Yes, exactly this. 1000 times.

Violet Crown, outstanding comment, and beautifully written. "Freedom of expression and religion are nothing if they don't protect the speech we find the vilest and the religious beliefs and practices we find the most objectionable." I could not agree more.

Thanks for the tip. I never called anyone anything. I said someone made a comment that sounded awfully like a statement Louis Blanc originally made, which was then used by Marx. Is it somehow mean or unfair to point out the similarity of one person's sentiment to this statement? Nothing coy about it. I was completely upfront about it. It was not an insult. It was a statement of fact. And Marxists should be able to speak their minds. What am I missing here?

I did not say you wanted to limit free speech legally, I said you thought some people should shut up. Here is what you wrote: "I do think people who say Hurricane Katrina was caused by homosexuals should shut up, that makes Christians look crazy and stupid. " Who called you a Communist? You are not even the person who made the comment I was referring to.

I'm not Christian. And the difference between me and everyone else here is that I don't even wish the opposing side would shut up. Once one group loses freedom, we all do. Free exercise of the 1st Amendment is a good thing.

Slartibart wrote: I do think people who say Hurricane Katrina was caused by homosexuals should shut up, that makes Christians look crazy and stupid. I hate it when Christians say nasty, hateful things, and as another Christian I feel obligated to speak out against it. Do I think someone should *make* them shut up? No, but I really *wish* they would. I am not a huge fan of the airwaves being polluted down with that idiotic nonsense and then the media being obligated to repeat it because a politician said it. I am also not very excited with someone planning on running in a major party supporting hate speech. Now I realize hate speech is still free speech in the US but I am not a fan of people running for president while supporting bigoted opinions. That is gross. (Bolding mine.) I did not say that she was trying to shut me, personally, up. But I argued, and she admitted, that she would like a particular group of people who happen to disagree with her to shut up. I don't. I don't think anyone should have to shut up, even if I find their point of view abhorrent.

If someone makes a statement close to the phrase in quotes above, is it a personal attack to mention that? I never said anything but that the sentiment is frightening to me. But, again, I think she should be allowed to say it. I think Marxists on this board, if they exist, or anywhere else, should be able to speak freely. Look, let's be honest. You said you wished certain people and groups of people would shut up. You said that. I want the opposite. I don't care what you believe or what you are trying to accomplish. You get to talk. I cannot possibly make this more clear.

I urge you to take another look. I did not even use the word "Communists." I did not attack you or anyone else, though I vehemently disagreed. I said that you would like one side to shut up, whereas I, despite deep disagreement, do NOT WANT you, or anyone else to shut up. I do not wish it. You admit you do. I want people to express their 1st Amendment rights. From my point of view, the more free people, the better, regardless of who they are and what they think. Their freedom strengthens mine, and vice versa. You mention repercussions. I am not sure exactly what you are referring to, but protected speech will have no state sanctioned repercussions, at least while the Bill of Rights lives. You, of course, are free to counter anything and argue to the best of your ability, as is anyone else. Is this the "repercussion" you intend? Then, by all means, respond. Your last statement reflects what I have been saying over and over and over. Yes, exactly. This is what the 1st Amendment protects.

When only one point of view is allowed, when no one may dissent without risking his livelihood and his good name, you are already living in a totalitarian regime, twin sister to theocracy. Guess who always gets the short end of the stick in a totalitarian regime? "Hateful and twisted theology" -- however you may define that -- is, and must remain, perfectly legal. Every step you take toward shutting down the speech of those with whom you disagree brings you a little closer to total statist authoritarianism. This desire is not surprising to me, considering the comment someone made earlier that was awfully close to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." But it is terrifying. In everything I have written on this thread, my attempt has been to show that. Here it all is in a nutshell: I could not disagree more with you and those who argue on your side. But I would never try to shut you down, or prevent you from speaking out. You have every right to say whatever you like, and I sincerely honor that. But you want me and others to shut up. You really think it's better if everyone would just agree with you or live in silence. There is nothing less American.

