You might think I chose it because CAKE! has been the subject of the week and the tendency of people to pay attention to CAKE!!! has been amply demonstrated. But I didn't. And I'm actually pretty sick of the cake-o-mania of the past week. I've got some really mixed feelings about this cake-focused exposure of the RFRA laws — laws I've studied and taught for many years. I feel as though I should explain things about which I have an overload of understanding, but I also feel hopeless about conveying that understanding. The political demagoguery will overwhelm the legal material. I'm absolutely convinced. I could do my professorly part, but why should I pour hopeless effort into the rehabilitation of RFRA laws, which I've never liked? When it's not hopeless, it's my practice to explain arguments for things I don't agree with. But it is hopeless here. The political noise is too loud.
Okay? Now, please acquire your cake somehow. Have cake and eat it and share it and stop being so obtuse about love.
AND: I wanted to replace that cake pic with a photograph of a cake that had "God is love" written on it. That would be a loftier ending for this post, but instead I'm going to return to the joke-y spirit I began with. Here's what Google gave me when I asked for a picture of a cake with "God is love" written on it:
What would Mitt Romney do?
Posts
89 comments:
So you don't agree with RFA laws? Or am I misreading you?
If Joan felt that restaurant food was better than home cooking that doesn't really make a good argument against the idea that purchased sex is better than home-cooked sex.
@rcocean You are reading me correctly. I don't think that legislatures should provide a general right to religion-based exemptions to laws governing conduct that apply to everyone else, exemptions that courts have to get dragged into litigation about.
I think there are free-speech rights that should protect expressive services that might include some photography and cake-decorating, and I think legislatures can tailor particular exemptions to relieve people of religious burdens (if they are careful to avoid favoring one religion or another).
But, as I said in in this post from last week, I agree with what Justice Scalia wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in Employment Division v. Smith:
"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940): 'Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.'"
rcocean - My opinion is influenced by some of the things Alhouse has written here, but it probably doesn't completely agree with hers. I like Scalia's peyote decision (we all play by the same rules) that the RFAs are a reaction to. The RFAs allow people with religious objections to opt out of laws for which there in no "compelling government interest" (exact language differs from state to state.) I think any law for which there is no "compelling government interest" is a bad law, and we all should be able to opt out. So I'm not a big fan of RFAs, but I'm not a big "if I can't have cake, then no one can have cake" kind of guy. So, I tepidly support them.
I'm a hater. A cake hater. I hate all cakes.
There, I said it.
But I do love pie.
" I think legislatures can tailor particular exemptions to relieve people of religious burdens (if they are careful to avoid favoring one religion or another). "
Two questions about that:
1) That seems contradictory.
2) Wouldn't those exemptions just end up being challenged in court anyway?
I did not like the parts prohibiting persons from discriminating in the civil rights acts back then and thought they were probably somewhat unconstitutional, but the vigilante and pervasive conspiratorial practices of "Jim Crow" had to be broken up somehow and I did not have any better ideas I could think of. So the sledgehammer approach was it.
Abraham Lincoln's defense of his suspension of habeas corpus in the D.C.- Baltimore area also comes to mind.
However, since then the original purpose of the acts have been forgotten, and the acts are seen to somehow be virtuous in themselves and applicable to all sorts of situations that have little or nothing to do with the "Jim Crow" problem.
Kind of like bussing in order to desegregate the public schools slid over to being a good in itself and justifying replacing our neighborhood schools with 5,000-unit child processing facilities with all kinds of administrators and "experts," while the schools remain about as segregated as they would have been anyway by now.
He is risen. God is love.
The joke you mentioned made me think of Erma Bombeck. That dates me, I know, but I always thought she was funny.
Thanks for the reply.
I suppose you could argue that forcing people to bake cakes for a Gay wedding is NOT an "otherwise valid law" since there is no compelling state interest. Or conversely that such a requirement is aimed at the bakers religious beliefs.
For this particular kerfuffle, I think the report of a journalist who went to a series of Moslem bakeries and asked for a SSM cake and was politely told to seek elsewhere says it all.
This is strictly a political identification issue and has nothing to do with "justice" at all.
And Erma Bombeck would never have said such a thing. That is a New York joke.
