Tidal wave of support for Colorado baker hits Supreme Court

[rangerrebew]

Tidal wave of support for Colorado baker hits Supreme Court
20 states, 86 Congress members, dozens of lawyers, family groups, nearly 500 creative pros back Jack Phillips
Published: 2 days ago
 
The list of defenders of Colorado baker Jack Phillips in his case against Colorado’s order that he promote same-sex marriage in violation of his faith reads like a who’s who of America’s leaders.

First, the Department of Justice has come down on Phillips’ side in his dispute with the state over his decision to not create a wedding cake for a couple.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/09/tidal-wave-of-support-for-colorado-baker-hits-supreme-court/#FsQje7sqAp58EsMK.99

[Taxcontrol]

First amendment freedom of religion aside, this is also a first amendment freedom of right of the people peaceably to assemble.  One of the reasons people assemble is for the purpose of conducting business.  And if one has a right, one also has the opposite.  If you have the right to speech, you also have the right to not speak.  So if one has the freedom to peacefully assemble for the purpose of business, you also have the right to NOT assemble for business.

Laws based upon the concept of "public accommodation" are demonstrably a violation of this principle and are unconstitutional.  They are constructed from PC correctness "cloth" and in my opinion should be struck down as unconstitutional.

[truth_seeker]

First amendment freedom of religion aside, this is also a first amendment freedom of right of the people peaceably to assemble.  One of the reasons people assemble is for the purpose of conducting business.  And if one has a right, one also has the opposite.  If you have the right to speech, you also have the right to not speak.  So if one has the freedom to peacefully assemble for the purpose of business, you also have the right to NOT assemble for business.

Laws based upon the concept of "public accommodation" are demonstrably a violation of this principle and are unconstitutional.  They are constructed from PC correctness "cloth" and in my opinion should be struck down as unconstitutional.

So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?

It appears you wish that were so, but it has not been for about 50 years. Reality strikes.

[Smokin Joe]

So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?

It appears you wish that were so, but it has not been for about 50 years. Reality strikes.

That twists the issue. The business would sell products to anyone. They refused to create a product (special order) that went against their religious beliefs.

[driftdiver]

So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?

It appears you wish that were so, but it has not been for about 50 years. Reality strikes.

Sexual orientation does not equate to race.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

First amendment freedom of religion aside, this is also a first amendment freedom of right of the people peaceably to assemble.  One of the reasons people assemble is for the purpose of conducting business.  And if one has a right, one also has the opposite.  If you have the right to speech, you also have the right to not speak.  So if one has the freedom to peacefully assemble for the purpose of business, you also have the right to NOT assemble for business.

Laws based upon the concept of "public accommodation" are demonstrably a violation of this principle and are unconstitutional.  They are constructed from PC correctness "cloth" and in my opinion should be struck down as unconstitutional.

If the Court rules incorrectly here and decides it is above what the majority of the citizens want, it will further erode its credibility. At some point, people or the other branches will simply ignore its rulings, imperiling any authority of the court.

It got real close by federal judges deciding they were better at providing for this country's defense than the Constitutionally mandated President.  I was frankly surprised that Trump did not just ignore the decisions regarding his visa exclusion.  He has equal authority to faithfully execute his Constitutional duty as the Court does - in fact, I believe he has even more as he is required to be head of the military, not some court.

It would not have been a constitutional crisis which he initiated.  It would have been a constitutional crisis initiated by Judicial.

[skeeter]

So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?

It appears you wish that were so, but it has not been for about 50 years. Reality strikes.

What I wish (and appears my wish is granted) is that the courts cannot order me to participate in a celebration of a behavior I find abhorrent.

[Taxcontrol]

So if a business doesn't want to serve blacks, latinos or disabled folks, it has no obligation to do so in your view?

[...]

Correct. 
Forcing people to do something against their will is a form of slavery.  Further, if the government wants a house to be rented to a particular group against the owner's wishes, there are provisions in the Constitution that allow the government to pay a fair price an take the property.

[Oceander]

Correct. 
Forcing people to do something against their will is a form of slavery.  Further, if the government wants a house to be rented to a particular group against the owner's wishes, there are provisions in the Constitution that allow the government to pay a fair price an take the property.

You're right, heck, forcing someone to live up to their promises is slavery, so we should do away with things like contract law.  Same thing with private property laws: they allow the government to force peapple to do things they don't want to do (like cease trespassing). 

[Taxcontrol]

You're right, heck, forcing someone to live up to their promises is slavery, so we should do away with things like contract law.  Same thing with private property laws: they allow the government to force peapple to do things they don't want to do (like cease trespassing).

You present a totally convoluted attempt at moral equivalency.
If someone makes a promise (contract law) they are willing participants thus your analogy fails.
Trespass laws enforce the right of the property owner to determine how their property is going to be used.  So again, your analogy fails.

