SCOTUS & gay wedding cakes

[seer]

The "turning" of private businesses into public accommodations (well, more accurately, "places of public accommodation") is simply that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 happened to choose the term "public accommodation" as the descriptor for what it was affecting. It's far less of a mouthful than "establishments described in Section 201b of Title II of the Civil Rights Act". I'm unclear what the issue is in coming up with a term of convenience for the businesses that are affected by a particular law. It's no more of an invented idea than anytime a law or contract opts to define a term. It might not have even been a new term, I know that various states already had laws in place that did the same thing as Title II of the Civil Rights Act, but I'm not sure if they explicitly used the term "public accommodation".

That is the point, businesses should not have been included, it strips personal property rights, forces men by law to serve other men, undermines freedom of association, and as we have seen is now undermining the free exercise of religion. Applying the idea of public accommodation to private buisnesses is undermining Constitutional freedoms on any number of levels.

[Terraceth]

That is the point, businesses should not have been included, it strips personal property rights, forces men by law to serve other men, undermines freedom of association, and as we have seen is now undermining the free exercise of religion. Applying the idea of public accommodation to private buisnesses is undermining Constitutional freedoms on any number of levels.

Except you're shifting things. You keep talking about how they "magically" turned private businesses into public accommodations, but public accommodations was really just a term of convenience for describing a particular type of business. It's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether any regulations placed on them are constitutional. Ultimately, it's a simple case of "businesses that fulfill X criteria are required to do Y" which is fairly standard for laws; the things that are put into X and Y can make something constitutional or unconstitutional, but simply saying that there's something in X turns private businesses into something else makes no sense. You're continually appealing to something that's thoroughly irrelevant rather than making your more substantive (although, in my view, still wrong) argument that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to enact Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States was therefore decided in error.

[Tassman]

I never said it would be right or wrong, I would not discriminate against a mixed race couple (there is NO BIBLICAL justification for that). And, again the gay couple's personal freedom has nothing to do with forcing me to bake a cake for them.

Anti-miscegenation laws were claimed to be bible-based and were part of American law since before the US was established. And they remained so until ruled unconstitutional in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court. So by your argument, a cake-maker holding those views is constitutionally entitled to refuse making a wedding cake for a mix-raced couple...or for any other crack-pot religion-based theory.

That is just silly. They have the freedom to find another baker, or like my son did, make their own wedding cake. Remember which side is forcing which side here.

Why should they have to?

[Cow Poke]

Anti-miscegenation laws were claimed to be bible-based...

No. There is no biblical justification for that. Next?

[JimL]

No. There is no biblical justification for that. Next?

Of course there is. Look it up Pastor.

[Tassman]

No. There is no biblical justification for that. Next?

There are many passages that have been used to justify anti-miscegenation laws, just as there are that were used to justify slavery. The bible has historically said whatever people want it to say.

[seer]

Anti-miscegenation laws were claimed to be bible-based and were part of American law since before the US was established. And they remained so until ruled unconstitutional in 1967 by the U.S. Supreme Court. So by your argument, a cake-maker holding those views is constitutionally entitled to refuse making a wedding cake for a mix-raced couple...or for any other crack-pot religion-based theory.

I know that homosexuality is clearly defined as sin in scripture as we recently discussed, where exactly is the law of God against interracial marriage?

Why should they have to?

Because it violates the Baker's free exercise of religion. You know, the Constitution thing.

[seer]

There are many passages that have been used to justify anti-miscegenation laws, just as there are that were used to justify slavery. The bible has historically said whatever people want it to say.

Then list them Tass...

[seer]

Except you're shifting things. You keep talking about how they "magically" turned private businesses into public accommodations, but public accommodations was really just a term of convenience for describing a particular type of business.

But they are not public accommodations, they are private entities where the owner gets to choose whom he should serve or not.

It's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether any regulations placed on them are constitutional. Ultimately, it's a simple case of "businesses that fulfill X criteria are required to do Y" which is fairly standard for laws; the things that are put into X and Y can make something constitutional or unconstitutional, but simply saying that there's something in X turns private businesses into something else makes no sense. You're continually appealing to something that's thoroughly irrelevant rather than making your more substantive (although, in my view, still wrong) argument that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to enact Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States was therefore decided in error.

That is fine, but this portion of the CRA runs rough shod over any number of explicit Constitutional rights.

[Terraceth]

That is fine, but this portion of the CRA runs rough shod over any number of explicit Constitutional rights.

While one can perhaps make that argument of some subsequent legislation, I don't see that as the case in that portion of the Civil Rights Act. Similar laws had been in place for a long time on the state level without anyone ever finding them unconstitutional; the only question was whether the federal government could enact such rules, which was justified under the Commerce Clause.

[seer]

While one can perhaps make that argument of some subsequent legislation, I don't see that as the case in that portion of the Civil Rights Act. Similar laws had been in place for a long time on the state level without anyone ever finding them unconstitutional; the only question was whether the federal government could enact such rules, which was justified under the Commerce Clause.

