How is Religious Exemption Constitutional?

[mican333]

MT,

I decided to make one argument regarding harm which covers multiple points of yours so I won't respond to those points individually.

A well-functioning society develops ways for people to attain the goods and services that are offered within the society. In a purely communist/socialist society, the government would do it - it would assign the work that people need to do to produce what is needed and would then likewise take charge of distributing what is needed to the people. In a capitalist society, we primarily use the market to do that. A person sells his labor on the market and then takes what he earns to purchase goods and services from the market. And clearly if one is denied access to the market, then they are being denied use of the method that our society has set up to attain goods and services.

So if we deny gays any access to the market whatsoever (which would happen if no stores would sell to them), they are clearly being harmed in several ways. But I'm going to focus on one kind of harm in particular as I think it will make my point the best. If gays were denied access to the marketplace entirely (this is a hypothetical - I am not arguing that this will happen), the money that they earn will be essentially worthless. If gays can't buy anything with the currency, then they in effect have no currency and therefore that would clearly economically disadvantage gays when compared to straights.

But what if only half of the shops refused to sell to gays? Not as bad but still quite harmful. The currency that a gay person earns will effectively have 50% of the purchasing power that the money that straight people earn so it still puts gays at an economic disadvantage when compared to straights. Likewise their labor will be half as valuable (to them) as a straight persons.

How about 10% of businesses refusing to sell? That leaves gays with 90% of the purchasing power that straights have. Not as bad as 50% but still unacceptable. So the question is what percentage is acceptable. How economically disadvantaged should we allow gays to be? 5% 2%? 1%? The correct answer is 0%. Any percentage higher than 0 causes some degree of economic disadvantage to gay couple and that is harmful to them. If you disagree then tell me what minimal percentage is acceptable and why.

@ mican on the use of whim. Here because the gov changes it's mind about justification as often as it changes party, the nature of the gov is to be whimsical in it's given state. One day abortion was illegal in most states, the next.. legal. Yesterday weed was illegal, tomorrow it may be legal. Yesterday everyone understood that marriage was between a man and woman, today.. we are not sure what to put on the new Born's birth certificate in the "sex" column.

That acceptable ONLY if one just says that every change is "whimsical". Roe v. Wade was about 45 years ago which means that while a change did happen, it has stuck. And by all indications all of the other changes you are referring are going to be sticking around for a long time. From all indications, the changes in gay marriage laws and weed law are going to be very long-term, probably permanent changes in our laws. Nor was the driving force of these changes sudden and unexpected. The change was primarily driven by people's changing attitudes towards these things and the government GRADUALLY fell in line with the will of the people. So if one was at all paying attention to how these changes happened, they would not think that the law has changed suddenly (one day this and the next day that) or in an unpredictable manner. The change was gradual in pace and predictable so none of this gives anyone a reason to think that the law changes unpredictably or whimsically. In fact, after several years of gradual change, marijuana is not fully legal so you still haven't woken up to see marijuana legalized everywhere. The day that it's fully legalized is at least a year away and the only guesswork is exactly when it's going to happen.

Well, that is either very ignorant, or naive to think that outlawing something that applies to religion (even if unseen consequence) is anything but outlawing that religious thought.

Well, human sacrifice applies to religion but is outlawed because it qualifies as murder so by that logic outlawing murder is outlawing religious thought.

And that's silly. A "thought" is something that one thinks so outlawing religious thought means that one is outlawing certain thoughts as in one is not allowed to think them. It's not ignorant nor naive to know what words actually mean.

Well, then much of my argument and points directly applies, because you appear to be blind to the effects laws can have on religion.
And while you are using the language of legal vs illegal actions, laws generally shouldn't become hostile to religions without very, very good cause.

For example, while the cause of prohibition had some merit, there absolutely should have been a religious exemption.
Your stance is to say, well drinking was illegal, tough luck Catholics, your religion is stupid anyway.

I didn't say that their religion is stupid so please don't put attribute such a position to me. Please don't resort to this kind of thing.

And my stance is that Catholics SHOULD be allowed to have wine at Mass because there is no good reason to ban this. And that's because there is no good reason to ban alcohol.

Yea, the part that was to protect people from religious persecution by the state. on such things like prohibition being a great example of what the gov can do that could even accidentally abolish major religious practices.

I am for abolishing religious practices when we have a good reason to outlaw them (like human sacrifice) and I'm against abolishing religious practices when we don't have a good reason to abolish them (like wine at Mass).

You cannot attribute a position to me that I don't agree with. I am very much opposed to prohibiting wine at Catholic mass so you can't use that as an example of something that I would be for outlawing.

1) Abortions as a practicing catholic DR.
2) Birth control as a practicing catholic Dr.
3) Right to refuse vaccines
4) Prohibition (when it was a law).
5) Right to refuse to swear on the bible in a court of law for atheists

I was asking for examples of laws that you think only religious people should be allowed to break. And while this is a valid list of laws that religious people should be allowed to break, do you think that others should not be allowed to break them. Shouldn't any doctor be able to refuse an abortion? Should anyone be allowed to opt out of vaccines? Shouldn't any adult be able to decide whether he will consume alcohol? And so on. So I don't think these are examples of laws that religious people should get exemptions as they are all laws that everyone should be allowed to not follow. I'm assuming your position on this matter so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But if I'm wrong, which law do you think that the irreligious must follow but the religious don't have to follow.

Well, lets take providing abortions from faith based health providers. So keep in mind that fully 1/3 of hospitals in some areas are owned and run by the catholic church.
Now we have laws that say healthcare providers must provide contraception (some of which directly contradict catholic doctrine). This is not an area that was just made up by the church, but one that has been held by the church ,and who's past LEGAL actions are now being made "illegal".

So, should they get an exemption? You would say no, per your argument.
to me that is inexcusably calloused to the religious that are doing good social work, only to have their values forcibly violated. For.. a whim of the gov.

Now I say whim, because the law could easily be something else. These are not written in stone.

But as I understand it, the governmental restrictions are for receiving federal funding. So these establishments are free to do whatever they wish. It's akin to me offering to give you some money if you will do a certain task and you say "I can't do that as it's against my religion" so I say "well, then I guess we won't be hiring you then". You were never forced to do the task.

Yes it is true, the force is fines and legal judgments. The bakers were being forced ot bake a cake, and it was for someone.

So bakers ended up making the cake? I'm pretty sure that they never made the cake. You can't say someone was forced to do something if they didn't actually do it.

But if I'm wrong, please support that the baker did end up making the cake for the couple. Otherwise it's not supported that they were forced to do so.

Your making some irrelevant distinctions. Taking the tact that the gov can't force one to open a bakery, or once they have a bakery to bake wedding cakes.
So then the gov isn't forcing anyone to do work.
While those are true, it doesn't follow that the gov hasn't forced the bakery to bake a cake for people against their personal will.

How so? You just said "those are true" in regards to the government isn't forcing anyone to do work so I don't see how it doesn't follow that the government hasn't forced someone to make a cake.

You would do better to argue that it was justified action by the gov, as opposed to rejecting facts.

Why? The bakers didn't make the cake. I can only go by the words of the arguments you are making and if someone is forced to do something that means that they did a certain something due to force. And integral part of being forced to bake a cake is actually baking a cake. If you mean something other than "forced to bake a cake" then you need to say something different.

I don't deny the possibility of harm, I deny that it is actually occuring.
You do not support your case by supporting the existence of unlikely but possible harm.

First off, something that hasn't happened yet obviously is not causing any harm so the fact that it isn't currently causing any harm is not support that it won't cause harm if it happens. My burden is to make the case that if it happens, it will cause harm. And I have done so (at the top)

it COULD work, because it isn't IMPOSSIBLE to work.
I'm on equal footing with your ridiculous argument that they are harmed.

I didn't raise the mere possibility that it could cause harm but explained how it will cause harm. So your rebuttal is invalid and therefore my argument stands until you do offer a valid rebuttal.

I said"Finally, no it does not forbid giving religion special treatment. It forbids "establishing" a state religion. That is two very different things."

Actually, they aren't different. Giving religion special treatment is considered establishing that religions. In support:

The "Establishment Clause" was intended to prevent any governmental endorsement or support of religion. While one might intuitively read this to mean that the clause was meant to preclude endorsement or support of some particular religion, it is important to note that the clause also prohibits the endorsement of religion generally over non-religion. As the Court noted in 1947, “A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches.” Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 8 (1947). The Court went on to emphasize that “no one group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given entire credit for having aroused the sentiment that culminated in adoption of the Bill of Rights' provisions embracing religious liberty,” and that the principles were as apt at the time of the Court’s decision as they had been when the First Amendment was originally passed in 1792. Everson at 11.

The Everson Court also provides a list of state actions which violate the Establishment Clause. Everson at 15-16. The Court does not present this list as comprehensive, but rather as a minimal list of activities prohibited by the First Amendment. These include:

-setting up a state church

-passing laws which specifically aid one religion or aid religions generally

-forcing or otherwise influencing individuals to attend or not attend church

-punishing people for ascribing to certain beliefs or disbeliefs or for attending or not
attending church

-taxes levied to support religious institutions or activities

-governmental participation in religious organizations or participation by religious
organizations in governmental activities

https://nationalparalegal.edu/conLaw...gion&EstCl.asp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

I am doing that where you are clear as to what specifically you are questioning. As far as I'm concerned I have supported all of my statements so far, unless you raise a specific point.

