Tidal wave of support for Colorado baker hits Supreme Court

[Jazzhead]

Perhaps the folks flogging the notion that "public accomodations" laws trump the First Amendment could address the case law cited in the DOJ's amicus curia brief https://www.scribd.com/document/358346765/Department-of-Justice-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-Amicus-Brief that supports the opposite view, rather than just repeating themselves.  Jazzhead, that, especially, means you.

Thanks for the link.   This may be the crux of it:

Public accommodations laws generally do not regulate the content of expression but rather the discrimi-natory provision of goods or services—an act that is not itself protected under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause

The law therefore, may turn on a finding of fact -  is the furnishing of a wedding cake the "provision of a good or service" or rather "expressive" conduct that is First Amendment protected.   Again, where I think the baker may have gone wrong is turning away the couple before they even had the chance to articulate what they wanted the baker to "express" on the cake.   Clearly, he could have refused to write a custom message on the cake he deemed offensive.  But that's not what happened here - the couple was turned away for no other reason than what they wanted was a wedding cake and they happened to be gay. 

[Smokin Joe]

How about it's my business, and I will serve of not serve whoever I damned well please.

How did this get to be such an alien concept in an allegedly free country?

[Jazzhead]

How about it's my business, and I will serve of not serve whoever I damned well please.

How did this get to be such an alien concept in an allegedly free country?

Too many racists, bigots and religious buttholes.  Sorry.  It's just the way of the world - the bad apples force the enactment of rules that restrict the liberty the rest of us can enjoy. 

[RoosGirl]

Too many racists, bigots and religious buttholes.  Sorry.  It's just the way of the world - the bad apples force the enactment of rules that restrict the liberty the rest of us can enjoy.

So you're trading freedom for safety.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

A wedding cake is a statement, a message all unto itself. It is a design people would recognize for what it is, a cake baked in celebration of a wedding. It wasn't that his customers were gay--if they had ordered a wedding cake for a heterosexual wedding, I am of little doubt that the baker would have produced it whether they were gay or not. It was that the 'union' they were celebrating was not a 'marriage' in the eyes of their religious beliefs (nor in any Bible believing church), and in fact, is diametrically in opposition to the teachings of their religion.

Or, put another way, if a straight couple wanted to order a "gay wedding" cake, he would have refused.

Therefore, the buyer is not being discriminated against due to sexual orientation.  The baker will not create a certain type of cake, a policy which applies equally to all of his (potential) customers.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

How about it's my business, and I will serve of not serve whoever I damned well please.

That's not fair!  It's not like your customers can choose whether or not to do business with you.

[Smokin Joe]

Too many racists, bigots and religious buttholes.  Sorry.  It's just the way of the world - the bad apples force the enactment of rules that restrict the liberty the rest of us can enjoy.

SO what?

That leaves plenty of market for the people who are willing to do business with the people others will not.

All that forces anyone to impose rules on anyone's freedom is the deep desire to be totalitarian, even if just over one little thing, even if for our own good.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.- C.S. Lewis

[INVAR]

It seems you may have been discriminated against. 

Of course my client was.   That is a right the printer has. He can choose whom he will serve with his services and decide what things he will print and what things he will not.

I had the liberty to find another printer who wanted my client's money.

The law provides for a private right of action to address such discrimination.  Each citizen has the choice to exercise or not exercise that right.  Those who choose to do so are not "thugs, bullies and tyrants". 

They are thugs, bullies and tyrants when they step on the liberties and private property of others, which I would be doing if I used Mama Government to force this printer to do what I demand he produce, even when it violates his conscience.  There are plenty of other printers out there.  Only shit-stirring thugs and bullies seeking monetary gain, publicity and/or to impose punishment engage in suing a business into oblivion because they were offended that the company does not want their business.
 

You seem to get off on the notion you're better than anyone else.

I'm not a tyrant like you are, promoting and advocating that people be forced to violate their principles and consciences to accommodate a belief or behavior they find abhorrent. 

