Gary Johnson: 'Religious freedom, as a category' is 'a black hole' (Q&A With the Libertarian Candidate for President On Social Issues)

[Luis Gonzalez]

1) Holding to the doctrines of scripture, is NOT and SHOULD NOT be considered an arbitrary assertion of liberty. The first amendment was placed there PRECISELY to protect this. It is the FIRST (not the second or third  ) amendment precisely for a reason -- to protect religious people and their right to free speech ( or not to speak if they so choose ).

So then Sharia is Supreme over all existing US laws up to and including the US Constitution, as defended by the US Constitution.

Got it.

[SirLinksALot]

BTW, the inherent flaw with your "message" spin is that you actually create a First Amendment case for the gay couple since the bakers are in actuality demanding the right to violate the gay couple's Freedom of Speech on the basis of sexual orientation.

Nope. The gay couple are COERCING and DEMANDING the bakers to violate their freedom of speech on the basis of their religion.

The gays HAVE an alternative -- GO TO ANOTHER BAKER. The Christian Bakers are NOT COERCING them to NOT "marry" or not bake their cake. They can do it and no one is stopping them from doing so.

If Freedom of Speech means anything, it means NOT USING FORCE to COERCE somebody to say something. Guess who is doing the coercing here....

[SirLinksALot]

So then Sharia is Supreme over all existing US laws up to and including the US Constitution, as defended by the US Constitution.

Got it.

Certain forms of Sharia ( lots of which actually intersect with Western law) can be practiced UP TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. The moment it violates the Constitution ( which the Christian bakers have not in their exercise NOT to participate in a message ), the constitution prevails.

For instance, the constitution empowers the government to protect the lives of innocent people. Should Sharia require that the father kill their daughter because the daughter wants to marry an infidel, the constitution then becomes supreme. Should Sharia require that a Muslim kill a homosexual, the constitution still is Supreme and Sharia Law should be outlawed in this case.

BUT, if  a Muslim baker is asked to bake a cake for a gay wedding with a message that violates his Muslim beliefs, the constitution protects the Muslim baker, as it protects the Christian baker.

[Bigun]

Nope. The gay couple are COERCING and DEMANDING the bakers to violate their freedom of speech on the basis of their religion.

The gays HAVE an alternative -- GO TO ANOTHER BAKER. The Christian Bakers are NOT COERCING them to NOT "marry" or not bake their cake. They can do it and no one is stopping them from doing so.

If Freedom of Speech means anything, it means NOT USING FORCE to COERCE somebody to say something. Guess who is doing the coercing here....

   and   

No need for me to repeat what has already been said!

BRAVO!

[Jazzhead]

You might think that there is nothing "religious" about baking a wedding cake. True ONLY to a certain extent. But if this baking requires one to insert a message contrary to one's deeply held religious beliefs, then it becomes an issue of forcing someone to participate in a message they find offensive to what they believe in.

Keep in mind that this is a wedding with respect to a CIVIL marriage only.   No church is compelled to recognize or solemnize a civil wedding that violates that church's requirements or beliefs.

So how is it legitimate to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a purely civil ceremony on "religious" grounds?   Do you see the practical difficulties with allowing business owners who serve the public to discriminate based on arbitrary notions of what offends their "religion"?   

Why should I as a customer have to deal with storeowners who won't conduct the commerce they advertise with me because all of a sudden I offend their religion?   A bakery isn't a church,  and there's simply no chilling effect on a baker's ability to practice his religion by requiring him to adhere to the community's rules proscribing arbitrary discrimination in commerce.   Why couldn't that baker decide, on the basis of "religion",  to refuse service because I'm black, or because I'm Christian? 

The law can't cure all of life's little conflicts and offenses.  The baker is the one who advertised his services to encourage patronage of his shop - he's the one who should be held to his promise.  I'd think that as a practical matter most conflicts can be avoided by posting a sign indicating that the baker reserves the right to decline to write messages on cakes that are obscene or inappropriate.     

[Jazzhead]

Nope. The gay couple are COERCING and DEMANDING the bakers to violate their freedom of speech on the basis of their religion.

