Church Response To Supreme Court Marriage Rulings

[Stargazer]

You are partially right.

You know, I don't know how you can say I am partially right, and then go on to confirm and validate every single point i made in the first place. Nothing you wrote contradicts anything I wrote. Maybe I didn't use the word "jurisdiction" when I perhaps should have, but I described it extensively.

Yes, the federal law trumps state law where the feds have jurisdiction in the state. But they don't have carte blanche jurisdiction over the state. That's saying it in fewer words, but it is exactly what I described.

[Stargazer]

The 26th Amendment gives 18 year old citizens the right to vote.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Here is the rest of the story:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his 1954 State of the Union address, became the first president to publicly state his support for prohibiting age-based denials of suffrage for those 18 and older.^[1]

On June 22, 1970, President Richard Nixon signed an extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required the voting age to be 18 in all federal, state, and local elections. In his statement on signing the extension, Nixon said:

Despite my misgivings about the constitutionality of this one provision, I have signed the bill. I have directed the Attorney General to cooperate fully in expediting a swift court test of the constitutionality of the 18-year-old provision.^[2]

Subsequently, Oregon and Texas challenged the law in court. In Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the parts of the law that required states to register 18-year-olds for state and local elections.

Justice Hugo Black stated:I would hold that Congress has exceeded its powers in attempting to lower the voting age in state and local elections.^[3

By this time, four states had a minimum voting age below 21.^[4][5]

This ruling meant that the law could only apply to federal elections, which meant states would have to have separate voting rolls for voters between 18 and 20 years old and special ballots for them to vote on federal races.^[6]Congress and the state legislatures felt increasing pressure to pass the Constitutional amendment because of the Vietnam War, in which many young men who were ineligible to vote were conscripted to fight in the war, thus lacking any means to influence the people sending them off to risk their lives. "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote," was a common slogan used by proponents of lowering the voting age. The slogan traced its roots to World War II, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt lowered the military draft age to eighteen.

On March 10, 1971, the Senate voted 94–0 in favor of proposing a Constitutional amendment to guarantee that the voting age could not be higher than 18.^[7] On March 23, 1971, the House of Representatives voted 401–19 in favor of the proposed amendment.^[8] Within four months after the Congress submitted it to the states, the amendment was ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, the shortest time in which any proposed amendment has received the number of ratifications needed for adoption.

On July 5, 1971, during the amendment's signing ceremony in the East Room, President Richard Nixon talked about his confidence in the youth of America.

As I meet with this group today, I sense that we can have confidence that America’s new voters, America’s young generation, will provide what America needs as we approach our 200th birthday, not just strength and not just wealth but the “Spirit of ‘76’ a spirit of moral courage, a spirit of high idealism in which we believe in the American dream, but in which we realize that the American dream can never be fulfilled until every American has an equal chance to fulfill in his own life.^[9]

I snipped a couple things off the beginning and end of what you wrote, for a reason.

I love it that you first say that I am wrong about the issue in which I brought up the 26th Amendment as a case in point, and then bring in the 26th Amendment as YOUR case in point in order to prove me wrong -- and you do so by quoting the exact same things that I quoted, including the failure of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 to bring 18 year olds the voite, the entire Richard Nixon thing, and then it hit me: HE COPIED HIS SPIEL FROM THE EXACT SAME PLACE I COPIED MINE FROM: WIKIPEDIA. That's why it looked so familiar.

You didn't even bother to show out of the Wiki quote how it contradicted what I wrote! And that would be.... wait for it.... because it SUPPORTS what I said.

Go back to my OP that you quoted from and compare my post with your reply. Do you see what I am talking about?

Now look at the text of the 26th Amendment again. Section 1 says:

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

See the bolded part? If the Supremacy Clause automatically made whatever in is the Constitution apply carte blanche in the states, then they wouldn't have needed to add "or by any State". It would have been redundant. This supports what I am trying to tell you, that the Supremacy Clause does not make every single Act of Congress immediately applicable in every state. The federal government is supreme only where they have jurisdiction to be supreme. And only when it needs to be supreme.

