Druid Wedding Cake

[minn19]

Another minor incident that wasn't a big deal I remember from a while back. Is this what business owners and the public want to deal with on an expanding level? Is it what the founders/writers of the Constitution meant by religious freedom or did they mean something else?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/n...ont-ring-pork/

[WingZeroX5]

Originally Posted by Sea-Tac

Should a Druid baker be afforded the same legal right as the Colorado baker to refuse to make or sell a wedding cake to an Olmec male and female couple because of differences in religion?

Prefer Barbs

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by minn19

Another minor incident that wasn't a big deal I remember from a while back. Is this what business owners and the public want to deal with on an expanding level? Is it what the founders/writers of the Constitution meant by religious freedom or did they mean something else?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/n...ont-ring-pork/

It looks like it was 11 years ago, so it seems to have been resolved by switching people to other positions or people finding other jobs where they wouldn’t be confronted with a situation contrary to their religious beliefs. I don’t remember a Supreme Court case by Muslim employees or Target customers so it seems like the problem was resolved closer to what I am suggesting than by forcing them to do something.

So why would it have been better to force them to ring up products that contain pork?

[Mandi90TT]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

Does your Druid have any special items? A vorpal sword,

Druids can not use swords, so no.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

It looks like it was 11 years ago, so it seems to have been resolved by switching people to other positions or people finding other jobs where they wouldn’t be confronted with a situation contrary to their religious beliefs. I don’t remember a Supreme Court case by Muslim employees or Target customers so it seems like the problem was resolved closer to what I am suggesting than by forcing them to do something.

So why would it have been better to force them to ring up products that contain pork?

This is what I was trying to get at in my previous post that you seemed to take offense to. It doesn’t matter how many examples I give you, you are just looking at them as individual incidents and not the bigger picture IMO. It wasn’t agree with me or else/my way or the highway, it is just the fact we look at this issue completely differently and how serious of an issue it is.

If the SC follows along this logic and expands the definition of religious freedom to this extent it will be a serious thing to deal with for everyone. Can you imagine what consumers, employers and the impact on society in general will be if people are allowed to refuse to do whatever based on “religious freedom.” This is just a few examples from the three major religions, can you imagine when we would have to start accommodating everyone from lesser know religions? And then denominations of these religions.........

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by minn19

This is what I was trying to get at in my previous post that you seemed to take offense to. It doesn’t matter how many examples I give you, you are just looking at them as individual incidents and not the bigger picture IMO. It wasn’t agree with me or else/my way or the highway, it is just the fact we look at this issue completely differently and how serious of an issue it is.

If the SC follows along this logic and expands the definition of religious freedom to this extent it will be a serious thing to deal with for everyone. Can you imagine what consumers, employers and the impact on society in general will be if people are allowed to refuse to do whatever based on “religious freedom.” This is just a few examples from the three major religions, can you imagine when we would have to start accommodating everyone from lesser know religions? And then denominations of these religions.........

Just to make sure....you know the SC has already ruled on the baker story right?

[minn19]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Just to make sure....you know the SC has already ruled on the baker story right?

Just a very specific portion of it. There is more to be decided on the expanding of religious freedom or whatever you want to call it that they avoided with there decision.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile..../idUSKCN1J01WU

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by minn19

This is what I was trying to get at in my previous post that you seemed to take offense to. It doesn't matter how many examples I give you, you are just looking at them as individual incidents and not the bigger picture IMO. It wasn't agree with me or else/my way or the highway, it is just the fact we look at this issue completely differently and how serious of an issue it is.

If the SC follows along this logic and expands the definition of religious freedom to this extent it will be a serious thing to deal with for everyone. Can you imagine what consumers, employers and the impact on society in general will be if people are allowed to refuse to do whatever based on "religious freedom." This is just a few examples from the three major religions, can you imagine when we would have to start accommodating everyone from lesser know religions? And then denominations of these religions.........

Except freedom of religion has been around a long time and it was never a major problem in this context until the baker got called out and it worked through the courts. You had to go back 10+ years to find obscure examples and then say I am focused on individual instances? And it is seems clear you disregard religious beliefs as a defense so that does seem like your way or the highway.

