Anijen Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 12 minutes ago, Gray said: If someone refused to cater to black weddings, we'd think it was a scandal. It'd be very obviously a racist act. But refusing to cater to gay weddings is not prejudiced because... religion? Yes. this would be prejudiced. If we change the facts a bit (reminds me of the Socratic method often used in law school), lets say the wedding reception was from a temple marriage (couple is still Black), but the caterer refused service because she was an evangelical and hated Mormons and refused service because of her religious beliefs. Then prejudice is still there, discrimination is still there, but now it would be a First Amendment issue. This is the ugly truth, the bottomline, the crux of this case [Masterpiece] is that with all the apparent prejudice and discrimination our highest court in the land now has to weigh and balance Discriminatory Statutes that are good and help people against the First Amendment of the Constitution. That is a very hard task. IMO one should not have more superiority over the other, but a balance needs to be better defined and that is what we will get in this case. 8 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm talking about morality, not legality. I have no idea how the courts will find in this case. But to take a position against gay rights is no different than previous positions against civil rights for other minorities. The immorality of prejudice is the same no matter what innocent party is the target. You are right when you look at it from the perspective of morality. I have been looking at this from the legal perspective. The perspective from a morality view is different and depending on which side you take whether it is the gay couple or the baker both views from the morality lens have either discrimination via State statute or religious violations via the Constitution. A lens I am glad I can take off and go fishing just to clear my head.
Anijen Posted December 8, 2017 Posted December 8, 2017 (edited) Here is the conclusion and per curiam (9/0) judicial decision found in Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian Bisexual Group of Boston Inc. A unanimous court held that the State Court's ruling to require private citizens who organize a parade to include a group expressing a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment by making private speech subordinate to the public accommodation requirement. Such an action "violate the fundamental First Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message and, conversely, to decide what to say." I think this case will control, but it will not be a per curiam (unanimous) decision. I think the Court will be split 5/4 in favor of the Baker. Just my opinion, I could be wrong and often have been. Edited December 8, 2017 by Anijen
Recommended Posts