Your statement ended with a conclusion. I am challenging the conclusion (last sentence).

Yes, my rebuttal is that what you describe does not exist and would not likely exist, so the "harm" it could possibly create does nor would reasonably exist.

And therefore that is your argument to support. Of course it doesn't exist but you will need to support that it will not likely exist in order to rebut my statement.

Further, you have not quantified the harm. you are arguing for an idea but there is no context to actually weigh. As far as I can tell you are calling an inconvenience "harm" and acting as though it is obvious.

No, but I have supported that harm would occur. I'm not quantifying because I don't know how much harm would occur - one of the factors is how much bigotry there is out there. Of course if there is no bigotry, the harm would be zero. But of course bigotry still exists (this can easily be supported) so the harm won't be zero. That's all I need to support to support that harm would occur.

Just an FYI, some harm is necessary to some freedoms to exist.
So far the harm you have described is so negligible that we should give preference to individual liberty vs state intervention.

First off, support or retract that the harm will be negligible.

And my primary argument against this isn't even harm-based. YOU are the one who is asking about harm. My argument is constitutional-based - that we can't let religious people break worthy laws that others have to follow because it gives Christians special treatment which violates the establishment clause.

Questions
1) As the only grocer, do you have a burden to show availability or some sort of waste? Such that, white people need to purchase as well., so they have equal "need" for the service.
2) Why is it the grocer that responsibility to provide food to anyone, such that denial of services is seen as HIM harming someone. Why not reality at large?
I mean, what if he closes his store completely, isn't he then "harming" EVERYONE, and by your harm logic should thus be "FORCED" to serve them? Why is it o.k. to force service to some groups (here Blacks) but not others (society at large when only one grocer is available)?

Just an FYI, one of the major questions the Supreme court asks is "what is the limiting principle". That is what I am asking for here.

As I've said numerous times, questions are no arguments. But I see you are making some points here so I don't want to just blow this off either so instead I will reform your questions into arguments and then respond.

I don't understand point 1 so I have no response. Point 2, in statement form is:

The local grocer does not have the responsibility to provide food to anyone so denial of him selling someone food would not be considered harmful.

But in the situation where he is the only grocer in town, it would be harmful to a person who can't buy good there and has no other options for food in town. And in a small town, there is a finite number of grocery stores that can be opened (the market will likely only support one grocery store) so it is in the public interest to make sure that such a store sells to the whole town and likewise the town has the legal right to ensure that it does. So legally and morally, this store has to sell to all races of people.

I mean, what if he closes his store completely, isn't he then "harming" EVERYONE, and by your harm logic should thus be "FORCED" to serve them?

If he closes his store, it opens up the opportunity for someone else to open a store. And if there aren't enough people to support a grocery store, then it would stand to reason that the town doesn't really need one.

Would you deny me a similar assumption that you make?
Further, you are missing my point. That guy does it now, in today's political climate, and it is true as far as I know that he is the only person around that is THAT racist, because there is an apparent lack of
businesses doing that.

The lack of businesses doing that is directly tied to the fact that businesses aren't allowed to do that, which will not necessarily be the case if you start allowing businesses to do that. If you can support that the percentage of businesses that would discriminate if allowed to would be below a certain number, then provide the support. Otherwise, it appears that your estimate is based on pure guesswork and wishful thinking. The fact is we don't know how many would do it if allowed to. We can guess that in cities with a significantly progressive population, like San Francisco, such discrimination would indeed be very small or non-existent due to social pressure. But what about a small town with a strong conservative evangelical bent? I don't think it's impossible that in such places, the social pressure would work the other way - as in business that do cater to gays would face social pressure to deny them.

But the point is we don't know how much harm would be caused. We can guess but we can't know. And since I think no harm is better than even a little harm, I'm against allowing such harm to take place in any amount.

[Ibelsd]

What are you talking about - a person who bakes Christians? The fact that someone is a Christian has nothing to do with baking cakes, in any rational sense. By referring to themselves as "a Christian baker", it's already clear there's going to be issues with that, and it's exactly what I mean by pushing their religion onto others. When we start attaching labels in this way we're only asking for trouble, which is why secularism is truly the best way to go, as it keeps everyone safe. That way you could never have a town full of Muslim or Jewish bakers - they're all just bakers, and their value to the public is in the baking they do, and nothing else.

Bakers bake cakes. They don't evaluate messages or find things objectionable. If the Christian, having completed the duties of the baker, feels they will somehow benefit from evaluating cake messages according to non-baker standards and finding them objectionable, they can do that in their own private mind/home after they're no longer in the bakery serving people who have come into their shop because they thought the shop had bakers who baked. Again, there is no religious basis which justifies the baker's refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Bottom line: it's unbelievable that people of faith still haven't learned the lesson taught by the countless times they've shot themselves in the foot with their attempts to push their religion into the public and/or political forum. It always makes me laugh when some religion whines that they can't do this or that and get some town council's permission to "share" their faith, only to be shocked and horrified to find out that the same permission also applies to other religions which they find blasphemous.

If Trump's order actually ends up doing anything - and currently it looks like it won't really do anything at all - it'll just be one more lesson in why secularism is the only way to protect everyone's true religious freedom.

You're right about the zombies starving - there aren't any brains they can feed on.

You do acknowledge that a baker, like a person of any other profession, may have a particular religious persuasion? A person who is Christian, whether he is also a baker, is not really a question to be debated. We could have said Jewish baker. Should any baker be forced to put a message onto a cake with which he finds objectionable? May a baker, or any other professional, be allowed to choose not to provide service to another based on their association with a group or message that they find objectionable as it pertains to the transaction. Should a baker (any baker) be required to bake a cake in honor of Pol Pot's birthday should a Vietnamese man insist on it? How about Lenin's birthday? How about baking a May Day Socialist themed cake? How about a KKK cake? A cake celebrating the marriage of two young teens? Look, if a baker (any baker) feels that the cake they are being asked to make has an objectionable message, I'm of the belief, that they have the right to say no. I don't need a religious exception for this. However, and going back to Mican's original question, if laws forbid this type of freedom, but a compromise allows for certain religious exceptions, then I'm in favor of the compromise since it provides slightly more freedoms than was allowed under the original law. Ideally, the original law wouldn't exist and the exception wouldn't be needed. But, it is understood that laws, like man, are imperfect. And, sometimes, religious exceptions can make an imperfect law less imperfect.

---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 AM ----------

You're right about the zombies starving - there aren't any brains they can feed on.

Uhhh. Thanks Capt Obvious. That is kind of the gist of it.

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

That's an argument for having exemptions in general but it does not amount to a good reason for any specific exemption. In other words, to say that a SPECIFIC exemption is a good idea (like exempting religious bakers from making gay wedding cakes) one has to show that THAT specific exemption makes the law less imperfect.

Agreed. So if law X inhibits individual freedom and an religious exception puts limitations on X, then freedom is enhanced, making the law less bad.

No, it makes the law less.

Many of the laws are quite good, such as the law against murder and I'm not for adding any more exemptions than we already have. So I don't agree that exemptions are necessarily better. It's a case-by-base basis and the default is certainly not that it's a good idea. In fact, most exemptions that one can think up are probably bad ideas (like I just thought up exempting left-handed people from murder laws).

I never said all laws were equally bad nor that all exceptions were equally good. I specifically noted that laws which inhibit freedom were generally bad. Laws against murder do not inhibit freedom. On balance, they work to protect our freedom from those who would like to take it away. So, obviously, an exception for laws against murder have a different hurdle than exceptions for speech. However, if we took murder and made no exceptions, so ALL killing was murder; no manslaughter. no self defense. Kill a person = murder. Period. Now, today, we have all sorts of exceptions to this. Right? However, if there were NO exceptions and a compromise was for a religious exception such that self-defense on the way to church or worship would no longer be murder, we would say this was a good exception, albeit far from perfect as it changes murder to increase our freedom. Remember, we went from no exceptions to a single exception. Ideally, everyone would have the right to self-defense no matter where we were going. Again, we have to look at the law and the exception together and determine whether freedom is improved.

But no baker is forced to bake a cake for gay weddings. All they have to do is refuse to bake wedding cakes for anyone and then they can't be accused of discrimination when they won't make a cake for a gay wedding.

This is such a facetious argument. Why should a baker (or any other professional) be forced to apply an objectionable message to his work? The truth is, refusing to bake all wedding cakes isn't any less discriminatory. You've simply insisted that they discriminate against all weddings equally, even though they may not view all weddings the same. In other words, you've imposed your view of weddings on the baker, forcing him to choose between your view and his career. That isn't freedom.

[mican333]

Agreed. So if law X inhibits individual freedom and an religious exception puts limitations on X, then freedom is enhanced, making the law less bad.

That depends now what law X is and what the limitations are.

