Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?

[elegantlion]

How do you cut the back of your head?  I'd love to do this but simply do not possess the skill! 

 

Well since I have a head full of curls, I focus on cutting the individual curls when I'm doing more than a trim. I recently went from long hair to short hair in the back, longer in the front, so really it's not much more than putting it up like a pony tail and cutting. I do have ds check length sometimes, otherwise since it's curly I could cut a huge chunk out and no one would notice. It's like trimming a very large Chia head. 

[TranquilMind]

Well since I have a head full of curls, I focus on cutting the individual curls when I'm doing more than a trim. I recently went from long hair to short hair in the back, longer in the front, so really it's not much more than putting it up like a pony tail and cutting. I do have ds check length sometimes, otherwise since it's curly I could cut a huge chunk out and no one would notice. It's like trimming a very large Chia head. 

Ahhh.

We have some curls here, but not me, unfortunately.  Straight hair shows every tiny mistake. 

[Onceuponatime]

Ahhh.

We have some curls here, but not me, unfortunately. Straight hair shows every tiny mistake.

You can get these clip things to hold your hair straight while you cut it. There are lots of videos on YouTube showing how to use them to get different looks. I can't remember the brand name. I found something similar at Walmart.

[kiana]

Ahhh.

We have some curls here, but not me, unfortunately.  Straight hair shows every tiny mistake. 

 

This is one reason I've seriously considered going for a buzz cut. I could do that myself. I hate paying for haircuts so I tend to end up with a mullet-ish thingie because I let it grow out and just trim the bangs until it's really annoying me.

[Aelwydd]

Speaking to Christians here: I see this as this culture/generation's "meat sacrificed to idols" issue. If it makes you stumble to supply a cake to gay couples, then don't, but recognize that bakery businesses that supply wedding cakes don't get to choose. Just like back in Paul's day it seems like butchers didn't get to choose to have non-idol meat sources. So what others have said about your choices to drop wedding cakes from your business or to do it as a hobby or a club etc. is correct even from a Scriptural perspective. But if a Christian realizes that a baked good is simply a mixture of flour, eggs and milk etc. then it isn't wrong either. In fact, Scripture actually comes down on the side of the person who doesn't stumble while asking them not to push it in the face of the person who does. Paul didn't advocate boycotting butchers that sold idol meat and he didn't try to change the laws or customs.

Hey Jean, I think this is a very astute observation, and I appreciate you sharing it. Food for thought, lol.

[Aelwydd]

But, you know, we don't need those pesky government civil rights laws telling poor, mistreated business owners what to do.

 

I think some people are naive and/or extremely ignorant of history.

Many are blind to class privilege, whether it's based upon economic, racial, gender, religious, or sexual orientation factors.

 

It never seems to exist until it actually is personally experienced.

[zoobie]

No, I believe it was a wedding cake for a reception.

 

At any rate, another perfect example has arisen in the media:

 

Barbershops. This case is in the UK but I can easily see it happening here.

 

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/11146737.Woman_denied_haircut_in_barber_s_shop/

 

She was denied a haircut because the barber only cuts men's hair. That's what barbershops do. Exact words: "I don't cut women's hair". Of course she is complaining.

Barbershops have always been the purview of men. Why should women be able to force them into cutting their hair? If you are consistent, you would have to agree that the barbershop can no longer limit itself to discriminating against women, even though barbershops serve only men and have always done so.

 

I took my son to a barbershop for awhile and asked the WOMAN barber if I could get my hair cut because I was already there. Nope. They don't women's hair. Fair enough.

 

(P.S. She does have a point about the cost...why DO women's hair cuts cost more? And their shoes cost more too, even though they are smaller? Inquiring minds want to know - but this is not the thread for that).

Article on barbershop scenario in US: http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2014/06/30/ask-watchdog-barber-shop-policy-raises-questions/11813137/

Basically, it depends on state/local laws/ordinances. They can't discriminate on race or national origin, but sex is a gray area. Personal services aren't always included in these laws, unlike selling goods. There's a Brazilian wax place that I'm pretty sure only waxes women. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's a job I wouldn't take no matter what. ;)

[kiana]

Article on barbershop scenario in US: http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2014/06/30/ask-watchdog-barber-shop-policy-raises-questions/11813137/

Basically, it depends on state/local laws/ordinances. They can't discriminate on race or national origin, but sex is a gray area. Personal services aren't always included in these laws, unlike selling goods. There's a Brazilian wax place that I'm pretty sure only waxes women. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's a job I wouldn't take no matter what. ;)

 

Oh man, no kidding. I mean, I would take an armpit sniffing job testing deodorant before I'd apply there.

[zoobie]

He provided wedding cakes for over 30 years, as I recall. Wedding cakes by definition are for a bride and a groom.

 

The couple in question requested a wedding cake but could not be married in the jurisdiction,nor did the relationship constitute a marriage in his faith, so he declined to do it. Another baker would happily do it, who did not have the same religious constraints.

 

Again, you are elevating one protected class over another. Not ok.

Wedding cakes are cakes for a wedding. Sometimes there's a bride and a groom. Sometimes two brides. Sometimes two grooms. Also, apparently sometimes two dogs.

