Defending Religious Freedom - A Case for Jack Phillips (Masterpiece Cakeshop)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 гру 2017
- With the Supreme Court case of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop approaching, I thought I would make a video on the significance of the case - as well as the importance of religious liberty and freedom of expression.
7ACE - A political media archive
+Subscribe to my channel for more content
+Cryo Chamber: / cryochamberlabel
Sources:
global.oup.com/academic/produ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiscons...
www.adflegal.org/issues/religi...
www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-110
acluco-wpengine.netdna-ssl.co...
www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...
beta.latimes.com/politics/la-n...
• Justices weigh religio...
beta.latimes.com/politics/la-n...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterp...
denver.cbslocal.com/2017/12/05...
aclu-co.org/court-rules-baker...
stream.org/masterpiece-cakesh...
www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...
www.thenation.com/article/the...
www.foxnews.com/food-drink/201...
www.washingtonpost.com/politi...
www.washingtonpost.com/politi...
volokh.com/2009/12/16/discrimi...
• Masterpiece Cakeshop G...
fee.org/articles/capitalism-d...
Excellent presentation.
Thank you sir.
Criminally underviewed content my man. Keep up the good work.
Thank you. Much appreciated:)
Very wise and well edited video. Thank You
Very very good video man! This was very interesting and completely changed my mind on this issue. Keep it up!
Felix Jones thank you! I'm very glad that I was able to contribute to your opinion in some sort of way
absolutely spot on
Well-made vid
David Mullins
DENIED CAKE
Lol, it's the stuff of Judge Judy.
you have a great mind bro
You should have been this mans lawyer
How is this about "freedom of expression" when the couple left before Jack knew what (if anything) they wanted on the cake?
william Dawson he didn't refuse them on the basis of what would be on the cake; it was what the event the cake was intended to be used for, which was a gay wedding.
Then it is clearly discrimination. He provides the product for all others
If it is not the "message" on the cake. There is not a "freedom of expression" issue.
He never offered to sell them a "premade" cake. He offered brownies, birthday cakes, etc. How would a offering a pre-made cake change "the event the cake was to be used for".
@ John. "We do not like being forced to do things that we do not feel like doing, it goes against our beliefs" Is the same argument that Maurice Bessinger made when he refused to serve blacks in the dining room of the Piggie Park restaurant. The Court said that argument was frivolous.
@7Ace --- What about the "sandwich artist" at Ollie's and Piggie Park (and the thousands of other restaurants) that refused to serve blacks based on thier sincerely held Christian beliefs?
I would say that those instances are unacceptable. The difference, as mentioned in the video, is that the sandwich artist is refusing a broad group based on race. Jack Phillips isn't refusing to serve homosexuals, all he is refusing is making a cake for an event he doesn't agree with. Craig and Mullins could have purchased any other product. If Phillips said something to the effect of "I can't serve you because you are gay," then I would not be defending him. You are making a false equivalency.
it is the same argument. Ollie and Piggie didn't completely refuse to serve blacks, they refused to serve blacks in the dining room. Blacks could be served take-out from the "blacks door" or in the "blacks room"--- "separate but equal" you know. Pigiie and Olie simply refused to serve the "event" of serving blacks of the dining room. Just as Jack will serve homosexuals just differently than he serves non-homosexuals. He will serve homosexuals other products and other "events"-- by the way Maurice Bessinger of Piggie Park and McClung of Ollie's made the exact same argument that Jack is making now. If the Court sides with Jack they will overturn those cases,
By the way. I have a lot of empathy for Jack and agree with you in principle that in a perfect market place, this situation may have a preferable solution. But, a "perfect market" requires "complete and free information" and "free entry" into the market place. In order for complete information to tale place-- all of Jack's potential patrons would have to know what services Jack does and does not provide in order for the market to benefit those that serve all. And there would have to be no barriers for entry to any competitor that wants to fill the void. Nether of those requirements for a free market are likely.
william Dawson I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I don't see your example as providing a sufficient reason to deny service to blacks, although I partially agree with your reasoning. I think that this issue is so complex in that it can't be objectively interpreted, but I stand with my individual analysis that Jack has reasonable cause to deny the gay couple a cake.
I dont think we are disagreeing. The owners of Ollie's and Piggie Park argued that their sincerely held Christian faith prevented them from providing the same service (or 'event") to blacks as non-blacks. I am certainly not going to argue that one person's beliefs are sincerely held and another's are not. As you point out, it is a complex issue that must decide where the rights of individuals to be treated equally in the market place intersect with the religious rights of someone else. I believe some are desperately trying to decide the case in Jack's favor without overturning 50 years of civil rights laws and overturning 50 years of civil rights law is exactly the purpose of others.
Search UA-cam "masterpiece cakeshop disturbing"
It's freedom of religion not freedom from it. Long live the republic
+rexdog187 funny how you say that considdering the fact the baker who has a public accommodation is denying service based on religious views, and by that breaking the freedom of religious as guaranteed under the jeffersons bill (Which in most ways defines religious freedom in the USA) and the civil rights bill.
So what you're saying is you think that religious people are above the law? Religious people are fucking stupid