tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post7324814624956606887..comments2024-03-29T04:06:37.402-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: The Supreme Court: Let's Bake a CakeStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-89659012714846128432017-12-07T17:25:57.414-08:002017-12-07T17:25:57.414-08:00No, I was speaking about AO’s postNo, I was speaking about AO’s postAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-76150652766886357622017-12-07T12:01:31.738-08:002017-12-07T12:01:31.738-08:00Anonymous: was that "your view is terrifying&...Anonymous: was that "your view is terrifying" directed at my comment? You do realize that my second paragraph was sarcastic. I don't think the baker should be forced to bake or that the state should force anyone to violate his conscience--a premise the government has long accepted when it comes to conscientious objectors and the army. And if it wasn't directed at me, um, "Never mind."WaltCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-82150588282324475222017-12-07T04:34:29.312-08:002017-12-07T04:34:29.312-08:00AO’s insight is remarkable. Now one cannot not do ...AO’s insight is remarkable. Now one cannot not do something? Your view of the world is terrifying. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-40643174120931353632017-12-07T00:06:35.245-08:002017-12-07T00:06:35.245-08:00Actually, the baker did "accept the consequen...Actually, the baker did "accept the consequences;" he stopped baking wedding cakes for anyone at all in order to avoid the charge of discrimination and, according to news reports, thereby lost 40% of his business....The litigants, however, do not "accept the consequences" of choosing a lifestyle that they know may offend a small % of the public with religious convictions. And as long as the law or the custom of the state doesn't bar them from bakeries or generally decree "Don't let em eat cake," they should've shrugged and moved on.<br /><br /> Forcing the issue Is simply an exercise in power and revenge--childish and churlish. The litigants claim, and two justices agreed, that the baker's refusal assaulted their "dignity" (dignity is now a new constitutional right) and tell us that it made them both "burst into tears." (Anything making anyone burst into tears should be against the law.) <br /><br />The best statement to come out of this came from Justice Kennedy who reminded the litigants and the state of Colorado that tolerance itself is a two-way street.<br /><br />Disclaimer: their marriage does not offend me though it might bemuse me and if I were a baker I'd've baked the damn cake.<br />WaltCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-5468946085706975052017-12-06T18:29:55.095-08:002017-12-06T18:29:55.095-08:00Jack Fisher: Obey your conscience and accept the c...Jack Fisher: Obey your conscience and accept the consequences is a Christian ideal.<br /><br />This would seem to be an ideal for probably any religion, even Libertarians!<br /><br />But Brooks central message is that self-righteous conviction is not enough. Conscience may trigger a moral predicament, but doesn't force specific actions or attitudes that risk demeaning the needs of others.<br /><br />You can show respect people you disagree with, even when they don't "deserve" it. Conscience can teach that as well. "Hate the sin, lover the sinner" might seem like progress, but it still would seem to fail to acknowledge the four pointing back at you when you point one outward. So people most disconnected from their own conscience may be the quickest to accuse others of wrong doing.<br /><br />I don't know what narcissism is, but it looks the opposite of conscience or responsibility, a prideful attitude that directs responsibility of one's own negative feelings onto others. It's saying "I'm a good person, but when I'm not, it's because other people make me act this way to defend myself." <br /><br />Respect or disrespect are still words that confuses me and I don't think it can really mean what people often want it to mean.<br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-43171162492385257362017-12-06T11:46:33.974-08:002017-12-06T11:46:33.974-08:00I'm asking you to reason out your position. T...I'm asking you to reason out your position. The idea that Blacks weren't served because of personal preferences sometimes masking as religious beliefs is not "ridiculous" because this shi'ite happened. <br /><br />Obey your conscience and accept the consequences or avoid the occasion of sin is a Christian, even protestant ideal. If the USSC says they must serve gays, then their options to avoid sinning are not to serve and get fined or jailed (a kind of martyrdom, also a Christian and protestant concept) or not do business. No one said these were easy choices and that's kind of the point.<br /><br />While I prefer the USSC rule for the bakers on the grounds I spoke of earlier, if they don't then your bakers don't have much of a choice, and while you can complain about it on an internet board, that doesn't help anyone. <br /><br />I'm an orthodox Christian first and criminal defense trial lawyer second and I make ethical decisions on who I'm going to represent and what kinds of defenses I'll raise all the time. I've told criminal RICO targets and federal judges "no" on representation and I'd quit this business tomorrow if I couldn't exercise freedom of conscience. <br /><br />Yeah, all professions require ethical choices, and I'm sure I know what side you'd come down on.<br /><br />amirite?Jack Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17873320680596889057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-53538808461196555372017-12-06T09:36:35.904-08:002017-12-06T09:36:35.904-08:00Jack Fisher: Your analogy to someone who refuses t...Jack Fisher: Your analogy to someone who refuses to serve a black person simply because he's black is ridiculous. The cake baker in the Colorado case had no objection whatsoever to baking cakes for gay customers. In fact he did so all the time. His sole objection was to having to participate in a gay wedding ceremony, which participation he believed would be sinful. <br /><br />Oh, and your proposed solution to the baker's dilemma -- i.e., to "get out of the business of serving the public" -- is nothing but anti-religious extremism. <i>All</i> careers force one to make moral and religious choices from time to time, and if the law made <i>no</i> accommodation for religious belief (as you apparently favor), then no one could faithfully practice religion and maintain a job.JPL17https://www.blogger.com/profile/10649330420822802850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-29348376771774187872017-12-06T08:52:45.403-08:002017-12-06T08:52:45.403-08:00@JPL17. then evaluate this reason: "I will n...