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.
And no one forced the baker to have a SSM or approve of SSM. The act he refused to do is bake a cake. If his religion prohibits baking cakes then his choice of being a baker wasn't a wise move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
No, they forced him to follow generally applicable laws regarding operating a business in the state. He CHOSE to be a baker, and he CHOSE to offer wedding cakes for sale in his shop. All Colorado did is say that IF you CHOOSE to offer a product or service then you can not discriminate in the sale of those products or services.
The 13th Amendment on slavery trumps generally applicable law when it comes to compelling people to affirmatively undertake most actions.
Due to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the US Constitution and Federal Law supercede state law. That's on which SCOTUS will rule:
Quote:
Braunfeld v. Brown268 held that the free exercise clause did not mandate an exemption from Sunday Closing Laws for an Orthodox Jewish merchant who observed Saturday as the Sabbath and was thereby required to be closed two days of the week rather than one. This requirement did not prohibit any religious practices, the Court’s plurality pointed out, but merely regulated secular activity in a manner making religious exercise more expensive.269 “If the State regulates conduct by enacting a general law within its power, the purpose and effect of which is to advance the State’s secular goals, the statute is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance unless the State may accomplish its purpose by means which do not impose such a burden.”
Quote:
“A compelling governmental interest” was also found to outweigh free exercise interests in Bob Jones University v. United States,285 in which the Court upheld the I.R.S.’s denial of tax exemptions to church-run colleges whose racially discriminatory admissions policies derived from religious beliefs. The Federal Government’s “fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education”—found to be encompassed in common law standards of “charity” underlying conferral of the tax exemption on “charitable” institutions— “substantially outweighs” the burden on free exercise. Nor could the schools’ free exercise interests be accommodated by less restrictive means.
The state has to show compelling state interest, that's an easy one their interest is to stop discrimination in public accommodations. Then they have to show that the interest can not be met by less restrictive means, again that's easy since allowing shops to discriminate does not stop discrimination.
Even uber conservative Scalia said the same thing regarding 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. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. 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."
"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."
Justice Scalia opinion from Employment division vs Smith
The 13th Amendment on slavery trumps generally applicable law when it comes to compelling people to affirmatively undertake most actions.
IF one willingly opens a business, and willingly chooses to offer an item or service for sale, then it isn't slavery. No one took the baker against his will and forced him to open a business to the public. No one forced him to set up shop in a state that has public accommodation laws that all businesses are required to follow.
The state has to show compelling state interest, that's an easy one their interest is to stop discrimination in public accommodations. Then they have to show that the interest can not be met by less restrictive means, again that's easy since allowing shops to discriminate does not stop discrimination.
Even uber conservative Scalia said the same thing regarding 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. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. 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."
"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."
Justice Scalia opinion from Employment division vs Smith
You can spew whatever you want, but there's no Federal compelling interest in this case.
1) LGBT status is not a Federally Protected class.
2) No one stopped the gay couple from marrying and acquiring a wedding cake. As a matter of fact, they did both.
That is right. He is being punished for not baking a cake. It absolutely absurd the government should be able to punish someone for not baking a cake. It's an inaction without any real harm.
This is the actions of the thought police.
"If you don't agree with SSM, we're going to get you."
You can spew whatever you want, but there's no Federal compelling interest in this case.
I am "spewing" actual court cases, not my opinion. Courts tend to look at case precedence when deciding new cases.
The case is about a state law, not a federal law. The courts have found, repeatedly, that religious belief does not trump generally applicable law and the federal RFRA doesn't apply to state laws.
That is right. He is being punished for not baking a cake. It absolutely absurd the government should be able to punish someone for not baking a cake. It's an inaction without any real harm.
This is the actions of the thought police.
"If you don't agree with SSM, we're going to get you."
If baking cakes is in violation of his religion then he should not have opened a bakery. It really has nothing to do with marriage, it's about discrimination in public accommodations.
If baking cakes is in violation of his religion then he should not have opened a bakery. It really has nothing to do with marriage, it's about discrimination in public accommodations.
There should only be public accommodation laws for essential services where actual harm can befall a person due to a lack of action.
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.