Anyway, the SC has ruled on this case already but have made it clear other cases could have different results. Bear that in mind before getting too worked up about the big picture.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

Except freedom of religion has been around a long time and it was never a major problem in this context until the baker got called out and it worked through the courts. You had to go back 10+ years to find obscure examples and then say I am focused on individual instances? And it is seems clear you disregard religious beliefs as a defense so that does seem like your way or the highway.

Anyway, the SC has ruled on this case already but have made it clear other cases could have different results. Bear that in mind before getting too worked up about the big picture.

Freedom of religion yes, in this context no.

Again, I know they ruled in this case, but on very narrow grounds. As to the future, yes I’m a little worried considering the make up of the court and the direction things are going.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by minn19

Freedom of religion yes, in this context no.

Again, I know they ruled in this case, but on very narrow grounds. As to the future, yes I’m a little worried considering the make up of the court and the direction things are going.

It was 7-2, not 5-4 like many decisions. It wasn't a liberal vs. conservative issue. It was a constitutional issue about how the state disregarded the baker's first amendment rights.

As far as the direction things are going, you seem to forget there was a conservative majority on the Court when the SC ruled in favor of gay marriage and, as you acknowledge, the ruling in this case is on narrow grounds. People haven't been given a blank check to discriminate but their religious rights can't be disregarded either.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

It was 7-2, not 5-4 like many decisions. It wasn't a liberal vs. conservative issue. It was a constitutional issue about how the state disregarded the baker's first amendment rights.

As far as the direction things are going, you seem to forget there was a conservative majority on the Court when the SC ruled in favor of gay marriage and, as you acknowledge, the ruling in this case is on narrow grounds. People haven't been given a blank check to discriminate but their religious rights can't be disregarded either.

I never said this decision was a liberal vs conservative issue. But, that doesn't mean the future decision can't be. I also don't consider this a liberal vs conservative issue nor a Republican vs Democrat one. I consider it an insanity vs sanity decision.

Also, I'm not so sure of the court having a conservative majority in 2015. I'd call it 4-4 with a wild card in Kennedy. The most conservative justices considered it unconstitutional including Chief Justice Roberts. And I would add todays court is more conservative than that one was so yah it could be a lot different this go around on a number of topics if they choose to take up new challenges. And the future, especially if Trump or another Republican wins again it will be decidedly more conservative if they get to replace Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg who are getting up there in age.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5295aa5655d4

[BSM n54iS]

https://youtu.be/RqKk-4a44U0

Had to

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by minn19

I never said this decision was a liberal vs conservative issue. But, that doesn't mean the future decision can't be. I also don't consider this a liberal vs conservative issue nor a Republican vs Democrat one. I consider it an insanity vs sanity decision.

Also, I'm not so sure of the court having a conservative majority in 2015. I'd call it 4-4 with a wild card in Kennedy. The most conservative justices considered it unconstitutional including Chief Justice Roberts. And I would add todays court is more conservative than that one was so yah it could be a lot different this go around on a number of topics if they choose to take up new challenges. And the future, especially if Trump or another Republican wins again it will be decidedly more conservative if they get to replace Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg who are getting up there in age.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.5295aa5655d4

So it’s not a liberal vs. conservative issue but you are concerned about a potentially more conservative court in the future that could turn it into one? That doesn’t sound rational. Even if Gorsuch wasn’t appointed yet, this one would have gone 6-2. If you are worried about future decisions, you should be happy the SC reaffirmed that individual rights matter. That may be handy when there is a case about an individual right you care about.

Also, you must have forgotten Scalia died if you think this court is more conservative than in 2015.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

So it’s not a liberal vs. conservative issue but you are concerned about a potentially more conservative court in the future that could turn it into one? That doesn’t sound rational. Even if Gorsuch wasn’t appointed yet, this one would have gone 6-2. If you are worried about future decisions, you should be happy the SC reaffirmed that individual rights matter. That may be handy when there is a case about an individual right you care about.

Also, you must have forgotten Scalia died if you think this court is more conservative than in 2015.

