Religious Liberty vs Sexual Orientation as a protected Class

[Dānu]

Even this positive legislation allows states and therefore consensus among citizens to determine if gays can marry locally. So, what people believe is relevant.   Convincing them to adopt a live and let live attitude probably won't include calling them morons.

Possibly, but not necessarily.

[Vorpal]

Dilemma Reversed

Recently an Xtian group focused on "family values" ie antiabortion and antiLGBTQ rights brought suit for religious discrimination because they were denied access to restaurant facilities for their conference.

The court needs to define exactly the scope and domain of religious freedom. Each individual has the freedom to conduct themselves according to religious beliefs if they so choose as far as they don't impact the rights of others. 

The restaurant argues that they had a right and perhaps an obligation to protect their gay and female employees from a hostile work environment.  The conference would involve going over material potentially distressing to employees.  This is loosely analogous to forcing a photographer to attend  a gay wedding. An immersive experience is different than simply providing a product. So, I would suggest that if the conference was going to simply pick up the food from the restaurant then the restaurant could not refuse service. On the other hand refusing to staff the event, an immersive experience, could be refused at their discretion.

[GenesisNemesis]

there's got to be some gradations and fairness for both sides.

No there doesn't. One side is shitting on the rights of everyone else. It's the right wing. That's it.

[Vorpal]

Supreme Court Misstep

The court recently decided to take a case that is simply not justiciable. A website designer fears someone will eventually want to use her services to promote gay marriage.  No one has tried to access her services for this reason so far. Normally, the court would refuse a case that is not ripe. There is no specific harm to speak of, there is no opposing party!  These conservative judges are a real danger.

They are considering whether the web designer's right to free speech would be violated if she had to promote a gay wedding.

[Cavebear]

Recently an Xtian group focused on "family values" ie antiabortion and antiLGBTQ rights brought suit for religious discrimination because they were denied access to restaurant facilities for their conference.

The court needs to define exactly the scope and domain of religious freedom. Each individual has the freedom to conduct themselves according to religious beliefs if they so choose as far as they don't impact the rights of others. 

The restaurant argues that they had a right and perhaps an obligation to protect their gay and female employees from a hostile work environment.  The conference would involve going over material potentially distressing to employees.  This is loosely analogous to forcing a photographer to attend  a gay wedding. An immersive experience is different than simply providing a product. So, I would suggest that if the conference was going to simply pick up the food from the restaurant then the restaurant could not refuse service. On the other hand refusing to staff the event, an immersive experience, could be refused at their discretion.

I am divided in myself in this matter, One thought says religious people have a right to refuse service against doing things they cannot agree with. The other says any business is a public accommodation to all. I tend toward "public accommodation to all". But I understand both sides.

The problem is in the details.

First, I will say that the case is about a hypothetical situation. The Website designers want pre-established "in any case" allowance to ignore any customer who asks them for a website. That shouldn't be permitted. A "business" is a public offer to sell goods or services and the owner shouldn't be able to decide who they can serve. The opportunity for all sorts of discrimination are too broad that way.

But second, I understand "artistic creativity". I love my cats. If I was professional graphic designer and someone came to me demanding I create a graphic showing dogs killing cats in some excitedly happy way, I should think I would have a right to refuse the job.

So where is the middle ground? At what point can some person running a business say "no"?

I think it is at the level of "existing goods available to all". If you can walk into my store and pick up something I offer, you can buy it. If you want me to make some specific (not available on the shelves), I probably have a right to refuse it. It doesn't have to be sexual or political. I have a right to say, "sorry I don't do green cake frosting".

So where does it end?

I think it ends in a less litigious society. These court cases aren't about getting something you want "somewhere". You can get anything you want "somewhere". They are about making a social or political point. And if that is the point, what is the point?

[Vorpal]

@Cavebear
What about artistic, custom-made products that contain no elements of the offensive characteristic?

[Cavebear]

@Cavebear
What about artistic, custom-made products that contain no elements of the offensive characteristic?

