Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay couple

[Smokin Joe]

If you run a "public accommodation",  you cannot refuse service for arbitrary reasons.   Most of us agree with that principle in the context of, say, a public lunch counter that refuses to serve blacks.  But it's the same principle at work with this stubborn baker who won't bake the damn cake because of his "religious" animus toward gays and the notion that the community dares to provide legal protections against his brand of arbitrary "religious" bias.

Religious reasons are not "arbitrary" reasons. They are supported by a scriptural basis, and would lead people who believe similarly to similar conclusions. There have been several different people who have been sued over this sort of refusal for the same underlying religious reasons, across the country. They have (all) the same underlying basis for their reasoning, not just something arbitrary.

That you put "religious" in quotes tells me you do not share their beliefs, so to you those might be considered arbitrary. I refer you to my previous post. Tell me if the Muslims would have a "arbitrary" reason for refusing to provide the service, and if not, why?

[txradioguy]

If you run a "public accommodation",  you cannot refuse service for arbitrary reasons.   Most of us agree with that principle in the context of, say, a public lunch counter that refuses to serve blacks.  But it's the same principle at work with this stubborn baker who won't bake the damn cake because of his "religious" animus toward gays and the notion that the community dares to provide legal protections against his brand of arbitrary "religious" bias.

A bakery isn't a "public accommodation"...it's a private business started by someone with a talent in order to make money.

And your obtuse attempt to equate sexual preference with someone's race is as disgusting as it is false.

It's a smear to everyone who suffered and sacrificed for the black community.

[catfish1957]

They then would sue for the cost of the wedding and destroying their lifetime of happiness.

With a good lawyer, I'd think you would only be liable for the cost of the cake.

Plus, I would have a strongly stated disclaimer on initial bill of sale.  There are ways around this.

[INVAR]

I would rather have Christians participating in commerce and the public square than in jail or unable to make a living. 

You and I both know and understand that time is coming.  It is what the Mark of the Beast is actually all about.

A time whereby if you do not think and act as the State and their tyrants demand - you cannot buy or sell or make a living.

I've seen how a form of that operates in the third world.  It is unbelievably insidious.

I prefer reasoned and reasonable discussion to the tiresome circular arguments that this poster deflects a thread to.  By all means state the case but I prefer not to get drawn in to playing on the liberals terms 

The left has successfully gotten where they are, to the point of dictating to the rest of us how we must think and act, because reasonable people who prefer reasonable discourse refused to engage them and stop their agenda, tantrums and efforts when it cost little to do so.

We are not dealing with reasonable people.  We are dealing with ideologues who seek to reshape, redefine and fundamentally transform society, the culture and bury the foundational principles and religion that forged us.  Today we have to deal with those who disguise themselves as Conservatives in Conservative fora to spread their poison among us and attempt to pervert our own thinking, because it is the last stalwart hold-out to submitting to and accepting their agenda.  I mean, look what he argues in favor of: forcing Christians to violate their conscience and faith to celebrate and promote an abomination or lose their livelihoods.

So either we argue and fight with them now, or get subjugated via "law" by what they lecture us about - or ultimately we go full tilt civil war when people have finally had enough and it's too late for any kind of recourse except to take matters into our own hands.

[Free Vulcan]

Good, settle this once and for all.

What I hope comes out of this, that even if they have to bake a cake they do no have to do anything other than a plain cake with nothing on it, i.e. no forced speech.

[roamer_1]

All a court case can do is erect a signpost indicating the community's legal position when one person's action harms another.  It cannot erase the bigotry in a person's heart.

NO!
All a court is SUPPOSED to do is interpret law.

[Mom MD]

With a good lawyer, I'd think you would only be liable for the cost of the cake.

Plus, I would have a strongly stated disclaimer on initial bill of sale.  There are ways around this.

May be but it's not a very Christian act to enter into a contract with the goal of producing a deliberately defective product.  Better to say no in the first place

[catfish1957]

May be but it's not a very Christian act to enter into a contract with the goal of producing a deliberately defective product.  Better to say no in the first place

And then get sued for obvious reasons?

[roamer_1]

I don't care how the court "rules".  No one can force me to sin and violate my conscience and faith in order to comply with an evil law.

Better to obey God than men.

Methinks we'll be figuring Gorsuch out on this one.

[txradioguy]

NO!
All a court is SUPPOSED to do is interpret law.

@roamer_1 Jazzy only believes in interpretation of the law when the court has decided in a way he believes in...he changes sides of the fence when they haven't or don't rule the way his Liberal mind thinks they should.

[driftdiver]

Methinks we'll be figuring Gorsuch out on this one.

Hopefully he wont pull a Roberts.

Because the govt can force us to do things.  Force us at the point of a gun. 

[Jazzhead]

NO!
All a court is SUPPOSED to do is interpret law.

Correct - and if the Court decides this baker's business qualifies as  public accommodation,  the result is clear - he cannot arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide.    The baker chose to open a business that serves the public.  If his "religious" sensibilities are offended by what he chooses to do from day to day, he should find another means of making a living. 

