This week, I appeared on the CNN special addressing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana. While I have been a long-standing supporter of same-sex marriage, I raised concerns over the dismissive treatment of religious concerns over the scope of anti-discrimination laws and how they may curtail free exercise of religion. I have previously written both columns and academic work on this collision between the two areas of law. In the program, I raised an example of the growing conflicts that we discussed earlier on this blog of a bakery that refused to make a cake deemed insulting to homosexuals while other bakers are objecting to symbols that they view as insulting to their religious views. This issue also came up with an advocate for LGBT rights on the show:
On the show, Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, appeared and gave an excellent case for those opposing this law. The HRC does very good legal work and has a distinguished history advocating LBGT rights. I however was most interested in one exchange with host Christ Cuomo:
Cuomo: Now, Sarah, you’re going to hear people flip this analogy on you and say, “Well, wait a minute, if this were a Jewish baker and some KKK couple came in and said, “We want you to make a cake.” If he said no, well than how would you feel about the situation?
Warbelow: Well, most of these business owners really are providing cakes across the board, but there are a select few who are choosing to discriminate. And there’s a huge difference between having to write something objectionable on a cake and being asked to provide a cake for a same sex couple.
The exchange was interesting between Warbelow seems to suggest that bakers should be able to refuse “something objectionable on a cake” but insists that bakers cannot refuse to make cakes that they find objectionable for same-sex couples. For some religious bakers, a cake with a same-sex image or language is objectionable.
My point is only that we are brushing aside a difficult and unresolved question of where to draw this line. We are all so eager to show (as I did above) that we support homosexual rights and/or same sex marriage, that there is little frank discussion of the obvious conflict with free exercise and free speech. There is also a limited discussion of the difference between certain forms of expressive arts like photography or baking as opposed to less expressions forms like diners or transportation businesses. For example, there does seem a meaningful distinction between serving a gay couple at a diner and a photographer who is asked to participate in a same-sex marriage and celebration in recording the event and arranging photo settings. That does not mean that we would not reach the same conclusion, but we are not having this debate.
I have struggled with this collision between anti-discrimination laws and free speech/free exercise for many years. I still remain uncertain on whether to draw this line between the two cakes that I described. We should have an answer for those citizens who are raising these concerns rather than dismiss them all as bigots. If the HRC is saying that bakers can refuse to make objectionable cakes, we should have a better understanding of when such objections are deemed legitimate and protected. Free speech and free exercise are rights that require bright line rules to avoid the chilling effect of possible criminal or civil liability. We need to be able to explain why the refusal to make one of these cakes is an unlawful form of bigotry and why the other is a permissible form of free speech.
What do you think?
DBQ – it does sound like fun. I adore looking at the lovely cakes in the good bakeries. I was surprised to discover that fondant dries out cakes, so I prefer buttercream, with perhaps a fondant decoration here and there. I like to look at my cake and eat it too! I wonder if you can get that same detail with shortening or gelatin, and would it have the same stiff structure as fondant?
@ Squeeky
I was the captain of my debate team (long long ago) and found the process very challenging and fun. You are correct. There is not a debate in these threads. Merely ducking, dodging, name calling and a complete refusal to even address the opposing viewpoints.
Very disappointing.
“Just be kind enough to you gay friends to let them know they don’t deserve civil rights… I’m sure you’ll be their bridesmaid tomorrow. NOT! In fact, they may simply forget who you are. Be honest with them. Be genuine. If they stick around it is probably because their self esteem was low to begin with…”
Oh, so I’m not a good enough person for a gay man to be friends with? Only someone with low self esteem would be friends with me? I’ve supported you many times on this blog, and will continue to do so when I think it’s right. But I disagree with you here. If you think I’m a rotten person for trying to have the same debate as Professor Turley, then get in line.
I’ve supported gay rights for many years. If I’m your enemy, then the gay rights movement is doomed. What tiny fraction of the population believes exactly the same as Elton John? He’s not even friends with Dolce and Gabbana anymore, apparently.
Karen. One of the ways. Others use a gelatin to firm up the butter cream/crisco/sugar or cornsyrup/vanilla mix. No one ever claimed this stuff was actually good for you 🙂
Cake decorating is really quite fun.
@KarenS
I used to judge college debating sometimes, sooo I am used to ignoring my personal beliefs and focusing on the actual arguments. Applying that to this thread, the anti-RFRA would lose in a big way. Reasonable questions are put to them and they duck and dodge, launch various canards, call names, and just repeat their opinions, ad nauseum. I presume anybody coming to this website without a pre-existing opinion would find that interesting.
I am not sure the subject persons are capable of making coherent arguments.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
DBQ – is that how you make fondant? I thought that was just buttercream, but I guess that wouldn’t show a detailed design, would it? I would love to take a cake decorating class.
@PaulCS
Straight men put their weenies in women. (Except when they don’t and put them in men.)
Gay men put their weenies in men. (Except when they don’t and put them in women.)
That is why gay men need special legal protections! (Supposedly)
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Pastured organic sweet cream butter yields a far superior baked product than Crisco
True….but to make those lovely icing roses and swags, there is (or was) nothing quite like Crisco.
DBQ – now I have that scene in The Help stuck in my head about the myriad wonders of cooking with Crisco.
Bakers prefer Crisco… No?
YES! And it too has been ruined and adulterated by the all intrusive food Nazis on the left.
🙂
Pastured organic sweet cream butter yields a far superior baked product than Crisco, and no doe eyed orangutan babies are harmed in the process. Who wants a wedding cake that used products that orphaned a baby orangutan? That would really ruin the moment.
So . . . I assume you just aren’t going to address my questions.
That is why I agree with Professor Turley that this is a really difficult, emotional issue to debate. Surprisingly, most of us can think of examples that we would not want to participate in, either. But if we can’t get people to talk about different examples, as I failed to get you to do, then no one debates, but rather imposes.
Karen S
What about the three toe Furangi named Quark…
Just be kind enough to you gay friends to let them know they don’t deserve civil rights… I’m sure you’ll be their bridesmaid tomorrow. NOT! In fact, they may simply forget who you are. Be honest with them. Be genuine. If they stick around it is probably because their self esteem was low to begin with…
Palm oil products should be RSPO certified and grown in its native South America rather than Indonesia.
All slopes should be greased with organic, pasture raised butter. Vegans may grease their slope with non GMO pesticide free non hydrogenated vegetable oil.
on 1, April 1, 2015 at 7:38 pmPaul C. Schulte
Squeeky – heterosexual describes how people have sex.
*****************************
Heterosexual
adjective
1.
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.
synonyms: straight; More
involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the opposite sex.
“heterosexual relationships”
synonyms: straight; More
*********************************
Actually Paul, no it doesn’t. The definition of heterosexual does not get into how they have sex. Heterosexual couples engage in all manner of sexual acts. You been living in a cave?
Inga – heterosexual describes the manner in which I have sex. How you have sex is up to you and the rubber sheet on your bed.
Karen S
Bakers prefer Crisco… No?
Indiana will lose Disciples of Christ convention over religious freedom law
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/03/31/indiana-will-lose-the-disciples-of-christ-convention-over-religious-freedom-bill/
Max – Crisco contains conventional palm oil which is produced in a manner that decimates the orangutan population. You must hate orangutans, no?
“First you should explain why the US Supreme Court got their Civil Rights cases so wrong… No?”
I’ve asked you multiple times to answer a basic question. Are you not willing to do so? If I oppose polygamy, do I by definition think Jim Crow laws should reappear? What about genetically engineering children from 3 parents so that gay men can create a child blended from their genes? Does that make me a bigot or think that Civil Rights should be repealed?
That reasoning makes no sense.
Now please answer my question. My question illustrates the difficulty of this debate, which Professor Turley touched on in his article above.
Karen S
Slippery slopes always are greased with Krisco… Have you forgotten who you’re talking to?
@Ken Rogers
I don’t agree with your position, but I did watch this documentary today which expresses your argument very well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6TPRept178
You may enjoy it.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter