Transcript of Oral Argument Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Division

[bhsmte]

The "losing your business" line is not hyperbole. It speaks to exactly what's going on in Oregon over this same issue.

The homosexual couple have an argument. It's just that it's a losing one. It's like camping on someone's lawn and saying that, as an american citizen you have freedom of mobility and can stay wherever you want. However, the land owner's property rights trump that right. Again, it's the swing your fist argument.

Along these same lines, what if religious business owners(of public accommodating businesses) were allowed to discriminate, against whoever they chose to, as long as they were willing to be transparent to that same public, about who they will refuse to serve?

In other words, allow religious business owners to refuse to serve who they choose, as long as they post specific situations in which they would refuse someone service, by posting it on their website and or their store front, for the public to see.

Do you think religious business owners would be willing to do this?

 

[KCfromNC]

this wording is amazing! and notice it doesn't protect people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs.

Yep, funny how important these sorts of laws become when one's particular minority status gets left out. Suddenly they're vitally important rather than unconstitutional slavery.

 

[KCfromNC]

When does that happen?

Typically, when business owners go back on the commitments they made when opening their business to the public.

 

[Aldebaran]

Along these same lines, what if religious business owners(of public accommodating businesses) were allowed to discriminate, against whoever they chose to, as long as they were willing to be transparent to that same public, about who they will refuse to serve?

In other words, allow religious business owners to refuse to serve who they choose, as long as they post specific situations in which they would refuse someone service, by posting it on their website and or their store front, for the public to see.

Do you think religious business owners would be willing to do this?

Are you going to post a picture of a "We refuse the right to serve anyone" picture from Google if you get a positive response to your question?

 

[bhsmte]

Are you going to post a picture of a "We refuse the right to serve anyone" picture from Google if you get a positive response to your question?

It isn't about a right not to serve anyone, it is about the religious business owner, willing to be transparent with the same public they are inviting in the door and informing them what situations, they will refuse to serve people.

Do you think religious business owners would be willing to be transparent, about how their personal religious beliefs, will impact the public they invite in the door?

 

[KCfromNC]

Along these same lines, what if religious business owners(of public accommodating businesses) were allowed to discriminate, against whoever they chose to, as long as they were willing to be transparent to that same public, about who they will refuse to serve?

In other words, allow religious business owners to refuse to serve who they choose, as long as they post specific situations in which they would refuse someone service, by posting it on their website and or their store front, for the public to see.

Do you think religious business owners would be willing to do this?

It would have to be more than this. We'd need to have the owners register their religious views with the government and have them be investigated to make sure they are sincere in their understand and practice of these beliefs. Shouldn't take more than 6 months or so of constant monitoring by the state to establish that these business owners really believe what they say they do. And making them pay for the expense to prove they're really Christians would be well worth it, I'd imagine.

 

[KCfromNC]

Some rules are unconstitutional, as the state of Colorado is about to discover.

There is a phrase you'll see discussed in most real estate exams: "unenforceable clause". I can agree to pay you a certain amount for your home and if I fail to pay the full amount by a certain date, there can be a clause saying that you will have the right to my first born son as your pleasure slave for a period of one year.

But if I don't pay, you can not enforce that clause.

There is also the concept of unconstitutional laws, which is the subject at hand.

Nice assertions. The fact you don't seem to bring up actual case law relevant to the situation at hand is curious, though.

 

[bhsmte]

It would have to be more than this. We'd need to have the owners register their religious views with the government and have them be investigated to make sure they are sincere in their understand and practice of these beliefs. Shouldn't take more than 6 months or so of constant monitoring by the state to establish that these business owners really believe what they say they do. And making them pay for the expense to prove they're really Christians would be well worth it, I'd imagine.

I would have no problem with having an option for a business owner to register their business as one that is asking to be able to refuse service based on personal religious beliefs. Then, demonstrating to the public, which situations would require them to refuse service.

Also, essential type of businesses (grocery stores, pharmacies, etc.) would not have this option for obvious reasons, but I would have no problem with it. And, if the business owner has such strong personal beliefs, they should have no issue informing the public (beforehand), how they may impact them.

 

[Maren]

this wording is amazing! and notice it doesn't protect people discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. I find that comical.

Actually, it does protect religion, just they used the word "creed" rather than religion.

 

[KCfromNC]

I would have no problem with having an option for a business owner to register their business as one that is asking to be able to refuse service based on personal religious beliefs. Then, demonstrating to the public, which situations would require them to refuse service.

Also, essential type of businesses (grocery stores, pharmacies, etc.) would not have this option for obvious reasons, but I would have no problem with it. And, if the business owner has such strong personal beliefs, they should have no issue informing the public (beforehand), how they may impact them.

Before we go down this path, though, I think it is important to figure out what penalties the business owners will suffer if they fail to go to church every week. Also, how much it would cost for them to convert to a different religion and how long the waiting period would have to be.

 

[bhsmte]

Before we go down this path, though, I think it is important to figure out what penalties the business owners will suffer if they fail to go to church every week. Also, how much it would cost for them to convert to a different religion and how long the waiting period would have to be.

Here is the bottom line, very few religious business owners, would be willing to be transparent about who they would refuse to serve, for obvious reasons. This would fall under; be careful what you wish for category.

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually, it does protect religion, just they used the word "creed" rather than religion.

Pretty basic miss for someone lecturing everyone else on what is and isn't constitutional. I'm starting to get a twinge of Dunning Kruger here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Here is the bottom line, very few religious business owners, would be willing to be transparent about who they would refuse to serve, for obvious reasons. This would fall under; be careful what you wish for category.

As a non-believer I'd be very happy to see religions heavily regulated by government red tape. Not sure what believers seem so excited about it, though. Guess the draw to discriminate against gay people is really strong.

 

[bhsmte]

As a non-believer I'd be very happy to see religions heavily regulated by government red tape. Not sure what believers seem so excited about it, though. Guess the draw to discriminate against gay people is really strong.

Gays are icky.

 

[Almost there]

Along these same lines, what if religious business owners(of public accommodating businesses) were allowed to discriminate, against whoever they chose to, as long as they were willing to be transparent to that same public, about who they will refuse to serve?

I think that would be fine except for one thing: I would not use the word "who". I'd use the word "events".

Remember that deli that refused to cater the wedding of a homosexual couple. They served them all the time and knew they were homosexual. They didn't care. It was none of their business. But when asked to cater the event, that was different. The event violated their religious beliefs.

Homosexuals don't violate my religious beliefs, but homosexual activity DOES. And homosexual marriage is a homosexual activity. I'll serve the homosexual, but will not tolerate the activity in my place of business or as something I will support with the fruits of my labor.

 

[KCfromNC]

Gays are icky.

I'd have a bit more sympathy if people just came clean on this point rather than the tortured rationalizations we've had to suffer through in this thread.

 

[Almost there]

Yep, funny how important these sorts of laws become when one's particular minority status gets left out. Suddenly they're vitally important rather than unconstitutional slavery.

Actually, that was not my point. I don't need a law to support some group I belong to. The constitution already covers me because I'm an individual citizen. I just thought it was conspicuous in its absence.

 

[Aldebaran]

It isn't about a right not to serve anyone, it is about the religious business owner, willing to be transparent with the same public they are inviting in the door and informing them what situations, they will refuse to serve people.

Right. And then comes the statements about how it would be just like people putting up signs in their business window that says things like, "We serve whites only". That's the way these discussions go. Signs like that in the past were a way of owners being transparent with the public about who they serve. Personally, I would have no problem with them doing that today. They would be transparent. However, it would no doubt drive away business. But still, it would be their choice, and they can lose business if they decide that it's worth it to them. If that causes them to end up closing their doors for good, then it would be due to their own decision and the public's reaction to it.

Do you think religious business owners would be willing to be transparent, about how their personal religious beliefs, will impact the public they invite in the door?

That would be up to each individual "religious business owner". Some of them, such as the baker who is the subject of this thread, might very well do that. Others might not. Some might have no problem making cakes for gay "weddings". But whatever they decide to do, and are willing to be transparent about it, they should be allowed to do. Then the marketplace will decide if they stay in business or not.

 

[Almost there]

Nice assertions. The fact you don't seem to bring up actual case law relevant to the situation at hand is curious, though.

Sorry, your honor.

 

[Almost there]

Actually, it does protect religion, just they used the word "creed" rather than religion.

I confess that I did not know that. It's not a word I use much.