Disappointing News

[_honorentheos]

To be fair, I was off in my comment in that the question of live animal sacrifice being unconstitutionally targeted by an attempt to specifically outlaw it has been addressed directly by the Supreme Court in 1993 in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah. So by noting that otherwise illegal activities would require religious exemption or a person refusing to provide means necessary for the ritual would essentially be obeying the law missed the mark. But in this particular case, it seems that it would be very difficult for a law to be crafted that did not discriminate against Santeria practitioners. In which case, I would have to believe one could only refuse to sell a chicken to a practitioner of Santeria if they otherwise refuse to sell chickens for slaughter. But if Niadna is selling chickens to be taken home for food, Niadna would be discriminating if they refused to sell the chicken to someone who does so as part of their religious practice.

[_honorentheos]

So, this is where free exercise analysis gets into some deep weeds. It’s fine for folks like us on a message board to discuss the degree of participation required before there is a genuine interference with religious practice, but let’s step back and ask a more fundamental question: do we want the government to be in the business of defining what constitutes bona fide religious practice?

Nope...

which is why it's REALLY shaky ground to force someone to violate what he figures are his religious beliefs.

It isn't violating a person's religious belief. That person may not like the fact the person is getting married to someone they feel they should not be able to legally marry but they are not violating their beliefs by engaging in normal commerce with that person. I think you were closest when you acknowledged that it is a case where their right to free expression was in conflict with the other person's rights which today would include the right of a person to legally marry someone of the same sex.

[_Niadna]

So, this is where free exercise analysis gets into some deep weeds. It’s fine for folks like us on a message board to discuss the degree of participation required before there is a genuine interference with religious practice, but let’s step back and ask a more fundamental question: do we want the government to be in the business of defining what constitutes bona fide religious practice?

Nope...

which is why it's REALLY shaky ground to force someone to violate what he figures are his religious beliefs.

It isn't violating a person's religious belief. That person may not like the fact the person is getting married to someone they feel they should not be able to legally marry but they are not violating their beliefs by engaging in normal commerce with that person. I think you were closest when you acknowledged that it is a case where their right to free expression was in conflict with the other person's rights which today would include the right of a person to legally marry someone of the same sex.

Conflicting rights...yes.

But then...which party's rights are being forcibly violated?

Not the gay couple; they are not forced to purchase a cake from that baker. If the baker didn't exist, they could still marry. They would simply get a cake from someone else. It's not as if he is the only baker in town.

If the gay couple doesn't get a cake from this baker, they are still quite free to marry; the only thing they are NOT free to do is force THAT baker to make their wedding cake.

but the Baker IS being forced to do something against his religious beliefs.

I find that, personally, to be a problem.

.....and I would think the same way if his religious beliefs honestly forbade him from making a cake for a Temple wedding.

[_Maksutov]

The honest thing for these "faithful" business owners to do is post a list on the outside of their business of the types of customers they don't want. Then we all can recognize who we are patronizing. And it isn't enough to have a coy little fish, either--tell us what YOUR interpretation of Christianity is...it can range the full spectrum of Identity Racism to Children of God Polyamory and beyond and still fall under that innocuous little fishy.

[_Res Ipsa]

So, this is where free exercise analysis gets into some deep weeds. It’s fine for folks like us on a message board to discuss the degree of participation required before there is a genuine interference with religious practice, but let’s step back and ask a more fundamental question: do we want the government to be in the business of defining what constitutes bona fide religious practice?

Nope...

which is why it's REALLY shaky ground to force someone to violate what he figures are his religious beliefs.

So, are you proposing that I can violate any generally applicable law as long as I figure it violates my religious beliefs?

[_Res Ipsa]

So, this is where free exercise analysis gets into some deep weeds. It’s fine for folks like us on a message board to discuss the degree of participation required before there is a genuine interference with religious practice, but let’s step back and ask a more fundamental question: do we want the government to be in the business of defining what constitutes bona fide religious practice?

Nope...

which is why it's REALLY shaky ground to force someone to violate what he figures are his religious beliefs.

It isn't violating a person's religious belief. That person may not like the fact the person is getting married to someone they feel they should not be able to legally marry but they are not violating their beliefs by engaging in normal commerce with that person. I think you were closest when you acknowledged that it is a case where their right to free expression was in conflict with the other person's rights which today would include the right of a person to legally marry someone of the same sex.

Conflicting rights...yes.

But then...which party's rights are being forcibly violated?

Not the gay couple; they are not forced to purchase a cake from that baker. If the baker didn't exist, they could still marry. They would simply get a cake from someone else. It's not as if he is the only baker in town.

If the gay couple doesn't get a cake from this baker, they are still quite free to marry; the only thing they are NOT free to do is force THAT baker to make their wedding cake.

but the Baker IS being forced to do something against his religious beliefs.

I find that, personally, to be a problem.

.....and I would think the same way if his religious beliefs honestly forbade him from making a cake for a Temple wedding.

All laws, by definition, are force. In an older Supreme Court case, the owner of a restaurant refused to serve black folks based on his religious beliefs. Should he win that case? Or should the black folks just find some other restaurant to eat in?

So, how are you going to decide whether someone's religious beliefs honestly forbid something?

[_Maksutov]

Are you talking about Piggie Park, RI?

[_honorentheos]

So, this is where free exercise analysis gets into some deep weeds. It’s fine for folks like us on a message board to discuss the degree of participation required before there is a genuine interference with religious practice, but let’s step back and ask a more fundamental question: do we want the government to be in the business of defining what constitutes bona fide religious practice?