That alone makes me better than you as far as liberty goes.

[goatprairie]

If certain people i.e. homosexuals or other people with sexual or behavioral habits that are highly out of the ordinary/abnormal can force a bakery to make a particular item i.e. a wedding  cake specifically suited for them, then any person or group can force any business to make whatever the person or group desires.
Saying that certain groups can be excluded because they're "hate" groups, like the Nazis or WNs, ignores the fact that many Americans consider leftist groups, individuals, hateful.  They also consider certain practices as hateful or to be avoided. One of those practices is homosexuality. 
To say because many Americans tolerate homosexuality means they approve of the practice is simply false. Many Americans, including many non-religious types (like me) find it abhorrent.
That means we don't necessarily hate the homosexual, it just means we find the practice abhorrent, disgusting, and something to be fixed if possible. Tolerating homosexuality in no way means condoning homosexual marriage, adoption, or public displays
To say because many or a majority of the public either don't care or sanction homosexuality doesn't make it right.  In many Moslem countries, marrying your first cousin is accepted.  Obviously,  a very great majority of Muslims find no fault with marrying their first cousin.  Should we all accept it or does that make it right because a huge majority of Muslims support being able to marry their first cousin?
Now, if some homosexual bakers decide that they will only serve other homosexuals (if they could tell) or only bake homosexuality-approved specialty items, I have no problem with that.  It's like any other business catering to a certain clientele.
A homosexual-catering business should be able to refuse any demands from me to bake a specialty item they don't want to.
That's called freedom.

[DCPatriot]

How about it's my business, and I will serve of not serve whoever I damned well please.

How did this get to be such an alien concept in an allegedly free country?

You're absolutely right.

Make the business owner 'King' of his castle and all this stuff goes away.

Eventually, one may learn that pants are to worn around the waist in a restaurant.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You don't think his legal crusade is being bankrolled by others?   Don't be naïve.

His legal crusade?

What a stupid, petty comment.  Who is crusading anyway?

Not the baker.   It was someone else who decided to crusade by not doing the right thing and finding a more amenable seller.  And the state of Colorado when it issued an edict to force him to do something against his constitutional rights.

You like all libs are a distortion, a fairy tale teller, and downright dishonest.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Just as he would reject any other kind of marriage that was outside the norm determined by his religion. Just like the halal butcher. The couple wasn't asking for a plain cake of their color - they were asking for a wedding cake decorated as such.

It is not up to you what does an does not qualify as having religious implications or not. The gay couple's sensibilities were also offended but somehow theirs is the only one recognized.

By that logic there can be no discrimination against anyone for any reason or request, unless you are talking about selectively enforced equality.

He is wishing we were all slaves, to do whatever someone asked of us.

He forgets that we abolished slavery 150 years ago.

[roamer_1]

Not the baker.   It was someone else who decided to crusade by not doing the right thing and finding a more amenable seller.  And the state of Colorado when it issued an edict to force him to do something against his constitutional rights.

That is a very valid point.

[Jazzhead]

His legal crusade?

What a stupid, petty comment.  Who is crusading anyway?

Not the baker.   It was someone else who decided to crusade by not doing the right thing and finding a more amenable seller.  And the state of Colorado when it issued an edict to force him to do something against his constitutional rights.

You like all libs are a distortion, a fairy tale teller, and downright dishonest.

He's taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court - who do you think is paying his lawyers' bills?   

Not that there's anything wrong with that - obviously he feels he's in the right, and has plenty of folks that agree with him.   But non-discrimination rules for public businesses exist for a reason - this nation's sorry history of bigotry, from segregated lunch counters to housing discrimination.  And few folks have suffered arbitrary discrimination like homosexuals.   

If a business advertises a product or service to the general public, then it should stay true to its word.  That's what at stake here for many.   Religion should not be an acceptable excuse for breaking the law.   

[goatprairie]

He is wishing we were all slaves, to do whatever someone asked of us.

