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.
I have no problem with private businesses deciding who they are going to work with. They are going to lose a lot more business than they are going to gain, and somebody else will fill the void happily. Especially in Colorado, I'm guessing there were more than enough other bakeries for the couple to go to.
Exactly. A business should have the freedom to choose who they do business with for any reason whatsoever. A free market will expose bigots and idiots and eventually they will go out of business.
True, but the baker knew what preparing a custom wedding cake involved for him. It involved more than selling pre-made cupcakes or adding names to an off the shelf wedding cake. Nor is a custom wedding cake a peripheral part of a wedding. The Colorado law as applied In This Case violated the baker's 1st Amendment rights.
The baker offered custom wedding cakes in their shop. The law states that you can not discriminate based on sexual orientation for any goods or services that you offer. If he couldn't follow the law he should have removed that service from his shop before there was a problem.
Religious beliefs do not trump generally applicable laws.
" We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate."
"Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities."
"We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,
are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may 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 belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
"Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."
Who cares what gay people think? -it's not about them, but about all people.
If one business can discriminate in whatever way the choose, then all business should be able to, including life saving services.
That is kind of an exaggeration isn't it? No life or death for a cake. Of course the government has a right to come in if it is life or death as Reagan did with the air traffic controllers strike. He said go back to work or lose your jobs. Not the same as go back to work and bake that cake for a gay wedding or lose your business. Most reasonable people can see the difference.
I don't understand why anyone would want to buy a cake from a bakery that doesn't want to serve them. If forced, the bakery staff might spike the cake with some unpleasant fluid that you normally wouldn't want in a cake.
If you're the refused customer, tell them where to shove their large bags of flour and go somewhere else.
Businesses refuse to perform service all the time, right or wrong. We can't sue everyone who hurts our feelings.
I essentially agree. However, the vast majority of civil right cases began with one person willing to sue and challenge the status quo. You have had, throughout our history, individuals that say "This is wrong, what has happened to me, and I do not want it to happen to others", and resorted to the Courts.
Think Rosa Parks, or that guy (I forget his name; he was played by Henry Fonda in a movie about it) whom proclaimed "The Constitution states I have the right to be represented by an attorney", when he was denied such while being charged with a crime (he was very poor).
So, let us not make of virtue of the 'many' that accept a perceived insult or injury and simply move down the street to another establishment. Rather, let us celebrate those that say "This is wrong in America".
Yet, I recognize the competing Constitutional interests here (religious liberty, civil rights). Yet, on balance, I come down on the civil rights side. The baker in question is not being denied his freedom to worship according to the dictates of his conscious, which is probably why his attorney has resorted to the 'freedom of expression' argument (see my earlier link to the briefs filed by each side).
Of course, I am somewhat prejudiced, in a way. I am old enough to recall the "White" and "Colored" sections of movie theaters, water fountains, etc. Even as a lad I was taught that asking the 'Colored' folk to 'move on to where they are accepted' as being fundamentally wrong. Asking this gay couple to 'move along' because a baker didn't agree with their relationship, also strikes me as wrong. I also recall when businesses would not serve 'mixed race' couples.
Bob, you probably aren't religious, you obviously don't run a business, and you are uninformed as to the Constitution.
Religious beliefs are a full time gig, not to be parked at the door when you go to work. Get a clue, or you'll start forfeiting the rights you do cherish.
.
Yeah sure. As long as you cherry pick the 'religious beliefs' that you wish to enforce.
"The government agreed with Philips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe."
Expression my ass.
This guy is in the business of providing a service to the public, and as such he needs to respect all his customers wishes.
If he can't, then he has no business being in a business that caters to the public.
Bob.
So are pricey fine dining restaurants.
Yet, they're allowed to decline service to parties with children. Age discrimination, but it's 100% A-OK. So is not creating a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.
That is kind of an exaggeration isn't it? No life or death for a cake. Of course the government has a right to come in if it is life or death as Reagan did with the air traffic controllers strike. He said go back to work or lose your jobs. Not the same as go back to work and bake that cake for a gay wedding or lose your business. Most reasonable people can see the difference.
I essentially agree. However, the vast majority of civil right cases began with one person willing to sue and challenge the status quo. You have had, throughout our history, individuals that say "This is wrong, what has happened to me, and I do not want it to happen to others", and resorted to the Courts.
Think Rosa Parks, or that guy (I forget his name; he was played by Henry Fonda in a movie about it) whom proclaimed "The Constitution states I have the right to be represented by an attorney", when he was denied such while being charged with a crime (he was very poor).
So, let us not make of virtue of the 'many' that accept a perceived insult or injury and simply move down the street to another establishment. Rather, let us celebrate those that say "This is wrong in America".
Yet, I recognize the competing Constitutional interests here (religious liberty, civil rights). Yet, on balance, I come down on the civil rights side. The baker in question is not being denied his freedom to worship according to the dictates of his conscious, which is probably why his attorney has resorted to the 'freedom of expression' argument (see my earlier link to the briefs filed by each side).
Of course, I am somewhat prejudiced, in a way. I am old enough to recall the "White" and "Colored" sections of movie theaters, water fountains, etc. Even as a lad I was taught that asking the 'Colored' folk to 'move on to where they are accepted' as being fundamentally wrong. Asking this gay couple to 'move along' because a baker didn't agree with their relationship, also strikes me as wrong. I also recall when businesses would not serve 'mixed race' couples.
The conservatives cannot stop looking back wistfully at those times.
They have already lost in prior cases, waste of time. He should be going after corruption, white collar crime, but no here we are back to the gay wedding cake. They will lose again, this is stupid. By the way could someone explain to me what a gay wedding cake looks like, are there also gay groceries, gay hotels, gas stations. Do they violate their religion when they serve gay couples.
Violating their first amendment rights. oh yeah that should be a winner. Next up in the supreme court is job protection for gay workers
Quote:
“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in the brief.
.....................................
The DOJ also has taken the stance that gay workers are not entitled to job protections under federal anti-discrimination laws. Since 2015, the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission has taken the opposite stance, saying Title VII, the civil-rights statute that covers workers, protects against bias based on sexual orientation.
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.
