SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[Teallaura]

Could you cite an example please, Tea?

I did already - the three cases cited by the Court in the Colorado decision. The Colorado Commission permitted gay bakers to refuse to make cakes that protested gay marriage in two of the three (the third was a racist message as I recall).

The one issue has nothing to do with the other, they are separate issues Tea. We are free to associate with anyone we like, but there are also rules regulating business in the public square. Serving the public doesn't mean you have to hang out with them. You know, we have to use a bit of common sense when interpreting the Constitution, everything can't be spelled out for us in minute detail. The problem is that when it isn't spelled out, like lawyers exploiting loopholes in the law, agenda driven people exploit the lack of detail in the Constitution.

Jim, the Court says otherwise - the decisions that allowed the CRA specifically addressed the issue of the Right of Associateion (First Amendment) and set it aside because the Court believed that there was no other way to ensure the immediate civil rights of African Americans. This isn't merely my opinion - it is what the Supreme Court ITSELF said - and a highly liberal Court (Warren, as I recall) at that.

Nope, there is no such wording in the CRA, it is about discrimination period. It's silly to argue that discrimination is okay in some instances so long as everyone isn't discriminating.

It's the opinion of the Court paraphrased, not the wording of the CRA - and it is too what the Court said.

That's just silly. People choose to go into business to make money knowing full well that there are civil rules that need be adhered to. To equate that with slavery, which i see conservatives doing all the time, is just ridiculous.

It is identical to eminent domain in which compensation is made but the property is seized despite the wishes of the owner - you are forcing people to do what they chose NOT to - strange how choice is okay when it corresponds to liberal ideology but not when it doesn't.

[JimL]

I did already - the three cases cited by the Court in the Colorado decision. The Colorado Commission permitted gay bakers to refuse to make cakes that protested gay marriage in two of the three (the third was a racist message as I recall).

I can't find it, I'd appreciate a link if you have one. I also believe that would be considered to be hate speech so I wouldn't equate that with discrimination against the customer.

Jim, the Court says otherwise - the decisions that allowed the CRA specifically addressed the issue of the Right of Associateion (First Amendment) and set it aside because the Court believed that there was no other way to ensure the immediate civil rights of African Americans. This isn't merely my opinion - it is what the Supreme Court ITSELF said - and a highly liberal Court (Warren, as I recall) at that.

They addressed "The Right of Association" and set it aside Tea, why they set it aside you are making up. They set it aside because it is irrelevant to the issue of consumer discrimination in the public square.

It's the opinion of the Court paraphrased, not the wording of the CRA - and it is too what the Court said.

So your saying that it was the opinion of the court that it is okay for business's to discriminate, so long as not all business's discriminate? That doesn't even make sense Tea.

[Sparko]

No, because the rights of Evangelicals do not supersede the rights of the rest of the citizenry as per the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which guarantee ALL citizens equal protection of the law.

You really don't understand the constitution.

All citizens DO have the same right to exercise their religion.

[oxmixmudd]

That's just silly. People choose to go into business to make money knowing full well that there are civil rules that need be adhered to. To equate that with slavery, which i see conservatives doing all the time, is just ridiculous.

This is not an issue of who to serve, but what to create. So I make custom bicycles. Must I now make an arm powered recumbent because a paraplegic comes into my shop and I don't want to make such a thing? Suppose I think it's really not a very safe product? Suppose I just don't have the skills or supplies to make it? No, he says, I am discriminating against paraplegics by not providing such a bike. Then he sues me and I go out of business. This is the insane world you think you want to be a reality (Until of course you go into business and someone is able to define a product you don't want to or can't afford to make as 'discriminatory')

A man goes into business to make a product and a profit. Is it practical, right, good, or even legal to force him to make a product that services all possible needs for that type of product? The obvious honest answer is no. Can you be honest about it when you know the obvious application in the same-sex wedding cake scenario is in line with the SCOTUS decision?

But such a ridiculous requirement is ultimately where you are headed. That is the effective slavery your ideas would subject all of us to. If a person can define my wish not to create a product as some sort of discrimination (whether or not is actually is), you believe they have the right to make me create it whether I want to, can afford to, or am even capable of creating it.

As I've said so many times before in this thread, that is tyranny and violates half the constitution at least.


Jim

[Joel]

We are free to associate with anyone we like, but there are also rules regulating business in the public square.

It's bizarre how so many people forget about the necessity of consent for human intercourse, when it involves people trading with each other.

You have no more right to engage in trade with a non-consenting person than to engage in sexual intercourse with a non-consenting person.

It's silly to argue that discrimination is okay in some instances so long as everyone isn't discriminating.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that prejudicial discrimination is okay.
To argue that it should be legal is not to argue that it is "okay". Teallaura isn't arguing that it's "okay" so long as everyone isn't discriminating.