If the law in prohibiting murder and we say that Christians are exempt, Christians freedom to murder whoever they decide to kill is enhanced, but that doesn't make the law less bad. It makes a good law less good.

I specifically noted that laws which inhibit freedom were generally bad. Laws against murder do not inhibit freedom. On balance, they work to protect our freedom from those who would like to take it away. So, obviously, an exception for laws against murder have a different hurdle than exceptions for speech. However, if we took murder and made no exceptions, so ALL killing was murder; no manslaughter. no self defense. Kill a person = murder. Period. Now, today, we have all sorts of exceptions to this. Right? However, if there were NO exceptions and a compromise was for a religious exception such that self-defense on the way to church or worship would no longer be murder, we would say this was a good exception, albeit far from perfect as it changes murder to increase our freedom. Remember, we went from no exceptions to a single exception. Ideally, everyone would have the right to self-defense no matter where we were going. Again, we have to look at the law and the exception together and determine whether freedom is improved.

But we have to look at the exceptions on a case by case basis and the default position for a good law is that the exception is bad. In other words, if one forwarded that guys named Brian should be exempt for murder laws, we would ask "is there a good reason for this exemption?" Unless one can provide a good argument for that particular exemption, it's not a good exemption and therefore we are still for limiting Brian's freedom to murder. And the same process goes for all laws. So we need a rationale reason to exempt specifically Christians from anti-discrimination laws before we can say it's a good idea to do that.

This is such a facetious argument. Why should a baker (or any other professional) be forced to apply an objectionable message to his work?

Again, they aren't forced to do that. There are all kinds of policies that a baker can set to not have to do that.

The truth is, refusing to bake all wedding cakes isn't any less discriminatory. You've simply insisted that they discriminate against all weddings equally, even though they may not view all weddings the same. In other words, you've imposed your view of weddings on the baker, forcing him to choose between your view and his career. That isn't freedom.

I didn't impose anything. I'm just pointing out that they have the option of not making cakes for gay weddings and therefore you cannot say that they are forced to do that.

And there are all kinds of rules that people must follow in order to run a business so in order to continue to run a business, you do limit your freedom. For one, you have to pay your employees at least minimum wage. You have to abide by safety standards. There are zoning requirements. And so on. So unless you are going to rail against any and all requirements for running a business, this complaint about lack of freedom doesn't really mean much.

[futureboy]

You do acknowledge that a baker, like a person of any other profession, may have a particular religious persuasion? A person who is Christian, whether he is also a baker, is not really a question to be debated. We could have said Jewish baker. Should any baker be forced to put a message onto a cake with which he finds objectionable? May a baker, or any other professional, be allowed to choose not to provide service to another based on their association with a group or message that they find objectionable as it pertains to the transaction. Should a baker (any baker) be required to bake a cake in honor of Pol Pot's birthday should a Vietnamese man insist on it? How about Lenin's birthday? How about baking a May Day Socialist themed cake? How about a KKK cake? A cake celebrating the marriage of two young teens? Look, if a baker (any baker) feels that the cake they are being asked to make has an objectionable message, I'm of the belief, that they have the right to say no. I don't need a religious exception for this. However, and going back to Mican's original question, if laws forbid this type of freedom, but a compromise allows for certain religious exceptions, then I'm in favor of the compromise since it provides slightly more freedoms than was allowed under the original law. Ideally, the original law wouldn't exist and the exception wouldn't be needed. But, it is understood that laws, like man, are imperfect. And, sometimes, religious exceptions can make an imperfect law less imperfect.

Here's one more example for your slippery-slope: a Muslim baker (whatever that means - pretty sure it's not a person who bakes Muslims, tho) refuses to serve a woman and yells her out of his shop on the basis that she is not presenting herself the way a woman should according to his beliefs.

Honestly, a couple of your more specific examples made me laugh. Props to you for thinking of them, but if a baker can remember Pol Pot's birthday or has sufficient knowledge of any of the historical events you listed to recognize cakes themed with them, that person will definitely be intelligent-, mature-, and worldly-enough to not be offended and just bake it because he's got more interesting things to do than make up stuff to get offended by. The KKK one might have some issues with hate speech rules, tho, so it probably won't get past the Objectionable Cake Message Commission.

There are things which our society as a whole tolerates, and that tolerance is enshrined in certain rules, since our tolerance is a large part of what we feel makes our society better than others.

Giving people an option to break a rule on the basis that their religion requires it is one thing (eg: Conscientious Objectors). However, as I have repeatedly stated, the Gay Cake Tenet does not exist, and there is no religious basis for their refusal. If you think about it, they're actually breaking certain other Christian tenets with their intolerant behaviour. So what it comes down to is personal convictions of intolerance which they are trying to pass off as religious expression, and that's just BS and won't be tolerated.

[Ibelsd]

Here's one more example for your slippery-slope: a Muslim baker (whatever that means - pretty sure it's not a person who bakes Muslims, tho) refuses to serve a woman and yells her out of his shop on the basis that she is not presenting herself the way a woman should according to his beliefs.

Honestly, a couple of your more specific examples made me laugh. Props to you for thinking of them, but if a baker can remember Pol Pot's birthday or has sufficient knowledge of any of the historical events you listed to recognize cakes themed with them, that person will definitely be intelligent-, mature-, and worldly-enough to not be offended and just bake it because he's got more interesting things to do than make up stuff to get offended by. The KKK one might have some issues with hate speech rules, tho, so it probably won't get past the Objectionable Cake Message Commission.

There are things which our society as a whole tolerates, and that tolerance is enshrined in certain rules, since our tolerance is a large part of what we feel makes our society better than others.

Giving people an option to break a rule on the basis that their religion requires it is one thing (eg: Conscientious Objectors). However, as I have repeatedly stated, the Gay Cake Tenet does not exist, and there is no religious basis for their refusal. If you think about it, they're actually breaking certain other Christian tenets with their intolerant behaviour. So what it comes down to is personal convictions of intolerance which they are trying to pass off as religious expression, and that's just BS and won't be tolerated.

You may laugh, but what is the answer? Is a baker (or any other merchant) allowed to use discretion based on political/religious views when deciding what products to sell? How about a Christian Book Store? Should they be forced to sell non-Christian books? Would they be forced to apply Mican's logic and if they agree to order any book then they must order all books when requested to do so? Should a restaurant be forced to serve vegetarian dishes on request? I'm just trying to figure out where this line is that you and Mican has determined must exist. Where exactly do our free speech rights end and why?

Let's be clear. I am not arguing that there is some special rule for bakers. I am suggesting two things. First, all people should be free to express their views which does not suddenly end because they own a business nor should it stop at the door of that business. Second, should a law be created which does impede on this right (or any other right), then any exception to that law which makes that law less inhibiting, is a good exception.

[mican333]

You may laugh, but what is the answer? Is a baker (or any other merchant) allowed to use discretion based on political/religious views when deciding what products to sell? How about a Christian Book Store? Should they be forced to sell non-Christian books? Would they be forced to apply Mican's logic and if they agree to order any book then they must order all books when requested to do so? Should a restaurant be forced to serve vegetarian dishes on request? I'm just trying to figure out where this line is that you and Mican has determined must exist. Where exactly do our free speech rights end and why?

The issue is not what they are allowed to sell. The issue is who they can refuse to serve.

One cannot refuse to sell something to someone just because that person is of a certain race, religion, or sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what the thing is. Whether it's cake, a car, life insurance, etc. is not the issue. The issue is that one can't sell that product to only heterosexuals. If one really feels that they morally cannot sell X to homosexuals, they don't have to. They just don't sell the item at all and again, it doesn't matter what the item is.

So there's the line. If you offer your product to straight people, you also must offer it to gay people.

I am not arguing that there is some special rule for bakers. I am suggesting two things. First, all people should be free to express their views which does not suddenly end because they own a business nor should it stop at the door of that business.

Nor have I suggested that this should be the case. If a baker wants to say that he disagrees with gay marriage, he has every right to say that. He can even say that to gay people who are asking for him to make them a wedding cake. But regardless, if he bakes wedding cakes for straight couples, he can't refuse to make their cake.

Second, should a law be created which does impede on this right (or any other right), then any exception to that law which makes that law less inhibiting, is a good exception.

But since his right is not being impeded (as in something that one has a constitutional right to do), there is no need for this kind of exception.

[MindTrap028]

MT,

I decided to make one argument regarding harm which covers multiple points of yours so I won't respond to those points individually.

Thanks, sorry for delay in responses here. Been Busy as all get out, which is good for the pocket book, but not necissarily my sanity.

A well-functioning society develops ways for people to attain the goods and services that are offered within the society. In a purely communist/socialist society, the government would do it - it would assign the work that people need to do to produce what is needed and would then likewise take charge of distributing what is needed to the people. In a capitalist society, we primarily use the market to do that. A person sells his labor on the market and then takes what he earns to purchase goods and services from the market. And clearly if one is denied access to the market, then they are being denied use of the method that our society has set up to attain goods and services.

I think that is a horrible, horrible starting point. First of all, it seems to completly ignore liberty. Maybe that idea is tied up in the "capitalist society", but that is a huge reason we have capitalism and not communism.
Also, capitalism exists as a consiquenc of liberty, not the cause of it, so perhapse that is why I see it as ignored in your starting point.

