Supreme Court's Decision in Colorado "Gay Wedding Cake" Case

[Kenngo1969]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seems like something needs to be done to reign them in 

I agree.  Something ought to be done to rein them in.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

This is where I disagree. Everyone is prejudiced. Businesses are prejudiced against people not wearing shoes or shirts.  They are prejudiced against smokers. There are all sorts of prejudices that they should, frankly, be allowed. If they don't serve the public adequately, some other business will pop up to fill the niche. That is really the American way. That is capitalism. Businesses are not government, and constitutionally they have the same freedoms as individuals.  Applying limitations to them meant for government is I think frankly, unconstitutional. Too bad SCOTUS has gone that route. You can't force doctors to give you an abortion even though SCOTUS has declared that a right.  Yet, you may be able to force a baker to put a picture of two guys doing it on their cake. C'mon. It's ludicrous. 

Uhuh. If they want to exercise their right of free speech, let them put the pornography on their own cake, and stop trying to force the baker to do it for them. I don't know of a baker who has stopped a gay couple from buying a cake. When "liberty" starts turning into coercion, something went wrong IMHO. Trying to police every business transaction for "illegal prejudice" is far beyond the scope of the constitution as plainly written. But y'know that local baker probably bought that sugar from a source out of state so this entitles the feds to play daddy.

Well, I'm afraid you're out of step with America on this issue. The constitution protects the right of consumers to buy things without fear of discrimination based on protected categories. That's the American way.

[JAHS]

LDS Church responds to Supreme Court ruling about baker, same-sex wedding case

The LDS Church released a brief response Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the state of Colorado failed to respect the religious rights of a baker who said his Christian faith prevented him for providing a cake for a same-sex wedding.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints welcomes today’s Supreme Court decision," church spokesman Eric Hawkins said. "The nation’s laws can protect both religious liberty and the rights of LGBT citizens. That is the meaning of fairness for all."

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do you think that any kind of lawless behavior should go unpunished in the name of freedom for religious extremists?

I do not know what you are talking about here.  What "lawless behavior?"  What "religious extremists?"

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Does freedom of religion allow you to skip out on paying taxes with no consequences?

No.

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

If not, why make an exception for this issue?

What "exception" do you mean?  I am obligated by law to pay taxes.  However, under the Constitution I have rights (Free Speech, Free Exercise, Free Association), and I cannot be punished for exercising those rights, and I shouldn't be coerced into giving up those rights.

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Extremists who don't wish to serve people based on their race, religion, or gender/sexual orientation.

I don't think it's an "extremist" position to assert one's constitutional rights.

I also don't think it's an "extremist" position to take exception to the government punishing religious people for declining to engage in Conduct X, while simultaneously excusing secular folks from likewise being punished for declining into Conduct X.

It's called the Equal Protection clause (which we need to add to the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Free Association clauses under discussion).

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

You're suggesting totalitarianism against a broad swath of the nation in the name of "religious freedom" for a few extremists.

Yes.  I am.  I am interested in protecting the rights of minorities from totalitarian-minded people.  I'll do that every day of the week.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, I'm afraid you're out of step with America on this issue. The constitution protects the right of consumers to buy things without fear of discrimination based on protected categories. That's the American way.

These particular laws are based on statutory, not constitutional law.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Danzo

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, I'm afraid you're out of step with America on this issue. The constitution protects the right of consumers to buy things without fear of discrimination based on protected categories. That's the American way.

The question, though, is whether the constitution creats a right for Party X to compel Party Y to provide a particular good or service.

For example, if I am willing to provide napkins and tablecloths and candles for a same-sex marriage, but not any item that specifically endorses same-sex marriage, and if I refuse to provide these specifically-endorsing-items to anyone, and if I assert my rights under the Free Exercise, Free Speech, Free Association, and/or Equal Protection clauses, am I on safe ground?

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

25 minutes ago, JAHS said:

LDS Church responds to Supreme Court ruling about baker, same-sex wedding case

The LDS Church released a brief response Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the state of Colorado failed to respect the religious rights of a baker who said his Christian faith prevented him for providing a cake for a same-sex wedding.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints welcomes today’s Supreme Court decision," church spokesman Eric Hawkins said. "The nation’s laws can protect both religious liberty and the rights of LGBT citizens. That is the meaning of fairness for all."

Thanks for providing this link.  

What do you think it means when the church says its in favor of nondiscrimination in places of public accommodation like restaurants and hotels.  Wouldn't a cake shop be similar to a restaurant?  