But lets take a closer look at your last example.  If I as the property owner have the right to protect the use of my property via trespass laws, what gives the government the right to then take away that right without compensation for the seizing of that property? 

Nothing.

If the government is going to exercise the rights of the property owner of a house, a car or a business and dictate how those rights are to be expressed, the government has de facto taken that property.  Now the government can do that.  However it OWES the owner of that property just compensation under the Constitution.

[roamer_1]

First amendment freedom of religion aside, this is also a first amendment freedom of right of the people peaceably to assemble.  One of the reasons people assemble is for the purpose of conducting business.  And if one has a right, one also has the opposite.  If you have the right to speech, you also have the right to not speak.  So if one has the freedom to peacefully assemble for the purpose of business, you also have the right to NOT assemble for business.

Laws based upon the concept of "public accommodation" are demonstrably a violation of this principle and are unconstitutional.  They are constructed from PC correctness "cloth" and in my opinion should be struck down as unconstitutional.

QFT.
As a business owner, either I have freedom of association, or I am not freely conducting business.
If I don't want to do business with you, and tell you to GTFO my property, for any reason other than breach of contract, there should be *no* recourse.

Even in matters of race, which is the beginning of all of this.
Let the market decide.

If a guy want's to hang a sign saying no XXX and XXX allowed, then so be it.
It is certainly asinine to do so, as another business will certainly rise up to serve those offended, but the point in order is that the businessman necessarily has the right to make his own decisions.
It is an astonishingly bad decision in most cases, but especially, where religious convictions are in focus (debriding the strict language against feds making any law) there is no way a man should be forced to work against his own beliefs.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You're right, heck, forcing someone to live up to their promises is slavery, so we should do away with things like contract law.  Same thing with private property laws: they allow the government to force peapple to do things they don't want to do (like cease trespassing).

What is the 'promise' that the baker in question made?

Be specific.  We want to know what it is that was promised.  You are advocating that some type of contract was made by a guy opening a store with goods. 

[Free Vulcan]

Sexual orientation does not equate to race.

Exactly. Race is simply a state of being. You are black, white, etc 24/7/365. You can do, or not do anything, be dead or alive, and still be that race.

You are only 'gay' when it comes to the bedroom. It is an act, or a choice, but it's not a culture or a state of being. These bakers didn't refuse to serve them, just protested a particular act that they deeply don't agree with.

If they must serve them for their wedding, then they must serve Satanist or any other religious marriage, or some 32 y/o guy marrying a 16 y/o girl, or two 'transsexuals' getting married.

That is a huge difference between that an not serving someone because of their race.

[Smokin Joe]

What is the 'promise' that the baker in question made?

Be specific.  We want to know what it is that was promised.  You are advocating that some type of contract was made by a guy opening a store with goods.

The prospective customers were not refused ordinary services. Any of the regularly made products were available to them. Ordinary baked goods. The Bakers also created one-off cakes for birthdays, special occasions and traditional marriages.
What the offended folks wanted was a one-off creation celebrating a same-sex "marriage".
That is a service the bakers did not provide, because they have a religious objection to that premise.

No promise to provide such a product is expressed nor implied, imho. Creative efforts should be at the discretion of the person creating. They are a form of speech and should not be subject to coercion.

Would you force a pro-life printer to print posters celebrating abortion?

[Jazzhead]

That twists the issue. The business would sell products to anyone. They refused to create a product (special order) that went against their religious beliefs.

It's a business, not a church.  If they advertise wedding cakes, then they shouldn't discriminate among their customers. 

[Smokin Joe]

It's a business, not a church.  If they advertise wedding cakes, then they shouldn't discriminate among their customers.

A printer advertises printing. Would you compel them to print something they found offensive?

Creating a wedding cake isn't just another batch of cookies, it is an art.
Would you compel a painter to paint pictures/images they found offensive?
Would you force a writer to laud that which they found abhorrent?
Why would you force someone to make an edible celebration of something they found to be an abomination?

If the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech (and by extension, expression), then there is no way someone can be forced to lend even tacit approval to that which they object.
They have a right to not express themselves as well.

[Free Vulcan]

A printer advertises printing. Would you compel them to print something they found offensive?

Creating a wedding cake isn't just another batch of cookies, it is an art.
Would you compel a painter to paint pictures/images they found offensive?
Would you force a writer to laud that which they found abhorrent?
Why would you force someone to make an edible celebration of something they found to be an abomination?

If the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech (and by extension, expression), then there is no way someone can be forced to lend even tacit approval to that which they object.
They have a right to not express themselves as well.

I believe the 5th Circuit ruled that words on such products could not be compelled. I'm sure that symbols could be included in that.

If I were the baker I'd bake them a plain cake with icing of the color they want, and stop there.

[Jazzhead]

Why would you force someone to make an edible celebration of something they found to be an abomination?