 

No protected class is being elevated. The business is the provider of goods. The customer was refused goods based on protected status. There's no reverse protection for businesses. A customer is allowed to discriminate and buy from whichever business he wants, for whatever reason. The business is separate from the individual. The individual person can be a bigot; however, by opening a business in a state, the individual agrees to follow state laws including non-discrimination of services. This is a VOLUNTARY agreement. The individual waives certain rights in exchange for certain legal benefits. Once the individual removes his baker's hat, he can go right back to being a bigot. Putting on his public wedding cake baker hat is his choice. If the state limited his options because of his religion, that would be impermissible discrimination. The state's involvement from there on is to protect the public.

 

Baker: I want to open a bakery and make wedding cakes!

State: Super! You may open a public bakery and be entitled to X benefits under the law; however, you must not discriminate on the basis of age, sex, national origin, and sexual orientation. You may alternatively operate a private bakery and not have to follow these rules. Which do you want to do?

Baker: I'm going to open a public bakery.

State: Here's your business license.

 

Customer: One wedding cake please

Baker: No, I refuse to make the cake based on your sexual orientation.

State: Baker, dude. You knew the rules. You picked the public option.

Baker: But it's against my religion!

State: What? You're a bakery. Either make wedding cakes for everyone or no one. Why did you sign up for something if you didn't want to do it? No one forced you into this business. Do you still want to be a public bakery or do you want to switch to a private model?

 

The time for the baker to make decisions based on religious convictions is each and every time he puts on his hat and unlocks his bakery door to the public. Once the public is inside the bakery, he has to serve them or be in violation of the law.

 

The state is not elevating one protected class over another here. The bakery is not in need of nor entitled to protection in this situation. The public is the state-protected party.

[DragonFaerie]

He provided wedding cakes for over 30 years, as I recall.  Wedding cakes by definition are for a bride and a groom. 

 

The couple in question requested a wedding cake but could not be married in the jurisdiction,nor did the relationship constitute a marriage in his faith, so he declined to do it.  Another baker would happily do it, who did not have the same religious constraints.   

 

Again, you are elevating one protected class over another.  Not ok. 

 

I am having such a hard time understanding why this is so complicated.  1) Weddings are not "by definition" for a bride and a groom.  I looked it up.  According to Macmillan, "a ceremony in which two people get married."  And the Oxford Dictionary, "A marriage ceremony."  Merriam Webster, "a marriage ceremony usually with its accompanying festivities."  And Cambridge, "a marriage ceremony and any celebrations such as a meal or a party that follow it."  None of those said anything about a bride and groom. 

 

Now, point #2.  Why was one protected (presumably the gay folks) "elevated" over another (presumably the religious baker)?  A religious business owner is not a protected class.  And legally speaking, his "protection" is only extended to his right to believe and worship as he chooses.  It does not extend to allowing him to discriminate against others.  At no time was his right to be a Christian threatened in any way.  This is what I don't think you understand.

 

[*Lulu*]

I am having such a hard time understanding why this is so complicated. 1) Weddings are not "by definition" for a bride and a groom. I looked it up. According to Macmillan, "a ceremony in which two people get married." And the Oxford Dictionary, "A marriage ceremony." Merriam Webster, "a marriage ceremony usually with its accompanying festivities." And Cambridge, "a marriage ceremony and any celebrations such as a meal or a party that follow it." None of those said anything about a bride and groom.

 

Now, point #2. Why was one protected (presumably the gay folks) "elevated" over another (presumably the religious baker)? A religious business owner is not a protected class. And legally speaking, his "protection" is only extended to his right to believe and worship as he chooses. It does not extend to allowing him to discriminate against others. At no time was his right to be a Christian threatened in any way. This is what I don't think you understand.

After 26 pages of circular logic, obtuse responses, and the continued pretense of the persecution of American Christians, I am not convinced that those participating in this thread do not understand. I think they understand very well. I just think they don't like it.

[*Lulu*]

This thread has jumped the shark.

 

But it has not been locked.

 

:D

 

That is because the shark is celibate and not asking for a cake.

[texasmama]

That is because the shark is celibate and not asking for a cake.

<snort>

 

You are thread stalking me, Lu. ;)

[*Lulu*]

<snort>

 

You are thread stalking me, Lu. ;)

I swear it is the medication typing!

[Tanaqui]

I agree that the U.S. is not "Christian".  However, Christian beliefs, where expressed, should retain First Amendment protections, just as other beliefs should.

 

Then you're arguing that people should be able to discriminate on pseudo-racist lines, if, say, their sincere beliefs say that this is the thing to do.

 

[Violet Crown]

I feel as if we're talking past each other in some of these exchanges.

 

Perhaps we could try teasing out the different strands.

....

 

 

What am I missing?

 

Only because it's you, dear Eliana, and I will allow myself to pretend that there aren't already twenty-six pages in this thread. :) I want to take up your invitation and tease out a different strand.

