SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
Uprising
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:44 pm
Alma Mater: VT
Party: etc

SCOTUS won't hear case on gay wedding photographer snub

Post by Uprising »

The denial leaves standing a decision by the state's highest court that went against the photo studio — although the local dispute has been long since rendered moot.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... r/7304157/

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
User avatar
Uprising
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:44 pm
Alma Mater: VT
Party: etc

SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by Uprising »

The denial leaves standing a decision by the state's highest court that went against the photo studio — although the local dispute has been long since rendered moot.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... r/7304157/

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

My new topics are going to the lunch board. Thoughts?
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by BigDave »

Uprising wrote:My new topics are going to the lunch board. Thoughts?
Because the lunch board is going to bed hungry?

Seriously, no idea - are you actually viewing the forum or are you viewing unread posts? If the latter, maybe it's posting to what it has arbitrarily decided is the default board?
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: SCOTUS won't hear case on gay wedding photographer snub

Post by BigDave »

Uprising wrote:
The denial leaves standing a decision by the state's highest court that went against the photo studio — although the local dispute has been long since rendered moot.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... r/7304157/

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
How has the dispute been rendered moot? Did the state drop charges against the company?

The article says that the gay couple didn't sue - they just filed a complaint with the state and the state was prosecuting the company. Did the state drop the charges?

The dispute is between the photographers and the government, not between the photographers and the gay couple.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by USN_Hokie »

Uprising wrote:
My new topics are going to the lunch board. Thoughts?
There's no meat to your arguments...
User avatar
Uprising
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:44 pm
Alma Mater: VT
Party: etc

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by Uprising »

BigDave wrote:
Uprising wrote:My new topics are going to the lunch board. Thoughts?
Because the lunch board is going to bed hungry?

Seriously, no idea - are you actually viewing the forum or are you viewing unread posts? If the latter, maybe it's posting to what it has arbitrarily decided is the default board?
No, I never view it that way. I was in browse mode inside the UWS forum. I thought I had messed up the first time, but it was is odd because I hardly ever visit the lunch board.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
User avatar
Uprising
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:44 pm
Alma Mater: VT
Party: etc

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by Uprising »

BigDave wrote:
Uprising wrote:
The denial leaves standing a decision by the state's highest court that went against the photo studio — although the local dispute has been long since rendered moot.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... r/7304157/

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
How has the dispute been rendered moot? Did the state drop charges against the company?

The article says that the gay couple didn't sue - they just filed a complaint with the state and the state was prosecuting the company. Did the state drop the charges?

The dispute is between the photographers and the government, not between the photographers and the gay couple.
I would think because the wedding has long been over.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by BigDave »

Uprising wrote:I would think because the wedding has long been over.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Okay, if that's the case, then it's just a poorly written article. The couple that was getting married and wanted the photography services was not a party to the case. The purpose of the case was not to compel the photographers to photograph a gay wedding, but, rather, to punish them for not doing so.

If the purpose of the case had been to compel them to photograph the wedding, then yes it was moot and would have long ago been dismissed. But that wasn't the purpose.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
jmac610
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:53 am

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by jmac610 »

BigDave wrote:
Uprising wrote: The purpose of the case was not to compel the photographers to photograph a gay wedding, but, rather, to punish them for not doing so.
And in so doing the message to all others is: do not refuse services to certain special interest groups or else you will face the same penalties.
User avatar
Uprising
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:44 pm
Alma Mater: VT
Party: etc

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by Uprising »

BigDave wrote:
Uprising wrote:I would think because the wedding has long been over.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Okay, if that's the case, then it's just a poorly written article. The couple that was getting married and wanted the photography services was not a party to the case. The purpose of the case was not to compel the photographers to photograph a gay wedding, but, rather, to punish them for not doing so.

If the purpose of the case had been to compel them to photograph the wedding, then yes it was moot and would have long ago been dismissed. But that wasn't the purpose.
The case is Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock. Willock being one member of the couple.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... v-willock/

I've had a slight change of stance on this issue. If one is fully liable for their business, then I think they should be able to discriminate no matter the type of business. However, if one shields their personal assets and interests in any way with the creation of a separate entity, then that entity does not get to claim the religious views of the owner(s). Because that entity doesn't get to claim the assets of the owner(s) when something goes wrong. Thoughts?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Baltimore Hokie
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:58 am
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Ind.

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by Baltimore Hokie »

Uprising wrote:
BigDave wrote:
Uprising wrote:I would think because the wedding has long been over.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Okay, if that's the case, then it's just a poorly written article. The couple that was getting married and wanted the photography services was not a party to the case. The purpose of the case was not to compel the photographers to photograph a gay wedding, but, rather, to punish them for not doing so.

If the purpose of the case had been to compel them to photograph the wedding, then yes it was moot and would have long ago been dismissed. But that wasn't the purpose.
The case is Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock. Willock being one member of the couple.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... v-willock/

I've had a slight change of stance on this issue. If one is fully liable for their business, then I think they should be able to discriminate no matter the type of business. However, if one shields their personal assets and interests in any way with the creation of a separate entity, then that entity does not get to claim the religious views of the owner(s). Because that entity doesn't get to claim the assets of the owner(s) when something goes wrong. Thoughts?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
So a business should be allowed to shield itself from complying with otherwise neutral laws due to the First Amendment? This raises many questions.

Who gets to decide whether or not the act of discrimination is due to 'sincerely held religious beliefs' or just the owner being a tool?

Who gets to weigh in on whether or not the act of discrimination has anything to do with the core religious beliefs at play? Does the head of XXX church send an affidavit stating 'Yes, we believe that photographic a gay wedding is a sin. It says so in the articles of the XXX canonical law." Or is every individual a religious authority unto themselves - 'I believe it, so it is so.'

The problem with your model is the courts have long held that there is a vast difference between having a belief and acting on that belief. Having a believe has never shielded individuals from complying with neutral laws. States craft laws that burden religions all the time - zoning, controlled substances, or even - in the case of Aztecs - murder. No one gets a pass due to religious convictions. The RFRA makes it harder for Federal laws to burden religion, requiring a compelling state interest, which is most cases is pretty easy to show. States can easily show a compelling interest to legislate matters involving discrimination.
User avatar
Uprising
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:44 pm
Alma Mater: VT
Party: etc

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by Uprising »

Baltimore Hokie wrote:
Uprising wrote:
BigDave wrote:
Uprising wrote:I would think because the wedding has long been over.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Okay, if that's the case, then it's just a poorly written article. The couple that was getting married and wanted the photography services was not a party to the case. The purpose of the case was not to compel the photographers to photograph a gay wedding, but, rather, to punish them for not doing so.

If the purpose of the case had been to compel them to photograph the wedding, then yes it was moot and would have long ago been dismissed. But that wasn't the purpose.
The case is Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock. Willock being one member of the couple.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... v-willock/

I've had a slight change of stance on this issue. If one is fully liable for their business, then I think they should be able to discriminate no matter the type of business. However, if one shields their personal assets and interests in any way with the creation of a separate entity, then that entity does not get to claim the religious views of the owner(s). Because that entity doesn't get to claim the assets of the owner(s) when something goes wrong. Thoughts?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
So a business should be allowed to shield itself from complying with otherwise neutral laws due to the First Amendment? This raises many questions.

Who gets to decide whether or not the act of discrimination is due to 'sincerely held religious beliefs' or just the owner being a tool?

Who gets to weigh in on whether or not the act of discrimination has anything to do with the core religious beliefs at play? Does the head of XXX church send an affidavit stating 'Yes, we believe that photographic a gay wedding is a sin. It says so in the articles of the XXX canonical law." Or is every individual a religious authority unto themselves - 'I believe it, so it is so.'

The problem with your model is the courts have long held that there is a vast difference between having a belief and acting on that belief. Having a believe has never shielded individuals from complying with neutral laws. States craft laws that burden religions all the time - zoning, controlled substances, or even - in the case of Aztecs - murder. No one gets a pass due to religious convictions. The RFRA makes it harder for Federal laws to burden religion, requiring a compelling state interest, which is most cases is pretty easy to show. States can easily show a compelling interest to legislate matters involving discrimination.
I don't think that is what I said. But let me try to clarify...

1) The owner(s) creates a LLC or incorporates to shield their personal assets from liability. They effectively create a new entity that controls the business and separates the owner(s) personally from the business. The business entity then must act neutral and is subject to the discrimination laws. The owner is not taking personal responsibility for the actions of the business.
Ex: Hobby Lobby is incorporated and therefore the owners home is not at risk if someone slips on the floor of one of their stores. The corporate entity is separate from the personal entity.

2) The owner(s) does not separate his/her assets from the business and is therefore subjecting themselves to the liability of the business. That business can then act on the personal beliefs of the owner(s) and is afforded his/her First Amendment protections. The owner is taking personal responsibility for the actions of the business.
Ex: A person bakes wedding cakes out of their home. If someone gets food poisoning and sues, the owners personal assets are at risk.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by BigDave »

Baltimore Hokie wrote:So a business should be allowed to shield itself from complying with otherwise neutral laws due to the First Amendment? This raises many questions.
It isn't a neutral law. A law that requires you to take an action that violates the dictates of your religion is inherently not neutral.

Oddly, if I read the documents linked above correctly, they didn't even appeal the freedom of religion issue - only the freedom of speech issue. So they only appealed it on the grounds that the photographers should not be coerced into creating speech, not that they should not be coerced to take an action violating their religion. So if I am reading it correctly and you look at it purely on the issue that was appealed, okay, it's a neutral law, but it clearly is not neutral towards religion as long as someone's religion views homosexual conduct as a sin.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by BigDave »

Uprising wrote:I don't think that is what I said. But let me try to clarify...

1) The owner(s) creates a LLC or incorporates to shield their personal assets from liability. They effectively create a new entity that controls the business and separates the owner(s) personally from the business. The business entity then must act neutral and is subject to the discrimination laws. The owner is not taking personal responsibility for the actions of the business.
Ex: Hobby Lobby is incorporated and therefore the owners home is not at risk if someone slips on the floor of one of their stores. The corporate entity is separate from the personal entity.

2) The owner(s) does not separate his/her assets from the business and is therefore subjecting themselves to the liability of the business. That business can then act on the personal beliefs of the owner(s) and is afforded his/her First Amendment protections. The owner is taking personal responsibility for the actions of the business.
Ex: A person bakes wedding cakes out of their home. If someone gets food poisoning and sues, the owners personal assets are at risk.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Great. So you're willing to grant that if I bake a cake for a friend, I'm not required to bake a cake for everyone on the planet who asks.

There was never even a question that someone who isn't even running a business can't be forced to bake a cake for someone for whom they do not wish to bake a cake.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
User avatar
Uprising
Posts: 4875
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 9:44 pm
Alma Mater: VT
Party: etc

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by Uprising »

BigDave wrote:
Uprising wrote:I don't think that is what I said. But let me try to clarify...

1) The owner(s) creates a LLC or incorporates to shield their personal assets from liability. They effectively create a new entity that controls the business and separates the owner(s) personally from the business. The business entity then must act neutral and is subject to the discrimination laws. The owner is not taking personal responsibility for the actions of the business.
Ex: Hobby Lobby is incorporated and therefore the owners home is not at risk if someone slips on the floor of one of their stores. The corporate entity is separate from the personal entity.

2) The owner(s) does not separate his/her assets from the business and is therefore subjecting themselves to the liability of the business. That business can then act on the personal beliefs of the owner(s) and is afforded his/her First Amendment protections. The owner is taking personal responsibility for the actions of the business.
Ex: A person bakes wedding cakes out of their home. If someone gets food poisoning and sues, the owners personal assets are at risk.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Great. So you're willing to grant that if I bake a cake for a friend, I'm not required to bake a cake for everyone on the planet who asks.

There was never even a question that someone who isn't even running a business can't be forced to bake a cake for someone for whom they do not wish to bake a cake.
No. I'm saying that someone who bakes cakes for money but doesn't separate their personal assets from their business assets, a sole proprietorship, is different than an LLC, corporation, etc.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
hokie80
Posts: 10714
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:11 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Independent

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by hokie80 »

Uprising wrote:
BigDave wrote:
Uprising wrote:I don't think that is what I said. But let me try to clarify...

1) The owner(s) creates a LLC or incorporates to shield their personal assets from liability. They effectively create a new entity that controls the business and separates the owner(s) personally from the business. The business entity then must act neutral and is subject to the discrimination laws. The owner is not taking personal responsibility for the actions of the business.
Ex: Hobby Lobby is incorporated and therefore the owners home is not at risk if someone slips on the floor of one of their stores. The corporate entity is separate from the personal entity.

2) The owner(s) does not separate his/her assets from the business and is therefore subjecting themselves to the liability of the business. That business can then act on the personal beliefs of the owner(s) and is afforded his/her First Amendment protections. The owner is taking personal responsibility for the actions of the business.
Ex: A person bakes wedding cakes out of their home. If someone gets food poisoning and sues, the owners personal assets are at risk.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Great. So you're willing to grant that if I bake a cake for a friend, I'm not required to bake a cake for everyone on the planet who asks.

There was never even a question that someone who isn't even running a business can't be forced to bake a cake for someone for whom they do not wish to bake a cake.
No. I'm saying that someone who bakes cakes for money but doesn't separate their personal assets from their business assets, a sole proprietorship, is different than an LLC, corporation, etc.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Unfortunately, because there are those like this that file these BS lawsuits the business owners have no choice but to set up an LLC to protect their own personal assets from "victims" of their business practice.

Shame that our society is getting this way. Most people would just find another photographer and move on.
User avatar
HokieHam
Posts: 26369
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by HokieHam »

Shame that our society is getting this way. Most people would just find another photographer and move on
Most people don't have an agenda.
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."

ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
Baltimore Hokie
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:58 am
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Ind.

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by Baltimore Hokie »

BigDave wrote:
Baltimore Hokie wrote:So a business should be allowed to shield itself from complying with otherwise neutral laws due to the First Amendment? This raises many questions.
It isn't a neutral law. A law that requires you to take an action that violates the dictates of your religion is inherently not neutral.
Dave, a law that applies to everyone equally, regardless of religion, is the very DEFINITION of a neutral law. Neutral laws can keep you from doing certain religious things (like prohibit native Americans from eating peyote) or compel you to do things you might not otherwise have done (like paying taxes, not discriminating, etc). But since the laws apply equally to all, they are neutral.

And by the way - nothing in the Christian faith precludes a Christian from serving gays and lesbians. Actions like that are how people become a religion unto themselves. I could make up anything - 'my faith precludes me from serving any non-Baptist or non-Methodist or whatever' - if I had an absolute right to carve exemptions from neutral laws based on the Free Exercise Clause.
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8012
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by BigDave »

Baltimore Hokie wrote:Dave, a law that applies to everyone equally, regardless of religion, is the very DEFINITION of a neutral law. Neutral laws can keep you from doing certain religious things (like prohibit native Americans from eating peyote) or compel you to do things you might not otherwise have done (like paying taxes, not discriminating, etc). But since the laws apply equally to all, they are neutral.
Is a law that requires everyone to bow down and worship Obama neutral so long as it applies to everyone regardless of religion.
And by the way - nothing in the Christian faith precludes a Christian from serving gays and lesbians. Actions like that are how people become a religion unto themselves. I could make up anything - 'my faith precludes me from serving any non-Baptist or non-Methodist or whatever' - if I had an absolute right to carve exemptions from neutral laws based on the Free Exercise Clause.
Well, actually, there are some religious organizations that shun contact with the outside world. If I am, say, a Quaker, and I run a blacksmith shop, why shouldn't I be allowed to serve only other Quakers in my shop?
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
oaktonhokie
Posts: 11324
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by oaktonhokie »

That's just silly dave.

If you're a white guy with the only gas station for miles around, and a black guy is out of gas....

Can a Muslims cabbie refuse to carry passengers (women) who don't wear a head scarf?

I figure it like this:

If my store sells a product, it must be available to anyone who can pay. Pastry, photographs (not photography) or lunch at a counter.
If my pastry store also sells customized cakes etc, I am under no obligation to make something that I for whatever reason think is obscene, or immoral. I made the point before about a black baker having to customize a cake depicting a kkk lynching.

No.



BigDave wrote:
Baltimore Hokie wrote:Dave, a law that applies to everyone equally, regardless of religion, is the very DEFINITION of a neutral law. Neutral laws can keep you from doing certain religious things (like prohibit native Americans from eating peyote) or compel you to do things you might not otherwise have done (like paying taxes, not discriminating, etc). But since the laws apply equally to all, they are neutral.
Is a law that requires everyone to bow down and worship Obama neutral so long as it applies to everyone regardless of religion.
And by the way - nothing in the Christian faith precludes a Christian from serving gays and lesbians. Actions like that are how people become a religion unto themselves. I could make up anything - 'my faith precludes me from serving any non-Baptist or non-Methodist or whatever' - if I had an absolute right to carve exemptions from neutral laws based on the Free Exercise Clause.
Well, actually, there are some religious organizations that shun contact with the outside world. If I am, say, a Quaker, and I run a blacksmith shop, why shouldn't I be allowed to serve only other Quakers in my shop?
If you bend over backwards long enough,
eventually you'll fall down.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by awesome guy »

unless it's the gay of course. And then the cake must be decorated for the gays.

How about this, stick with running your own life. If someone doesn't want to provide service, then that's their business. They need not prove its's part of their religion, spirituality, or whatever. It's their business and not yours. You're an intervenor, meddling where it's not your concern.
oaktonhokie wrote:That's just silly dave.

If you're a white guy with the only gas station for miles around, and a black guy is out of gas....

Can a Muslims cabbie refuse to carry passengers (women) who don't wear a head scarf?

I figure it like this:

If my store sells a product, it must be available to anyone who can pay. Pastry, photographs (not photography) or lunch at a counter.
If my pastry store also sells customized cakes etc, I am under no obligation to make something that I for whatever reason think is obscene, or immoral. I made the point before about a black baker having to customize a cake depicting a kkk lynching.

No.



BigDave wrote:
Baltimore Hokie wrote:Dave, a law that applies to everyone equally, regardless of religion, is the very DEFINITION of a neutral law. Neutral laws can keep you from doing certain religious things (like prohibit native Americans from eating peyote) or compel you to do things you might not otherwise have done (like paying taxes, not discriminating, etc). But since the laws apply equally to all, they are neutral.
Is a law that requires everyone to bow down and worship Obama neutral so long as it applies to everyone regardless of religion.
And by the way - nothing in the Christian faith precludes a Christian from serving gays and lesbians. Actions like that are how people become a religion unto themselves. I could make up anything - 'my faith precludes me from serving any non-Baptist or non-Methodist or whatever' - if I had an absolute right to carve exemptions from neutral laws based on the Free Exercise Clause.
Well, actually, there are some religious organizations that shun contact with the outside world. If I am, say, a Quaker, and I run a blacksmith shop, why shouldn't I be allowed to serve only other Quakers in my shop?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
oaktonhokie
Posts: 11324
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by oaktonhokie »

In case I wasn't clear, the cakery should not be required to customize a cake for gazes. That's custom work and if it violates the caker's religious beliefs or his personal morals....no.

But if gazes come in to his shop and want to buy some cookies, or "that cake over there" or something on the shelf, the caker should be required to sell it.

What if one person comes in and wants a cake on the shelf. Should the caker ask if the buyer is gay? What if he accidently sells a cake or cookie to a gay guy....?

If he doesn't know, and he sells it, is it ok?

If he doesn't know and sells it and then the gay guy tells him he's gay....does he have to give it back?

If it's on the shelf and available for sale to the general public, it must be sold to any member of the general public.



awesome guy wrote:unless it's the gay of course. And then the cake must be decorated for the gays.

How about this, stick with running your own life. If someone doesn't want to provide service, then that's their business. They need not prove its's part of their religion, spirituality, or whatever. It's their business and not yours. You're an intervenor, meddling where it's not your concern.
oaktonhokie wrote:That's just silly dave.

If you're a white guy with the only gas station for miles around, and a black guy is out of gas....

Can a Muslims cabbie refuse to carry passengers (women) who don't wear a head scarf?

I figure it like this:

If my store sells a product, it must be available to anyone who can pay. Pastry, photographs (not photography) or lunch at a counter.
If my pastry store also sells customized cakes etc, I am under no obligation to make something that I for whatever reason think is obscene, or immoral. I made the point before about a black baker having to customize a cake depicting a kkk lynching.

No.



BigDave wrote:
Baltimore Hokie wrote:Dave, a law that applies to everyone equally, regardless of religion, is the very DEFINITION of a neutral law. Neutral laws can keep you from doing certain religious things (like prohibit native Americans from eating peyote) or compel you to do things you might not otherwise have done (like paying taxes, not discriminating, etc). But since the laws apply equally to all, they are neutral.
Is a law that requires everyone to bow down and worship Obama neutral so long as it applies to everyone regardless of religion.
And by the way - nothing in the Christian faith precludes a Christian from serving gays and lesbians. Actions like that are how people become a religion unto themselves. I could make up anything - 'my faith precludes me from serving any non-Baptist or non-Methodist or whatever' - if I had an absolute right to carve exemptions from neutral laws based on the Free Exercise Clause.
Well, actually, there are some religious organizations that shun contact with the outside world. If I am, say, a Quaker, and I run a blacksmith shop, why shouldn't I be allowed to serve only other Quakers in my shop?
If you bend over backwards long enough,
eventually you'll fall down.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by awesome guy »

Ok, what does "general public" mean? Not being snarky, curious why a business owner must sell to anyone? Why can't they be as discriminatory as they want, for whatever reason? Say it's people wearing green shoes. Why must they sell in the first place?

In my view, it's the owner's decision to sell or not. I don't think the public accommodation argument is reasonable. And let's cut to the chase, it's their to take the power of affect the culture from the individual and give it to the government. If a Muslim cabbie doesn't want to take drunk women home because he doesn't believe in drinking or women being out unaccompanied by an adult then that's his choice. The woman in this case has no right to a taxi ride, but the cabbie has a right to engage in business with whom he wishes. His rights are infringed as is his power to affect the culture. And that's what the authoritarians want, they want the government in charge of these matters so they pick who we must engage in business with instead of ourselves.

oaktonhokie wrote:In case I wasn't clear, the cakery should not be required to customize a cake for gazes. That's custom work and if it violates the caker's religious beliefs or his personal morals....no.

But if gazes come in to his shop and want to buy some cookies, or "that cake over there" or something on the shelf, the caker should be required to sell it.

What if one person comes in and wants a cake on the shelf. Should the caker ask if the buyer is gay? What if he accidently sells a cake or cookie to a gay guy....?

If he doesn't know, and he sells it, is it ok?

If he doesn't know and sells it and then the gay guy tells him he's gay....does he have to give it back?

If it's on the shelf and available for sale to the general public, it must be sold to any member of the general public.



awesome guy wrote:unless it's the gay of course. And then the cake must be decorated for the gays.

How about this, stick with running your own life. If someone doesn't want to provide service, then that's their business. They need not prove its's part of their religion, spirituality, or whatever. It's their business and not yours. You're an intervenor, meddling where it's not your concern.
oaktonhokie wrote:That's just silly dave.

If you're a white guy with the only gas station for miles around, and a black guy is out of gas....

Can a Muslims cabbie refuse to carry passengers (women) who don't wear a head scarf?

I figure it like this:

If my store sells a product, it must be available to anyone who can pay. Pastry, photographs (not photography) or lunch at a counter.
If my pastry store also sells customized cakes etc, I am under no obligation to make something that I for whatever reason think is obscene, or immoral. I made the point before about a black baker having to customize a cake depicting a kkk lynching.

No.



BigDave wrote:
Baltimore Hokie wrote:Dave, a law that applies to everyone equally, regardless of religion, is the very DEFINITION of a neutral law. Neutral laws can keep you from doing certain religious things (like prohibit native Americans from eating peyote) or compel you to do things you might not otherwise have done (like paying taxes, not discriminating, etc). But since the laws apply equally to all, they are neutral.
Is a law that requires everyone to bow down and worship Obama neutral so long as it applies to everyone regardless of religion.
And by the way - nothing in the Christian faith precludes a Christian from serving gays and lesbians. Actions like that are how people become a religion unto themselves. I could make up anything - 'my faith precludes me from serving any non-Baptist or non-Methodist or whatever' - if I had an absolute right to carve exemptions from neutral laws based on the Free Exercise Clause.
Well, actually, there are some religious organizations that shun contact with the outside world. If I am, say, a Quaker, and I run a blacksmith shop, why shouldn't I be allowed to serve only other Quakers in my shop?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by Marine Hokie »

Why do you draw the line at custom work for whether a person should be forced to do business with another person?
What if it doesn't violate the baker's religious beliefs or personal morals? What if the baker just doesn't want to make a cake for a person? Why should he be forced to? What if he refuses? Should the baker be arrested and put in prison? Does he owe the government money for not baking someone a cake?


oaktonhokie wrote:In case I wasn't clear, the cakery should not be required to customize a cake for gazes. That's custom work and if it violates the caker's religious beliefs or his personal morals....no.