He forgets that we abolished slavery 150 years ago.

Once again, the baker didn't refuse to bake a cake for the homosexual couple. He refused to bake a certain type of wedding cake.
This is not the same thing as refusing to sell an item to a certain group like some business refusing to sell their widget to a particular group.
The homosexual couple were quite free to purchase a traditional wedding cake just like all the non-homosexual couples who purchased one.  They WERE NOT!!! being denied the right to purchase an item at the bakery. They were only being denied a specially made cake.
This is no different from any other business that declared they only made certain types of products.
 If some business decided they made a product which  would only be painted blue, I should not be able to force them to make me one of their products of another color if they didn't want to.
Like Henry Ford supposedly said (he actually didn't mean it quite that way) the public can have any color of car they want as long as it's black.
By forcing the baker to make a homosexual-themed cake, the courts basically told businesses they have to make items specifically the way any customer asks for whether the company wants to make them or not. I don't think that's the way the first amendment was intended to work.

[Cyber Liberty]

His legal crusade?

What a stupid, petty comment.  Who is crusading anyway?

Not the baker.   It was someone else who decided to crusade by not doing the right thing and finding a more amenable seller.  And the state of Colorado when it issued an edict to force him to do something against his constitutional rights.

You like all libs are a distortion, a fairy tale teller, and downright dishonest.

Leftists are always the innocent victims, never the aggressors.  It's all part of playing the victim.

[Jazzhead]

Leftists are always the innocent victims, never the aggressors.  It's all part of playing the victim.

The baker is the one who chose to arbitrarily deny the advertised service.   Don't give me your crap about who is the victim.  He's on a crusade, and he's welcome to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.  But his customer was the victim of that crusade.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

He's taking his case all the way to the Supreme Court - who do you think is paying his lawyers' bills?   

Not that there's anything wrong with that - obviously he feels he's in the right, and has plenty of folks that agree with him.   But non-discrimination rules for public businesses exist for a reason - this nation's sorry history of bigotry, from segregated lunch counters to housing discrimination.  And few folks have suffered arbitrary discrimination like homosexuals.   

If a business advertises a product or service to the general public, then it should stay true to its word.  That's what at stake here for many.   Religion should not be an acceptable excuse for breaking the law.

He is breaking no law.  He, in exercising his 1st Amendment rights, have had them trampled by an edict from a bureaucracy in Colorado.

You can repeat your mantra as long as you wish about 'discrimination' or 'public accommodation' or whatever.

We know the game you and those you support play and will not bow to anything like it.

And BTW. when will you enlighten us on the interstate commerce clause's usage in baking a cake?

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,280569.msg1450625.html#msg1450625

[INVAR]

But non-discrimination rules for public businesses exist for a reason - this nation's sorry history of bigotry, from segregated lunch counters to housing discrimination.  And few folks have suffered arbitrary discrimination like homosexuals.   

I plan on continuing discrimination of homosexual behaviors and perversions.

And you have absolutely no idea what 'arbitrary discrimination' actually looks like in the rest of the world. You sit here in prosperity, bored and feigning outrage for perverts and jihadists while being willfully clueless about what real discrimination and persecution looks like.

I've seen it up close and personal bub. 

Skin color and gender are vehicles for discrimination laws.  Behavior, is not.

By your reckoning, if behavior can now be associated with discrimination law, then pedophiles, transexuals, murderers, rapists and thieves should also not be discriminated against because of their behavior.

And of course that is exactly where such nonsense like yours goes, which is how much of the third world operates in their caste systems.  The government chooses what behaviors get rewarded and protected (thievery and murder against Christians for example in Andrha Pradesh), and what behaviors and practices must be punished (Christians in Andrha Pradesh).

Today you champion homosexual behavior over Christian liberty.  Tomorrow you will champion thievery and murder over Christians.

Oh, you will deny such an 'absurd thing' now - but your arbitrary government-approved discrimination agenda is precisely where it goes.