 

Generally people seem to be looking at the wedding cake case as an issue of religious exercise vs. antidiscrimination laws of general intent; and I do think that's interesting and probably more legally complex than is coming out in this discussion. But I find myself looking at it as a freedom of expression issue. And I have very robust views of freedom of expression: both its constitutional nature, and its public policy implications (the latter of which seems to disappear in these discussions).

 

Freedom of speech and expression has been understood in our polity as broad enough to include both nonverbal and specifically artistic expression, and to include the right not to be forced to participate in expression. Naturally the application of this expansive reading of the first amendment is very fact-sensitive, particularly when other rights are impacted.

 

So burning a flag cannot be prohibited, because it is nonverbal but clearly expressive, and politically expressive at that. And here we should pause and note that there's something of a hierarchy of expression, and our tradition has been to be particularly protective of expression that is political or religious, because of the prominence given freedom in those areas in our national history, and because of a shared understanding of how integral those aspects of public and private life are to individuals. Likewise a work of art cannot be censored by the state because of its content, putting aside issues like obscenity.

 

And because we can't be forced to participate in expression, a publisher cannot be forced to publish a book against her will; a maker of custom t-shirts can't be required to make a t-shirt with a motto that the maker doesn't want to express; a parade organizer can't be required to include a float expressing a point of view which the organizer doesn't want to include.

 

So coming to the cake. There is an easy (and I think already litigated) situation in which a baker can't be forced to produce a cake with a written message to which the baker objects. Regarding an actual hypothetical from earlier in this thread, I did in fact order a First Communion cake from a kosher bakery because of guests coming to the reception; and other than some initial uncertainty as to what the cake should look like--fortunately a Catholic employee there knew exactly how it should look--there was no objection at all; but it seems clear under our understanding of free expression that the bakery could have refused to bake a cake that had (say) a cross in the middle of it, as that would be a straightforward issue of the state's inability, even under antidiscrimination laws, to require speech by the baker.

 

Trickier is the situation where the cake doesn't bear a direct expression--written or symbolic--but is arguably the commissioning of a work of art. A ghost-writer can't be required to write a book she objects to writing; I think we can all see that easily. An artist can't be required to paint a mural with content with which he disagrees. But one also can't be required to create a work of art at all, even one lacking clear verbal or symbolic expression, as this is still coerced speech. And I think this is the right conclusion under a robust theory of freedom of expression.

 

So the question becomes, is the purchase of a wedding cake more like commissioning a mural, or more like buying a car? This is where it seems to become very fact-sensitive. Here are two easy, it seems to me, hypotheticals: (1) There is a binder showing a dozen styles of wedding cake. The buyer chooses one and orders it, specifiying any particular colors, messages, or decorations. While the baker could demur from writing "Bob and Bill, ad multos annos!" on the cake, and likewise refuse to put two groom figures on top--and again, I'm pretty sure other court cases have made clear that this is straightforward protection of the right not to be forced to express views with which one disagrees--he could not refuse to make the chosen cake if public accommodation laws required him to. (2) The bakery has no off-the-shelf cakes, but advertises that "Your wedding is as unique as you are, and your cake will be a unique confection reflecting your union; therefore I will work closely with you to create a one-of-a-kind work of commissioned art that embodies all that is most personal and important to both of you." While I think a lot of people might not like it, in that case it seems clear that the baker is advertising the cakes as an artistic product, and that the same protections that protect more conventional artists from expressive coercion would protect our hypothetical patisseur.

 

Of course the actual situation will fall somewhere between those extremes, and the sorting out of facts so that the law can be applied is what courts are for. That said, it seems like it would have to be a pretty special situation for the baker to win, as (2) seems much less to be the case than (1).

 

Now my understanding is that the baker's view would be something like this: although the cake per se may not be an expression of the reality or legitimacy of gay marriage, its presence at the reception for a gay wedding would be a coerced expression of his approbation for, or at least acquiescence in, such a wedding. While I'm sympathetic to this view--should an artist who designs installation art have to sell it to someone who wants to put it in a context that would fundamentally alter the meaning of the art?--I think this seems like a reasonable place to draw the line. A reasonable person could not draw the conclusion, from the presence at the reception of a Fred's Patisserie wedding cake, that Fred approves of gay marriage. The expression here is so attenuated that it seems clearly outweighed by the antidiscrimination laws.

 

On the other hand, the above is why I think the New Mexico wedding photographer case was decided incorrectly, and I wish the Supreme Court had agreed to hear it. The courts have been clear that photography is an expressive art form, and this seemed to me like a straightforward case of public accommodation laws being permitted to trump the right not to be coerced in expression. That a wedding photographer is a necessary physical participant in a wedding, as a baker is not, I think strengthens the case to be made.

 

I do think there's a religious freedom issue to be examined here. You and I both have reasons to be sensitive to laws that could potentially require us to choose between participating in commercial life and coerced participation in or presence at (even a vicarious presence) someone else's religious (even if just in our own eyes) ritual. And if the facts went that direction, as they seem to do in the photography case, I would want to be very careful about sorting out rights. But primarily, I see this as a case of freedom of expression, and I think the baker probably loses, but would not necessarily lose in all fact patterns.