Actually, the Supremacy Clause is more legally complicated than either you or I are clearly aware of. But if it took the 14th Amendment to enable federal courts to be able drill down into the states in order to apply the Bill of Rights in the states, despite 100 previous years of the existence of the SC, then perhaps it doesn't mean quite what you think it means.

[Stargazer]

There are some issues that cannot easily be handled by simply one State acting. For example, Connecticut had strict gun laws, but it is a relatively small State so guns flow back and forth across the borders.

And the guns that were used in that school shooting were all legally obtained and legally owned under Connecticut's gun laws. Whether guns flow or not flow, this had nothing to do with it. If all 50 states had had Connecticut's gun laws it would have made utterly no difference whatsoever. Sandy Hook would have happened nevertheless. You're reasoning from a false premise.

[Stone holm]

Hopefully the Church was not involved with the group whining about the dissolution of the injunction.

[Stargazer]

Let me start with what you ended with.

So Stargazer, to make an over-hyped claim that what I was saying was "not true in the least sense" simply shows that you didn't consider states rights in the proper context before getting self-righteous.

I gave state's rights all the consideration it deserved. And I wasn't being self-righteous, I was being quite frankly ANGRY. There's a difference.

And what you said is still not true in the least sense. States rights didn't really matter one bit, unless it was the state right to enforce slavery.

Not true in the least sense? Hardly.

I was talking about the roots of the conflict, which were states rights.

In their various Acts of Secession, the Confederate states made it as clear as the day is long that the only state right they cared about, push come to shove, in the final analysis, where the rubber meets the road, and when you get right down to brass tacks, was slavery then, slavery now, and slavery forever.

Lincoln hates slavery. Lincoln is President. Therefore we secede.

If we can't keep it 50/50 slave/nonslave in the US Senate for the rest of eternity, then the "peculiar institition" is doomed, and thus we have the Missouri Compromise, without which, we secede. South Carolina made it quite clear in their 1860 Act of Secession that they had been willing to secede in 1840, but put it off because they got a concession in the Missouri Compromise. Heck, we could have had the Civil War decades earlier. And it would have been about slavery then, too.

In a letter to John Holmes, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the division of the country created by the Compromise Line would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union:

...but this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper.

And it had to do with states rights all right -- with the only state right they were really hot and bothered about, which was slavery.

That particular issue began with the constitutional convention itself, resulting in a number of compromises, one of which had to do with slavery. At the time the nation was formed, slavery was an issue, but far less of an issue then it became over the next several decades as things evolved. By the time of secession, slavery had become one of, if not the most prominent, rationalization for secession. However, it evolved into its prominence. It is clear that it was not nearly as much of a polarizing issue during the constitutional convention (though it was an issue) because if it had been as polarizing as it was in 1861, the nation would never have been formed.

You can soft-peddle the slavery issue at the Consititional Convention all you want, but the issue was being prickly even in the Continental Congress in the run-up to Independence. Jefferson wanted the verbiage of the Declaration to specifically condemn slavery, but desisted with ill-grace when Pinckney and Franklin both told him that any condemnation of slavery would fatally torpedo the Declaration. Pinckney made it clear that the entire Southern delegation would reject it without fail, and Franklin backed Pinckney up (not because Franklin was in favor of slavery of course, but because he wanted a Declaration passed). This would have torpedoed the entire drive to declare independence from Great Britain, and you think that the issue of slavery wasn't vitally important at that time?

You can't just pull secession documents out and claim that was the whole cause of the civil war. You miss the point and importance of states rights as the root of the conflict from the constitutional convention on when you do so. States rights was the underlying cause of the conflict, and slavery became the rallying point of secession.

I can't just pull them out and say it was the whole cause? Just like I can't pull the Declaration of Indpendence out and read from it why the Colonies decided to rebel against Great Britain? So, by the same token, what they wrote in the Declaration wasn't the real issue, but something else they didn't bother to state? That is the most ridiculous claim I have heard so far this year from anyone. Every single seceding state wrote up its justifications for secession and yammered on for paragraphs at a time about how Lincoln and the Republicans threatened their precious right to hold human beings in chattel lifetime slavery, but when all was said and done that wasn't REALLY why they wanted to secede? That they were lying their heads off when they wrote those Acts of Secession? If you pulled my leg any harder, you would rip it clean out of its socket.

States rights was the underlying cause of the conflict, all right, but those states made it crystal clear that the only state right that they cared about was slavery.

Were most southerners slave holders? Nope. It appears from the diaries I read that those southerners who fought for the south (most of whom were not slave holders) did so out of a sense of what we would call nationalism, which sense was rooted in their demands that they be free as states to determine their own destiny.

Undeniably. This is the sole redemption of the whole mess, that so many Southerners fought because they believed their cause was just. I do not deny them the dignity that they clearly deserve, and I freely concede that most of them were not slaveholders, and even many of them who were did not like slavery. There were many of them who were truly noble in their devotion to the cause they fought and died for.

But they fought to preserve a system that was inherently evil. Their politicians cavalierly threw them into a situation where no matter what they did they were between a rock and a hard place.

The emphasis on slavery as the rallying cry came from southern politicians and slave holders to get emotions going, but although there was widespread racial prejudice in the south, it can hardly be claimed that the average southerner was fighting primarily to maintain slavery. Do a little reading and put the issues of the conflict in the context of what happened during the previous 70 years and you get a better picture of what was going on, and the importance that the concept of states rights played during those years.

I recognize all of that. Yes, the average southerner was not fighting to maintain slavery. My anger is reserved for those who used the perfectly natural and perfectly legitimate loyalty of the average man and woman to promote that which was wrong and evil from first principles.

You seem to think that I haven't given the whole matter of the Civil War, slavery, the US Constitution, the election of 1860, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the history of the US Constititon and the whole raft of issues leading up to Appomattox Court House any careful thought at all, that I am just self-righteously shooting off my mouth about things I don't know much of anything about. Well, if that's what you think, I am here to tell you that you couldn't be more wrong.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I will say that, pondering it, the Feds had some right in the slavery issue, because slavery involved interstate commerce- which I do believe the Feds have jurisdiction over. If states had agreed to only hold and buy/sell their slaves within the boundaries of the own states, I believe Lincoln and the Northern States would've had much less right to attack the South.

[Stone holm]

Let me start with what you ended with.

I gave state's rights all the consideration it deserved. And I wasn't being self-righteous, I was being quite frankly ANGRY. There's a difference.

And what you said is still not true in the least sense. States rights didn't really matter one bit, unless it was the state right to enforce slavery.

In their various Acts of Secession, the Confederate states made it as clear as the day is long that the only state right they cared about, push come to shove, in the final analysis, where the rubber meets the road, and when you get right down to brass tacks, was slavery then, slavery now, and slavery forever.

Lincoln hates slavery. Lincoln is President. Therefore we secede.

If we can't keep it 50/50 slave/nonslave in the US Senate for the rest of eternity, then the "peculiar institition" is doomed, and thus we have the Missouri Compromise, without which, we secede. South Carolina made it quite clear in their 1860 Act of Secession that they had been willing to secede in 1840, but put it off because they got a concession in the Missouri Compromise. Heck, we could have had the Civil War decades earlier. And it would have been about slavery then, too.

In a letter to John Holmes, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the division of the country created by the Compromise Line would eventually lead to the destruction of the Union:

And it had to do with states rights all right -- with the only state right they were really hot and bothered about, which was slavery.

You can soft-peddle the slavery issue at the Consititional Convention all you want, but the issue was being prickly even in the Continental Congress in the run-up to Independence. Jefferson wanted the verbiage of the Declaration to specifically condemn slavery, but desisted with ill-grace when Pinckney and Franklin both told him that any condemnation of slavery would fatally torpedo the Declaration. Pinckney made it clear that the entire Southern delegation would reject it without fail, and Franklin backed Pinckney up (not because Franklin was in favor of slavery of course, but because he wanted a Declaration passed). This would have torpedoed the entire drive to declare independence from Great Britain, and you think that the issue of slavery wasn't vitally important at that time?

I can't just pull them out and say it was the whole cause? Just like I can't pull the Declaration of Indpendence out and read from it why the Colonies decided to rebel against Great Britain? So, by the same token, what they wrote in the Declaration wasn't the real issue, but something else they didn't bother to state? That is the most ridiculous claim I have heard so far this year from anyone. Every single seceding state wrote up its justifications for secession and yammered on for paragraphs at a time about how Lincoln and the Republicans threatened their precious right to hold human beings in chattel lifetime slavery, but when all was said and done that wasn't REALLY why they wanted to secede? That they were lying their heads off when they wrote those Acts of Secession? If you pulled my leg any harder, you would rip it clean out of its socket.

States rights was the underlying cause of the conflict, all right, but those states made it crystal clear that the only state right that they cared about was slavery.

Undeniably. This is the sole redemption of the whole mess, that so many Southerners fought because they believed their cause was just. I do not deny them the dignity that they clearly deserve, and I freely concede that most of them were not slaveholders, and even many of them who were did not like slavery. There were many of them who were truly noble in their devotion to the cause they fought and died for.

But they fought to preserve a system that was inherently evil. Their politicians cavalierly threw them into a situation where no matter what they did they were between a rock and a hard place.

I recognize all of that. Yes, the average southerner was not fighting to maintain slavery. My anger is reserved for those who used the perfectly natural and perfectly legitimate loyalty of the average man and woman to promote that which was wrong and evil from first principles.

You seem to think that I haven't given the whole matter of the Civil War, slavery, the US Constitution, the election of 1860, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the history of the US Constititon and the whole raft of issues leading up to Appomattox Court House any careful thought at all, that I am just self-righteously shooting off my mouth about things I don't know much of anything about. Well, if that's what you think, I am here to tell you that you couldn't be more wrong.

You are wholly right this time , how does that sound?

[Stone holm]

I will say that, pondering it, the Feds had some right in the slavery issue, because slavery involved interstate commerce- which I do believe the Feds have jurisdiction over. If states had agreed to only hold and buy/sell their slaves within the boundaries of the own states, I believe Lincoln and the Northern States would've had much less right to attack the South.

You are correct as to the jurisdiction, which was recognised at the inception which is why there was a time restraint built in as to outlawing the slave trade. The cotton gin resulted in an increased use of slaves in the cotton growing States and human greed then launched the South into the abyss.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Heard a great call on this subject last night addressing the "consumer rights trumps religious beliefs of business owner" argument...

Say some couple goes to a observant Jewish caterer and asks that their wedding be catered. What they really want for their guests is a variety of shellfish, pork ribs, juicy ham, head-cheese etc... and the caterer refuses to cater the wedding because even touching the food would render themselves and their facilities ritually unclean according to Jewish law.

Couldn't this swine loving young couple sue under the same understanding, being given here by some, of the consumer rights act?

[Stone holm]

Heard a great call on this subject last night addressing the "consumer rights trumps religious beliefs of business owner" argument...

Say some couple goes to a observant Jewish caterer and asks that their wedding be catered. What they really want for their guests is a variety of shellfish, pork ribs, juicy ham, head-cheese etc... and the caterer refuses to cater the wedding because even touching the food would render themselves and their facilities ritually unclean according to Jewish law.

Couldn't this swine loving young couple sue under the same understanding, being given here by some, of the consumer rights act?

Interesting question except do Jews have an aversion to wedding cakes? Am so confused.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Interesting question except do Jews have an aversion to wedding cakes? Am so confused.

The question isn't concerning product, but the right of religious business owner to not perform a service that directly violates their religious conscience.

[Stone holm]

The question isn't concerning product, but the right of religious business owner to not perform a service that directly violates their religious conscience.

So baking a cake directly violates their religious conscience?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

As to my question...

I think most would argue the of course not, that Jewish (or Muslim) caterers should not be sued for refusing to service a catering request that involved food prohibited by their religious traditions.

Why the double-standard for Christians? Does the "not prohibiting the free exercise of religion" not apply to Christians?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So baking a cake directly violates their religious conscience?

Making a wedding cake, which often involves delivery and set-up, for a "marriage" which you believe violates the dictates of God- does. The cake decorator didn't say they couldn't by a cake already made, just that she wouldn't make one specifically for their "wedding".

