Gender/Transgender In The Military & In General

[Guy Chamberlin]

It's election day here in California, where Gavin Newsom is running for Governor.

It was only 14 years ago that Newsom officiated same-sex weddings at SF City Hall in opposition to every law in the country. There is credence to the claim that this so outraged the religious right as to galvanize conservative turnout for the 2004 Presidential Election, down ticket races and several key ballot initiatives. 

The language and rationale used to fight gay rights is almost inconceivable today, and former opponents appear to have been genuinely won over to the cause of basic human decency.

Maybe 14 years seems like a long time to some of you, but that's a huge sea change. 

 

[RedDenver]

I think a pretty big distinction in this scenario is art that functions towards commission. Bagging groceries as a grocery bagger by title isn't the same thing - now if you were an artisanal bagger who worked for yourself you could make a different argument for it being

Fair point.

Nobody is being forced.

Poor wording on my part. Instead: why go through the stupidity of needing to lie?

Marc Randazza (1st Amendment Lawyer and advocate) weighs in on why this ruling is really just punting the issue down the road:

https://www.popehat.com/2018/06/05/randazza-masterpiece-cakeshop-a-whole-lotta-nothing/

Here's part of that article which disagrees with my assessment of the artistic angle:

Ultimately, in this case, nobody really "won." The baker "wins" because technically he "won." But, all he "won" was the right to have the charges brought against him without the administrative panel making snarky comments about his religious beliefs.

The cause of gay rights was not advanced at all. And, the real issue here — the First Amendment issue, is not being addressed at all — except in a pretty damn good concurrence by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch. (Starts on Page 38 of 59) His concurrence is, of course, foreshadowing either the majority or the minority when this case finally comes to a head. Thomas (I believe correctly) says that designing a wedding cake is no mere act of throwing eggs and flour into a bowl – but is full of artistic creativity. Harnessing (or enslaving) an artist to create that which he does not wish to create is a travesty against the First Amendment.

 

[NM11046]

And here is what today's environment has allowed to come out of the woodwork.   Guessing the number of minorities in SD there wont be a lot of pressure on this guy.

 

[BigRedBuster]

:thumbs

 

[Ric Flair]

I see two key distinctions here:

1) The baker was not refusing service to someone for being homosexual. He has gay customers, many of whom are his friends. He sells stuff to them all the time. He offered to sell them anything in the store. He offered to refer them to another cake store. He only refused to create a custom made cake for them for their wedding. 

2) The baker has comsistently operated his business in a manner consistent with his religious beliefs. He doesn’t make cakes celebrating divorces, Halloween, or other events that are contrary to his religious beliefs. 

I was able to attend the oral argument in this case and it was fascinating. I met Jack Phillips, the gay couple, and a number of others involved in the case. I think the Court will eventually decide that businesses cannot refuse service to homosexuals or to anyone on the basis of his or her sexual orientation...and carve out an exception for services or custom made products for gay weddings...or her events the artist feels violate his or her religious beliefs. That seems to be the most reasonable compromise.

 

[Making Chimichangas]

The examples I gave were examples where a business owner didn't sell something they normally sell because they didn't feel comfortable going through with the transaction.  They legally were allowed to sell the product, but didn't personally feel right about it.

I think the difference is, in the instances you cited, it is one example.  The people doing the refusing, aren't refusing to sell to the entire segment.  

For example, in the gun reference, the gun shop owner is refusing to sell this gun to one guy because of a gut feeling.  Let's say the guy is white.  To put this on the same level as the cake baker, he'd have to refuse to sell to ALL white guys.  And he's not doing that, he's just refusing one person.

I don't have a problem with a business owner refusing to sell something or serve a particular customer if that refusal is uniform across the board.  Refusing to sell to someone because he has no shoes on, okay fine.  That means regardless of who doesn't have shoes on, you're not going to sell/serve them.  You're not singling out a particular group.  

 

[Making Chimichangas]

I see two key distinctions here:

1) The baker was not refusing service to someone for being homosexual. He has gay customers, many of whom are his friends. He sells stuff to them all the time. He offered to sell them anything in the store. He offered to refer them to another cake store. He only refused to create a custom made cake for them for their wedding. 

2) The baker has comsistently operated his business in a manner consistent with his religious beliefs. He doesn’t make cakes celebrating divorces, Halloween, or other events that are contrary to his religious beliefs. 

I was able to attend the oral argument in this case and it was fascinating. I met Jack Phillips, the gay couple, and a number of others involved in the case. I think the Court will eventually decide that businesses cannot refuse service to homosexuals or to anyone on the basis of his or her sexual orientation...and carve out an exception for services or custom made products for gay weddings...or her events the artist feels violate his or her religious beliefs. That seems to be the most reasonable compromise.

