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

[Cyber Liberty]

Are you suggesting I should tolerate bigotry?  

This right here is how free speech dies, so I made it nice and big so King George can read it without his spectacles..  How much speech has been trampled in the world by simply stamping "bigotry" or somesuch on it?  Where does it end?

[txradioguy]

It's what he advertised he'd provide.   What's the big deal?

@Jazzhead

And what about a baker that refuses to make a cake for a Christian that has anti gay scripture on it?

Should they be forced to make a cake for someone they disagree with?

[thackney]

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.   

After further review of the original case, I don't the public accommodation is going to be the issue.  The Bakery and the Baker both agree it is a public accommodation.  This is a freedom of religion issue.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf

[driftdiver]

Straw man.  Of course you're not bigoted to say you believe in God and adhere to his law.  Live your own life in accordance with your conscience.  Just don't harm others in the process.  (BTW, I'm glad you've stuck with your marriage - more than a few of the Bible-believing Christians on this board have been through one or more divorces.) 

What's at stake here is the willful violation of the law against discrimination in the context of a public accommodation.   The baker said he'd supply wedding cakes to his customers.   No government hand forced him to make that promise.   Can he now arbitrarily refuse and cite religion as his excuse?

@Jazzhead
Hardly a strawman when you have said its wrong for people to hold religious beliefs that you disagree with.   

Laws changes, well those that arent Gods.  His have remained the same.

Yes the divorce rate is too high.   Because of peoples imperfection and failure to follow Gods laws.  For example his law regarding sex only within the bounds of marriage of one man and one woman.

[roamer_1]

What's at stake here is the willful violation of the law against discrimination in the context of a public accommodation.   The baker said he'd supply wedding cakes to his customers.   No government hand forced him to make that promise.   Can he now arbitrarily refuse and cite religion as his excuse?

I refuse business all the time, and often for religious reasons.
Saving your porn stash or porn vids is something I simply will not do. Go find someone else. I will not contribute my talents to such an endeavor, regardless of the amount the 'client' would be willing to pay...

Just because I advertise that I CAN recover files from damaged drives does not mean that I necessarily WILL.

There was no transaction here. No money changed hands. Thus no contract made, and no contract broken.

[Cyber Liberty]

And what about a baker that refuses to make a cake for a Christian that has anti gay scripture on it?

Should they be forced to make a cake for someone they disagree with?

Last I heard, Muslim bakeries in Dearborn Michigan are permitted to refuse to cater to Christian and gay events.  Apparenly some are more equal than others.  I see pigs as men, walking.

[driftdiver]

And what about a baker that refuses to make a cake for a Christian that has anti gay scripture on it?

Should they be forced to make a cake for someone they disagree with?

If he gets his way it will soon be illegal to disagree with the gay mafia.

[driftdiver]

After further review of the original case, I don't the public accommodation is going to be the issue.  The Bakery and the Baker both agree it is a public accommodation.  This is a freedom of religion issue.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf

20 years ago I doubt anyone thought we'd be in a position where the laws and morality of this country had flipped so much.  Its no accident.

There is a reason they are pushing this.   I highly doubt this was a random case and the baker was selected because of their cakes.   No they were selected because they WOULD refuse in an effort to get this case in front of activist judges.

[txradioguy]

20 years ago I doubt anyone thought we'd be in a position where the laws and morality of this country had flipped so much.  Its no accident.

There is a reason they are pushing this.   I highly doubt this was a random case and the baker was selected because of their cakes.   No they were selected because they WOULD refuse in an effort to get this case in front of activist judges.

Not quite 20 years ago but someone did try to warn us:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity ... every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision.

<snip>

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?' 

Justice Antonin Scalia - Lawrence v Texas

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html

[roamer_1]

20 years ago I doubt anyone thought we'd be in a position where the laws and morality of this country had flipped so much.  Its no accident.

There is a reason they are pushing this.   I highly doubt this was a random case and the baker was selected because of their cakes.   No they were selected because they WOULD refuse in an effort to get this case in front of activist judges.