I'm with Meade. Cake is an inferior dish. That's why people like cheese cake. It's really pie.
What would Mitt Romney do?
Who knows? But given his track record, he'd probably do a damn good job.
and I think legislatures can tailor particular exemptions to relieve people of religious burdens (if they are careful to avoid favoring one religion or another).
Huh?
Isn't that what the RFRA does?
Actually, the RFRA doesn't even go so far as to exempt anybody. It just lays the groundwork for an individual whose religious practices and obligations are burdened to raise a defense.
This seems obvious to me, not in the name of religious liberty necessarily but plain old liberty and economic freedom.
The sad thing is we have enforcers who are stupid enough to force legislatures to enact laws which ought to have long since been established simply by the principles of natural law: Economic freedom and individual liberty.
We shouldn't need such laws. But obviously we do, because libtards cannot be trusted to not to be fascists. And going back to the original Peyote case, it's obvious that drug law enforcers can't be trusted not to be fascist, as well, and leave well enough alone rather than attempt to ruin someone's life over smoking peyote around a campfire in the desert.
He'd use the picture of the Cake with an Anchor, since the Anchor represents hope in the resurrection!
If you have to go back and tinker with a statute, cutting out exemptions for this and that, and if so do this, but if that do so, the original statute was a wrong move to start with.
Scalia We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.
Problem: The State is attempting to regulate too damn much.
Specifically, in this case, the negotiation of a private contract to provide personal services offsite, at a location not of the vendor's choosing, for a specific event.
This is what the libtards aren't grasping. The vendors aren't refusing to serve certain people. They are refusing to be coerced into participating in a certain event - in this case, a sacrament in most Christian faiths - that is contrary to a set of beliefs that has been established for thousands of years.
They'll bake your pizza. But they're not going to go to your wedding, and they're not going to put their hands to a document that bears public witness to what they believe is a lie and false doctrine. Even if the document is made of flour, sugar, frosting, eggs and delicious cream cheese.
Thomas More - and a number of others faced Henry VIII'ths executioners rather than put their names to a document essentially recognizing the legitimacy of the King's divorce from the lawful Queen Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Ann Boleyn. Because they knew what the sacrament of marriage was and that the divorce was unlawful under ecclesiastical law and contrary to the teachings of the Church.
How can you expect the faithful Catholic of today to create a document attesting to the legitimacy of a same sex marriage - in direct opposition to the catechism?
Well, here's a hint:
Henry VIIIth, for all his immense talents, was a monstrous tyrant who was thinking with his dick.
Draw your own conclusions about today's petty fascists.
The joke doesn't work anymore, because how many wives know how to bake a cake?
" I think legislatures can tailor particular exemptions to relieve people of religious burdens (if they are careful to avoid favoring one religion or another). "
That's crap. If a legislator tried to do that the libs would have a full court press saying it's discrimination.
When Scalia was against the RFRA it was for a federal law. Not a statute passed in state. Did he not agree with the Hobby Lobby case?
"" I think legislatures can tailor particular exemptions to relieve people of religious burdens (if they are careful to avoid favoring one religion or another). "
The push for gay marriage wouldn't have forced this to occur if they had accepted civil unions.
But no, they had to say that a new type of marriage fell under the umbrella of marriage, along with traditional marriage.
Since Christians have a religious basis to believe that marriage is very specifically one man and one woman (a designation agreed with by civil society until very recently) civil society has now FORCED them to violate their conscience if they want to continue to bake wedding cakes.
They even go further as to say that denying a service for a specific cermemony means they are discriminating against a person.
It's overreach of the highest order. So you offering the perfectly reasonable argument that there should be exemptions to allow religious people would not have to bake that specific cake (so long as they werent' say not serving gays in any capacity) would be met with the exact same arguments that would be met if a state immpletemented an RFRA, for example.
Professional comedians will tell you that crackers are funny but potato chips are not. (Cake doesn't seem like a funny word.)
There is an aspect of cake baking that NOBODY is addressing; and I think it's because it kills the controversy. Namely, the First Amendment.
If you order a pizza and the owner says, "I won't do that because you're a fag," then it's a public accommodation issue. But if a gay couple orders a wedding cake and an artisanal cake decorator says, "No, I don't want to make a gay wedding cake," then it's a First Amendment issue.
Can you see why?
A pizza maker rarely gets the opportunity to speak through a pizza. But an artisanal cake decorator does speak through a cake, or assists people in doing so. And it is not morally right, at least in our society, to force people to speak.
A lawyer does not have to be an advocate for a client who they find repugnant. And an artisanal cake baker should not be forced to help someone communicate something that they find repugnant also. Same principle.
Conservative admits he was wrong to agree with gay marriage:
http://www.wwnc.com/onair/pete-kaliner-46655/mea-culpa-whats-the-goal-in-13461678/
yes he was. And not because of the question of gay marriage itself. Rather he assumed that the scare mongering stories from conservatives who said that if you gave on gay marriage that it would lead to churches being forced to do church marriages, or that people would be punished for thoughts that ran counter to the gay marriage agenda were themselves scare mongering.
But he realized that the critics were right. And he was wrong because he forgot who he was dealing with. Totalitarian leftists.
Who are not going to accept that there will be those that disagree. Disagreement must be squshed through govt force.Just like totalitarians always do.
"I think any law for which there is no "compelling government interest" is a bad law, "
I agree and recommend that those questioning the matter read Vaclav Havel's essay about living in a tyranny.
I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble.
You'll note that the leftists NEVER Go to a muslim bakery and ask for a wedding cake, even though a muslim baker might have the same objection as a Christian baker to a gay wedding.
Because the lefties like to pretend that they are champions of the minority. ANd it would look unseemly if the muslim baker was put out of business if they declined (even politely) but still offered to make other cakes.
its the same reason the liberals don't target black Christians.
So they are self serving in who they even apply the bigot label to.
In Ireland a baker was presented with a request to make a cake that says "I support gay marriage" when he said he wouldn't bake it he got targeted.
Some Christians then called up bakeries and asked people to make a cake that says "Gay marriage is wrong" and the courts upheld that the pro gay baker isn't obligated to make the cake she found objectionable.
When discussing this some people said that a gay wedding cake is different than a cake with a message on it and that gays don't normally put crazy writing on their cake. (thus having a cake for a gay wddding is different than a cake that expresses a statement).
Clearly though, those in Ireland didn't make a normal gay wedding cake. They expressed a thought. Symbolic speech is still protected as free speech though. What the gay marriage advocates are doing is literally making thought a crime and literally shitting on not just religious freedom but freedom of speech.
Because they are a protected class, somehow a ceremony has the same rights as a person. ANd if you deny the request for the ceremony you are depriving the person of rights.
The libtards have no idea what they're dealing with.
If they press this, they'll be jumping a bigger shark than Arthur Fonzarelli could ever dream of.
I'm not smart enough to understand the Professors position. Whether she thinks individuals ought to be forced by government. It seems she does, but she hasn't stated it like that so I could be wrong.
Its a terrible thing, nondiscrimination laws. We ought to be able to discriminate. If I don't want to participate in a pagan holiday, or satanic celebration, or even in a Christian alternative celebration like kwanza or festivus or winter solstice, I shouldn't be forced to just because I own a business and am being paid for my services.
A black bakery owner, or a Jew, shouldn't be forced to participate in a KKK rally, as an example.
I've yet to hear Althouse or anyone who stress with her explain why the above examples are different, or if they aren't, a good explanation for why the government should force them to participate.
-stress +agrees
They are different because they say so.
"But he realized that the critics were right. And he was wrong because he forgot who he was dealing with. Totalitarian leftists."
225 years after 1789, he "forgot"?
A man walks into a bar and asks for the strongest drink the bartender can make.
"Well, I can certainly do that, but I need you to first purchase a pair of adult diapers."
"You're kidding, right?" the man asks, but the bartender shakes his head.
"Nope. We will not sell this drink to someone who isn't wearing an adult diaper."
"I get it, I get it -- it's a gimmick. Seriously: just make me this drink. What's it called?"
"It's called 'You'll Shit Your Pants.'"
"Ha! That's a good one! I'm sure I can handle it," the patron says.