Believe it or not, as an atheist, I am actually a huge advocate for "religious liberty."  Religious liberty is one of the great things about America.  No can tell you what religion you must believe in.  Yes your parents often force religion on you as a kid, but as an adult you are free to accept it, choose a new one, or reject all religion if you choose.

Where religious conservatives like Huckabee, Pence, et al get it 100% wrong is that they have the absurd notion that their freedom to choose a religion gives them carte blanch to be racist, discriminatory, homophobic bigots.

A religious christian, muslim, whatever--insert any relgion--baking a cake in no way, shape or form infringes on their religious liberty.  If a devout christian bakes a cake for a gay wedding:

*They are still free to believe in that religion

*They are still free to pray on their own time

*They are still free to go to church

They are still free to hold the same beliefs they had prior to baking said cake.  None of their rights have been infringed.  No one is taking away any of their rights.  All we're doing is saying, you own a business?  You job is to serve your customers REGARDLESS of who they are.  You're in business to make money and and a living, NOT to be the morality police.

As someone who is trans, cases like this are extremely important because I know that the degree of separation between not serving a gay couple and not serving me is thinner than a razor's edge.

 

[Ric Flair]

Believe it or not, as an atheist, I am actually a huge advocate for "religious liberty."  Religious liberty is one of the great things about America.  No can tell you what religion you must believe in.  Yes your parents often force religion on you as a kid, but as an adult you are free to accept it, choose a new one, or reject all religion if you choose.

Where religious conservatives like Huckabee, Pence, et al get it 100% wrong is that they have the absurd notion that their freedom to choose a religion gives them carte blanch to be racist, discriminatory, homophobic bigots.

A religious christian, muslim, whatever--insert any relgion--baking a cake in no way, shape or form infringes on their religious liberty.  If a devout christian bakes a cake for a gay wedding:

*They are still free to believe in that religion

*They are still free to pray on their own time

*They are still free to go to church

They are still free to hold the same beliefs they had prior to baking said cake.  None of their rights have been infringed.  No one is taking away any of their rights.  All we're doing is saying, you own a business?  You job is to serve your customers REGARDLESS of who they are.  You're in business to make money and and a living, NOT to be the morality police.

As someone who is trans, cases like this are extremely important because I know that the degree of separation between not serving a gay couple and not serving me is thinner than a razor's edge.

This baker would absolutely serve a gay person or a gay couple. He’d bake them a cake for a birthday, baptism, or virtually any other event. He offered to sell them a ready made cake. He offered to refer them to a bakery that would make them exactly what they wanted. He simply won’t bake them a wedding cake because his religion teaches that gay marriage is wrong. So they sued and tried to drive him out of business.

And most sickening of all...they targeted this specific baker, knowing his beliefs, and trying to force him out of business.

Tolerance is a two-way street. If you expect it from others, you have to offer it to them as well.

 

[Making Chimichangas]

This baker would absolutely serve a gay person or a gay couple. He’d bake them a cake for a birthday, baptism, or virtually any other event. He offered to sell them a ready made cake. He offered to refer them to a bakery that would make them exactly what they wanted. He simply won’t bake them a wedding cake because his religion teaches that gay marriage is wrong. So they sued and tried to drive him out of business.

And most sickening of all...they targeted this specific baker, knowing his beliefs, and trying to force him out of business.

Tolerance is a two-way street. If you expect it from others, you have to offer it to them as well.

That's not my point Ric.  My point is: baking a cake for a gay wedding in no conceivable way threatens their ability to have their faith, to pray, go to church, or believe in god.  They can still do all those things even though they baked a cake for a gay wedding. 

If someone was saying to them: renounce your religion, or I forbid you from going to church, or you will be punished for having faith...THAT is infringing on religious liberty.  It is amazingly sad at just how many "christians" don't understand the difference.

 

[Landlord]

My point is: baking a cake for a gay wedding in no conceivable way threatens their ability to have their faith, to pray, go to church, or believe in god.  They can still do all those things even though they baked a cake for a gay wedding. 

Your point is fine, but misses the point of the baker, and of the case. They are either free, under the law, to refuse or accept a custom commission request on any basis they want, or they aren't. What they 'can' still do is irrelevant - what they are legally free to do is relevant.

If someone was saying to them: renounce your religion, or I forbid you from going to church, or you will be punished for having faith...THAT is infringing on religious liberty.  It is amazingly sad at just how many "christians" don't understand the difference.

