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

I agree with you on many things but one thing Americans should agree on is that not one of us should have to associate, fraternize with, nor do business with ANYONE we find unsavory. The reason matters not, it's free will and personal choice. Eff the government telling us otherwise. It's a free country and free will shall NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

The answer is a YES!! if they cater parties to others. If they were smart, they can say their schedules are full, or charge an obscene fee.

I know you are trying to get at a "gotcha" moment, but that won't happen because apparently, you are blissfully unaware of this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4157454/Taxi-driver-refused-pick-blind-dog.html

 

If you paid my hourly minimum, I'd be happy to.

But if you're sincere in wanting to understand, read this thread from the beginning.

With an open mind and heart.

 

In the case of a bakery - one that serves the public - this freedom has limits, as does free speech.

The CA judge got it wrong in several ways, but it's complicated.

 

The answers vary, but these specific what ifs have been beaten to death; people need to read what's been written in this thread.

 

Please point out what he got wrong.

 

So you can t back up what you said………………… gotcha

 

Protections outweigh the limits.

 

Of course you would say that. Too bad for you its not.

There is no public accommodation for homosexuals in the Constitution. Period, end of story.

There is protection for religious freedom. It really doesn't matter if you agree with them or not state law cannot trump federal law.

You cannot force someone with a religious objection to participate in your wedding in any capacity.

 

When and if you're ready to understand, you'll read the threads and understand.

 

SCOTUS will sort it out.

 

No.

 

Let's see what SCOTUS says.

 

You will be disappointed. Not even Kennedy will back the far left this time.

Too bad he went along with them last time and fabricated a right that doesn't exist in the Constitution.

 

I think one of us may be disappointed.

 

Bumping in light of deeply flawed, premature ruling by Lampe.

 

You will notice religion and religious practice is a protected class by not only the First Amendment to the Constitution as a constitutional right but also Codified in the Civil Rights Act. Alas LGBT is simply not there. That puts them in the same category as folks with red hair or thick mustaches and bushy eyebrows.

 

No.

SCOTUS will sort it out.

 

Incorrect. First off "perverse" is a subjective value, thus it holds no objective standards. Secondly, for the majority, it is ensuring that those who are in these "perverse relationships" (that is what they used to call interracial relationships, for the record) are not mistreated by others who do not like those relationships.

That said, I do hold the position that any private business can deny any service/product for any reason. However that is the owner's decision, not a manager's or worker's. So that pharmacist many years ago denying to fill a Plan B prescription was doubly in the wrong. First because he worked for someone else who did not share his position, and secondly because he refused to return the unfilled prescription which was theft.

 

Disregard. Answered later. Sadly this program doesn't allow for deletion of posts within the same period as editing. Mods is this a setting, or a lack of a feature by the programmers?

 

The biggest problem with this is that for some reason it has been determined that a private business is not private. It's a "public accommodation". "If you don't want to do business with the public, don't open up a business to the public." But all that is allowed is a so called public business. A person opens up a business to do business with whom he wants. It is the legal fiction that has been made into law that says it is otherwise.

 

Sadly for you, you are wrong. Homosexuals, transsexuals, and well everyone, are due equal protections and coverage under the law. That is why any marriage laws has to apply to all people regardless of their sex, gender identity, sexual identity, or anything other than being able to provide informed consent.

Actually the key phrase here is knowingly participate. As noted in other places, if there is a cake on the shelf and they simply buy it, and the baker doesn't know it is for a gay wedding, he has been made to participate. At least in some minds.

 

So, not only did they "not build that", but now you also want to force them to accept any work the public desires...

Support slavery much?

 

I'm conservative, and I generally agree with this.

My fear, as a business owner, is that the government involves itself in the agreements my business enters into to deliver services.

That is also a slippery slope. How long before they start forcing me to deliver services to the impoverished, at a rate they can afford.

Just as easily as this baker could have baked a cake, the couple could have went to another bakery.

 

You do realize that all businesses are owned by people, and all staff are people. Right?