December 5, 2017

Justice Kennedy — in the oral argument in Masterpiece Cake — "the state has been neither tolerant or respectful."

From the Wall Street Journal's excellent coverage:
Justice Anthony Kennedy told a lawyer for the state that tolerance is essential in a free society, but it’s important for tolerance to work in both directions. “It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful” of the baker’s views, he said....

Justice Kennedy [asked the lawyer for the state about] comments made by one commissioner on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who said it was “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric” for people to use their religion to hurt others. The justice makes clear he’s troubled by the statement and asks if the state disavows it.

Mr. Yarger said he wouldn’t counsel a client to make a statement like that. Pressed further by Justice Kennedy, he then says, yes, he disavows it.

Justice Kennedy and Justice Gorsuch then go on to ask what the court should do with the case if it believed at least some members of the state civil rights commission had demonstrated hostility toward religion....
I think this suggests that Justice Kennedy (who is potentially the deciding vote), will side with the cake-maker.

But to go off in another direction, I see how this relates to President Trump's travel ban. Should courts look at evidence that a government decision-maker expressed hostility toward religion as they judge a governmental action that does not, on its face, discriminate against religion?

72 comments:

jimbino said...

What happens when we inquire into whether they guy who had the bright idea of putting "God" on all our currency had been motivated to discriminate against polytheists and atheists? It is clear from historical evidence that "God" was so put into our Pledge of Allegiance and Ten Commandments monuments placed on public lands. SCOTUS is nothing if not inconsistent, so I imagine the cakeman will win.

Nonapod said...

In a perfect world, government decision-maker's wouldn't express hostility toward religion. But government decision-maker's are humans and therefore fallible. In a perfect world a judgment about a government action should be based around the constitutional validity action itself, not on the how it was interpreted but a government decision-maker.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Should courts look at evidence that a government decision-maker expressed hostility toward religion as they judge a governmental action that does not, on its face, discriminate against religion?"

-- Not if it didn't effect the drafting/enforcement. That's the fun part for judges/jurors/justices/whoevers to figure out.

n.n said...

No. The speaker does not add or detract from the merits of the argument. The argument will stand or fall on its own merits. The same thing with a philosophy or person, where principles or character should be judged on their merits, and not the philosopher or "color of skin", respectively.

gspencer said...

This case is at base about tolerance. And its abuse by the State. If your law tolerates the intolerant, then you'll have some breathing room for a while until the intolerant among us organize and begin demanding that their intolerance be tolerated.

And how exactly can we get tolerance from Islam, to chose an example of making more and more intrusions, which sees itself as the best of religions and because of that intolerant of all other creeds?

Drago said...

jimbino: "What happens when we inquire into whether they guy who had the bright idea of putting "God" on all our currency had been motivated to discriminate against polytheists and atheists?"

I'm quite certain that guy was thinking specifically, SPECIFICALLY, of you. And no one else.

You were enough to power up his engine of hate.

Ken B said...

Isn't there a big difference between citing what a candidate says and what an official making a ruling says while making the ruling?
Am I missing something?
Isn't there a difference between say Kagan saying sometime in the past "I believe in Jesus" and Kagan saying in a ruling "I believe in Jesus"? Because I think there is.

wwww said...



I do believe that it's possible to create art out of food products. I do believe it's possible for a artist to create a art work out of flower, sugar and food colouring.

I think it's highly frivolous to spend that kind of $$ on a wedding that would include creation of custom artwork. I'm highly skeptical that the majority of wedding cakes are art. If they are art, I do not understand why people are spending the extra money to purchase art rather then putting that $$ towards a downpayment for a house.

To make wedding cakes affordable, most places have options: You can get white cake with these types of fillings. You can get these topings: xyz. You can get fresh flowers. You can get chocolate with buttercream or raspberry. You can get that horrid tasting frosting that is so stiff it allows different kinds of decorations on top. You can send a grandmother or a friend to order the cake for you. It's not necessary to meet the baker who makes this type of cake. The only reason you need to be present is if you want to taste samples.

