Colorado Baker accused of discrimination -- wouldn't make anti-gay wedding cake

[NotreDame]

This is probably true, which makes me feel warm and fuzzy for those being discriminated against. Not so much for the business owners deprived their rights.

The right of business owners to create second tier people, perpetuate de facto segregation, and exclude some people from society has been rightfully limited. Sorry you and other business owners are no longer given the freedom to segregate the masses, create second class citizens, and exclude people from society. We are better off when you and other businesses do not have this freedom.

 

[mafwons]

On what basis do you consider them being deprived of "rights"?

Well I guess to the "free exercise thereof" of their religion. We can societally challenge all day the document that sets the precedent is not in line with that.

 

[Cute Tink]

Well I guess to the "free exercise thereof" of their religion. We can societally challenge all day the document that sets the precedent is not in line with that.

None of the rights enumerated in the Constitution or other areas of law was ever meant to be so great that it exceeded the rights of other people. In other words, your right to believe and exercise your religion does not give you the authority to violate my rights as a citizen or as a human being.

You must acknowledge that all rights have limitations. No one right was ever meant to be absolute. In relevant terms, your right to your religion does not give you the right to break the law.

 

[Aldebaran]

People are legally entitled to be served in a certain way. If Christian bakers aren't willing to serve the public without illegal discrimination, they don't deserve to be in business.

But the extent of your right to be served does not extend to the point of forcing me to serve you. When you attempt to do that, you are now violating my rights. I'm saying this in case it matters to you....

 

[Aldebaran]

The right of business owners to create second tier people, perpetuate de facto segregation, and exclude some people from society has been rightfully limited. Sorry you and other business owners are no longer given the freedom to segregate the masses, create second class citizens, and exclude people from society. We are better off when you and other businesses do not have this freedom.

Maybe when a law is used against you to force you to do something that is in direct violation of whatever values you might have, you would see it differently,

 

[NotreDame]

Maybe when a law is used against you to force you to do something that is in direct violation of whatever values you might have, you would see it differently,

Or maybe I will comprehend the compelling reason why I, as a business owner, cannot exercise my religious beliefs in such a manner as to create a second tier class of citizens, perpetuate de facto segregation, and exclude members of society from society.

No business owner should be allowed to exercise its religious convictions through the medium of a business and in doing so create a de facto second tier of people and citizens, and de facto segregation by refusing to serve members of the public in which they have a religious objection to or a religious objection to the customers' conduct. The Muslim owner of CVS pharmacy shouldn't be permitted to refuse filling a prescription of sleeping pills to a Christian man because the Muslim believes the Christian to be an infidel and it is against his religious belief to do business with infidels.

A Christian business owner of Walgreens pharmacy shouldn't be permitted to refuse filling a birth control prescription to a biracial married couple because he has the belief biracial marriages are sinful and has the religious belief the races are to be separated in marriage.

A Christian business owner shouldn't be permitted to refuse dispensing antibiotics to fellow believers on the basis it is their belief Christians should be praying for a healing instead of using antibiotics for recovery.

Neither should a religious business owner of a grocery store be permitted to discriminate against handicapped people because in his religious view, the handicap is a punishment from God for some sin the man committed. The owner quite simply does not want a man who sinned so greatly as to be punished by God with a handicap on his property.

Yeah, I may not be happy with the law but I'd certainly comprehend the logic and reasoning why such a law exists and limits who I can refuse to serve based on my religious beliefs.

Quite simply, this is a consequence for operating a business in the United States. The U.S. has learned from its prior mistakes of allowing businesses to exercise this freedom. History is replete with examples of the undesirable consequences associated with allowing businesses the freedom you advocate.

 

[NotreDame]

Well I guess to the "free exercise thereof" of their religion. We can societally challenge all day the document that sets the precedent is not in line with that.

Yeah, well a Catholic conservative on the U.S. Supreme Court, justice Antonin Scalia, wrote the famous opinion limiting the free exercise of religion claims conflicting with laws of general applicability and neutral on their face. The case is Employment Division v. Smith. Here is a link to the decision. Employment Division v. Smith | LII / Legal Information Institute

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, essentially said the free exercise clause does not relieve a person of the duty to conform to a law that forbids or requires the performance of an act which is contrary to the religious beliefs of the individual when the law is neutral on its face and of general applicability. Historical examples? Laws prohibiting bigamy and polygamy, see Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879). Another example would be upholding military selective service for men holding it was against their religious belief to go to war, seeGillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 461 (1971). Another example was upholding the applicability of the Social Security law to Amish people. The Amish claimed it was against their religious belief to participate in governmental support programs and taxing their wages to pay into Social Security violated this religious belief and their religious practice of not participating in governmental support programs. The Court held Amish wages were subject to the collection of social security, application did not violate their free exercise of religion rights, and they needed to ante up immediately.

Sorry, but the free exercise of religion claim is baseless under these facts. You can thank the religious devout Catholic, Justice Scalia.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The right of business owners to create second tier people, perpetuate de facto segregation, and exclude some people from society has been rightfully limited. Sorry you and other business owners are no longer given the freedom to segregate the masses, create second class citizens, and exclude people from society. We are better off when you and other businesses do not have this freedom.

I'm actually surprised no one has tried to raise a 13th Amendment argument about this sort of thing:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Because...

Held: For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion. Pp. 487 U. S. 939-953.

.

That would be an interesting and amusing court case. Someone should arrest these people for 18 USC 241.

 

[StephanieSomer]

I just love how that first sentence reads, don't you? Yeah, that's what Christians do...they go to the business of a fellow Christian, demand they do something hateful, and that they know is against their own beliefs, and then sues the other Christian in court when they don't do it.

Do you honestly not see the problem here?

I sure do. Do you? The problem is many are coming into this thread and posting all kinds of arguments about how awful gays are and how they are trying to create lawsuits. There are no gays associated with this lawsuit AT ALL.

 

[StephanieSomer]

That sounds nice and all but it allows a business owner a very limited scope to apply their religious convictions, or even if they are just biggots, does not anyone deserve to be free to do as they chose so long as no tangible harm is done to another.

Running a business is not a religious exercise.

 

[StephanieSomer]

That counter argument doesn't fly, mafwons is arguing that the government is intentionally being selective as to how the law is being enforced in order to favor one group of people over another group of people.

You're deliberately disregarding the argument and acting as though mafwons said something that he didn't say.

What evidence has been offered to support the notion that "the law is being enforced in order to favor one group of people over another group of people"?

An argument without evidence is not an argument. That's called a groundless assertion. The laws of logic dictate that all that is necessary to refute a groundless assertion is another assertion.

 

[StephanieSomer]

The OP already provided a perfect example of the law being selectively enforced...

The fact you're failing to see it only serves to prove the point that MachZer0, myself, and others have made repeatedly in this thread.

What we keep seeing is y'all continually accusing gays of creating lawsuits. it didn't happen. That's purely a concoction. In truth, there is nothing in the OP to substantiate ANY statement about gays in this thread. And, any posts which do so are off-topic, since there are no gays in the article whatsoever.

 

[mafwons]

Running a business is not a religious exercise.

How do you know?

 

[StephanieSomer]

You left out political persuasion, that is also a protected status Cute Tink.

No doubt, you make the assumption that I am a liberal democrat. Most people make that silly assumption about me. Many have made posts about me to that effect. And they're dead wrong. I am, and have always been a conservative republican.

 

[mafwons]

The right of business owners to create second tier people, perpetuate de facto segregation, and exclude some people from society has been rightfully limited. Sorry you and other business owners are no longer given the freedom to segregate the masses, create second class citizens, and exclude people from society. We are better off when you and other businesses do not have this freedom.

Ah, we are not. I am not a business owner who descriminates, or creates second class citizens. I do not believe it is wrong to bake a cake or whatever. I support other business owners who do not wish to conduct their business at odds with their religion, thats all.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Except he wanted the cake made that particular way due to this political persuasion...

I disagree. The cake writing request wasn't a politically motivated action. It was a personally held belief that gays are a lower level of humanity unworthy of the same respect that every other person deserves. So, he wanted to have something to indicate that God agreed with his twisted view. The baker refused.

 

[mafwons]

None of the rights enumerated in the Constitution or other areas of law was ever meant to be so great that it exceeded the rights of other people. In other words, your right to believe and exercise your religion does not give you the authority to violate my rights as a citizen or as a human being.

You must acknowledge that all rights have limitations. No one right was ever meant to be absolute. In relevant terms, your right to your religion does not give you the right to break the law.

That is untrue.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Supporting acts of legislation is a lot different from targetting people with threats of violence, Cute Tink. You need to recognize the fact that your side often demonstrates a more vindictive streak.

Have you ANY idea how dangerous it can be for transsexuals in this society? Do you have any idea how many are brutally tortured, maimed, and killed simply for being transsexual? MOST transsexual murders aren't the average run-of-the-mill murders where someone pulls a gun and shoots. They get killed with axes, fire, vehicles, multiple stab wounds, or beaten to a bloody pulp.

While I assume most here wouldn't attend one, I suggest that people pay a visit to a TDOR observation at least once and listen to the length of the list of names of those killed in just the previous year, and HOW they were killed. It's intensely sobering to realize how backwards American society REALLY can be. If any ARE interested, TDOR, which stands for Transgender Day Of Remembrance, occurs each year on November 20. Most large urban areas have at least one observance.

Now, what was the word you used? Vindictive?

I LIVE with the threat of violence upon me every day. And many in THIS forum actually agree with the mindset of those who commit these murders by their repeated verbal attacks, lies, and disrespect. I've SEEN it here on several threads.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Baker Philips refused to sell a wedding cake to the Customer because of what said cake would be used for. He was perfectly willing to sell those same customers other baked goods.

Baker Silva refused to sell her customer the cake that said customer ordered but was willing to sell said customer other baked goods.

When you get down to it, the two cases are the same and you and others are turning a blind eye to that fact.

Okay let's say that some other customer had approached Baker Philips and asked him to bake the cake that Baker Silva had refused to bake, and he also refused because he thought the message was hateful and out of line. However he also refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

I think you'd still be going after him for holding true to his religious convictions.

Neither baker was willing to fulfill the order given by their respective customers. You can argue she was willing to bake a cake till you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that she wasn't willing to bake the cake to her customer's specifications.

Again, you're wrong. Baker Silva did NOT refuse to sell a cake. Only the writing. In fact, the order was for more than one cake, and all of those were delivered. The customer wanted ONE of them to have the writing.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Except we're not dealing with a public business, both cases involve privately owned businesses.

There is a pretty big difference between a public business and a private business...

Not really. A public business is owned by stockholders. A private business generally has a single owner. BOTH are in business with the public to generate profit. And BOTH are subject to the same accommodation laws.