Like I said, if they advertise they make wedding cakes, then they should not discriminate among their customers.   There's nothing complicated here.  They can certainly decline to make wedding cakes (or, more specifically, custom wedding cakes).  I believe that this is what the Colorado baker in fact does -  he states on his website that he won't take orders for customized wedding cakes. 

[Smokin Joe]

Like I said, if they advertise they make wedding cakes, then they should not discriminate among their customers.   There's nothing complicated here.  They can certainly decline to make wedding cakes (or, more specifically, custom wedding cakes).  I believe that this is what the Colorado baker in fact does -  he states on his website that he won't take orders for customized wedding cakes.

But he didn't say he'd necessarily take ANY order. I would wager that after being threatened with loss of assets over simply standing up for his beliefs, he won't make any wedding cakes at this time, won't take ANY orders.
That's wrong, though,because his ability to create freely has been curtailed by the tyranny of people who could have simply found some other baker to bake their cake. They have robbed him of a creative outlet and revenue through their actions, not to mention cost him considerably in defending his freedom to believe and create as he sees fit.
This flies in the face of the First Amendment in both the freedom of religion (the basis for his refusal) and the freedom of speech (expression). I hope the baker wins, and what's more, I hope the Supremes open the way for him to recover damages.
You, sir, are one who would compel a carpenter to build the scaffold he is to be hanged on.

[roamer_1]

Like I said, if they advertise they make wedding cakes, then they should not discriminate among their customers.   

I advertise computer services, and I discriminate among my customers all the time. For any number of reasons.

One particularly was a laptop that I took in. Once I opened it, I found a pentagram and several wiccan symbols. I closed it up threw it on the shelf, and called them to come pick it up.

I ain't gonna work on that. Let em go find a satanic computer tech. No fault, no foul.

[Jazzhead]

This flies in the face of the First Amendment in both the freedom of religion (the basis for his refusal) and the freedom of speech (expression). I hope the baker wins, and what's more, I hope the Supremes open the way for him to recover damages.
You, sir, are one who would compel a carpenter to build the scaffold he is to be hanged on.

What loss of freedom?  He can choose freely whether to make custom wedding cakes.  All that the community requires is that if he's going to advertise such services, he not discriminate among his customers.  His religious freedom isn't at stake here - just his freedom to discriminate in the conduct of a public accommodation.   

[Free Vulcan]

What loss of freedom?  He can choose freely whether to make custom wedding cakes.  All that the community requires is that if he's going to advertise such services, he not discriminate among his customers.  His religious freedom isn't at stake here - just his freedom to discriminate in the conduct of a public accommodation.

'All the community requires' is not a sufficient legal test.

[Restored]

You have the right to refuse service based on a variety of factors. No shirt, no shows, no service. A Muslim bakery can refuse to make a cake for a Zionist organization. A Jewish bakery can do the same for a Nazi organization. I'm sure a liberal would believe they can refuse MAGA products.

They didn't refuse because the couple were gay. They refused because they opposed that type of political entity. If the couple had been two hetero men, it still would have been refused.

[Smokin Joe]

What loss of freedom?  He can choose freely whether to make custom wedding cakes.  All that the community requires is that if he's going to advertise such services, he not discriminate among his customers.  His religious freedom isn't at stake here - just his freedom to discriminate in the conduct of a public accommodation.

His freedom to believe as he believes is at stake. His freedom to NOT produce something which conflicts with his religious beliefs is at stake. I believe the freedom to NOT say something is just as essential to the First Amendment as the freedom to do it--in fact, that was the basis the atheists used to remove prayer from schools.
So he has the freedom to NOT create as much as the freedom TO create, based on his beliefs.

It isn't kicking someone off a bus, or making them use the other water fountain. This is a private business, and doing private deals with people to create that which the baker saw fit to create. If, for any reason, and especially a religious one, he saw a reason to NOT bake a cake, he has the RIGHT to refuse to do so.
Suppose the couple had been Satanists, and wanted a cake reflecting those beliefs, would you force the Christian baker to make it?
Or would you force a Jewish Baker bake cakes for neo-Nazi get-togethers?

[The_Reader_David]

What loss of freedom?  He can choose freely whether to make custom wedding cakes.  All that the community requires is that if he's going to advertise such services, he not discriminate among his customers.  His religious freedom isn't at stake here - just his freedom to discriminate in the conduct of a public accommodation.

Your expansion of "public  accommodation" to include all business and professional activity puts your view of civil rights law at variance with not just the First, but the Thirteenth Amendment.  Accepting commissions to produce works of art is not a public accommodation.  Custom decorated cakes may not be high art, but they are works of art nonetheless. 

The printmaker who refuses a commission to design poster with the message "Kill Whitey" is not discriminating on the basis of race against the black man who requested the poster.  The printmaker who will sell no posters to black customers is.   I leave you to fill in the analogy with the message of cake "celebrating" what the baker's religiously informed conscience regarded as an abomination and his willingness to sell the same customer a birthday cake or an undecorated cake.