Decades ago, my parents went to the shop, tried some samples, and told us the choices in the price range we wanted. We made our selection. The cake appeared on the wedding day. I never met the baker. I did not know the name of the shop. Cake was pretty and tasted good. Guests liked it. There was nothing customized about the cake that was specific to our personalities. It was a cake. All it meant was that we like flowers and buttercream. It was not a definitional piece of art.

For the majority of cakes, I do not understand why it would be the business of the baker who is getting married. Why is that relevant?

Kid's birthday cakes are more likely to have the words "happy birthday " on them. I cannot recall writing on any cake of the weddings I have attended.

And if lots of people are buying crazy art cakes instead of normal tiered cakes for their wedding -- WHY? Shouldn't they be spending their money on other things?

Sally327 said...

Maybe it's a due process issue? The hostile comments, I mean. I haven't read the briefs so I don't know how it was pled but open hostility on the part of the decision makers could mean a lack of due process, that there was pre-determined bias on the part of those deciders and no fair hearing.

Howard said...

I don't know why so much attention is being paid to there oral arguments since the case won't be fully explored until the anal arguments are laid.

Ken B said...

Sand mandalas are fleeting. https://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/display-6520.jpg Aren't they art?

Big Mike said...

Should courts look at evidence that a government decision-maker expressed hostility toward religion as they judge a governmental action that does not, on its face, discriminate against religion?

Two words: Hell. No.

hawkeyedjb said...

I'll believe the state of Colorado actually gives a shit about "discrimination" when they start doing stings on muslim bakers.

tcrosse said...

Suppose the cake had fudge packed in it ?

wwww said...




Many things are simplified if people stay in their lane. Personal life is something you share with friends and loved ones. Professional interactions in stores and semi-public places should be kept professional.

Don't ask about things that aren't your business. Don't volunteer information unless asked with people who are professional acquaintances. Stores can then go about their business without worrying about the lives of their customers.

I don't understand why or how bakers are getting the information of who is getting married. Are the people involved a bunch of over-sharers? Is the baker noisy? If everyone stayed in their own lane, and minded their own business, it would solve a lot of problems.

Achilles said...

If something about the comments shows up in a ruling authored by Kennedy then that would be wrong. Period. It has no bearing on the case.

I don’t think the baker has a choice about whether or not to serve everyone.

But the state cannot tell him how or when or what extent.

Both sides are wrong here.

Sebastian said...

"“one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric” for people to use their religion to hurt others." Ah, so if we vilify the next Muzzie terrorist that way, progs will applaud? Right. Didn't think so.

"“one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric” for people to use their religion to hurt others." This is the prog impulse manifested. Expressing faith in traditional Christian doctrine that rejects the notion of "gay marriage" is now a despicable piece of rhetoric, used to "hurt others," and therefore in need of being repressed by state violence. Certain former law professors may be "shocked," but that's what progs are up to. A temporary setback, thanks to Tony's current urge, won't stop them.

"Should courts look at evidence that a government decision-maker expressed hostility toward religion as they judge a governmental action that does not, on its face, discriminate against religion?" No. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the government from expressing any hostility on any grounds against any non-American outside the U.S. An attempt to constrain foreign or immigration policy on the grounds of constitutionally forbidden "discrimination" is pure fabrication--not that it will stop prog justices and legal scholars. And of course, they love discriminating against religion domestically, all for the sake of nondiscrimination.

Larry J said...

wwww said...
I do believe that it's possible to create art out of food products. I do believe it's possible for a artist to create a art work out of flower, sugar and food colouring.

I think it's highly frivolous to spend that kind of $$ on a wedding that would include creation of custom artwork. I'm highly skeptical that the majority of wedding cakes are art. If they are art, I do not understand why people are spending the extra money to purchase art rather then putting that $$ towards a downpayment for a house.


People are free to spend their own money however they choose. Personally, my wife and I spent perhaps $200 on our wedding 34 years ago and we're doing fine. That a lot of people spend incredible amounts of money (tens of thousands of dollars) on their weddings is bizarre to me but that's their choice. I didn't do it and wouldn't encourage anyone else to do so, especially if it involved going into debt. Ultimately, it's their decision.