How is forcing one man to serve another man Constitutional? Or forcing a man to violate his deeply held religions beliefs? Or ripping away the ideal of free association, just because a man hangs his shingle out? Where in our history were these things considered acceptable? Where is the previous case law? It undermines personal freedom at the most basic level.

[Cow Poke]

There are many passages that have been used to justify anti-miscegenation laws,

Give me 10.

[Joel]

Except you're shifting things. You keep talking about how they "magically" turned private businesses into public accommodations, but public accommodations was really just a term of convenience for describing a particular type of business. It's entirely irrelevant to the question of whether any regulations placed on them are constitutional. Ultimately, it's a simple case of "businesses that fulfill X criteria are required to do Y" which is fairly standard for laws; the things that are put into X and Y can make something constitutional or unconstitutional, but simply saying that there's something in X turns private businesses into something else makes no sense. You're continually appealing to something that's thoroughly irrelevant rather than making your more substantive (although, in my view, still wrong) argument that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to enact Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States was therefore decided in error.

It may be simply an term of convenience. But choice of terms can affect how people think about things. It perhaps makes the statute more palatable because it's thought that it's okay for governments to control "public" things. The average person might think a private individual has the right to withhold consent, but maybe not a "public accommodation", even though the latter is just a term of convenience that often refers to the former. The term may have been chosen strategically to have a certain effect on the hearer. Or perhaps it reveals a certain way of thinking of those who drafted the statute.

Consider a statute that defines every sexually promiscuous person as a "public accommodation", and declares that every such person must submit to sex with anyone who asks. It may be the case that the term is applied as a mere term of convenience, and that only the "are required to do Y" part is objectionable. But it seems like there would be something objectionable in the term itself. It has a connotation, saying something about the person that isn't true. E.g. the term seems to (falsely) imply that the person, rather than having consented to a (perhaps large) number of particulars on a case-by-case basis, has consented to sex with everyone in general.

[Terraceth]

How is forcing one man to serve another man Constitutional?

Is this an attempt to invoke the Thirteenth Amendment? From the viewpoint of textualism, originalism, or legislative intent I think that's a dead end, but as arguing as such would be lengthy, let's just stick with legal history. As noted, laws of the "restaurants/motels/etc. cannot refuse service to a customer on the basis of their race" variety were around on the state level long before the Civil Rights Act of 1967 was ever held, with no one (to my knowledge) ever finding them to be unconstitutional under anything, including the Thirteenth Amendment. Indeed, in the Civil Rights Cases (1883), which ironically struck down a law similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (although for reasons not applicable to said act), the following is stated in the opinion:

"Innkeepers and public carriers, by the laws of all the States, so far as we are aware, are bound, to the extent of their facilities, to furnish proper accommodation to all unobjectionable persons who in good faith apply for them."

This is stated approvingly, therefore giving implicit affirmation that such state laws are not in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment or any part of the constitution (though as this occurs in a discussion regarding the Thirteenth Amendment, there is especially no reason to not call out such laws as a violation if they were regarded as such). Even if we simply take the statement on its face, divorced from context, the fact that "all the States" were believed to have such laws indicates that they were not thought to be in contradiction to the Thirteenth Amendment, or any part of the constitution. Granted, said laws often didn't specify that one couldn't discriminate on the basis of race, which was not infrequently done, but the general requirement of serving qualified customers is there.

Perhaps there is some court decision indicating otherwise, in either the Supreme Court or some notable lower court, but if so I haven't run across it.

Or forcing a man to violate his deeply held religions beliefs?

What deeply held religious beliefs were at stake in Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States?

Or ripping away the ideal of free association, just because a man hangs his shingle out?

Not a right explicitly given in the Constitution, and instead has largely been inferred through the First Amendment via its protection of speech and assembly. The requirement of a motel to serve people regardless of their race is not a violation of either.

Where in our history were these things considered acceptable?

The entire history, actually, as I have shown. Even more so prior to the Civil War, when slavery (actual slavery) was around.

Where is the previous case law?

If you read the opinion in Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States, the previous case law is laid out quite clearly.

[Tassman]

I know that homosexuality is clearly defined as sin in scripture as we recently discussed, where exactly is the law of God against interracial marriage?

The demonstrable fact is that, unlike Evangelicals, there are many Christians who give a different (more contextual) interpretation of the Pauline passages on homosexuality and regard it as a normal and acceptable variation of human sexuality.

Similarly, prior to 1967, anti-miscegenation laws were claimed to be bible-based and were part of American law for several centuries. No doubt, if the cake shop situation occurred back then, the baker could also cite free exercise of religion and "deeply held beliefs" for refusing to make a wedding cake for a racially mixed marriage. Would he be right to do so?

Whether these interpretations of scripture are right or wrong in Christian eyes is not my problem, especially when Christians themselves can’t agree on them.

Because it violates the Baker's free exercise of religion. You know, the Constitution thing.

The baker is free to exercise his religion, he is not free to violate the freedoms of other citizens in doing so. All citizens have equal rights under the Constitution.