 

Finally, and this is not directed at you Eliana, I'm amazed by how the "sides" have lined up on this interminable thread. 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. Religious citizens of a democracy must have a deep and necessary commitment to arranging their lives as best they can to avoid friction between the common civic life of the nation and those things required by them of their faith. I would expect to see the proponents of gay rights scrupulously examining any potential infringement on the rights of expression and conscience that might arise from antidiscrimination laws; I would expect to see those with religious objections to gay marriage exercising their imaginations to think how religious believers might arrange their commercial lives so that Caesar may be rendered unto with a clear conscience. In my imagination, we are all on the side of our most cherished constitutional rights and civic order.

 

Forgive me, in reading the above, any inexact or infelicitous expressions, incorrect assumptions, or outright errors of legal fact.

[LizItaly]

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.

[TranquilMind]

Article on barbershop scenario in US: http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2014/06/30/ask-watchdog-barber-shop-policy-raises-questions/11813137/

Basically, it depends on state/local laws/ordinances. They can't discriminate on race or national origin, but sex is a gray area. Personal services aren't always included in these laws, unlike selling goods. There's a Brazilian wax place that I'm pretty sure only waxes women. Maybe I'm wrong, but there's a job I wouldn't take no matter what. ;)

Some man will undoubtedly show up demanding a Brazilian.  Ewww.

 

I find by a quick review that men are doing this.  But I haven't found one to make a complaint because someone didn't wish to do men.  I can well imagine that would violate some religious beliefs. 

[TranquilMind]

lol, so how does that work with Islamic extremism then ?

When it veers into crime, all bets are off. 

[TranquilMind]

Only because it's you, dear Eliana, and I will allow myself to pretend that there aren't already twenty-six pages in this thread. :) I want to take up your invitation and tease out a different strand.

 

Generally people seem to be looking at the wedding cake case as an issue of religious exercise vs. antidiscrimination laws of general intent; and I do think that's interesting and probably more legally complex than is coming out in this discussion. But I find myself looking at it as a freedom of expression issue. And I have very robust views of freedom of expression: both its constitutional nature, and its public policy implications (the latter of which seems to disappear in these discussions).

 

Freedom of speech and expression has been understood in our polity as broad enough to include both nonverbal and specifically artistic expression, and to include the right not to be forced to participate in expression. Naturally the application of this expansive reading of the first amendment is very fact-sensitive, particularly when other rights are impacted.

 

So burning a flag cannot be prohibited, because it is nonverbal but clearly expressive, and politically expressive at that. And here we should pause and note that there's something of a hierarchy of expression, and our tradition has been to be particularly protective of expression that is political or religious, because of the prominence given freedom in those areas in our national history, and because of a shared understanding of how integral those aspects of public and private life are to individuals. Likewise a work of art cannot be censored by the state because of its content, putting aside issues like obscenity.

 

And because we can't be forced to participate in expression, a publisher cannot be forced to publish a book against her will; a maker of custom t-shirts can't be required to make a t-shirt with a motto that the maker doesn't want to express; a parade organizer can't be required to include a float expressing a point of view which the organizer doesn't want to include.

 

So coming to the cake. There is an easy (and I think already litigated) situation in which a baker can't be forced to produce a cake with a written message to which the baker objects. Regarding an actual hypothetical from earlier in this thread, I did in fact order a First Communion cake from a kosher bakery because of guests coming to the reception; and other than some initial uncertainty as to what the cake should look like--fortunately a Catholic employee there knew exactly how it should look--there was no objection at all; but it seems clear under our understanding of free expression that the bakery could have refused to bake a cake that had (say) a cross in the middle of it, as that would be a straightforward issue of the state's inability, even under antidiscrimination laws, to require speech by the baker.

 

Trickier is the situation where the cake doesn't bear a direct expression--written or symbolic--but is arguably the commissioning of a work of art. A ghost-writer can't be required to write a book she objects to writing; I think we can all see that easily. An artist can't be required to paint a mural with content with which he disagrees. But one also can't be required to create a work of art at all, even one lacking clear verbal or symbolic expression, as this is still coerced speech. And I think this is the right conclusion under a robust theory of freedom of expression.

 

So the question becomes, is the purchase of a wedding cake more like commissioning a mural, or more like buying a car? This is where it seems to become very fact-sensitive. Here are two easy, it seems to me, hypotheticals: (1) There is a binder showing a dozen styles of wedding cake. The buyer chooses one and orders it, specifiying any particular colors, messages, or decorations. While the baker could demur from writing "Bob and Bill, ad multos annos!" on the cake, and likewise refuse to put two groom figures on top--and again, I'm pretty sure other court cases have made clear that this is straightforward protection of the right not to be forced to express views with which one disagrees--he could not refuse to make the chosen cake if public accommodation laws required him to. (2) The bakery has no off-the-shelf cakes, but advertises that "Your wedding is as unique as you are, and your cake will be a unique confection reflecting your union; therefore I will work closely with you to create a one-of-a-kind work of commissioned art that embodies all that is most personal and important to both of you." While I think a lot of people might not like it, in that case it seems clear that the baker is advertising the cakes as an artistic product, and that the same protections that protect more conventional artists from expressive coercion would protect our hypothetical patisseur.