And again, you are trying to make it about product. You are proving my point about these things only targeting Christian owned businesses.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The argument being made is "Who cares what they think about gay marriage, they are a business they have to serve me."

Why can't it be said, "Who cares about their simple-minded, old world views about pork, it's been proven safe- besides they are a business and they have to serve me." ?

[jwhitlock]

I gave state's rights all the consideration it deserved. And I wasn't being self-righteous, I was being quite frankly ANGRY. There's a difference.

And what you said is still not true in the least sense. States rights didn't really matter one bit, unless it was the state right to enforce slavery.

I'll remind you, in your self-rightous anger, of what you originally screamed at me, bolded:

No, jwhitlock, you are wrong; it is not true in the least sense whatsoever.

That's a pretty absolutist declaration concerning states rights as a root cause of the civil war over time, and given the conflicting responses you post here, evidently one that you don't really understand.

In their various Acts of Secession, the Confederate states made it as clear as the day is long that the only state right they cared about, push come to shove, in the final analysis, where the rubber meets the road, and when you get right down to brass tacks, was slavery then, slavery now, and slavery forever.

Slavery was the only thing they cared about? Later on in your post, you acknowledge that the average southerner, who didn't own slaves and fought in the war, wasn't fighting for slavery. So there must have been something else, despite your hyped claim that it was all and only about slavery. Could it have been - gasp - about states rights and the freedom to determine their own direction without Federal interference all the time?

And it had to do with states rights all right -- with the only state right they were really hot and bothered about, which was slavery.

Since you're so keen on quoting southern sources, here's a link from a southern perspective about the causes of the Civil War. While it talks about slavery, it also talks - surprise! - about states rights and a variety of other issues the south had. This whole perspective you have, that it was all about slavery and nothing else is rather narrow from a historical perspective.

You can soft-peddle the slavery issue at the Consititional Convention all you want, but the issue was being prickly even in the Continental Congress in the run-up to Independence. Jefferson wanted the verbiage of the Declaration to specifically condemn slavery, but desisted with ill-grace when Pinckney and Franklin both told him that any condemnation of slavery would fatally torpedo the Declaration. Pinckney made it clear that the entire Southern delegation would reject it without fail, and Franklin backed Pinckney up (not because Franklin was in favor of slavery of course, but because he wanted a Declaration passed). This would have torpedoed the entire drive to declare independence from Great Britain, and you think that the issue of slavery wasn't vitally important at that time?

After I've acknowledged in my posts that slavery was an issue since the beginning, you misrepresent my statements on a variety of levels here. The weakness in your position is that you're claiming slavery was the only issue. As I noted in my original post, that's a simplistic view and not borne out by the historical record.

I can't just pull them out and say it was the whole cause? Just like I can't pull the Declaration of Indpendence out and read from it why the Colonies decided to rebel against Great Britain? So, by the same token, what they wrote in the Declaration wasn't the real issue, but something else they didn't bother to state? That is the most ridiculous claim I have heard so far this year from anyone. Every single seceding state wrote up its justifications for secession and yammered on for paragraphs at a time about how Lincoln and the Republicans threatened their precious right to hold human beings in chattel lifetime slavery, but when all was said and done that wasn't REALLY why they wanted to secede? That they were lying their heads off when they wrote those Acts of Secession? If you pulled my leg any harder, you would rip it clean out of its socket.

You can Google "causes of the civil war" and get a wide variety of viewpoints as to what the causes of the Civil War were. They all include slavery, but they also all include other causes. Perhaps you don't think tariffs, or the concept of nullification, or economic differences, and states rights don't really matter. For you, it was all about slavery. And when it is pointed out that the average southerner, who didn't own slaves (only a small minority of southerners owned slaves), wasn't fighting for slavery, those other root causes become part of the explanation for many of them. And their reasons tended to coalesce around states rights, the right to not be told constantly by the north and by the Feds what to do.

The constant mantra on your part about it being only about slavery is shallow and simplistic.

