6 ms·

The same First Amendment that protects that baker also protects the rest of us from being forced to say things we don't believe, which is why the Supreme Court

The same First Amendment that protects that baker also protects the rest of us from being forced to say things we don't believe, which is why the Supreme Court ruled in the cakeshop's favor. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

ceejayoz 8y ago
That's not true - the decision was not on any sort of free speech basis. https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-ru... > The opinion seemed to leave open the possibility that, in a future case, a service provider’s sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex couples, and the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.
- leereeves 8y ago
  The First Amendment protects both freedom of speech and religion. But even if you insist on limiting the argument to free speech: > Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, in an opinion joined by Gorsuch, to address an issue that the court did not decide: whether an order mandating that Phillips bake cakes for same-sex weddings violates his right to free speech. In Thomas’ view, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is exactly the kind of “expressive” conduct protected by the First Amendment. Requiring Phillips to make such cakes for same-sex marriage, even when it will convey a message that “he believes his faith forbids,” violates his First Amendment rights.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    You'll find that two of nine justices writing a concurring opinion doesn't constitute anywhere near a majority.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      And you'll find, if you read my first comment more carefully, that I said "First Amendment", not free speech. The 1st protects both free speech and freedom of religion. Both are about being able to practice and express our own beliefs without the government forcing us to do otherwise.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        As various anti-discrimination laws have survived SCOTUS challenges, it's pretty clear it's not quite so simple as just the First Amendment here. Per the majority opinion: > But even if those objections are protected, Kennedy explained, the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that in some cases the right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and can instead be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone.
        leereeves 8y ago
        The majority opinion in this case was based on Colorado's failure to respect freedom of religion. They also acknowledged the free speech argument, without ruling on it either way, while the concurring opinion was about free speech. Both are about the 1st.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        No, the majority opinion in this case was based on Colorado's active animus towards the bake shop's religious beliefs during their proceedings, during which they compared his beliefs to defending slavery or the Holocaust. It's entirely possible a more neutral proceeding would've been upheld. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/04/in-bakers-case-neither-side-has-much-reason-to-rejoice/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/0... > There is no majority that would have found for the baker absent the discriminatory comments by the commission; in fact, Kennedy strongly hints he might have gone the other way had the commissioners maintained their neutrality. By the same token, there were only two justices who would side against someone discriminating against gay customers no matter the specifics of the case.

ceejayoz 8y ago

That's not true - the decision was not on any sort of free speech basis. https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-ru... > The opinion seemed to leave open the possibility that, in a future case, a service provider’s sincere religious beliefs might have to yield to the state’s interest in protecting the rights of same-sex couples, and the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.

leereeves 8y ago
The First Amendment protects both freedom of speech and religion. But even if you insist on limiting the argument to free speech: > Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, in an opinion joined by Gorsuch, to address an issue that the court did not decide: whether an order mandating that Phillips bake cakes for same-sex weddings violates his right to free speech. In Thomas’ view, Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is exactly the kind of “expressive” conduct protected by the First Amendment. Requiring Phillips to make such cakes for same-sex marriage, even when it will convey a message that “he believes his faith forbids,” violates his First Amendment rights.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  You'll find that two of nine justices writing a concurring opinion doesn't constitute anywhere near a majority.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    And you'll find, if you read my first comment more carefully, that I said "First Amendment", not free speech. The 1st protects both free speech and freedom of religion. Both are about being able to practice and express our own beliefs without the government forcing us to do otherwise.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      As various anti-discrimination laws have survived SCOTUS challenges, it's pretty clear it's not quite so simple as just the First Amendment here. Per the majority opinion: > But even if those objections are protected, Kennedy explained, the Supreme Court’s precedents make clear that in some cases the right to the free exercise of religion is not absolute and can instead be limited by neutral laws that apply to everyone.
      - leereeves 8y ago
        The majority opinion in this case was based on Colorado's failure to respect freedom of religion. They also acknowledged the free speech argument, without ruling on it either way, while the concurring opinion was about free speech. Both are about the 1st.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        No, the majority opinion in this case was based on Colorado's active animus towards the bake shop's religious beliefs during their proceedings, during which they compared his beliefs to defending slavery or the Holocaust. It's entirely possible a more neutral proceeding would've been upheld. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/04/in-bakers-case-neither-side-has-much-reason-to-rejoice/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2018/06/0... > There is no majority that would have found for the baker absent the discriminatory comments by the commission; in fact, Kennedy strongly hints he might have gone the other way had the commissioners maintained their neutrality. By the same token, there were only two justices who would side against someone discriminating against gay customers no matter the specifics of the case.