I'm not sure how "custom-made products that contain no elements of the offensive characteristic" would be a problem to seller or purchasee.  Do you have an example in mind?

In general, there would not seem to be a problem.

[Vorpal]

@Cavebear
What about artistic, custom-made products that contain no elements of the offensive characteristic?

I'm not sure how "custom-made products that contain no elements of the offensive characteristic" would be a problem to seller or purchasee.  Do you have an example in mind?

In general, there would not seem to be a problem.

Wedding Cakes .  They usually have no figurines nowadays.  Rainbow colors have a symbolic meaning.   The Supreme Court case did not focus on the actual cake design. I don't think the plaintiff was concerned about any in-your-face elements of the cake.  Rather he was concerned with the kind of wedding it would be used in.

It would seem the custom aspect is not really relevant if immersion claims could not be made.

[Inkubus]

The court needs to define exactly the scope and domain of religious freedom. 

For many decades the courts have allowed Jehovah's Witnesses to watch their children die rather than rather than give them a blood transfusion. So good luck with that.

[Cavebear]

I'm not sure how "custom-made products that contain no elements of the offensive characteristic" would be a problem to seller or purchasee.  Do you have an example in mind?

In general, there would not seem to be a problem.

Wedding Cakes .  They usually have no figurines nowadays.  Rainbow colors have a symbolic meaning.   The Supreme Court case did not focus on the actual cake design. I don't think the plaintiff was concerned about any in-your-face elements of the cake.  Rather he was concerned with the kind of wedding it would be used in.

It would seem the custom aspect is not really relevant if immersion claims could not be made.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. As a heterosexual guy, I wouldn't be surprised if my bride wanted a rainbow over the cake. It would be a pretty thing. And I sure have nothing against rainbows myself. I've even seen doubles sometimes. I like them.

Are you trying to use code phrases or dog-whistles or something?

And what on Earth is an "immersion claim"? I even looked it up and couldn't find anything.

[Bucky Ball]

Supreme Court Misstep

The court recently decided to take a case that is simply not justiciable. A website designer fears someone will eventually want to use her services to promote gay marriage.  No one has tried to access her services for this reason so far. Normally, the court would refuse a case that is not ripe. There is no specific harm to speak of, there is no opposing party!  These conservative judges are a real danger.

They are considering whether the web designer's right to free speech would be violated if she had to promote a gay wedding.

There is no "free speech" issue or element here AT ALL. The court was manipulated. LMAO
ALL the assumptions here (ie which SCOTUS is making) are totally false.
She didn't even yet have a business that offered her services to the public. They took the case as they are OLD fools and saw an opportunity.
They were shortly to be proven idiots.
It was hypothetical. WTAF is wrong with these idiots on SCOTUS ?
All her (the) assumptions are false.
She does not have to "promote" anything.
She could easily have a tool on her site which would "create" a basic website for anyone, (in which she would have no input, which could automatically create a website for anyone, for any occasion, (much as Blue Mountain ... or whatever it is ... e-cards does) makes the website it creates has no promotion of anything. Just makes a website, with auto-inputs. If they wanted her "optional enhanced artistic inputs" they could ask, and be charged.
There needs to be mandatory retirement for these elderly judges, who know nothing about modern technology.

[Cavebear]

Supreme Court Misstep

The court recently decided to take a case that is simply not justiciable. A website designer fears someone will eventually want to use her services to promote gay marriage.  No one has tried to access her services for this reason so far. Normally, the court would refuse a case that is not ripe. There is no specific harm to speak of, there is no opposing party!  These conservative judges are a real danger.

They are considering whether the web designer's right to free speech would be violated if she had to promote a gay wedding.

