I get it Denny, I work with attorneys all day long... an objective legal argument has nothing to do with that person's personal convictions.
The thing is, I think you can legislate that the bakers must serve gay people. But I also think the law has to treat people equally which does mean the Jewish bakers must bake cakes for the Nazis. There are both federal requirements for equal treatment under the law and 14th amendment requirement that the states must also. Gay people and the Nazis must be treated equally is my point. I only ask if we're willing to accept the consequences.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I just think you're unhappy with gays being protected at the state level in many states. That's an opinion you're free to hold, but I'm glad that they are.
Where have I said I'm unhappy with gays being protected? I've only said, repeatedly, that you shouldn't force people to violate their religious expression and that if you make a law it has to square with the equal protection clauses of the constitution and 14th.
It got me really thinking when Sly basically said... it's just a cake, just bake it, it doesn't matter how it's used. Well, the Bible/Koran is just a book...
If I were the baker, I'd bake the cake. I'd sell the book, too. But people of religion aren't Reasonable (they have Faith in the face of Reason), and they have well founded rights, too.
Earlier in this thread you said they shouldn't be a protected class. We disagree on how broadly you draw "violating religious expression." Baking a cake that will be used in a wedding does not, to me or many others, constitute forcing people to violate their religious expression. We already have protected classes, both at the federal and state level. They are apparently Constitutional.
It's not up to you to decide for religious people what violates their religious expression. It's not up to many others, either. There's separation of church and state for good reason, and you can't pick and choose when to separate from church and when to have government regulate it. I never claimed protected classes are unconstitutional. Just that gays are not a protected class. You abuse the term "protected class."
Okay, let me put it another way: it's up to each individual what violates their religious expression, but people don't have an absolute right to exercise their religious expression. The Bible has language that gay people must be put to death, but even if there were those who felt that they must carry that out, we'd have to force them to violate their religious expression. They are at the state level in many states. And just by accepting that protected classes aren't unconstitutional, you agree that the law doesn't have to protect everyone equally.
The thing is, what is the definition of religious expression? There are many religions with all different beliefs, how do we legislate what is okay and not okay to express under the 1st amendment?
There's no bright line standard. I think, though, that using "violation of religious expression" for things that in no way require the person/business to endorse any particular practice is shaky.
The Christian/Muslim would hope that the person would take a moment to read some of the book before destroying it and the world of god would seep in. At least a reasonable one would.
It's been basically limited to real physical harm. Like denying medical care to children with the expectation that God will provide a miracle. Even then, it's highly questionable, though the state does have a compelling interest in seeing the children who have access to care should get it. (and everyone has access, even if it's showing up at the emergency room, it's law that everyone must be treated).
Okay, so let's go back to selling a Bible/Koran to a Satanist. Am I going to be forced to knowingly sell what I consider to be the word of God to be misused?
Nonsense. Laws pertaining to protected classes DO protect everyone equally. You are trying to invent a right here that isn't an equal protection. You want to exclude the Nazis, per my example.
I think it depends on whether Satanism is officially recognized as a religion. If it isn't, then as far as I know the bookstore owner could deny service because there's no religious protection. If Satanism is recognized as a religion, then I don't think the owner could refuse on those grounds.
If laws protecting blacks or Christians from denial of service protect everyone equally, so do laws protecting gays from denial of service.
Well then we have to ask what the definition of a religion is... tax exempt status? Who decides what's officially a religion? As an American aren't I free to believe any religion I want including one I made up today?
