Jump to content

Gay writer makes the case for the baker in the gay-wedding culture war


TitanTiger

Recommended Posts

 

Quote

 

The Case for the Baker in the Gay-Wedding Culture War

By 

 

If someone had asked me back in the day, if, in 2017, we’d be having a discussion about whether a fundamentalist baker should be forced by the law to create a wedding cake for a gay couple, I’d have been gobsmacked, as the Brits say. Smacked in the gob because only a decade ago such a question would have seemed so remotely hypothetical as to be absurd. And yet, here we are. A Christian baker has taken a stand on the grounds of religious conscience and artistic freedom not to provide a cake specifically designed for a legal, constitutional same-sex wedding. His case was just argued in the Supreme Court no less. The staggering victories of the marriage-equality movement (now, Australia!) have led us here — far sooner than most of us pioneers ever contemplated. And the speed and finality of this social change has — understandably — frightened, disturbed, and alienated many on the other side. They are still smarting from the sting of defeat, defensibly regrouping and obsessing over their victimhood.

Which is why I think it was a prudential mistake to sue the baker. Live and let live would have been a far better response. The baker’s religious convictions are not trivial or obviously in bad faith, which means to say he is not just suddenly citing them solely when it comes to catering to gays. His fundamentalism makes him refuse to make even Halloween cakes, for Pete’s sake. More to the point, he has said he would provide any form of custom-designed cakes for gay couples — a birthday cake, for example — except for one designed for a specific celebration that he has religious objections to. And those religious convictions cannot be dismissed as arbitrary (even if you find them absurd). Opposition to same-sex marriage has been an uncontested pillar of every major world religion for aeons.

And so, if there are alternative solutions, like finding another baker, why force the point? Why take up arms to coerce someone when you can easily let him be — and still celebrate your wedding? That is particularly the case when much of the argument for marriage equality was that it would not force anyone outside that marriage to approve or disapprove of it. One reason we won that debate is because many straight people simply said to themselves, “How does someone else’s marriage affect me?” and decided on those grounds to support or acquiesce to such a deep social change. It seems grotesquely disingenuous now for the marriage-equality movement to bait and switch on that core “live and let live” argument. And it seems deeply insensitive and intolerant to force the clear losers in a culture war into not just defeat but personal humiliation.

Nonetheless, here we are. And it is a hard case constitutionally. It pits religious and artistic freedom against civil equality and nondiscrimination. Anyone on either side who claims this is an easy call are fanatics of one kind or other. I’m deeply conflicted. I worry that a decision that endorses religious freedom could effectively nullify a large swathe of antidiscrimination legislation — and have a feeling that Scalia, for example, would have backed the gays in this case on those grounds alone. Equally, I worry that a ruling that backs the right of the state to coerce someone into doing something that violates their religious conscience will also have terrible consequences. A law that controls an individual’s conscience violates a core liberal idea. It smacks of authoritarianism and of a contempt for religious faith. It feels downright anti-American to me.

The smartest and most nuanced take I’ve read on the subject is that of philosopher John Corvino. He argues that there is indeed a core right not to be forced to create something against your conscience but that in this particular case, the act of creation is so deeply entwined with hostility to an entire class of people that antidiscrimination laws overrule it. It’s worth reading, but he still doesn’t quite convince me. The baker is clearly not discriminating against an entire class of people; he is refusing to endorse a particular activity that violates his faith. Kennedy was absolutely right in oral arguments to make a distinction between an identity and an activity. The conflation of the two is just too facile.

And there’s a way out of this that need not take such a strong stand in terms of religious freedom. It seems to me the baker deserves to be able to pick and choose what kind of work he wants to do as an artist. A commenter on Rod Dreher’s blog proffers a series of important questions in this respect:

“If the cake shop loses, does that mean that if I’m, say, a freelance designer or an artist or a writer or a photographer, I can no longer pick and choose my clients? If the Westboro Baptist Church comes to me, I can’t reject them on the grounds that they’re deeply un-Christian scumbags? If I’m Jewish, do I have to design a Hitler’s Birthday cake with swastikas on it? Would a Muslim cake-shop owner be forced to design a cake that shows an Islamic terrorist with crosshairs over his face, a common target design in most gun shops in America? Can a gay, atheist web designer choose not to do work for the Catholic Church, or would we have the government compel him to take on a client he loathes?”

It always worries me when gays advocate taking freedom away from other people. It worries me as a matter of principle. But it also unsettles me because some gay activists do not seem to realize that the position they’re taking is particularly dangerous for a tiny and historically despised minority. The blithe unconcern for the First Amendment in the war on “hate speech,” for example, ignores the fact that, for centuries, the First Amendment was the only defense the gay minority ever had — and now, with the first taste of power, we are restricting the rights of others in this respect? Ugh. Endorse the state’s right to coerce speech or conscience and you have ceded a principle that can so easily come back to haunt you. The freedom of any baker to express himself is, in this respect, indistinguishable from that of any gay person to do so — a truth that our current tribalism blinds so many to. I hope, in other words, that the baker prevails — but that the Supreme Court decision doesn’t turn on religious so much as artistic freedom.

One final thought as a Christian. Sealing yourself off from those you consider sinners is, in my reading of the Gospels, the reverse of what Jesus taught. It was precisely this tendency of the religious to place themselves above others, to create clear boundaries to avoid “contamination” from “evildoers” that Jesus uniquely violated and profoundly opposed. If Jesus is your guide, why is this kind of boundary observance such an important part of your faith? Are you afraid your own faith will be weakened by decorating a cake? Would you have ever had dinner with prostitutes or imperial tax collectors as Jesus famously did? What is this Christianity you are so dedicated to? Somewhere, the fundamental Christian imperative to love others and be humble before them has been lost.

In other words, if the liberals were more liberal, and the Christians more Christian, this case would never have existed. It tells you a great deal about the decadence of our culture that it does.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/andrew-sullivan-let-him-have-his-cake.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

It's a nasty situation, because both parties have some valid reason to be upset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

The freedom of any baker to express himself is, in this respect, indistinguishable from that of any gay person to do so — a truth that our current tribalism blinds so many to. I hope, in other words, that the baker prevails — but that the Supreme Court decision doesn’t turn on religious so much as artistic freedom.

The problem I have with this line of reason is that we will somewhere have to arbitrarily delineate what we call art.

I have difficulty seeing a cake as art. It is a cake. People eat it. The strength of its message is arguable. What constitutes an artist? Would a contractor be an artist? What if a contractor sees their work on a house as art? Then could they refuse to provide a service on the grounds of artistic expression? Where do we draw that line? If the line is not drawn carefully, then any privately owned business can refuse service to protected classes on the grounds of artistic expression.

It's an interesting case that will have some interesting implications for anti-discrimination laws and interpretation of the First Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://religiondispatches.org/its-not-about-cake-anti-gay-vendors-want-a-constitutional-right-to-discriminate/

IT’S NOT ABOUT CAKE: ANTI-GAY VENDORS WANT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE

 

 

This is a piss poor place to take a stand on religious freedom IMO.  There are times when religious beliefs have to submit to societal norms for the benefit of that society. This is one of them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

It's a nasty situation, because both parties have some valid reason to be upset.

 

It really is.  I completely understand why a Christian baker would object to providing a cake for a same sex marriage, and I might even be inclined to agree that they should be free to decline.  On the other hand, it is also the kind of stance that I see as potentially counter-productive for the future of Christianity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree with the writing. Very logical. I would draw a line somewhere not sure where though. 

I have heard a story before it might have even been hypothetical but imagine two men traveling with car trouble. The only repair garage for miles maybe on weekend with few options. Maybe just flat tires. Do you let the mechanic or the tow truck company discriminate? I wouldn’t like for that to be an option. That kinda sheds more of a light on taking action against a baker. It won’t be a huge inconvenience to just find another bakery. Tow truck not so easy. So I say choose your battles wisely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, alexava said:

I can agree with the writing. Very logical. I would draw a line somewhere not sure where though. 

