Toggle sidebar

Masterpiece Cakeshop Is Fighting for the First Amendment, Not Against Gay Marriage

TW has the right idea, IMHO. I've stated it before. If the issue is the sale of a run of the mill cake off the shelf or a cake that has no controversial message in and of itself then sell it to whomever. If the issue is "I want the cake to say x....." or "I want you to show up to my event and do y...." then a sentient being has the right to refuse as complying with the request may be interpreted as or may actually constitute an endorsement of the message or event.

The first thing to realize here is that there is (it should be obvious) a conflict between (in this case) competing freedoms and even freedom and the law. Classical liberalism protects freedom but also places some limits on them in some cases.

This case really comes across to me as "Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose (really at the point your action is "threatening" to a reasonable person)." Yes, you have a right to buy a cake just as anyone else. You don't have the right to force another to endorse (implicitly or explicitly) or participate in any certain statement or event. You do not have the right to force another to make a statement they do not wish to make. While we have carved out exceptions for public accommodations you do not have the right to force another to associate with you. And you certainly do not have the right to force another to violate their conscience, faith, or religion when their actions (or more succinctly, lack of action) do not directly violate the actual rights of another.

I'm sorry, but you can cross a line in the name of anything - and that includes the name of tolerance or love or acceptance or etc;.... - when you become just another tyrant imposing your will against others. And that makes you no better than those you despise for doing the same.
 
Last edited:
seebell said:
.
Looks like a retail cake store to me, 1986. Public accommodation under Colorado law.
Click to expand...

Have you read the CO law? Have not, but if it reads like the CRA then no, this would not qualify, as obviously their primary business is not selling food to be consumed on the premises.
 
crimsonaudio said:
Have you read the CO law? Have not, but if it reads like the CRA then no, this would not qualify, as obviously their primary business is not selling food to be consumed on the premises.
Click to expand...

I posted the Co law in a reply to your post above. This just proves that no one ever reads my posts. I'm probably on so many ignore lists that I might as well be posting to myself. I retreat to my safe space of employment.
 
seebell said:
I posted the Co law in a reply to your post above. This just proves that no one ever reads my posts. I'm probably on so many ignore lists that I might as well be posting to myself. I retreat to my safe space of employment.
Click to expand...

Actually, you posted a summation of the law, I looked the link you posted and didn't see a direct link to the law.

Summation ≠ actually reading the wording of the law.
 
Took a minute, but I chased down the CO code - it considers accommodation to be (5.3) "Place of public accommodation" or "public accommodation" has the same meaning as set forth in Title III of the federal "Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990", 42 U.S.C. sec. 12181 (7), and its related amendments and implementing regulations.

Title III, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12181 basically includes any public business.

So we wind back to TW's posit - did the baker refuse to sell the gay couple anything? Or was it just the specific decoration on that cake? If it's the former, then yes, they'd be guilty under the law. If it's the latter, then I suspect SCOTUS has agreed to hear this in order to make a statement.
 
crimsonaudio said:
Took a minute, but I chased down the CO code - it considers accommodation to be (5.3) "Place of public accommodation" or "public accommodation" has the same meaning as set forth in Title III of the federal "Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990", 42 U.S.C. sec. 12181 (7), and its related amendments and implementing regulations.

Title III, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12181 basically includes any public business.

So we wind back to TW's posit - did the baker refuse to sell the gay couple anything? Or was it just the specific decoration on that cake? If it's the former, then yes, they'd be guilty under the law. If it's the latter, then I suspect SCOTUS has agreed to hear this in order to make a statement.
Click to expand...

Not so fast my friend!:)

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/
the text of the Colorado law I found this is from 2016.

TITLE 24. GOVERNMENT - STATE
PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENTS
ARTICLE 34. DEPARTMENT OF REGULATORY AGENCIES
PART 6. DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
C.R.S. 24-34-601 (2016)
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation - definition



(1) As used in this part 6, "place of public accommodation" means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public ; any place to eat, drink, sleep, or rest, or any combination thereof; any sporting or recreational area and facility; any public transportation facility; a barber shop, bathhouse, swimming pool, bath, steam or massage parlor, gymnasium, or other establishment conducted to serve the health, appearance, or physical condition of a person; a campsite or trailer camp; a dispensary, clinic, hospital, convalescent home, or other institution for the sick, ailing, aged, or infirm; a mortuary, undertaking parlor, or cemetery; an educational institution; or any public building, park, arena, theater, hall, auditorium, museum, library, exhibit, or public facility of any kind whether indoor or outdoor. "Place of public accommodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.