There is no "free speech" issue or element here AT ALL. The court was manipulated.  LMAO
ALL the assumptions here (ie which SCOTUS is making) are totally false.
She didn't even yet have a business that offered her services to the public. They took the case as they are OLD fools and saw an opportunity.
They were shortly to be proven idiots.
It was hypothetical. WTAF is wrong with these idiots on SCOTUS ?
All her (the) assumptions are false.
She does not have to "promote" anything.
She could easily have a tool on her site which would "create" a basic website for anyone, (in which she would have no input, which could automatically create a website for anyone, for any occasion, (much as Blue Mountain ... or whatever it is ... e-cards does) makes the website it creates has no promotion of anything. Just makes a website, with auto-inputs. If they wanted her "optional enhanced artistic inputs" they could ask, and be charged.
There needs to be mandatory retirement for these elderly judges, who know nothing about modern technology.

The immediate legal issue is that the complainant has no standing to sue for anything since they have not sufferred any harm yet. The idea that you can sue for prevention of a possible future harm is so ludicrous as to be laughable. A 1st year law student flunk-out would know that.

On the other hand, there is no rule preventing appeals all the way to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS gives this case more than even a mere summary dismissal, it will be a travesty of judicial theory.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

The elephant in the room is this:
No one requires a baker to bake wedding cakes. No one requires a web designer to design wedding web sites. If doing these things for a protected class troubles your repugnant morality sincerely held religious beliefs, then you can simply refuse to offer those products. If you refuse to engage in any business model, or part thereof, with people of any protected class, then you should not engage in that business model, or any part thereof, with anyone at all. Put simply, if you won't bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, don't bake wedding cakes, period. If your repugnant morality sincerely held religious beliefs requires that you not sell beer, don't get a cashier job at 7-11.  If your repugnant morality sincerely held religious beliefs requires that you not sell birth control, don't get a job at Wallgreens. There are ways to keep from violating your repugnant morality sincerely held religious beliefs that do not require you shit on your fellow human beings.

These assholes want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to open a business in the public marketplace, yet they only want to offer their service to a portion of that public. This is called bigotry. It doesn't matter if it's due to race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or whether or not the customer has red hair or cute freckles. It's still bigotry, and when practiced against a member of a protected class, should be punished. Repeat offenders should be punished severely. And, the bullshit about "sincerely held religious beliefs" has already been struck down by precedent seeing as there are several religions (Seventh Day Adventist, to name one) that hold that mixing the races is a sin and anathema to their beliefs, yet they cannot legally refuse to recognize a mixed race marriage, even between members of their own fucking church.

Sincerely held religious beliefs are but the shield behind which bigots with repugnant morality wish to hide.

[Vorpal]

Wedding Cakes .  They usually have no figurines nowadays.  Rainbow colors have a symbolic meaning.   The Supreme Court case did not focus on the actual cake design. I don't think the plaintiff was concerned about any in-your-face elements of the cake.  Rather he was concerned with the kind of wedding it would be used in.

It would seem the custom aspect is not really relevant if immersion claims could not be made.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.  As a heterosexual guy, I wouldn't be surprised if my bride wanted a rainbow over the cake.  It would be a pretty thing.  And I sure have nothing against rainbows myself.  I've even seen doubles sometimes.  I like them.

Are you trying to use code phrases or dog-whistles or something?

And what on Earth is an "immersion claim"?  I even looked it up and couldn't find anything.

My post relies on the assumption that you are tracking the conversation.  First, it relies on the fact that you understand that a "rainbow" flag is a symbol for LGBTQ and that you know that weaving rainbow colors into other artistic endeavors indicates a gay reference. You posted a picture of a cake with rainbow colors incorporated. A baker frosting a wedding cake with prominent multicolored stripes might feel like he is sending a message of support of gay marriage, ie he is being forced to speak content against his beliefs.  Second, you have suggested that artistic endeavors with elements repugnant to the artist might be tolerably refused.  I am pointing out that most wedding cakes do not have repugnant elements. They don't have two grooms at the top either.  Wedding cakes are not gay; the couple is.You asked for an example where there has been a custom-made product without offensive elements. The example involves the product in the actual leading case on the topic.