States rights was the underlying cause of the conflict, all right, but those states made it crystal clear that the only state right that they cared about was slavery.

And there you go again. You seem to confuse the rallying cry of slavery used by southern and northern politicians and special interest groups, such as abolitionists and slaveholders as thus being the only reason the Civil War occurred. As has been clearly demonstrated, although it evolved into the major cause, there were also many other root causes - including states rights - involved from the beginning.

Undeniably. This is the sole redemption of the whole mess, that so many Southerners fought because they believed their cause was just. I do not deny them the dignity that they clearly deserve, and I freely concede that most of them were not slaveholders, and even many of them who were did not like slavery. There were many of them who were truly noble in their devotion to the cause they fought and died for.

But they fought to preserve a system that was inherently evil. Their politicians cavalierly threw them into a situation where no matter what they did they were between a rock and a hard place.

Yep, from your narrow viewpoint, since slavery was part of the southern agricultural it didn't matter that most of them weren't slave holders and felt they were fighting to control their own destiny (states rights!). What they were really fighting for and must be judged about was slavery. There wasn't really any other cause they were fighting for, according to you. It isn't really that complex, according to you. Yet a more careful reading of history without injecting personal biases into it shows that the root causes were far more complex than you want to recognize.

Of course, the other thing is that since the Civil War, the Federal government has taken on more and more power to the point that states rights don't really matter in many areas anymore, including, increasingly, marriage. Perhaps all those southern non-slaveholder soldiers understood something that was coming down the road better than you do.

I recognize all of that. Yes, the average southerner was not fighting to maintain slavery. My anger is reserved for those who used the perfectly natural and perfectly legitimate loyalty of the average man and woman to promote that which was wrong and evil from first principles.

Your anger is also evidently reserved for those who don't don the politically correct mantra that it was all about slavery, and who - while giving slavery its due place, which was significant - also point out the other complex root issues involved. Your position and mantra of it being all about slavery is undermined by this acknowledgment on your part.

You seem to think that I haven't given the whole matter of the Civil War, slavery, the US Constitution, the election of 1860, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the history of the US Constititon and the whole raft of issues leading up to Appomattox Court House any careful thought at all, that I am just self-righteously shooting off my mouth about things I don't know much of anything about. Well, if that's what you think, I am here to tell you that you couldn't be more wrong.

While one can argue about whether slavery was the root cause, or whether states rights was the root cause of all this, one cannot successfully argue that it was all and only about slavery, as you have done. Perhaps if you'd addressed my original post in another manner, other than screaming No, jwhitlock, you are wrong; it is not true in the least sense whatsoever ,even that might have been the subject of discussion. Instead, you came across as angrily self-righteous that anyone would dare look at any other root cause for the civil war, or give it any credence, if it were not slavery.

That is, in effect, a simplistic and narrow viewpoint expressed both by yourself and by those who have agreed with you via their posts and rep points.

Given your emotional, narrow perspective on this, I'm not sure it's worth discussing further with you at this point.

[Daniel2]

Heard a great call on this subject last night addressing the "consumer rights trumps religious beliefs of business owner" argument...

Say some couple goes to a observant Jewish caterer and asks that their wedding be catered. What they really want for their guests is a variety of shellfish, pork ribs, juicy ham, head-cheese etc... and the caterer refuses to cater the wedding because even touching the food would render themselves and their facilities ritually unclean according to Jewish law.

Couldn't this swine loving young couple sue under the same understanding, being given here by some, of the consumer rights act?

There is a night-and-day difference between:

a) Attempting to force a business (in your example, a Jewish one) to acquire and newly provide any product (i.e. shellfish or pork) to members of the general public that that specific business (in your example, Jewish) simply does not already offer—regardless of the reason for not carrying that product (whether financial/economic, religious, personal conscious, etc).

Vs.

b) Enforcing existing non-discrimination laws by ensuring businesses (i.e. any Jewish or Christian business) do not discriminate by providing a specific product/service that it already carries (i.e. wedding cakes, or wedding photography) and regularly serves to members of the general public (i.e. Mormons, Jews, Catholics, Atheists, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Gays, Lesbians, etc).

Daniel