NO!  They're asking him to do what he advertised he would do - bake and sell them a wedding cake.   The baker can freely choose what he will sell and not sell.  A Jewish butcher, for example, can choose to not sell pork.  If the baker feels that selling a wedding cake may violate his religious beliefs, he should stick to fritters and donuts.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

Their business was in existence before Anthony Kennedy and his ilk decided to create a "law" ( note the quotes ) out of thin air.

What is this "law" of which you speak of? Was it passed by Congress?

Oregon statutes, chapter 659A, section 403, Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Keep in mind that this is a wedding with respect to a CIVIL marriage only.   No church is compelled to recognize or solemnize a civil wedding that violates that church's requirements or beliefs.

So how is it legitimate to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a purely civil ceremony on "religious" grounds?   Do you see the practical difficulties with allowing business owners who serve the public to discriminate based on arbitrary notions of what offends their "religion"?   

Why should I as a customer have to deal with storeowners who won't conduct the commerce they advertise with me because all of a sudden I offend their religion?   A bakery isn't a church,  and there's simply no chilling effect on a baker's ability to practice his religion by requiring him to adhere to the community's rules proscribing arbitrary discrimination in commerce.   Why couldn't that baker decide, on the basis of "religion",  to refuse service because I'm black, or because I'm Christian? 

The law can't cure all of life's little conflicts and offenses.  The baker is the one who advertised his services to encourage patronage of his shop - he's the one who should be held to his promise.  I'd think that as a practical matter most conflicts can be avoided by posting a sign indicating that the baker reserves the right to decline to write messages on cakes that are obscene or inappropriate.   

WINNER, WINNER!

CHICKEN DINNER!

[jmyrlefuller]

So how is it legitimate to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a purely civil ceremony on "religious" grounds?   Do you see the practical difficulties with allowing business owners who serve the public to discriminate based on arbitrary notions of what offends their "religion"?   

So how is it legitimate to force someone to violate their right to not do something, as explicitly outlined in the 13th Amendment, on discrimination grounds, especially if the protected class is one that runs counter to the person's explicitly outlined 1st Amendment right to exercise their religion freely?

If I refuse service to someone, and never say why, that person can claim they're gay and screw me over. Figuratively. How is that right?

[Jazzhead]

If I refuse service to someone, and never say why, that person can claim they're gay and screw me over. Figuratively. How is that right?

But isn't an arbitrary refusal to provide an advertised service - especially if you never say why - the textbook definition of screwing someone over?   

[Luis Gonzalez]

Guess who is doing the coercing here....

The people of the State of Oregon, but way of their elected public officials, that's who.

It was the people elected to the State's legislative body by the electorate who penned and passed the law into the statutes.

The law sets a condition for doing business in the State of Oregon, and if your conscience or religious beliefs are at odds with the law, then you should not take out a license to do business.

What you cant expect is that you would be allowed to license a business under the conditions set forth in the law, then refuse to abide by consent implied by your application and signature.

   

[Luis Gonzalez]

So how is it legitimate to force someone to violate their right to not do something, as explicitly outlined in the 13th Amendment, on discrimination grounds, especially if the protected class is one that runs counter to the person's explicitly outlined 1st Amendment right to exercise their religion freely?

If I refuse service to someone, and never say why, that person can claim they're gay and screw me over. Figuratively. How is that right?

This is neither slavery or involuntary servitude that's being discussed.

[geronl]

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), Conservative icon Antonin Scalia, argued that a person may not defy neutral laws of general applicability, such as public accommodation laws, as an expression of religious belief.

Then Scalia was wrong.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Or being misinterpreted.

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.

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said, are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/494/872

[SirLinksALot]

NO!  They're asking him to do what he advertised he would do - bake and sell them a wedding cake.

Yes PROVIDED no wedding messages such as two men are "married" ( this is a message that they must provide ) are to be MADE by the Baker. This is a matter of SPEECH now.