That's right. What they cannot do, what they could never do by way of law, they do by way of judicial fiat. Penumbras and such.

[kidd]

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.

Hogwash.

A baker of this caliber is an artist who is being asked to provide a creation to celebrate an event.
The homosexual couple are forcing the baker to celebrate something that he cannot celebrate. This is hardly an arbitrary reason.

If it were just a "damn cake" then the homosexual couple should open up a box of Pillsbury and make it their damn selves.
A "damn cake" would taste just as good and would be inexpensive. But people don't buy professionally made cakes for the taste; they are bought for the artistry.

And a public lunch counter provides food. There is no artistry. There is no comparison.

I know what you are trying to avoid - and I think the SCOTUS can rule on this very tightly and allow only professional artists to engage in limited exclusionary practices.

[thackney]

I'll offer up for discussion a similar type case where the courts upheld a T-Shirt printer could refuse to print Gay Pride T-Shirts.

https://perma.cc/75FY-Z77D

...On or about March 28, 2012, Aaron Baker filed a Verified Complaint with the
Commission on behalf of the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (hereinafter
"GLSO"). The Complaint alleged that on or about March 8, 2012, HOO denied that
organization the full and equal enjoyment of a service when HOO refused to print the
official t-shirts for the organizations' 2012 Pride Festival. Following an investigation by
the Commission, a determination of Probable Cause and Charge of Discrimination was
filed by the Commission against HOO on November 13, 2012. The Charge of
Discrimination alleged that HOO violated local Ordinance 201-99; Section 2:33 from the
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (Sometimes referred to as the "Fairness
Ordinance"). This Ordinance generally prohibits a public accommodation from
discriminating against individuals, inter alia, based upon their sexual orientation or
gender identity. ...

HOO has a stated policy on its website which provides:
Hands On Originals both employs and conducts business with
people of all genders, races, religions, sexual preferences, and
national origins. However, due to the promotional nature of our
products, it is the prerogative of Hands On Originals to refuse any
order that would endorse positions that conflict with the convictions
of the ownership.

HOO acknowledges that it is a "public accommodation"...

ANALYSIS AND OPINION

(I) THE ORDER FROM THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
VIOLATES THE RECOGNIZED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF HOO
AND ITS OWNERS TO BE FREE FROM COMPELLED EXPRESSION

HOO and its owners have a Constitutional right of freedom of expression from
government coercion. The Commission conceded at oral argument that the Commission
was created by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government and its members are
appointed by the Mayor. Thus, the action and the order of the Commission in this case is
government action without dispute.

These Constitutional guarantees are found in both the Constitution of the United
States (First Amendment) and in the Commonwealth of Kentucky(§ I § 8). The
Commission agreed that HOO and its owners have those Constitutional protections when
it adopted the Order of the Hearing Commissioner.

[thackney]

Hogwash.

A baker of this caliber is an artist who is being asked to provide a creation to celebrate an event.
The homosexual couple are forcing the baker to celebrate something that he cannot celebrate. This is hardly an arbitrary reason.

If it were just a "damn cake" then the homosexual couple should open up a box of Pillsbury and make it their damn selves.

In fact, the Bakery offered to sell them other products, just not a same-sex wedding cake.

[INVAR]

Straw man.  Of course you're not bigoted to say you believe in God and adhere to his law.  Live your own life in accordance with your conscience.

You and your homosexual agenda pals won't let us.  You demand guns be put to our heads to force us to cater to your approved perversion, or you demand we close up our businesses.

Just don't harm others in the process. 

Bullshit. You are just fine and dandy with "bigots" as you call Christians, being harmed under the color of law to be forced into participating in celebrating an abomination or suffer financial punishment or the loss of their livelihood, which you earlier said they should lose.  That's more than harm.  That's destruction... which you advocate.

What's at stake here is the willful violation of the law against discrimination in the context of a public accommodation. 

I advocate the willful and full violation and refusal to comply with ANY tyrannical law that orders a person to submit to acknowledging, celebrating and serving a behavioral perversion or any 'law' that infringes on natural law and our inalienable enumerated rights.  I don't care what "laws" you and yours pass.  I will openly defy them and encourage others to defy them as well. 

