Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doesn't matter. They could have wanted a batch of cookies for a same sex wedding and the case would still stand, since the laws of the state say that ANY product or service offered in a public accommodation must be sold regardless of the race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation of the person buying said item.
The Constitution prevails over any State law/statute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
The baker SOLD wedding cakes. They can not refuse to sell those wedding cakes to anyone based on their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.
Well, that's not really the issue, is it?
The bakers were not refusing to sell the cake to the couple due to the couples' race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. In fact, the bakers had previously sold cakes to gay/lesbian persons.
The couple was instead exercising their religious belief that same sex marriage is wrong and thus declining to participate in the SSM wedding celebration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
And anti-discrimination laws have stood through SCOTUS review. People once claimed that discrimination against blacks was a religious right. How did they fare?
Sure. But, SCOTUS has many times changed its opinion. Citing a particular decision only tells us what we already know the current consensus of the Court to be. It does nothing to tell us what the Court may decide later on the same issue, and it does not really support an argument as to whether the decision is/was correct.
We're always debating the Constitution and the intent of the framers/founders. I think it clear that the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, and the only limitation on such exercise is the necessary balance of that right against the conflicting rights of others.
IMO, in this case, the bakers' right to decline to provide a cake due to their religious belief should have probably trumped the couples' right to have a cake from that bakery.
Normally, we (the courts) look for and require the State to have a compelling interest in limiting a right as important as the free exercise of religious and or political expression. I'm not seeing a compelling interest in forcing the bakery to provide a cake. It is not as if the couple cannot exercise their right to get married if no cake is provided, and certainly they could have procured a cake from another bakery.
The Oregon bakers were not taking action... they were refusing to act. Their refusal to act in this instance cannot in anyway be likened or compared to acts such as human sacrifice or suttee.
This is what I mean when I post about balance. The Court must in all cases of religious and political speech balance the rights of parties where rights appear to conflict.
Of course we cannot allow religious human sacrifice. But, we should be able to allow a baker to decline to bake a cake!
Righto! See my comments above re balancing conflicting rights.
The right to act on religious beliefs is not absolute. That very wording suggests clearly that there are some instances where we are permitted to act (or refuse to act) on our religious beliefs.
Surely you have heard of conscientious objectors? This is not a new idea or issue.
It's not my "opinion" -- It's the law and part of the US Constitution.
Refusal to act is the same as acting, in this case. Due to the Civil Rights act, they cannot discriminate.
The bakery sells wedding cakes. The couple asked to purchase something they already supplied (the wedding cake) and the bakers refused. That is discrimination. They then tried to claim 1st amendment rights, which fails from the get go due to what I posted above. Your religious beliefs mean nothing in the public domain. As soon as you open a business to the public, you become subject to the laws of the land.
Having worked in several bakeries, no one buys a wedding cake and takes it to the wedding themselves. The bakers would have had it delivered, and by doing so, would have been involved in something they don't condone. They went about it stupidly, however. All they had to say is they had too many orders on the planned wedding day and couldn't take an additional one. Problem solved. Instead, they had to get on their soapbox and subject themselves to the wrath of the gay community.
It's not like this was the only bakery in town. The two lesbians could have gone to another bakery, but wanted a windfall and looks like they'll get it.
I have never seen any wedding cake at a wedding, they are served at the reception after the wedding. In this case the wedding was in a different state and the reception was taking place in Oregon on a separate date.
There was no way possible the bakers would have been involved in the wedding since it would have already happened in a different state.
Even more pertinent to this case is Maurice Bessinger, who in the 1960s insisted that denying blacks service in his restaurants due to his religious beliefs was his right, the Civil Rights Act be damned.
But, that case is not at all pertinent to the present case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Of course, anyone with half a clue understands that not allowing people to ignore laws just because they claim a religious excuse does not constitute 'respecting an establishment of religion'.
