The Left's Latest Obsession: Buying a Cake

[roamer_1]

Except in the case where a promise is actually made - Coupons as an instance.

BY the way, just because someone has a coupon does not entitle him to enter my establishment, nor does it oblige me to enter into business with him - Only that IF I choose to do business with him, I must honor the price according to the coupon.

[Jazzhead]

I think what @Jazzhead is saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the mere advertising of a service equals a contract.  I'm not sure how else his argument would work.

There's no formal "contract" between a shopkeeper and a customer.  But if the shopkeeper advertises a good for a certain price, he may be obliged to honor that price.   More to the point, the anti-discrimination rules that apply to so-called "public accommodations"  require that, if you advertise a product or service to the general public, them you must offer it to all customers without regard to race, gender and (as is relevant here) sexual orientation.    That doesn't mean you can't discriminate on some other basis (the baker can refuse to place an offensive message on a cake),  or that you cannot limit what you sell to the general public (a Jewish butcher can decline to sell pork),  but if you say you make wedding cakes,  you can't refuse to sell a wedding cake to your black customers or (in Colorado) your gay ones.

This is where Mr. Phillips appears to be making his stand,  and where I predict he will be found to have violated Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.   He can't pick and choose which customers he will sell wedding cakes to,  at least not on the basis of the mere sexual orientation of his customer.     

[Jazzhead]

BY the way, just because someone has a coupon does not entitle him to enter my establishment, nor does it oblige me to enter into business with him - Only that IF I choose to do business with him, I must honor the price according to the coupon.

Depends on whether you operate a "public accommodation".   If you do,  you cannot arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic.    Sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic in all places.   

[Hoodat]

BY the way, just because someone has a coupon does not entitle him to enter my establishment, nor does it oblige me to enter into business with him - Only that IF I choose to do business with him, I must honor the price according to the coupon.

Even then, you don't have to honor the price of the coupon.  It's just poor business practice not to honor it.  One time, Office Depot erroneously advertised a network printer for $45 (regular price $1,200).  Do you think they honored that price when I ordered one?  No.

[Hoodat]

There's no formal "contract" between a shopkeeper and a customer.  But if the shopkeeper advertises a good for a certain price, he may be obliged to honor that price.

The key problem here is that the shopkeeper never advertised making wedding cakes for anything other than a marriage between one man and one woman (regardless of sexual preference).  But then you knew that already.  And no, you do not get to define the shopkeeper's definition of 'marriage'.

More to the point, the anti-discrimination rules that apply to so-called "public accommodations"  require that, if you advertise a product or service to the general public, them you must offer it to all customers without regard to race, gender and (as is relevant here) sexual orientation.

My, how far we have now strayed from the Constitution.  It's quite comical to see you argue how Colorado law trumps the Constitution when you argue the exact opposite when it comes to Roe.

btw, there was no discrimination based on sexual orientation, as the original Colorado court transcript clearly shows.  But then you knew that already.

This is where Mr. Phillips appears to be making his stand,  and where I predict he will be found to have violated Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.   He can't pick and choose which customers he will sell wedding cakes to,  at least not on the basis of the mere sexual orientation of his customer.   

At no time did Phillips ever discriminate against any customer based on sexual orientation.  The court record clearly shows that he refused the same-gender wedding cake request of both heterosexual and homosexual customers.  But then you knew that already before you posted something so blatantly untrue.

[roamer_1]

Depends on whether you operate a "public accommodation".   If you do,  you cannot arbitrarily discriminate on the basis of a protected characteristic.    Sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic in all places.   

And that's the problem. Who is the decider?
'Public accommodation' used to be restaurants and hotels. Now it is any retail space. Next it will be any business anywhere.

No. A businessman should be free to associate with anyone ha wants to, and discriminate against anyone any way he wants to.

His business is an extension of his person and his property. If you don't like it, there's the door. Go take your business somewhere else.

ANYTHING else is coercion.