[Sparko]

This is not an issue of who to serve, but what to create. So I make custom bicycles. Must I now make an arm powered recumbent because a paraplegic comes into my shop and I don't want to make such a thing? Suppose I think it's really not a very safe product? Suppose I just don't have the skills or supplies to make it? No, he says, I am discriminating against paraplegics by not providing such a bike. Then he sues me and I go out of business. This is the insane world you think you want to be a reality (Until of course you go into business and someone is able to define a product you don't want to or can't afford to make as 'discriminatory')

A man goes into business to make a product and a profit. Is it practical, right, good, or even legal to force him to make a product that services all possible needs for that type of product? The obvious honest answer is no. Can you be honest about it when you know the obvious application in the same-sex wedding cake scenario is in line with the SCOTUS decision?

But such a ridiculous requirement is ultimately where you are headed. That is the effective slavery your ideas would subject all of us to. If a person can define my wish not to create a product as some sort of discrimination (whether or not is actually is), you believe they have the right to make me create it whether I want to, can afford to, or am even capable of creating it.

As I've said so many times before in this thread, that is tyranny and violates half the constitution at least.


Jim

JimL only wants that kind of force used against people he doesn't agree with. He is fine with Sarah Sanders being refused service because of her Job and Political affiliations. Don't expect consistency from JimL.

[Teallaura]

I can't find it, I'd appreciate a link if you have one. I also believe that would be considered to be hate speech so I wouldn't equate that with discrimination against the customer.

Stole it from Joel.

They addressed "The Right of Association" and set it aside Tea, why they set it aside you are making up. They set it aside because it is irrelevant to the issue of consumer discrimination in the public square.

Total rubbish - it's been a while but I HAVE read the case. The Court recognized that the CRA violated the First Amendment yet allowed it to go forward on the basis that there was no other solution AND with the expectation that it would someday be overturned.

The CRA and its supporting legislation/cases ARE the basis for the ENTIRE legal argument - without it there is no basis in law for the rights of the consumer to over rule the rights of the seller. When the CRA goes, so does the rest of the house of cards it's based on. That non-discrimination clause we grew up reading? Straight from the CRA of 1964.

So your saying that it was the opinion of the court that it is okay for business's to discriminate, so long as not all business's discriminate? That doesn't even make sense Tea.

No, that isn't what the Court said - or what I said the Court said - the Court found that in the cases outlined in the CRA (race, gender, nationality and creed) a business that is open to the public could not refuse service to anyone in any of those protected classes. BUT it also stated that this was in fact a violation of the First Amendment's right of Free Association - and that the exception was justified because blacks especially would not be able to receive fair service or compete commercially without it. The Court also went on to say it expected the CRA to be temporary on the basis that it really did violate the First Amendment and was only a intermediate solution to an untenable civil rights problem.

[JimL]

This is not an issue of who to serve, but what to create. So I make custom bicycles. Must I now make an arm powered recumbent because a paraplegic comes into my shop and I don't want to make such a thing? Suppose I think it's really not a very safe product? Suppose I just don't have the skills or supplies to make it? No, he says, I am discriminating against paraplegics by not providing such a bike. Then he sues me and I go out of business. This is the insane world you think you want to be a reality (Until of course you go into business and someone is able to define a product you don't want to or can't afford to make as 'discriminatory')

A man goes into business to make a product and a profit. Is it practical, right, good, or even legal to force him to make a product that services all possible needs for that type of product? The obvious honest answer is no. Can you be honest about it when you know the obvious application in the same-sex wedding cake scenario is in line with the SCOTUS decision?

But such a ridiculous requirement is ultimately where you are headed. That is the effective slavery your ideas would subject all of us to. If a person can define my wish not to create a product as some sort of discrimination (whether or not is actually is), you believe they have the right to make me create it whether I want to, can afford to, or am even capable of creating it.

As I've said so many times before in this thread, that is tyranny and violates half the constitution at least.


Jim

The baker is creating a cake Jim, a wedding cake just like the cakes he creates for heterosexual marriages. To argue that he is creating something different because the customers are homsexual is bull pucky. If the baker made wedding cakes for every kind of marriage except for christians marriages all of your heads would be exploding.
Common sense tells me that the rest of your argument is nonsense. If there are legitimate non-discriminatory reasons that the business owner is unable to accomodate the particular request of the consumer, then it isn't discrimination.

[JimL]

It's bizarre how so many people forget about the necessity of consent for human intercourse, when it involves people trading with each other.

What's bizarre, it seems to me, is that you seem to forget that we have laws against discriminating against people in the public square.

You have no more right to engage in trade with a non-consenting person than to engage in sexual intercourse with a non-consenting person.

Yes, actually we do have that right, because the Tradesman consents to abide the laws of doing business as soon as he decides to do business with the public.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that prejudicial discrimination is okay.

Of course they are, how else would you describe it?

To argue that it should be legal is not to argue that it is "okay". Teallaura isn't arguing that it's "okay" so long as everyone isn't discriminating.

The way I see it Tea's argument was that the Court ruled that discrimination was okay, so long as everyone was not doing it. Apparently the problem they saw was that everyone was doing it and so the victims of discrimination had no recourse.