I agree that the majority of wedding cakes are generic and likely not considered art. However, if you've ever seen the show "Cake Boss", you know that there are cakes that are far from generic. They don't mention the price of the cakes on the show but that kind of work doesn't come cheap.

As for this particular case, I don't know if the gay couple asked for a generic wedding cake or something much more elaborate. My guess is they wanted the baker to prepare them a gay-wedding themed cake and the baker found that offensive. Ordinary, everyday people aren't allowed to be offended by others - they're supposed to tip-toe on eggshells to avoid offending protected classes. It has been that way for a long time. I remember a conversation with a deeply religious woman back around 1988 who asked, "Why is it that I'd supposed to do everything possible to avoid offending others but they're perfectly free to offend me?"

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I don't understand why or how bakers are getting the information of who is getting married. Are the people involved a bunch of over-sharers? Is the baker noisy? If everyone stayed in their own lane, and minded their own business, it would solve a lot of problems.

What? A couple getting married picking out/designing their own wedding cake is not staying in their own lane? You're arguing that the proper way to do this is to send a proxy to choose a generic cake? This is incoherent. Should a couple also send a grandmother to pick out generic wedding jewelry? A generic wedding dress? A generic house?

gspencer said...

This is probably one of those decisions that won't be handed down until late June, 2018. Seven months of suspense.

PackerBronco said...

I confess that I don't see why this is a discrimination case at all. A business is obligated to serve all customers but I don't see why it is obligated to provide all services that a customer may want. For example, a bookstore owner is obligated to sell books to atheist, but that doesn't force an owner of a Christian Bookstore to stock tomes denouncing Christians just because an atheist wants to buy that kind of a book.

In the case of weddings, imagine we have the case of the retired Jewish grandmother. Now, she wants to bring in some extra money and through the years she has found that one of her great skills is in organizing weddings. She has done it for friends and relations for years. So she decides to start a business organizing weddings. But she really only wants to do Jewish Weddings. She has nothing against Christians or atheists or anyone, but she wants to specialize in that particular service because it gives her great joy to do so and she's really good at it.

Do we really think that the government has any right in forcing her to do non-Jewish weddings or else face the loss of her business with the threat of fines and imprisonment if she refusing to pay those fines? C'mon that's ridiculous.

This cake baker has served gay people in the past and will do so again. So he is not discriminating against them as people. He is however choosing to not offer a particular service which in this case is catering a gay wedding ceremony. If you think that the government has a right to force him to do that particular service, please explain why the government has a compelling interest in forcing his acquiescence and why it does not have similar to right to browbeat the Jewish grandmother into submission.

Curious George said...

"But to go off in another direction, I see how this relates to President Trump's travel ban. Should courts look at evidence that a government decision-maker expressed hostility toward religion as they judge a governmental action that does not, on its face, discriminate against religion?"

WHo did that?

Rick Turley said...

wwww said...

"I don't understand why or how bakers are getting the information of who is getting married."

This might be a clue:

http://www.wecaketoppers.com/look-alike-custom-gays-cake-toppers-p-693.html?gclid=CjwKCAiApJnRBRBlEiwAPTgmxHgXKBFs07grTmNwJnfyFsEE2Xd8VFVoBPHLY5Cz0l6SQDqH_kGLgxoCpXoQAvD_BwE&zenid=30a448f210b9a9264cd1d3bd46e3c610

YoungHegelian said...

comments made by one commissioner on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who said it was “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric” for people to use their religion to hurt others.

Imagine how much fun it must be to be that commissioner in Colorado, to wake up one morning & over your morning paper & coffee to discover that a sitting Justice has told the world from the bench that you're a despicable shit.

Jonathan Graehl said...

good, subtle point of principle, but i think the president's authority is clear. noncitizen nonresidents have what rights in the US exactly?

Ken B said...

Reading scotusblog I was struck by how weak each sides argument was. Food cannot be art, Michelangelo would not be expressive enough to be art.

Can a baker be forced to bake a weinstein potted plant cake?

Unknown said...