[goatprairie]

There's no formal "contract" between a shopkeeper and a customer.  But if the shopkeeper advertises a good for a certain price, he may be obliged to honor that price.   More to the point, the anti-discrimination rules that apply to so-called "public accommodations"  require that, if you advertise a product or service to the general public, them you must offer it to all customers without regard to race, gender and (as is relevant here) sexual orientation.    That doesn't mean you can't discriminate on some other basis (the baker can refuse to place an offensive message on a cake),  or that you cannot limit what you sell to the general public (a Jewish butcher can decline to sell pork),  but if you say you make wedding cakes,  you can't refuse to sell a wedding cake to your black customers or (in Colorado) your gay ones.

This is where Mr. Phillips appears to be making his stand,  and where I predict he will be found to have violated Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.   He can't pick and choose which customers he will sell wedding cakes to,  at least not on the basis of the mere sexual orientation of his customer.   

"He can't pick and choose which customers he will sell wedding cakes to,"

All businesses discriminate against certain customers in whatever products they sell. They are allowed to do so by law.
I cannot demand any business provide me with a product I desire. I can only request it.
If the cake baker refuses to sell any of his products to homosexual customers, he is discriminating against them. He is not. He is just refusing to bake a certain kind of product i.e. cake for them.
As is his right.
They must go elsewhere for their specially designed cake or bake it themselves.

[Cyber Liberty]

An ad saying 'Hi, I fix widgets' merely attempts to attract business - It does not obligate either party to engage in business.

Apparently it does in the modern, now a-go-go days, since the Civil Rights Act and a couple of leftist activist court decisions.  You old-fashioned bigot.   

It's been Hell to pay ever since somebody decided interfering with the right of association was a swell thing to do.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No matter how many drumbeats certain members here try to beat, this matter has been decided previously that the state entity supposedly protecting Civil Rights was in fact taking away Civil Rights of a business owner.

Now a setup is in progress, where the new 'victim', an attorney with her own law practice and former County Attorney decided for no other reason than to once again torment this baker by purposely setting up a particular trap to spring it on him.

The 'victim' should be disbarred for life for this endeavor, and prosecuted herself.

[Cyber Liberty]

No matter how many drumbeats certain members here try to beat, this matter has been decided previously that the state entity supposedly protecting Civil Rights was in fact taking away Civil Rights of a business owner.

Now a setup is in progress, where the new 'victim', an attorney with her own law practice and former County Attorney decided for no other reason than to once again torment this baker by purposely setting up a particular trap to spring it on him.

The 'victim' should be disbarred for life for this endeavor, and prosecuted herself.

In a just world, yes. No doubt in my mind.  But...IANAL.  Who knows what will happen?

[Sanguine]

No matter how many drumbeats certain members here try to beat, this matter has been decided previously that the state entity supposedly protecting Civil Rights was in fact taking away Civil Rights of a business owner.

Now a setup is in progress, where the new 'victim', an attorney with her own law practice and former County Attorney decided for no other reason than to once again torment this baker by purposely setting up a particular trap to spring it on him.

The 'victim' should be disbarred for life for this endeavor, and prosecuted herself.

I think her is a him.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think her is a him.

You may be right, but damn if I will try to find out.

[Wingnut]

You may be right, but damn if I will try to find out.

Good man.  Made the right choice.

[Jazzhead]

Now a setup is in progress

Of course a set-up is in progress.   The SCOTUS punted on the question of whether Phillips'  religious freedom allows him to discriminate.   Phillips keeps on discriminating,  and this lawyer sees a chance to make a name for herself.   

It is a shame - not least of all for Phillips -  that the SCOTUS was too timid to answer the question asked.   

[jmyrlefuller]

I think it is Matt Walsh, who has a recent article out, claiming that the LBGTQ community is not nearly as oppressed as it says it is.
His logic is that they cannot be, if their main objections are who makes cakes and chicken sandwiches.

Buoyed by very few accidental pregnancies, they are one of the most prosperous demographics in America. They don't call it "pink money" for no reason.

[goatprairie]

I think it is Matt Walsh, who has a recent article out, claiming that the LBGTQ community is not nearly as oppressed as it says it is.
His logic is that they cannot be, if their main objections are who makes cakes and chicken sandwiches.

There is money to be made by being "victims."
Every group that claims it is oppressed by straight, white males is  doing very well or at least better than in the old days.
But you still get many wealthy women claiming women are an oppressed class when young women in school are doing better than males in college and exceeding their pay in many professions.
Homosexuals still claim they're oppressed when you have cities holding parades for them and presidents and governors displaying their flag.
The facts are neither blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics, or women are oppressed.  But many unscrupulous pols seeking to gain office have a lot of money invested in persuading those groups that they're still oppressed.

[Hoodat]

The SCOTUS punted on the question of whether Phillips'  religious freedom allows him to discriminate.

Seeing how no one was discriminated against, it makes sense that the court ruled the way they did.  Kinda hard to issue a ruling that allows discrimination when no discrimination occurred.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Seeing how no one was discriminated against, it makes sense that the court ruled the way they did.  Kinda hard to issue a ruling that allows discrimination when no discrimination occurred.

No discrimination occurred?
I thought Scotus ruled the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in fact did discriminate against Phillips.

Did I misread the opinion?

[Smokin Joe]

Exactly wrong.
A business man can refuse service for any reason whatsoever.
The entire backbone of property rights is founded in the free and voluntary exchange between two people.
The moment it is forced, it is no longer free or voluntary.

Yep.

But when you say that, there is the logical disconnect of Obamacare....

[Smokin Joe]

Of course a set-up is in progress.   The SCOTUS punted on the question of whether Phillips'  religious freedom allows him to discriminate.   Phillips keeps on discriminating,  and this lawyer sees a chance to make a name for herself.   

It is a shame - not least of all for Phillips -  that the SCOTUS was too timid to answer the question asked.

Does Phillips have a Right to his religious beliefs? Why, yes, Yes he does. He also has a Right to not be compelled to make things, to create custom work in violation of those beliefs if he does not want to.

There are plenty of other cake bakers who will make what these people want. They only want to force someone to go against their beliefs.

THat's wrong.

It isn't as if there aren't any GLBTQWTF bakers out there.

[goatprairie]

Does Phillips have a Right to his religious beliefs? Why, yes, Yes he does. He also has a Right to not be compelled to make things, to create custom work in violation of those beliefs if he does not want to.

There are plenty of other cake bakers who will make what these people want. They only want to force someone to go against their beliefs.

THat's wrong.

It isn't as if there aren't any GLBTQWTF bakers out there.

"There are plenty of other cake bakers who will make what these people want. They only want to force someone to go against their belief"

That's the whole thing. I just can't get over some of the people on this forum who think they have the right to order some business to make them something the business doesn't want to make.
I simply have no right to order any business, big or small, to make me something they don't want to make. That goes for cakes, the way you like your eggs,  the color of the paint on your car, or  a million other things.
 Nobody has the right to force a business to make them something the business doesn't want to make.

[Smokin Joe]

"There are plenty of other cake bakers who will make what these people want. They only want to force someone to go against their belief"

That's the whole thing. I just can't get over some of the people on this forum who think they have the right to order some business to make them something the business doesn't want to make.
I simply have no right to order any business, big or small, to make me something they don't want to make. That goes for cakes, the way you like your eggs,  the color of the paint on your car, or  a million other things.
 Nobody has the right to force a business to make them something the business doesn't want to make.

For whatever reason--or no reason at all, the business has the Right to say "no".
This is a cake, and all histrionics aside, not a matter of life or death.
The one industry we don't allow to say 'no' is that of emergency medicine, and even then, we triage groups of patients who come in at the same time.