The gay baker could possibly refuse on grounds of vulgarity, but if you use the alternate motto proposed by TranquilMind, or something like "God Says Marriage Means One Man and One Woman," under far-reaching public accommodation laws, unless he never makes cakes with mottoes of any kind, the gay baker would leave himself liable to an anti-Christian discrimination lawsuit if he refused. This should be eminently clear. I wholeheartedly support his right to decline the request. Elsewhere I have seen the example of a photographer requested to do a bris. Say the photographer is opposed to circumcision. Can you compel the photographer to do it anyway? Some say that as long as the photographer refuses all circumcisions, it is not anti-Jew bias and the photographer is within his rights. The problem with this is that circumcision is intimately, inextricably tied up with Jewishness, and non-Jews who circumcise do not have a party and hire photographers. So any photographer who refuses would only be refusing Jews (who MUST circumcise) and could easily be accused of anti-Jewish discrimination. Would you compel that photographer to do the bris? I wholeheartedly support his right to decline the request. And for the love of Pete, WHY would you want to compel an anti-circumcision photographer to photograph this most intimate rite in your infant's life? Everyone must endorse your way of life and comply with your demands, or else? Common sense is getting lost here.

LizItaly, on 12 Dec 2014 - 7:10 PM, said: NJ is a totally different state. The Wrangler and the bakery in question are both in Colorado, making them comparable. A dance club in NJ operating under a separate set of state laws is not comparable. My point is that plenty of non-private clubs have dress-codes. This is normal and common practice. TranquilMind, on 12 Dec 2014 - 8:23 PM, said: If they are selling, "God Hates F&*S" cakes to everyone else, then yes. If they aren't in the business of selling cakes with that motto, then the bakery is in the clear. Just as the bakery in Colorado is now in the clear because they stopped selling wedding cakes. I don't even know how to respond to this. That's like saying, "If the baker is selling cakes for gay weddings to everyone else, then yes, he has to see it to that couple." Must a bakery list ALL the mottos they are not in the business of selling or risk discriminations lawsuits? Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is just silly.

The Colorado civil Rights Commission and the Administrative Courts do not make judgments based on constitutionality. All they do is decide whether someone violated a Colorado law, or not. Where has the Supreme Court said that Colorado can define "wedding" anyway it likes? How is that even at issue here?

Wait, what millions of dollars? If anything, it should save money by curbing frivolous lawsuits. Again, there has been a federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act on the books since 1993, and Michigan will be the 20th state to enact its own state law. Deep breaths.

LizItaly, on 12 Dec 2014 - 3:26 PM, said: Thank you for taking the time to type this out. I think you've identified the core disagreement here. It sounds as if we agree that, as you said, "when the government has a compelling reason, it may place a burden on the free practice of religion," Where we disagree is whether there is a compelling reason for sexual orientation to be a protected class. I'd like to point out that many of the other protected classes don't follow the pattern you described for race (I disagree with some of your interpretations there, but that's a different conversation) The compelling reason I see is here: Re: your first bolded, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are exactly the reasons the government had to abolish slavery (in which a class of people had no right to their own lives, and obviously no liberty or ability to pursue happiness), and end Jim Crow. But please note that though the government must work to secure these rights, it cannot, for example, guarantee you the attainment of happiness. Blacks in the Jim Crow south were so restricted in their ability to lives their lives as they wished that their right to pursue happiness had been severely damaged. How does not providing a cake for someone's wedding interfere with that person's right to life, his liberty, and his pursuit of happiness? Re: your second bolded, the author is describing the situation in which a citizenry may justly abolish a government which is no longer securing these rights and institute a new government in its place. It is a jewel of a sentence, like many others in the Constitution, but I am not sure it is relevant here. and here: We have a national vision of a country in which 'all men are equal', in which there is justice and the 'blessings of liberty' for all. Yes, absolutely. When it is clear that one class of our people is not receiving equal treatment, does not have their general welfare equally protected, then our government has the compelling reason of which you spoke. It might be compelling if all the cake-makers in Denver refused to sell to the gay couple. This is demonstrably not the case. The couple were upset and offended, but their general welfare was not affected, nor was their right to life, their liberty, or their pursuit of happiness. I should not have to go from baker to baker until I find one willing to make a cake for my son's bris, Mrs Mungo shouldn't have to get an app to tell her which restaurants will serve people with Native blood, and a same-sex couple shouldn't have to wonder if they'll be able to receive the same services any straight couple could easily access. There is no right to a life free of difficulty, confusion, offense, etc.. Putting that aside, though, let's look at reality. There are plenty of bakers happy to bake a cake for a bris, and not because the government tells them they must. I cannot imagine a restaurant in this day and age that screens for Native Americans. Is this only because the government would forbid such an action? And a same-sex couple can easily find any service they require, as was amply demonstrated by the gay couple's ability to find another baker immediately. And no religious scruple, mine, yours, or anyone else's should trump that. The reality is that a person's religious scruples do not trump that in a general way. One person is not controlling the baking decisions for all of Denver. There is no segregation or redlining here. One dude didn't want to bake the cake. The majority of bakers would be happy to do it. It's been a long and bumpy road trying to figure out how to actualize that vision (and there's more work to do), but that's those are the values that underlie the essence of what this country is, and has striven to be. I agree with this. I do not think more government intrusion into the individual's life is the correct answer, though. Thanks for responding again, Eliana.