PackerBronco: The answer to your Christian bookstore scenario is "Not yet" are they forced to carry Atheist tomes and Muslim tomes on how Jesus was evil.

That's coming, you can be sure. After all, it's only Christians being forced into slavery--nothing important, like the whims of whatever perverted same sex practitioner can come up with. That's what's truly important!

Rights for Christians? Please! They should know their place in the world-- and if they are smart, stay in it!

Just ask any leftist.

--Vance

Michael K said...

I do not understand why people are spending the extra money to purchase art rather then putting that $$ towards a downpayment for a house.

How many children have you married off and given that advice to ?

How many spent $10,000 on the wedding and didn't have a house? Or a down payment?

Ken B said...

PackerBronco
Excellent. Beats the hell out of the arguments I saw at Ann's link.
The answer is, obviously not for a Christian wedding. But what about a Muslim wedding? Then the answer is not so obvious. It *should* be, but it wouldn't be.

CWJ said...

WWWW,

Read the piece to which Althouse linked on 9/16/17. A lot of answers to your questions contained therein.

rehajm said...

but it’s important for tolerance to work in both directions

Tolerance is binary not a vector.

wwww said...

What? A couple getting married picking out/designing their own wedding cake is not staying in their own lane? You're arguing that the proper way to do this is to send a proxy to choose a generic cake? This is incoherent. Should a couple also send a grandmother to pick out generic wedding jewelry? A generic wedding dress? A generic house?


To clarify: I'm not sure I'm arguing something. It's more I'm baffled that this has become an issue. Most wedding cakes could be used at anybody's wedding. The most silly and unique themed cake I saw at a wedding was a Star Trek cake. But that cake could have been used at a boy's birthday party and nobody would have blinked an eye.

I've never been to a wedding with writing on the cake. Writing on the cake for a wedding seems kind of tacky, no? More along the lines we'd expect at a anniversary party or kid's birthday cake.

I do not think a vendor has the right to know the private information about a customer, unless the customer chooses to share.

It's quite possible to walk into a wedding shop and purchase a dress without telling the vendor who you plan to marry. In fact, the dress is usually not seen until the day of the marriage, so why would the vendor have reason to know? But let's say you are chatty. Let's say a woman tells the vendor that she's marrying an individual named "Ashley." Ashley, like Dylan, is an ambiguous name. Could be a man or a woman. Who that person is is not relevant to how the dress is hemmed.

I'm sure there are people who spend thousands and thousands of dollars on artistic, one-of-a-kind cakes. Most people don't do this. Most people walk into a store, and give a price point. The vendor shows you a book, or shows you a list of frostings/cake/types of decorations. You try a couple pieces of cake, and you choose the buttercream or the fondant. You choose vanilla cake or white. You choose the filling.

You do not need to walk into the store to do this. It's just as easy to do it over the phone or internet -- especially if you can see pictures.

Buying a cake is not personal for most people. I'm not saying it's not possible to make art out of cake. But the artistic wedding cake market must be very small, and very expensive.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Can a baker be forced to bake a weinstein potted plant cake?
12/5/17, 2:10 PM


But who will frost it?

wwww said...

Read the piece to which Althouse linked on 9/16/17. A lot of answers to your questions contained therein.


Is there a search term I can plug in?

wwww said...


How many spent $10,000 on the wedding and didn't have a house? Or a down payment?


10K for an entire wedding isn't going to buy you a "artistic" wedding cake. Not less you don't need to spend money on food or venue.

Rob said...

When Jack Phillips wins, should he send a Supreme Court-shaped cake to Charlie Craig and David Mullins, or would that be considered rubbing it in?

MadisonMan said...

Who would choose fondant? Ugh. (IMO)

The problem I see, if the Cake Baker loses: Artists compelled to create for anyone who demands it, regardless of their (the Artist's) desires.

I guess it would depend on how sweeping the language was though.

wwww said...


How many spent $10,000 on the wedding and didn't have a house? Or a down payment?


10K for an entire wedding isn't going to buy you a "artistic" wedding cake. Not unless the food and venue is free.