@JPL17. then evaluate this reason: "I will not serve Black people because of my deeply held religious/moral convictions". Unless you actually want courts deciding what are valid religious convictions and what aren't, but that's a road you don't want to take.<br /><br />To a more nuanced religious mind, faced with the civil obligation to do something abhorrent to one's faith like contracting with gaysters*, the options are either, refuse and accept the consequences or get out of the business of serving the public. As you put it, do anything else and you're committing a sin.<br /><br />___________<br />* assuming the USSC adopts a position other than that stated in my prior comment at December 5, 2017 at 9:41 AM<br /><br />Jack Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17873320680596889057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-68577534371697504072017-12-06T06:22:06.218-08:002017-12-06T06:22:06.218-08:00Jack Fisher: So you see no difference between refu...Jack Fisher: So you see no difference between refusing to serve someone because you believe they're committing a sin, vs. refusing to participate in a ceremony because you believe <i>you'd</i> be committing a sin by participating? To the religious mind, there's a huge difference between the two.JPL17https://www.blogger.com/profile/10649330420822802850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-27304850824251776492017-12-06T05:09:33.888-08:002017-12-06T05:09:33.888-08:00Kansas Scout, so you're happy with the rule th...Kansas Scout, so you're happy with the rule that permits, "I will not serve ______ because of my deeply held religious/moral convictions"?Jack Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17873320680596889057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-45256174845618020882017-12-05T18:23:55.081-08:002017-12-05T18:23:55.081-08:00Unfortunately for the Left (but fortunately for al...Unfortunately for the Left (but fortunately for all sane people), by the time the Left realizes that Obama's gay / transgender cram-down on the country was a huge political mistake, it will be 2028, a relatively weak President Pence will be running for re-election, and this time there won't be a moderate Democrat governor left in the country to credibly challenge him -- because by then there won't be any moderate Democrats, period. They're currently evolving themselves into non-existence. JPL17https://www.blogger.com/profile/10649330420822802850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-71857315806338032172017-12-05T16:45:43.742-08:002017-12-05T16:45:43.742-08:00Nice post. I changed my mind on this after some re...Nice post. I changed my mind on this after some reflection. It's wrong to force someone to violate their moral values for someone else's convenience. They could easily have gone somewhere else. They are vindictive. I believe they chose this baker because they knew he was a Christian with traditional values. <br />This approach is a grave error for gays to take. This kind of thing only creates backlash.Kansas Scouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15744438882831933314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-10009793736337333302017-12-05T15:48:55.020-08:002017-12-05T15:48:55.020-08:00Yes, I absolutely agree, the courts are the absolu...Yes, I absolutely agree, the courts are the absolute worst way to handle this. You might win, but you still lose because it divides the country.<br /><br />It almost seems like we need a lawyer-sanctioned script on "How to say something to avoid getting sued." Of course no script is perfect, but a good one might contain some sympathy for the customer, and ask for some sympathy in return.<br /><br />Like "Please don't ask me to bake this cake for your wedding. I don't mean any disrespect to you or your family and friends, but this threatens my sense of what marriage is by my religion which is between a man and a woman. If you demand me to bake you this cake, I will, since the SCOTUS demands I respect you as equal, but please consider finding another baker who is interested in supporting you. Joe's Cakes down the street has promised me he'll take your business, and I highly recommend his artistry and wholesome organic ingredient."<br /><br />I'm sure someone could write something better, but that seems to be a useful approach.<br /><br />Of course this only applies for owners. If Joe's Cakes hires you to decorate cakes, and you want to decline one case for religious reasons, and if Joe can't find another employee to take your place, he has the right to fire you, and replace you with someone who will do the job they are hired to do. (This is similar to the issue of Muslim taxi drivers who don't want to carry intoxicated passengers.)<br />Ares Olympushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09726811306826601686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-5211745475819704822017-12-05T09:41:14.925-08:002017-12-05T09:41:14.925-08:00This is the key to the problem. Cake shops don'...This is the key to the problem. Cake shops don't provide essential services the equivalent of fire, police, schools, nor is this bakery the only local source of wedding cakes. Nor do gheysters have the equivalent of immutable characteristics like race or sex.<br /><br />No constitutional right is absolute, and each must be balanced against competing individual rights (here, another first amendment right) or state interests (ensuring equal treatment of all citizens). I think the cakers rights trump the others, so the 'mo couple should have to sashay their way to another bakery.Jack Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17873320680596889057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-82686113411656496562017-12-05T08:42:29.114-08:002017-12-05T08:42:29.114-08:00How many cake shops were there where they live? G...How many cake shops were there where they live? Got to be more than one. They shoulda got on their high horse and rode to the next one. But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!<br />They had to make a federal case of it.Sam L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00996809377798862214noreply@blogger.com