 

Of course the actual situation will fall somewhere between those extremes, and the sorting out of facts so that the law can be applied is what courts are for. That said, it seems like it would have to be a pretty special situation for the baker to win, as (2) seems much less to be the case than (1).

 

Now my understanding is that the baker's view would be something like this: although the cake per se may not be an expression of the reality or legitimacy of gay marriage, its presence at the reception for a gay wedding would be a coerced expression of his approbation for, or at least acquiescence in, such a wedding. While I'm sympathetic to this view--should an artist who designs installation art have to sell it to someone who wants to put it in a context that would fundamentally alter the meaning of the art?--I think this seems like a reasonable place to draw the line. A reasonable person could not draw the conclusion, from the presence at the reception of a Fred's Patisserie wedding cake, that Fred approves of gay marriage. The expression here is so attenuated that it seems clearly outweighed by the antidiscrimination laws.

 

On the other hand, the above is why I think the New Mexico wedding photographer case was decided incorrectly, and I wish the Supreme Court had agreed to hear it. The courts have been clear that photography is an expressive art form, and this seemed to me like a straightforward case of public accommodation laws being permitted to trump the right not to be coerced in expression. That a wedding photographer is a necessary physical participant in a wedding, as a baker is not, I think strengthens the case to be made.

 

I do think there's a religious freedom issue to be examined here. You and I both have reasons to be sensitive to laws that could potentially require us to choose between participating in commercial life and coerced participation in or presence at (even a vicarious presence) someone else's religious (even if just in our own eyes) ritual. And if the facts went that direction, as they seem to do in the photography case, I would want to be very careful about sorting out rights. But primarily, I see this as a case of freedom of expression, and I think the baker probably loses, but would not necessarily lose in all fact patterns.

 

Finally, and this is not directed at you Eliana, I'm amazed by how the "sides" have lined up on this interminable thread. 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. Religious citizens of a democracy must have a deep and necessary commitment to arranging their lives as best they can to avoid friction between the common civic life of the nation and those things required by them of their faith. I would expect to see the proponents of gay rights scrupulously examining any potential infringement on the rights of expression and conscience that might arise from antidiscrimination laws; I would expect to see those with religious objections to gay marriage exercising their imaginations to think how religious believers might arrange their commercial lives so that Caesar may be rendered unto with a clear conscience. In my imagination, we are all on the side of our most cherished constitutional rights and civic order.

 

Forgive me, in reading the above, any inexact or infelicitous expressions, incorrect assumptions, or outright errors of legal fact.

This analysis is, in itself, a beautiful piece of art (and the courts apparently agree with you).  Excellent. 

 

Well...I think I'm done here.   I wouldn't begin to attempt to follow this with another comment.

[DragonFaerie]

When it veers into crime, all bets are off. 

 

Discrimination against a protected class is a crime.

[TranquilMind]

Discrimination against a protected class is a crime.

Um, no.  It is not a crime.  It is a violation of an ordinance or statute.

[Slartibartfast]

Only because it's you, dear Eliana, and I will allow myself to pretend that there aren't already twenty-six pages in this thread. :) I want to take up your invitation and tease out a different strand.

 

Generally people seem to be looking at the wedding cake case as an issue of religious exercise vs. antidiscrimination laws of general intent; and I do think that's interesting and probably more legally complex than is coming out in this discussion. But I find myself looking at it as a freedom of expression issue. And I have very robust views of freedom of expression: both its constitutional nature, and its public policy implications (the latter of which seems to disappear in these discussions).

 

Freedom of speech and expression has been understood in our polity as broad enough to include both nonverbal and specifically artistic expression, and to include the right not to be forced to participate in expression. Naturally the application of this expansive reading of the first amendment is very fact-sensitive, particularly when other rights are impacted.

 

So burning a flag cannot be prohibited, because it is nonverbal but clearly expressive, and politically expressive at that. And here we should pause and note that there's something of a hierarchy of expression, and our tradition has been to be particularly protective of expression that is political or religious, because of the prominence given freedom in those areas in our national history, and because of a shared understanding of how integral those aspects of public and private life are to individuals. Likewise a work of art cannot be censored by the state because of its content, putting aside issues like obscenity.

 

And because we can't be forced to participate in expression, a publisher cannot be forced to publish a book against her will; a maker of custom t-shirts can't be required to make a t-shirt with a motto that the maker doesn't want to express; a parade organizer can't be required to include a float expressing a point of view which the organizer doesn't want to include.

 

So coming to the cake. There is an easy (and I think already litigated) situation in which a baker can't be forced to produce a cake with a written message to which the baker objects. Regarding an actual hypothetical from earlier in this thread, I did in fact order a First Communion cake from a kosher bakery because of guests coming to the reception; and other than some initial uncertainty as to what the cake should look like--fortunately a Catholic employee there knew exactly how it should look--there was no objection at all; but it seems clear under our understanding of free expression that the bakery could have refused to bake a cake that had (say) a cross in the middle of it, as that would be a straightforward issue of the state's inability, even under antidiscrimination laws, to require speech by the baker.

 

Trickier is the situation where the cake doesn't bear a direct expression--written or symbolic--but is arguably the commissioning of a work of art. A ghost-writer can't be required to write a book she objects to writing; I think we can all see that easily. An artist can't be required to paint a mural with content with which he disagrees. But one also can't be required to create a work of art at all, even one lacking clear verbal or symbolic expression, as this is still coerced speech. And I think this is the right conclusion under a robust theory of freedom of expression.

 

So the question becomes, is the purchase of a wedding cake more like commissioning a mural, or more like buying a car? This is where it seems to become very fact-sensitive. Here are two easy, it seems to me, hypotheticals: (1) There is a binder showing a dozen styles of wedding cake. The buyer chooses one and orders it, specifiying any particular colors, messages, or decorations. While the baker could demur from writing "Bob and Bill, ad multos annos!" on the cake, and likewise refuse to put two groom figures on top--and again, I'm pretty sure other court cases have made clear that this is straightforward protection of the right not to be forced to express views with which one disagrees--he could not refuse to make the chosen cake if public accommodation laws required him to. (2) The bakery has no off-the-shelf cakes, but advertises that "Your wedding is as unique as you are, and your cake will be a unique confection reflecting your union; therefore I will work closely with you to create a one-of-a-kind work of commissioned art that embodies all that is most personal and important to both of you." While I think a lot of people might not like it, in that case it seems clear that the baker is advertising the cakes as an artistic product, and that the same protections that protect more conventional artists from expressive coercion would protect our hypothetical patisseur.

 

Of course the actual situation will fall somewhere between those extremes, and the sorting out of facts so that the law can be applied is what courts are for. That said, it seems like it would have to be a pretty special situation for the baker to win, as (2) seems much less to be the case than (1).

 

Now my understanding is that the baker's view would be something like this: although the cake per se may not be an expression of the reality or legitimacy of gay marriage, its presence at the reception for a gay wedding would be a coerced expression of his approbation for, or at least acquiescence in, such a wedding. While I'm sympathetic to this view--should an artist who designs installation art have to sell it to someone who wants to put it in a context that would fundamentally alter the meaning of the art?--I think this seems like a reasonable place to draw the line. A reasonable person could not draw the conclusion, from the presence at the reception of a Fred's Patisserie wedding cake, that Fred approves of gay marriage. The expression here is so attenuated that it seems clearly outweighed by the antidiscrimination laws.

 

On the other hand, the above is why I think the New Mexico wedding photographer case was decided incorrectly, and I wish the Supreme Court had agreed to hear it. The courts have been clear that photography is an expressive art form, and this seemed to me like a straightforward case of public accommodation laws being permitted to trump the right not to be coerced in expression. That a wedding photographer is a necessary physical participant in a wedding, as a baker is not, I think strengthens the case to be made.

 

I do think there's a religious freedom issue to be examined here. You and I both have reasons to be sensitive to laws that could potentially require us to choose between participating in commercial life and coerced participation in or presence at (even a vicarious presence) someone else's religious (even if just in our own eyes) ritual. And if the facts went that direction, as they seem to do in the photography case, I would want to be very careful about sorting out rights. But primarily, I see this as a case of freedom of expression, and I think the baker probably loses, but would not necessarily lose in all fact patterns.

 

Finally, and this is not directed at you Eliana, I'm amazed by how the "sides" have lined up on this interminable thread. 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. Religious citizens of a democracy must have a deep and necessary commitment to arranging their lives as best they can to avoid friction between the common civic life of the nation and those things required by them of their faith. I would expect to see the proponents of gay rights scrupulously examining any potential infringement on the rights of expression and conscience that might arise from antidiscrimination laws; I would expect to see those with religious objections to gay marriage exercising their imaginations to think how religious believers might arrange their commercial lives so that Caesar may be rendered unto with a clear conscience. In my imagination, we are all on the side of our most cherished constitutional rights and civic order.

 

Forgive me, in reading the above, any inexact or infelicitous expressions, incorrect assumptions, or outright errors of legal fact.

 

 

 

 

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

 

 

 

Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage†of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.â€

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505

 

 

 

Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

 

 

According to the information it wasn't just a matter of refusing certain decoration or writing but that he would not agree to provide the cake.

[Love]

nm. :)

[IsabelC]

"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."

 

 

No. Because the thing about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or any sort of freedom really, is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum, just as a person doesn't live in a vacuum. And it isn't an absolute freedom. My freedom can only extend to the point just before somebody else's rights or freedoms are going to be infringed. Hence it is ridiculous to suggest that any and all religious practices ought to be protected. 

 

 

[Violet Crown]

No. Because the thing about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or any sort of freedom really, is that it doesn't exist in a vacuum, just as a person doesn't live in a vacuum. And it isn't an absolute freedom. My freedom can only extend to the point just before somebody else's rights or freedoms are going to be infringed. Hence it is ridiculous to suggest that any and all religious practices ought to be protected.

I made the assumption that we all understood that protection is not absolute; and that a rhetorical appeal to religious practices we find objectionable does not refer to, for instance, criminal actions.

