Gay Marriage Discussion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
542

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Are they denying services to gays, or not providing a cake for a same sex wedding between gay people?

There is a difference between the two. [/quote]

The way the courts are interpreting the law, agree or not, it is. The reasoning has been this: the primary feature distinguishing same-sex weddings (or civil unions) from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants, hence only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Consequently, the argument that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not Ã?¢??because ofÃ?¢?? their sexual orientation hasn’t been a valid one in balancing what the state laws actually say versus what the bakeries are doing. Because these bakersÃ?¢?? objection goes beyond just the act of Ã?¢??marriage,Ã?¢?? and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, the courts or labor bureaus seem to conclude that the real objection is to the coupleÃ?¢??s sexual orientation and not simply their marriage carte blanche.

I suspect what really sealed the deal for this case in Oregon was what the baker actually said (check out the transcripts, most news sites are biased in one direction or the other): http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf

The bakery owner quoted Leviticus, e.g., “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female,” stated over and over that they did not do same-sex weddings, and called the couple’s children an “abomination.” After the state contacted them, and the later correspondence with the bakery is all laid out in that ruling, they continued to stand firm in this position. They didn’t really do themselves any favors in their choice of wording here, and probably should have either refrained from commenting, leaving that to legal representation, or just gave some other reason for not baking the cake. Agree or disagree, the courts have not been holding refusal to provide a service for a same-sex ceremony as being mutually exclusive to denying service based on sexual orientation.[/quote]

I don’t think the bakery owners choice of words really matters for a court decision, sure they could have been nicer about it but the end result is the only thing that matters, cake or no cake.

Would this count as discrimination?
Gay Person: I would like to order a gay wedding cake, birthday cake and some candles.
Bakery: I’m sorry we do not provide candles or gay wedding cakes here, what is the name and date of the birthday cake you need made?

The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to protect people against something they can’t control, most commonly sex/race which you are born with.

543

[quote]magick wrote:

Why do you think this way? What makes religious liberty so obvious that it doesn’t even to have be defined?

The First Amendment states-

“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.”

The “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is the religious liberty aspect.

I don’t think the bakery stuff has anything to do with “respecting an establishment of religion”, so it must be the “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

But what exactly makes “I get to say no cakes for gays” the free exercise of religion?

Indeed, what does “Free exercise” mean? And what does “make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof” imply? Consider this the crux of my question.[/quote]

So, let me get this right. You’re struggling with the idea that putting religious folks out of the wedding photography/wedding business (their livelihood), by laws established, is prohibiting the free exercise of?. If you’ve been able to talk yourself into that position, you’ll be able to talk yourself into any.

544

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:

…They…probably should have either refrained from commenting…

[/quote]

Sorry, JR, you’re a decent guy but these words are chilling. You stepped in a huge pile and you won’t hardly get all the shit off your shoes anytime soon with this one.

When you lay out your cards like this it causes me to lose any sympathy for your position.
[/quote]

Indeed, what an absolutely chilling position. Give reasons, just not religious reasons. Freedom to exercise…Riiiiiight.

545

At this point, the state should just run the churches. Finish up it’s remodeling of us as monolithic consumer/tax payers. Not really any more repugnant, after all. We’ve already been told as laity, by the state, we’re not to earn a living and still stick to ancient beliefs long left alone.

546

Sloth (or anyone else aligned with Sloth), as a technical point, does your religion actually prohibit you from making a cake for a gay-married couple, or does it merely prohibit you from getting gay married yourself?

In my personal profession, I have been compelled by the state (or a quasi-state agency) to represent people, sometimes for free, that were accused of committing acts I personally disagreed with. The ethical canons, however, state that my representation of others who commit acts I may disagree with should not be interpreted as my tacit approval of those acts, which is how the state justifies making me represent indigent people who commit acts I disagree with because it considers my doing business in my profession a “privilege” and not a right.

With this said, although I agree generally that compelling a person to do business with someone they don’t want to do business with an intrusion on that person’s rights, I am not sure that I agree that making you do business with a gay-married couple is any more of an intrusion than making me represent someone who has committed acts that I disagree with.

547

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Sloth (or anyone else aligned with Sloth), as a technical point, does your religion actually prohibit you from making a cake for a gay-married couple, or does it merely prohibit you from getting gay married yourself?[/quote]

A WEDDING cake?
In my religion marriage is a Sacrament. Not a get together. Not a party. Not a shin-dig. A Sacrament. You might as well ask me to make communion wafers out of feces.

[quote]In my personal profession, I have been compelled by the state (or a quasi-state agency) to represent people, sometimes for free, that were accused of committing acts I personally disagreed with. The ethical canons, however, state that my representation of others who commit acts I may disagree with should not be interpreted as my tacit approval of those acts, which is how the state justifies making me represent indigent people who commit acts I disagree with because it considers my doing business in my profession a “privilege” and not a right.