The baker said he'd supply wedding cakes to his customers.   No government hand forced him to make that promise.   Can he now arbitrarily refuse and cite religion as his excuse?

We retain the right to refuse service to ANYONE for ANY reason.  If you want to empower the government to put a gun to our heads to force compliance with performing labor and service which violates our consciences and religion - that is precisely why we have an enumerated right to keep and bear arms... to prevent coercion by individuals or government to comply with actions that promote or support evil.

[Free Vulcan]

The religious objection not only applies to cases like this, but also to transgenders using church bathrooms and similar. If there is no religious objection allowed, then churches could be forced to marry both gays and trannies in their houses of worship.

Sorry, but religious freedom trumps the arbitrary proclamations of the bureaucrats in the Executive branch.

[Cyber Liberty]

Heck, I'm still waiting for him to tell us whether bigots have the right to free speech.  Is "bigoted speech" protected speech under the First Amendment?

[Smokin Joe]

Not quite 20 years ago but someone did try to warn us:

Justice Antonin Scalia - Lawrence v Texas

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZD.html

Scalia made an interesting point. With the requirements of Obamacare to cover those who are AIDS/HIV infected, a one trillion dollar liability just in the lifetimes of the current 1.3 million known patients, and considering that buggery and other such behaviour is the primary method of transmission not already proscribed by law (IV drug use being illegal, in this context), then a case could be made that the State has a compelling interest in banning homosexual activity in the interest of reducing the cost of health insurance.

[txradioguy]

Scalia made an interesting point. With the requirements of Obamacare to cover those who are AIDS/HIV infected, a one trillion dollar liability just in the lifetimes of the current 1.3 million known patients, and considering that buggery and other such behaviour is the primary method of transmission not already proscribed by law (IV drug use being illegal, in this context), then a case could be made that the State has a compelling interest in banning homosexual activity in the interest of reducing the cost of health insurance.

Law of unintended consequences.

[INVAR]

Scalia made an interesting point. With the requirements of Obamacare to cover those who are AIDS/HIV infected, a one trillion dollar liability just in the lifetimes of the current 1.3 million known patients, and considering that buggery and other such behaviour is the primary method of transmission not already proscribed by law (IV drug use being illegal, in this context), then a case could be made that the State has a compelling interest in banning homosexual activity in the interest of reducing the cost of health insurance.

Bigot. 

/devil's advocate.

[Smokin Joe]

Bigot. 

/devil's advocate.

[Wingnut]

Are you suggesting I should tolerate bigotry?   

We tolerate you preaching your overtly  liberal leftest social agenda to us 24/7/365.   So we got that going for us.

[Jazzhead]

After further review of the original case, I don't the public accommodation is going to be the issue.  The Bakery and the Baker both agree it is a public accommodation.  This is a freedom of religion issue.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf

Thanks for that link, Thackney.   As for my statement above that Masterpiece's refusal to bake the wedding cake was political and not religious,  see the following statement from the decision linked above:

[ . . . Masterpiece admits that its decision to refuse Craig's and Mullin's requested wedding cake as because of its opposition to same sex marriage which, based on Supreme Court precedent, we conclude is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[Jazzhead]

We tolerate you preaching your overtly  liberal leftest social agenda to us 24/7/365.   So we got that going for us.

Yeah, right.  That tolerance has included being threatened with firearms and labeled as the Devil himself.   

[txradioguy]

Thanks for that link, Thackney.   As for my statement above that Masterpiece's refusal to bake the wedding cake was political and not religious,  see the following statement from the decision linked above:
 

@Jazzhead I'll ask you again...what if the situation was reversed?  What if someone wanted a cake made with anti gay Scripture on it.  Should that baker be forced to make the cake as well?

This isn't a trick question.

[txradioguy]

Yeah, right.  That tolerance has included being threatened with firearms and labeled as the Devil himself.   

Neither happened the way you're describing it.  If you're gonna play the victim...at least be honest about your feigned victimhood.