Third, my post relies on the fact that you are aware of my central thesis and remember that I just described an immersive experience in my previous post. An immersion claim is the allegation that one has been immersed in a situation that is repugnant to them. This is the central thesis of the OP, the basis as to which I have suggested be central in determining if it is acceptable for an artist to decline work. So, attending a gay wedding to take pictures of it is immersive, construction of phalluses protruding from the cake would be immersive.  Constructing a cake to the personal taste of a gay couple when the cake has no gay reference whatsoever is not an immersive experience. A baker does not need to know the gender of the couple to make a cake. Making a cake that happened to later be used at a gay ceremony is outside the domain of the baker to object.

[Dom]

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.  As a heterosexual guy, I wouldn't be surprised if my bride wanted a rainbow over the cake.  It would be a pretty thing.  And I sure have nothing against rainbows myself.  I've even seen doubles sometimes.  I like them.

Are you trying to use code phrases or dog-whistles or something?

And what on Earth is an "immersion claim"?  I even looked it up and couldn't find anything.

My post relies on the assumption that you are tracking the conversation.  First, it relies on the fact that you understand that a "rainbow" flag is a symbol for LGBTQ and that you know that weaving rainbow colors into other artistic endeavors indicates a gay reference. You posted a picture of a cake with rainbow colors incorporated. A baker frosting a wedding cake with prominent multicolored stripes might feel like he is sending a message of support of gay marriage, ie he is being forced to speak content against his beliefs.  Second, you have suggested that artistic endeavors with elements repugnant to the artist might be tolerably refused.  I am pointing out that most wedding cakes do not have repugnant elements. They don't have two grooms at the top either.  Wedding cakes are not gay; the couple is.You asked for an example where there has been a custom-made product without offensive elements. The example involves the product in the actual leading case on the topic.

Third, my post relies on the fact that you are aware of my central thesis and remember that I just described an immersive experience in my previous post. An immersion claim is the allegation that one has been immersed in a situation that is repugnant to them. This is the central thesis of the OP, the basis as to which I have suggested be central in determining if it is acceptable for an artist to decline work. So, attending a gay wedding to take pictures of it is immersive, construction of phalluses protruding from the cake would be immersive.  Constructing a cake to the personal taste of a gay couple when the cake has no gay reference whatsoever is not an immersive experience. A baker does not need to know the gender of the couple to make a cake. Making a cake that happened to later be used at a gay ceremony is outside the domain of the baker to object.

Wedding cakes tend to be run of the mill - not artistic, but skillful instead. You need skills to make them, not creativity. They have you taste cakes and you pick the flavor. You may or may not get to pick a shape. It's all pre-formulated.

[Minimalist]

[Cavebear]

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.  As a heterosexual guy, I wouldn't be surprised if my bride wanted a rainbow over the cake.  It would be a pretty thing.  And I sure have nothing against rainbows myself.  I've even seen doubles sometimes.  I like them.

Are you trying to use code phrases or dog-whistles or something?

And what on Earth is an "immersion claim"?  I even looked it up and couldn't find anything.

My post relies on the assumption that you are tracking the conversation.  First, it relies on the fact that you understand that a "rainbow" flag is a symbol for LGBTQ and that you know that weaving rainbow colors into other artistic endeavors indicates a gay reference. You posted a picture of a cake with rainbow colors incorporated. A baker frosting a wedding cake with prominent multicolored stripes might feel like he is sending a message of support of gay marriage, ie he is being forced to speak content against his beliefs.  Second, you have suggested that artistic endeavors with elements repugnant to the artist might be tolerably refused.  I am pointing out that most wedding cakes do not have repugnant elements. They don't have two grooms at the top either.  Wedding cakes are not gay; the couple is.You asked for an example where there has been a custom-made product without offensive elements. The example involves the product in the actual leading case on the topic.

Third, my post relies on the fact that you are aware of my central thesis and remember that I just described an immersive experience in my previous post. An immersion claim is the allegation that one has been immersed in a situation that is repugnant to them. This is the central thesis of the OP, the basis as to which I have suggested be central in determining if it is acceptable for an artist to decline work. So, attending a gay wedding to take pictures of it is immersive, construction of phalluses protruding from the cake would be immersive.  Constructing a cake to the personal taste of a gay couple when the cake has no gay reference whatsoever is not an immersive experience. A baker does not need to know the gender of the couple to make a cake. Making a cake that happened to later be used at a gay ceremony is outside the domain of the baker to object.