But if gazes come in to his shop and want to buy some cookies, or "that cake over there" or something on the shelf, the caker should be required to sell it.

What if one person comes in and wants a cake on the shelf. Should the caker ask if the buyer is gay? What if he accidently sells a cake or cookie to a gay guy....?

If he doesn't know, and he sells it, is it ok?

If he doesn't know and sells it and then the gay guy tells him he's gay....does he have to give it back?

If it's on the shelf and available for sale to the general public, it must be sold to any member of the general public.



awesome guy wrote:unless it's the gay of course. And then the cake must be decorated for the gays.

How about this, stick with running your own life. If someone doesn't want to provide service, then that's their business. They need not prove its's part of their religion, spirituality, or whatever. It's their business and not yours. You're an intervenor, meddling where it's not your concern.
oaktonhokie wrote:That's just silly dave.

If you're a white guy with the only gas station for miles around, and a black guy is out of gas....

Can a Muslims cabbie refuse to carry passengers (women) who don't wear a head scarf?

I figure it like this:

If my store sells a product, it must be available to anyone who can pay. Pastry, photographs (not photography) or lunch at a counter.
If my pastry store also sells customized cakes etc, I am under no obligation to make something that I for whatever reason think is obscene, or immoral. I made the point before about a black baker having to customize a cake depicting a kkk lynching.

No.



BigDave wrote:
Baltimore Hokie wrote:Dave, a law that applies to everyone equally, regardless of religion, is the very DEFINITION of a neutral law. Neutral laws can keep you from doing certain religious things (like prohibit native Americans from eating peyote) or compel you to do things you might not otherwise have done (like paying taxes, not discriminating, etc). But since the laws apply equally to all, they are neutral.
Is a law that requires everyone to bow down and worship Obama neutral so long as it applies to everyone regardless of religion.
And by the way - nothing in the Christian faith precludes a Christian from serving gays and lesbians. Actions like that are how people become a religion unto themselves. I could make up anything - 'my faith precludes me from serving any non-Baptist or non-Methodist or whatever' - if I had an absolute right to carve exemptions from neutral laws based on the Free Exercise Clause.
Well, actually, there are some religious organizations that shun contact with the outside world. If I am, say, a Quaker, and I run a blacksmith shop, why shouldn't I be allowed to serve only other Quakers in my shop?
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Baltimore Hokie
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:58 am
Alma Mater: VT
Party: Ind.

Re: SCOTUS won't hear gay wedding photographer case

Post by Baltimore Hokie »

BigDave wrote:
Baltimore Hokie wrote:Dave, a law that applies to everyone equally, regardless of religion, is the very DEFINITION of a neutral law. Neutral laws can keep you from doing certain religious things (like prohibit native Americans from eating peyote) or compel you to do things you might not otherwise have done (like paying taxes, not discriminating, etc). But since the laws apply equally to all, they are neutral.
Is a law that requires everyone to bow down and worship Obama neutral so long as it applies to everyone regardless of religion.
Of course, you know that would violate the Establishment Clause.

A law can be neutral and Constitutional: "No one can do peyote." States can make this law and not offend the Free Exercise clause. Feds, not clear since RFRA was passed.

A law can be non-neutral and Constitutional: "No one can do peyote, except for Native Americans in pursuit of their religious beliefs." Controlled Substances Act reads this way.

A law can be non-neutral and Unconstitutional: "EVERYONE can do peyote, except for Native Americans in pursuit of their religious beliefs." This kind of law does not exist, anywhere.

A law can be facially neutral, but non-neutral in practice, and Unconstitutional: "No one can commit animal sacrifice." This was the decision in the Hialeah case.

There has never been a truly neutral law declared Unconstitutional due to the Free Exercise clause alone. "The only decisions in which this Court has held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action are distinguished on the ground that they involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but that Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections" - quote from the Smith decision.
Post Reply