In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay

It would be a denial based on race.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident… all men are created equal.

From. the very beginning of the country, this is the foundation of the United States of America. It's amazing to me people are still trying to make excuses to discriminate… in business, no less.

 

Nope, KKK is not a protected class.

 

^Excellent post! I'd like to encourage you to post more!

 

No, it would not. And if it were, the courts would defer to the black baker.

 

There is no right of private association exception when one holds out his services to the public.

 

Let's bold the important part of Scalia's statements.

"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.

The key being that states do not have the authority to overright the religious beliefs of a private store owner to force them to accept a behavior they have a religious belief against.

"Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

That's the key part of his statement. If a law is targeting religious groups to comply with a sexual practice that goes against their religious beliefs then he would not be in favor of that law because its a violation of their 1st amendment rights which are not recended when someone opens a private business.

Gay groups have specifically targeted Christian only businesses. There is no court case anywhere that deals with another religious belief and gay customers despite a conservative on video going into a bakery owned by Muslims pretending to be gay and was refused.

 

Of course a business owner has no right of private association, including religious reasons, if he holds his product out to the public as a whole. That situation is entirely within the state legislature's authority to regulate.

 

Sorry that is not true. Its when they told him it was for a gay wedding he refused not for a specific design.

In July 2012, two men came into Jack’s bakery requesting a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting only a few seconds, Jack declined the request, saying he could not design cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies.

http://adflegal.org/detailspages/client-stories-details/jack-phillips

 

It is not in the rights of the state to deny their Constitutional first amendment rights of freedom of religion no matter what their latest pet project is.

Homosexuality is not genetic nor is it sex based. Pretending it equals either condition is to deny the most basic science.

 

That is for the state to determine, not the public. Lobby your legislature.

 

So yes, you are a fascist. You believe it's the role of the govt to decide who a business does business with.

 

Do they write KKK messages on anyones cakes? The fact of the case aren't about the decorations on the cake, but who was buying the cake. If you went into a bakery and were refused an item that they make because of your race, sex, religion, and in some states, sexual orientation then you have a case.

 

Please show me the part of Colorados public accommodation law that directly targets any religious belief.
http://www.lpdirect.net/casb/crs/24-34-601.html

 

They are *both* private establishments serving a pre-designated clientele!

Go back and reread the thread!

 

Then the US is a fascist country because we've had public accommodation laws and business practices for half a century.
So yes, your post is asinine. Gods. Think, then post.

 

Try rereading what I wrote.

"The baker in this case told them that he would not make any cake for their wedding before hearing about the design that they wanted."

The baker want's to claim he didn't deny them due to their sexual orientation, but because of freedom of speech.
"This mandate violates one of the Free Speech Clause’s essential rules: the government cannot compel a private citizen “to utter what is not in his mind.”
He is not being asked to utter anything. He didn't even know if they wanted words written on the cake. If they wanted "gay is great" I would agree that he shouldn't have to write that. If they wanted a white cake with sugar flowers as he has made before, then no speech is required verbally or in writing. Then there is the question of is the speech his or the customers.

He is hinging this defense on 3 other CO cases that found that bakeries could refuse messages, but all three of those cases were about actually writing specific words on the cakes, and all bakers said that they would not do cakes like that for anyone so they were not discriminating against a group, but they did not offer that cake. Phillips DID offer wedding cakes so he can not claim that it was a design that he would not make, since he did not know the design wanted, nor can he claim that it was not a cake that he offered since he DID offer wedding cakes.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-cert-petition.pdf

He can not claim it's not discrimination since he would sell them other items either since the law states
"It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation"
He offers the service of making wedding cakes.
It's the same thing as Piggy park claiming that they did not discriminate based on race since they would still serve blacks, just not inside the restaurant.

 

Who is saying we are not a big government progressive country of fascistic private-public accomodation?

 

A good point, but still doesn't change the fact that the govt is deciding who a private business is doing business with.

 

I used a sole grocery store in a small town as my example to demonstrate what can happen when businesses open to the public are allowed to discriminate for any reason they choose. There's a reason we have laws against discrimination in businesses open to the public.

A private grocery store is perfectly legitimate business, yes. When I was a young child in the 60s, there were private grocery stores. I remember two in Memphis- Dixiemart and Carondelet- in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement. They have long since gone out of business.

 

He did not refuse to serve gay patrons, he is refusing to craft something for a gay ceremony. Just like a sculptor refusing to produce a statue of Jefferson Davis is not discriminating against white people or Southerners.

 

Then he was in violation of the law for not providing all goods and services offered on a non discriminatory manner. HE was not refusing to make wedding cakes because he was against weddings since he offered wedding cakes. He was refusing a wedding cake based on the sexual orientation of the people buying the cake. If he would sell a three tier white cake with flowers on to couple A but not to couple B then he is not discriminating on the basis of the cake design, but on who is purchasing the cake.

If a sculptor doesn't make a Jefferson Davis sculpture to person A or person B then he is not discriminating against the customer, he simply does not offer sculptures of Jefferson Davis. No one is trying to force the shop to offer something that they don't sell. The baker sold wedding cakes, he chose to sell wedding cakes, he can discriminate as to whom he sells those cakes that he chose to offer.

 

The baker involved in the gay situation had baked cakes for gays many times. In fact, the gay couple were good friends and frequent customers of the baker. The baker had no problem baking cakes for gays.

The baker only objected to baking a gay wedding cake, because of his religious values.

 

Waterboarding ISIS might be off the table but I can see a steady fare of "Sonny's BBQ" as rations as a viable solution!

 

Easily.

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,

State law does not trump the first amendment no matter how much you want it to.