No Gay Wedding Cake For You

[_Res Ipsa]

DT, can you tell me what the Supreme Court’s role is, specifically with respect to evaluating facts?

[_subgenius]

Moving the goalposts now? Matters not what percentage of the total population is employed as scientists or engineers; you were requesting a CFR that ‘many’ scientists might not be as religious as the general public.

I am not moving any goalposts, the posters used "many" in a hyperbolic manner and that subjective quantifier has been dismissed.
And as for the CFR, I did not request such, i wrote:

please demonstrate that "many scientists" are NOT religious and NOT influenced in their decisions.

To date, this has not been demonstrated.

I addressed that CFR for DT and note that any percentage above that average from the general population, when applied to the number of folks in this career field alone, still qualifies as ‘many’. Unless you want to tell me that millions of folks cannot be called many folks.

Again, you are taking the comment out of context. 10 is "many" only when relative to 2 but not when relative to 1 million. The poster is pursuing an ignorant premise and you should refrain from running behind him.
Nevertheless, the context clearly shows that the poster was using "many" as a determiner and not as noun.

On the question of how a belief in God or a strong faith tradition could affect how a scientist thinks ... do you suppose that those scientists expressing a strong belief in God and choosing to interpret the Bible literally ever wrestle with the questions raised by evolution?

No, i do not suppose that.


please demonstrate that "many scientists" are NOT religious and NOT influenced in their decisions.

[_MeDotOrg]

One thing about religious freedom that puzzles me: It's okay to say that black people have bad souls, white people are the devil, or gay people are perverts and should never be married, and under the Constitution is it a protected right.

But if my beliefs are not grounded in religion I do not have the same rights. If you come into my shop with a button that says 'faggots should burn in hell' or 'white people are the devil', I don't have a constitutionally protected right to refuse service to you. Religious thought and expression are given special dispensation for prejudice.

[_Maksutov]

One thing about religious freedom that puzzles me: It's okay to say that black people have bad souls, white people are the devil, or gay people are perverts and should never be married, and under the Constitution is it a protected right.

But if my beliefs are not grounded in religion I do not have the same rights. If you come into my shop with a button that says 'faggots should burn in hell' or 'white people are the devil', I don't have a constitutionally protected right to refuse service to you. Religious thought and expression are given special dispensation for prejudice.

That's what religious privilege is all about. Escaping accountability by pointing to an invisible being as the guilty party.

[_Res Ipsa]

One thing about religious freedom that puzzles me: It's okay to say that black people have bad souls, white people are the devil, or gay people are perverts and should never be married, and under the Constitution is it a protected right.

But if my beliefs are not grounded in religion I do not have the same rights. If you come into my shop with a button that says 'faggots should burn in hell' or 'white people are the devil', I don't have a constitutionally protected right to refuse service to you. Religious thought and expression are given special dispensation for prejudice.

Yes, the free exercise clause provides extra protection for “something” when that “something” is based in religion. But it is tricky to come up with a good practical example of that. For example, everything in your first paragraph is protected by the freedom of speech, so the free exercise clause means nothing. And under settled Supreme Court law, the baker is not exempt from Colorado’s civil rights law because that law applies generally to all citizens and is not targeted at religious practice. So, again, no protection under the free exercise clause.

What the free exercise clause generally does is protect religious practice from being tartgeted by the state. For example, I think a city or state could pass an anti-mask ordinance targeted at anti-fascists but not a similar ordinance targeted at burquas.

[_subgenius]

One thing about religious freedom that puzzles me: It's okay to say that black people have bad souls, white people are the devil, or gay people are perverts and should never be married, and under the Constitution is it a protected right.

The 1st amendment gives you these freedoms...being able to "say" stuff.....religious freedom is not about "speech" but about actions, and this liberty is a critical element in the foundation of this country, its culture, and its society.

But if my beliefs are not grounded in religion I do not have the same rights.

Sure you do, people freely "say" Trump is a baby-eating Nazi homophobe all over this board and in public.

If you come into my shop with a button that says 'faggots should burn in hell' or 'white people are the devil', I don't have a constitutionally protected right to refuse service to you.

Not exactly true...for examlpe the recent Supreme Court ruling is not so much about "religion" as it is about "beliefs"...see the "free exercise clause" is not exclusive - "but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression."
Notice how "philosophical" is distinct from religion.
Ironically, it is this same legal principle that favored gay marriage (alas, the sword doth cut both way).

Religious thought and expression are given special dispensation for prejudice.

Perhaps, but your use of "religious" is a far more narrow descriptor than is applied in current law.

Notice how one of the factors in the "cake" case was how the State of Colorado was, in fact, already giving special dispensation (just not to who you think):
"...State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages."
So, we see that Supreme Court was not actually treating the baker with exception but was simply affording the baker the same exception that the Colorado Civil Rights Division had been affording those on the opposite side. Ergo, if Colorado says a baker can decline to bake an anti-gay cake then they must also say that a baker can decline to bake a pro-gay cake.


freedom of expression indeed.

[_canpakes]

Moving the goalposts now? Matters not what percentage of the total population is employed as scientists or engineers; you were requesting a CFR that ‘many’ scientists might not be as religious as the general public.

I am not moving any goalposts, the posters used "many" in a hyperbolic manner and that subjective quantifier has been dismissed.
And as for the CFR, I did not request such, i wrote:

please demonstrate that "many scientists" are NOT religious and NOT influenced in their decisions.

To date, this has not been demonstrated.

I addressed that CFR for DT and note that any percentage above that average from the general population, when applied to the number of folks in this career field alone, still qualifies as ‘many’. Unless you want to tell me that millions of folks cannot be called many folks.

Again, you are taking the comment out of context. 10 is "many" only when relative to 2 but not when relative to 1 million. The poster is pursuing an ignorant premise and you should refrain from running behind him.
Nevertheless, the context clearly shows that the poster was using "many" as a determiner and not as noun.

On the question of how a belief in God or a strong faith tradition could affect how a scientist thinks ... do you suppose that those scientists expressing a strong belief in God and choosing to interpret the Bible literally ever wrestle with the questions raised by evolution?

No, i do not suppose that.


please demonstrate that "many scientists" are NOT religious and NOT influenced in their decisions.

1. You do realize that a number can still be ‘many’ regardless of any other number that it is being compared to? Not that this extra condition was part of your original requirement anyway. Millions of folks, within the population of the US, is a fairly qualified ‘many’. If you think that this example is not ‘many’, then please give some reasoning as to why you want to depart from the conventions expressed by just about everyone else.

2. What particular influence would you like to discuss, with regard to scientific thinking and conclusion?

3. Regarding (2) above and your last sentence, are you suggesting that there are no scientists whose conclusions about evolution (as a particular example) are influenced by their religious beliefs?

[_Res Ipsa]

Notice how one of the factors in the "cake" case was how the State of Colorado was, in fact, already giving special dispensation (just not to who you think):
"...State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages."
So, we see that Supreme Court was not actually treating the baker with exception but was simply affording the baker the same exception that the Colorado Civil Rights Division had been affording those on the opposite side. Ergo, if Colorado says a baker can decline to bake an anti-gay cake then they must also say that a baker can decline to bake a pro-gay cake.

Sub, this mischaracterizes the facts and shows a lack of appreciation of the limitations of an appellate court.

It is not clear until one reads the dissent that the other three cases occurred AFTER the commission had referred the case it was deciding to the ALJ judge. The Commission could not have explained the difference between its decision in this case and its decision in the other cases because it hadn't decided the "anti-gay" cases yet. 99 times out of 100, the alleged inconsistency would have been resolved in an appeal of the three anti-gay cake cases. But, of course, the complainant in those cases didn't really want to have a wedding cake with an anti-gay message -- he wanted to the baker to win the same-sex wedding case. Cute strategy, but it partially explains why the court addressed the case on procedural grounds. What the remand will do is give the Commission the chance to explain the distinction between the two sets of cases. It won't be hard -- anyone who has taken a constitutional law course could do it.

[Guest]

You claim to be committed to critical thinking. Surely you read the source material directly given your strong opinions. So...what did it say?

I try to have an open mind and I don't claim to be perfect. All I know is the the court sided with the Christian baker.
I don't have a strong opinion on the wedding cake, but I don't like it when religious people get special treatment.

I try to think, but I usually don't have time to read all news articles.

[_DoubtingThomas]

DoubtingThomas, can you tell me what the Supreme Court’s role is, specifically with respect to evaluating facts?

The Supreme Court interprets laws written by Congress to determine whether they are constitutional. Right?
But it is my opinion that new US laws should be made based on available data. The US Supreme Court should stop bad laws.

The New York times reports

None of the justices has any serious training in statistics, and the clerks who assist them are almost all recent law school graduates, who rarely have any formal statistical background. Empirical facts are central to what the court does, but its members lack expertise

You told me "the average Supreme Court Justice is smarter than the average scientist." Please tell me how do you know?