I have heard a story before it might have even been hypothetical but imagine two men traveling with car trouble. The only repair garage for miles maybe on weekend with few options. Maybe just flat tires. Do you let the mechanic or the tow truck company discriminate? I wouldn’t like for that to be an option. That kinda sheds more of a light on taking action against a baker. It won’t be a huge inconvenience to just find another bakery. Tow truck not so easy. So I say choose your battles wisely. 

My chief worry is that they might gut anti-discrimination law entirely with their ruling. This one is a hard one to take a scalpel to without seriously damaging an area of law that has a very good reason for existing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/12/2017 at 8:58 PM, homersapien said:

http://religiondispatches.org/its-not-about-cake-anti-gay-vendors-want-a-constitutional-right-to-discriminate/

IT’S NOT ABOUT CAKE: ANTI-GAY VENDORS WANT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE

 

 

This is a piss poor place to take a stand on religious freedom IMO.  There are times when religious beliefs have to submit to societal norms for the benefit of that society. This is one of them.

 

NO SIR!! Are you a fascist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

My chief worry is that they might gut anti-discrimination law entirely with their ruling. This one is a hard one to take a scalpel to without seriously damaging an area of law that has a very good reason for existing.

I agree. I guess my criticism is for the actions against the baker. A wedding cake is not a huge immediate need. Not much inconvenience. Wait till you are denied something that could cause real or even punitive damages before rolling your dice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

NO SIR!! Are you a fascist?

I'll let the Mormons know that child marriage and polygamy are back on the table. Can't be facists about their beliefs, can we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alexava said:

I agree. I guess my criticism is for the actions against the baker. A wedding cake is not a huge immediate need. Not much inconvenience. Wait till you are denied something that could cause real or even punitive damages before rolling your dice. 

I think it's as good a test case as any. Looking at what went down, I honestly would have been pretty upset too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

I'll let the Mormons know that child marriage and polygamy are back on the table. Can't be facists about their beliefs, can we?

Do two wrongs make each right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If societal norms begin to advocate euthanasia for the elderly, unproductive, people in our society, would that be right, just because it is the "norm"? The guarantee of ones rights cannot infringe on another's rights. It becomes reverse discrimination. Just go buy a danged cake from another gay somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

Do two wrongs make each right?

That's a ridiculous question. You're copping out.

My point, even though I made it in jest, stands. Sometimes, religious freedom and the law are incompatible. There are certain religious practices that violate the law and remain banned. 

For an example of this, look no further than Justice Scalia:

 

Quote

The case people most often mentioned by scholars reviewing Scalia's religious freedom legacy came 25 years ago, when Scalia delivered the majority opinion in

 Employment Division v. Smith and blew up how courts had been handling religious exercise disputes for nearly three decades.

In the case, two members of the Native American church in Oregon argued that a state law banning peyote use violated the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom to exercise one's religion. They both had been fired for ingesting peyote, an illegal drug, and denied unemployment benefits.

Scalia wrote that Oregon had the right make peyote use a crime because the state did so through a generally applicable law, not in a ban targeting just the Native American community. He criticized the court's practice of employing a "compelling interest test" in cases of this nature, arguing that judges should not be given the power to decide when and if a generally applicable law places a significant burden on a faith group.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the chief governmental interest in making someone violate his or her firmly held religious beliefs for something that is not a necessity, like administering health care. A danged cake isn't a necessity. There are other alternatives than making someone violate his faith. Find a bakery where they don't give a crap what they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer Brown said:

What is the chief governmental interest in making someone violate his or her firmly held religious beliefs for something that is not a necessity, like administering health care. A danged cake isn't a necessity. There are other alternatives than making someone violate his faith.

I guess you could say the same about this situation. They just wanted lunch.

tumblr_inline_o1v8s6O6gv1tz5inr_1280.jpg

But then, we've already decided the religious freedom aspect this dilemma, refusing to serve a protected class, in court. 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/256/941/2349546/

Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

I guess you could say the same about this situation. They just wanted lunch.

tumblr_inline_o1v8s6O6gv1tz5inr_1280.jpg

But then, we've already decided the religious freedom aspect this dilemma, refusing to serve a protected class, in court. 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/256/941/2349546/

 

 

Are you equating African Americans with homosexuals? You know in your heart, that a man and woman's anatomy are different and the proper use of them produces you and me. There is no way that you will ever convince a sane man that hasn't been indoctrinated or brainwashed by college professors that it is any different. Do you think that women should play football for Auburn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets have a sensible discussion here, instead of you cutting and pasting from legal websites. I can do that all day long. Let me ask you a legitimate question. Would you want the crowd you are defending to mess with that beautiful child that you have graced your profile with? Do you want someone to approach him at puberty and start messing with his morals and mind? Basic anatomy defies your logic. But you are too educated to understand the difference between a rooster and a hen. LOL SMH. You folks never cease to amaze me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

Are you equating African Americans with homosexuals? 

Just using it as an example, showing that a claim of religious freedom has been defeated in court. 

And this isn't a rare case. The Scalia example I posted prior is another.

But I'll say this: being straight, or gay for that matter, is just as much a part of what makes you, well, you as the color of your skin. 

Quote

You know in your heart, that a man and woman's anatomy are different and the proper use of them produces you and me. There is no way that you will ever convince a sane man that hasn't been indoctrinated or brainwashed by college professors that it is any different.

Thank you for lecturing the resident clinical engineer, who, you know, studied human anatomy and physiology extensively, with a smattering of psychology, and also happens to be married and has children, on biology. 

Quote

Do you think that women should play football for Auburn?

Bad example. A better one: Just a few short years ago, we were having a debate about women serving our country in combat roles. Seems we've hashed that one out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

Are you equating African Americans with homosexuals? You know in your heart, that a man and woman's anatomy are different and the proper use of them produces you and me. There is no way that you will ever convince a sane man that hasn't been indoctrinated or brainwashed by college professors that it is any different. Do you think that women should play football for Auburn?

What's her 40 time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Farmer Brown said:

Lets have a sensible discussion here, instead of you cutting and pasting from legal websites. I can do that all day long.

I am being sensible. I am citing existing case law to bolster my argument. 

And I doubt you can. Precedent is extremely important when arguing matters of the law. 

Quote

Letet me ask you a legitimate question. Would you want the crowd you are defending to mess with that beautiful child that you have graced your profile with?

"Mess" with?

Quote

Do you want someone to approach him at puberty and start messing with his morals and mind? 

That's my daughter, by the way.

I will raise her to make caring for others a priority, to be open to differing worldviews and to not fear the gay menace. In fact, seeing as I have gay friends, she will be exposed to some differing worldviews fairly early.

But we also happen to be Catholic. Already been baptised into the Church, matter of fact. She will have a strong moral foundation. 

Quote

Basic anatomy defies your logic. But you are too educated to understand the difference between a rooster and a hen. LOL SMH. You folks never cease to amaze me.

I'm willing to bet my understanding far outweighs yours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

I'll let the Mormons know that child marriage and polygamy are back on the table. Can't be facists about their beliefs, can we?

Apparently, Farmer Brown lacks imagination (as well as wit). :-\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Farmer Brown said:

If societal norms begin to advocate euthanasia for the elderly, unproductive, people in our society, would that be right, just because it is the "norm"? The guarantee of ones rights cannot infringe on another's rights. It becomes reverse discrimination. Just go buy a danged cake from another gay somewhere.

That's the same argument George Wallace made about the Feds interferring in the rights of Alabamians to segregate blacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...