that no one would read anything into it because he clearly wasn't intending to send a message or act on his religious views. I mean, your claim is ridiculous on its face. It does not even make sense.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  3. #43
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,326
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Except one problem with your theory. He didn't sell the cake.
    That's not a problem at all.

    As there is no relevant difference between choosing to send a message and choosing to not send a message, there is likewise no relevant difference between selling a cake and refusing to sell a cake.

    But either way, you have not supported that a cake is a message.
    Last edited by mican333; May 27th, 2017 at 08:54 AM.

  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Follow the bouncing ball here. You claimed spending money was not a form of speech. I offered the Valeo case to directly refute this. Valeo didn't address discrimination nor did I make such a claim. So, the question now is, do you concede that spending money is a form of free speech?
    First, the Valeo ruling was that restrictions on spending for political communication violated the First Amendment's 3rd clause. Please support or retract that the ruling proves that spending money in and of itself is a form of speech.
    Second, please indicate where I claimed that spending money was not a form of speech, because we're talking about the business decisions made by the business, not spending money.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This is little more than a slippery slope argument. I cannot predict how far such freedom would be taken nor how the courts would respond. All I can do is express that I support the freedom of speech and do not exclude people just because they own a business.
    No, it would be a slippery slope if I claimed that the Muslim example was inevitable as a result of implementing religious exemptions. I didn't claim this, so it's not a slippery slope. Your attempts to avoid responding to the implications of the example speak volumes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    The baker, in the example provided by Mican, was very clearly making a statement by expressing his first amendment rights to support his religious views.
    Huh? People don't "make statements by expressing their first amendment rights to support their religious views". Your incoherent sentence is indicative of the irrational lengths to which you will go to extrapolate any meaning from any conduct in order to support your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Here is where I'd like you to follow my argument more closely. In a perfect world, I wouldn't want religious exceptions to laws. In principle, I agree that religious exceptions could be unconstitutional. However, we do not live in a perfect world and bad bills get created. So, we have a problem. We have laws which violate religious freedom (i.e. 1st amendment rights). So, where an exception makes a bad law, less bad, then I support the exception. Grudgingly. But, some freedom is better than no freedom.
    By "religious freedom", are you referring to the 2nd or the 3rd clause of the 1st amendment?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, you are claiming that the baker merely wanted to violate the law? He acted solely, without any purpose or plan, to simply violate a law. An anti-discrimination law. As an act of pure naivete. Just woke up and decided, hey, there's a gay bloke and I'm going to refuse to bake him a cake and go to jail. He probably hoped, in the back of his head, that no one would read anything into it because he clearly wasn't intending to send a message or act on his religious views. I mean, your claim is ridiculous on its face. It does not even make sense.
    Nice straw man. I didn't say he is "making discriminatory business decisions in order to violate anti-discrimination laws".

  5. Likes CowboyX liked this post
 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Abortion is not a constitutional right
    By theophilus in forum Shootin' the Breeze / Off-Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 31st, 2015, 12:04 AM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: December 22nd, 2010, 11:39 AM
  3. Home schooling not a constitutional right in California
    By MindTrap028 in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 5th, 2008, 02:01 PM
  4. Another Constitutional Convention?
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 6th, 2007, 04:07 PM
  5. Goldphoenix, on Constitutional Issues
    By Netopalis in forum General Debate
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: August 18th, 2007, 10:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •