There is a new ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that could be headed for a major showdown in the Supreme Court. The decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis could force a hitherto evasive Court to rule directly on the conflict between anti-discrimination laws and the religious clauses. I have previously written that I view these controversies as best addressed as free speech rather than free exercise cases. The Tenth Circuit decision reaffirms a growing conflict among the circuits and offers an especially strong case for the Court to consider such a major reframing of such conflicts.
The Court disappointed many when it found an off-ramp in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case involved Charlie Craig and David Mullins who went to the Colorado cake shop of Jack Phillips to order a cake celebrating their earlier marriage in Massachusetts. Phillips declined on religious grounds. He is willing to sell pre-made cakes to anyone but not decorate a cake for a same-sex marriage.
Phillips was found in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits businesses from discriminating, including based on sexual orientation. The law is fairly standard and provides: “It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.”
The Colorado Civil Rights Division referred the case to the state’s Civil Rights Commission, which ruled against Phillips. Phillips ultimately won in 2018 but the Supreme Court effectively punted the central issues. Rather than rule on the right to decline such jobs, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for a seven-justice majority that the Commission showed hostility to religion in the comments of Commissioners:
“[T]he Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of Phillips’ religious beliefs. …The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”
It was like Brown v. Board of Education being remanded over for a proper class certification hearing.
The Court could then have addressed the question in another case but elected to Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington in light of its decision. It then had yet another opportunity this term. Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington and Arlene’s Flowers v. Ingersoll was remanded. Stutzman the owner added a religious hostility claim after Masterpiece cakeshp but on June 6, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Stutzman. Then the Supreme court denied certiorari in July 2021.
Now Masterpiece Cakeshop is coming back. On June 15, 2021, a Colorado District Court ruled in Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop that Phillips again violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. This as an openly manufactured test case.
The new case is also out of the 10th Circuit and involves the same law. The Court explained:
“303 Creative is a for-profit, graphic and website design company; Ms. Smith is its founder and sole member-owner. Appellants are willing to work with all people regardless of sexual orientation. Appellants are also generally willing to create graphics or websites for lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (“LGBT”) customers. Ms. Smith sincerely believes, however, that same-sex marriage conflicts with God’s will. Appellants do not yet offer wedding-related services but intend to do so in the future. Consistent with Ms. Smith’s religious beliefs, Appellants intend to offer wedding websites that celebrate opposite-sex marriages but intend to refuse to create similar websites that celebrate same-sex marriages. Appellants’ objection is based on the message of the specific website; Appellants will not create a website celebrating same-sex marriage regardless of whether the customer is the same-sex couple themselves, a heterosexual friend of the couple, or even a disinterested wedding planner requesting a mock-up. As part of the expansion, Appellants also intend to publish a statement explaining Ms. Smith’s religious objections (the “Proposed Statement”):
‘These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage – the very story He is calling me to promote.’
Appellants have not yet offered wedding-related services, or published the Proposed Statement, because Appellants are unwilling to violate CADA.”
The Court notably found that the objection was based on the specific message sought through the site creation rather than the identity or sexual orientation of the customers. However it nevertheless held that she was in violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination statute because she intended “to offer wedding websites that celebrate opposite-sex marriages but intend to refuse to create similar websites that celebrate same-sex marriages.” Interestingly, the court found that her objection was based solely on the message/speech of the event, and not upon the sexual orientation of the customers:
Appellants’ objection is based on the message of the specific website; Appellants will not create a website celebrating same-sex marriage regardless of whether the customer is the same-sex couple themselves, a heterosexual friend of the couple, or even a disinterested wedding planner requesting a mock-up.
That creates a relatively “clean” avenue for the type of free speech approach that I and others have favored for years.
The Court relied on the law being neutral to uphold the conviction:
“We are satisfied that message-based refusals may be objectively defined and are not the type of subjective test that triggers the individualized exemption exception. We need not decide how CADA’s causation standard should apply to Appellants’ message-based refusal. See supra, III.B.1. We also reiterate that, on a more developed record, Appellants might show that Colorado enforces that standard in a way that discriminates against religion, violating the Free Exercise Clause. Yet, whatever issues may be presented in a future case, it is clear to us that CADA’s causation standard itself is qualitatively different from the broad, discretionary analyses presented in other individualized exemption cases.”
The ruling will also therefore give the justices a clean shot at Employment Division v. Smith (1990) in which the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that there was no violation of free exercise of religion because the Oregon law was neutral. Under that holding “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”
In prior cases, there was ample evidence of a majority that would overturn Smith. There are now 5 or 6 justices who have indicated that they reject the premise and test in Smith.
Thus, we now have Masterpiece heading back toward the Court and a major ruling in the Tenth Circuit that is ready for such an appeal. The chances of a post-Masterpiece showdown now seems extremely high in the highest court.
Here is the case: 303Creative opinion
Prof Turley I thought did a pretty good job about the history of surfing today & it’s mix with religion/Calvin/Protestant ties. I assume it’s true, sound about like what I already knew.
So anony, I was thinking maybe you could further educate us on what happened to the Traitors against the US that had just helped the Traitor Gen Benedict Arnold escape those who came to arrest him?
I think it might be timely info for those that continue locking us all down into this new system of Medical Tyranny that’s following somewhat the outlawed Nuremberg Model Medical Tyranny Type Govt.
“SM’s comment should have been deleted, as well.”
Anonymous the Stupid, your brain was deleted long before you got to the blog. It makes sense to delete the rest of you as well.
“So says the guy with no legal education at all.”
Anonymous the Stupid, one doesn’t need a legal education. One needs to be able to think, something that escapes you completely.
So much for the constitutional protection against involuntary servitude.
Both the baker and the web page writer may have avoided a world of hurt by just saying nothing to the “customer” either verbally, or in correspondence. I realize the baker had a younger member of the family at the register who had no idea, actually at that time who did? But a lot has happened since then and the web page writer could have just kept quiet. Of course that does not address your comment, but here we are and have to adapt to this constitutionally unmoored society.
Nice! I hadn’t thought of it, but that argument has to be among what is presented in the case. I don’t know that the judges will make your case for you unless you’re in the loop.
A country that has deleted GOD will not survive, but will decay in perversion.
Progressive corruption, dysfunction, and, inevitably, convergence.
That said, a religion (i.e. a behavioral protocol of self-moderation) in a universal frame of reference (morality), or a nominally “secular” religion under a democratic/dictatorial framework (e.g. its relativistic sibling ethics, its politically congruent cousin law). A republican form of government, a compromise under reconciliation.
As the Left pushes for equality of results (“equity”), what does it throw out? — equality under the law. The antithesis of that American principle of jurisprudence is the absurd notion that certain groups possess special “rights” and privileges — all to be enforced by the government’s police powers, and imposed on those who are regarded as having no rights.
Lady Justice is blindfolded and her scales are balanced for a good reason. Her sword enforces the same law equally. The Left has her with one eye ablaze, a scale tipped, and her sword pointed menacingly at those who the “law” now victimizes.
Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based discrimination), inequity, and exclusion under a democratic/dictatorial framework. One step forward, two steps backward.
The Court ruled that the website designer “was in violation of Colorado’s anti-discrimination statute . . .”
So the government can compel an individual to work for a person she does not want to work for?!
That doesn’t sound familiar to anyone? That doesn’t horrify people?
Sam, as surprising as it is people on the left are not horrified, though they should be. Apparently, they like being slow boiled.
Sam,
“ So the government can compel an individual to work for a person she does not want to work for?!”
No, the government is only compelling an individual who has a business or service open to the public to treat everyone seeking said service or business to be treated the same as anyone else who they serve.
A business always has the option of letting everyone know that they will not serve certain individuals. By doing that they make it clear to those who may want to seek the type of service of business to look elsewhere. The risk is their business may not fare well if it is well known what they choose in terms of who they will specifically not serve.
But to have the greatest possible access to customers they would not take such option. Because obviously s not good for business as a whole.
No, the market will reconcile on its own, but the government takes affirmative action to discriminate, sometimes individually, other times diversity (i.e. class). And there are singe/central/disparate platforms engaged in collusive and monopolistic practices that further distort the field and perception.
There is no grounds to deny service. However, as in the case of the baker, the issue is not service, but content, specifically speech, and quasi-legal incitement to force endorsement by an individual or business that does not have or engage in monopolistic presence and practices, and where there exist reasonable alternatives in the market.
Why did the people that chose to hire a web designer discriminate and not hire a gay or lesbian web designer who likely would have been more familiar and appropriate with their desires?
Retributive change and sociopolitical leverage. This legal progression is why, for example, its ill-conceived to accept medical assistance from someone who merely self-identifies as qualified. Take a knee, beg, good boy, girl, whatever.
The litigants don’t believe in freedom of thought, association, or speech. Let’s imagine a scenario where a black hotel owner is forced to house, announce on their sign, and serve a 3-day KKK clan conference. Their targeted persecution of Masterpiece and the florist are just proof that the Democrats and the Left are full of hatred and hypocrisy.
Why don’t you Trumpists read the linked-to Court opinions to familiarize yourselves with Supreme Court jurisprudence. Here is a short selection:
“Colorado has a compelling interest in protecting both the dignity interests of members of marginalized groups and their material interests in accessing the commercial marketplace. See, e.g., Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 624 (1984) (Minnesota public accommodation law’s goals of “eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services . . . plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order”). Colorado’s interest in preventing both dignitary and material harms to LGBT people is well documented. Colorado has a unique interest in remedying its own discrimination against LGBT people.”
“Res Ipsa Loquitur” is supposed to be a forum dedicated to discussions of Constitutional Law. Is it too much, therefore, to expect that you educate yourselves somewhat by following the links Turley generously provides? I’m sure the Professor does not appreciate his students who come unprepared to class. It’s disrespectful to him.
@ Jeff Silberman, +100
Svelaz, I am still waiting for a correction of what you said about CRT. You linked to a student paper and didn’t know it was a student. The paper disagreed with some of the things you said. You never read your link, and you didn’t understand it.
To correct your lack of education, I will provide another quote from Kendi, hoping you will eventually put the pieces together. I do love your “+100”. Such comments from someone wrong almost all the time are equivalent to being told he is wrong.
“The life of racism cannot be separated from the life of capitalism, … “In order to truly be antiracist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” ___ Kendi
Svelaz, have you disavowed capitalism? Are you now admitting to being of Marxist type persuasion?
SM
Why don’t you familiarize yourself with the proper function of government — which is to protect individual rights, including the right to associate, or not, with whomever one pleases.
This case is a perfect illustration of the Left’s selective (and growing) tyranny: Use the government’s police powers to *force* their values on others. Those who dissent will be bankrupted, jailed, eliminated.
They subscribe to the Pro-Choice religion, which is why they endorsed political congruence (“=”), appropriated marriage, and denied civil unions for couples, couplets, and diversity?, alike.
You are a perfect example of a layperson who needs a rudimentary legal education. It’s unfortunate that not every student is not given a year of basic legal education to learn the fundamentals of American jurisprudence.
What is really unfortunate is that as a lawyer you lack the one year of basic legal education you wish everyone else were provided.
Some transgendered individuals, yes. But, generally, a compellilng interest that was socially justified by a handmade tale, and disparate braying voices.
I am not familiar with that movie.
Many Americans are being intimidated by courts who actually DO NOT have the right nor purview to create any type of policy especially in terms of what a shop-keeper does or doesn’t do in his/her own business. Anyone seeing that some ‘court’ is involved in this that or the other thing immediately believe it’s within some jurists’ jurisdiction to dictate to Americans—and these ‘courts’ count on that ignorance as a method of intimidation and control.
jeffsilberman:
“Colorado has a compelling interest in protecting both the dignity interests of members of marginalized groups and their material interests in accessing the commercial marketplace. See, e.g., Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 624 (1984) (Minnesota public accommodation law’s goals of “eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal access to publicly available goods and services . . . plainly serves compelling state interests of the highest order”). Colorado’s interest in preventing both dignitary and material harms to LGBT people is well documented. Colorado has a unique interest in remedying its own discrimination against LGBT people.
“Res Ipsa Loquitur” is supposed to be a forum dedicated to discussions of Constitutional Law. Is it too much, therefore, to expect that you educate yourselves somewhat by following the links Turley generously provides? I’m sure the Professor does not appreciate his students who come unprepared to class. It’s disrespectful to him.”
********************************
Oh, I’m familiar with them. Dignity interests? Where’s that in the Constitution? Oh and define it please. It’s just judge-made poppycock and so far afield from what the country is all about. End discrimination by discriminating against someone else. Very Candide. It’s also judicial tyranny, nannyism and social engineering masquerading as law.
Oh and since you’re quoting Supreme Court cases as some sort of talisman of ultimate, unerring justice, it’s helpful to look back on some not-so-magical words uttered with the same sort of reverence you give your passage:
“In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument.
35
It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.
36
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.”
Guess which “Dredful” case this is from? People (mostly Democrats) thought that was verbal SCOTUS gold at one time, too.
Mespo,
“ Oh, I’m familiar with them. Dignity interests? Where’s that in the Constitution? Oh and define it please.”
The 14th amendment applies here. Jack Phillips has a business open to the public. That is commonly assumed that any can seek the product he offers because he’s open to the public. He’s not an exclusive business that only caters to a specific customer base. That would limit his market considerably of customers well aware of his particular preference of who he wants to sell cakes to. Clearly he can exercise being just that type of business, but obviously he wants to be open to everyone that in order to maximize his profit. He’s already made it clear he doesn’t object to making a cake for gay couples or anyone else. The exception is the message in the cake, be it just colors symbolizing an event or identifying an individual. His claims of deeply held religious beliefs are just a proxy for discriminating against someone’s lifestyle choice. It wasn’t too long ago that those same deeply held religious beliefs would have been used to deny an interracial couple seeking a wedding cake. It was the go to justification in that time.
Phillips argument is not strong, because the only reason he justifies denying his services is when he’s aware of its purpose. I posed this question earlier, how would it have affected his fragile beliefs if whoever ordered the cake never mentioned it’s purpose? Just making a cake with blue and pink frosting? In his latest case he was more than happy to, UNTIL he found out what it was for. He’s made the argument that he would be fine making a cake for a gay couple or a transgender individual as long as he didn’t have to decorate it in a manner that would emphasize the occasion.
It’s pretty darn stupid really. If he really had “deeply held religious beliefs on such issues” he wouldn’t be making anything at all. He shouldn’t be able to because he’s claiming these supposed “deeply held beliefs”. He’s trying to have it both ways. It’s HIS burden and he’s forcing others to shoulder the consequences of burdens of his beliefs he chose on others. He either doesn’t bake a cake at all or does and must honor the whole job.
“Phillips argument is not strong, because the only reason he justifies denying his services is when he’s aware of its purpose. I posed this question earlier, how would it have affected his fragile beliefs if whoever ordered the cake never mentioned it’s purpose? Just making a cake with blue and pink frosting?”
***************************
Dignity interests is another one of those “penumbra” lines used to justify all manner of meddling by courts. This case is purely about compelled art not equal protection of laws. Gays have every right to purchase anything they want and Phillips isn’t denying that. He’s merely refusing to be conscripted into that peculiar lifestyle which he genuinely (as all courts have agreed he does) rejects on religious grounds. That’s the issue: his right to say no versus their right to make him say yes. Oh and it’s oh so feigned being a “test case” and all. Change gender and circumstances and you’d be crying to the rooftops that it’s a violation of the person’s dominion over herself!
To answer your question: If he didn’t know the purpose, he’d have the option to make the cake or not since it couldn’t then be argued that he discriminated based on sexual perversion … er … orientation. It’s precisely that he does know the purpose that the case arises and I’m sure our gay continent made the purpose abundantly clear. I wonder why you have no problem with someone trapping another the way these gays so obviously did.
Mespo,
“Dignity interests is another one of those “penumbra” lines used to justify all manner of meddling by courts. This case is purely about compelled art not equal protection of laws. Gays have every right to purchase anything they want and Phillips isn’t denying that. He’s merely refusing to be conscripted into that peculiar lifestyle which he genuinely (as all courts have agreed he does) rejects on religious grounds.”
Dignity interest fall under the umbrella of the 14th amendment. The point here is Phillips is using religion as a pretext to engage in discrimination that otherwise he wouldn’t do if the cake was for something else. He’s arguing that his belief Trump’s state law. He’s claiming a special exception simply because of his “deeply held religious” belief that wouldn’t apply to anyone else except these specific individuals. His claims that he has no problem making a cake to these individuals contradicts his argument because it is dependent on knowing what they intend to use the cake for. What is ridiculous is the notion that simply decorating the cake is a form of support or acknowledgement about an individual’s life style choice. It isn’t. Phillips has no idea how many cakes he has made that may have ended up being part of something that he would have deemed a violation of his “deeply held religious beliefs”. He’s simply hiding his own bigotry behind the shield of religion just as it was once used to oppose interracial marriage. The sincerity of his beliefs are to be questioned because there are plenty of issues that anyone who would have “deep belief” would have to justify.
“I wonder why you have no problem with someone trapping another the way these gays so obviously did.”
He wasn’t trapped by the transgendered individual. He was trapped by his OWN beliefs. He is a victim of his own choice in an arena where secular rules are dominant. He made the choice to operate within secular law only to be confronted by the unfortunate “requirement” that his religion he freely chose imposed on him. He’s forcing others to help him conform to HIS belief by means of discrimination.
“He wasn’t trapped by the transgendered individual. He was trapped by his OWN beliefs.”
**************************
We call that freedom of consceince. That’s a fundamental concept of ordered liberty which the Left finds so repugnant. Thankfully they’re on a collision course with reality and free men. It won’t be pretty.
Both parties have the natural right of freedom of conscience. Svelez is under the mistaken understanding that a secular government means no freedom for those with a religious conscience.
Olly:
I should have explained the fate of leftists. But why not let an expert do it:
“[T]he useful idiots, the leftists who are idealistically believing in the beauty of the Soviet socialist or Communist or whatever system, when they get disillusioned, they become the worst enemies. That’s why my KGB instructors specifically made the point: never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher. […] They serve a purpose only at the stage of destabilization of a nation. For example, your leftists in the United States: all these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders. They are instrumental in the process of the subversion only to destabilize a nation. When their job is completed, they are not needed any more. They know too much. Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist-Leninists come to power—obviously they get offended—they think that they will come to power. That will never happen, of course. They will be lined up against the wall and shot.”
― Yuri Bezmenov (KGB informant and journalist who defected to the West)
That’s why my KGB instructors specifically made the point: never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher.
Aim higher…ignore lower. Done.
Olly,
“ Both parties have the natural right of freedom of conscience. Svelez is under the mistaken understanding that a secular government means no freedom for those with a religious conscience.”
Freedom of conscience is not the issue. Nobody is denying Phillips his freedom of conscience.
He chose his religion on his own. By doing so he put the burden of adherence to it on his conscience.
The rules his religion demand is NOT the law we all are required to observe. However we are a nation based on secular laws that everyone is expected to follow and that includes the expectation that everyone who CHOOSES to run a business open to the PUBLIC one sets themselves up for a conflict on religious rules that are not enforceable on others.
Secular government gives you all the freedom for religious conscience one could have. What you don’t understand is that government cannot enforce religious rules or beliefs OR support them by allowing those who cannot extricate themselves from the choice THEY made against secular law.
They are asking for special treatment, to be favored by government to support their “deeply held religious beliefs”. That would be a violation of the 1st amendment’s prohibition on government respecting establishment of religion. The very first sentence in the amendment.
Because Jack Phillips CHOSE to operate his business within secular law (being open to the public) the government has to enforce the law that he CHOSE to operate in. His religious beliefs cannot be used as an excuse to discriminate agains one group of individuals and not others.
The fact that there were similar excuses to discriminate using religious belief on race, and even marital status and the subsequent changes in the law that made it illegal shows us that this is just another form of the same claim that has always failed to gain traction. Gay marriage was opposed by religious conservatives, now many are ok with it.
Svelaz is unable to deal with conflicting laws. That requires recognizing the differences between fact and opinion.
“However we are a nation based on secular laws that everyone is expected to follow”
Laws of the States are subservient to the Constitution. The law you are talking about failed that test. You have to prove why that law can remove constitutional guarantees, or you have to show how that law doesn’t interfere with what the man believes (right or wrong) to be his religious duty.
When there is a conflict between Constitutional guarantees and State law, State law falls. That is what happened in this case.
“Because Jack Phillips CHOSE to operate his business within secular law ”
Explain how a secular law can preempt a Constitutional guarantee.
SM
Mespo,
What won’t be pretty? Tell us. Don’t be shy.
If you don’t want to design a custom cake or sell a cake to be used in a celebration of gayness because it conflicts with your deeply held beliefs, would you at least be prepared to place a sign on the front of your store which states:
“Christian baker. No requests for gay-themed custom cakes.”
Wouldn’t that resolve all these issues? You won’t be forced to violate your conscience, and the general public may boycott your store if your discrimination violates ours.
js:
Oh, never shy. I just did though via an expert, supra. My guess is you’ll see bloodletting amongst the US Leftist factions once they see some advantage. They’ll arrive at the battle with the free people divided, disjointed and disillusioned with themselves and fall prey to people who fight for something tangibly denied them – their freedom of choice. Oh there’s a reckoning coming and it won’t be pretty and who wins almost doesn’t matter to the heroically stupid Leftist idealogues who will most certainly face the fate of their ideological ancestors in Russia should they gain some temporary advantage.
Like Alexander the Great said of his enemies the Persians and their allies, the Medes:
““Our enemies are Medes and Persians, men who for centuries have lived soft and luxurious lives; we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and war. Above all, we are free men, and they are slaves. There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service — but how different is their cause from ours! They will be fighting for pay — and not much of at that; we, on the contrary, shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it. As for our foreign troops — Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Agrianes — they are the best and stoutest soldiers in Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of Asia. And what, finally, of the two men in supreme command? You have Alexander, they — Darius!”
Wanna put your money on the octagenarian triumvirate of Schumer, Biden and Pelosi?
Mespo,
I’m glad I don’t see the world through your eyes. You won’t have any trouble from me. I’m not armed. I’ll go quietly like my Jewish ancestors.
Perhaps, you will favor me by addressing my second question to you.
Like a jellyfish Jeff moves with the tide.
SM
Jeff,
“ If you don’t want to design a custom cake or sell a cake to be used in a celebration of gayness because it conflicts with your deeply held beliefs, would you at least be prepared to place a sign on the front of your store which states:
“Christian baker. No requests for gay-themed custom cakes.”
Many have made that point. If he had such deep beliefs on the subject of gays and transgender individuals he should have had no problem asserting it by making it known to everyone using a sign.
I suspect they are more worried about the consequences of posting such a sign, but then again that’s the burden he chose for himself.
Svelaz,
These passages are quoted from the Colorado District Court in Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop:
“Mrs. Phillips confirmed that the Bakery would have made a pink cake with blue frosting if Ms. Scardina had not then shared her protected status and the meaning of the colors to her. Only after Mrs. Phillips stated that the Bakery could make the requested item did Ms. Scardina then share that she had chosen those colors to reflect and celebrate her transition from a male to a female.
Defendants agree that a pink cake with blue frosting has no inherent meaning and does not express any message. Defendants will accept a customer’s representations about what the custom-made bakery item will reflect, and will sell that custom item as long as it comports with their religious beliefs. Defendants’ custom cakes might not communicate any particular message unless the purchaser discloses to them what the item is intended to convey. Defendants agree that if there was a pre-made pink and blue cake that Ms. Scardina wanted to purchase from the Bakery for a celebration of a birthday or a gender transition, they would not have objected to selling her that item even if she disclosed the meaning it had for her.
While Defendants generally are willing to serve anyone, Mr. Phillips claims his religious beliefs prevent him from creating custom cakes that express messages that would violate his religious convictions. Defendants established this policy even before they opened the Bakery in 1993. Pursuant to this policy, Defendants have declined to create many types of cakes because of their religious convictions. These include cakes promoting Halloween, the “Day of the Dead,” cakes with Harry Potter and Game of Thrones themes, cakes celebrating same-sex weddings, and cakes demeaning LGBT individuals.
Defendants sell premade cakes to anyone—even if they know it would be used for a celebration that could conflict with Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs. For example, Defendants would sell a premade cake to a customer who would use it at a gender-transition celebration or for any other reason. Unlike premade cakes, Mr. Phillips creates each custom cake one at a time from scratch; he seeks to express himself through each of his custom cakes.
Defendants assert that context often determines a custom cake’s message and is an important factor that informs whether Mr. Phillips will create a custom cake. For example, while Mr. Phillips will not create a rainbow-colored cake to reflect gay pride, he would create a similar-looking cake for a Sunday school class discussing Noah’s ark. Likewise, while Mr. Phillips would create a cross-shaped cake for a church to celebrate Easter, he would not create a similar-looking cake for a racist group to reflect white supremacy.
From the foregoing facts, the Court further finds as follows: (a) Ms. Scardina did not ask Defendants to have Mr. Phillips use his creative thought processes to create a cake with a particular message—Ms. Scardina had pre-determined the cake’s simple design of blue and pink; (b) Ms. Scardina also did not request that Mr. Phillips participate in her birthday or transition celebration, or even package her order in a Masterpiece container—she only asked him to supply a cake for that event; (c) Mr. Phillips may use his artistic skills for simple tasks such as selecting and applying colors, but that does not equate to creating a message in doing so—to the extent his testimony was intended to suggest otherwise, the Court did not find it persuasive or credible; (d) the design of the cake—if the colors pink and blue even rise to the level of being a “design”— was not the reason Defendants refused to make the cake; and (e) instead, it was Ms. Scardina’s intended use of the cake—to celebrate her transition—that caused the refusal.”
Therefore, the real question is whether the State government should be able to prohibit this baker from refusing to sell a “non-custom* cake to a gay person because the intended personal use of that cake offends the religious beliefs of the baker.
I say yes. The baker’s box containing the cake could include the disclaimer that “Masterpiece bakery does not necessarily endorse the intended use of this cake.”
Everyone happy now? The baker need not make a custom cake which makes him uncomfortable, but he cannot refuse to sell a pre-made cake to a gay person regardless of its intended use. Otherwise, we could no longer buy a cake to smash into a person’s face if the baker got wind of our plans!
As a lawyer, one would think you would quote from the Supreme Court. You didn’t, which sought of makes one wonder if you told the truth about being a lawyer in the first place.
I think a significant point in the SC decision (Kennedy) was the following:
“Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for “our wedding.”
That says a lot, and most pre-law students would recognize a lot from that one sentence.
“That is commonly assumed that any can seek the product he offers because he’s open to the public.”
Svelaz, In this case, all sorts of cakes were available. It was an artistic effort that was not for public consumption. However, that is not the deciding point of this case.
The religious stance of government must be neutral. The State’s obligation to that neutrality made the State’s decision wrong.
It did not act in a religiously neutral manner violating the Free Exercise Clause.
There are other issues to be addressed. IMO many things violated the rights of the baker.
Your so-called expertise is in reading minds, so you wish to determine whether or not baking the cake pertained to the baker’s religious belief.
We already know that your ability to read facts, documents, links, etc., is severely compromised, making your interpretation of such things valueless. Your mind-reading skills are even worse, so your opinion in this matter, like the matter of CRT, is worthless.
[Please note I no longer always read past your first couple of lines. Too much of your BS need not be tolerated by intelligent people.]
SM
S. Meyer,
“The religious stance of government must be neutral.”
Correct. That is why Phillips cannot claim a religious exemption to not obey the secular rules he chose to set up his business by. By granting his ability to not serve those he feels that go against his “deeply held religious beliefs government is NOT being neutral. Government would be making an exception for Phillips at the expense of his customers own beliefs. Phillips is running a business using secular law. Not religious law. His freedom of religion doesn’t give him the choice to ignore laws he doesn’t feel he should ignore just because he is religious.
You may want to give that 1st amendment thingy another read. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
Our “secular” Government is prohibited from establishing any religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
By granting his ability to not serve those he feels that go against his “deeply held religious beliefs government is NOT being neutral.
The government doesn’t grant individuals their rights, they secure their rights. Securing rights is being neutral.
His freedom of religion doesn’t give him the choice to ignore laws he doesn’t feel he should ignore just because he is religious.
It does if the law is unconstitutional (violates his 1st amendment rights).
Now, back to idiot that could only find one baker in all of Colorado to bake the cake.
Olly,
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The government cannot favor one religion over another if it is to remain neutral. The free exercise of religion HAS limits. No right in the constitution is absolute.
If your religion requires human sacrifice would you expect the government to honor that belief, even if it’s deeply held?
What about slavery? If one’s religion allows for the keeping of slaves the government would be forced to allow it because it would be infringement of their free exercise to practice their religion. Yes? No?
What if the Catholic Church had child molestation as part of its deeply held religious beliefs? Should the government allow it?
The use of religion as excuses for racism, bigotry, slavery, the murder of blasphemers, etc. has a long and troubling history in this country.
“ It does if the law is unconstitutional (violates his 1st amendment rights).”
Anti-discrimination laws are not unconstitutional. States that have anti-discrimination laws have a good record of its constitutionality.
The case of Phillips still depends on his choice of running his business open to the public and therefore under secular state and federal law. His first amendment rights are not an excuse to pick and choose which laws he chooses to obey. Freedom of religion, just like any other right, has its limits.
Your argument fails because the only examples you cited are crimes. No right allows commission of a crime.
Otherwise, contrary to your assertion, there are NO limits to the Constitutional Right.
The Colorado statute is civil in nature, not criminal.
The Colorado statute is civil in nature, not criminal.
Thank you Bill.
Olly,
“ The government doesn’t grant individuals their rights, they secure their rights. Securing rights is being neutral.”
Securing ones rights against someone else’s is not neutrality.
“Correct. That is why Phillips cannot claim a religious exemption to not obey the secular rules he chose to set up his business by.”
Svelaz, you are dictatorial . You want to tell others what to do and what to believe. American civil liberties mean little to you or dictators as a whole. That is why you utilize backward thinking. You draw the conclusion you want and then create the rules as you go along. That is why your own words constantly conflict with one another. That is why to any non-biased intelligent individual, you lose virtually every argument you engage in.
You waste people’s time because of this and the fact that you mostly do not know what you are talking about.
My argument is Constitutional, “The religious stance of government must be neutral.”. The law in Colorado did not act neutrally and denied the baker his constitutional rights. If you wish to engage with me on that question, I will, but I will not discuss your BS spending a lot of time correcting all your erroneous facts and ideas.
The baker did not involve others in his religious beliefs. Others tried to involve him in their beliefs. The State cannot create laws that disregard the Constitution. Learn to keep your hands to yourself.
SM
If a state legalized incestuous marriages could a baker be compelled to create a cake for such a marriage?
I think the answer is obvious! We are no longer a nation of individuals, in pursuit of our INDIVIDUAL happiness and individual freedom! This nation has been flipped inside out, by attorneys, corrupt judges and politicians. They find it sport, to take ANYTHING you dare declare YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and SQUASH IT! Somewhere along the way they convinced too many people that we are a village, and ALL our thoughts, ideas and activities MUST BE VETTED, fact checked and regulated, by perverts, reprobates and our domestic enemies. Amazingly MOST Americans are indifferent to the reality and deserve what they get, when they wake up and find THEY are victims themselves, with NO RECOURSE or means to appeal! Then there are those of us that SEE, yet lack the means and voice to cut through the vile noise! God bless America? Yeah – right!
Barnum,
“ If a state legalized incestuous marriages could a baker be compelled to create a cake for such a marriage?”
Sure they could. The Bible is full of incestuous marriages. In fact the very first couple Adam and Eve’s children had to have incestuous marriages for a while.
I don’t think any Christian baker could refuse to make a cake if they wanted to.
I guess I lack a highly trained legal mind but it seems to me this should be simple–it is compelled speech and should be unconstitutional.
Why don’t the gay folks who want a cake made go to a bakery owned by a black religious person in the black community. They had to find a white religious man to attack. They know that the black community is less in acceptance of the gay lifestyle than the white community. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1768224/. They chose their target with exact criteria in mind. These are attacks based on a persons religion and his race. A classic case of racism and religious discrimination. The bill of rights be damned.
The trans/homosexual orientation is purely elective (a la abortion, but without denying a woman and man’s dignity and agency, and reducing human life to a property) with no redeeming value to humanity or society. But, transgender is trendy and politically congruent (“=”). So, from handmade tales, to cultural appropriation, couplets were normalized and retributive change is part and parcel of social progress (think pre and post-apartheid South Africa). One step forward, two steps backward. That said, unions for all couples, couplets, multiplicity (inclusion), too.
The comments here are going to great lengths to iterate and reason out the arguments against leftist destructive policy that we already know to be absurd on its very face.
At some point you don’t want to be playing that game, constantly going back to square one and striving to defend how “one and one makes two.” It doesn’t bear explaining. What we have going on is a deliberate destruction of logic, morals and reason. Gaslighting at its most abhorrent.
Going back some years, many libertarians and so-called conservatives were shrugging and saying they had no problem with gay “marriage.” Compromising their own moral integrity.
Now that the unguarded door has been flung wide and the toxicity and disease are running rampant throughout Western society, people are tripping over themselves explaining why the patently absurd is absurd.
People have been gaslighted without letup.
No, not marriage, but civil unions for couples and couplets, alike, and, I suppose, to be perfectly consistent and inclusive, others quantities and qualities, too, under an American flag, not the Rainbow banner of inclusive exclusion (“=”).
Good post Zeke. You’ll like this article from Michael Anton:
A quick and dirty guide to regime propaganda
Gaslighting getting you down? Feel like the regime has dialed the Megaphone up to, and past, eleven? You’re not crazy. It’s definitely happening and likely to get worse as our masters’ ability to cope with reality further worsens—or worse, they gain the complete and absolute control they seek. They’re both scornful and terrified of dissent, which explains why they incessantly shriek at us and lie to our faces.
So, to help you navigate the twitstorm, I present a guide to seven of the regime’s most common, oft-deployed lies. This is not meant to be comprehensive. I’m sure there are tactics they use that either I haven’t crystalized or that aren’t front-of-mind at the moment. I encourage others to expand the catalogue with their own observations. The better we can understand how they try to manipulate us, the better we can resist and counter it all.
Let’s start with the Unholy Trinity of ruling class horse manure. These first three are similar, but subtle differences determine the ways they’re used in differing circumstances.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/
I just can’t understand why those wanting a graphics designer to help them celebrate their same sex marriage don’t just go find a Muslim designer to do the job. Maybe on this occasion they had a particular kind of target in their sights.
A lifestyle that someone chooses is on the same plain as religion. It is no different when it comes to freedom or the pursuit of happiness. Religion is a lifestyle choice and so is homosexuality. For instance, there is a case where there are identical twins. They are both genetically the same. Yet, one is straight and the other is gay. There is no medical evidence that proves otherwise if someone is born a male or female. Even tostesterone in a female or estrogen in a male does not dictate that persons sexual orientation. For instance, you can have a male with tons of estrogen but he is still straight. The only thing medically proven is cases where someone is born with both male and female components and it is really up to that person how they want to be sexually. So, being that someone’s life choice is to be gay, it is no different than someone’s life choice to be a Baptist or Catholic. So, why don’t we see corporations promoting Baptist Pride and hanging Baptist flags outside their doors? If you spoke bad about a Baptist, should you lose your job by committing a hate crime? What makes it any different? If corporations are not allowed to promote a religion, how can they unequally be allowed to promote homosexuality or be forced to promote it. A lifestyle is a choice, not a handicap or disability of some type, yet it is being forced on everyone in that light. Even if it was medically proven to be a genetic defect, it has to be balanced in the eyes of the court (one’s way of life versus anothers religious freedom).
It seems it might be constitutional if the business converted to a “sole proprietorship” instead of a “corporation”. Corporate personhood means there are 2 persons: The “human-person” (owner/shareholders) and the “corporate-person”.
If a corporation gets sued or goes bankrupt, the “human-person” (owner/shareholder) is protected, since there are 2 persons. Weakening the corporate-veil can weaken that protection for owners and shareholders.
Ashcroft Z wants sole proprietors to be under involuntary servitude and be held personally liable if they refuse? WTH? Why don’t you move to a commie country if you hate freedom so much?
No liberal has EVER has ever been able to answer this question I’ve posed for years now.
If a heterosexual person walks into a bakery and wants to order a gay themed cake for his or her friends surprise party, and the owner declines (on whatever personal ground he/she so chooses), whose rights were violated? Not the heterosexual, he or she is not gay (nor does the owner have any clue what their sexual preference is anyway). The gay friends rights obviously weren’t violated, he or she is not a party to the attempted transaction, they aren’t the customer. So how is it that IF the customer happens to be gay and not straight, they get special treatment, special rights above and beyond heterosexuals and can sue for having their rights violated?
Well for one thing everybody in the LBGTQ community and everybody that condones it and or supports it are nothing but pedophiles they want to impregnate the minds of innocent children that is a normal way of life some people are born that way and it’s acceptable the blood of The Souls of the innocent will be the stains upon their hands when they stand before the Lord God Almighty
John,
It was difficult to comprehend your Trumpist beliefs without the use of periods at the end of your sentences. Unless there is some religious reason you can’t use them, please try in the future.
Really, your complaint is periods? Here we have a very contentious issue and you decided to go for his period use? haha hilarious.
Phil,
I regret that my sarcasm was lost on you. Most who read my reply would have realized that the lack of periods was the least of my concerns about John’s Medieval religious protestations.
IF the customer happens to be gay and not straight, they get special treatment, special rights above and beyond heterosexuals and can sue for having their rights violated?
Homosexuals have been awarded protected class status. Like blacks and women. A class so small they can never reach a number to attain political power. (the women thing is confusing because shut up)