by Simon 286 Replies latest social current
So, on ExJW reddit, I was labeled alt-right for holding the views that I espoused on this thread.
What has the world come to when a pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, atheist, Mexican like myself is labeled alt-right because he doesn’t want the government to compel speech?
There is supposed to be a ruling on a case involving a Christian florist in Washington soon.
Yes - Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers, if the court hears it.
Freedom of religion is a basic human right, but the problem with coming down on the side of religion when it clashes with another basic human right is that religious beliefs don't have to be fair or rational.
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. was a 1968 case where the owner of a barbecue restaurant chain refused so serve people of color on religious grounds. (He was the Baptist head of the National Association for the Preservation of White People)
Since then, courts have routinely held that the religious views of proprietors of public establishments
must take a back seat to the civil rights of their customers.
I found the video below interesting. It’s an hour long, but Woods goes through all of the opinions on the case.
Near the end he takes a position closer to freedom of association instead of private property - although those two freedoms/rights are closely related.
He makes a good point: why can’t we just base our interactions on the simple principle that we don’t initiate violence if someone doesn’t want to interact? And why would you want to enter into a business relationship if the other party doesn’t want to? This is similar to the point I made earlier - if you force bakers to interact, they will make you a horrible cake.
There are some interesting points made about the 14th amendment near the beginning.
@Diogenesister:
After the Civil War and during reconstruction, before the racists took control of the state governments again, there was a period of time when blacks and whites interacted without laws mandating segregation. There were blacks that held high offices in all levels of government (senators, governors, etc). There was a black Governor of Louisiana of all places (where “separate but equal originated later”). Here is a list:
Some viagra for the thread: The Masterpiece vs Colorado decision has already had consequences.
The Brush & Nib Studio in Phoenix must provide their artistic services to LGBT couples in a preemptive lawsuit brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom (note, not brought by bothersome SJWs). See Phoenix Business Journal. And the decision quotes the Colorado case.
Looks like the gays don't have to ride at the back of the bus in Arizona.
Simon speaks sense.
As JWs we were, at one time, willing to not salute the flag, sing the national anthem and sign a birthday card because our conscience would be violated. Some governments who had a national draft provided alternative service for those who would not take up arms against their fellowman.
If a gay couple walks into a bakery they can buy any cake they want.
If a gay couple walks into a bakery and asks the baker to decorate a cake with a gay themed wedding then this would violate the baker's conscience.
The baker has options:
# 1 He can ask an assistant (if he/she has one) to do the artistic expression or
#2 He can sell the pre-made cake as it is and ask the gay couple to find an artist to decorate the cake.
#3 If said wedding cake does not exist, he could meet them half way, make the cake with the marzipan and the icing according to the gay couple's specifications and ask them to finish their decoration. The baker gets paid and the couple get their cake.
#4 The gay couple can find another baker knowing they can still get their cake (and eat it too).
The JWs here might consider this case a "conscience matter"
Looks like the gays don't have to ride at the back of the bus in Arizona - nor in any other US state, for that matter.
Meanwhile, in Iran ...
The baker has options:
Yes. He can either treat the public equally or he can cease doing business with the public and cater to an exclusive clientele.
There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. The former will probably net him more business in the long run while an "appointment only" business model allows him to arbitrarily pick and choose his customers.
Feeding from both troughs has been restricted in the U.S. since 1964.
He can either treat the public equally or he can cease doing business with the public and cater to an exclusive clientele.
The former will probably net him more business in the long run while an "appointment only" business model allows him to arbitrarily pick and choose his customers.
Or, back in the real world, you can do both - the store is open to the public where anyone can come in and purchase any cake that is for sale.
If you want a custom cake you are then booking a personal service and the person who is going to perform that service has the right to turn it down for whatever reason then want if it's in support of something they don't agree with or for someone they don't like.
What happens when some Westboro Baptist Church type group orders a "god hates gays" cake from a gay baker - can they refuse?
What happens when some Westboro Baptist Church type group orders a "god hates gays" cake from a gay baker - can they refuse?
This was one of the sticking points that got the Colorado case overturned. There were three previous cases of a man asking bakers to create anti-gay cakes, with some scriptures on the top of the cake. The bakers refused because it upset their moral convictions. The Colorado Human Rights council upheld the baker’s right to do this... but as soon as the shoe was on the other foot......
This is also why I think the case could still go either way. The court didn’t even get to the point where they might debate the constitutionality of the case. Rather, the blatant inconsistency just made it clear they had to overturn the decision.