Honestly, I do think families are unwise if they pay for a wedding, but don't have $$ to contribute for a down payment. A friend of mind paid for the wedding of his daughter and down payment of a house. House is in a booming market & helped the couple far more then their wedding cake.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Assuming Masterpiece Cake wins, if the decision rests on baking wedding cakes being an expressive art, that strikes me as a relatively weak holding. But if the decision instead rests on the state enforcement remedies being intolerant and disrespectful of religion, that might reach cases where there is no expressive element.

Kristian Holvoet said...

Should courts look at evidence that a government decision-maker expressed hostility toward religion as they judge a governmental action that does not, on its face, discriminate against religion?

The difference is as written vs. as applied.

Is the policy / regulation AS WRITTEN (even with improper intent) improperly discriminatory?

Is the policy AS APPLIED improperly discriminatory?

Re: Travel Ban as written seems to pass muster. As applied? Essentially no data.

Re: Human Rights Commissions, as written seems fine. As applied? Hmm...

wwww said...

However, if you've ever seen the show "Cake Boss", you know that there are cakes that are far from generic.


well, I've never seen this show. Perhaps overly elaborate cakes are the new thing, and I've missed it.


My suggestion would to create a separate category. Let there be generic tiered wedding cakes, where people can choose from a limited choices of frosting, designs and flavours. Say, a choice of fresh flowers in season or frosting flowers. A choice of popular colours. No personal statements. No need to have personal conversation with the vendor if one so chooses.

Then, there could be the artistic cakes created by artists. The artist has some sort of creation specifically made for the couple geared for specific people in a personal manner. Because the artist is an artist, they choose their patrons and can choose whom they want to make their creation.

Or the artist can create a specific type of cake, take a picture, and sell that specific cake in the future for that specific amount of money. In that case, I don't understand why the artist would need to know anything about the customer, and wouldn't see why there would be any issue about who they were creating the cake for.

CWJ said...

WWWW,

Click Althouse's "cake" tag to this cuurent post and scroll down. You'll get there in no time.

MaxedOutMama said...

The transcript for the questioning in this case is the best place to start for those who don't have WSJ subscriptions:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf

wwww said...



Click Althouse's "cake" tag to this cuurent post and scroll down. You'll get there in no time.



Thanks - will do so.

Legally I'm sure this is an interesting argument. But kids spending resources on frivolous high-stylin' cakes & weddings, esp. when they can't afford stuff like, well, a house, is one of those things I'll never understand. It's possible to put on a beautiful wedding without spending lots of money or buying cake-as-art.

Rabel said...

I read through the transcript available through Althouse's WSJ link and it's clear from the first questions to Waggoner that both Sotomayor and Ginsberg were embarrassingly misinformed on the facts of the case. Once corrected, they were thrown off their game and the entire session devolved into a series of increasingly absurd and poorly framed hypotheticals which were mostly unanswerable and did little to advance either side's arguments.

But fear not. I think the case was settled in the first round of questioning when it was established that Masterpiece agreed that they would be required to sell a pre-designed work or a work that did not involve the use of words or symbols, but could not be required to go beyond that and create a customized work that included words or symbols which they felt violated their religious beliefs.

The decision will be 5-4 or possibly 6-3 in a slightly limited victory for Masterpiece.

Tommy Duncan said...

wwww said: " If everyone stayed in their own lane, and minded their own business, it would solve a lot of problems. "

My experience with progressives is that they want to own the whole road. They have no intention of staying in their lane. They want to control your lane as well.

That's the whole point of political correctness. PC defines what can be discussed and what is out of bounds. Inconvenient topics, facts and logic are not allowed.

Francisco D said...

If I understand this case correctly, the gay couple wants the baker to create a special cake for their wedding. They are not trying to buy something pre-made or off the shelf.

The baker does not want to take his time and talent to make this cake for whatever reason. The state wants to compel the baker to use his talents when he refuses to do so.

How does the state get the right to compel people to create something that they do not want to create, for whatever reason?

This is not a gay rights issue.

Inga said...

If baking a cake for a gay couple is endorsing gay person’s lifestyle, then voting for a pedophile is endorsing his lifestyle.

Rabel said...

