Supreme Court revisits wedding cakes and same-sex marriages

[Elderberry]

LA Times By David G. Savage 4/11/2019



Wedding cakes and same-sex marriages are back before the Supreme Court, and this time the justices are being asked to rule broadly that the 1st Amendment’s protection of the “free exercise” of religion shields conservative Christians from state civil rights laws.

An Oregon couple who were fined $135,000 for refusing to make a cake for the marriage of two women have asked the justices to take their case. If the court does so, the new conservative majority could significantly change the law on religious liberty and LGBTQ rights. The justices could announce as early as Monday whether they will hear the case.

For nearly three decades, the court has followed a rule set down in a 1990 decision written by a conservative hero, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Rejecting a claim brought by Native Americans who smoked peyote as part of a religious ceremony, Scalia said that the Constitution’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion did not provide a shield against a “neutral and generally applicable law.” In the peyote case, two men had been fired for using an illegal drug.

But with conservative Christians now claiming their religious rights are under assault, the court’s conservatives have shown a renewed interest in the free-exercise clause.

In the Oregon case, lawyers for Melissa and Aaron Klein said the couple were forced to shut down their Sweet Cakes store in the city of Gresham because of the conflict over their religious beliefs. They asked the court to overrule Scalia’s decision and declare that the Constitution does provide a religious exemption to Oregon’s civil rights law.

Oregon, like California and 20 other states and dozens of large cities, requires public businesses to provide “full and equal” service to all customers without regard to race, sex, religion or sexual orientation.

Their timing looks good.

In January, Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Clarence Thomas, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh suggested they were ready to reconsider how far the free-exercise clause reached. They issued a partial dissent when the court turned down an appeal brought by a football coach who said he was fired for leading prayers on the field after games. The coach unsuccessfully claimed his firing violated his right to free speech. Alito suggested he should have appealed based on his rights to freely exercise his religion.

More: https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-supreme-court-wedding-cake-religion-gay-rights-20190411-story.html

[Jazzhead]

Scalia's original decision is correct and should be upheld.    One should not be able to claim a religious justification for failing to abide by a community's laws of general application.    For example, states require a driver's license to include a photo of the driver's face.  The reason is rational - to permit the examiner of the license to easily identify it as belonging to the presenter - and not facially discriminatory with respect to religion.   Hence a Muslim driver should not be able to claim religion and be photographed in a face-covering hijab.   

[roamer_1]

Scalia's original decision is correct and should be upheld.    One should not be able to claim a religious justification for failing to abide by a community's laws of general application.    For example, states require a driver's license to include a photo of the driver's face.  The reason is rational - to permit the examiner of the license to easily identify it as belonging to the presenter - and not facially discriminatory with respect to religion.   Hence a Muslim driver should not be able to claim religion and be photographed in a face-covering hijab.   

Right.
But this is a different thing: This is the right of a store owner and the function of his own property.

[jmyrlefuller]

Scalia's original decision is correct and should be upheld.    One should not be able to claim a religious justification for failing to abide by a community's laws of general application.    For example, states require a driver's license to include a photo of the driver's face.  The reason is rational - to permit the examiner of the license to easily identify it as belonging to the presenter - and not facially discriminatory with respect to religion.   Hence a Muslim driver should not be able to claim religion and be photographed in a face-covering hijab.   

There is a key difference:
The peyote case involved restriction: whether or not the peyote users could use their religion to actively partake in an illegal substance.
This is compulsion: whether the federal or state government has the authority to compel a business owner to do something explicitly against their well-established religion (in this case, eating with sexual sinners as outlined in 1 Corinthians 5-6).

[Jazzhead]

Right.
But this is a different thing: This is the right of a store owner and the function of his own property.

A store owner cannot claim religion to avoid paying taxes, abiding by local zoning ordinances,  and other laws of general application.   And yes,  general laws respecting non-discrimination in public accommodations are no different.    A store owner knows, or should know, these laws and plan accordingly.   He just can't claim special dispensation because of his religion. 

