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

Peter I admire your determination to stick to your guns despite being the only one on your side. Doesn't mean that I agree with you though.

As to -

"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."

I'm sure that producers of child porn, bestiality and snuff movies also consider it to be art; however society has quite rightly decided that these vile practices are across the line. The question therefore is not whether there should be a line, but just how far is too far. Not saying that refusal to bake a cake is remotely close to the level of such practices, but the principle still applies.
My view is that refusing to bake a cake would be a particularly hurtful act to a gay couple who have been bruised all their lives by prejudice, and from what I know of the Christian professed ethos the pain caused by such an act would be a worse sin than simply writing words that you disagree with.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-buzz/florida-may-lift-its-148-year-ban-on-couple-175127034.html

Talk about ass-backwards compared to the discussion at hand.

PeterZ wrote:I agree, actually. I was thinking a time table of months. Failure to meet that deadline would then result having the law treated as unconstitutional as it is being treated now. As I said, oh so many times, these sorts of changes are best done through legislation if at all possible.

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.

Peter, sodomy laws throughout the US were struck down by the SCOTUS back in 2001, yet States like Texas, Alabama and Mississippi are still refusing to remove those laws from their statutes. Human rights are just that, they are inalienable qualities that every human being is endowed with, not something that can or should depend on the vagaries of a popular majority.

I ask you if a pious Jewish baker was asked to bake a cake that says "Jesus is my Lord and Savior". Could he decline?

I recall a conversation with a Jewish friend about this topic. He always referred to dates as B.C.E or C.E. I asked why. He replied that could not even say words that acknowledged any other god but his as his Lord. He could not say anno Domini in good conscience. He would be saying the year of our Lord.

Must the Jewish baker be forced to accept my commission or be fined? Be forced to create words that break religious law he is morally obligated to follow? Is the 1st Amendment no protection? If it is then why this part of the First Amendment and not the other?

No. The First Amendment is the sine qua non of American liberty. If government can limit speech for any reason other than to protect life, we have no liberty at all. So, an American can refuse a request to perform activities that violate his/her conscience with impunity from government.

So the baker is not discriminating based the customers sexual orientation, he discriminating against performing an activity that violates his conscience, if he believes SSM is a sin. The same would be true of the Jewish baker. After all the law allows us to discriminate for any reason other than for race, creed, religion, age, national origin and sexual orientation. The prohibition against discrimination is much narrower than the limits on 1A.

So I can discriminate against people who are not dressed properly, against folks who are overly liberals or progressives, against left footed field goal Kickers and even ex-Presidents of the US. I can discriminate in all those ways but not against protected classes. Yet, I can only be limited in my speech when inciting violence or when the nature of my speech threatens life like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I really don't buy your logic at all. Liberty is ensured by securing our most important freedoms not by allowing government to secure a very limited prohibition.

Donnachaidh wrote:You're missing the point. It's not just art, it's commissioned art. It's not an artist refusing to sell their art, it's an artist refusing to take a commission because of demographics of the person wanting to commission the art.

This is a matter of motivation. There wouldn't have been a problem if the baker's actual reason was they did have the capacity to create the cake in time or that was a bigger/more difficult cake than they were able/willing to make. The problem is the baker's motivation for refusing to create the cake was due to the demographics of the person wanting the cake.

I don't disagree that requiring the baker to make the cake or face fines or other legal action limits their rights. However allowing them to refuse for that reason causes greater harm then requiring them to make the cake.

You claim this is an issue of liberty; I don't see it that way, this is an issue of which requirements cause the least harm, not which requirements do not cause harm; there is not a way that does not cause harm.

If it is an issue of liberty, the option that ensures the most liberty is to require businesses be non-discriminatory.

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.

hanuman wrote:
Peter, sodomy laws throughout the US were struck down by the SCOTUS back in 2001, yet States like Texas, Alabama and Mississippi are still refusing to remove those laws from their statutes. Human rights are just that, they are inalienable qualities that every human being is endowed with, not something that can or should depend on the vagaries of a popular majority.

But you think the decision of 5 people is somehow less influenced by those political vagaries? Hello! Dred Scott anyone? Or perhaps this only true when they agree with you.