"Okay, this one time I'll make an exception: just don't say you weren't warned."
With this, the bartender pours a concoction of various alcohols into a glass and then puts the results in front of the man, who proceeds to gulp it down with one big swig.
"See? That wasn't so bad," the patron says, moments before a huge gurgling sound erupts from his belly. He gets off his bar stool and makes it three steps towards the bathroom before he stops, head hung low.
"Damn! I just shit my pants," he says, with a trace of despair.
"I have to confess," says the bartender. "That was only our third-strongest drink."
"The third-strongest?" the patron says in disbelief. "What the hell is the second-strongest drink called?"
"That one," the bartender says, "is called the 'You'll Bleed From Your Anus For Three Straight Days.'"
"Dear God! And what about the first?" the patron asks, shaking his head.
"It's called a "Shirley Temple Plus."
"Really?" the patron replies. "I thought a 'Shirley Temple' was a non-alcoholic drink."
"That's why it is called a "Shirley Temple PLUS."
"That still doesn't sound so bad; I think I'll try one."
The bartender starts to speak, but the patron interrupts: "I know: don't say you didn't warn me."
The bartender shrugs, then pours a non-alcoholic Shirley Temple, after which he reaches to the top shelf to pull down a simple bottle with no label, from which he adds a few drops to the drink.
"That doesn't look so bad," the patron says before drinking it down in one gulp.
"You'll see," the bartender says, and sure enough the patron's mouth drops open in wonderment.
"I don't know how this works," he says, "but I swear I can see a little Shirley Temple dancing right in front of me."
The bartender nods, says "That sounds about right."
"It's really pretty adorable," the patron says, smiling and nodding to music only he can hear.
"You might want to prepare yourself," the bartender says, as a puff of gray smoke appears.
"Prepare myself?" the patron asks, as a shadowy figure emerges from the smoke. Suddenly the patron's pants are ripped down and the Ghost of Mr. Bojangles proceeds to fuck the patron in the ass.
"What the hell?!" the patron exclaims, but the bartender simply says "You're best off to just let him finish."
So for three interminable minutes the Ghost of Mr. Bojangles pounds the patron relentlessly in the ass; finally, he pulls out and ejaculates all over the patron's clothes before disappearing in a puff of smoke.
"My God!" the patron cries.
"I warned you," replies the bartender.
"Yes, you warned me," the patron sobs, "but I've shit my pants, my ass is bleeding and now my clothes are covered in Mr. Bojangles' ghost semen. How the hell do you stay in business?"
"Well," the bartender smiles, "I also own the dry-cleaner next door."
I am Laslo.
eric wrote:
Its a terrible thing, nondiscrimination laws. We ought to be able to discriminate. If I don't want to participate in a pagan holiday, or satanic celebration, or even in a Christian alternative celebration like kwanza or festivus or winter solstice, I shouldn't be forced to just because I own a business and am being paid for my services.
I also have a problem with protected classes, since it would seem that would give protected clases more rights than non protected classes.
And also those pusing gay marriage are really stretching the meaning of what protections a protected class should have.
Yes, no business should turn you away at the door if you are gay, (or black or a Christian for example). But it doesn't mean that because a protected class asks for something it has to be granted because you are otherwise discrminiating against a protected class.
Should a Christian baker be forced to contribute a cake for a wikkan wedding? I don't think so.
How would that be different than refusing a gay wedding, or a bigamist wedding, or an incestual wedding, or polygamist wedding cake request? I don't even see why you'd need to have a religious reason to not do it. I don't want to do it should suffice.
But society is FORCING religious people to violate their conscience every time the make cakes. Because of how they setup gay marriage.
How should the cake Nazis be armed? I don't think anything less than a .357 is adequate.
We have protected classes. But I'm unaware of any such thing enshrined in law as a protected event.
They are not discriminating against people but against an event: A wedding.
There is nothing in any law that requires anyone be required to travel offsite to be present at another's religious ceremony, or to lend an endorsement or imprimatur of approval or even acquiescence to anothers' religious ceremony. This would be an outrage to the Founders.
"This would be an outrage to the Founders."
I think it is fair to say that the notion of requiring participation of any kind in a "same-sex wedding" would have been incomprehensible to them.
