Hearing set for same-sex wedding cake dispute in Oregon

[CampingJosh]

Similarly, wouldn't banning a wedding from taking place based on one persons religion be a violation of the first amendment?

Probably, though it happened (and still does) for the Mormons re: polygamy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Perhaps it's worth remembering that a wedding is primarily a religious service (the legal side is way more for divorce than for actually being married).

Forcing a person to participate in a wedding that isn't sanctioned by that person's religion (or worse, actually against the person's religion) is a violation of the First Amendment.

My first wedding was in a judge's chambers and done by the judge.

 

[TiMMaY]

According to the article, the bakers refused to bake the "wedding cake" for the lesbian couple in 2013. Also cited in the article is that same-sex marriage was not legal in the state of Oregon until 2014. Therefore, my question is how could the bakers discriminate against a lesbian couple for not making a "wedding cake" when gay marriage was not even legal in the state at that time?

 

[CampingJosh]

My first wedding was in a judge's chambers and done by the judge.

And lots of them are. But that governments have adopted oversight does not in any way reduce the religious aspect for religious people. And nobody in the US can be forced to participate in a religious service, which weddings have been for millenia.

 

[hornadylnl]

And lots of them are. But that governments have adopted oversight does not in any way reduce the religious aspect for religious people. And nobody in the US can be forced to participate in a religious service, which weddings have been for millenia.

Then how can we prevent religious service?

 

[CampingJosh]

Then how can we prevent religious service?

A wedding is always going to be religious for religious people. Sort of like how prayer is always religious and can't be forced on to atheists even though atheists believe that we're praying to nothing. That's why weddings are different from other business interactions.

If a baker doesn't want to participate in a religious service, that is her prerogative. If the baker simply doesn't want to sell to a particular person (because the person is gay, has a particular skin tone, is a particular gender, has a disability, etc.) then we have a case of discrimination. But it can't be illegal discrimination to refuse to participate--even tangentially--with a religious service that is against the person's religion.

Perhaps it would help to explain how it works in my own personal life. There is a gay person in my extended family. I enjoy celebrating holidays with him. We get along well, and we have very similar senses of humor. If he were to throw a party, I would likely go. But I won't attend his wedding (if one ever happens) for the same reason that I won't go worship in a mosque: my religious convictions preclude that. My participation wouldn't change anything for anyone but me, but I still couldn't do it. And it would be wrong to force anyone to participate for the same reason that Christian prayer in school has ended.

 

[hornadylnl]

A wedding is always going to be religious for religious people. Sort of like how prayer is always religious and can't be forced on to atheists even though atheists believe that we're praying to nothing. That's why weddings are different from other business interactions.

If a baker doesn't want to participate in a religious service, that is her prerogative. If the baker simply doesn't want to sell to a particular person (because the person is gay, has a particular skin tone, is a particular gender, has a disability, etc.) then we have a case of discrimination. But it can't be illegal discrimination to refuse to participate--even tangentially--with a religious service that is against the person's religion.

Perhaps it would help to explain how it works in my own personal life. There is a gay person in my extended family. I enjoy celebrating holidays with him. We get along well, and we have very similar senses of humor. If he were to throw a party, I would likely go. But I won't attend his wedding (if one ever happens) for the same reason that I won't go worship in a mosque: my religious convictions preclude that. My participation wouldn't change anything for anyone but me, but I still couldn't do it. And it would be wrong to force anyone to participate for the same reason that Christian prayer in school has ended.

How can the cake baker refuse to bake a cake on the grounds that marriage is a religious institution and forcing him to bake a cake is a violation of 1A and then seek to deny certain groups the right to marry? Isn't that a violation of their 1A?

 

[CampingJosh]

How can the cake baker refuse to bake a cake on the grounds that marriage is a religious institution and forcing him to bake a cake is a violation of 1A and then seek to deny certain groups the right to marry? Isn't that a violation of their 1A?

You are correct. That's why I believe that same-sex marriages should be legal even though I believe them to be wrong.
There is a whole lot of wrong--from nearly any religious perspective--that is legal, and this seems like a random place to draw a line in the sand.

Real religion can't be forced on anybody, so I never have understood the idea of legally mandated religious standards.

 

[hornadylnl]

You are correct. That's why I believe that same-sex marriages should be legal even though I believe them to be wrong.
There is a whole lot of wrong--from nearly any religious perspective--that is legal, and this seems like a random place to draw a line in the sand.

Real religion can't be forced on anybody, so I never have understood the idea of legally mandated religious standards.

We're in agreement then.

My opinion of the state of marriage for the last several hundred years is the equivalent of this.

A group of people own a bunch of land. They hunt, fish, shoot, camp, etc. they are the owners, they control who gets to use it. Then one day they decide that their own rule book doesn't have enough teeth in it so they turn over the management of it to government. The government gets to assume the cost of management. Some years later, the government changes the rules on who gets to use the land and the descendants of the owners cry foul.

I don't get to apply for conservation status for my land to reap all the tax benefits and then complain about all the negatives of doing so.

 

[CampingJosh]

We're in agreement then.

Yep. And I like your analogy.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

And lots of them are. But that governments have adopted oversight does not in any way reduce the religious aspect for religious people. And nobody in the US can be forced to participate in a religious service, which weddings have been for millenia.

So how does that matter for this context?

Since my wedding was 100% not a religious service, how does religion matter? My civil ceremony is somehow religious because other people are religious?
How is baking a cake participating in the religious service? I'm not inviting the baker to attend, I'm ordering a cake. If I serve shrimp cocktails, did the fisherman just participate in my religious service?

 

[jamil]

We're in agreement then.

My opinion of the state of marriage for the last several hundred years is the equivalent of this.

A group of people own a bunch of land. They hunt, fish, shoot, camp, etc. they are the owners, they control who gets to use it. Then one day they decide that their own rule book doesn't have enough teeth in it so they turn over the management of it to government. The government gets to assume the cost of management. Some years later, the government changes the rules on who gets to use the land and the descendants of the owners cry foul.

I don't get to apply for conservation status for my land to reap all the tax benefits and then complain about all the negatives of doing so.

Sure you can complain. If that government is of the people, you get to have your little sliver of say in the matter. But everyone else does too. And maybe your preference for who gets to use the land was once in the majority, but is now in the minority. You can complain all you want. You get every bit of your vote's worth of complaint.

 

[hornadylnl]

Sure you can complain. If that government is of the people, you get to have your little sliver of say in the matter. But everyone else does too. And maybe your preference for who gets to use the land was once in the majority, but is now in the minority. You can complain all you want. You get every bit of your vote's worth of complaint.

Can the state deny gun owners access to state lands while allowing access to non gun owners?

 

[jamil]

Ah, not the point I was trying to make with the lunch counter comment. I have no idea if segregation would still be the norm or if attitudes would have eventually shifted anyway. I'm not sure how you *could* know. I suppose those with the background to do so could argue about the speed at which attitudes changed, etc, but I'd be well out of my depth to attempt to do so.

My lunch counter comment was based solely on what I responded to:

"The only reason this is even a story is because a political group wants to make a big deal of it."

Same thing for segregation protests at lunch counters. It wasn't a story until it was, and that was when it got the momentum of a political movement behind it. I don't find that to be a reason to be so dismissive of the issue.

Fair enough.

Isn't that a health concern issue, not a "class" issue?

It's just an off the wall example that stretches "class". Fine. Too fat? No service. Too skinny, no service. Too bald, no service. Too much hair, no service. To ugly, no service. Too pretty, no service. Point is, you may discriminate against unprotected classes all you want. But you may not discriminate against the protected classes, race, color, religion or national origin, unless you're in a state that has extended protected classes to whatever.

These are behaviors (and, in the case of the former, health/sanitation issues), not classes of people.



Note: this same principle should apply to those who choose to exercise their natural and constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

See above. Also, I don't want to give the SCOTUS the chance to say that the CRA applies to name-your-class, even if they dangled the carrot of firearms.

OK, so being a greedy bastard, what would you do in this case:

You have a very small demographic of customers who are very nice folks and good customers, they're just "different" than the rest of your customers.

Your main demographic of customers, the ones who really support your business, don't like to see you serving that other small group. In fact, many of them would openly say that if they see you serving that other group, they will take their business elsewhere.

Still gonna serve who you want, how you want? Or would your definition of who and how "evolve".

That's a really good question. I don't own a business so I think it depends on the circumstances. It would be my most likely inclination to go with the needs of the business. But I don't like to be bullied or see others bullied, so if the other customers are being stupid, or *******s I'd probably tell them to **** off.

 

[CampingJosh]

So how does that matter for this context?

Since my wedding was 100% not a religious service, how does religion matter? My civil ceremony is somehow religious because other people are religious?
How is baking a cake participating in the religious service? I'm not inviting the baker to attend, I'm ordering a cake. If I serve shrimp cocktails, did the fisherman just participate in my religious service?

It can't be a 100% civil marriage any more than one could have 100% civil prayer. The government adopted a religious thing for a civil purpose. That's fine, but we can't pretend it's something different than what it has been for millenia.

Surely you can see a difference between being commissioned for a custom order for a specific purpose and having someone buy shrimp that is sitting in a freezer somewhere.
The facts of at least one of the wedding cake lawsuits make it clear. The baker served the same people cakes previously. The issue was not the people; the issue was participation in a religious service (again, even tangentially).

 

[jamil]

It can't be a 100% civil marriage any more than one could have 100% civil prayer. The government adopted a religious thing for a civil purpose. That's fine, but we can't pretend it's something different than what it has been for millenia.

Surely you can see a difference between being commissioned for a custom order for a specific purpose and having someone buy shrimp that is sitting in a freezer somewhere.
The facts of at least one of the wedding cake lawsuits make it clear. The baker served the same people cakes previously. The issue was not the people; the issue was participation in a religious service (again, even tangentially).

In your worldview I'm sure that's true. It's what you believe. That's okay. Everyone gets to believe. But belief does not make fact. It's belief. The history of marriage is filled with examples of marriage defined as other than religious, and for purposes other than religion. The traditional American view of marriage is a fairly new definition of marriage if you're comparing it to the history of the world.

Compared to the history of American marriage, SSM is a completely new definition. It's a part of a movement to bring normalcy to alternative lifestyles. Naturally some are fer it. And some are aggin' it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It can't be a 100% civil marriage any more than one could have 100% civil prayer. The government adopted a religious thing for a civil purpose.

So two non-religous people go to a judge and he asks the whole "do you take this person to be your spouse..." thing, no mention of any diety or religious duties...and because other marriages have been religious this becomes a religious ceremony? Marriage today comes with a host of civil benefits, from taxes and inheritance laws to not being able to be compelled to testify against each other. I see no factual basis for declaring something a religious ceremony when there are no hallmarks of religion and its done for civil purposes in a civil ceremony. Funerals often are often religious in nature, but can you not have a non-religious funeral?

Surely you can see a difference between being commissioned for a custom order for a specific purpose and having someone buy shrimp that is sitting in a freezer somewhere.
The facts of at least one of the wedding cake lawsuits make it clear. The baker served the same people cakes previously. The issue was not the people; the issue was participation in a religious service (again, even tangentially).

I do see the difference, and made it clear on my own proposal of where the line should be drawn. We just differ on the "why" of it. I don't see the person as participating in a religious service in either instance. You aren't there. You aren't participating any more than the printer who made the invitations, the factory worker who made the chairs, etc. My argument is the act of creating something can be offensive on its own, hence if you find "item x" to be offensive regardless of who its being sold to or for what purpose, you can't be compelled to make "item x", but if you'd sell it to one person you must sell it to anyone who can pay for it.

 

[steveh_131]

According to the article, the bakers refused to bake the "wedding cake" for the lesbian couple in 2013. Also cited in the article is that same-sex marriage was not legal in the state of Oregon until 2014. Therefore, my question is how could the bakers discriminate against a lesbian couple for not making a "wedding cake" when gay marriage was not even legal in the state at that time?

And my question is how we're blaming this lawsuit on legalized gay marriage when gay marriage wasn't even legal at the time.

 

[chipbennett]

Similarly, wouldn't banning a wedding from taking place based on one persons religion be a violation of the first amendment?

A wedding is a religious ceremony, with a religious officiant. Presumably, all parties involved will be of sufficient unity on religious beliefs to allow the ceremony to take place.

Now, that said: there are (allegedly) Christian denominations that now perform homosexual marriages. I agree that they should be free to do so (even if I assert that their practices and stated beliefs are non-biblical).

How to reconcile the two? Simple: get the State out of marriage, completely. Let the State institute civil unions that are completely separate from religious weddings, and that the State recognizes as a legal partnership rather than marriages. The State can provide for civil unions for whomever the State wishes, and religious institutions can perform wedding ceremonies and recognize marriages of whomever they choose, according to their beliefs.

 

[CampingJosh]

So two non-religous people go to a judge and he asks the whole "do you take this person to be your spouse..." thing, no mention of any diety or religious duties...and because other marriages have been religious this becomes a religious ceremony?

It's not religious for them. But that doesn't mean that another person for whom marriage is a religious ceremony should be compelled to participate.

I do see the difference, and made it clear on my own proposal of where the line should be drawn. We just differ on the "why" of it. I don't see the person as participating in a religious service in either instance. You aren't there. You aren't participating any more than the printer who made the invitations, the factory worker who made the chairs, etc. My argument is the act of creating something can be offensive on its own, hence if you find "item x" to be offensive regardless of who its being sold to or for what purpose, you can't be compelled to make "item x", but if you'd sell it to one person you must sell it to anyone who can pay for it.

So you're saying that a craftsman who makes ornate crucifixes for churches because he is a devout Christian must also make crucifixes for a satanist group that intends to desecrate them?
You're saying that because I am going to perform my cousin's wedding in June that I cannot refuse to perform any other wedding no matter what?

You're saying that a person doesn't actually have freedom to worship throughout his own life if his worship in any way infringes on another person's wants. Am I misunderstanding?