Christian bakers who refused cake order for gay wedding forced to close shop

[bendog]

Oh, well, supposedly free speech does not extend to inciting violence, and there are limits on libel and slander. But, I meant political speech.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sooooo, Lester Maddux had a constitutional right to not serve blacks fried chicken in his restaurant? Frankly, I though so, but courts found otherwise.

I certainly don't agree with threats of violence, or violence, but I'm just trying to figure out where the fault lines are. And,

Former Southern Baptist Leader Calls for Boycott of Pat Robertson on EthicsDaily.com

So, I'm left wondering why anyone criticizes GLBT organizations from boycotting the bakery, and getting a list of the bakery's customers who cater and telling them to either quit doing biz with the bakery or face similar boycot. People have a right to free speech and to urge others to take some action.

Well then, to what degree of speech are businesses allowed to exercise, if I may ask?

According to the Supreme Court, it is unlimited. I would say that the amount of money that can be expended in an election can be limited on per capita, or company or union basis. But the SC has held otherwise ... for now.

And my personal view is Lester Maddox should have able to deny service, as should the Christian bakers. But apparently, courts disagree. But, all have a right to boycott.

Given that I live in the state where he was Governor, I know for a fact he did not have the right to deny service to blacks. Given that he filed a lawsuit to continue his racist policies. The restaurant was known as "Pickrick" and went into business in 1944. This was a case of him not wanting to conform to the times. Given that the SC came down with Brown v. Board of Education during his time, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he had no reason not to conform.

This Christian Bakery on the other hand should have had the right not to serve LGBT customers, and the LGBT customers in turn had the right not to do business with them. Simple common sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that. I could be wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that. I could be wrong.

anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating.

The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that. I could be wrong.

Do you remember what happened with Chick-Fil-A? Same deal. If it has a license to do business, that doesn't necessarily mean they have an obligation to serve anyone and everyone. I feel like since the First Amendment allows free speech and exercise of religion, the actions of this Bakery were justified. Just because you are a business, it is not contingent on you giving up your Constitutional rights.

What if these LGBT customers knew this was a Christian bakery? Perhaps they wanted them to be put out of business because the knew that if they were denied service, they could sue? Some people do things out of spite, and I smelled a rat from the getgo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that. I could be wrong.

anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating.

The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?

Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.

 

[martybegan]

Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that. I could be wrong.

anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating.

The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?

Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.

Where in the consitution is it written that a buisiness can be forced to serve anyone?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Study constitutional law, please.

 

[shintao]

Sooooo, Lester Maddux had a constitutional right to not serve blacks fried chicken in his restaurant? Frankly, I though so, but courts found otherwise.

I certainly don't agree with threats of violence, or violence, but I'm just trying to figure out where the fault lines are. And,

Former Southern Baptist Leader Calls for Boycott of Pat Robertson on EthicsDaily.com

So, I'm left wondering why anyone criticizes GLBT organizations from boycotting the bakery, and getting a list of the bakery's customers who cater and telling them to either quit doing biz with the bakery or face similar boycot. People have a right to free speech and to urge others to take some action.

Well then, to what degree of speech are businesses allowed to exercise, if I may ask?

Apparently not to serve gays, huh Chick-a-fil ?

 

[bendog]

anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating.

The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?

Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.

Where in the consitution is it written that a buisiness can be forced to serve anyone?

Well, as memory serves, the congress got there via the commerce clause, and the supreme court said, OK. (which is why I suspect Roberts did not find Obamacare valid under the commerce clause) You may not like it, and I may disagree with it, but it's the law, and we live with it. And, it's not so onerous. Even those of us who disagreed, pointed out that eventually KFC with an non discriminatory policy would bury Maddux economically, regardless of who had better chicken.

 

[bendog]

Sooooo, Lester Maddux had a constitutional right to not serve blacks fried chicken in his restaurant? Frankly, I though so, but courts found otherwise.

I certainly don't agree with threats of violence, or violence, but I'm just trying to figure out where the fault lines are. And,

Former Southern Baptist Leader Calls for Boycott of Pat Robertson on EthicsDaily.com

So, I'm left wondering why anyone criticizes GLBT organizations from boycotting the bakery, and getting a list of the bakery's customers who cater and telling them to either quit doing biz with the bakery or face similar boycot. People have a right to free speech and to urge others to take some action.

Well then, to what degree of speech are businesses allowed to exercise, if I may ask?

Apparently not to serve gays, huh Chick-a-fil ?

chick fil a didn't threaten to refuse service to GLBT folks, just to give money to those opposing inclusion. That led to the boycott, and chick fil a backed down.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.

Where in the consitution is it written that a buisiness can be forced to serve anyone?

Well, as memory serves, the congress got there via the commerce clause, and the supreme court said, OK. (which is why I suspect Roberts did not find Obamacare valid under the commerce clause) You may not like it, and I may disagree with it, but it's the law, and we live with it. And, it's not so onerous. Even those of us who disagreed, pointed out that eventually KFC with an non discriminatory policy would bury Maddux economically, regardless of who had better chicken.

These complaints are filed under State law not Federal law so the commerce clause doesn't need to be the basis. States can regulate intrastate businesses under the powers of the 10th. The justification for Congress under the Commerce Clause applies to Federal Public Accommodation laws, which the SCOTUS has upheld, but Federal law does not mention sexual orientation as one of the protected classes.



>>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well then, to what degree of speech are businesses allowed to exercise, if I may ask?

Apparently not to serve gays, huh Chick-a-fil ?

chick fil a didn't threaten to refuse service to GLBT folks, just to give money to those opposing inclusion. That led to the boycott, and chick fil a backed down.

They never backed down, it's own customers came in force to support them. The boycott was practically meaningless since it had little to no impact on it's revenue. Actually it turned out to be more profitable for them than not.

 

[bendog]

Where in the consitution is it written that a buisiness can be forced to serve anyone?

Well, as memory serves, the congress got there via the commerce clause, and the supreme court said, OK. (which is why I suspect Roberts did not find Obamacare valid under the commerce clause) You may not like it, and I may disagree with it, but it's the law, and we live with it. And, it's not so onerous. Even those of us who disagreed, pointed out that eventually KFC with an non discriminatory policy would bury Maddux economically, regardless of who had better chicken.

These complaints are filed under State law not Federal law so the commerce clause doesn't need to be the basis. States can regulate intrastate businesses under the powers of the 10th. The justification for Congress under the Commerce Clause applies to Federal Public Accommodation laws, which the SCOTUS has upheld, but Federal law does not mention sexual orientation as one of the protected classes.



>>>>

yes, but the question mentioned "constitution." You're right that there would have to be an expansion of suspect classes to reach GLBT, and that's why, imo, Roberts didn't go near the commerce clause on Obamacare. The conservatives on the Court have been trying to roll back the commerce clause since Earl Warren. LOL

States can always legislate more civil rights protections than the constitution provides. GLBT folks are winning this issue, so there probably will not be any federal actions, beyond the SC striking down stuff like DOMA.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not if it has a public license to serve customers, TemplarKormac. unless the can file and win over religious beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS conservative margin would not approve that. I could be wrong.

anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating.

The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?

Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.

If you could be so kind, can you post for us the relevant laws pertaining to this discussion?

 

[bianco]

TODD'S AMERICAN DISPATCH: Christian bakery closes after LGBT threats, protests | Fox News

threats are something else.

A family-owned Christian bakery, under investigation for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, has been forced to close its doors after a vicious boycott by militant homosexual activists.

“Better is a poor man who walks in integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways,” read a posting from Proverbs on the bakery’s Facebook page.


Nothing crooked morally or legally about baking a wedding cake for a lesbian couple...IMO.
Take the order from the customer, bake the cake, payment for it changes hands legally, all good.

Now, if one turns baking wedding cakes into a 'morals crusade', then one has to deal with the consequences.
Consequences that can be dire.

Also, there are discrimination laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

anti-discrimination laws against people are not a matter of consitutional rights, but a matter of local and federal law. The recontruction amendments only ban the federal and state/local GOVERNMENTS from discriminating.

The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?

Yours is a common and mistaken reading of the law.

If you could be so kind, can you post for us the relevant laws pertaining to this discussion?

He made the statement that "The question then becomes is the government ALLOWED to force you to go into business with someone you do not want to go into business with?"

So for anyone interested in educating themselves, just as I did about federal laws, please go to Online Business Law | SBA.gov.

Also in your individual states, you will find state laws online to help you.

Until the other poster makes something more narrow than a comment about anti-discrimination laws, I can't go much further than this. I hope it helps.

 

[Luissa]

Then they'll have to settle for making a lot less money.

Sorry but two people working out of a home without commercial equipment won't be able to produce much.

Just like your shade tree mechanic bigot will make a lot less than he would if he employed a dozen mechanics in a well run business.

And I'm sure he doesn't pay taxes on what he earns now and that's nothing to be praising.

J Paul Getty once said; ""I'd rather have 1% of the effort of 100 men than 100% of my own effort."

That is the essence of owning a business.

They don't have to stay in their home. They can move to a place where they do the baking and still don't have to open to the public. There are many things they can do to avoid this imposition. All of them ending up making more money than they did with a single retail outlet.

Maybe but that's not the gist I got from the link. They took a huge financial hit so they had to close down the shop. There was no mention of any other plan so I doubt they have one.

But it was their own fault so I don't have much sympathy for them

They will be out of their home now.
They have the right to stand their ground but doing so in Oregon wasn't a smart business move.

 

[bianco]

The death threats must be investigated by the police.

The threats against suppliers who dealt with the bakery should also be investigated by the police.

 

[Katzndogz]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If they are operating a business (even if it is out of their home), have a business license, and advertise for public sale of goods or services - they still fall under public accommodation laws.



>>>>

You are relying too heavily on the web site. It has not been changed, yet. Did you notice that it still has a shot of the store. They will have to make some changes in their advertising. They will probably move out of their home quite quickly and into space where they do the baking but that doesn't mean they have to open their doors to the public.

If it were me, I just would stop baking wedding cakes except by private arrangement. I'd put up a sign that says "State and federal law prohibit the advertisement of wedding cakes".

#1 The already made cakes by "private arrangement", people came in, they ordered a cake, they discussed the design with the owner, the owner sold the cake. I'm not sure why, while operating legally under an Oregon Business license as a public business you think "private arrangments" weren't already made. They would need to close shop, relinquish their license, and re-incorporate under a private club concept - then they could restrict sales to bonefide members.

#2 Why would a Christian couple lie about advertising? No State of Federal law prohibits them from advertising about wedding cakes.



>>>>

You aren't getting the concept of open to the public. The bakery advertised that it made wedding cakes. The advertising is made to the general public. A member of the public walks in and negotiates the price and design. Public accommodation for business offered to the public at large.

It's not a private club, because admittance to the premises is not being restricted. Gays can walk in and buy anything out of the display case they want.

Suppose they did not advertise that they made wedding cakes. They made event cakes. Birthday, Bar Mitzvah, baby shower cakes. Someone walks in and says they want to order a wedding cake. The owner says "sorry, we don't make wedding cakes". But, they made a wedding cake for the leader of the church choir! That doesn't matter. It was the result of personal contact not public advertising. No public accommodation. There is no offer to do business with the public at large.

All they have to do is reopen someplace else and stop advertising that they make wedding cakes. Problem solved. They will make a wedding cake as a favor, to special friends.