I didn't forget anything, the courts doesn't rule in a vacuum and the political climate has changed considerably. I can see the argument on this narrow ruling being bipartisan, but if Trump is able to put 2-3 more Gorsuch's then you don't think things will be just a bit different? And as aggressive as he is you don't think Trump would attempt to use that to his political advantage?

Also you might think about more than just about an individual compared to what is best for society someday when things start to effect you. But, since they haven't I'm guessing you can't see past individual events or how they might in the future.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by minn19

I didn't forget anything, the courts doesn't rule in a vacuum and the political climate has changed considerably. I can see the argument on this narrow ruling being bipartisan, but if Trump is able to put 2-3 more Gorsuch's then you don't think things will be just a bit different? And as aggressive as he is you don't think Trump would attempt to use that to his political advantage?

Also you might think about more than just about an individual compared to what is best for society someday when things start to effect you. But, since they haven't I'm guessing you can't see past individual events or how they might in the future.

You are rambling and not making sense so have a good evening.

[minn19]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

You are rambling and not making sense so have a good evening.

Uh huh.

[infinitekidM2C]

3 pages and no pic of a druid wedding cake? smh

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Sea-Tac

Should a Druid baker be afforded the same legal right as the Colorado baker to refuse to make or sell a wedding cake to an Olmec male and female couple because of differences in religion?

Shouldn't you really be asking whether or not a druid baker should be forced to design a wedding cake vs. selling one of the other cakes in the case?

The baker in Colorado didn't refuse to sell any cakes but refused to design a cake.

[C1Boston]

I would just spend my money at another business. Doubt there is just ONE bakery in the area they live in. I'll never understand these cases, why is it anyones business what sex or religion somebody practices or prefers. They have money, you offer a service, exchange it and go on about your day.

[Sea-Tac]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Shouldn't you really be asking whether or not a druid baker should be forced to design a wedding cake vs. selling one of the other cakes in the case?

The baker in Colorado didn't refuse to sell any cakes but refused to design a cake.

ACLU case no: 2012-25:

“On May 30, 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop unlawfully discriminated against David Mullins and Charlie Craig by refusing to sell them a wedding cake...”.

Further:

“…The Commission’s order affirmed previous determinations that Masterpiece’s refusal to sell Mullins and Craig a wedding cake constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Colorado law..."

https://aclu-co.org/court-cases/masterpiece-cakeshop/

The Supreme Court set aside the Colorado court ruling in their decision with numerous references to the word sale.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Sea-Tac

ACLU case no: 2012-25:

"On May 30, 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop unlawfully discriminated against David Mullins and Charlie Craig by refusing to sell them a wedding cake...".

Further:

"…The Commission's order affirmed previous determinations that Masterpiece's refusal to sell Mullins and Craig a wedding cake constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of Colorado law..."

https://aclu-co.org/court-cases/masterpiece-cakeshop/"]https://aclu-co.org/court-cases/masterpiece-cakeshop/

The Supreme Court set aside the Colorado court ruling in their decision with numerous references to the word sale.

You should read the opinons from SCOTUS.

Specifically from Justice Thomas. The baker offered to sell the couple a cake in the case inlieu of designing one. I myself was not aware of the distinction until I read the opinions.

J. Thomas said, paraphrasing here, that to custom design a cake was a form of art by the baker and artwork is considered expressive speech which is protected by the 1st Amend.

[Sea-Tac]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

You should read the opinons from SCOTUS.

Specifically from Justice Thomas. The baker offered to sell the couple a cake in the case inlieu of designing one. I myself was not aware of the distinction until I read the opinions.

J. Thomas said, paraphrasing here, that to custom design a cake was a form of art by the baker and artwork is considered expressive speech which is protected by the 1st Amend.

All good points you raise for certain. I think where everything hinges, was going back to the Colorado law which prohibits "service" to anyone based on religion, sex, etc. Though not certain, I think "service" would include the creation of the design and sale, as stated (sale) in the Colorado opinion.

In any case, what I found out, and which I didn't know before, was that this baker had previously denied "service" to same sex couples in the past because of his religious beliefs but made a cake for the marriage of two dogs!!! I won't go there!

Marie-Antoinette, I think, said it best: "let them eat cake".