If the gay couple wants to have this message they have other choices:

1) Ask another baker to do it for them
2) Use their own art to put their own message into the cake.

  The baker can freely choose what he will sell and not sell.  A Jewish butcher, for example, can choose to not sell pork.  If the baker feels that selling a wedding cake may violate his religious beliefs, he should stick to fritters and donuts.   

Yes the baker can choose what he will or will not sell, but he can also choose what message he will or will not put. That is a matter of SPEECH.

As I said before, it is not a matter of the cake, it is WHAT IS WRITTEN or PLACED AS SYMBOL on the cake the baker objects to. Such exercise of free speech should be protected by the first amendment.

[SirLinksALot]

Keep in mind that this is a wedding with respect to a CIVIL marriage only.   No church is compelled to recognize or solemnize a civil wedding that violates that church's requirements or beliefs.

So how is it legitimate to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a purely civil ceremony on "religious" grounds?   

Because the MESSAGE they put in the civil ceremony is still objectionable to their faith.

Had it been purely a cake with no message, you might have a point.

This difference is evident in the burden placed on a person whose religious practice has been outlawed. As the Harvard Political Review points out, the “‘Sherbert Test’ requires that an individual must prove sincere religious beliefs and substantial burden through government action. If these are established, what the baker is compelled to do is unconstitutional unless the government proves a ‘compelling state interest’….” No such burden is placed on those exercising unpopular speech, however, and the government cannot prohibit it based on “compelling state interest.”

The second issue is that in these secular times, many Americans aren’t sympathetic to religious-freedom arguments. But freedom of speech enjoys much broader support, and the fear of its violation is far greater. Remember, only the religious engage in religious practice — but both the religious and non-religious engage in speech.


 In this case, not only religion but SPEECH is involved. Hence the first amendment would be applicable not just to bakeries, but anytime a message-oriented product or service is at issue, whether it is civil or otherwise.

[SirLinksALot]

This is neither slavery or involuntary servitude that's being discussed.

Because the MESSAGE they put in the civil ceremony is still objectionable to their faith. I would not go as far as calling it slavery, but I would call it a form of involuntary servitude by state coercion.

Had it been purely a cake with no message, you and Mr. Jazzhead might have a point.

This difference is evident in the burden placed on a person whose religious practice has been outlawed. As the Harvard Political Review points out, the “‘Sherbert Test’ requires that an individual must prove sincere religious beliefs and substantial burden through government action. If these are established, what the baker is compelled to do is unconstitutional unless the government proves a ‘compelling state interest’….” No such burden is placed on those exercising unpopular speech, however, and the government cannot prohibit it based on “compelling state interest.”

The second issue is that in these secular times, many Americans aren’t sympathetic to religious-freedom arguments. But freedom of speech enjoys much broader support, and the fear of its violation is far greater. Remember, only the religious engage in religious practice — but both the religious and non-religious engage in speech.

 In this case, not only religion but SPEECH is involved. Hence the first amendment would be applicable not just to bakeries, but anytime a message-oriented product or service is at issue, whether it is civil or otherwise.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Because the MESSAGE they put in the civil ceremony is still objectionable to their faith.

Dude, you're all over the place.

A few posts back you argued that Sharia tenets were subservient to secular laws, then you argued that this is a violation of the baker's religious beliefs, and now you;re arguing that it is a case of Free Speech.

It's rather simple.

Same-sex marriage is legal in the State of Oregon.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in the State of Oregon.

In the State of Oregon, you have the choice to A) be a baker and bake wedding cakes for anyone that wants one, B) be a baker and bake wedding cakes for no one, or c) not be a baker.

The choice that you DON'T have, irrespective of your reasons for doing it, is to run a business that's not in full compliance with the governing State, County and local laws, ordinances and statutes.

You don't have the right to discriminate based on your religious beliefs, because that would make you law unto yourself.

Period.

If you don't like the way things are done in Oregon, you can move and set up a bakery in a State with business regulations that are more to your liking.

   

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yes PROVIDED no wedding messages such as two men are "married" ( this is a message that they must provide ) are to be MADE by the Baker. This is a matter of SPEECH now.

