Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage To Be Law Of The Land

Donnachaidh wrote:What tyranny? How does allowing same sex couple to marry change anything for anyone else?

As far as your baker goes, they would have been treated the same way under the law if they had refused to make a special cake for an interracial couple or a Jewish couple or a Mexican couple. Any of those would have violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The fact that they were willing to sell non-special cakes is immaterial to the fact that they refused to perform the service they chose to commercialize on the basis of the customer's sexual orientation. If the baker had not created special cakes for anyone, then refusing to make one for that couple would have been legally acceptable but they chose to create special cakes for others so refusing is not legal.


Freedom of Religion does not mean you get to impose your faith on others, that baker doesn't seem to understand that; if you'd like a more recent example, Kim Davis and her supporters don't either.

PeterZ wrote:

hanuman wrote:That baker's, or any other vendor's, troubles do NOT stem from same sex couples' legal right to marry, but instead from an entirely different issue to which same sex marriage is only incidental. Their troubles concern the question of whether a private business can refuse service to members of the public on grounds of personal dislike or conscience.

Personally, I find myself in two minds about it. On the one hand, I'd rather take my money to a business that would treat me with the respect and dignity I am entitled to as a human being. On the other hand, allowing people to turn away customers simply because of a particular identity would set a precedent for all kinds of discriminatory practices. That baker might just as well have refused service to a Muslim couple, or a Hindu couple, or on the basis of a profound personal bias against people of colour.

That is why I said same sex marriage is just incidental to the question of service refusal by private businesses. This is a question I cannot get involved in, because my country's particular history of institutionalized racism predisposes me to not caring for 'whites only' notices, even on the basis of religious conscience.

As for your tyranny of the minority remark, that is a baseless argument art same sex marriage. The couples involved in Obergefell did not seek special treatment at the expense of the majority. Obergefell took nothing away from the majority; the SCOTUS simply confirmed that the Fourteenth's provisions applied equally to same sex couples. That is hardly 'tyranny'.

My comment was not directed at the plaintiffs, but at SCOTUS. The plaintiff availed themselves of the court system to address a grievance. That is a right all Americans have and should never squander. SCOTUS' judgment required the definition of marriage to be altered in the way that was preferred by those 5 judges. Sending the case back to the states with the ruling that the law needs to be rewritten to allow same sex marriage would have let the states refine their laws to allow SSM without SCOTUS in any way imposing the views of a very limited few on how that needs to be accomplished.

I agree with your reservations on the baker. Yet the distinction I make relies on the 1st Amendment. The 1st allows me and anyone the freedom to speak as I see fit so long as I do not endanger anyone or incite violence. That means that I can also choose not to speak or express myself. Creating art or objects of personal expression is an extension of this freedom of speech. That means the government can take no action that infringes upon this right. No fines. Private individuals may boycott or retaliate in legal ways to their hearts content, just no government fines.

If the baker refuses commercial services offered to anyone else that does not involve his creative efforts, he then can be fined into ruin. The distinction is perhaps small but in my eyes a clear demarcation.

PeterZ wrote:The 1st Amendment protects someone's freedom of speech and by extension expression. Creating art is considered covered under freedom of expression. That is one cannot use the force of government to infringe upon that freedom. Baking a cake and then adding creative elements upon that cake to express a particular statement/idea is producing creative art. Government cannot infringe upon the baker's right to freedom of speech by fining him for refusing to express himself in a particular manner his conscience objects to. If government can compel a citizen to express himself/herself in a particular way, no citizen has freedom of speech.

We don't even have to get into the freedom of religion.

Donnachaidh wrote:What tyranny? How does allowing same sex couple to marry change anything for anyone else?

As far as your baker goes, they would have been treated the same way under the law if they had refused to make a special cake for an interracial couple or a Jewish couple or a Mexican couple. Any of those would have violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The fact that they were willing to sell non-special cakes is immaterial to the fact that they refused to perform the service they chose to commercialize on the basis of the customer's sexual orientation. If the baker had not created special cakes for anyone, then refusing to make one for that couple would have been legally acceptable but they chose to create special cakes for others so refusing is not legal.


Freedom of Religion does not mean you get to impose your faith on others, that baker doesn't seem to understand that; if you'd like a more recent example, Kim Davis and her supporters don't either.

Donnachaidh wrote:Here's how I interpreted your statement about the SCOTUS, "They shouldn't have actually stated whether or not same sex marriage was constitutional. They should have just told the states to fix their laws so that same sex marriage is legal." You're basically saying that all persons in the US who are LGBT (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States approximately 3.8%, ~9.1 million people) must wait the years (or likely decades) it would take for all states to have laws allowing same sex marriage. That is unreasonable. Would it have been nice to have that legal discrimination be removed by legislative action rather than judicial? Yes. But that does not mean that people should be negatively impacted for years or decades to allow that to happen.

Donnachaidh wrote:The minute you commercialize your creative efforts you lose your right to discriminate. That is the law.

The ethics of the laws requiring that are another discussion. I can honestly see reasonable arguments both sides but overall, the negative impact on society of allowing discrimination is greater than the negative impact of forcing people to do business with people they bigoted against.


What is the difference between a baker refusing to make a special cake for an interracial couple and a same sex couple?

If that baker had refused to make a cake for an interracial couple I highly doubt you would be making these same arguments, yet those same arguments could be used to justify not making a cake for an interracial couple.

This might be a better explanation wrote:If they were making the cake as John Doe then they absolutely have the right discriminate. But they aren't making the cake as John Doe, they're making it on behalf of John Doe's Bakery, which is a public accommodation and therefore does not have the right to discriminate.

PeterZ wrote:I agree with your assertion regarding discrimination. But going into business does not mean you lose your 1st Amendment right to free speech. If the baker was refusing to sell white frosted cakes with no creative expression involved, then yes, the baker cannot discriminate.

If government is forcing the baker to express his art in ways he believes goes against his conscience, then no HIS rights are being infringed upon. The refused customer is free to take legal, private action including a law suit, but the government is prohibited from infringing upon the baker's 1st Amendment rights.

Donnachaidh wrote:The minute you commercialize your creative efforts you lose your right to discriminate. That is the law.

The ethics of the laws requiring that are another discussion. I can honestly see reasonable arguments both sides but overall, the negative impact on society of allowing discrimination is greater than the negative impact of forcing people to do business with people they bigoted against.


What is the difference between a baker refusing to make a special cake for an interracial couple and a same sex couple?

If that baker had refused to make a cake for an interracial couple I highly doubt you would be making these same arguments, yet those same arguments could be used to justify not making a cake for an interracial couple.

Donnachaidh wrote:Refusing to perform a commercial service because they are bigoted against a customer (or potential customer) is discrimination. Because they are using their creative efforts in their business (i.e. public accommodation), they have do not have the right to discriminate against customers.

This might be a better explanation wrote:If they were making the cake as John Doe then they absolutely have the right discriminate. But they aren't making the cake as John Doe, they're making it on behalf of John Doe's Bakery, which is a public accommodation and therefore does not have the right to discriminate.

PeterZ wrote:Is an artist prohibited from selling his art? That artist has freedom of expression whether he sells that art or not. The protection contained in the 1st Amendment is aimed at the creative essence of the speech or expression, not the reason for its creation. So, whether the speech is expressed for profit, charity or simply to be a troll, government cannot infringe upon it.

Infringing does mean compelling the performance of that expression through threat of fines or other legal action. There are competing interests involved and in choosing between options the government should choose the option that ensures the most liberty.