In Colorado, The Cake is in the Supreme Court oven

[Mbecker]

What about the Free Exercise Clause? Are there no limits here, too? Or is the right to practice one's religion (or to engage in a practice based on one's religious belief) absolute and unconditional and beyond the reach of the law?

My principal criticism is with Mr. Gale's first assertion above. He has yet to acknowledge that the right to the free exercise of religion, as acknowledged in the Free Exercise Clause, has limits. That right is not absolute. According to rulings by the Supreme Court, many individuals who have appealed to their religion to justify certain practices and behaviors ("to practice his or her own religion") have been told that their religious practice is unconstitutional, that they cannot legally practice their religion or engage in certain behaviors that they claim are grounded in their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has ruled that some "religious practices" (or "practices based on religious belief") are indeed indefensible under the US Constitution. That's the only point I've been trying to make with Mr. Gale.

Matt Becker

You are simply trolling here.  There is no nicer way to put it.

Calling me names/attacking my character doesn't help your case, David. (Isn't that in itself a form of "trolling"?) And just because someone has a law degree doesn't automatically mean that he or she will always write clear sentences or paragraphs. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Gale clarified what he meant by that one paragraph, but it took a few posts. I hope he would understand why, prior to his recent elaboration, I found that one set of sentences less than accurate and susceptible to the kind of criticism I was trying to articulate.

Accusing me of "trolling" in this forum is a pretty cheap shot, imo. I don't know of a single instance when I have intentionally posted inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages. Sure, the perspectives and comments I express here often seem not to find much resonance among the handful of individuals who daily or weekly participate in this forum, but I've never jumped into the fray for the purpose of intentionally offending people or of making people angry or of trying to elicit an emotional response from them or of attempting to disrupt the flow of a given thread. I've always posted because I thought I had something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion, even if I freely admit that regretfully my "tone" occasionally has interfered with the substance of what I was trying to communicate.

Since my questions and arguments and replies are apparently unwelcome here, I will not trouble the group any further.

Matt Becker

[MaddogLutheran]

Accusing me of "trolling" in this forum is a pretty cheap shot, imo. I don't know of a single instance when I have intentionally posted inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages.

Surely you are not in favor of religious actions that incite to violence, are you? Do you support the religious sacrifice of children or virgins--or the physical abuse of children or others on the basis of an appeal to the Free Exercise Clause? as a religious prerogative?

Perhaps you are not as well read as you think.   

[David Garner]

What about the Free Exercise Clause? Are there no limits here, too? Or is the right to practice one's religion (or to engage in a practice based on one's religious belief) absolute and unconditional and beyond the reach of the law?

My principal criticism is with Mr. Gale's first assertion above. He has yet to acknowledge that the right to the free exercise of religion, as acknowledged in the Free Exercise Clause, has limits. That right is not absolute. According to rulings by the Supreme Court, many individuals who have appealed to their religion to justify certain practices and behaviors ("to practice his or her own religion") have been told that their religious practice is unconstitutional, that they cannot legally practice their religion or engage in certain behaviors that they claim are grounded in their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court has ruled that some "religious practices" (or "practices based on religious belief") are indeed indefensible under the US Constitution. That's the only point I've been trying to make with Mr. Gale.

Matt Becker

You are simply trolling here.  There is no nicer way to put it.

Calling me names/attacking my character doesn't help your case, David. (Isn't that in itself a form of "trolling"?) And just because someone has a law degree doesn't automatically mean that he or she will always write clear sentences or paragraphs. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Gale clarified what he meant by that one paragraph, but it took a few posts. I hope he would understand why, prior to his recent elaboration, I found that one set of sentences less than accurate and susceptible to the kind of criticism I was trying to articulate.

Accusing me of "trolling" in this forum is a pretty cheap shot, imo. I don't know of a single instance when I have intentionally posted inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages. Sure, the perspectives and comments I express here often seem not to find much resonance among the handful of individuals who daily or weekly participate in this forum, but I've never jumped into the fray for the purpose of intentionally offending people or of making people angry or of trying to elicit an emotional response from them or of attempting to disrupt the flow of a given thread. I've always posted because I thought I had something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion, even if I freely admit that regretfully my "tone" occasionally has interfered with the substance of what I was trying to communicate.

Since my questions and arguments and replies are apparently unwelcome here, I will not trouble the group any further.

Matt Becker

Such thin skin for someone who literally just told a lawyer he doesn't know the law and suggested he read a book to bone up.  You say that wasn't "for the purpose of intentionally offending people or making people angry or . . . trying to elicit an emotional response," but it sure wasn't for the purpose of educating someone whose education on the topic well surpasses yours.  So perhaps you should consider humbling yourself a bit, listening more, and giving fewer suggestions for good books to read on the law when you're talking to someone with a law degree, literally a doctorate in the law.  We aren't your students, and you are not qualified to be a professor on this subject, so stay in your lane.

You suggest Mr. Gale should understand why you found his responses less than accurate and susceptible to your criticism.  From where I stand (also as a lawyer and as someone with 19 years of law practice under my belt), I fully understand why you didn't get what he was saying.  Because you know about a quarter as much about the subject as you think you do.  That sort of arrogant pontificating from on high is annoying when the pontificator knows what he is talking about.  It's positively irritating when he doesn't.  And make no mistake, Dr. Becker, on this subject, you do not know what you're talking about.  Which is not to say you're wrong in your conclusions -- nobody knows how the Supreme Court is going to rule.  It is to say, your cherry picking of the facts and your ankle deep legal reasoning on the matter are not persuasive to people who have actually studied the matters at hand, understand the legal process, understand how the law works, and see things you literally do not see when looking at this case.  Combine that with an arrogant attitude where you're telling others to "go read up" on a subject that you lack any education and training in, and we are well educated and trained in, and your behavior is rude.

I didn't call you any names.  I didn't attack your character.  I described your bad behavior.  If you don't like having your bad behavior described, perhaps stop behaving badly.

[David Garner]

P.S., I am not saying, at all, that one must have a law degree to discuss the law.  I'll grant that Dr. Becker has a better understanding than most, and I'll further grant that the law is not this mysterious thing beyond the grasp of laymen.

My point is not that Dr. Becker is incapable of understanding the law, simply that he is demonstrating that he does not understand it.  My first response to him pointed out the main reason why -- he misses basic rules of procedure and appellate practice that inform the discussion.  Specifically, he doesn't understand that the case below was won on Motion for Summary Judgment, and in a Motion for Summary Judgment, all facts are taken in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, in this case, Masterpiece Cakeshop.  Further, on appeal, the Court construes facts in a light most favorable to the appellant.  And yet Dr. Becker is apparently only reading, and certainly only citing, the briefs and arguments of the party who does not get that deference.

This is properly basic stuff.  Stuff that should not have to be explained to someone who is telling others to "go read up" on the facts and the law.

[Voelker]

Read Dr Becker's replies — he simply refuses to deal with the core questions (compelled speech, for instance), and again and again returns to the encounter between the cake-seekers and the baker, as if that moment in time is what matters, and not the larger, actually important issues at the heart of the case. The repetition is boring and gets him (and the discussion) nowhere, though the volume of text used to do this is impressive. The conclusions to draw from this should be clear for the reader.

[Dan Fienen]

We've read much about how rights granted to the LGBTetc. community such as the right to demand that anyone who bakes cakes, take photographs, arranges flowers, provides facilities and such for any weddings must do so  for same sex weddings, supersede any First Amendment free exercise religious rights or freedom of expressions rights of Christians.  That is the arena that is currently much in the news.  What other rights can the LGBTetc. community claim that supersede the rights of others?  One thing that has been mentioned with some emphasis several times as part of the offense created by the baker was that the couple were embarrassed, felt humiliated and offended.  Do they have the right to ensure that those who operate in public never say or do anything that might tend to upset them?


Do straight Christians have any rights that the LGBTetc. community should respect?