With this said, although I agree generally that compelling a person to do business with someone they don’t want to do business with an intrusion on that person’s rights, I am not sure that I agree that making you do business with a gay-married couple is any more of an intrusion than making me represent someone who has committed acts that I disagree with.

[/quote]

So now we all live and conduct ourselves and businesses as what, lawyers, in the eyes of the law? Remind me just to turn in early the next July 4th.

548

We went from free exercise to “those are the reasons you can’t give.” How has “my faith prohibits me from” become lesser than “you know what, I’m just not taking any orders at the moment?”

549

[quote]Sloth wrote:

So now we all live and conduct ourselves and businesses as what, lawyers, in the eyes of the law? Remind me just to turn in early the next July 4th.
[/quote]

No, but I’m still jaded that the state can make me work for free, especially when its for someone I don’t want to work for.

550

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Sloth (or anyone else aligned with Sloth), as a technical point, does your religion actually prohibit you from making a cake for a gay-married couple, or does it merely prohibit you from getting gay married yourself?[/quote]

A WEDDING cake?
In my religion marriage is a Sacrament. Not a get together. Not a party. Not a shin-dig. A Sacrament. You might as well ask me to make communion wafers out of feces.

[/quote]

It was a genuine question. It still seems to me that doing business with someone who disagrees with your religion isn’t the same thing as violating your personal religious beliefs. But I will accept your representation.

551

[quote]JR249 wrote:
[ They didn’t really do themselves any favors in their choice of wording here, and probably should have either refrained from commenting, leaving that to legal representation, or just gave some other reason for not baking the cake. Agree or disagree, the courts have not been holding refusal to provide a service for a same-sex ceremony as being mutually exclusive to denying service based on sexual orientation.[/quote]

And this absolutely illustrates how diseased and putrid our nation is. And flat out shines a spotlight on how perverse its legal system is. To suggest that giving religious reasons is lesser than ‘some other reason’…The suggestion that giving “some other reason” for not participating in what used to be a voluntary exchange is probably spot on. And THAT puts the lie to the powerless and stretched-beyond-the-breaking-point rag we call the constitution, and its empty promises.

Edit: And that was BEFORE this recent SC decision. It’s only beginning. One can only imagine how much state pressure can be brought down, and in what organizations, associations, and affiliations, now. Inside one’s home and Church is now “free exercise.” They won.

552

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:
[ They didn’t really do themselves any favors in their choice of wording here, and probably should have either refrained from commenting, leaving that to legal representation, or just gave some other reason for not baking the cake. Agree or disagree, the courts have not been holding refusal to provide a service for a same-sex ceremony as being mutually exclusive to denying service based on sexual orientation.[/quote]

And this absolutely illustrates how diseased and putrid our nation is. And flat out shines a spotlight on how perverse its legal system is. To suggest that giving religious reasons is lesser than ‘some other reason’…The suggestion that giving “some other reason” for not participating in what used to be a voluntary exchange is probably spot on. And THAT puts the lie to the powerless and stretched-beyond-the-breaking-point rag we call the constitution, and its empty promises.

Edit: And that was BEFORE this recent SC decision. It’s only beginning. One can only imagine how much state pressure can be brought down, and in what organizations, associations, and affiliations, now. Inside one’s home and Church is now “free exercise.” They won.
[/quote]

There is a difference between these two sentences though right?

  1. I will not do that because you are gay

and

  1. I cannot do that because the ceremony is religious, and I can’t be part of religious ceremony that doesn’t’ follow the rules.
553

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:
[ They didn’t really do themselves any favors in their choice of wording here, and probably should have either refrained from commenting, leaving that to legal representation, or just gave some other reason for not baking the cake. Agree or disagree, the courts have not been holding refusal to provide a service for a same-sex ceremony as being mutually exclusive to denying service based on sexual orientation.[/quote]

And this absolutely illustrates how diseased and putrid our nation is. And flat out shines a spotlight on how perverse its legal system is. To suggest that giving religious reasons is lesser than ‘some other reason’…The suggestion that giving “some other reason” for not participating in what used to be a voluntary exchange is probably spot on. And THAT puts the lie to the powerless and stretched-beyond-the-breaking-point rag we call the constitution, and its empty promises.

Edit: And that was BEFORE this recent SC decision. It’s only beginning. One can only imagine how much state pressure can be brought down, and in what organizations, associations, and affiliations, now. Inside one’s home and Church is now “free exercise.” They won.
[/quote]

There is a difference between these two sentences though right?

  1. I will not do that because you are gay

and

  1. I cannot do that because the ceremony is religious, and I can’t be part of religious ceremony that doesn’t’ follow the rules.

[/quote]

In what context? I’m not morally bound to deny them a birthday cake (and wouldn’t). But if, as suggested, I can come up with “some other reason”–a little white lie, you see—to not make them a birthday cake…Well, all might be good.

“Umm, ummm, I don’t like the tone you used to order your cake! Yeah…Yeah…that’s it! It’s your tone with me! You won’t be rude to me in my own shop! Get out!”