[The_Reader_David]

Scalia's original decision is correct and should be upheld.    One should not be able to claim a religious justification for failing to abide by a community's laws of general application.    For example, states require a driver's license to include a photo of the driver's face.  The reason is rational - to permit the examiner of the license to easily identify it as belonging to the presenter - and not facially discriminatory with respect to religion.   Hence a Muslim driver should not be able to claim religion and be photographed in a face-covering hijab.   

So by your position, pacifists should be required to carry weapons in war if there is a draft, the Amish must send their children to school until normal school leaving age, generally applicable non-discrimination laws should apply to the hiring of clergy and staff at religious institutions, adherents of Christian confessions that regard abortion as murder can be prevented from pursuing (or continuing) careers in medicine by "generally applicable" requirements that all physicians provide abortions.

Sorry, but Scalia's position, if pushed can be used to vitiate any meaningful free exercise of religion.  It should be overturned, and the sooner the better.

[Hoodat]

Wedding cakes and same-sex marriages are back before the Supreme Court, and this time the justices are being asked to rule broadly that the 1st Amendment’s protection of the “free exercise” of religion shields conservative Christians from state civil rights laws.

Not sure what same-sex marriage has to do with this.  Or should I say, denying the State of California its tenth amendment right to establish its own marriage laws.

[Hoodat]

A store owner cannot claim religion to avoid paying taxes, abiding by local zoning ordinances,  and other laws of general application.

And a State cannot force a store owner to make something it does not make.

[Cyber Liberty]

And a State cannot force a store owner to make something it does not make.

The new, left-wing definition of "free association" says we may have the right to free association, provided it doesn't offend somebody and make them want to declare you a bigot.

And I disagree we have a newly "conservative" SCOTUS.  Roberts slipped right into the Kennedy slot of "wishy-washy Justice."

[roamer_1]

A store owner cannot claim religion to avoid paying taxes, abiding by local zoning ordinances,  and other laws of general application.   And yes,  general laws respecting non-discrimination in public accommodations are no different.    A store owner knows, or should know, these laws and plan accordingly.   He just can't claim special dispensation because of his religion.

That is all different from what a store owner can do with and on his own property. It is not a public accommodation. It is a private business, and an extension of the owner.

[Cyber Liberty]

That is all different from what a store owner can do with and on his own property. It is not a public accommodation. It is a private business, and an extension of the owner.

Haven't you heard?  During the Phillips case we were repeatedly told that the First Amendment protections aren't permitted for religious bigots, like Phillips and the folks in this case.  Probably not any of the first 8 Amendments.  "Bigots" of any kind are bad and should all be locked up.

Get with the program, @roamer_1!  (do I HAVE to "/s?")

[roamer_1]

Haven't you heard?  During the Phillips case we were repeatedly told that the First Amendment protections aren't permitted for religious bigots, like Phillips and the folks in this case.  Probably not any of the first 8 Amendments.  "Bigots" of any kind are bad and should all be locked up.

Get with the program, @roamer_1!  (do I HAVE to "/s?")

@Cyber Liberty
If things were right, the entire body of law should be struck down.
If some guy wants to start a nazi store and put a sign in the window that says 'no n***ers, no Kik*s', LET HIM.
The market will decide.

We had a sex shop open in our town, against the wishes of the town council, and against the will of the people. He went to court to win the right to open anyway, and won.

His victory lasted about 4 months, and then the store closed up from lack of business.

[jmyrlefuller]

The new, left-wing definition of "free association" says we may have the right to free association, provided it doesn't offend somebody and make them want to declare you a bigot.

And I disagree we have a newly "conservative" SCOTUS.  Roberts slipped right into the Kennedy slot of "wishy-washy Justice."

Him and Kavanaugh...

...but at least I don't see either one of them giving the alphabet-soup lobby everything they want the way the suspiciously-lifelong bachelor Kennedy loved to do.

[verga]

Forcing someone to create something that violates their personal or religious views is nothing more or less than slavery. You are compelling them into servitude. Would you compel a Jew or Muslim to consume pork as part of a performance, or a liberal shop owner to print "Trump 2020" shirts and hats. No One has the roight to compel you to viol;ate your won deeply held personal views.