Bottom line, a good society provides freedom to it's people. One could concivably have a "well functioning" society, and fail to be good. If it was like a successful (big assumption) communism.

So if we deny gays any access to the market whatsoever (which would happen if no stores would sell to them), they are clearly being harmed in several ways. But I'm going to focus on one kind of harm in particular as I think it will make my point the best. If gays were denied access to the marketplace entirely (this is a hypothetical - I am not arguing that this will happen), the money that they earn will be essentially worthless. If gays can't buy anything with the currency, then they in effect have no currency and therefore that would clearly economically disadvantage gays when compared to straights.

On this point, you actually understate the problem you are posing. Because a denial of access to the market place would mean they could not work as well. So, 100% no money for them.

But what if only half of the shops refused to sell to gays? Not as bad but still quite harmful. The currency that a gay person earns will effectively have 50% of the purchasing power that the money that straight people earn so it still puts gays at an economic disadvantage when compared to straights. Likewise their labor will be half as valuable (to them) as a straight persons.

This is actually false. Maybe because of the actual meaning of the term "purchasing power" vs how you are trying to use it.
Purchasing power has to do with how much you can get with your money. So if I have to drive 500 miles to purchase goods, my dollar still has the same purchasing power once I get there vs down the street.
$50 here, is $50 in New York (assuming the goods would be the same price at both locations).

[QUOTE=MICAN] How about 10% of businesses refusing to sell? That leaves gays with 90% of the purchasing power that straights have. Not as bad as 50% but still unacceptable. So the question is what percentage is acceptable. How economically disadvantaged should we allow gays to be? 5% 2%? 1%? The correct answer is 0%. Any percentage higher than 0 causes some degree of economic disadvantage to gay couple and that is harmful to them. If you disagree then tell me what minimal percentage is acceptable and why.
[QUOTE]
Same error as above continued, so your question doesn't quite make sense as presented, or wrather it isn't reflective of reality.
Now how it does apply is in regards to availablity of goods.

So if there are two bakers, and one refuses servic, there is zero decrease in the availablity of the good, and thus zero harm done.
At best all that can be established is inconvience.

To the extent that we limit the discussion to instances that there is only one local provider, well I have already brought up the internet, and so this
severly limits tihs approach to attacking the margins. We shouldn't make policy based on the margins of society.

That acceptable ONLY if one just says that every change is "whimsical". Roe v. Wade was about 45 years ago which means that while a change did happen, it has stuck. And by all indications all of the other changes you are referring are going to be sticking around for a long time. From all indications, the changes in gay marriage laws and weed law are going to be very long-term, probably permanent changes in our laws. Nor was the driving force of these changes sudden and unexpected. The change was primarily driven by people's changing attitudes towards these things and the government GRADUALLY fell in line with the will of the people. So if one was at all paying attention to how these changes happened, they would not think that the law has changed suddenly (one day this and the next day that) or in an unpredictable manner. The change was gradual in pace and predictable so none of this gives anyone a reason to think that the law changes unpredictably or whimsically. In fact, after several years of gradual change, marijuana is not fully legal so you still haven't woken up to see marijuana legalized everywhere. The day that it's fully legalized is at least a year away and the only guesswork is exactly when it's going to happen.

Actually Roe vs Wade is a great example of the whimsical nature of gov, because the laws were set over a long period of time, and that entire process was short circited by the whimsical nature of a 9 judnge panel.
That is the very nature of a whimsical gov. Or do you deny that tomorrow the same court could (given the right judges) roll back the clock in an afternoon, and make all abortions illegal? I think, The point is furthered by Roe vs Wades actual lack of legal reasoning and justifications. But that is another discussion for another day.

Well, human sacrifice applies to religion but is outlawed because it qualifies as murder so by that logic outlawing murder is outlawing religious thought.

And that's silly. A "thought" is something that one thinks so outlawing religious thought means that one is outlawing certain thoughts as in one is not allowed to think them. It's not ignorant nor naive to know what words actually mean.

your right, I'm really thinking about religious expression. But I guess since no act is inherently "religious" there is no such thing as a reliougous act at all.
after all, murder isn't a religious act.

I didn't say that their religion is stupid so please don't put attribute such a position to me. Please don't resort to this kind of thing.

And my stance is that Catholics SHOULD be allowed to have wine at Mass because there is no good reason to ban this. And that's because there is no good reason to ban alcohol.

stupid stuff withdrawn.

That said, the example is how the law should be applied when it exists and why. I know I am appealing to a law that has been repealed for reasons.

I am for abolishing religious practices when we have a good reason to outlaw them (like human sacrifice) and I'm against abolishing religious practices when we don't have a good reason to abolish them (like wine at Mass).

You cannot attribute a position to me that I don't agree with. I am very much opposed to prohibiting wine at Catholic mass so you can't use that as an example of something that I would be for outlawing.

It is just an example of what the gov can do by accident. an example that without the religous exemption you are arguing against, would have drastically effected common religious practices.

I was asking for examples of laws that you think only religious people should be allowed to break. And while this is a valid list of laws that religious people should be allowed to break, do you think that others should not be allowed to break them. Shouldn't any doctor be able to refuse an abortion? Should anyone be allowed to opt out of vaccines? Shouldn't any adult be able to decide whether he will consume alcohol? And so on. So I don't think these are examples of laws that religious people should get exemptions as they are all laws that everyone should be allowed to not follow. I'm assuming your position on this matter so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But if I'm wrong, which law do you think that the irreligious must follow but the religious don't have to follow.

Yes, otherwise there wouldn't be a law.
This is the compromise of protecting religous liberty while passing regulations.
For example birth control. They can pass a law that says a dr must provide birth control, but catholics should be exempt. (IE allowed to break the law), because their objection is religious based in nature.
To not allow the exemption would not be in the publics interest because there are so many catholic DR's that it could cause serious problems to the entire system if we make it so that they can't practice at all.
This carries over to abortion as well.

I'm not certain how the laws are worded, just familure with the general effect.

But as I understand it, the governmental restrictions are for receiving federal funding. So these establishments are free to do whatever they wish. It's akin to me offering to give you some money if you will do a certain task and you say "I can't do that as it's against my religion" so I say "well, then I guess we won't be hiring you then". You were never forced to do the task.

again, not sure how it is worded, but if hosptials are forced to take patience (which they are) then the gov refuses to fund (which they would) then their is a considerable amount of force being exerted on that hospital.
Hospitals are forced to provide services, that is a fact.

So bakers ended up making the cake? I'm pretty sure that they never made the cake. You can't say someone was forced to do something if they didn't actually do it.

But if I'm wrong, please support that the baker did end up making the cake for the couple. Otherwise it's not supported that they were forced to do so.

They paid damages and fines.
I don't see how the distinction you are making is relevant.
Can I fine you whatever I like and deny that I'm using force on you? I doubt it.
And don't you think that if I fine you a bazzilion dollars and put you out of buisness I am exerting "force" on others in the same buisness?

How so? You just said "those are true" in regards to the government isn't forcing anyone to do work so I don't see how it doesn't follow that the government hasn't forced someone to make a cake.

Well, that would be because it is an arbitrary line.
I can't force you to be a painter.
I can't force you to paint houses.
But I can force you to paint houses with R value 10 paint.
So if you choose to be a painter, and choose to paint houses, then you are FORCED to paint it with R value of 10 paint. (no such product exist, R value is an insulation code).

just because the first two don't occur doesn't mean there is no forc involved inthe last one.

Why? The bakers didn't make the cake. I can only go by the words of the arguments you are making and if someone is forced to do something that means that they did a certain something due to force. And integral part of being forced to bake a cake is actually baking a cake. If you mean something other than "forced to bake a cake" then you need to say something different.

To those specifically they were forced out of buisness, to the industry as a whole they are forced to bake the cakes.
given the ultimatum of do it or go out of buisness is a pretty clear use of force to do X.

First off, something that hasn't happened yet obviously is not causing any harm so the fact that it isn't currently causing any harm is not support that it won't cause harm if it happens. My burden is to make the case that if it happens, it will cause harm. And I have done so (at the top)

Well in the case of the baker, that denial did occure, and I may have missed how your harm applied there.
Otherwise I agree and have addressed the argument above.

I didn't raise the mere possibility that it could cause harm but explained how it will cause harm. So your rebuttal is invalid and therefore my argument stands until you do offer a valid rebuttal.

See above

Actually, they aren't different. Giving religion special treatment is considered establishing that religions. In support:

Religion can still be given special treatment without establishing it as your support stated.
such as tax exemptions. That is special treatment. Or exemtions on prohibition, again special treatment without establishing religion.

Your statement ended with a conclusion. I am challenging the conclusion (last sentence).

... umm.. I'm afraid you will have to requote it, I lost that train of thought.

And therefore that is your argument to support. Of course it doesn't exist but you will need to support that it will not likely exist in order to rebut my statement.

Done above.
You have the first burden to argue what it is, then I will argue that it wouldn't likely exist.
There is a lot of vagury coming from your side. your not arguing for a specific amount, just some amount of "harm".
hard to argue against vaguness.

