Share good ideas and conversation.   Login, Join Us, or Take a Tour!
comment by wasoxygen
wasoxygen  ·  71 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

    You’re the baker. A customer, age 60+, comes in and tells you he wants a wedding cake. His bride is age 14, legal age to marry in your jurisdiction.

    You, a decent atheist, find the union unconscionable and do not want to be associated with it in any way. You would not sell this guy a bagel, you do not even want him in your store.

    Are you still on the fence over whether SCOTUS should justify coercing you with threats of fines, arrest, or imprisonment if you choose to decline this man’s business?




WanderingEng  ·  71 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I've read and re-read this post. It's causing me a certain amount of cognitive dissonance.

ixnar  ·  69 days ago  ·  link  ·  

But what if by baking the cake five innocent people are killed? The baker is also an evil demon and the customer is the owner of an arms manufacturing company that sells tanks to child soldiers.

blackbootz  ·  70 days ago  ·  link  ·  

This is... interesting. On the one hand, the role/religion inversion is useful in freeing up the observer from tribal-line identities (liberals automatically siding with the gay couple, conservatives with the baker).

On the other, a union between two consenting adults is in utterly unlike socially-sanctioned pedophilia.

I'm not sure how I feel. But there is a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, whether I like it or not.

wasoxygen  ·  70 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Religion does not confer immunity; human sacrifice is still frowned upon.

In my view, questions of religious expression or freedom of speech are distractions. The only amendment relevant to the discussion is the 13th.

Party A wishes to have Party B perform an act that Party B is not willing to perform. That is the definition of coercion. There are reasons for which coercion is justified; to settle this case we have to decide if to get a wedding cake is one of those reasons. (Or, more grandly: to induce people to perform gestures consistent with mainstream values when they do not hold them, or else fabricate socially acceptable excuses, where concerns of reputation and future profits are not sufficient inducement.)

bfv  ·  70 days ago  ·  link  ·  

It's as appropriate for someone on a civil rights commission to be hostile towards conservative Christianity as it is for an ER doctor to be disgusted with the NRA. The first solves problems the second creates.

flagamuffin  ·  70 days ago  ·  link  ·  

if only, but it was a procedural decision not a substantive one so this analogy, while perhaps apt at changing an opinion here or there, was not in the minds of the justices (or at least not all seven). definitely not kagan of course

HGL  ·  70 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Winner winner chicken dinner. Perfect analogy because the 60+ y/o man is also a protected class.