Exclusive: "Get Over It"? Cruz Responds To Kasich on Religious Liberty

[Bill Cipher]

To me, that's the bigger issue than just the religious aspect, although I don't want to dismiss it outright. The protection against involuntary servitude is really just a more explicit example of the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. This isn't just about religious freedom (something that, in today's increasingly secular world, society wants to reject). It's about freedom, period.

The anti-discrimination laws were passed in accordance with accepted legislative practices.  That counts as due process, and gets wide, wide latitude as far as what the majority can do.

[jmyrlefuller]

No, it's not, because you can always quit the business.  It's illegal to refuse to rent motel rooms to blacks; that means if you want to run a motel you have to rent rooms to blacks.  That isn't involuntary servitude.

Yes, it is—especially when that law applies to pretty much all forms of commerce, meaning you can't make any sort of living without sacrificing that liberty.

[HonestJohn]

When they force you to serve someone against your will, that's the definition of involuntary servitude.

When a business is open to the public, then it has made itself open to sell to the public.

If a business doesn't want to be open to the public and wants to pick and choose it's clientele... then it's a membership-based club.

[Bill Cipher]

Yes, it is—especially when that law applies to pretty much all forms of commerce, meaning you can't make any sort of living without sacrificing that liberty.

Really?  Are laws against deceptive advertising unconstitutional?  After all, making it illegal to falsely advertise goods is a violation of free speech.

[Chosen Daughter]

The Constitution quite clearly guarantees the equal protection of the law.  The SCOTUS's decision was in keeping with this guarantee.   Religious liberty is not being stripped from us - a baker is in business to serve his customers with respect to the products and services he advertises.   Why should he be able to deny such services arbitrarily by citing his religion?  A kosher shop owner isn't obliged to serve pork, nor is a baker obliged to make wedding cakes.  But if they do, shouldn't they be obliged to serve any willing customer?           

So if a kosher shop owner isn't obligated why would a Christian bakery be?  I am not getting it.  Lots of restaurants reserve the right to refuse service.  Nothing new.  Cakes, and printing require people to write things contradictory to their faith.  It goes as far as forcing a pastor to perform a wedding.  Wrong in every way.

[HonestJohn]

So if a kosher shop owner isn't obligated why would a Christian bakery be?  I am not getting it.  Lots of restaurants reserve the right to refuse service.  Nothing new.  Cakes, and printing require people to write things contradictory to their faith.  It goes as far as forcing a pastor to perform a wedding.  Wrong in every way.

Businesses cannot be compelled to sell what they do not carry.  The example of the Kosher deli fits that, for a Kosher deli would sell anything on their menu to anyone that visits.  So if a neo-Nazi wants a hot pastrami on rye... he will get a hot pastrami on rye.  But if he wants a bacon sandwich, he won't get it, as the deli doesn't have that on the menu.

The case of a Christian bakery that sells wedding cakes does not fit that criteria.  Anyone that walks in has the expectation that, since it is on their list of items to be sold, that they can purchase a wedding cake.  If the bakery advertises that they can put any message/image on the cake, then they are saying that they *WILL* put *ANY* message/image on the cake. (barring illegal messages/images, if any)

Now if the baker advertised that he only had chocolate, vanilla, pinapple, and fudge flavors... and a customer demanded a peach flavored cake; then the baker can refuse - as it's not an item they sell.