A little history may be useful here. In 1993, Bill Clinton signed into a law a federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a law which had been sponsored by the late Teddy Kennedy. This is law intended to protect the free practice of religion from government intrusion, unless the government has a compelling reason AND cannot serve its ends with less restrictive (or burdensome) means. So Native American tribes can continue to use peyote (though non-Native Americans cannot), Jews can continue to circumcise their sons (despite vociferous and growing opposition to the practice, particularly in places like California), etc.. The SCOTUS later said that the federal government could not compel state governments to comply with this law. In other words, the federal government could make the law, but could only apply it to itself. In response, several states then enacted their own RFRAs. To date, there are 19 states with RFRAs, not including Michigan (for example Rhode Island, Illinois, and Florida). These laws have been on the books for years. The Michigan law is almost identical to the federal law. Where are all the cases you warn about? Why haven't we been hearing of them? It's worth noting that the ACLU endorsed the passage of the federal law and regularly uses it in its practice. For the record, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals and EMTs etc. to treat anyone who enters, regardless of minority status or ability to pay. Police have similar regulations because they are government employees, as are most social workers, and all DMV employees. No one can be denied service/treatment/aid by the aforementioned because it would constitute government-sanctioned discrimination.

But what about the specific case she mentioned: the gay baker and the religious client who wants "The Only Real Marriage is Traditional Marriage." Must he make this cake?

However, lots of places have a dress code, but are not private clubs. Restaurants, for example, that require men to wear a jacket. Plenty of lower-brow places requires shirts and shoes. The gay man in drag, who was neither transgender nor transitioning, argued that their code was used to exclude him because of misogyny and transphobia due of his particular expression of non-female, non-trans gay sexuality. He was objecting to their "hypermasculinity." Why can't an establishment have its own rules and cater to a particular demographic? Here is the -- rather extensive -- dress code of some random bar in NJ. They allow no brimless headgear. I'll just leave it at that.

Precedents. Unless you are inciting people to violence or otherwise creating a situation of clear and present danger, it is protected speech. Period. See R.A.V. v. St. Paul.

"Hate speech" is not a constitutional thing in America. It is just speech, and subject to the same restrictions as any other speech. In other words, if it will provoke imminent violence, it is not allowed. Otherwise, it is unrestricted. I would argue that "Kill Whitey" on a t-shirt is unlikely to convince anyone actually to go out and kill a white dude, and so I think it could withstand scrutiny. A member of the Black Panthers who literally instructs his followers to go out and kill white people would not find his speech protected. In any case, I've seen worse on t-shirts. But fine. Let's go with "Whitey is Ugly" or any other slogan you choose. It does not really matter.

The name of the gay bar is The Wrangler. It is in Denver. There was no misrepresentation. This is the logical result of far-reaching public accommodation laws.

And finally, even though sexual orientation IS protected in Colorado, I do not believe the baker discriminated based sexual orientation as it has been stated COUNTLESS times that he offered to serve the gay couple in other ways. He did NOT refuse to serve them BECAUSE they are gay. If that had been the case, he would have asked them to leave. He did not. I realize you do not accept this. To me, your viewpoint says that the white t-shirt maker who will not print "Kill Whitey" on t-shirt for the Black Panthers is discriminating based on race. Presumably, said t-shirt maker would be happy to provide "Black People are Awesome" t-shirts for said Black Panthers, and so I disagree. It is the event, not the client. It is the message, not the client.

Actually, it would be "bakers in more populous areas get privileges that bakers in less populous areas do not." I am saying it is possible that there could be a case where no other bakers/photographers/etc. exist. I do not believe this is ever going to be likely but it is possible. As I said, I would be interested to see such cases (and I am fairly sure none currently exist). I am not a lawyer, but I would love to see how such a case is argued. I would expect to learn much from it. In other words, I do not know the answer to your question, and I am perfectly willing to admit it. When I asked about the fairness of citing a gay bar for discriminating against a gay man based on his particular expression of his (gay) sexual orientation, no one was willing to answer me. Anyone? Again, if Denver did not allow gay people to be customers in cakeshops, then I would say the government had a compelling case to protect them. But this is obviously not the case. It is brimming with cakeshops, the majority of whom would be happy to provide a cake for the event. The government is not in the business of policing thought. It cannot tell a baker how to feel or what to think. Re: your last question, I answered it above -- you know, the whole thing about human bondage and state-enforced segregation.