[JimL]

Stole it from Joel.

Great, thanks. This is just as I thought, the bakers in those other cases were being asked to engage in hate speech and the Justices used that, unjustifiably in my opinion, as evidence of bias on the part of the Colorado Civil Rights Commision against the christian baker. In the end, the decision in the Christian bakers case had nothing to do with those other cases. The SC decision simply overturned the case due to the Colorado Civil Rights Commisions not adhering to the religious neutrality required of by the Constitution when hearing the case. They apparently said some bad stuff. In other words there was no real decision concerning the specifics of the case itself. They kicked the can down the road.

Total rubbish - it's been a while but I HAVE read the case.

Sorry, but you read what case? Congress passed the CRA in 1964, and there have been many challenges to it since then. Did you read one case in which the SC ruled it to be Unconstitutional? Because I can't find it anywhere.

The Court recognized that the CRA violated the First Amendment yet allowed it to go forward on the basis that there was no other solution AND with the expectation that it would someday be overturned.

In which case was that Tea?

The CRA and its supporting legislation/cases ARE the basis for the ENTIRE legal argument - without it there is no basis in law for the rights of the consumer to over rule the rights of the seller. When the CRA goes, so does the rest of the house of cards it's based on. That non-discrimination clause we grew up reading? Straight from the CRA of 1964.

Well, the basis of your argument is that the SC ruled that the CRA of 1964 was unconstitutional and I've yet to see where you are getting that from.

No, that isn't what the Court said - or what I said the Court said - the Court found that in the cases outlined in the CRA (race, gender, nationality and creed) a business that is open to the public could not refuse service to anyone in any of those protected classes. BUT it also stated that this was in fact a violation of the First Amendment's right of Free Association - and that the exception was justified because blacks especially would not be able to receive fair service or compete commercially without it. The Court also went on to say it expected the CRA to be temporary on the basis that it really did violate the First Amendment and was only a intermediate solution to an untenable civil rights problem.

Again, in what case did the SC make this assertion and justification?

[Joel]

You have no more right to engage in trade with a non-consenting person than to engage in sexual intercourse with a non-consenting person.

Yes, actually we do have that right, because the Tradesman consents to abide the laws of doing business as soon as he decides to do business with the public.

By the same reasoning, one could justify Jus Primae Noctis. "Yes, the noblemen actually do have the right to sex with all brides, because the bride consents to abide by the marriage laws including Jus Primae Noctis, as soon as she decides to get married. So not only is this law acceptable, it is required in order to protect their rights."

[Tassman]

By the same reasoning, one could justify Jus Primae Noctis. "Yes, the noblemen actually do have the right to sex with all brides, because the bride consents to abide by the marriage laws including Jus Primae Noctis, as soon as she decides to get married. So not only is this law acceptable, it is required in order to protect their rights."

You sound envious of the Primae Noctis “rights” of noblemen in medieval times. But this is not a valid comparison, if anything it works against your argument. No one gets special rights is the argument...not even lords of the manor. This is an argument about non-discrimination in Public Accommodations as per the Civil Rights Act. The right of Christians to practice their religion does not give them privileges to discriminate against the civil rights of other citizens. All are equal under the law, no citizen is more equal than other citizens...not even Evangelicals, despite their demand for special treatment.

[seer]

You sound envious of the Primae Noctis “rights” of noblemen in medieval times. But this is not a valid comparison, if anything it works against your argument. No one gets special rights is the argument...not even lords of the manor. This is an argument about non-discrimination in Public Accommodations as per the Civil Rights Act. The right of Christians to practice their religion does not give them privileges to discriminate against the civil rights of other citizens. All are equal under the law, no citizen is more equal than other citizens...not even Evangelicals, despite their demand for special treatment.

That is bull Tass, there is no Constitutional right to my labor or service, there is a Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Just because you reference the unconstitutional Civil Rights Act that does not even include homosexual orientation does not change a thing.

[JimL]

That is bull Tass, there is no Constitutional right to my labor or service, there is a Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Just because you reference the unconstitutional Civil Rights Act that does not even include homosexual orientation does not change a thing.

There was no Constitutional right to the labor of slaves either, so apparently the Founders didn't have that in mind at the time. Besides, that's a simplistic argument, nobody is being forced to serve the public and abide the rules of Commerce thereof. It's their choice. Are you aware of the Commerce clause?

[seer]

There was no Constitutional right to the labor of slaves either, so apparently the Founders didn't have that in mind at the time. Besides, that's a simplistic argument, nobody is being forced to serve the public and abide the rules of Commerce thereof. It's their choice. Are you aware of the Commerce clause?

Right, and the Commerce clause has been bastardized to include anything and everything (see Wickard v. Filman). Free Association is the bedrock American principle, tied to the First Amendment, as is the free exercise of religion. If we follow the logic used by appealing to the Commerce clause you could make every restaurant offer a vegan menu, there would be no end to the freedoms you could impinge. They magically turned private business in to "public" accommodations, which they never were before and magically turned a business within a state, into interstate commerce.