Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Refusing Gay Wedding Service

a reply to: timequake

I haven't misunderstood anything.

You are simply mistaken. A business open to the public, serves the public and is subject to public accommodation laws, anti-discrimination laws, fire codes, building codes, local option sales taxes, etc.

Some of you sound like you've grown up in another country where there were no laws and no governments.

These facts are not new. A business is not private if it is open to the public. Period.

So you think the CRA of 1964 was unconstitutional then?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How exactly did you get that from what I said? Read more carefully.

The state when it outlawed slavery.

That makes no sense. When was the state given the authority to determine the price one must accept to allow the violation one's rights?

Yeah, THEY are entitled to personal protections and their business is entitled to business protections. Like I said, businesses have traditionally NOT had religious rights. But it matters little, there is zero Christian doctrine that prevents a baker from baking a cake for a gay wedding.

In this case, the owner of the business is the business. To force an action on this business that violates ones First Amendment rights violates the First Amendment rights of the person running that business. Ultimately, it would still require that owner--personally-- to act against his religious beliefs in favor of another's beliefs or life style. Owning a business does not, in any way, remove that person's rights. A person's actions in running their private business is still the actions of that private individual. Your distinction is arbitrary and inaccurate, both logically and legally.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You can repeat yourself ad nauseam, it will never make your point correct. As an attorney, I can tell you that doing business in public does not magically nor legally make one a public entity. Safety codes are put into place as regulations for public safety, however, the purpose and operation of the enterprise itself is entirely as a private entity. Otherwise what you are saying is that all businesses are effectively government run entities, because that, legally, is what is meant by being a public entity.

a reply to: timequake

Ditto.

Ah ... the appeal to authority. If you're an attorney, and your understanding of basic business laws is this poor, I fear for your clients.

You're referring to sole proprietors? partnerships? private corporations? public corporations?

Actually, really, nevermind.

Public accomodation laws are in place to protect the public.

Anti-discrimination laws are in place to protect the public.

Similar to fire codes, building codes, et. al.

You're welcome to your opinion, its just not accurate. Best.

a reply to: Gryphon66


Its actually not a matter of opinion.

www.ssa.gov...



“A public entity is defined as follows:

(A) any State or local government;

(B) any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government; and

(C) the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and any commuter authority.” Vartinelli v. Stapleton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88553 ( E.D. Mich. Aug. 3, 2009)

originally posted by: timequake
Otherwise what you are saying is that all businesses are effectively government run entities, because that, legally, is what is meant by being a public entity.

Nobody said that. When did you become an attorney?

You are a service business. The consumer public is your customer. You are required to have a business license, which you sign. Your signature means you will abide by the state laws of that license.

No one is saying its a publicly held business.

a reply to: Annee

Annee, the question was whether or not a government can, constitutionally, force a private entity to serve any given person in the running of a business. The customers are also private entities; they are not public entities. The only way the Constitution can be applied to force a private entity to serve any given person is if the business is a legal public entity. That is because private entities enjoy constitutional protects against such intrusions and only government/public actors are subject to recognizing "protected classes". Having a license and having to obey laws--something we all do--does not make one a public entity.

a reply to: timequake

Right. I get the nit that you're picking.

No one is debating that opening a business immediately makes that business a state or local government, principality, territory et. al. etc. etc. You know that's not what we're saying because we've been very clear in our descriptions.

You are focused on the term "public entity." We mentioned several posts back that was a colloquialism only.

So, counselor, you win. Opening a business does not make it a local government.

Our comments about businesses whether private, public, sole proprietor, general partnership, limited partnership, corporation, etc. regarding the nature of their relationship to the public remain quite clear and accurate.

If a business is not a private club, if it is 'open to the public' then it is subject to laws that protect the public. Your assertion that a business and a business owner are the self-same entity are inaccurate.

I can't help but believe that you understand this very clearly, but are trying to stand on a technical point, that is OBVIOUSLY not a part of the discussion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

IT'S the CRUX of the discussion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually, Gryph, It is the entire point. Merely being open to the public and subject to codes and such for public safety reasons is not the same as being able to force a company to bake a cake to someone else against their religious beliefs.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

IT'S the CRUX of the discussion.

It certainly is.

Some of you think that a business can do whatever it wants whenever it wants to and you think that represents "freedom."

The rest of us know that private businesses open to the public (i.e. public businesses in a non-technical legal sense) are subject to laws limiting "what they want to do" including zoning codes, fire codes, building codes, local taxes, public accommodation laws and anti-discrimination laws.

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: Gryphon66

Actually, Gryph, It is the entire point. Merely being open to the public and subject to codes and such for public safety reasons is not the same as being able to force a company to bake a cake to someone else against their religious beliefs.

Baking a cake is not against any religion anywhere.

Hiding behind one's religion to try to justify one's own prejudices, breaking laws regarding anti-discrimination and public accommodation is despicable and disrespectful to that faith ... and I am not a fan of religion by any means.

Freedom of religion under the Constitution does not license anyone anywhere to flaunt the laws of the land at will.

"Merely being open to the public" is really the only part of that statement that means anything.

Open to the public means an implicit offer accepting business from the public. When a member of the public comes in and is refused for reasons that are illegal, as is the case with the infamous cake baker, then the store/business is responsible for the penalties associated with breaking that particular law.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So you truly believe that a person loses his or her rights because they own a business? Forcing the owner to act in such a manner as in this case is still the government forcing a private person to act in a manner contrary to his/her religious beliefs.

