In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay

It's a lot to do about nothing. Baker has strong convictions, says go someplace else. I agree 100% with his right to refuse to deal with folks he considers unsavory. Don't we have the right to not do business with drug dealers? The food prep industry is a creative business, much like art and music There were PLENTY of outlets to get a cake with those sympathetic to the mo's asking for service. They made this a freaking civil rights issue, wanting publicity and possibly the right to sue for damages. Publicity whores at a minimum. Screw them. The baker is within his rights.

 

I did.

Funny how you left out the next sentence of yours.

I would agree about refusing to make something that says "gays are great" or had big penis' all over it, but he didn't know what they wanted.

and I'll say it again. This wasn't about a design. Try reading what I wrote.

And freedom of religion. In case you forgot, is the same amendment
.

His freedom of speech is his freedom of religion. He says specifically that it violates his religious beliefs.

Now if you can't be honest enough to actually read what he says is the reason I can't help you.

Wrong again. All 3 specifically cite their religious beliefs as the reason. I'm amazed you are even trying this defense when its so laughably false.

Of course he can. Sexual orientation is never listed anywhere in the Constitution as a protected right. Freedom of religion is.

And please, spare us the insulting argument about blacks since being black is a genetic condition not something you can announce at a press conference. You insult the struggle of blacks in this country with that pathetic equation.

A person being gay has even less science behind it than someone with a particular personality which is also not protected so to equate it with race or sex is highly insulting to science and anyone's intelligence.

You can challenge me on this if you like. I've seen all the fake studies on the mythical gay gene and the failed theories on a combination of genetic material which does exist and personality if you like. Many have and all lost.

 

No its for the courts since we are pitting a state law vs a Constitutional right.

 

I'm not sure what the issue is, if the community or part of it see a business is bigoted they just need to use social pressure to get it to change or close it, if gays were offended then they can picket the business and call suppliers of the business to complain and go after them in lawful ways or the couple can sue the business if they feel it was illegal actions in civil court there is no need for the government to do anything.

 

Nonsense, the baker isn't mass-producing wedding cakes and just refusing to sell them to some people. He's being asked to craft a product for one-time use at a ceremony that he finds deeply offensive.

If he makes a statue for person A but not for person B, then maybe it has to do with the meaning of the statue rather than who persons A or B are. That is all this is.

 

To clarify further, if the baker had refused to provide them with cake, I would be against what he did. Providing a wedding cake after being told it was for a gay wedding could be construed as endorsing gay weddings, though, so IMO the baker was within his rights to refuse.

When I had some logo T shirts made up awhile ago, the printer took some time to determine their intent and planned use before consenting to make them, and even then appeared a bit jittery about how his work could be reacted to by other businesses in the community. Approval or its opposite is one of the ways the plutocracy keeps its members inline.

 

I fail to see how. You can't even find a decent deli anymore.

 

This was a tough case. The Pizza guy case was relatively easy compared to this. It is one thing not to sell a cake to someone ... another to force them to make artwork on that cake reflects a beliefs about subject that they detest. (religious or otherwise).

Where the judge goes off the farm is when he states "sincerely held religious beliefs". If Mr. Baker sincerely believed in mosaic law, then he would be observing "All" of mosaic law and not just stuff he agrees with - stuff that suits his hypocritical and bigoted fancy.

 

Does not matter.

There is no inherent constitutional protection for private association in business that offers its products or services to the public in general.

A state can regulate that practice.

 

A state can NOT usurp Constitutional protections. Period.

 

Think about the interstate commerce clause and California's restrictions on
some of Detroit's cars.

California has usurped the Constitutional protections of the State of Michigan.

And The State of Arkansas' chicken if we don't like the smallness of their cages.

Yes California Can!

 

I'm tired and won't argue. But I'm not sure the founding fathers had Teslas. I'm not a commerce clause guy so I'll defer to your judgement.

 

Look forward to your analysis.
Basically the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution says the states may not regulate or restrict or tax trade between one State and another.

 

Yes, that's what he did. In a business open to the public, he discriminated against customers and has been found guilty of doing so. It is against the law to discriminate against people when you are open for business to the public. If he wants to select his customers, he needs to close business to the public and open a bakery club where you have to be a member to order a cake.

This is not like a sculptor taking a commission. That business is private and between the sculptor and his patron.

It is alike a wood carver that carves lots of sculptures and sells them to anyone, until one day a blue eyed person wants to buy one and he tells them no because he doesn't "believe" in selling to blue eyed people… and it's illegal to do when you are open for business to the public.

 

while the baker had every right to be a moron he was indeed a moron....and unchristian at that.

 

And Maurice Bessinger would sell food to blacks, just not inside the restaurant. He had no problem selling to them at the takeout window.

The restaurant owner objected to seating blacks in the restaurant, because of his religious beliefs.

 

Scalia disagrees. "Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The law you quoted is generally applicable, it does not target one religion or religious belief. Ex, the law does not say that you have to make cakes praising Satan. The law only says that if you choose to offer Satan cakes then you can not discriminate on who you sell them to, you are free to not offer Satan cakes in your bakery as long as you do not make them for anyone.

 

Non-sequitur.

 

The fact remains that Supreme court rulings have consistently found that religious belief does not trump generally applicable law. Religion is also a protected class under public accommodation law, and it's not a genetic condition. The issue is that people can not claim that their religious belief is a get out of following the law ticket. I can claim that driving under 70 MPH is against my religious belief, but I will still get a ticket. I can claim that raising pigs in my backyard is required by my religious belief, but zoning laws still apply to my house in the neighborhood.

The baker is not forced to offer any product at all. He can choose to not offer wedding cakes to anyone, and has done so. But he wants to sell wedding cakes in a manner that violates the laws of the state.

 

Employment division V Smith found otherwise.

 

Same exact thing. One person is claiming that his religious beliefs trump the law. Maurice lost.

 

wolfsgirl said: Please show me the part of Colorados public accommodation law that directly targets any religious belief.
http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html

You are both right, yes, and wolfsgirl is correct that Colorado's PA law is constitutionally constrcuted; religious belief is not targeted by the PA law.

 

No, it is not. That has already been decided for you.

 

PRIVATE grocery stores have a perfect right to limit who their clientele will be. No different than a private social club.

Bakers being asked to design a specific item based on specific parameters is *NOT* synonymous with sales to the public. It represents a private contract between the baker and the buyer. Had the gay buyers simply picked a standard cake out of the display case then discrimination would not have been an issue. It was only when they tried to *force* the baker into becoming a party to a private contract that the issue arose.

No one should be forced to become a party to a private contract for ANY reason!

 

When something is ordered off the menu or is chosen out of a display case then it is *NOT* associated with the concept of freedom of expression. The expression has already taken place in the preparation of the menu or of the items in the display case.

When a private person is *forced*, however, into a private contract with another to CREATE something that is not on the menu or in the display case then you have made a slave of that private person. It doesn't matter if that private person doesn't want to create something unique because of religious reasons or because of aesthetic reasons. IF YOU FORCE HIM TO DO IT ANYWAY, then you have violated his freedom and made him into a slave.