Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay couple

Write your Congressman and tell him or her you want to change the Constitution and the Civil Rights act.

 

Here I will disagree with you. I think instead of a double standard, it will open up the ability for others to show that they do not have their protected status anymore. We are both agreed that it needs to be "good for the goose, good for the gander". The onlly detail we probably disagree on is whether that will come about from this case.

 

Sorry, I left that implied in "prohibit a religion". I will remember that you need that spelled out next time.

 

There is a named constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. There is no constitutional right to be served by a private business owner. In the case of gays, those rights are purely an invention of state and local governments.

 

Youre dishonest in these debates. Compelling a baker to bake a cake in no way "prohibit a religion". It could easily be argued that it does prohibit the free exercise of ones religion. "Prohibit a religion" implies no such thing.

 

I am not being dishonest here. My argument has been from the beginning that regardless of the reason a business owner gives, it is by his private property rights and freedom of association that he should be allowed to choose who he does and does not do business with, and that any kind of "public accommodation" laws are nothing more than legal fiction to deny him said rights in the business context.

Additionally, as noted, I was leaving implied in the phrase "prohibit a religion", the concept of prohibiting the free excercise thereof. I am guessing you didn't bother to read the thread line back very far.

 

I don't need to. Christian bakers are doing all the hard work.

Fair enough.

 

I think the specified Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion SHOULD take precedence over the right of gays to be served cake, created by state statute or city ordinance, whenever there is a conflict between the two.

And to avoid the problem in the first place, they should get rid of these laws that only provide protections for certain favored classifications of people.

 

I think a business should be free to refuse service to Christians if they are somehow flaunting their Christianity. So, for example, if a group of Christians has a prayer meeting in a public park, the government should not have the authority to force them to leave. However, if a group of Christians has a prayer meeting in a pizza shop, then the pizza owner should be permitted to demand that they leave. Likewise, if a gay couple is kissing on a park bench they cannot be ticketed or forced to leave the park; but if a couple is publicly expressing their affection in a pizza shop then once again the owner should be allowed to refuse their business and ask them to leave - straight or gay. It isn't about being a Christian or being attracted to someone, it's about how people choose to behave or carry themselves.

 

The case hasn't been heard by the SCOTUS yet.

 

I would have a problem with a business deciding what kind of speech is acceptable. They should keep their prayer meeting at an acceptable volume, just like all the other customers, but the fact that their speech involves their religion does not make it right for them to be kicked out. As far as the gay couple kissing, I guess it depends on if it was a hot lesbian couple!!!

 

Speaking with religious language is different from performing a religious ceremony (e.g., prayer meeting). What if the Christian group was performing a baptism? I mean if the pizza guy is cool with it then by all means, go ahead. But if he isn't cool with it, then the Christian behavior within his business should not be somehow protected in a place of business.

 

As it is, it will not matter if he is cool with it or not. If he removes the group because he overheard they were discussing Christianity, but they were not disrupting the other customers, he will have a problem.

 

Doubt it. These protections are usually reserved for minority religions, minority sexual preferences etc. If they had instead been Muslims, it would be presumed that the business owner was motivated by his animus towards Muslims. In the case of Christians they would presume it has nothing to do with their religion.

 

YOU CAN’T JUDGE THEM. THAT’S THEIR CULTURE!

Govt To Take Over Muslim School Where Child Died and Books Say Husbands Can Beat Wives.

 

And now comes this and as I have been saying

Forcing bakers to make gay wedding cakes violates free speech, California judge rules

A ruling in favor of a California baker who refused to design a wedding cake for a gay couple produced a potentially significant distinction that could impact future similar cases.

Kern County Judge David Lampe ruled that the state could not force Cathy Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery, to bake a cake that would go against her beliefs, according to Kern Golden Empire.


“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” the judge said in the ruling.

How did he come to that decision?
A key factor in the decision was that the cake being requested by the couple was a custom job that was not regularly sold by the bakery.

The implication is that if the couple had requested a cake that was on display and routinely sold to other customers, it would be discriminatory to refuse to sell it to a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs.

Here’s more from the ruling: “A wedding cake is not just a wedding cake in Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as centerpiece in the celebration of marriage. There could not be greater form of expressive conduct.”

The judge also noted that Miller recommended the couple go to a competitor to get their cake.

“Furthermore, here the State minimizes the fact that Miller has provided for an alternative means for potential customers to receive the product they desire through the services of another talent. The fact that Rodriguez-Del Rios (the couple) feel they will suffer indignity from Miller’s choice is not sufficient to deny constitutional protection,” the judge wrote.

What was the baker’s reaction?
“Our bakery and our family feel very blessed that the judge ruled in our favor,” Miller said. “Not to say that we want to be discriminatory, but we do need to stand up for our religious freedom and our freedom of speech.”

How did the couple respond?
The couple that sued Miller has not released a statement yet, but their attorney claimed to not be surprised by the ruling.

“This is only the beginning. It is just one battle in the war against discrimination,” the couple’s attorney said.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...s-violates-free-speech-california-judge-rules

I can well imagine the SCOTUS will issue a similar ruling.

 

They won't.

The CA judge is one sprinkle short of a cupcake.

 

I can well imagine they will as with this sound ruling. The left went too far with this one.

 

Naw.

But I won't say I told you so.

 

On what basis do you believe the SCOTUS will rule different on tne federal level?

 

Or demanding we recognize their fantasies if their preference is "none of the above".

 

So a black baker has to cater a KKK party? A Jewish Baker has to cater a Neo Nazi party? A Muslim baker has to cater a homosexual party?
Or are there exceptions to everyone but Christians?

Does a Transgender photographer have to provide services to a group wanting to raise money for a politician who proposes to pass a bathroom bill to ban "transgender" men from little girl's restrooms?

You know what this is all about. Its to force the normalization of perverse sexual relationships. Use the force of government to make it impossible for anyone to hold another opinion or object to having to celebrate aberrant relationships.

The Gaystapo working to force normal people to Orwellian Newspeak are as bad as the SA in Hitler's Germany.

 

The CA judge made many errors SCOTUS won't.

 

Read the thread; numerous what ifs have been vetted already.

 

Please point them out.