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.
Bought off the shelf? Or did it have to be ordered and uniquely created for a specific future event? BIG difference.
It was a cake on their menu. Here it is right from their own website.
"Fanasty Fruit-filled cake: Fluffy white cake filled with your choice of berry and a white chocolate cream." Signature Cakes Menu - Sweet Cakes
Do you believe that a restaurant should be allowed to refuse to sell things from their menu based on a protected class?
THAT is what this bakery did. It wasn't even some one of a kind creation, it was ON THEIR MENU.
They wanted to order a cake from the menu of cakes the bakery offered. Do you believe that a restaurant can refuse service to someone ordering off the menu based on their race,religion, sex, etc?
Those three are all protected classes under the Federal Civil Rights Act. LGBT is not.
Perhaps you need to review the following information:
Quote:
"says David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group, "With limited or no federal protections, an LGBT person can get legally married in most states, but then be evicted from an apartment and denied a home loan."
Where the states of OR and CO are going wrong on this is that they're forgetting (or are ignorant of) the fact that due to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Article VI, state law cannot supercede Constitutional Rights.
If it were a matter of a conflict between Federal law and Constitutional Rights, that would be an entirely different matter. That's why I've repeatedly said... What should have happened was for the US Congress to pass Federal legislation that added LGBT as a protected class under the Federal Civil Rights Act. Despite numerous attempts to do so, and regardless of whichever party was in power, they have ALWAYS declined to do so.
Therein lies the problem for LGBTs. They can't get the US Congress, neither Dems nor the GOP, to support them. Meanwhile, race, religion, sex, etc. have been Federal CRA protected classes since 1964.
How does it say that one supports/endorses same sex marriage???
How does saluting the American Flag say one abdicates their religious faith? Yet SCOTUS ruled in favor of those declining to salute. And SCOTUS primarily relied on the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause rather than the Free Exercise Clause.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
Where the states of OR and CO are going wrong on this is that they're forgetting (or are ignorant of) the fact that due to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Article VI, state law cannot supercede Constitutional Rights.
If it were a matter of a conflict between Federal law and Constitutional Rights, that would be an entirely different matter. That's why I've repeatedly said... What should have happened was for the US Congress to pass Federal legislation that added LGBT as a protected class under the Federal Civil Rights Act. Despite numerous attempts to do so, and regardless of whichever party was in power, they have ALWAYS declined to do so.
Therein lies the problem for LGBTs. They can't get the US Congress, neither Dems nor the GOP, to support them. Meanwhile, race, religion, sex, etc. have been Federal CRA protected classes since 1964.
Perhaps you need to review the decision in Employment div v Smith.
State laws also apply not only federal.
The Supreme Court decision on Masterpiece Cake Shop that will be out in the next few months could well result in the overturning of this decision and the blockage of any other future decisions like it.
It was a cake on their menu. Here it is right from their own website.
"Fanasty Fruit-filled cake: Fluffy white cake filled with your choice of berry and a white chocolate cream." Signature Cakes Menu - Sweet Cakes
Do you believe that a restaurant should be allowed to refuse to sell things from their menu based on a protected class?
THAT is what this bakery did. It wasn't even some one of a kind creation, it was ON THEIR MENU.
Incorrect. LGBT is not a protected class under the Federal Civil Rights Act. And as we already know, state law CANNOT supercede Constitutional Rights. Supremacy Clause Article VI.
"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."
By the way here's the latest legislation seeking to add LGBT to the Federal Civil Rights Act. Every time such bills are introduced in Congress, they ALWAYS fail, regardless of which party is in power.
It's a unique creation every time it's pre-ordered for a specific future date/event. Just like catering.
Let's just cut to the chase here.
The bakers are arguing for control of their product outside the doors of their business. Bottom line, it's the event the bakers are opposed to. And the question for the courts is why/when should a business be able to retain control of a product once that product is paid for and is no longer in their physical possession. What interest does the business have once the product is in the hands of the consumer?
That's the bottom line here, and since we are talking about a cake, which is meant to be consumed within days, not about a book, or a statue, or a painting, then the free speech argument becomes tenuous. As free speech, the cake must go beyond being just cake. It must convey a unique message that will outlast the cake itself. The message must also be immutably connected to the bakery. Otherwise, the bakery isn't conveying the message. If the message isn't unique, lasting, and immutably connected to the bakery, then the bakery has no interest in that continued control.
You can't argue that a wedding cake meets those standards simply by virtue of being a wedding cake. You cannot argue that while simultaneously arguing that the couple can simply get another cake elsewhere. If another cake obtained elsewhere is acceptable, then the cake the couple wanted is not unique as a creation, nor does it convey a unique message that is immutably connected to the bakery that makes it. And what unique message is the cake supposed to convey? Good luck to the happy couple? That's problematic for whom?
As for your catering is a unique creation....tell it to KFC. I went to an event last weekend, that KFC catered. Give me a break.
It was a cake. The baker denied service to a gay couple. What the gay couple used the cake for is the freedom of speech of the gay couple and none of the business of the baker.
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.