There is no marriage outside the Church, yet heterosexuals are now defending the constitution of civil unions, ceremonies officiated by civil magistrates of unknown (if any) religious beliefs, conducted outside God's House where many times a Bible or God's words are not part of the ceremony, by claiming them to be marriages with religious connotations.

Absurd.

[SirLinksALot]

Dude, you're all over the place.

A few posts back you argued that Sharia tenets were subservient to secular laws, then you argued that this is a violation of the baker's religious beliefs, and now you;re arguing that it is a case of Free Speech.

Yes, PROVIDED the exercise of Sharia DOES NOT VIOLATE the Constitution. There are Sharia Laws that are in harmony with the constitution, and there are those that are not.

Suppose Sharia tells Muslims to kill homosexuals ( and it does in many countries ), then the Constitution overrides Sharia.

But if a Muslim baker refuses to put a "wedding message" on a gay couple's cake because Sharia prohibits it, that is PROTECTED by the First amendment.

In what way am I all over the place? It is ENTIRELY consistent with the constitution.

We differentiate between those Sharia laws that are in harmony with the constitution ( protected ) and those that are not ( outlawed ).

Same-sex marriage is legal in the State of Oregon.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal in the State of Oregon.

In the State of Oregon, you have the choice to A) be a baker and bake wedding cakes for anyone that wants one, B) be a baker and bake wedding cakes for no one, or c) not be a baker.

The choice that you DON'T have, irrespective of your reasons for doing it, is to run a business that's not in full compliance with the governing State, County and local laws, ordinances and statutes.

You don't have the right to discriminate based on your religious beliefs, because that would make you law unto yourself.

Period.

If you don't like the way things are done in Oregon, you can move and set up a bakery in a State with business regulations that are more to your liking.

1) The Constitution came first before the State of Oregon.

2) The Constitution guarantees free exercise of religion and speech. It is IMPLIED that when Oregon writes laws, their laws should be in harmony with the constitution and not violate its bill of rights.

3) Not wanting to create a message that is in violation of one's conscience is protected by the first amendment

4) The constitution and the bill of rights were written precisely to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

5) Therefore, regardless of gay marriage being legal in Oregon, people who do not want to write or create messages that violate their religion should be protected.

A wise judge would simply dismiss the gay couple's case and tell them to find another baker. They get their cake, the Christian bakers preserve their freedom. PERIOD.

The bill of rights is SUPREME over any local business law. The Christian bakers should not be burdened to leave their state and take their business with them.

[SirLinksALot]

There is no marriage outside the Church, yet heterosexuals are now defending the constitution of civil unions, ceremonies officiated by civil magistrates of unknown (if any) religious beliefs, conducted outside God's House where many times a Bible or God's words are not part of the ceremony, by claiming them to be marriages with religious connotations.

Absurd.

If as you say, there is no marriage outside the church, then Christian bakers should be free NOT to put any message implying marriage at all.

[jmyrlefuller]

But isn't an arbitrary refusal to provide an advertised service - especially if you never say why - the textbook definition of screwing someone over?   

Only if you believe you are entitled to someone else's service.

If you walk into a business, you walk in with the understanding that it is someone else's property. Their rules apply.

Screwing someone over would be a guy paying for something, then not getting it. If someone is upfront about not wanting to serve the customer, that's their loss, but it's honest.

[EC]

Quick question:

What was the message the bakers were asked to put on the cake?

Seems that some here are making a big point of it, so what, exactly, was it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

If as you say, there is no marriage outside the church, then Christian bakers should be free NOT to put any message implying marriage at all.

But they're not, because their stated reason was illegal.

Number 2... they routinely recognize civil marriages as being marriages, so again, they discriminate based on sexual preference, which is illegal in Oregon.

[SirLinksALot]

Quick question:

What was the message the bakers were asked to put on the cake?

Seems that some here are making a big point of it, so what, exactly, was it?

 I was informed by an Oregon friend that it involved at least putting the figurines of two lesbian couples on the cake. Something like this: