You Don't Have to Bake a Gay Cake - SCOTUS

a reply to: Balans

While I'm here, may I say that's an exceptionally well considered post.

To me, the baker can easily remedy the situation by reforming his business as a subscription service rather than a public accomodation.

Easy peasy.

The baker DOES have a right, an ultimate right, to believe as he does that "gay marriage" is sinful. However, in the operatoin of a public business (which he CHOSE TO OPEN) he does not have the right to offer products to some classes of the public and not others. That's just not the way our legal system works

What? No. It is EXACTLY how our system works.

Can I go join a women only gym? Of course not. Nor should I. Can I join any Country Club I like? Am I not that "class" of citizen?

A PRIVATELY (and read that word again....PRIVATELY) owned business has the right to exclude anyone they like, to refuse service to ANYONE. They simply suffer the social ramifications, boycotts, etc. by doing so.

Even TITLE VII is in regards to EMPLOYMENT, not customers. (nor does it apply to private businesses, with less than a certain number of employees).

The free market takes care of discrimination well enough as far as customer patronage is concerned, there is no need to LEGISLATE it.

Do I agree they are wrong for refusing the cake? Yes. Do I agree though, that it's their right to refuse to make something they don't agree with? Yes. There is ZERO need for the government to be involved with it. The market will ensure other gay patrons refuse to support the establishment. Simple, with no government involvement needed.

To me, the baker can easily remedy the situation by reforming his business as a subscription service rather than a public accomodation.

They basically are.

In essence, they are a commissioned service. Like one would commission a painting. Is an artist expected to paint any painting a client may wish? Even if they find it distasteful? Or should they be able to refuse it, and simply have them go to a different artist?

It's really no different here.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for that.

And thanks again to you and to everyone having partricipated so far in this to-the-point discussion. It's becoming more difficult these days to find decent, respectfull and on-topic discussion about "hot potatoes" online and in no small part on this forum. I quite enjoyed reading page after page while contemplating my own moral standards on this issue.

States allow for sex-restrictions in certain venues based on privacy. For example, to keep it on topic, Colorado is one of seven States that specifically allow for sex restrictions (usually, female only) by a statutory exemptions to the public accomodation laws.

Yale Journal of Law

Yes, one can join any country club one can afford to join that has open enrollment. However, most are invitation only and are not places of public accomodation; they are private clubs. While private clubs are not public accomodations, but are, in many cases, still subject to anti-discrimination laws depending on the type of business.

A privately-held business merely means that it is not publicly traded (like on the stock market) and has one or very few owners/stock holdings.

No businesses do not have the right to deny service to whomever they choose, particularly in the State of Colorado: Required Posting in all Businesses

Rule 20.4 - No person shall post or permit to be posted in any place of public accommodation any sign which states or implies the following: WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE.

No, the bakery is not "basically" a subscrition service, and SCOTUS has clearly said that Masterpiece Cakes is subject to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Again from the ruling under discussion (cited previously)

While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.

Businesses are subject to the rule-of-law ... even those owned by the devoutly religious.

a reply to: Gryphon66

colo. is in the wrong federally with the ban on the refusal of service law.

That is why they are alone with it.

forcing anyone to do stuff is unconstitutional

on both sides

it can only end with respect for each other or a good ole civil war if we keep pushing the boundaries we will eventually get to that point

And a gym.

Apparently, you can only be "fit" if you believe in God.

www.theindychannel.com...

originally posted by: Annee
And a gym.

Apparently, you can only be "fit" if you believe in God.

www.theindychannel.com...

Apparently you mental cases believe there is only one gym in america

total douches

Colorado is not "alone" in anti-discrimination laws. Many states have these laws in place, and 22 have protections in place for sexual orientation.

The entire country is covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which clearly restricts discrimination (i.e. "refusing service to anyone they want") against race, color, religion or national origin. The federal Americans With Disabilities Act adds individuals with disabilities to those protected groups.

I applaud respect for each other, and if I were the one trying to buy a cake for my wedding, and the baker made his statement, I'd go get my cake elsewhere, and if I lived in Colorado I'd file a proper complaint as what he's doing is against the law.

Christian religious beliefs don't universally condemn homosexuals. There is a certain politico-religious mindset that does. Most Americans are in favor of equal rights for those of diffent sexual orientations: gallup.com

a reply to: Gryphon66

Colorado is not "alone" in anti-discrimination laws.

never said they were

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Curious, do you think cakes are baked gay? or do cakes become gay sometime after baking through socializing with other gay cakes?

A gay cake is called a cupcake

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Gryphon66

Colorado is not "alone" in anti-discrimination laws.

never said they were

Never said you did.

NM

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Annee
And a gym.

Apparently, you can only be "fit" if you believe in God.

www.theindychannel.com...

Apparently you mental cases believe there is only one gym in america

total douches

Some rural towns may have only one bakery, grocery store, gym, etc.

My mom had polio. Prior to the disability act she was denied entry to some businesses.

For her, lugging a 10 lb brace, and using 2 crutches -- being forced to seek out other businesses was truly a hardship.

I'll leave the name calling to you.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Annee
And a gym.

Apparently, you can only be "fit" if you believe in God.

www.theindychannel.com...

Apparently you mental cases believe there is only one gym in america

total douches

Some rural towns may have only one bakery, grocery store, gym, etc.

My mom had polio. Prior to the disability act she was denied entry to some businesses.

For her, lugging a 10 lb brace, and using 2 crutches -- being forced to seek out other businesses was truly a hardship.

I'll leave the name calling to you.

it is not personal

IF a person is refused service and there are no alternatives then that is a different case and is not legal constitutionally to not serve in that situation.

If there are multiple gyms in an area and a person seeks out a business that will not serve them then that is malicious and illegal

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Annee
And a gym.

Apparently, you can only be "fit" if you believe in God.

www.theindychannel.com...

Apparently you mental cases believe there is only one gym in america

total douches

Some rural towns may have only one bakery, grocery store, gym, etc.

My mom had polio. Prior to the disability act she was denied entry to some businesses.

For her, lugging a 10 lb brace, and using 2 crutches -- being forced to seek out other businesses was truly a hardship.

I'll leave the name calling to you.

it is not personal

IF a person is refused service and there are no alternatives then that is a different case and is not legal constitutionally to not serve in that situation.

If there are multiple gyms in an area and a person seeks out a business that will not serve them then that is malicious and illegal

It's not personal? To whom is it not personal?

IF, IF, IF, IF

There should be no IFs

a reply to: howtonhawky

malicious and illegal

Like discriminating against people for who they are?

originally posted by: howtonhawky

IF a person is refused service and there are no alternatives then that is a different case and is not legal constitutionally to not serve in that situation.

I'm curious ... what part of the Constitution would that be?

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: Edumakated

I don't think anyone should be forced to do what their conscience
tells them is wrong.This ruling will help many businesses adhere to
their faith and beliefs.

Exactly! I have a sincere religious belief that Trump and his supporters are anti-Christian. Therefore my air ambulance company will refuse to transport any Trump voter for care. They can lay bleeding and convulsing on the roadway so that I don't have to violate my beliefs.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: howtonhawky

IF a person is refused service and there are no alternatives then that is a different case and is not legal constitutionally to not serve in that situation.

I'm curious ... what part of the Constitution would that be?

The 1964 civil rights act and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.