If I'm wrong in my 3:14 assessment then I would offer a second possibility:

It was Professor Laycock, in the conservatory, with a lead pipe.

And General Francisco is still dead.

Also, I want to work Yarger-bargle into this somehow. Any help would be appreciated.

Bricap said...

Transcript of oral arguments is here

bgates said...

And if lots of people are buying crazy art cakes instead of normal tiered cakes for their wedding -- WHY? Shouldn't they be spending their money on other things?

Don't ask about things that aren't your business.

^ same guy.

Chuck said...

Inga said...
If baking a cake for a gay couple is endorsing gay person’s lifestyle, then voting for a pedophile is endorsing his lifestyle.

But Colorado law (through its civil rights commission) proposes to force the one form of endorsement.

Alabama law does not require the other form of endorsement.

I don't think you should have trivialized Roy Moore's odiousness in this way.

bgates said...

Inga, if this baker was asked to bake a cake for somebody, and then somebody else claimed to have heard a rumor that the cake purchaser had been thrown out of a mall in the 80s for acting gay, I'm pretty sure the baker would still have baked the cake.

Pianoman said...

WWWW:

A couple will (usually) only get married once. But that couple will almost certainly own more than one house.

So to a lot of people, the marriage ceremony is more important than owning a particular house.

Also, the parents are usually the ones paying for the wedding. I guess you could argue that parents should be helping the young couple to buy a house, but the same argument applies here: Your kids will only get married once, but they'll buy multiple houses in their lifetime.

In my experience playing for weddings, there are two people for whom the ceremony is INCREDIBLY important: the Bride, and her Mom. Those people could care less about a house. They want a great wedding.

Try to see a wedding ceremony through the eyes of a mother-in-law-to-be, and I think you might soften your stance a little.

gregq said...

The decision by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission DOES "discriminate against religion."

A baker can refuse to make a cake with an anti-same sex marriage "message", but isn't allowed to refuse to make one with a pro-same sex marriage message. That' straight up anti-Christian viewpoint discrimination.

The maximum amount of "respect" gays are "owed" is no more than the amount of respect Leftist show to right wing fundamentalist Christian Trump supporters.

And since the Left defines them as "Nazis", and celebrates "punching Nazis", we see how low that bar is.

No person should ever be forced to have anything to do with a ceremony that celebrates homosexuality, any more than anyone should be forced to participate in a ceremony that denigrates homosexuality.

If that means we have to toss out every single civil rights law, then they should all be tossed.

Pianoman said...

No person should ever be forced to have anything to do with a ceremony that celebrates homosexuality, any more than anyone should be forced to participate in a ceremony that denigrates homosexuality.

You. Will. Be. Made. To. CARE.

Seriously though, this is the part that dishonest Leftists just gloss over. Nobody is saying that the cake owner refused to sell gay people a cake.

This comes down to whether cake decorating can be considered "artistic expression".

I'm watching this case closely. My wife has a cousin who recently became "engaged" to her girlfriend. I don't think she would try to put me in jail for refusing to play the piano for her wedding, but I've learned from experience never to underestimate Leftist Rage.

PackerBronco said...

Blogger Inga said...
If baking a cake for a gay couple is endorsing gay person’s lifestyle, then voting for a pedophile is endorsing his lifestyle.


So since people are free to decide whether or not to vote for a pedophile, I see your post as endorsement of the baker's right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

In spirit of the season, let me quote John McClane from Die Hard: "Welcome to the party pal!"

PackerBronco said...

Blogger Pianoman said...

In my experience playing for weddings, there are two people for whom the ceremony is INCREDIBLY important: the Bride, and her Mom.


As I said to my son after he proposed to my future daughter-in-law: "Son, you just made your first and only decision regarding this wedding."

PackerBronco said...

Blogger wwww said...

My suggestion would to create a separate category


My understanding is that is just the accommodation that the baker proposed. He was quite willing to sell a generic cake but was not willing to design a specialty cake for the wedding. That, of course, was unacceptable to the gay couple who apparently felt that they were hiring a slave rather than a merchant.

Francisco D said...

"That, of course, was unacceptable to the gay couple who apparently felt that they were hiring a slave rather than a merchant."