Jason: This seems obvious to me, not in the name of religious liberty necessarily but plain old liberty and economic freedom.
"Plain old liberty" and "economic freedom", as traditionally understood, were dead customs walking the day "non-discrimination" chased "equal protection of the law" into an alley, beat the crap out of it, and stole its identity.
And here we are today. A perfectly "non-discriminatory" polity, by its very nature, must become a tyranny.
Heh. Well, at least when Althouse's grandchildren ask her, "what did you do to preserve religious and economic liberty before it was destroyed by the forces of nihilism and progressivism? Did you speak up?" she'll be able to say "I sat on my thumb and watched it happen. If anything, I was bemused."
jr565 said...
You'll note that the leftists NEVER Go to a muslim bakery and ask for a wedding cake, even though a muslim baker might have the same objection as a Christian baker to a gay wedding.
Because the lefties like to pretend that they are champions of the minority. ANd it would look unseemly if the muslim baker was put out of business if they declined (even politely) but still offered to make other cakes.
Certain members of the gaystapo will go around picking off Christians down to the last one...they relish something special about persecuting that religion and they make tacit exceptions for other religions, including Muslims. I don't understand it, but that's just that way they are.
Cowardice probably plays a role in their selectivity for calling out Christians only. They know that they can safely make threats up to and including death threats against Christians without repercussions. They also feel safe undermining a religion they "know."
chickelit wrote:
Cowardice probably plays a role in their selectivity for calling out Christians only. They know that they can safely make threats up to and including death threats against Christians without repercussions. They also feel safe undermining a religion they "know."
it's because muslims are a minority in this country. Thus speaking ill of Islam is hate speech. You can call Christians bigots all day long though. The left doen't like to look like they are picking on minorities though. Even if said minorities have the same views on marriage as the Christians.
How often do you see the black church targeted for anti gay bigotry for example? They're not going to target the black Christian, only the white Christian.
Same reason why piss Christ is ok, but piss mohammad would have them falling all over themselves to condemn.
I am in substantial agreement with Hagar's comments in this thread, particularly his first. The positive nondiscrimination provisions of the original civil rights acts were no doubt necessary to reverse an exceptional situation where law itself had been used to enforce discrimination. But this exceptional remedy has now become the norm, and in turn become the tool to eviscerate the notion of free association. It's as if having once used the atom bomb under extraordinary circumstances, the US used that precedent to nuke its enemies as a matter of course.
I understand the logic of Althouse's position, but I also see the ugly side of enlisting the government to seek revenge upon and trample the liberties of your perceived ideological opponents. This, and not whether cake is art, is what gives rise to the felt need for statutes such as RFRA and the Hobby Lobby case. Althouse's logic is compelling only in the absence of the underlying problem.
So lets look at the things that religious people won through RFRA's.
example - A Sikh was allowed to keep her kirpan which Sikh's are required to wear at all times(small knife). Does Althouse think we should take the knife away? Woman was fired from IRS because she carried one around with her.
Absent the RFRA she lost her job.
Since the left demands we listen to the courts and not question Supreme Court decisions, especially when it comes to abortion, and gay marriage (lower courts currently) why are they asking us to not accept the Hobby Lobby case verdict?
So by the anti-RFA logic, a Klansman can walk into a black bakery and demand a cake with a depiction of a lynching on it.
jr565 said...
So lets look at the things that religious people won through RFRA's.
example - A Sikh was allowed to keep her kirpan which Sikh's are required to wear at all times(small knife). Does Althouse think we should take the knife away? Woman was fired from IRS because she carried one around with her.
Absent the RFRA she lost her job.
I think it's pretty clear by now that anti-RFAers only want it the laws enforced against white Christians.
These tedious problems and lines between rights go away if government force and law are only used for the limited purposes of preventing forcible injury or fraud. One could also envision a new Freedom of Contract which prevents laws from interfering in private contract; with associated rules about the dance of negotiation, where when you advertise a service, you have committed to negotiating in good faith. So if you put up a shingle saying "Custom wedding cakes!" it has to specify who will not be served and why. The classic example is the highway sign saying "lodging next exit," and when you get there it's the only motel in town and the owner won't allow blacks, or singles in the same bed, etc. The commercial establishment doesn't get to have a secret do-not-serve list without explicitly saying "we reserve the right to refuse business."
Fredom of contract also gets rid of the state's pernicious involvement in marriage law.
Pat-a-cake, pat-a-cake baker man, bake me a cake as fast as you can!
"Isn't that what the RFRA does?"
No. It creates potential for exemptions from all manner of laws and govt policies and leaves it to the courts to figure out the scope of the exemptions by inquiring into the beliefs of litigants and assessing govt interests and the feasibility of alternatives.
Specific exemptions would be, for example, a law saying that no one with a religious objection can be required to make a wedding cake.
Certain members of the gaystapo will go around picking off Christians down to the last one...they relish something special about persecuting that religion and they make tacit exceptions for other religions, including Muslims. I don't understand it, but that's just that way they are.
That's because American gays grew up with all the hate hurled at them by Christians, not Muslims. That's just basic human psychology to want revenge against your "tormentors".
Ann - yet you have no answer about the exemption for Sikhs to carry daggers.
"it's because muslims are a minority in this country. Thus speaking ill of Islam is hate speech."
Yes, they are often "brown people" and they do have a history of head chopping which tends to discourage lefties, like pork with Muslims.
Alex, you said something that made sense ! Congratulations.
"That's because American gays grew up with all the hate hurled at them by Christians, not Muslims."
Sorry, Alex. Your sensible comment vanished. Muslims don't "hurl hate." They hurl gays. Off rooftops.
The reason why liberals are not for de-institutionalizing marriage in favor of pure contract law is because that would be perceived as anti-gay. It would be perceived as a "scorched earth" policy to get rid of an institution just so the gays can't have part of it. So government-sanctioned "marriage" will continue but disfavoring traditional couples.
Michael K said...
Sorry, Alex. Your sensible comment vanished. Muslims don't "hurl hate." They hurl gays. Off rooftops.
Not in America they don't. American gays don't give a shit about Egyptian or Yemeni gays. They are just as provincial as any other Americans.
"When Scalia was against the RFRA it was for a federal law. Not a statute passed in state. Did he not agree with the Hobby Lobby case?"
In Hobby Lobby, the Court was applying RFRA, a statute. In Smith, the Court was interpreting the U.S. Constitution, and there, Scalia was against finding a requirement of exemptions. But Scalia accepts the effect of statutes that require exemptions. There's also a case, Boerne, saying Congress didn't have an enumerate power to impose RFRA on the states.
"This seems obvious to me, not in the name of religious liberty necessarily but plain old liberty and economic freedom. The sad thing is we have enforcers who are stupid enough to force legislatures to enact laws which ought to have long since been established simply by the principles of natural law: Economic freedom and individual liberty."
No, it is not plain old liberty because it's only available to those who base their demand for liberty on religion.
I'm still trying to understand whether Ann believes in "live and let live" or is for government telling people how they should conduct their business.
That to me is the large principle at play here.
Of course you can say "Freedom of association" ended in the 1960s with civil rights laws that said if you ran a service business you had to serve any customer. However that still is not Constitutional.
Should a Jewish baker be required to decorate a wedding cake for two engaged members of the American Nazi party. If not, why not? Because we like gay people but hate Nazis does not seem to me to be a very powerful legal argument. I keep going back to reason.com. They supported gay marriage at least a decade or two before the Democrats. And now support religious opt out rights while the "progressives" are shouting for boycotts and shaming. The older I get the more libertarian I get. The older (and more successful) the progressives get the more totalitarian they get.
Virgil - it does seem that "freedom of association" only applies to types of people "we" like.
If it's a disfavored group, fuck them.
"
Thomas More - and a number of others faced Henry VIII'ths executioners rather than put their names to a document essentially recognizing the legitimacy of the King's divorce from the lawful Queen Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Ann Boleyn. Because they knew what the sacrament of marriage was and that the divorce was unlawful under ecclesiastical law and contrary to the teachings of the Church."
Remember when Thomas More was actually the good guy, and Cromwell the bad guy? It's a different America, clearly. Since proponents of punishing bakers for not baking cakes clearly are on the side of Cromwell, no?
The Left was all for RFRA until the NYT told them it was anti-gay and discriminatory.
The whole Indiana thing was planned.
"I think there are free-speech rights that should protect expressive services that might include some photography and cake-decorating, and I think legislatures can tailor particular exemptions to relieve people of religious burdens (if they are careful to avoid favoring one religion or another)."
If Instead of an RFRA INdiana said bakers con't have to bake wedding cakes for gays because of a narrow religious exemption (but would have to bake all other cakes that don't violate their religious objections)would gays boycott Indiana, or be accepting of such allowable restrictions?
Sure, if the state were simply reasonable you wouldn't need RFRA's. But since when has the secular left been reasonable?
"The whole Indiana thing was planned."
Of course but it was planned as a TV show to illustrate that Indiana residents are bigots. The left is really, really upset that the pizza people got almost a million bucks from those who disagree with the totalitarians.
Some body once told me, "Hard cases make bad law." I think this would have been much better left alone but gays can't leave anything alone.
"American gays don't give a shit about Egyptian or Yemeni gays. "
That may yet come back to bite them.
"In Hobby Lobby, the Court was applying RFRA, a statute. In Smith, the Court was interpreting the U.S. Constitution, and there, Scalia was against finding a requirement of exemptions. But Scalia accepts the effect of statutes that require exemptions. There's also a case, Boerne, saying Congress didn't have an enumerate power to impose RFRA on the states."
Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which provides a statutory basis for such exemptions even if there is no constitutional requirement for them. Scalia would have no problem with such statuatory exemption then, provided they weren't assumed to be based on a constitutional requirement and were passed as a statute.
Back when CO still hadn't legalized gay weddings, a baker refused to make a cake for a gay wedding and got in trouble for it. So wondering what the standard gays think should be applied here. THe state itself did not consider gay marriage to be marriage. ANd wouldn't provide a license for it.
Must a baker make a cake for a gay wedding when the state itself wouldn't give you a license to marry?
And if so, must he also bake for anything the customer defined as a wedding. Like a man asked to have a cake made for a wedding to his dog, MUST the baker make the cake because he makes wedding cakes?
How about if the person making the request is a protected class. LIke suppose three gays came to a baker and asked to make a cake for a ceremonial GAY polygamist wedding. Must he accept their view of what a wedding means simply because they are gay people making the request?
I would think that the baker would be allowed to define the peramaters of the service he will agree to make a cake for.
So a simple exception could be to only make traditional marriage cakes.
That would also mean that a gay baker could also only make cakes for gay weddings. Why not?
"That would also mean that a gay baker could also only make cakes for gay weddings. Why not?
Should say "That would also mean that a gay baker could choose, also, to only make cakes for gay weddings.
AA: No, it is not plain old liberty because it's only available to those who base their demand for liberty on religion.
It was "plain old liberty" until you and your ilk got hold of it and reduced it to a shadow of its former self.
jr565: Remember when Thomas More was actually the good guy, and Cromwell the bad guy?
+1
Well, Thomas More personally had five or six Protestants burned at the stake before he met the axe. So while I respect his personal integrity when it came to dying rather than acquiesce to the fiction of the divorce from Catherine of Aragon, he's not exactly an angel... "Man for all Seasons" notwithstanding.
By the way, speaking of Thomas More and the people he had killed... remember when Lutherans and Presbyterians were willing to put their necks on the line on a matter of principle rather than knuckle under at the first sign of people like George Takei and let the Catholics do all the heavy lifting for them?
Good times.
Jason - the 1964 movie with Peter O'Toole & Richard Burton skipped over the part where Thomas More butchered people for their beliefs.
"Since proponents of punishing bakers for not baking cakes clearly are on the side of Cromwell, no?"
They are the Bull Connors of Progressivism.
Althouse: No, it is not plain old liberty because it's only available to those who base their demand for liberty on religion.
I don't buy your premise. At all.