Quote

They said the church supports nondiscrimination legislation protecting gays against inequity in employment, housing and places of public accommodation like restaurants and hotels if ordinances and laws include language protecting religious liberty and specifying how to apply the First Amendment guarantees to the free exercise of religion in each case.

 

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

What do you think it means when the church says its in favor of nondiscrimination in places of public accommodation like restaurants and hotels.  Wouldn't a cake shop be similar to a restaurant?  

There are similarities and there are difference.

Wouldn't expect to get lunch (or dinner) at a cake shop

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

There are similarities and there are difference.

Wouldn't expect to get lunch (or dinner) at a cake shop

Its probably a calories or carbs thing. 

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What do you think it means when the church says its in favor of nondiscrimination in places of public accommodation like restaurants and hotels.  Wouldn't a cake shop be similar to a restaurant?  

Providing accommodations for those other venues does not require anyone knowing what a person's sexual orientation is or putting anyone in a position where they are knowingly supporting a gay lifestyle.
If a gay person goes into a cake shop to buy a birthday cake for someone they would most likely not be denied because it's just a birthday cake and the subject of sexual orientation would not even need to be mentioned.
But making a cake for a gay wedding would be different because it would be seen as specifically supporting the event that is against the bakers religious beliefs.  

[nuclearfuels]

I'm missing something here.

Could LGBT or polyamorous couples buy the wedding figures (bride, groom, etc.) and put them on top of the cake?

Or is that an undue burden and discrimination?

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Providing accommodations for those other venues does not require anyone knowing what a person's sexual orientation is or putting anyone in a position where they are knowingly supporting a gay lifestyle.
If a gay person goes into a cake shop to buy a birthday cake for someone they would most likely not be denied because it's just a birthday cake and the subject of sexual orientation would not even need to be mentioned.
But making a cake for a gay wedding would be different because it would be seen as specifically supporting the event that is against the bakers religious beliefs.  

Seems like a gray area to me.  What if a gay couple went into a restaurant and were celebrating their wedding anniversary.  Would the church support that place of business not serving this couple?  

Edited June 4, 2018 by hope_for_things

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Seems like a gray area to me.  What if a gay couple went into a restaurant and were celebrating their wedding anniversary.  Would the church support that place of business not serving this couple?  

I very much doubt the restaurant would even know or suspect that it was a celebration of a wedding anniversary. 

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

I'm missing something here.

Could LGBT or polyamorous couples buy the wedding figures (bride, groom, etc.) and put them on top of the cake?

Or is that an undue burden and discrimination?

In the court case, they were trying to make the argument that baking a cake was an act of free speech artistic expression, protected under the first amendment, but that was not ruled on by the SCOTUS, and they seemed to be dodging addressing that issue directly.  I imagine they are concerned about expanding this idea of freedom of expression into all kinds of new categories.  

 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

I very much doubt the restaurant would even know or suspect that it was a celebration of a wedding anniversary. 

They would if the couple mentioned it when being served.  Conversely how would a cake shop know that they were baking a cake for a same sex marriage unless the couple communicated such.  I know when I got married, my wife picked out our cake at the cake shop herself with my mother-in-law and I didn't even go to the cake shop.  

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

They would if the couple mentioned it when being served.

Even then it's a very unlikely situation that they would refuse service.

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Conversely how would a cake shop know that they were baking a cake for a same sex marriage unless the couple communicated such.

Well if they didn't know then there would be no problem right? They would not know they were supporting a same sex wedding. 
You are really stretching things with these scenarios.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Even then it's a very unlikely situation that they would refuse service.

Well if they didn't know then there would be no problem right? They would not know they were supporting a same sex wedding. 
You are really stretching things with these scenarios.

They seem like real world scenarios to me.  I think its a gray area that honestly its difficult to support the position from a religious freedom perspective.  That is why I think the supreme court gave a very narrow ruling on this one issue being the fault of the Colorado commission in how they specifically handled it, rather than a right to discrimination on the basis of freedom of religious expression.  

[nuclearfuels]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

In the court case, they were trying to make the argument that baking a cake was an act of free speech artistic expression, protected under the first amendment, but that was not ruled on by the SCOTUS, and they seemed to be dodging addressing that issue directly.  I imagine they are concerned about expanding this idea of freedom of expression into all kinds of new categories.  

 

Even if SCOTUS doesn't expand freedom of religion, freedom of speech, expression - those rights still exist no matter how unpopular the less than 1% make those rights appear.

I really don't see this case as earth-shaking.

SCOTUS will, sooner or later, destroy the family and freedoms we enjoy.

The only question is: where are you and I treated best?  Step 2: Move to that country.