Nope...

which is why it's REALLY shaky ground to force someone to violate what he figures are his religious beliefs.

It isn't violating a person's religious belief. That person may not like the fact the person is getting married to someone they feel they should not be able to legally marry but they are not violating their beliefs by engaging in normal commerce with that person. I think you were closest when you acknowledged that it is a case where their right to free expression was in conflict with the other person's rights which today would include the right of a person to legally marry someone of the same sex.

Conflicting rights...yes.

But then...which party's rights are being forcibly violated?

Not the gay couple; they are not forced to purchase a cake from that baker. If the baker didn't exist, they could still marry. They would simply get a cake from someone else. It's not as if he is the only baker in town.

If the gay couple doesn't get a cake from this baker, they are still quite free to marry; the only thing they are NOT free to do is force THAT baker to make their wedding cake.

but the Baker IS being forced to do something against his religious beliefs.

I find that, personally, to be a problem.

.....and I would think the same way if his religious beliefs honestly forbade him from making a cake for a Temple wedding.

It isn't about forcing a person to act against their religious beliefs. The baker is selling wedding cakes. To tell a certain class of people that he won't sell to them as an act against his conscious is a form of expression but not an action of free exercise of religion. He's discriminating against them by the very fact he is excluding them from business based on their protected class status and legal actions which is a violation of their civil rights. His expression of belief in the form of wanting to withhold his business is discriminatory towards the same-sex couple seeking a cake for their wedding which he is only refusing to engage in commerce because of discrimination. There is nothing about his business of selling cakes that interfaces with his religious practice, he sells cakes as an otherwise secular cake provider to anyone and everyone because that's how one makes a living selling cakes.

What I think is a little odd but probably much more defensible would be for his business to be a Christian Cake Provider where he only sold cakes for Christian weddings. If he was refusing to sell cakes to Mormons, Jews, people heading to the reception hall to be married by their friend who got licensed off the internet to perform that ceremony or someone getting married by a justice of the peace maybe he could defend the selling of cakes as being part of his religious practice. I'm not sure about that but so long as he is just an average "expert" cake maker selling wedding cakes to make a living then he isn't being forced to do anything against his beliefs. He's just being told his right to free expression doesn't allow him to engage in an act of discrimination that violates someone else's civil rights. Now I don't think the courts have come out this strongly on this matter and probably won't until forced to do so. But this is what the various precedents point to as being the case.

ETA: It's the same principle in the Masterpiece decision that I applaud, actually. Because the Colorado Rights Commission demonstrated they were opposing the baker BECAUSE of his religious belief and not remaining neutral in applying the law, it made the Supreme Court's job fairly straightforward. The commissioners do not have a right to discriminate against him based on his holding religious belief they find distasteful even if what was said was essentially an expression of certain individual commissioner's beliefs. It turned into discriminatory action.

[_Res Ipsa]

Are you talking about Piggie Park, RI?

Yeah, that’s the one. Footnote 5.

[_Niadna]

...snip to here because I haven't quite figured out the quote function in here yet...

What I think is a little odd but probably much more defensible would be for his business to be a Christian Cake Provider where he only sold cakes for Christian weddings. If he was refusing to sell cakes to Mormons, Jews, people heading to the reception hall to be married by their friend who got licensed off the internet to perform that ceremony or someone getting married by a justice of the peace maybe he could defend the selling of cakes as being part of his religious practice. I'm not sure about that but so long as he is just an average "expert" cake maker selling wedding cakes to make a living then he isn't being forced to do anything against his beliefs. He's just being told his right to free expression doesn't allow him to engage in an act of discrimination that violates someone else's civil rights. Now I don't think the courts have come out this strongly on this matter and probably won't until forced to do so. But this is what the various precedents point to as being the case.

ETA: It's the same principle in the Masterpiece decision that I applaud, actually. Because the Colorado Rights Commission demonstrated they were opposing the baker BECAUSE of his religious belief and not remaining neutral in applying the law, it made the Supreme Court's job fairly straightforward. The commissioners do not have a right to discriminate against him based on his holding religious belief they find distasteful even if what was said was essentially an expression of certain individual commissioner's beliefs. It turned into discriminatory action.

OK...I have now finished all 59 pages of that decision, complete with margin notes and highlighter.

Yeah, this was a slam dunk for Supreme Court, and frankly?

It was a masterful piece of dodging the issue.

........They managed to rule on the whole thing without ruling on anything, to be honest; they were able to blame all of this on the state commission, and the state commission screwed up so that they could.

In the meantime, the baker involved doesn't have his questions answered, and neither do we. In fact, the justices of Supreme Court simply ask more questions without answering them; the same ones we are asking. They even mention the problem of what happens when the baker is asked to do a cake with politically INcorrect messages on them...that it's OK for the baker to refuse to bake anti-gay cakes.

But nothing got settled.

WHERE do the lines get drawn here?

PERSONALLY, I would have baked the cake, but then y'all know that already. I also think that NOT providing the cake comes really close to discrimination. But...I'm not the baker and his religious beliefs are not mine. Do I have the right to tell him what his 'really' are and which ones he can exercise?

I just think that, if a gay couple/person can come into a shop and buy any/everything ELSE, and that the only objection is to a religious event that violates the conscience of the owner, then...the gay person is not being discriminated against because of his sexual orientation.

I'm quite certain, for instance, that had this gay person wanted to buy a wedding cake for a wedding to someone of the opposite sex, a cake would have been forthcoming.

I guess I just put the line in a different place than you do.