Take the case of a Jewish baker who wanted to refuse to make a Nazi-themed cake for the local German American Club. Is he free to refuse? Let's say he got sued because he was discriminating agains serving people of a particular national origin. Now, under RFRA... the law libtards so bitterly oppose, he would be able to raise his faith as an objection. "Look, I'm Jewish. I'm not going to make a Nazi cake." Now, it's not an article of Jewish faith not to make a cake. And as long as he's not including bacon and crab cakes there's nothing against him baking a cake. There's no Commandment he can point to in the Torah or Talmud specific to prohibiting him from baking a cake. But there's not a jury that would convict him if it came before a jury.
But is the freedom of association predicated on adhering to a particular faith? We can fine the Jewish baker out of business but not the Lutheran? Not the atheist? No, that's BS.
I would assert that the 1st amendment protects ANYBODY who does not want to make an expressive product such as a decorated cake, regardless of faith.
I would assert that the freedom of association (I know libtards hate that one, but that's because they are enemies of liberty) protects the right of the atheist and believer alike.
I would also assert that, just as a basic principle of contract law, when it comes to private negotiations for a contract for non commodity personal services to be provided offsite at someone else's private function that happens to be a religious sacrament (placing it about as far from the reach of 'public accommodation doctrine as it's possible to be') that any party must be free to walk away from the contract - without fear of the state or anyone else putting a gun to their head.
If the vendor is under threat of heavy government sanction or bankruptcy if he refuses to agree to such a contract, it cannot be binding. Contracts under duress are not binding.
To pretend they are is to use the logic of a rapist.
I am not Jewish. I am, however, a freelance musician and I've played many weddings. (I'm seriously considering getting out of the wedding business entirely.) I reserve the right to turn down any engagement to play for a group of Nazis or attorneys simply on general principle. It is not necessary for me to rely on a religious obligation to object. But I fully defend the liberty of those who do have a religious obligation to turn down the business to do so.
I wish the RFRA weren't necessary, because I believe that neither I, nor the Jewish baker, nor the Catholic florist or the Baptist wedding planner should be obligated to explain to anyone other than a fellow shareholder why.
This is economic liberty. If it only applies to people we like then liberty has no meaning.
Starting tonight on PBS is the BBC's production of Hilary Mantel's bestseller Wolf Hall, in which Cromwell is the very good guy, and More the very bad one.
The distortion of history is in full gear.
The thing is, no one in the biblical churches is at all surprised, because:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13&version=NASB
11 Then I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke as a dragon. 12 He exercises all the authority of the first beast [j]in his presence. And he makes the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose fatal wound was healed. 13 He performs great signs, so that he even makes fire come down out of heaven to the earth in the presence of men. 14 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform [k]in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who *had the wound of the sword and has come to life. 15 And it was given to him to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast would even [l]speak and cause as many as do not worship the image of the beast to be killed. 16 And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, [m]to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, 17 and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is [n]six hundred and sixty-six.
They ain't gonna do it, but you have to read the next chapters to see why. As far as they are concerned, this endeavor to exclude from economic life the faithful was preordained by God to separate the sheep from the goats, and the fate of the goats is pretty lousy.
Time to back off.
Catholics vs. Protestants. Is this 1641 or 2015?
You've never watched a soccer match in Glasgow, have you?
When you come up with a real instance of religious discrimination in this country then we'll talk about the need to modify RFA laws. Not related to SSM.
Asking a Muslim baker to depict his deity would seem like a simple request for a cake. If he gets out of it for religious reasons so should the Christian baker.
It's fairly obvious what's wrong with RFRA approach if you consider the case of the atheist baker who has a non-religious objection to making cakes for gay weddings.
Remember the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld? He would refuse service on just about any grounds. That should be his right, and the right of every individual who runs his or her own business. Private entrepreneurs are not Public Accommodations.
I guess the distinction is a storefront.
Seriously.
Don't have one? Discriminate all you want. Have one? You must serve everyone, even for events not on your premises.
I am a supporter of same-sex marriage in part because it's the only solution outside of government getting out of marriage altogether (which I prefer but will never ever happen.)
If we truly believe in free markets, we must believe in the economic liberty that goes along with them.
It's fairly obvious what's wrong with RFRA approach if you consider the case of the atheist baker who has a non-religious objection to making cakes for gay weddings.
It's the same thing that is wrong with anti-discrimination laws with named protected groups.
Post a Comment