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.
So, government should be allowed to make a business open 24/7 so people can obtain what they want?
Wrong. There is a difference between mandating a business stay open 24/7 and simply requiring the business serve all potential customers when it is open and chooses to do business.
Claiming a right not to serve a class of customers is a phony freedom because not doing so reduces the profitability of hte business.
That has nothing to do with anything. Businesses turn away work all the time.
In this case creative expression comes into play. An artist should not be forced to create a cake or a painting or a video or a dress or to participate in any event. Apparently if they don't have a storefront, they have more freedom to not do business.
Are you including Con Artists here? The author of The Art Of The Deal would likely be interested in creative ways of 'opting-out' of laws. After all, Trump Org is a closely-held Corporation & for all intents & purposes, he has, thus far, gotten away with his closely-held Presidency.
"...Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act
The state recently amended the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) by passing the Sexual Orientation Employment Discrimination Act (SOEDA). CADA now prohibits discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation, religion, disability, race, creed, color, sex, age, national origin or ancestry.
The statute makes it illegal for Colorado employers “to refuse to hire, to discharge, to promote or demote, to harass during the course of employment, or to discriminate in matters of compensation against” any member of the protected classes listed above.
CADA is Colorado’s version of the federal Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the ADA all rolled into one. But unlike the federal anti-discrimination laws, which cover only employers with 15 or more employees, Colorado’s civil rights statute covers all employers regardless of size. ..."
Nope. Due to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the baker's First Amendment Rights and his Federally Protected Class status prevail.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
You are welcome to your opinion, but the Supreme Court interprets our Constitution and their opinion actually matters. They have said that Congress and the states may pass laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, and sexual orientation and that those laws violate no provision of the US Constitution.
I'm more interested in the rights of citizens to obtain necessary goods and services in this society than in the "so-called right" of other citizens to refuse to sell it to them.
The right "to not do business" is a phony freedom. Businesses make the most money when they sell to everyone.
I get what you're saying here & agree. The Supreme Court's decision in HOLT, AKA MUHAMMAD v. HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ET AL. reflected a sane, rational balance between religious liberty & the legal rights of others:
Quote:
...Prior to Hobby Lobby, the Court’s precedents honored a careful balance between religious liberty and the legal rights of others. People of faith have robust rights to honor their beliefs and act on their conscience, but they couldn’t interfere with someone else’s legal rights. ...
Also prior to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court's rationale in United States v. Lee reflected a careful balance:
Quote:
...Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. ...
I get what you're saying here & agree. The Supreme Court's decision in HOLT, AKA MUHAMMAD v. HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ET AL. reflected a sane, rational balance between religious liberty & the legal rights of others:
Also prior to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court's rationale in United States v. Lee reflected a careful balance:
The Hobby Lobby ruling refined the issue. The owners of a closely-held corporation cannot be forced to violate their Religious beliefs when there's an alternate means to achieve the same result, even in matters of Federal Law (which Obamacare is).
The Colorado same sex couple can and did order a custom-made wedding cake elsewhere.
...In his dissent in the 1938 case of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson, Justice Hugo Black wrote "in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations. [...] The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments. [...] The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations."[8] ...
In 1968, when Mr. Piggie Park claimed it should be exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the CRA "contravenes the will of God" & therefore its religious beliefs permitted it to 'opt-out' of laws banning discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that its claim was "patently frivolous".
In 1968, when Mr. Piggie Park claimed it should be exempt from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the CRA "contravenes the will of God" & therefore its religious beliefs permitted it to 'opt-out' of laws banning discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that its claim was "patently frivolous".
How times have changed.
In the Colorado baker's case, the Religious objection is not frivolous. The baker is Baptist, and the Baptist Religion officially prohibits same sex marriage.
That said, the baker has sold/served off the shelf baked goods to LGBT without objection. He does not discriminate. His only objection based on Religious grounds is to create a custom-order wedding cake for a same sex wedding, as his religion specifically prohibits same sex marriage.
"When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. ..."
Besides, I guess no matter how the Supreme Court rules in this particular case, Mr. Masterpiece will need to get a handle on its employees every action.
What if one of its employees interferes with Mr. Masterpiece's religious practice by creating a cake as a matter of his or her own conscience & faith as opposed to its?
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.
Yup you're a trump cult member alright.