Our sovereignty resides in the individual citizen. We hold the ultimate responsibility for our own self governance. We must participate in it. Your distrust of the process is irrelevant to the proposition that meaningful social change is best accomplished by the involvement of a broad swath of society. It is after all their society to live in.

If your law says that the baker cant refuse service to anyone due to discrimination, and that commissionable art is a business service, and he has made other cakes celebrating religion for money, and sold them to the public, then yes, the law and how it has been interpreted and ruled on says that he cant discriminate against other religions. A business can not discriminate on the basis of the sex, gender, race etc of its clients, but you personally can. You as a volunteer baker making cakes for people can refuse your service, but not once you are a business, thats the way the law is.

The judges ruling in the baker case:

“Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage. However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation,” Judge Daniel Taubman wrote.

SO if he makes wedding cakes to order, he has to make them for all couples, not just hetero couples, as that is the law.

And although not a lawyer, the wording of your first indicates that it doesnt seem to be breaching the first...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Is the law respecting or prohibiting a relgious establishment, and the followship thereof, in as much as the followship does not breach other laws? nope. Is it preventing him from holding his views or saying them, or preventing him from publishing them? nope. Is it infringing on his right to assemble and petition? nope. So no breach of the first here.


There is no first amendment problem here, only a 14th.

PeterZ wrote:Must the Jewish baker be forced to accept my commission or be fined? Be forced to create words that break religious law he is morally obligated to follow? Is the 1st Amendment no protection? If it is then why this part of the First Amendment and not the other?

No. The First Amendment is the sine qua non of American liberty. If government can limit speech for any reason other than to protect life, we have no liberty at all. So, an American can refuse a request to perform activities that violate his/her conscience with impunity from government.

So the baker is not discriminating based the customers sexual orientation, he discriminating against performing an activity that violates his conscience, if he believes SSM is a sin. The same would be true of the Jewish baker. After all the law allows us to discriminate for any reason other than for race, creed, religion, age, national origin and sexual orientation. The prohibition against discrimination is much narrower than the limits on 1A.

So I can discriminate against people who are not dressed properly, against folks who are overly liberals or progressives, against left footed field goal Kickers and even ex-Presidents of the US. I can discriminate in all those ways but not against protected classes. Yet, I can only be limited in my speech when inciting violence or when the nature of my speech threatens life like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I really don't buy your logic at all. Liberty is ensured by securing our most important freedoms not by allowing government to secure a very limited prohibition.

PeterZ wrote:

hanuman wrote:
Peter, sodomy laws throughout the US were struck down by the SCOTUS back in 2001, yet States like Texas, Alabama and Mississippi are still refusing to remove those laws from their statutes. Human rights are just that, they are inalienable qualities that every human being is endowed with, not something that can or should depend on the vagaries of a popular majority.

But you think the decision of 5 people is somehow less influenced by those political vagaries? Hello! Dred Scott anyone? Or perhaps this only true when they agree with you.

Our sovereignty resides in the individual citizen. We hold the ultimate responsibility for our own self governance. We must participate in it. Your distrust of the process is irrelevant to the proposition that meaningful social change is best accomplished by the involvement of a broad swath of society. It is after all their society to live in.

Peter, now you really are reaching. Also, your argument is so so dangerous. Let's just hypothesize for a moment. If indeed human rights are subject to popular will, as you imply, then if twenty or fifty years from now the greater part of the population in a particular State becomes Muslim and achieves a majority in that State's legislature, then your argument essentially says that majority may outlaw Christian worship at will, or implement the death sentence for gays, or decide that women are in fact second-class beings with no legal rights. Because according to your argument human rights are just privileges extended by a government indebted to the public will rather than inalienable and inviolable qualities every human being is born with.

Think, man. Legislative action should be reserved for things a government is supposed to legislate. Human rights are not supposed to be one of those areas.

Hanuman,

You are being incredibly insulting or perhaps thick. All my arguments have assumed working within the framework of the Constitution. Changing the Constitution must involve the citizenry where possible. It is our social contract after all. Limiting involvement excludes the citizens in making changes to a contract they are obligated to live under.

The Constitution already prohibits what you post.

for the sake of argument let's revisit human rights as you use the term. The source for this is either divinely inspired or asserted by humans.

If divinely inspired, human rights are immutable. We humans do not change them, just accept or reject them and comport our lives based on that decision. 5 elites is legal or religious robes don't matter squat.

If human rights are asserted by humans then they are subject to those that make the assertion. French human rights are different than Australian ones and are different than American ones. In this case the individual is essential in shaping the menu of rights that will govern their lives. Again, 5 elites imposing their view of what rights should be is less helpful than getting large numbers of people effected by these rights asserting which rights they wish.

In both cases the citizenry is essential to the proper adoption of laws and mores that are consistent with any idea of human rights. Not including them would weaken any definition of human rights.

Daryl,

What is prohibited in the disgusting examples you cite is not the creation, because the purveyors of that filth are correct. It is creative art in the sense of expressing ideas no matter how objectionable. Each of those examples, however, cause direct harm. That is already prohibited. In the case of animals, the anti cruelty laws are sufficient. Child porn harms minors that deserve protection. Snuff films? Again prohibited because of the freedom of speech does not extend to killing.

The grey areas are cartoons or CGI that cover this subject matter. They are not photographs depicting specific individuals, but are factitious images with no direct relation to reality. Does the 1st Amendment protect those subjects which are objectionable but cause absolutely no direct harm? I sadly suspect that it should protect even those objectionable subject matters. After all, God does not prevent us from sinning, we must choose to not sin. That suggests a value in making the right choice. That is impossible without the ability to choose in the first place.

In a secular context, if we allow the government to decide what is objectionable, we may well find just about any subject matter objectionable and so subject to prohibition if the wrong people gain power.

PeterZ wrote:Hanuman,

You are being incredibly insulting or perhaps thick. All my arguments have assumed working within the framework of the Constitution. Changing the Constitution must involve the citizenry where possible. It is our social contract after all. Limiting involvement excludes the citizens in making changes to a contract they are obligated to live under.

The Constitution already prohibits what you post.

for the sake of argument let's revisit human rights as you use the term. The source for this is either divinely inspired or asserted by humans.

If divinely inspired, human rights are immutable. We humans do not change them, just accept or reject them and comport our lives based on that decision. 5 elites is legal or religious robes don't matter squat.

If human rights are asserted by humans then they are subject to those that make the assertion. French human rights are different than Australian ones and are different than American ones. In this case the individual is essential in shaping the menu of rights that will govern their lives. Again, 5 elites imposing their view of what rights should be is less helpful than getting large numbers of people effected by these rights asserting which rights they wish.

In both cases the citizenry is essential to the proper adoption of laws and mores that are consistent with any idea of human rights. Not including them would weaken any definition of human rights.

No no no! Obergefell in no way changed a single provision of the US Constitution. That is a fallacy that's been advocated by rightwing politicians like Huckabee, Jindal and Cruz who wouldn't recognize the meaning of the word 'truth' if you spoonfed it to them.

The SCOTUS examined the plaintiffs' case and agreed with them that same sex marriage bans violated same sex couples' Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to due process and equal protection under the law. Obergefell certainly did not introduce a new fundamental human right. You are being disingenuous, Sir.

Yes, each society adheres to a slightly different definition or understanding of what exactly the concept of 'human rights' entails. I wish to mention two points here.

First, in every society that actually practices what they preach, that understanding is based on a core that was derived from American principles of human freedom, including freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and equal status under the law.

Second, in the United States as in my own country and many others, those rights are entrenched in the national constitutions, and have been thusly enacted through a democratic process.

As such, the fundamental right of same sex couples to wed, as confirmed by the SCOTUS on the basis of the Fourteenth's provisions, have already been established by the American people at the moment the Fourteenth was enacted as the law of the land.

Whether the American people (or rather, their representatives) realized that at some point in the future the Fourteenth's provisions might be used to benefit a class of people that was suspect then and remains so to a certain degree really is besides the point. What matters is that those rights were enacted, that they apply to "all persons" and that the SCOTUS eventually recognized that through a legal process that was entirely in line with its constitutional mandate.