No, but I have supported that harm would occur. I'm not quantifying because I don't know how much harm would occur - one of the factors is how much bigotry there is out there. Of course if there is no bigotry, the harm would be zero. But of course bigotry still exists (this can easily be supported) so the harm won't be zero. That's all I need to support to support that harm would occur.

I would like to add, that your argument is not complete untill it weighs the loss of liberty side of the equation.
Else we can dismiss it even if you do establish harm, because it lacks context.

First off, support or retract that the harm will be negligible.

First piece of evidence, your inabilty to quantify it. You can't because it is negligible at best.
You have argued for instances where only one person provides a specific service, and those examples are negligible and on the frindges of our society as a whole.

And my primary argument against this isn't even harm-based. YOU are the one who is asking about harm. My argument is constitutional-based - that we can't let religious people break worthy laws that others have to follow because it gives Christians special treatment which violates the establishment clause.

I have shown how special treatment =/= establishing a religion, and the examples of exemptions given would hardly force anyone to go to church.

As I've said numerous times, questions are no arguments. But I see you are making some points here so I don't want to just blow this off either so instead I will reform your questions into arguments and then respond.

I don't understand point 1 so I have no response. Point 2, in statement form is:

The local grocer does not have the responsibility to provide food to anyone so denial of him selling someone food would not be considered harmful.

But in the situation where he is the only grocer in town, it would be harmful to a person who can't buy good there and has no other options for food in town. And in a small town, there is a finite number of grocery stores that can be opened (the market will likely only support one grocery store) so it is in the public interest to make sure that such a store sells to the whole town and likewise the town has the legal right to ensure that it does. So legally and morally, this store has to sell to all races of people.

your refustal to answer direct questions is just uncool.
Questions are a valid form of argumentation. It just forces the other side to think sometimes.

If he closes his store, it opens up the opportunity for someone else to open a store. And if there aren't enough people to support a grocery store, then it would stand to reason that the town doesn't really need one.

Circular reasoning.
furhter, just because he closes his store, doesn't mean someone else is going to open one up, and certainly not the next day.

The lack of businesses doing that is directly tied to the fact that businesses aren't allowed to do that, which will not necessarily be the case if you start allowing businesses to do that. If you can support that the percentage of businesses that would discriminate if allowed to would be below a certain number, then provide the support. Otherwise, it appears that your estimate is based on pure guesswork and wishful thinking. The fact is we don't know how many would do it if allowed to. We can guess that in cities with a significantly progressive population, like San Francisco, such discrimination would indeed be very small or non-existent due to social pressure. But what about a small town with a strong conservative evangelical bent? I don't think it's impossible that in such places, the social pressure would work the other way - as in business that do cater to gays would face social pressure to deny them.

But the point is we don't know how much harm would be caused. We can guess but we can't know. And since I think no harm is better than even a little harm, I'm against allowing such harm to take place in any amount.

If you can't supprot any specific amount of harm, then you are not suporting the actual existence (or potential for actual harm)
So your just guessing, and that can be dismissed.

[Ibelsd]

The issue is not what they are allowed to sell. The issue is who they can refuse to serve.

One cannot refuse to sell something to someone just because that person is of a certain race, religion, or sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what the thing is. Whether it's cake, a car, life insurance, etc. is not the issue. The issue is that one can't sell that product to only heterosexuals. If one really feels that they morally cannot sell X to homosexuals, they don't have to. They just don't sell the item at all and again, it doesn't matter what the item is.

For purposes of this debate, I'll concede this. A business owner should not be able to refuse to sell a cake to a person based on their race, gender, et al. However, this isn't what we are discussing. We are discussing whether a baker (or any other business person) has a free speech right to sell a specific cake for a specific purpose or that carries a specific message. If a man of unknown providence asked for a dozen chocolate cupcakes for some unstated purpose and the baker refused to sell to the man based on suspicion that the man was gay or straight or too tall, I'd see your point. However, if the man asked the baker to add a message to the cupcake, something like I HEART Big Boobs, then the baker has a right to refuse service. Even without knowing the true meaning of the message. Perhaps, the cupcakes are really for a hospital for women with breast cancer. I dunno. The point is, once the baker is asked to add meaning to the cupcakes, it becomes a message, not just a dessert. That man is no longer some random individual, but the carrier of a message. In our free society, just as free as the man is to convey his message, the baker or t-shirt maker, or whomever, is equally free to refuse to allow his craft to be used towards the purpose of carrying a message that is found objectionable. For some bakers or craftsman, same-sex marriage may be objectionable. For others, it may not. It is not my place, not society's place, to demand service when that service carries a social or political message. You'd like this to be about human rights, but you conveniently choose to forbid rights for the artist or craftsman, as though his skill and ability makes him subservient or undeserving of natural rights.

Nor have I suggested that this should be the case. If a baker wants to say that he disagrees with gay marriage, he has every right to say that. He can even say that to gay people who are asking for him to make them a wedding cake. But regardless, if he bakes wedding cakes for straight couples, he can't refuse to make their cake.

If he cannot refuse to bake the cake, then he has no right to free speech. Or is everyone only allowed free speech within certain zones? This has such a totalitarian bent, it is almost funny.

But since his right is not being impeded (as in something that one has a constitutional right to do), there is no need for this kind of exception.

Glad you think so. You're wrong, but you are absolutely free to your opinion. Wonder if you can get that printed on a t-shirt...


By the way, this debate has gone off the rails which is pretty much where I predicted it was intended to go in the first place. So, I'm going along with it because, whatever, I have time to kill.

[mican333]

The point is, once the baker is asked to add meaning to the cupcakes, it becomes a message, not just a dessert. That man is no longer some random individual, but the carrier of a message. In our free society, just as free as the man is to convey his message, the baker or t-shirt maker, or whomever, is equally free to refuse to allow his craft to be used towards the purpose of carrying a message that is found objectionable. For some bakers or craftsman, same-sex marriage may be objectionable. For others, it may not. It is not my place, not society's place, to demand service when that service carries a social or political message. You'd like this to be about human rights, but you conveniently choose to forbid rights for the artist or craftsman, as though his skill and ability makes him subservient or undeserving of natural rights.

I'm not sure this is relevant to the case at hand. I don't think the baker refused to sell the cake due to objecting to a message that was on the cake (if that was the case, he could just say that he'll bake the cake but won't put any messages on it). The baker refused to bake the cake because of the clientele.

If he cannot refuse to bake the cake, then he has no right to free speech.

But he can refuse to bake the cake. He just institutes a policy that he won't bake wedding cakes and applies it equally to gays and straights and he's free to refuse to bake cakes for gay couples with no legal consequences.

[futureboy]

You may laugh, but what is the answer? The answer Is a baker (or any other merchant) allowed to use discretion based on political/religious views when deciding what products to sell? How about a Christian Book Store? Should they be forced to sell non-Christian books? Would they be forced to apply Mican's logic and if they agree to order any book then they must order all books when requested to do so? Should a restaurant be forced to serve vegetarian dishes on request? I'm just trying to figure out where this line is that you and Mican has determined must exist. Where exactly do our free speech rights end and why?

Your examples, while interesting, were clearly intended to play on the emotions in order to elicit agreement that of course the poor baker shouldn't be forced to serve those awful, horrible clients. My answer was the Muslim baker example. Do you think this baker should have the right to remove women from his shop because they aren't hiding their faces? Why do/don't you?

[Ibelsd]

I'm not sure this is relevant to the case at hand. I don't think the baker refused to sell the cake due to objecting to a message that was on the cake (if that was the case, he could just say that he'll bake the cake but won't put any messages on it). The baker refused to bake the cake because of the clientele.

I have not read a story about a baker who refused to serve a cake to a gay man. I think you are inventing this. The baker refused to make a cake which carries a message that he finds objectionable. In this case, the message is that same-sex marriage is ok and meant to be celebrated. Clearly, the baker disagrees with this message and does not wish to apply his craft on such a message. Doesn't the baker, as a craftsman, as an artist, have a right to determine how he applies his craft? Again, I ask you, does he lose his natural rights to apply his craft freely just because he's a baker? Does this apply to all artists? Should a painter not be allowed to refuse show discretion when choosing their subjects or materials? Should a writer be forced to write any topic his fans request? If a movie director refuses to add a certain message to his film, should he then have to refuse to make all movies? Ahhh, but we are talking about just a baker. So, the common rules for artists don't apply and, this baker is a Christian, so we'd simply be antiquated to allow him the right of refusal when applying his craft. This isn't tolerance or enlightenment. This is nothing short of mob rule and tyranny.

But he can refuse to bake the cake. He just institutes a policy that he won't bake wedding cakes and applies it equally to gays and straights and he's free to refuse to bake cakes for gay couples with no legal consequences.

So, you are denying him his right to express his freedom of speech as he chooses. You have offered him a safe space where he can choose to give up his profession because he refuses to carry the message you prefer. This isn't freedom of speech at all unless you live in some dystopian world where war is peace and freedom is slavery.

---------- Post added at 09:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 AM ----------

Your examples, while interesting, were clearly intended to play on the emotions in order to elicit agreement that of course the poor baker shouldn't be forced to serve those awful, horrible clients. My answer was the Muslim baker example. Do you think this baker should have the right to remove women from his shop because they aren't hiding their faces? Why do/don't you?

No. You don't get to answer my question with a question. I asked you a series of hypotheticals to determine how far you're willing to go. You've now responded to my questions twice, both times dodging an answer. That speaks volumes.

[futureboy]

So, you are denying him his right to express his freedom of speech as he chooses.

Yeah, the same way you denied my right to express my views by cutting off ridiculously-long goatees.

No. You don't get to answer my question with a question. I asked you a series of hypotheticals to determine how far you're willing to go. You've now responded to my questions twice, both times dodging an answer. That speaks volumes.

I'm sorry you don't understand the answer, but there it is. You've essentially made the claim that a baker's right to refuse to bake a cake for the KKK should be the same as a baker's right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay marriage, and that the baker's refusal need not have a religious basis in order to be valid. However, your lumping of the gay cake together with all those other horrible messages fails to address the issue of discrimination, which is a key factor here. That's why I gave the Muslim baker example in response, since it is a much more valid comparison than all your examples. That you refuse to consider it speaks volumes.

[Ibelsd]

Yeah, the same way you denied my right to express my views by cutting off ridiculously-long goatees.

Your right to free speech stops when it infringes upon mine. You don't see this line? Of course you do. You're making a ludicrous argument of equivalency. However, no one is arguing that the baker has a right to go to someone's wedding and smash their baked goods out of protest. I am arguing that he has providence over his own skills and the use of those skills.

I'm sorry you don't understand the answer, but there it is. You've essentially made the claim that a baker's right to refuse to bake a cake for the KKK should be the same as a baker's right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay marriage, and that the baker's refusal need not have a religious basis in order to be valid. However, your lumping of the gay cake together with all those other horrible messages fails to address the issue of discrimination, which is a key factor here. That's why I gave the Muslim baker example in response, since it is a much more valid comparison than all your examples. That you refuse to consider it speaks volumes.

Again, you'd like to dictate the terms of free speech. What is tolerable free speech. What isn't. Discrimination is not a valid reason to refuse someone's right to free speech. I offered a bunch of possible messages a baker may be asked to display when accepting a cake order. Apparently, when the message is something you find objectionable, then the baker's right to refuse is okey dokey. However, if the baker's view of an objectionable message differs from your own, then he should be considered a criminal. Of course, you boiled it all down to one horrifying message. Not sure how being asked to write, "I love boobies" on a cake is similar to being asked to observe a KKK holiday... but I do understand your need to exaggerate my argument in order to provide yourself with a facsimile of a moral high ground.

Let's read the 1st amendment together:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Can you point me to the section in this clause where there is an exception for discriminatory language? It appears you have invented a new Constitutional amendment. The anti-discrimination clause of the 1st amendment maybe? Again, going back to my hypotheticals, can a Christian bookstore discriminate against a Satanist who wishes to order a book on Satan or a Muslim who wishes to order a copy of the Koran? Or, per your newly invented Constitutional abridgment, must the Christian bookstore choose to either sell all books or no books? Could they choose to specialize only in books that are praising of Catholicism or, again, wouldn't this discriminate against Baptists? Could they even sell a book which depicts gay people as immoral or would they have to stop carrying the book should someone complain in order to avoid a discrimination lawsuit based on your newly enshrined amendment?

[futureboy]

Your right to free speech stops when it infringes upon mine.

And many would say that the baker's right to express his "religious" views ends when his chosen way of expressing them infringes on another's right to not be discriminated against, how do you not see this line? As Mican already explained, he can still express his views in many other ways, so the right itself is not denied as you say, the discriminatory expression of it is.

Discrimination is not a valid reason to refuse someone's right to free speech.

Are you then saying that the Muslim baker should be allowed to discriminate against women as his way of exercising his free speech?

I offered a bunch of possible messages a baker may be asked to display when accepting a cake order. Apparently, when the message is something you find objectionable, then the baker's right to refuse is okey dokey. However, if the baker's view of an objectionable message differs from your own, then he should be considered a criminal.

Apparently, you choose to misrepresent my argument instead of actually responding to it. It's not about messages which I find objectionable, it's about discrimination. See the Muslim baker example.

Of course, you boiled it all down to one horrifying message.

Yes, your initial hypotheticals were all messages which many would find quite horrifying. I already explained why the don't apply here.

Not sure how being asked to write, "I love boobies" on a cake is similar to being asked to observe a KKK holiday...

They both miss the point of addressing the free speech vs. discrimination issue.

Can you point me to the section in this clause where there is an exception for discriminatory language? It appears you have invented a new Constitutional amendment. The anti-discrimination clause of the 1st amendment maybe? Again, going back to my hypotheticals, can a Christian bookstore discriminate against a Satanist who wishes to order a book on Satan or a Muslim who wishes to order a copy of the Koran? Or, per your newly invented Constitutional abridgment, must the Christian bookstore choose to either sell all books or no books? Could they choose to specialize only in books that are praising of Catholicism or, again, wouldn't this discriminate against Baptists? Could they even sell a book which depicts gay people as immoral or would they have to stop carrying the book should someone complain in order to avoid a discrimination lawsuit based on your newly enshrined amendment?

Again, you provide more flawed and over-the-top hypotheticals which don't actually address the discrimination issue.

As I said before, there are things which our society as a whole tolerates, and that tolerance is enshrined in certain rules. You seem to believe that this tolerance must give way to some people's right to express their intolerance while hiding behind religious views.

[mican333]

I have not read a story about a baker who refused to serve a cake to a gay man. I think you are inventing this.

I am not. Here is the pertinent part of the story.


"The controversy started in 2013 when Aaron Klein declined to provide a cake for a lesbian wedding. Later that year, the women filed a complaint against Klein and his wife, Melissa.

“The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the Complainants,” read a statement by the BOLI to the Oregonian. “Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion. Our agency is committed to fair and thorough enforcement of Oregon civil rights laws, including the Equality Act of 2007.”

The article makes no mention of a message and for all I know, there was no message on the cake nor was the refusal over a message (as in if the clients agreed that absolutely nothing would be on the cake indicating that it was for a lesbian wedding, the baker would have agreed to sell them the cake).

The baker refused to make a cake which carries a message that he finds objectionable. In this case, the message is that same-sex marriage is ok and meant to be celebrated.

Support or retract. Please show me that such a message was asked to be put on the cake and that the message was the reason for the refusal.

Doesn't the baker, as a craftsman, as an artist, have a right to determine how he applies his craft? Again, I ask you, does he lose his natural rights to apply his craft freely just because he's a baker?

As this question inserts the unsupported premise that such a right is being lost, I reject the question itself.

Should a painter not be allowed to refuse show discretion when choosing their subjects or materials? Should a writer be forced to write any topic his fans request? If a movie director refuses to add a certain message to his film, should he then have to refuse to make all movies? Ahhh, but we are talking about just a baker. So, the common rules for artists don't apply and, this baker is a Christian, so we'd simply be antiquated to allow him the right of refusal when applying his craft. This isn't tolerance or enlightenment. This is nothing short of mob rule and tyranny.

Once you support that the issue with the baker was the message and not the clientel, I will address this. Again, the lawsuit was over refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, not refusing to put a specific message on the cake. Likewise I am aware of no law punishing artists for refusing to abstain from presenting a certain message.

So, you are denying him his right to express his freedom of speech as he chooses. You have offered him a safe space where he can choose to give up his profession because he refuses to carry the message you prefer. This isn't freedom of speech at all unless you live in some dystopian world where war is peace and freedom is slavery.

Since the point you are responding to was not about free speech, this comment is a completely inaccurate assessment of my position and therefore is completely wrong.

[Ibelsd]

I am not. Here is the pertinent part of the story.


"The controversy started in 2013 when Aaron Klein declined to provide a cake for a lesbian wedding. Later that year, the women filed a complaint against Klein and his wife, Melissa.

“The facts of this case clearly demonstrate that the Kleins unlawfully discriminated against the Complainants,” read a statement by the BOLI to the Oregonian. “Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion. Our agency is committed to fair and thorough enforcement of Oregon civil rights laws, including the Equality Act of 2007.”

The article makes no mention of a message and for all I know, there was no message on the cake nor was the refusal over a message (as in if the clients agreed that absolutely nothing would be on the cake indicating that it was for a lesbian wedding, the baker would have agreed to sell them the cake).



Support or retract. Please show me that such a message was asked to be put on the cake and that the message was the reason for the refusal.




As this question inserts the unsupported premise that such a right is being lost, I reject the question itself.



Once you support that the issue with the baker was the message and not the clientel, I will address this. Again, the lawsuit was over refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, not refusing to put a specific message on the cake. Likewise I am aware of no law punishing artists for refusing to abstain from presenting a certain message.




Since the point you are responding to was not about free speech, this comment is a completely inaccurate assessment of my position and therefore is completely wrong.

The cake, itself, is the message. The complaint is he, "declined to provide a cake for a lesbian wedding". Unless you have evidence that he refused to bake goods goods for gay people in general, then the idea of the cake as anything other than a message is mere conjecture on your part.

---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 AM ----------

And many would say that the baker's right to express his "religious" views ends when his chosen way of expressing them infringes on another's right to not be discriminated against, how do you not see this line? As Mican already explained, he can still express his views in many other ways, so the right itself is not denied as you say, the discriminatory expression of it is.

And many people are free to their opinion.

Are you then saying that the Muslim baker should be allowed to discriminate against women as his way of exercising his free speech?

No. Selling a woman a baked good is not, in and of itself, expressing a message. However, if a Muslim was asked to bake goods for a feminist organization, then a case could be made.

Apparently, you choose to misrepresent my argument instead of actually responding to it. It's not about messages which I find objectionable, it's about discrimination. See the Muslim baker example.

I did respond to this. I quoted the first amendment and asked where this discrimination exception lay? You have apparently willed it into existence.

Yes, your initial hypotheticals were all messages which many would find quite horrifying. I already explained why the don't apply here.

You have and I presented a rebuttal. Ball back in your court.

They both miss the point of addressing the free speech vs. discrimination issue.

However, you have apparently missed my rebuttal to your discrimination argument.

Again, you provide more flawed and over-the-top hypotheticals which don't actually address the discrimination issue.

The discrimination issue was rebutted. So, no, the hypothetical scenarios I present do not address this part of your argument.

As I said before, there are things which our society as a whole tolerates, and that tolerance is enshrined in certain rules. You seem to believe that this tolerance must give way to some people's right to express their intolerance while hiding behind religious views.

No, I find that this usage of intolerance as an excuse to limit free speech is merely a pretext used to prevent speech you don't like. Our society is not some monolithic creature or beast. It consists of individuals who are free to express their own views, both political and religious, without interference from the government. As I have pointed out, but that you have completely ignored, our first amendment rights do not contain exceptions for hate speech, discriminatory speech, nor intolerant speech. In fact, all these forms of speech are very protected. You can create imaginary pretext for denying any or all of them, but it does not mean such a pretext actually exists in the Constitution. Or, you can go a step further, as Mican has done, and simply deny that the acts presented consist of speech at all. Either way, you are just applying a very thinly veiled type of censorship. I may not approve of the speech of the Christian or Muslim baker as it applies to their stand towards same-sex marriage. However, I certainly defend their right to express their message freely.

Very simply, this issue comes down to two sides: those who respect the first amendment and those who do not. I think it is clear which side you and Mican have taken.

[futureboy]

No. Selling a woman a baked good is not, in and of itself, expressing a message. However, if a Muslim was asked to bake goods for a feminist organization, then a case could be made.

The Muslim baker would extrapolate that accepting an inapropriately-dressed woman in his shop is itself the message, just as you have extrapolated that the cake for a lesbian wedding is itself the message.

No, I find that this usage of intolerance as an excuse to limit free speech is merely a pretext used to prevent speech you don't like.

You're entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately, in many cases, upholding tolerance and anti-discrimination principles have taken priority over the freedom to express one's views.

Very simply, this issue comes down to two sides: those who respect the first amendment and those who do not. I think it is clear which side you and Mican have taken.

No. You can keep trying to make it about the business operators expressing their 1st amendment rights to free speech, but that's not what this is about, for a number of reasons, but the bottom line is: business decisions are not speech.
As I've stated previously, the businesses are in the business of providing a service, not expressing their views. If they wish to do so, they can express their views through words, not by discriminating between who they'll provide or deny services to.
Further, anti-discrimination laws don't violate the 1st amendment because they apply to conduct, not expression in the form of speech. So if a business wishes to offer a service for money, they have to conduct it according to the anti-discrimination laws. By conducting their business lawfully, they are by no means expressing any speech or views on same-sex marriage which would be deemed objectionable according to their religion. After all, the bible does say that Christians should obey the laws set by their governments.

[mican333]

This is actually false. Maybe because of the actual meaning of the term "purchasing power" vs how you are trying to use it.
Purchasing power has to do with how much you can get with your money. So if I have to drive 500 miles to purchase goods, my dollar still has the same purchasing power once I get there vs down the street.
$50 here, is $50 in New York (assuming the goods would be the same price at both locations).

I wasn't using the typical definition of "purchasing power" as in the money itself. I'm talking about one's ability to convert their labor to accessing goods (because that's how we typically receive goods - trade our labor for good via the marketplace). The more access you have to the market, the better you can trade your labor for goods. So if two people work the same job for the same pay but one of them has better access to the market, that person's labor is worth more than the other person's. While they don't get more money for their effort, they get better money as their money is better at purchasing what they need than the other person.

And attaining items is actually less expensive for them. Let's say widgets are on sale for $10 a piece and there's only one widget store in town and it refuses to see widgets to gay people. As you point out, gays can just purchase widgets for the same price in another town or online. But then purchasing the widget will cost them more than $10. If they go to another town, they are spending money on gas so the price is $10 + gas money. If they buy it online, they are spending money on shipping and handling so the price is $10 + S&H. If both the gay person and the straight person only had $10 to spend on a widget, the gay person could not afford to buy it. And if the widget store in town has a sale where widgets are only $8 and no other store is doing likewise, the straight person is able to buy them for less than the gay person. So unequal access to the marketplace effectively makes items more expensive for those who are discriminated against even if the price of the produce is consistent (which it might not always be).

So it's not just a matter of inconvenience. It's a matter of expense as well. If certain businesses refuse to sell to gay people, items will be more expensive for gay people so their labor does not have the same worth as straight peoples'. That is tangible harm.

Actually Roe vs Wade is a great example of the whimsical nature of gov, because the laws were set over a long period of time, and that entire process was short circited by the whimsical nature of a 9 judnge panel.
That is the very nature of a whimsical gov. Or do you deny that tomorrow the same court could (given the right judges) roll back the clock in an afternoon, and make all abortions illegal?

I do deny it. It's impossible for the SCOTUS to reverse the Roe decision tomorrow. The SCOTUS does not rule on cases that are not sent to them from lower courts. So by the time the SCOTUS can effect a case, it has to have gone through lower courts and therefore has been argued by other people quite a bit. Then the SCOTUS will look at the lower rulings and arguments and then decide if it's even going to hear the case. If it decides to, then it carefully weighs and argues the decision. So if the court case that would lead to the undoing of the Roe decision started today, it would probably be months or years until it lead to the SCOTUS decision that actually does it. Since there are currently no challenges to Roe in front of the SCOTUS today, there is no possible way that Roe could be overturned tomorrow.

Besides that, I don't think the SCOTUS has the ability to outlaw all abortions. If the SCOTUS reversed Roe, it would just let the states make their own decisions regarding the legality of abortion. I'm pretty sure it would take a constitutional amendment to uniformly outlaw abortion.

So I see no basis to call SCOTUS decisions "whimsical" beyond just a desire to do so.

I think, The point is furthered by Roe vs Wades actual lack of legal reasoning and justifications. But that is another discussion for another day.

And until it is discussed and supported, the notion that there was any faulty legal reasoning for Roe is rejected for lack of support. Personally, I find the claim ludicrous.

It is just an example of what the gov can do by accident. an example that without the religous exemption you are arguing against, would have drastically effected common religious practices.

But that's only a problem if the religious practice is one that one should be allowed to do. Again, human sacrifice is a religious practice and it's accidentally outlawed when murder is outlawed but that's not a problem because it's good that the religious practice of human sacrifice is outlawed along with murder.

So accidentally outlawing religious practices with secular laws is only a problem if the religious practice in question should not be outlawed.

So you need to show that a religious practice that should not be outlawed was, or will be, outlawed by a worthy secular (unlike prohibition) before one can say that this is a problem.

Yes, otherwise there wouldn't be a law.
This is the compromise of protecting religous liberty while passing regulations.
For example birth control. They can pass a law that says a dr must provide birth control, but catholics should be exempt. (IE allowed to break the law), because their objection is religious based in nature.
To not allow the exemption would not be in the publics interest because there are so many catholic DR's that it could cause serious problems to the entire system if we make it so that they can't practice at all.
This carries over to abortion as well.

Okay. So to be clear - you are FOR laws forcing non-religious doctors to provide birth control?

If so, why are you for this?
If not (and I assume you are not), then this does not qualify as something you want a religious exemption for as you don't think that anyone should be forced to do this.

So again, are there any laws that you feel that the irreligious should be forced to follow but the religious should be exempt from? This assumes that you aren't for forcing the irreligious to provide birth control.

again, not sure how it is worded, but if hosptials are forced to take patience (which they are) then the gov refuses to fund (which they would) then their is a considerable amount of force being exerted on that hospital.
Hospitals are forced to provide services, that is a fact.

I think you are mixing a lot of stuff up here. There are rules that hospitals must always follow (such as not turning away people who are injured) and things that the government will pay hospitals to do but are optional. I'm not exactly sure how it all works myself but if you are going to argue that there Catholic hospitals are forced to do something, you will need to show that this specifically is the case as I'm under the impression that those hospitals are just being offered money to perform certain services and they have the option of turning it down which is no more force than not hiring someone because they refuse to do all of the assigned jobs.