Religion should not be an acceptable excuse for breaking the law.

Your "Law" is invalid and we intend to ignore it.

We will obey God, before we kowtow to tyrants like you.

And we are ready and willing to do what it takes to defend that right from people like you.

[Cyber Liberty]

The baker is the one who chose to arbitrarily deny the advertised service.   Don't give me your crap about who is the victim.  He's on a crusade, and he's welcome to take it all the way to the Supreme Court.  But his customer was the victim of that crusade.

"Crap" you say?   You go on and on and on about "advertised service" and you've have it explained many times to you why it was not an "advertised service."  In fact, the "victims" you refer to in this case went out of their way to avoid other bakers who would have met their needs, just to pin something on this one.  Typical of your breed, actually, that Fluke chick who went to Georgetown to study soley for the purpose of suing them over their Birth Control policy is another example.

[Jazzhead]

So much bigotry is defended and excused on the basis of religion.  I for one am sick and tired of it - and I'll bet Jesus Christ would be too.     

[Jazzhead]

And we are ready and willing to do what it takes to defend that right from people like you.

Nope.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So much bigotry is defended and excused on the basis of religion.  I for one am sick and tired of it - and I'll bet Jesus Christ would be too.   

Here's what the victim baker says about that

For Phillips, the question is whether his actions really reflect a Christian approach to life. He is asked, What would Jesus do?

“Well, you know, in my opinion – Jesus was a carpenter. I don’t think he would have made a bed for their wedding,” Phillips said. “He would have never condoned something that he was against. “

When will you defend your comment here? http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,280569.msg1450625.html#msg1450625

[goatprairie]

I plan on continuing discrimination of homosexual behaviors and perversions.

And you have absolutely no idea what 'arbitrary discrimination' actually looks like in the rest of the world. You sit here in prosperity, bored and feigning outrage for perverts and jihadists while being willfully clueless about what real discrimination and persecution looks like.

I've seen it up close and personal bub. 

Skin color and gender are vehicles for discrimination laws.  Behavior, is not.

By your reckoning, if behavior can now be associated with discrimination law, then pedophiles, transexuals, murderers, rapists and thieves should also not be discriminated against because of their behavior.

And of course that is exactly where such nonsense like yours goes, which is how much of the third world operates in their caste systems.  The government chooses what behaviors get rewarded and protected (thievery and murder against Christians for example in Andrha Pradesh), and what behaviors and practices must be punished (Christians in Andrha Pradesh).

Today you champion homosexual behavior over Christian liberty.  Tomorrow you will champion thievery and murder over Christians.

Oh, you will deny such an 'absurd thing' now - but your arbitrary government-approved discrimination agenda is precisely where it goes.

Your "Law" is invalid and we intend to ignore it.

We will obey God, before we kowtow to tyrants like you.

And we are ready and willing to do what it takes to defend that right from people like you.

What he is really doing is forcing businesses to make products they don't want to make.  Your favorite  color of car is gold, but the company doesn't make gold colored products?  They must now because they are not allowed to discriminate. 
It doesn't matter what the reason for refusing to make a certain type of product with a special design, all businesses must now make their products any way a customer demands, no exceptions alllowed.
That is the import of the court decision: it  basically forces businesses  to make  products they don't want to make. You made and sold your red, white, or  blue car but don't make a gold one? You must now make me one says the customer.
The business replies, "but we don't want to make one like that."
"That's discriminating against people like me who love gold colored cars" says the customer.
The business must then by court precedent be forced to make the customer a gold-colored car.

[driftdiver]

So much bigotry is defended and excused on the basis of religion.  I for one am sick and tired of it - and I'll bet Jesus Christ would be too.   

@Jazzhead

Careful there.  You've rejected Jesus on numerous occasions and now claim to know what he would do.

Jesus taught us to love the sinner but hate the sin.  Participating in a gay marriage is blashpehemes and sinful.