Exactly.

This is about the state's attempt to force someone to provide labor unwillingly. That is called slavery.

It's not about gay rights or freedom of religion. Those are irrelevant issues.

Pianoman said...

This is about the state's attempt to force someone to provide labor unwillingly. That is called slavery.

If you accept that this baker is an artist, then that's the real question: Can an artist be compelled by the government to perform artistic expression that he/she disagrees with?

I really hope this decision comes down 6-3 or 7-2. If it comes down as another 5-4, then the country is going to continue spasming over this issue for several more years.

hombre said...

"Should courts look at evidence that a government decision-maker expressed hostility toward religion as they judge a governmental action that does not, on its face, discriminate against religion?"

If the "decision-maker is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, absolutely! Otherwise, probably not.

hombre said...

Blogger Inga said...
"If baking a cake for a gay couple is endorsing gay person’s lifestyle, then voting for a pedophile is endorsing his lifestyle."

Thank you for the scintillating piece of lefty logic. Try this one: "If 'F' had been a crooked letter, Hell would have been a city."

BTW, I'm not sure that responsible people should consider a 40-year-old, uncorroborated allegation offered up iduring a hotly contested election by a highly partisan newspaper citing a women with a checkered past, including bankruptcy, who claims she was molested while a post-pubescent 14-year-old as proof of pedophilia. At least not without checking the definition of pedophilia and, given the stakes, the accuser's bank account.

But then when did anyone accuse Inga of being reasonable?

Drago said...

"I don't think you should have trivialized Roy Moore's odiousness in this way."

You need to get your teammates up to speed.

Quaestor said...

Should courts look at evidence that a government decision-maker expressed hostility toward religion as they judge a governmental action that does not, on its face, discriminate against religion?

When a religion becomes the enemy of Western Civilization, discrimination against it is a sane and just policy.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Apparently Inga endorses rapists.

Paul said...

The cake maker felt just doing work for a pair of homosexuals was against his religion as it would show he was ok with it.

I understand how he feels. I doubt any Muslim cake maker in the Middle East would accept orders from them to (or even Christians.) It's the right of the shop owner to decide if they will serve someone.

One can always boycott if they don't like what the manager decided.

traditionalguy said...

Kennedy sees a hostility to a religion in the cake bakers case. But that in not the same as Muslim culture being vetted and banning hostile people who believe in it, because it is not a religion. Muslim believers are trained in violent conquest of the earth "by the sword."

Call that war manual a religion at your own peril.

Kirk Parker said...

PackerBronco,

"A business is obligated to serve all customers"

The heck it is.

gregq said...

PackerBronco,

"A business is obligated to serve all customers"

So I can demand that a gay baker make me a cake that says "God hates fags"?

Masterpiece Cakeshop serves all customers. If you want to buy something they've already made, your'e welcome to do so.

What they reserve the right to do is chose what custom work they will do.

And that is THEIR right. No legitimate law may demand otherwise

gregq said...

wwww said...

I do believe that it's possible to create art out of food products. I do believe it's possible for a artist to create a art work out of flower, sugar and food colouring.

I think it's highly frivolous to spend that kind of $$ on a wedding that would include creation of custom artwork. I'm highly skeptical that the majority of wedding cakes are art.

Larry J said...

As for this particular case, I don't know if the gay couple asked for a generic wedding cake or something much more elaborate


They asked for a custom cake. They were told the owners would be happy to sell them anything pre-made, but would not do custom work for their ceremony.

To which the sleazy little SOBs threw a tizzy, demanding that Phillips give up his beliefs and bow down to theirs.

F them, F the Colorado Civil Rights Commision, and F every Judge who votes in their favor

gregq said...

Should courts look at evidence that a government decision-maker expressed hostility toward religion as they judge a governmental action that does not, on its face, discriminate against religion?
posted by Ann Althouse at 1:03 PM on Dec 5, 2017

No, they shouldn't.

However, since they allow a pro-SSM baker to refuse to make an anti-SSM cake, the gov't action does indeed, on its face, discriminate against people for their religious beliefs