Many Christians have long held that homosexuality is wrong. I'm not saying that agree with that sentiment, however, it is a fully recognized religion and the beliefs therein are constitutionally protected. Whether or not you agree with this sentiment is besides the point. We live in a country where people are free to exercise their beliefs even others may find it repugnant. It wasn't that long ago that the vast majority of people thought that homosexuality was evil. Do we have to say that they were right because they were the majority? Or is it that you only agree that people have such rights only so long as you agree with their premise? What we have now is a couple imposing their beliefs--support by state enforcement--upon a man who is being punished for not participating in a gay wedding.



The "laws of the land" do not trump such protections as the Constitution is above the law because it is above those who make them.

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you truly believe that a person loses his or her rights because they own a business? Forcing the owner to act in such a manner as in this case is still the government forcing a private person to act in a manner contrary to his/her religious beliefs.

Not at all. I haven't said that anyone loses "their rights" when they open a business. No one else here has said that.

What I have said, and what others have said, is that businesses, like individuals, are subject to local, State, and Federal laws.

Again, there is no tenet of the Christian religion which covers cake-baking and/or same-sex marriage. These are personal beliefs, or more accurately, prejudices of the individuals themselves.

They cannot hide their lawlessness under the aegis of religion.

Reynolds et. al. (1879) "“Laws … cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may [interfere] with practices … Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious beliefs superior to the law of the land.”

Employment Division v. Smith (1990) “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law … On the contrary, the record of more than a century of free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition."

a reply to: timequake

You are again mistaken. Not every Christian denomination holds simply that "homosexuality is wrong. "

LGBT Affirming Christian Denominations

That's a quick list of over 50 denominations and/or congregations that accept homosexuality as a fact of life.

Therefore it is not a "Christian" belief that homosexuality is wrong.

Further, religious beliefs do not provide special rights to ignore the laws of the land.

Period.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You read too much into what I said. Just because there are some sub-groups that have no problem with it ignores that sentiment of the vast majority of Christians. Not to mention the religious text itself upon which such faith derives its principles. However, that is entirely besides the point....

No one stated that religious beliefs afforded one special rights. In fact this discussion centered around whether or not a government can constitutionally force a private entity to serve any individual against the former's will. The rest are really just context. Can someone, religious or otherwise, refuse to make a cake for anyone for any given reason? Sure. Does someone lose this right because they put out a sign that said that they would bake cakes for other people for a price? Why should it? Should a bakery owned by a gay couple be forced to bake a cake that has upon it passages from Leviticus (that being gay is an abomination)? Of course not. The delusion that someone's personal actions are no longer their own actions because they doing while running a business is ludicrous. All of us are subject to laws that regard public safety. Tell me how this case has anything to do with public safety? What do you think would have happened if the baker merely said "no" and left it at that? Would that have made any difference?

If I remember correctly, there was such a thing as Jim Crow laws. Should they have been upheld and respected/obeyed as the "law of the land"? There is such a thing as bad laws. It actually happens all the time.

a reply to: timequake

I read too much into your statement that was very clear that "Christians think that homosexuality is wrong."??? Right.

That was your point of departure for claiming that religious beliefs trump the rule of law. You didn't offer any parenthetical or supplemental information or qualifications of your statement ...

You didn't waffle then, why are you waffling now?

What evidence to you have for claiming that "the vast majority of Christians" believe as you have assigned them to believe?

Evidence as in polls, etc.?

Of course you stated that religious beliefs afford special rights! You're claiming that religion can allow an individual to ignore the laws of the land! And of course these rights are "special" because not everyone in society holds religious beliefs.

Your list of meaningless hypotheticals not withstanding, the law in Oregon and in this particular case is clear. The rulings are in.

Jim Crow, really? You're comparing laws intended to ENFORCE unfair discrimination with laws that are mean to DEFEND against it?

Not to be rude, but how many cases have you actually won in your practice???

a reply to: Gryphon66

There is no waffling on my end, and I refuse to take your bait.

I hold to my ultimate point: The Constitution subjects the government to limited authority and restrictions that were only meant for government actors. States are subject to this under the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment empowered the federal government to deter state governments from discriminating against certain protected class (which does not include those based upon sexual orientation). This does not empower federal or state governments to apply the same to private actors.

So once again my question remains the same: Do governments have the authority to coerce a private person to perform a service for the sake of another against the former's will. The 13th Amendment--badly worded as it is says, no. This is why a breech of contract for a service to be performed cannot be specifically enforced; the court as a public actor would otherwise be upholding forced servitude.

My reference to such laws as Jim Crow laws--your further attempt at misdirection of subject matter notwithstanding--was to point out that just because something is law, doesn't make it constitutional, nor does it make it right. This case may well be challenged upon appeal.

Yes it does say private business owner. But, they still can't discriminate for religious belief.

The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 includes an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private business owners to deny service and unlawfully discriminate against potential customers.

From the final order:

This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal. Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.” www.oregon.gov...

a reply to: Annee

I'm aware of what the law says. The question was whether or not it is constitutional. Naturally the state actor that passed the law is going to sell their view as to what they believe the issue is about.