[RevTestament]

59 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, I'm afraid you're out of step with America on this issue. The constitution protects the right of consumers to buy things without fear of discrimination based on protected categories. That's the American way.

Where does the constitution do this? As has been pointed out, I think you may be confusing versions of the Uniform Commercial Code most states have adopted with the U.S. Constitution. There is a substantial difference. What has happened is that the rationale for tort law has crept into Federal law through the Commerce clause of the Constitution which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Applying the equal protection clause and other civil rights of citizens against unfair government treatment is a far cry from applying them to regulate interstate commerce, yet somehow we seem to have effectively arrived a this juncture. Federal law has grown to the point where it has no bounds despite the constitutional reservation of powers by the states which is usually applied to authority to regulate police power and general public health and welfare. Yet, the Feds have taken over these powers.

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

They would if the couple mentioned it when being served.  Conversely how would a cake shop know that they were baking a cake for a same sex marriage unless the couple communicated such. 

Exactly.  But for the message, I think most people simply don't care.  If a gay couple go to a conservative religious merchant and order a frosted, but otherwise blank, cake, I think virtually all bakers would sell it to them.  But if the couple then says "Ok, now we want you to decorate it with a rainbow, and with iced lettering that says 'We Made a Bigot Bake Our Cake!'",  can you see how that merchant might not want to do that?  

And if he doesn't want to do that, should he be compelled by the government, under threat of fines and financial and reputational ruin, to decorate the cake anyway?

I ... think not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

46 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Even if SCOTUS doesn't expand freedom of religion, freedom of speech, expression - those rights still exist no matter how unpopular the less than 1% make those rights appear.

I really don't see this case as earth-shaking.

SCOTUS will, sooner or later, destroy the family and freedoms we enjoy.

The only question is: where are you and I treated best?  Step 2: Move to that country.

Is your reference to the less than 1% a way of marginalizing anyone who disagrees with you?

Also, I’m not a doom and gloom slippery slope guy.  Love this country and don’t always agree with everything, but overall things are pretty good.  

Edited June 4, 2018 by hope_for_things

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

No one is compelled to engage in commerce. But those who do should serve the public without prejudice.

 

There is no constitutional liberty to subvert other people's constitutional liberty.

About as evil a notion as I've come across: one is prohibited from engaging in commerce if one has religious convictions in Gray's America.

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Exactly.  But for the message, I think most people simply don't care.  If a gay couple go to a conservative religious merchant and order a frosted, but otherwise blank, cake, I think virtually all bakers would sell it to them.  But if the couple then says "Ok, now we want you to decorate it with a rainbow, and with iced lettering that says 'We Made a Bigot Bake Our Cake!'",  can you see how that merchant might not want to do that?  

And if he doesn't want to do that, should he be compelled by the government, under threat of fines and financial and reputational ruin, to decorate the cake anyway?

I ... think not.

Thanks,

-Smac

More likely scenario for the same sex couple is they ask for a cake to celebrate their marriage without the charged language.  Should the cake store still have a right to deny service?  

Conversely what happens if an opposite sex couple goes to a restaurant and notices the rainbow pin their waiter is wearing and they make inappropriate and bigoted comments and are rude to him.  Does this restaurant have a right to kick out that couple for their rude behavior?  

[Gray]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do not know what you are talking about here.  What "lawless behavior?"  What "religious extremists?"

No. 

What "exception" do you mean?  I am obligated by law to pay taxes.  However, under the Constitution I have rights (Free Speech, Free Exercise, Free Association), and I cannot be punished for exercising those rights, and I shouldn't be coerced into giving up those rights.

I don't think it's an "extremist" position to assert one's constitutional rights.

I also don't think it's an "extremist" position to take exception to the government punishing religious people for declining to engage in Conduct X, while simultaneously excusing secular folks from likewise being punished for declining into Conduct X.

It's called the Equal Protection clause (which we need to add to the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Free Association clauses under discussion).

Yes.  I am.  I am interested in protecting the rights of minorities from totalitarian-minded people.  I'll do that every day of the week.

Thanks,

-Smac

People who advocate for businesses discriminating against people based on race, religion, gender/sexual orientation are definitely on the extreme fringes in this country. And courts and legislators have already decided that people do have a right not to be discriminated against based on certain categories when they go to buy goods and services. Thankfully the courts have pretty consistently ruled in favor of religious and other freedoms on this issue, against extremists who wish to use their businesses as a front for persecuting people and reducing their freedoms.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

These particular laws are based on statutory, not constitutional law. 

Yes, thank you