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

HartselleTider · Jul 3, 2017

Bamabuzzard said:
Heck, what exactly is "hate speech" and who is the authority that determines what falls in that category? Saying "Illegal immigrants need to be deported" is called "hate speech" and "racist" in many circles of our society today. Is what's considered "hate speech" much like pass interference. It's basically a judgement call.

I read the comments of an online article on facebook this weekend about a man whose daughter was killed by a group of illegals. As always the comment section is better than the article itself. As I read over the comments someone said "And this is why there shouldn't be any sanctuary cities for illegals. If you're here illegally you need to go." My lord the onslaught of attacks this person got. He was called a racist, bigot, accused of using "hate speech". Yet I saw nothing he said that fell into either of the three mentioned categories. Once we start limiting speech based on categories we get into judgment calls that can ultimately do more harm than good. Because one day the shoe maybe on the other foot and you may not like when the "rule" you supported now works against "you". Just tossin' that one out dere.

That's because those are the words the left throws around in an attempt to silence another point of view. When in fact they are the most racist and bigoted people there is...specifically towards white, Christian males. Everybody is so afraid of being labeled some type of -ist or -phobe by the left they won't hardly stand up for themselves anymore. Everybody flinches when some liberal loon calls them a racist or bigot, and the liberals know that. That's how they try to bully you and suppress speech that doesn't agree with their agenda.

Until people get their spine back and realize there's worse things you can be labeled besides a racist or bigot, they'll never stop using that tactic to intimidate you. It don't scare me. I'm not a politician.

CrimsonProf · Jul 9, 2017

4Q Basket Case said:
Guys, we can debate what should be all day long.

What actually exists is that for Masterpiece to prevail, SCOTUS will have to overturn a precedent of 50+ years' standing.

Further, such a ruling would have incredibly wide-ranging implications. So I just don't see it happening.

Far more likely, they honor precedent, avoid the jaw-dropping fallout, and Masterpiece loses.

If it were the world according to 4QBC, any business could refuse to deal with anyone for any reason.

I would have an exception for when one party is in imminent danger of material physical harm. So, for example, a doctor couldn't refuse treatment to a sick or injured person they don't like for whatever reason.

Note: hurt snowflake feelings don't qualify as imminent physical danger.

But it isn't my world, it's SCOTUS's. So if I were betting, I'd have a lot of money on the DOJ here.

The difference in this case and the Ollie's BBQ case is this case is about compelled speech, whereas Ollie's wasn't.

Can the government require creative professionals to take on any and all clients, even if the nature of the *creative* work (as opposed to a cake sitting in the display case, ready to walk out the door) is in conflict with the deeply held beliefs of the creative professional?

If the government can compel such speech (or other similar creative acts), then the First Amendment is rendered meaningless.

You will never, ever convince me that the Founding Fathers - both the more conservative types like Adams and the more radical like Jefferson - believed this to be acceptable.

Tidewater · Jul 9, 2017

CrimsonProf said:
The difference in this case and the Ollie's BBQ case is this case is about compelled speech, whereas Ollie's wasn't.

Can the government require creative professionals to take on any and all clients, even if the nature of the *creative* work (as opposed to a cake sitting in the display case, ready to walk out the door) is in conflict with the deeply held beliefs of the creative professional?

If the government can compel such speech (or other similar creative acts), then the First Amendment is rendered meaningless.

You will never, ever convince me that the Founding Fathers - both the more conservative types like Adams and the more radical like Jefferson - believed this to be acceptable.

You could never convince the Founders that the Federal government would ever have anything to do whatsoever with a cake shop.
And before anyone brings up the typical XIV Amendment stuff, if the supporters of the XIV could have foreseen that the Federal government would use the amendment to force a bake-shop owner to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage then the proposed XIV amendment would have gone down 0-44 in the Senate and 0-152 in the House.
But an unelected and unaccountable judge somewhere decided that the XIV amendment means this so, debate over.

CajunCrimson · Jul 9, 2017

Tidewater said:
You could never convince the Founders that the Federal government would ever have anything to do whatsoever with a cake shop.
As before anyone brings up the typical XIV Amendment stuff, if the supporters of the XIV could have foreseen that the Federal government would use the amendment to force a bake-shop owner to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage then the proposed XIV amendment would have gone down 0-44 in the Senate and 0-152 in the House.
But an unelected and unaccountable judge somewhere decided that the XIV amendment means this so, debate over.

Well done

4Q Basket Case · Jul 9, 2017

CrimsonProf said:
The difference in this case and the Ollie's BBQ case is this case is about compelled speech, whereas Ollie's wasn't.

Can the government require creative professionals to take on any and all clients, even if the nature of the *creative* work (as opposed to a cake sitting in the display case, ready to walk out the door) is in conflict with the deeply held beliefs of the creative professional?

If the government can compel such speech (or other similar creative acts), then the First Amendment is rendered meaningless.

You will never, ever convince me that the Founding Fathers - both the more conservative types like Adams and the more radical like Jefferson - believed this to be acceptable.

CP, we don't disagree with each other...we disagree with SCOTUS.

I do, however, think that the distinction you draw is way too fine to carry the day -- essentially that the creative professional is exempt from rules that apply to mere mortal barbecue stand owners.

As I have stated repeatedly, I believe that Ollie McClung, or John Bishop (for those not in the OFC, founder of Dreamland), or Masterpiece Bakery, or Joe the Plumber, or anybody else in any line of work should be free to transact business, or not, with anyone they want, for any reason they want.

The only exception would be when the offeror is in imminent physical danger -- as in, a doctor can't refuse to treat a gunshot victim simply because the doctor doesn't like the injured person for whatever reason.

SCOTUS precedent doesn't see it that way. We can disagree with them until hell freezes over. We can then fight the SOBs on the ice. But SCOTUS rules, whether you and I agree with five of them or not.

For Masterpiece to prevail, SCOTUS will have to overturn a precedent of long standing. That reversal would have wide-ranging implications.

As much as I'd love it, I just don't see it happening.

pcfixup · Jul 9, 2017

4Q Basket Case said:
CP, we don't disagree with each other...we disagree with SCOTUS.

I do, however, think that the distinction you draw is way too fine to carry the day -- essentially that the creative professional is exempt from rules that apply to mere mortal barbecue stand owners.

As I have stated repeatedly, I believe that Ollie McClung, or John Bishop (for those not in the OFC, founder of Dreamland), or Masterpiece Bakery, or Joe the Plumber, or anybody else in any line of work should be free to transact business, or not, with anyone they want, for any reason they want.

The only exception would be when the offeror is in imminent physical danger -- as in, a doctor can't refuse to treat a gunshot victim simply because the doctor doesn't like the injured person for whatever reason.

SCOTUS precedent doesn't see it that way. We can disagree with them until hell freezes over. We can then fight the SOBs on the ice. But SCOTUS rules, whether you and I agree with five of them or not.

For Masterpiece to prevail, SCOTUS will have to overturn a precedent of long standing. That reversal would have wide-ranging implications.

As much as I'd love it, I just don't see it happening.

It's going to happen ... if not on this case, when Ginsburg dies or when congress acts to remove Sontomayor or Kagan.

cbi1972 · Jul 10, 2017

4Q Basket Case said:
CP, we don't disagree with each other...we disagree with SCOTUS.

I do, however, think that the distinction you draw is way too fine to carry the day -- essentially that the creative professional is exempt from rules that apply to mere mortal barbecue stand owners.

Title II Of The Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and (4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 already makes this distinction, by prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation

pcfixup · Jul 10, 2017

cbi1972 said:
Title II Of The Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 already makes this distinction, by prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation

Would this act be constitutional without the 14th Amendment?

Tidewater · Jul 10, 2017

pcfixup said:
Would this act be constitutional without the unconstitutional and unfounded current interpretation of the 14th Amendment?

FIFY.

Whether same-sex marriage should be included in the same category as innate characteristics as race and sex is an interesting debate. Instead of having that debate, a judge decided that it should be included and so it now is. In deciding this issue in this way, the judge ran rough-shod over the IX and X Amendments.

I still go back to the difference between refusing to sell a wedding cake (i.e. refusing to take an active part in violating a long-held religiously-based principle) and the refusal to sell any products to a gay customer (which would be a blanket discrimination against a class of customers based on an irrelevant issue like that issues sexual orientation. If the baker says, "I cannot bake you a wedding cake because my religious beliefs prevent me from taking any part in a same-sex marriage, but I can bake you a birthday cake for your mother's birthday" (because this act has nothing to do with your sexual orientation), I'd say he is okay. If he says, "I will not serve you at all because you are gay," I'd say he is on shaky ground.

seebell · Jul 10, 2017

The Colorado baker has violated state law in addition to federal law.

https://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/4616/colorado-anti-discrimination-act

Public Accommodation Race, color, religion, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, physical or mental disability, sexual orientation (incl. transgender status), marital status, and retaliation for engaging in protected activity (opposing a discriminatory practice or participating in a public accommodations discrimination proceeding)

I thought many folks on here were all in favor of states making their own laws as opposed to an over reaching federal government?

So I don't understand the problem. Is it just me?

Thanks cbi for posting the Civil Rights Act. I can't believe that some people think a business can serve or not serve anybody they want to.

We tried that for a hundred years. It was called segregation. Yeah buddy, the free market did a great job dealing with that.

crimsonaudio · Jul 10, 2017

seebell said:
Thanks cbi for posting the Civil Rights Act. I can't believe that some people think a business can serve or not serve anybody they want to.

Actually, there are specifics involved:

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

None of these apply to the Masterpiece case.

42 U.S.C. §2000a(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence. (2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;

Highly doubt the bakery is 'principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises'.

seebell · Jul 10, 2017

Thanks for your informative reply CA.

The bakery is in violation of Colorado state law.

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/civil-rights/public-accommodations-discrimination

Places of public accommodation include a restaurant, hospital, hotel, retail store and public transportation, among others.
Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation.
Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation.

Tidewater · Jul 10, 2017

seebell said:
Thanks for your informative reply CA.

The bakery is in violation of Colorado state law.

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dora/civil-rights/public-accommodations-discrimination

Places of public accommodation include a restaurant, hospital, hotel, retail store and public transportation, among others.
Prohibited discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation must be based on certain protected classes and include these adverse actions: denial of service, terms and conditions, unequal treatment, failure to accommodate and retaliation.
Protected classes for places of public accommodation are: Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation.

If the baker was willing to sell a birthday cake for the customer's mother but not a wedding cake for his same-sex marriage, would that not indicate that he dissents not from the customer's sexual orientation, but dissents from endorsing the act of same-sex marriage?

Tide1986 · Jul 10, 2017

4Q Basket Case said:
CP, we don't disagree with each other...we disagree with SCOTUS.

I do, however, think that the distinction you draw is way too fine to carry the day -- essentially that the creative professional is exempt from rules that apply to mere mortal barbecue stand owners.

As I have stated repeatedly, I believe that Ollie McClung, or John Bishop (for those not in the OFC, founder of Dreamland), or Masterpiece Bakery, or Joe the Plumber, or anybody else in any line of work should be free to transact business, or not, with anyone they want, for any reason they want.

The only exception would be when the offeror is in imminent physical danger -- as in, a doctor can't refuse to treat a gunshot victim simply because the doctor doesn't like the injured person for whatever reason.

SCOTUS precedent doesn't see it that way. We can disagree with them until hell freezes over. We can then fight the SOBs on the ice. But SCOTUS rules, whether you and I agree with five of them or not.

For Masterpiece to prevail, SCOTUS will have to overturn a precedent of long standing. That reversal would have wide-ranging implications.

As much as I'd love it, I just don't see it happening.

I still don't understand why they took the case if the case fits so squarely within precedent.

crimsonaudio · Jul 10, 2017

seebell said:
Thanks for your informative reply CA.

The bakery is in violation of Colorado state law.

Yes, I saw that, but that's not what this thread is about - this thread is about SCOTUS's agreeing to hear the case.

ETA: of course, the SCOTUS decision can impact the CO law...

Tide1986 · Jul 10, 2017

cbi1972 said:
Title II Of The Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 already makes this distinction, by prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation

...which a bakery for wedding cakes is not.

92tide · Jul 10, 2017

Tide1986 said:
...which a bakery for wedding cakes is not.

the case is about the state law, not about the cra

cbi1972 · Jul 10, 2017

Tide1986 said:
...which a bakery for wedding cakes is not.

My point was not with the applicability of the Civil Rights Act to the business of making wedding cakes, but with the ability to make a distinction between types of businesses for the purposes of determining whether discrimination is prohibited.

Specifically, they can create legislation which prohibits discrimination at a restaurant, but not at a cake shop, and have already done so.

Tide1986 · Jul 10, 2017

cbi1972 said:
My point was not with the applicability of the Civil Rights Act to the business of making wedding cakes, but with the ability to make a distinction between types of businesses for the purposes of determining whether discrimination is prohibited.

Specifically, they can create legislation which prohibits discrimination at a restaurant, but not at a cake shop, and have already done so.

While I didn't need it, thanks for the explanation. I completely understood the point you made.

Tide1986 · Jul 10, 2017

4Q Basket Case said:
CP, we don't disagree with each other...we disagree with SCOTUS.

I do, however, think that the distinction you draw is way too fine to carry the day -- essentially that the creative professional is exempt from rules that apply to mere mortal barbecue stand owners.

As I have stated repeatedly, I believe that Ollie McClung, or John Bishop (for those not in the OFC, founder of Dreamland), or Masterpiece Bakery, or Joe the Plumber, or anybody else in any line of work should be free to transact business, or not, with anyone they want, for any reason they want.

The only exception would be when the offeror is in imminent physical danger -- as in, a doctor can't refuse to treat a gunshot victim simply because the doctor doesn't like the injured person for whatever reason.

SCOTUS precedent doesn't see it that way. We can disagree with them until hell freezes over. We can then fight the SOBs on the ice. But SCOTUS rules, whether you and I agree with five of them or not.

For Masterpiece to prevail, SCOTUS will have to overturn a precedent of long standing. That reversal would have wide-ranging implications.

As much as I'd love it, I just don't see it happening.

The Supreme Court precedent dating back to 1940 that may explain why the Supremes took the Cakeshop case is Cantwell v. Connecticut, which incorporated the free exercise of religion against the States. Colorado requiring its citizens to omit exercising their religions from the running of their businesses seems to be a version of Connecticut's requirement that persons obtain a license before disseminating their religions publicly.

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

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Moderator (FB,BB) and Vinyl Enthusiast

FB|BB Moderator

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Administrator

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Administrator

Suspended

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Suspended

Suspended

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!