As if somehow religious reasons went from explicitly mentioned/protected, to a lower tier set of reasons. And how the hell did that ever happen in the US of A?

554

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:
[ They didn’t really do themselves any favors in their choice of wording here, and probably should have either refrained from commenting, leaving that to legal representation, or just gave some other reason for not baking the cake. Agree or disagree, the courts have not been holding refusal to provide a service for a same-sex ceremony as being mutually exclusive to denying service based on sexual orientation.[/quote]

And this absolutely illustrates how diseased and putrid our nation is. And flat out shines a spotlight on how perverse its legal system is. To suggest that giving religious reasons is lesser than ‘some other reason’…The suggestion that giving “some other reason” for not participating in what used to be a voluntary exchange is probably spot on. And THAT puts the lie to the powerless and stretched-beyond-the-breaking-point rag we call the constitution, and its empty promises.

Edit: And that was BEFORE this recent SC decision. It’s only beginning. One can only imagine how much state pressure can be brought down, and in what organizations, associations, and affiliations, now. Inside one’s home and Church is now “free exercise.” They won.
[/quote]

There is a difference between these two sentences though right?

  1. I will not do that because you are gay

and

  1. I cannot do that because the ceremony is religious, and I can’t be part of religious ceremony that doesn’t’ follow the rules.

[/quote]

In what context? [/quote]

In the context of, in option one you’re saying no because of a person and their situation. In option two you’re saying no because the ceremony doesn’t follow the rules of your religion.

In one you’re discriminating against a person, and the other, a ceremony. And making sure the later is your (proverbial you) stance is about the only way I see churches surviving this.

556

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Sloth (or anyone else aligned with Sloth), as a technical point, does your religion actually prohibit you from making a cake for a gay-married couple, or does it merely prohibit you from getting gay married yourself?

In my personal profession, I have been compelled by the state (or a quasi-state agency) to represent people, sometimes for free, that were accused of committing acts I personally disagreed with. The ethical canons, however, state that my representation of others who commit acts I may disagree with should not be interpreted as my tacit approval of those acts, which is how the state justifies making me represent indigent people who commit acts I disagree with because it considers my doing business in my profession a “privilege” and not a right.

With this said, although I agree generally that compelling a person to do business with someone they don’t want to do business with an intrusion on that person’s rights, I am not sure that I agree that making you do business with a gay-married couple is any more of an intrusion than making me represent someone who has committed acts that I disagree with.

[/quote]

Good grief, Jack, are you desperate or what? Purposely advocating for others is inherent in the lawyering business and always has been. Not so in religious matters of doctrine.[/quote]

By the same token, I don’t see how running a retail business is an inherently religious matter either. I can see 100% a pastor objecting to conducting a gay marriage on religious grounds, but the “religious” aspect of the objection starts to get lost on me when we are just talking about a retail sales operation with a business license open to the public. But note also, I still disagree with the state telling me who I have to represent or who someone else has to do business with. That is, and always has been, an infringement on my rights, especially when I have to work for free. IMO.

557

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Sorry, JR, you’re a decent guy but these words are chilling. You stepped in a huge pile and you won’t hardly get all the shit off your shoes anytime soon with this one.

When you lay out your cards like this it causes me to lose any sympathy for your position.
[/quote]

I’m struggling to understand what I said that was so problematic, unless it was either poorly worded or misinterpreted, or both.

I’m just suggesting a way they may have gotten around this without getting dragged through this much legal mud. I’m neither an attorney nor a judge. How else might they have proceeded given how Oregon’s anti-discrimination laws are both worded and interpreted?

You cannot deny service based on the sexual orientation of the clientele. The courts have interpreted refusal to provide services related to same-sex wedding ceremonies as a form of discrimination based on sexual orientation. There is obviously a fine line between discrimination and a justifiable refusal of service.

If, as it appears, they were trying to also play the argument that they were refusing to provide a specific service, e.g., wedding cakes for a gay ceremony, as opposed to carte blanche refusal to serve gay customers, my statement above was just a personal belief that, per the document cited with the bakery owner’s words, his statements quoting Leviticus didn’t help his case much. Whether or not his coming up with another reason would have prevented successful suing, I have no idea, but again I just believe that his own choice of words hurt his case here because it makes it look more like he’s really refusing to service gay customers period, but all that is a moot point when Oregon interprets a refusal of the service itself, e.g., the wedding cake, as coterminous with discrimination based on sexual orientation.

560

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I understand all that but you need to realize you inadvertently opened the ice water tap on free speech in an attempt to chill it. Maybe just a few drops but you did it.[/quote]

You’ll have to spell it out for me, becomes I’m honestly not following here.

I don’t think there should have been a legal punishment for saying what he said, because there are few instances were speech is criminal, and this certainly isn’t one of them. However, when he quoted Leviticus, and he testifies to what he said under oath, or those words are admitted as evidence in the administrative law review case, it hurts his case in defending his right to discriminate, at least in trying to make it a case of not so much refusing service to a protected class as it was refusing a specific service.