Anyone with half a clue knows that the portion of the first Amendment you cited above refers to the prohibition against Congress establishing a national religion, and thus, does not apply to the present case. The portion of the 1st Amendment that applies to this case is the portion that forbids Congress from prohibiting the free exercise of religion [by the people] [within the individual States].
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
The problem is that some people don't have even half a clue, while others know perfectly well they're wrong but obtusely argue the point because they've got nothing of actual substance to offer.
The Constitution prevails over any State law/statute.
Well, that's not really the issue, is it?
The bakers were not refusing to sell the cake to the couple due to the couples' race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. In fact, the bakers had previously sold cakes to gay/lesbian persons.
The couple was instead exercising their religious belief that same sex marriage is wrong and thus declining to participate in the SSM wedding celebration.
Sure. But, SCOTUS has many times changed its opinion. Citing a particular decision only tells us what we already know the current consensus of the Court to be. It does nothing to tell us what the Court may decide later on the same issue, and it does not really support an argument as to whether the decision is/was correct.
We're always debating the Constitution and the intent of the framers/founders. I think it clear that the Constitution protects the free exercise of religion, and the only limitation on such exercise is the necessary balance of that right against the conflicting rights of others.
IMO, in this case, the bakers' right to decline to provide a cake due to their religious belief should have probably trumped the couples' right to have a cake from that bakery.
Normally, we (the courts) look for and require the State to have a compelling interest in limiting a right as important as the free exercise of religious and or political expression. I'm not seeing a compelling interest in forcing the bakery to provide a cake. It is not as if the couple cannot exercise their right to get married if no cake is provided, and certainly they could have procured a cake from another bakery.
Balance of Rights. Compelling Interest.
If you think that SCOTUS is going to take up the case, and rule in the bakers favor. All I can say is wait and see. I honestly don't se it happening, since other cases have already been heard regarding anti-discrimination laws and "religious beliefs".
It's not my "opinion" -- It's the law and part of the US Constitution.
Refusal to act is the same as acting, in this case. Due to the Civil Rights act, they cannot discriminate.
The bakery sells wedding cakes. The couple asked to purchase something they already supplied (the wedding cake) and the bakers refused. That is discrimination. They then tried to claim 1st amendment rights, which fails from the get go due to what I posted above. Your religious beliefs mean nothing in the public domain. As soon as you open a business to the public, you become subject to the laws of the land.
The end. End of story. And the court agrees.
The Constitution is the Law of the Land and it trumps all other laws/statutes/regulations.
I cited the applicable portion of the Constitution.
Religious beliefs mean nothing in the public domain? Really? So, what does the first Amendment mean? Why do we allow conscientious objectors?
If you think that SCOTUS is going to take up the case, and rule in the bakers favor. All I can say is wait and see. I honestly don't se it happening, since other cases have already been heard regarding anti-discrimination laws and "religious beliefs".
I don't know whether SCOTUS will take on this case.
I'm just stating my opinion wrt this particular case.
Actually, you are claiming inaction is not acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by latetotheparty
discrimination is discrimination.... they broke the law.....
when you hold yourself out as a business serving the public, you don't get to pick and choose which members of the public you serve.....
EVERY PERSON does business. It's essentially impossible to live without doing business. Whey you go to work and trade your labor for wages, you do business. If you were to go fishing and trade some fish for a net, you are doing business. If you grow potatoes and trade them for some meat, you are dong business.
This false concept that allows government extra powers over PEOPLE because they do business is absurd.
The Constitution is the Law of the Land and it trumps all other laws/statutes/regulations.
I cited the applicable portion of the Constitution.
Religious beliefs mean nothing in the public domain? Really? So, what does the first Amendment mean? Why do we allow conscientious objectors?
The story is never ended.
You can believe and do whatever you want as far as your religion goes in private (as long as it doesn't violate other laws, such as murder). But as soon as you go out in public, you can't use those beliefs to discriminate against others. It doesn't fly in 2015, nor did it in 1964.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