I track conversations as best I can. Sometimes I am here every day to read them, sometimes life prevents it for a few days and it can be hard to find the beginning of a discussion.

First, I do understand what the rainbow flag means simply from constant exposure to the cable news channels. I am neither for or against the LGBTQ+ community. It is not my basic issue in life. And if I happen to wear a multicored shirt (I still have old tie-dyed ones), that is a color preference and not a political/sexual one. My opinion is "do what makes you happy but try not to scare the horses".

BTW, back in the 70s, I was making rainbow-colored string art before it had any "meaning" (so far as I know). Not every color choice is a "statement".

Second, my understanding of some business-person's complaint was serving the customer for what they were personally. I don't recall that a court case revolved around the decorations on the cake, but if I missed something about I would like to know. The complaint usually seems to be "they were homos", not what they wanted on the cake.

Worse, the current case is more of a hypothetical involving a desire for permission to ignore a possible future customer and courts usually avoid those. That's because there is no current harm to the plaintiff and therefore no specifics to a case.

Third, I just don't find "immersion claims" in a legal sense in any search I do. I can conceptualize the idea you are describing though, based on your further description. And I would agree that "Making a cake that happened to later be used at a gay ceremony is outside the domain of the baker to object". But that suggests making a cake "to be used at a gay ceremony" knowingly might be objectionable.

I suppose I have to think that knowing ahead of time that a specific and personal effort would be offensive might allow a person of high creativity to refuse. Refusing to sell anyone a pre-made cake on the shelf would not be permitted. I suspect this is a question that the courts cannot really judge well. It is too vague and undefinable.

I hope that explains some of my reasoning...

[no one]

Religious liberty doesn't have any legs to stand on.

A) There is no such thing as god.
B) You are an idiot if you believe in that nonsense.
III) Stupidity is not a liberty, it's a cancer

Excise the tumor that has plagued humanity for far too long.



P. S. To any hate filled religious breathing cum wads, kindly choke on a bag of donkey cocks!

[Cavebear]

Religious liberty doesn't have any legs to stand on.

A) There is no such thing as god.
B) You are an idiot if you believe in that nonsense.
III) Stupidity is not a liberty, it's a cancer

Excise the tumor that has plagued humanity for far too long.



P. S. To any hate filled religious breathing cum wads, kindly choke on a bag of donkey cocks!

I sometimes misunderstand you. My apologies.

[no one]

No worries.

I don't understand me.

[Vorpal]

Bottom line the court wants the freedom of speech  and freedom to practice sincerely held religious beliefs of business owners  to be part of the fairness equation in the public square.

Do you have a court opinion to back that up, because Masterpiece isn't it.

Check out the Court's recent decision regarding the website designer then restate your gibberish.

[Rhythmcs]

I have a sincerely held religious belief that prevents me from allowing christians onto my property or into my retail space. Reckon that'd fly?

[pattylt]

I have a sincerely held religious belief that prevents me from allowing christians onto my property or into my retail space.  Reckon that'd fly?

No, not yet.  
The decision currently applies to purchase of creative endeavors like designing cakes or websites.  That doesn’t mean they’ll stop there and this ruling was definitely a slap in the face to the LGBTQ community.  I expect they’ll now try to push that ruling even further. We know what their true goal is, to overturn gay marriage and lock down trans rights. Nothing further will be attempted now as we’re a year + away from the next elections so, how that turns out will decide how fast or slow they go.  They won’t give up.

[Rhythmcs]

I am, ofc, engaged in a creative endeavor. It has to fly, right? It can't possibly be just for bakers and web designers, that would be flatly illegal.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm a songwriter. Shouldn't I be able to turn down commissions for songs whose ideas I don't agree with?

"I want you to write a song damning them faggots."

"Sorry, I don't agree with that. No go."

Should I be legally liable?