 

I don't find it ridiculous to take seriously the principles of the first amendment. Since the founding of this country, it's been a person's right to say any damn fool thing he likes, and to hold his beliefs in freedom. And I am still bothered that we are not all of us more attentive to protecting those freedoms particularly in cases where we vehemently disagree.

 

I leave others the last word.

[LizItaly]

I made the assumption that we all understood that protection is not absolute; and that a rhetorical appeal to religious practices we find objectionable does not refer to, for instance, criminal actions.

 

I don't find it ridiculous to take seriously the principles of the first amendment. Since the founding of this country, it's been a person's right to say any damn fool thing he likes, and to hold his beliefs in freedom. And I am still bothered that we are not all of us more attentive to protecting those freedoms particularly in cases where we vehemently disagree.

 

 

Yes, exactly this.  1000 times.

[Amira]

Oops. :)

[mommaduck]

Out of curiousity, how do people feel about a man who ask gay bakers in the UK to bake a wedding cake for a traditional wedding cake and was refused, repeatedly (from hanging up on him to cussing him out and simply telling him no)?

[Mrs Mungo]

Out of curiousity, how do people feel about a man who ask gay bakers in the UK to bake a wedding cake for a traditional wedding cake and was refused, repeatedly (from hanging up on him to cussing him out and simply telling him no)?

I said earlier in the thread that our discrimination laws in the US apply to everyone. In the US (and in Colorado) "The Ghey Baker" would have to make a cake for a religious ceremony or face the same type of sanctions. It is wrong to discriminate based upon certain principles, IMO. But, I don't know anything about discrimination laws in the UK to have an opinion on the legal issue there.

[IsabelC]

I made the assumption that we all understood that protection is not absolute; and that a rhetorical appeal to religious practices we find objectionable does not refer to, for instance, criminal actions.

 

I don't find it ridiculous to take seriously the principles of the first amendment. Since the founding of this country, it's been a person's right to say any damn fool thing he likes, and to hold his beliefs in freedom. And I am still bothered that we are not all of us more attentive to protecting those freedoms particularly in cases where we vehemently disagree.

 

I leave others the last word.

 

I'm not going to get into any 1st amendment debate, as I don't have the necessary depth of knowledge regarding US constitutional law (heck, given how long it is since I studied law, I probably shouldn't even try to  debate Australian constitutional law!). 

 

However if you had read my post carefully, you would have noticed that I said not all religious practices ought to be protected. I didn't say that freedom of belief, or even freedom of speech, shouldn't be protected (although with the latter, there remains the question of when freedom of speech spills over into incitement to hate or violence - but again, I'm not going to argue about the legal aspect, and I am aware that the relevant law is different here to the US).

[kiana]

Is this the one you're talking about, mommaduck?

 

http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service

 

I find this rather different than asking specifically for a traditional wedding cake. I would look at this more like asking a Christian baker to make a cake saying "Christian marriage is wrong".

 

(For the record, I would support the right of said Christian baker not to make a cake specifically attacking him or his religion, including stating that his religion is wrong, just as I would support the right of a baker named John Doe not to have to make a cake that says "John Doe is a poopyhead" even if a customer orders it.)

[hornblower]

Out of curiousity, how do people feel about a man who ask gay bakers in the UK to bake a wedding cake for a traditional wedding cake and was refused, repeatedly (from hanging up on him to cussing him out and simply telling him no)?

 

Is this a real case you're referring to? Link?

 

I've said several times (&I believe others have too) that I don't think anyone should be discriminating. If you're in the business of providing a service to the public, you provide the service.

[mommaduck]

The thing is, there HAVE been companies that have been taken to court over being asked to make things that advertise or state things that are very much against what they believe to the point that some of the things possibly even include items actually attacking the faith of the people producing them. I was just curious where some would stand on that.

 

(honestly, it's neither here nor there on whether a cake is for two people of opposite genders or two people of the same gender. I believe people should be married according to their own beliefs. If my faith doesn't practice such, that's the business of my faith as much as the practice of their faith is their business)

[Mrs Mungo]

Is this the one you're talking about, mommaduck?

 

http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/christian-man-asks-thirteen-gay-bakeries-bake-pro-traditional-marriage-cake-denied-service

 

I find this rather different than asking specifically for a traditional wedding cake. I would look at this more like asking a Christian baker to make a cake saying "Christian marriage is wrong".

Oh yeah, nobody has to sell a "______ is wrong" cake to anybody unless they are selling cakes with that phrase to everybody.

[IsabelC]

Out of curiousity, how do people feel about a man who ask gay bakers in the UK to bake a wedding cake for a traditional wedding cake and was refused, repeatedly (from hanging up on him to cussing him out and simply telling him no)?

 

 

Really? Is it actually a thing for gay people to protest straight weddings?  Or was it a revenge non-cake-baking?

I'd say the repeatedly hanging up on someone and 'cussing him out' is extremely inappropriate and unprofessional, whatever the supposed reason. However, it would be somewhat disingenuous to say that discriminating against somebody for not being gay (if that's what happened) is equivalent to the reverse. The gay person is living in a sea of discrimination and harassment, whereas the straight bride and groom can, 99.9% of the time, go about their lives without suffering on account of their sexuality (just check how many people have ever committed suicide because of people's reactions to them being straight).