[driftdiver]

Correct - and if the Court decides this baker's business qualifies as  public accommodation,  the result is clear - he cannot arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide.    The baker chose to open a business that serves the public.  If his "religious" sensibilities are offended by what he chooses to do from day to day, he should find another means of making a living.

@Jazzhead

So in other words the Christians don't belong in public eh?   Anything else you'd like to take away?

[txradioguy]

Correct - and if the Court decides this baker's business qualifies as  public accommodation,  the result is clear - he cannot arbitrarily discriminate with respect to the services he's advertised to provide.    The baker chose to open a business that serves the public.  If his "religious" sensibilities are offended by what he chooses to do from day to day, he should find another means of making a living.

Hate to break it to you...but who you do in the bedroom and how you do it doesn't fall under the part of the law you're trying to use.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1980 prohibit discrimination based upon race, gender, ethnicitiy, religion, and disabilities in places of public accommodations.

Being gay isn't any of the above.

Face it...you're wrong.

[txradioguy]

@Jazzhead

So in other words the Christians don't belong in public eh?   Anything else you'd like to take away?

Oh there's a lot...

[Jazzhead]

There you go again, insulting peoples scripture based beliefs.

If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, then he/she shouldn't practice it.   I have nothing whatsoever against scriptural belief - up to the point where such belief serves as an excuse for violating the law's protections. 

The baker's obligations under the law are clear.  Render under Caesar what is Caesar's, and treat your fellow citizens with the dignity and respect you'd expect from others.   

[Mom MD]

And then get sued for obvious reasons?

Either way you get sued.   The question is which act honors God more

[Jazzhead]

Being gay isn't any of the above.

Face it...you're wrong.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unlawful in many areas of the country.  The baker didn't violate a federal anti-discrimination law when he refused service, but a local one.   

[thackney]

If you run a "public accommodation",  you cannot refuse service for arbitrary reasons. 

@Jazzhead

I do not believe a custom-made cake for a off-site, private ceremony, particularly if it is to be delivered, meets the legal definition of "public accommodation".


TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

OOSEC. 201.
(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of 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 such covered establishment....

- - - - - -

They are not discriminated as those parties can walk in the store and buy any cake the store already makes. 

The store owners should no more be forced to make a custom-cake celebrating homosexual behavior than they should be forced to make a cake celebrating the 2001 twin towers attack.

 

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

So in other words the Christians don't belong in public eh?   Anything else you'd like to take away?

Of course Christians belong in public.  The issue is bigotry, not Christianity.   

[driftdiver]

If a Christian believes that homosexuality is a sin, then he/she shouldn't practice it.   I have nothing whatsoever against scriptural belief - up to the point where such belief serves as an excuse for violating the law's protections. 

The baker's obligations under the law are clear.  Render under Caesar what is Caesar's, and treat your fellow citizens with the dignity and respect you'd expect from others.

@Jazzhead
LOL yeah   So much wrong with your post but at least you've come out of the closet as an intolerant hater.

[driftdiver]

Of course Christians belong in public.  The issue is bigotry, not Christianity.

@Jazzhead
God has defined Christianity not people.    If you don't like his rules that is your problem.

[driftdiver]

@Jazzhead

I do not believe a custom-made cake for a off-site, private ceremony, particularly if it is to be delivered, meets the legal definition of "public accommodation".


TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

OOSEC. 201.
(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of 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 such covered establishment....

- - - - - -

They are not discriminated as those parties can walk in the store and buy any cake the store already makes. 

The store owners should no more be forced to make a custom-cake celebrating homosexual behavior than they should be forced to make a cake celebrating the 2001 twin towers attack.

There are hotels in Key West that don't allow Hetro couples.  Only gays.

[XenaLee]

The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear the case of a suburban Denver baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple on faith-based grounds, in the latest religious freedom case to be considered before the nation's highest court. 

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had refused to sell a customized cake for a gay couple's union, claiming a religious exemption to the state's anti-discrimination law.

State courts had ruled against the businessman.

The high court will now decide whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the baker to create "expression"-- a wedding cake -- violates his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage.

Phillips told the Supreme Court he has free speech and religious rights under the First Amendment that should protect him. He said he should not be compelled to bake a cake specifically to honor a same-sex marriage.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-to-hear-case-bakers-refusal-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple.html

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the USSC upholds Phillips' 1st Amendment rights.  Why?   Because after today's USSC ruling on Trump's travel ban... I am once again a bit hopeful for the future of this nation.  (I know, I know....don't pinch me!)

[Jazzhead]

I do not believe a custom-made cake for a off-site, private ceremony, particularly if it is to be delivered, meets the legal definition of "public accommodation".

Well, that's exactly why I worded my previous post the way I did.   I think the legal issue is precisely whether the baker is subject to the law proscribing arbitrary discrimination in a public accommodation.   If he's running a public accommodation, he's violated the law.  If he isn't,  then he didn't.   

I doubt "religious freedom" will be the linchpin of the SCOTUS's decision.  Rather, it will be a narrow decision regarding the status of Masterpiece Cake Shop as a public accommodation.