I'm not saying that I have it exactly right but this is your argument so the burden is yours so if you want to say that there is indeed force, you will need to support it with something other than your current understanding of the issue because I don't have reason to believe that your understanding is superior to mine.

They paid damages and fines.
I don't see how the distinction you are making is relevant.

It's relevant because paying a fine for not doing something is not the same thing as being forced to do something.

If one is forced to do something that means that force was applied to get them to do something which means that they ended up doing the thing that they were forced to do.

If you mean one was fined for not baking a cake then say "they were fined for not baking a cake", not "they were forced to bake a cake".

The two things are different.

Well, that would be because it is an arbitrary line.
I can't force you to be a painter.
I can't force you to paint houses.
But I can force you to paint houses with R value 10 paint.
So if you choose to be a painter, and choose to paint houses, then you are FORCED to paint it with R value of 10 paint. (no such product exist, R value is an insulation code).

So what? By that logic, one is FORCED to do many different things when they open and operate a business. Every single guideline and rule that one must follow in order to run their business is something that they are FORCED to do. If you want to hire employees, you are FORCED to pay them minimum wage at minimum. And likewise if I want to keep the job that I have, I am FORCED to perform various tasks. So what?

This kind of "force" is not an infringement on anyone's rights.

To those specifically they were forced out of buisness, to the industry as a whole they are forced to bake the cakes.
given the ultimatum of do it or go out of buisness is a pretty clear use of force to do X.

Actually, they weren't forced out of business. As I understand it, they chose to close their shop. Now, it might have been because they could no longer afford to run the shop after the fines but regardless, they were not ordered to close their shop.

So if you mean by "forced out of business" the natural consequences of not having enough money to maintain the business, that's fine. If the company I work for lost our biggest client, we might be forced to shut down as well so by that logic, if our client dumped us, then our client FORCED us out of business. And while that would be bad for us, it's not a violation of our rights in any way.

So if you want to use the word "force" in this way, that's fine. But then my response to this kind of "force" being used is "so what"?

Religion can still be given special treatment without establishing it as your support stated.
such as tax exemptions. That is special treatment. Or exemtions on prohibition, again special treatment without establishing religion.

Exceptions do not invalidate my support. Generally speaking, legally favoring religion is a violation of the establishment clause. The support I provided said that "passing laws which specifically aid one religion or aid religions generally" would violate the establishment clause. Maybe there are individual circumstances where this is not the case, but generally speaking it is true.

... umm.. I'm afraid you will have to requote it, I lost that train of thought.

You can go looking for it as easily as I can. But if you don't want to repeat it and just let it go, that's fine with me. We can deal with it if you care to repeat it.

I would like to add, that your argument is not complete untill it weighs the loss of liberty side of the equation.
Else we can dismiss it even if you do establish harm, because it lacks context.

I would consider that moving the goalpost. You asked for a demonstration of harm and I provided it.

Once you concede that harm is caused, then we can discuss whether preventing the harm is an unacceptable infringement on liberty.

First piece of evidence, your inabilty to quantify it. You can't because it is negligible at best.
You have argued for instances where only one person provides a specific service, and those examples are negligible and on the frindges of our society as a whole.

I used only one person because that's all it takes to demonstrate that harm occurs at all. You don't know that I can't quantify it - only that I haven't. The person who is forwarding the argument regarding the quantity of harm is YOU so it's YOUR burden to show that the effects will be negligible. You can't use an argument that I didn't make as evidence that non-neglible harm will occur.

So again, support or retract that the harm will be negligible. Using a lack of support that it won't be negligible as support that it will be negligible is to engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy.

your refustal to answer direct questions is just uncool.
Questions are a valid form of argumentation.

That is not a uniformly true statement at all. Whether a question is valid and deserves and answer is entirely dependent on the question itself and why it is asked.

And since I think questions are often a form of attempting to shift the burden, to answer such questions would be allowing you to shift the burden. I hold that asking questions in order to shift the burden is not a valid form of argument and those questions should not be answered.

As an example, let's say I wanted to argue that Trump is a bad President. Obviously to support that argument, I would have to provide evidence that he's not going a good job. But instead of doing that, what if I asked you why you thought he was doing a good job? And you answered something along the line that he's improving the economy. Now, you've made a statement that I can attack and you apparently have the burden to defend. So the burden is apparently shifted to you because you answered my question. Since I don't care to play that game, I choose to not answer these kinds of questions but instead request that you make your point with an argument that you must support.

So quite simply, if you want to make a point, then make an argument that supports your point, not ask someone to support the opposing conclusion.

Now, I agree that sometimes there are legitimate questions as well - such as someone is sincerely unsure of what someone else is saying and is asking for clarification.

But the statement that refusing to answer any and all questions that one might be asked is "uncool" is flat-out wrong.

Circular reasoning.
furhter, just because he closes his store, doesn't mean someone else is going to open one up, and certainly not the next day.

Okay. But so what? That doesn't rebut my argument.

If you can't supprot any specific amount of harm, then you are not suporting the actual existence (or potential for actual harm)
So your just guessing, and that can be dismissed.

I have supported that there is the potential for actual harm.

In a small conservative town where there is only one grocery store (and such places do exist), the store owner can refuse to sell groceries to gays if he is allowed to. Since the gays in that town cannot buy groceries in the town, they will either have to pay more for their food (such as spend gas money to drive somewhere else and/or spend extra money to buy online) or they will have to move out of town. So the added expense of living just for being gay or not being able to live where straights can live is actual harm.

---------- Post added at 03:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

The cake, itself, is the message. The complaint is he, "declined to provide a cake for a lesbian wedding". Unless you have evidence that he refused to bake goods goods for gay people in general, then the idea of the cake as anything other than a message is mere conjecture on your part.

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.

Very simply, this issue comes down to two sides: those who respect the first amendment and those who do not. I think it is clear which side you and Mican have taken.

Right. Because if you don't agree with Ibelsd on the issue of baked goods, you must not respect the first amendment.

[Ibelsd]

The Muslim baker would extrapolate that accepting an inapropriately-dressed woman in his shop is itself the message, just as you have extrapolated that the cake for a lesbian wedding is itself the message.

You're entitled to your opinion. Unfortunately, in many cases, upholding tolerance and anti-discrimination principles have taken priority over the freedom to express one's views.

No. You can keep trying to make it about the business operators expressing their 1st amendment rights to free speech, but that's not what this is about, for a number of reasons, but the bottom line is: business decisions are not speech.
As I've stated previously, the businesses are in the business of providing a service, not expressing their views. If they wish to do so, they can express their views through words, not by discriminating between who they'll provide or deny services to.
Further, anti-discrimination laws don't violate the 1st amendment because they apply to conduct, not expression in the form of speech. So if a business wishes to offer a service for money, they have to conduct it according to the anti-discrimination laws. By conducting their business lawfully, they are by no means expressing any speech or views on same-sex marriage which would be deemed objectionable according to their religion. After all, the bible does say that Christians should obey the laws set by their governments.

Actually, in the Valeo case, the Supreme Court specifically stated that spending money was a form of speech. So, this separation between action and speech is another fantasy clause to the 1st amendment invented by you. My actions can constitute speech, protected under the 1st amendment.

You make a good case for why a Muslim could refuse service to a female. However, I am not extrapolating anything. The moral issue is whether someone wishes to support the concept of same-sex marriage which could be influenced by one's religious views. Baking a cake for such a marriage could be construed as support for such an event. Therefore, refusing to bake the cake could be an expression of one's religious views which is protected by the 1st amendment.

We do agree on one thing. Some legislators have given precedence to tolerance (or the outward appearance of) over free speech. Does this make it right? This is exactly why I support the concept of exceptions to such laws since they restore freedoms which were destroyed by poor legislation. And as Mican and I both agreed, not having a bad law would be ideal.

---------- Post added at 03:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 PM ----------

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.

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. So, at the very least, you'd have to fill in the void. What is the baker doing if not sending a message?

[futureboy]

Actually, in the Valeo case, the Supreme Court specifically stated that spending money was a form of speech. So, this separation between action and speech is another fantasy clause to the 1st amendment invented by you. My actions can constitute speech, protected under the 1st amendment.

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.

You make a good case for why a Muslim could refuse service to a female.

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'?

However, I am not extrapolating anything. The moral issue is whether someone wishes to support the concept of same-sex marriage which could be influenced by one's religious views. Baking a cake for such a marriage could be construed as support for such an event. Therefore, refusing to bake the cake could be an expression of one's religious views which is protected by the 1st amendment.

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.

We do agree on one thing. Some legislators have given precedence to tolerance (or the outward appearance of) over free speech. Does this make it right? This is exactly why I support the concept of exceptions to such laws since they restore freedoms which were destroyed by poor legislation. And as Mican and I both agreed, not having a bad law would be ideal.

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?

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. So, at the very least, you'd have to fill in the void. What is the baker doing if not sending a message?

Um, making discriminatory business decisions which violate anti-discrimination laws? I thought that was clear.