Regarding who gets to decide what is a valid religious belief and what is not, I offer this: In general the U.S. government allows for broad religious freedom and believes the state should not interfere with religious practice, regardless of what it is. Whether a belief is valid or not is not usually important. However, when the government has a compelling reason, it may place a burden on the free practice of religion, if no other regulation can suffice. So, in an extreme example, if someone believes sincerely that his religion wants him to murder X group, the government can legally stop him because it MUST protect the life of its citizens. Hence, we do not allow people to force widows onto funeral pyres, etc.. In the case of race-based discrimination, the government had a compelling reason to interfere, even with those who claimed religious justification for it, because the discrimination was ENFORCED by laws in certain states, its pernicious influence had spread to other states, and the government had at its disposal NO OTHER WAY to end the discrimination. As an aside, as I noted before, those who supported, for example, anti-miscegenation laws on a religious basis were historical outliers. When Loving was decided, the SCOTUS merely restored to America what had long been common law and custom throughout the Judeo-Christian world. Interracial marriage is both ancient and common. The American interruption of this was a bizarre anomaly. In the case of sexual orientation, it is NOT ILLEGAL to serve gays or to provide services for gay matrimonial events. There is no state-enforced segregation of gays. Sexual orientation is not federally protected, and not all states protect it. In some states, it is protected in some but not all municipalities. It can never be considered in the same category as race. There is no compelling reason for the government to burden religious freedom in this case because there are plenty of businesses who have differing views and who would happily provide the requested service. For this reason, I believe that extending public accommodation laws to make sexual orientation a protected group is problematic. If a gay t-shirt maker refuses to make t-shirts for a particular church group because they want the slogan "Jesus Hates Gays," he should be well within his rights to refuse. Religion is protected, but he is not discriminating merely because he doesn't like Christians. He does not want to associate himself with a particular message. Totally legitimate. Likewise, if the Black Panthers request t-shirts from any t-shirt maker (black, white, gay, straight, etc.) with the slogan "Kill Whitey," that t-shirt maker should be able to decline, without being accused of discrimination against blacks. Everyone agrees that sexual orientation is protected in Colorado. But despite constant claims to the contrary, the baker did not decline the gay couple based on their sexual orientation. He did not say he would not serve them because they are gay. He offered to sell them anything else. I have suggested in previous comments that perhaps, if he had had a ready-made wedding cake in the store, he would have sold them that. But he was requested to create something for an event incompatible with his religious beliefs. This is the difference. To those who would argue, "What about places where there ARE no other bakers?" I would answer, you have a valid point and I would like to see those cases. But this is certainly not true of Denver, or indeed of the places where similar cases have been identified. This is not the same as segregation. This is not redlining. Though I agree that the gay community has suffered in its history, and many in still suffer today, I cannot accept that this is analogous to over 200 years of human bondage followed by state-enforced segregation.

Eliana, I appreciate the time you took to explain the Orthodox Jewish approach to the problem. I think you may have been responding to my brief assertion that an Orthodox Jew or religious Muslim would react the same way the Christian baker did. I am not an Orthodox Jew, though some in my family are, and your knowledge of Orthodox Judaism is far greater than mine. Jews, in general, are not much concerned with what people of other faiths do. They are not proselytizers and they do not regard the religious or non-religious behavior of others as their business. This, at least, is how I was raised. But Jews, and specifically Orthodox Jews, are concerned about other Jews. So my question, posed out of genuine curiosity and desire to learn, is: would an Orthodox baker bake a cake for two Orthodox men who wish to marry each other? Would he bake a cake for an Orthodox girl who wishes to marry a Muslim or Christian man? Suppose the cake were for an engagement party for a gay couple and the baker had been requested to write "Congratulations X and X." Or even, in a heterosexual situation, "Congratulations Rachel and Mohammed." How would the baker handle this? In Islam (to take off on a tangent beyond your post), a man may marry any woman so long as she comes from an Abrahamic faith. But a Muslim woman may marry ONLY a Muslim man. If a Muslim woman tries to hire a religious halal caterer for her marriage to a Hindu and he refuses, must he be forced to provide food? I do not direct this last question to you specifically, but pose it as food for thought. One of the greatnesses of Judaism, though often overlooked, ignored, or maligned, is its compassion. I believe the Jews, even among the most religious, do not shun or strive to shun homosexuals. They consider them are valuable members of the community who should be treated with respect. I concur wholeheartedly in this belief.