If the government was saying to them: you MUST fulfill this request made of you, that you object to, or face punishment by the law...THAT is also infringing on religious liberty.

 

[Making Chimichangas]

Your point is fine, but misses the point of the baker, and of the case. They are either free, under the law, to refuse or accept a custom commission request on any basis they want, or they aren't. What they 'can' still do is irrelevant - what they are legally free to do is relevant.

If the government was saying to them: you MUST fulfill this request made of you, that you object to, or face punishment by the law...THAT is also infringing on religious liberty.

I know the issue is whether they can, or can't, do something under the law.  And I am saying they (religious, or anyone else) shouldn't be able to legally discriminate and use their religion to get away with it.  The law should not be used to codify bigotry and discrimination, regardless if we're talking about the Christian faith or belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If this couple was refusing to bake wedding cakes for hetero couples who were both on their 2nd, 3rd, plus marriage...

Or they were refusing to bake a wedding cake for some couple and they knew the guy and/or woman had previously committed adultery...

Or they were refusing to bake a cake for someone who committed other sins against god or what they believe in...

If this bakery was doing all that, and being consistent in their beliefs, then maybe citing religious liberty would have more credence.  But they don't do that...they single out one specific narrow group and ignore everyone else's "sins."  And that just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Ric Flair]

That's not my point Ric.  My point is: baking a cake for a gay wedding in no conceivable way threatens their ability to have their faith, to pray, go to church, or believe in god.  They can still do all those things even though they baked a cake for a gay wedding. 

If someone was saying to them: renounce your religion, or I forbid you from going to church, or you will be punished for having faith...THAT is infringing on religious liberty.  It is amazingly sad at just how many "christians" don't understand the difference.

YOU don’t get to decide what infringes on someone else’s religious liberty. They believe that gay marriage as wrong. As such, they choose not to participate in those marriages. Forcing them to do so, in violation of their religious beliefs, is the very definition of intolerance. 

It’s amazing how hypocritical your thinking is. You demand tolerance for yourself but so cavalierly disregard it for others.

 

[Ric Flair]

Your point is fine, but misses the point of the baker, and of the case. They are either free, under the law, to refuse or accept a custom commission request on any basis they want, or they aren't. What they 'can' still do is irrelevant - what they are legally free to do is relevant.

If the government was saying to them: you MUST fulfill this request made of you, that you object to, or face punishment by the law...THAT is also infringing on religious liberty.

Absolutely correct. And that’s the choice the state is putting to their religious folks. 

What’s truly sad is that many like me supported gay marriage, largely based on the argument that it was none of our business, we should “live and let life,” etc. We were told it would never affect us, so why should we care?

It didn’t take very long for the same forces who had begged and pleaded for and demanded tolerance to show just how intolerant they truly are. Their right to be married morphed quickly into their right to trample other people’s rights by forcing them to participate in gay marriages. 

 

[Landlord]

I know the issue is whether they can, or can't, do something under the law.  And I am saying they (religious, or anyone else) shouldn't be able to legally discriminate and use their religion to get away with it.  The law should not be used to codify bigotry and discrimination, regardless if we're talking about the Christian faith or belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Discrimination exists in all aspects of life and is not inherently bad. I discriminate against every maker of cars other than the one I decided to buy. I discriminate against certain types of clothing I don't like. I discriminate against women I don't find attractive when I'm dating. 

If they owned a tire shop and were selling tires, they shouldn't be allowed to legally discriminate, and they aren't allowed to legally discriminate.

If the couple had asked for a generic cake out of a case, they shouldn't be allowed to legally discriminate, and they aren't allowed to legally discriminate. 

When it comes to issues and extensions of the First Amendment, which is what this scenario and all scenarios where creative professionals are using artistic/creative/artisanal abilities to express themselves, they should absolutely be able to legally discriminate - that's literally what freedom is. 

If this bakery was doing all that, and being consistent in their beliefs, then maybe citing religious liberty would have more credence.  But they don't do that...they single out one specific narrow group and ignore everyone else's "sins."  And that just doesn't sit right with me.

It's weird how you paint the bakery into a hypothetical corner scenario only to criticize it (definition of a straw man argument), while actually completely ignoring the real life scenario in which the bakery was intentionally targeted by the couple, then unfairly and unjustly treated with hostility by the Civil Rights Commission.

 

[NM11046]

Can someone explain the comments that these people "targeted" the bakery when they filed a lawsuit because of something the bakery did/did not do for them as a customer?  I must be missing some key detail, cuz that's what lawsuits typically result from.