[SomeoneWrites]

We've read much about how rights granted to the LGBTetc. community such as the right to demand that anyone who bakes cakes, take photographs, arranges flowers, provides facilities and such for any weddings must do so  for same sex weddings, supersede any First Amendment free exercise religious rights or freedom of expressions rights of Christians.  That is the arena that is currently much in the news.  What other rights can the LGBTetc. community claim that supersede the rights of others?  One thing that has been mentioned with some emphasis several times as part of the offense created by the baker was that the couple were embarrassed, felt humiliated and offended.  Do they have the right to ensure that those who operate in public never say or do anything that might tend to upset them?


Do straight Christians have any rights that the LGBTetc. community should respect?

If I swap "LGBT" with "African American", all of the above comes across wonky.  I've yet to read a compelling reason why I shouldn't. 

[R. T. Fouts]

If a gay baker refused to bake a cake for my son's confirmation, because he dislikes Christianity, I would not sue him.  I would go find another baker.  He has a right to operate his own business however he likes.

[R. T. Fouts]

Swap LBGT with African American all day. The business owner assumes the economic risks of a boycott and, simply, rejecting paying customers regardless.  It is his business. His risk. Is it wrong? Yes, but it is still his right. 

[SomeoneWrites]

Swap LBGT with African American all day. The business owner assumes the economic risks of a boycott and, simply, rejecting paying customers regardless.  It is his business. His risk. Is it wrong? Yes, but it is still his right.

I don't know that it's his right.  You were clear about your position earlier in the thread, and I appreciate your clarity.  I still haven't found the rationale compelling. 

[Dan Fienen]

As characteristics upon which to accord special protected status (special rules against discrimination) are being African-American and exhibiting a same sex sexual orientation equivalent?  I realize that this has been a standard ploy in the battle for same sex marriage. 


African-American is a racial characteristic that individuals are born with.  We also have a long and disgraceful history with first forced immigration as slaves and then official and legally/violently enforced discrimination.  America is improving in this area but still has much room for improvement.


Same sex sexual orientation is of uncertain origin.  There has been a great deal of dogmatic pronouncements from all sides, but I do not believe that the etiology has been definitively established.  My own suspicion is that there is no one cause but a complex of what could be termed both nurture and nature.  There is no doubt that homosexuality has historically not been well received historically but that has greatly changed.  Does this make it as a factor equivalent to race? 

[SomeoneWrites]

As characteristics upon which to accord special protected status (special rules against discrimination) are being African-American and exhibiting a same sex sexual orientation equivalent?  I realize that this has been a standard ploy in the battle for same sex marriage. 


African-American is a racial characteristic that individuals are born with.  We also have a long and disgraceful history with first forced immigration as slaves and then official and legally/violently enforced discrimination.  America is improving in this area but still has much room for improvement.


Same sex sexual orientation is of uncertain origin.  There has been a great deal of dogmatic pronouncements from all sides, but I do not believe that the etiology has been definitively established.  My own suspicion is that there is no one cause but a complex of what could be termed both nurture and nature.  There is no doubt that homosexuality has historically not been well received historically but that has greatly changed.  Does this make it as a factor equivalent to race?

If it's is demonstrated to be nature, how would that affect your opinion?

[Dan Fienen]

Even if it could be demonstrated that homosexuality is purely or primarily genetic in origin, the history would be different.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen writes:
My own suspicion is that there is no one cause but a complex of what could be termed both nurture and nature.
I muse:
To speak of some "thing" that "causes" homosexuality is in itself a misunderstanding. Yet it is good (I think, perhaps) to know that Pastor Fienen agrees that "nature" has something to do with homosexuality for if it is in "nature" then it is of God and thereby good.

Pastor Fienen writes:
There is no doubt that homosexuality has historically not been well received historically but that has greatly changed.
I comment:
That is a limited, culturally-centered view of history. And part of the problem.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Yet it is good (I think, perhaps) to know that Pastor Fienen agrees that "nature" has something to do with homosexuality for if it is in "nature" then it is of God and thereby good.

And here Charles denies original sin and renders "Joy To the World" a meaningless hymn.