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]
Sure, but speech matters. The words you use matter.
Thou shall not kill
Thou shall not murder
Two different things.
I refuse to sell to you homos
I can’t participate in a religious ceremony that doesn’t follow these rules
Two different things.
However, if the baker were of to said “I hate you homos” and make and delivered the best cake ever made… He’d not have been punished by the State. It’s that he refused service, and his words pointed to his intent to discriminate the person not the ceremony.
I don’t think anyone is under any delusion as to how close the church is to getting worked over by the current administration. (Bam would love nothing more than to deal crushing blows to the institution of the church in America on his legacy, that’s 200 years in the text books for sure.) The words people use are going to be important. Semantics will prove either the upholder or demise of the 1st.
However, if the baker were of to said “I hate you homos” and make and delivered the best cake ever made… He’d not have been punished by the State. It’s that he refused service, and his words pointed to his intent to discriminate the person not the ceremony. [/quote]
And if he had said, “I refuse to service you based on your thinly disguised contempt for me!”?
Edit: See, you can’t say “Well, now that would have to be ok.” To do so is to have badly relegated religious exercise, expression, and association to second class status. Yes, behind, “I didn’t like your smugness when you placed your order.” First problem, there’s a tier. Secondly, an explicitly protected bag of rights gets shelved on the bottom rung.
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.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Right. I’m not unsympathetic to Sloth’s position on the cakes on general grounds, I’m just not 100% sold that selling the cake is anymore intrusive than making me represent people I don’t want to represent. And I’m trying to be understanding of the religious aspect of his objection even though I’m not seeing it as compelling as if it were a pastor in a church being compelled to perform the ceremony.
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.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Right. I’m not unsympathetic to Sloth’s position on the cakes on general grounds, I’m just not 100% sold that selling the cake is anymore intrusive than making me represent people I don’t want to represent. And I’m trying to be understanding of the religious aspect of his objection even though I’m not seeing it as compelling as if it were a pastor in a church being compelled to perform the ceremony.[/quote]
Wait, why are you putting me and my Priest in two separate categories? Why is the state deciding who is “religious enough,” “serious about that stuff enough” to get free exercise? Where is this coming from that free exercise was only protected within the church walls?
Right. I’m not unsympathetic to Sloth’s position on the cakes on general grounds, I’m just not 100% sold that selling the cake is anymore intrusive than making me represent people I don’t want to represent. And I’m trying to be understanding of the religious aspect of his objection even though I’m not seeing it as compelling as if it were a pastor in a church being compelled to perform the ceremony.[/quote]
But you’re goo talking to, so don’t let feel like I’m badgering you. Sometimes I can get where I’m just hitting submit rapid fire, and I understand that could be seen as talking over you, or what not.
However, if the baker were of to said “I hate you homos” and make and delivered the best cake ever made… He’d not have been punished by the State. It’s that he refused service, and his words pointed to his intent to discriminate the person not the ceremony. [/quote]
And if he had said, “I refuse to service you based on your thinly disguised contempt for me!”?
Edit: See, you can’t say “Well, now that would have to be ok.” To do so is to have badly relegated religious exercise, expression, and association to second class status. Yes, behind, “I didn’t like your smugness when you placed your order.” First problem, there’s a tier. Secondly, an explicitly protected bag of rights gets shelved on the bottom rung.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I’m well aware the religious members of our society have been/are about to lose here. It’s happening, and going to continue to happen.
I’m just trying to offer up the “line in the sand” that might help stop the bleeding.
The froth mouthed revenge is going to be vicious and those hammering on and on will have become the very beast they were fighting the entire time. It’s like an Orwell novel.
And if he had said, “I refuse to service you based on your thinly disguised contempt for me!”?
Edit: See, you can’t say “Well, now that would have to be ok.” To do so is to have badly relegated religious exercise, expression, and association to second class status. Yes, behind, “I didn’t like your smugness when you placed your order.” First problem, there’s a tier. Secondly, an explicitly protected bag of rights gets shelved on the bottom rung.[/quote]
Let’s try it this way, given that no one can really disagree that, in Oregon, the anti-discrimination law, as heretofore interpreted, doesn’t allow the bakery to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, and that their religious objection based on complicity is null and void in the eyes of the law in that state…
What could or should the bakery have said or done to avoid having to bake the cake without running afoul of the law?
Right. I’m not unsympathetic to Sloth’s position on the cakes on general grounds, I’m just not 100% sold that selling the cake is anymore intrusive than making me represent people I don’t want to represent. And I’m trying to be understanding of the religious aspect of his objection even though I’m not seeing it as compelling as if it were a pastor in a church being compelled to perform the ceremony.[/quote]
It applied more specifically to the Hobby Lobby case, but Volokh nails better than I could explain it here.
[/quote]
Ah, yes, let us not forget the assault from this particular angle too.
It’s fascinating that in a way there has been a recent establishment with respect to religion. See, the state is shaping, molding, and pruning religion into something it can tolerate. Tolerate in its modern and progressive world. With a push back into the dark corners here, with shove out of this and that. With a burdening of balancing the new hate thoughts/practices with being able to earn a living, run schools, etc. State Approved religion(s). Vague, formless, feel goody stuff that says little about nothing.
And if he had said, “I refuse to service you based on your thinly disguised contempt for me!”?
Edit: See, you can’t say “Well, now that would have to be ok.” To do so is to have badly relegated religious exercise, expression, and association to second class status. Yes, behind, “I didn’t like your smugness when you placed your order.” First problem, there’s a tier. Secondly, an explicitly protected bag of rights gets shelved on the bottom rung.[/quote]
Let’s try it this way, given that no one can really disagree that, in Oregon, the anti-discrimination law, as heretofore interpreted, doesn’t allow the bakery to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, and that their religious objection based on complicity is null and void in the eyes of the law in that state…
What could or should the bakery have said or done to avoid having to bake the cake without running afoul of the law?
[/quote]
I’ve already provided one suggestion. Edit: You quoted it.
Which is essentially what I implied earlier, that he would have had to refrain from commenting or otherwise came up with another reason, like yours, in hopes that it passes legal muster. If you’re arbitrary or otherwise inconsistent in your refusal, you’re probably going to stand lesser chance of winning if you are sued.
Which is essentially what I implied earlier, that he would have had to refrain from commenting or otherwise came up with another reason, like yours, in hopes that it passes legal muster. If you’re arbitrary or otherwise inconsistent in your refusal, you’re probably going to stand lesser chance of winning if you are sued.[/quote]
And my point is that it is vile that that he COULD refuse based on an emotional response to a perceived attitude from one customer, and not do so based on religious conviction. That fact that there is even sense in his trying to mask his motivations is far beneath the founding promises of this nation. The thought policing state.
The fact that with a little consistency “I didn’t like their attitude” is on a higher tier of “rights” than “it goes against my faith” disgusts me. The trainwreck and fudged up monstrosity we call the legal system disgusts me. What it did to my country pisses me off. It is in the business of who sells who a friggen cake. Who provides who birth control.
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.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Right. I’m not unsympathetic to Sloth’s position on the cakes on general grounds, I’m just not 100% sold that selling the cake is anymore intrusive than making me represent people I don’t want to represent. And I’m trying to be understanding of the religious aspect of his objection even though I’m not seeing it as compelling as if it were a pastor in a church being compelled to perform the ceremony.[/quote]
Wait, why are you putting me and my Priest in two separate categories? Why is the state deciding who is “religious enough,” “serious about that stuff enough” to get free exercise? Where is this coming from that free exercise was only protected within the church walls?
[/quote]
Should it matter for purposes of my objection to compelled service whether that objection is based on my concept of liberty, or whether it is based on a firm religious conviction? Is my objection to compelled service less valid because I am not religious?
I have already spotted you (actually, the Royal you) that I think the state telling you who you have to do business with is an intrusion, I am just not convinced that that intrusion is that much more or less justified because of your religion in the cake case.
Edit: Actually, let me look back. Perhaps it was only JR that suggested they could have tried to use a non-religious excuse. Too many “j’s” for me to keep track of at this brisk pace, I’m afraid.
Edit, Again: jj, just ignore the response below. I think I’ve confused you and JR, and now it’s all a mess. /sigh. Allow me to pick this up again at a later time when I’m not rushing off responses (to the wrong people, of all things).
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Should it matter for purposes of my objection to compelled service whether that objection is based on my concept of liberty, or whether it is based on a firm religious conviction? Is my objection to compelled service less valid because I am not religious?[/quote]
Ah, but you’ve overlooked something. And, you have it backwards despite having already argued the actual hierarchy of “reasons.” Secular/non-religious reasons possibly being valid, religious reasons not at all. It is your secular non-religious reasons which are already deemed valid. Just the fact that you suggested the bakers should’ve/could’ve tried to come up with some secular excuse, because it might have some chance (especially with some consistency) in court, demonstrates you understand the hierarchy all wrong despite having made a suggestion demonstrating otherwise.
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.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Right. I’m not unsympathetic to Sloth’s position on the cakes on general grounds, I’m just not 100% sold that selling the cake is anymore intrusive than making me represent people I don’t want to represent. And I’m trying to be understanding of the religious aspect of his objection even though I’m not seeing it as compelling as if it were a pastor in a church being compelled to perform the ceremony.[/quote]
Wait, why are you putting me and my Priest in two separate categories? Why is the state deciding who is “religious enough,” “serious about that stuff enough” to get free exercise? Where is this coming from that free exercise was only protected within the church walls?
[/quote]
Should it matter for purposes of my objection to compelled service whether that objection is based on my concept of liberty, or whether it is based on a firm religious conviction? Is my objection to compelled service less valid because I am not religious?
[/quote]
I’d like to know the answer to this too. Personally I don’t think they need a reason to refuse service but as long as religion keeps coming up here…
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.
[/quote]
Are strawman arguments really necessary here?
I gave you specific questions and specific scenarios, of sorts. I would be grateful if you could actually respond to them.