​
This was added to the statue to give cake bakers an out.
SECTIO 1. 24-34-601, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION to read:
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation – definition.
(4) A BUSINESS PROVIDING A WEDDING-RELATED SERVICE MAY CONTRACT OUT THE SERVICE TO ANOTHER BUSINESS WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER PERSONS. THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN A REGISTER OF BUSINESSES THAT WILLINGLY PROVIDE WEDDING-RELATED SERVICES TO LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER PERSONS. A WEDDING-RELATED BUSINESS THAT CONTRACTS OUT ITS SERVICE IS DEEMED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OTHER PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION LAW. [SUB][/SUB]
 
seebell said:
This was added to the statue to give cake bakers an out.
SECTIO 1. 24-34-601, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION to read:
24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation – definition.
(4) A BUSINESS PROVIDING A WEDDING-RELATED SERVICE MAY CONTRACT OUT THE SERVICE TO ANOTHER BUSINESS WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER PERSONS. THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN A REGISTER OF BUSINESSES THAT WILLINGLY PROVIDE WEDDING-RELATED SERVICES TO LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER PERSONS. A WEDDING-RELATED BUSINESS THAT CONTRACTS OUT ITS SERVICE IS DEEMED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OTHER PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION LAW. [SUB][/SUB]
Click to expand...

Interesting - if this is the case, I wonder why this hasn't been thrown out already...
 
crimsonaudio said:
Interesting - if this is the case, I wonder why this hasn't been thrown out already...
Click to expand...
from what i understand, the case is challenging the constitutionality of colorado's law.

from scotus blog

Issue: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the cake maker on 1A grounds. Seems a reasonable and prudent decision. I have not read the entire decision but would not be surprised if there were nuance between selling a product and forcing someone to speak words with which they did not agree.
 
NationalTitles17 said:
SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the cake maker on 1A grounds. Seems a reasonable and prudent decision. I have not read the entire decision but would not be surprised if there were nuance between selling a product and forcing someone to speak words with which they did not agree.
Click to expand...

Depending on the wording this could be a lot of lawsuits coming.
 
I agree with the decision. Unless the business has a monopoly on the service or provides life saving services, if the business owner wants to turn down money there should be able to. Money spends the same, regardless of the hand it comes from and the government isn't a moral compass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
bama_wayne1 said:
I agree it's a tough subject. But there is a huge difference between not wanting to be a participant in a gay wedding, even if it's only making a cake, and discriminating against gays. As a Christian I can't ignore what the Bible teaches about marriage or what it teaches about love. We are taught to love everyone but to also avoid sin. I know that is hurtful to some and I apologize for that.
Click to expand...

For me the easy test is this: If the baker declines to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage, but is willing to bake a birthday cake for the same two people (one ordering a birthday cake for the other), then in the former case, the baker is declining based on the act (of marriage) and thus has protection as a long-standing religious objection. If he declines the latter, then his objection is based on status (gay) and is probably more analogous to refusing to serve black people. Such conduct is not protected.
 
They punted. I think Kagan and Breyer probably joined to keep it narrow, and as a side effect the ruling is almost incomprehensibly fact-bound. As a whole, it seems very unhelpful, virtually guaranteeing that the courts will argue about it in the future until SCOTUS is forced to weigh in on the issue again in the future.

Gut instinct is that the SCOTUS wanted no part of this and looked for any way they could find to address it on technical grounds. 
 
AUDub said:
They punted. I think Kagan and Breyer probably joined to keep it narrow, and as a side effect the ruling is almost incomprehensibly fact-bound. As a whole, it seems very unhelpful, virtually guaranteeing that the courts will argue about it in the future until SCOTUS is forced to weigh in on the issue again in the future.

Gut instinct is that the SCOTUS wanted no part of this and looked for any way they could find to address it on technical grounds. 
Click to expand...

I think they want no part in 1A anti discrimination laws in general. I really think they would prefer executive orders to take place in these circumstances.

But you can bet that this is just going to open the door for a lot more of these cases in the long run.
 
I would argue being able split legal hairs about whether people can discriminate based on their interpretation of the Bible is the big payoff for evangelicals who have morally bankrupted themselves supporting Trump.

They are so consumed with treating gays as second class people they've sold their souls to the devil to be able to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back