 

 

Also out of curiosity, for people who believe that bakers should be permitted to refuse cakes to those of whose cake-eating-occasions they disapprove, do you think that the bakers should make their position public? Because seriously, I would boycott any business that I knew to be anti gay marriage, most people I know irl would as well, and none of us would like to think that a baker we patronized my be refusing certain customers without our knowledge.

[mommaduck]

FTR, I'm observing mostly. I'm trying to think about where the line is between religious liberty and civil equality.

[mommaduck]

And I apologise, I had read a synopsis of what the man had done and did not realise he was asking them to write out "gay marriage is wrong". However, it goes more towards what I was asking after vs a simple wedding cake.

[IsabelC]

I would hazard a guess that the whole question is mostly theoretical in any case (although no less important for that) because surely most Disapproving Bakers would take the easy way out and say they were too busy to get the cake done on time?

[mommaduck]

I have to say that I'm finding it interesting (listening) that some of them are offering to bake him the cake, but simply requesting to leave off the message they find offensive.

[idnib]

 "The Ghey Baker" 

 

.

[Catwoman]

Am I the only one who keeps popping into this thread to see if cake is still involved?

[Mrs Mungo]

Am I the only one who keeps popping into this thread to see if cake is still involved?

LOL

 

I think between several recent threads the answer to the original question is: because they think they are better than the rest of us.

[Slartibartfast]

Why don't I have any cake?

[idnib]

I was wondering the other day, why we can't view the term "marriage" as we do in a dictionary - as a word with multiple meanings.  One meaning is a union between consenting adults.  Another meaning can be whatever "traditional, Biblically sanctioned" meaning you want.  Why can't the term be seen to have facets and shades of meaning.

 

Another question I have is that there seem to be a lot of people willing to fight pretty strongly about the word "marriage."  But, that is an English word.  Wouldn't the word that Jesus used have been different?  Wouldn't the word in the original texts that became the Bible have been different?  But the English word is NOT that word.  It is a translation.  As such it also has other meanings from other sources.  So arguing that the term "marriage" has specific, Biblically sanctioned definitions doesn't seem right, does it?

 

You're said some of what I've been mulling over.

 

As Muslims, we have a marriage ceremony called a "nikah." It has particular requirements such as a gift from the groom to the bride, two witnesses, a contract, etc. If someone came to me and told me that they were going to have a nikah that did not include all the required items, I would wonder whether or not it should be called a nikah, although honestly I would not worry about it, show up, and eat (hopefully) gluten -free cake.

 

But it's easy for me to think about whether something is a nikah or not because of the specific requirements. But another reason it's easy is because nobody uses "nikah" as a general term. It seems that it would have been helpful if Christians had a very specific term for marriage (maybe they did, once?) that was in popular use today.

 

Perhaps it is the ubiquity of Christianity that has caused some Christians to consider the word "marriage" as something specific to them and the Bible, but for everyone else to use it as a catch-all for all kinds of ceremonies. Words change meanings, and having your religion be ubiquitous has (mostly) upsides and (some) downsides.

 

I don't have time to research the origins of these words, but if some Christians are trying to "regain" the word "marriage" (if they ever had it) the horse is not only out of the barn, but has left the pasture and moved to a loft in Tribeca, simply for etymological reasons.

[Mrs Mungo]

The etymological past of both marriage and matrimony descend from Latin and predate Christianity. Christianty didn't really start to have religious (as opposed to civil" marriages until the church (here meaning the Catholic Church) began to assert its own legal authority in the Middle Ages. It wasn't considered a sacrament until the 13th century. Christians have never owned the term or idea-the West's idea of marriage (like many of our ideas) was birthed in pagan Rome, not the church.

[idnib]

The etymological past of both marriage and matrimony descend from Latin and predate Christianity. Christianty didn't really start to have religious (as opposed to civil" marriages until the church (here meaning the Catholic Church) began to assert its own legal authority in the Middle Ages. It wasn't considered a sacrament until the 13th century. Christians have never owned the term or idea-the West's idea of marriage (like many of our ideas) was birthed in pagan Rome, not the church.

 

 

Oh that's interesting! So early Middle Eastern Christians didn't have their own religious marriage ceremony with some kind of name specific to that event? They were having civil ceremonies? I didn't know this. Thank you.

[elegantlion]

Why don't I have any cake?

It was not moist enough to serve and no one can agree what to write on it.

[*Lulu*]

It was not moist enough to serve and no one can agree what to write on it.

You know full well "carbuncle" was what should be written and those stupid bakers freaked out because of the way the word sounds. I bet they are just like that ESL administrator who didn't know what the meaning of homophone was..........

 

 

Next thing you know SCOTUS will issue a ruling that a sincere belief that a word is offensive is more important than the actual definition.

[DragonFaerie]

 the horse is not only out of the barn, but has left the pasture and moved to a loft in Tribeca

 

:lol: