Did Masterpiece Cakeshop Violate Public Accomodations Law? re: wedding cake

[AZGAL]

It is true that the young gay couple wanted a happy occasion without being hindered and there have been disappointments...These are young, idealistic people. And being turned away has an unfair judgement of shame that shouldn't ever taint a happy occasion such as a wedding, including a gay wedding. Truly this case is a fiasco.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The SC's going to toss this one

 

[WorldWatcher]

FEDERAL LAW: re: public accommodations:

Federal law is irrelevant in the case as they were not found to be in violation of Federal law. Masterpiece Cakeshop was in violation of Colorado's Public Accommodation law.

Yes, they violated the law. That is not in question. The question before the court is should the owners be exempt from the PA law while everyone else has to comply with it.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

The bases of the case is that the bakery refused them serves, it did NO such thing. The owner offered to sell them anything they wanted he just refused to make a specialty cake.

Sorry Gunny, yes they did refuse service and the Colorado law they were found to be in violation of requires "full and equal" access to goods and services. Not just a subset of available goods and services.


>>>>

 

[AZGAL]

The Baker has a right to not be discriminated against too.

 

[dblack]

The Baker has a right to not be discriminated against too.

Huh?? Seriously?

So, if some people organized a boycott against the baker, would that be violating his rights?

 

[dblack]

Yes, they violated the law. That is not in question. The question before the court is should the owners be exempt from the PA law while everyone else has to comply with it.

Or whether the law should be struck down because it violates the first amendment.

 

[AZGAL]

The problem with the Colorado law is that it is not the same as federal public accommodations law and in its extensive reach, Colorado omitted the right of the Christian baker to be protected from harassment as well. It is a similar situation to the Hobby Lobby case as the Christian baker has a closely held company and the right to not be made an object of shame because of his sincere religious beliefs.

 

[AZGAL]

Perhaps if this country were a different political system there could be ONLY ONE GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED MODEL OF CAKE ALLOWED.

 

[dblack]

The problem with the Colorado law is that it is not the same as federal public accommodations law and in its extensive reach, Colorado omitted the right of the Christian baker to be protected from harassment as well. It is a similar situation to the Hobby Lobby case as the Christian baker has a closely held company and the right to not be made an object of shame because of his sincere religious beliefs.

Wait, now you're asserting a "right to not be made an object of shame because of his sincere religious beliefs." Is that really established precedent? Because that's pretty insane.

 

[AZGAL]

There have been many cases before the SC regarding religion...for example: McDaniel v. Paty (1978)
A Tennessee law barring members of the clergy from public office was overturned because it directly targeted people because of their religious profession.

 

[dblack]

There have been many cases before the SC regarding religion...

No shit?

 

[AZGAL]

This is a tricky case because BOTH sides are right in a way.

 

[dblack]

This is a tricky case because BOTH sides are right in a way.

Not in my view.

PA law is a clear violation of fundamental freedoms. As a reaction to the very real problem of racism, especially as the legacy of slavery, it was an understandable mistake. But it was a mistake and needs to be undone.

 

[AZGAL]

A tricky mixThe Supreme Court is divided in a gay wedding cake case
The justices seem inclined to side with a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for two men

Democracy in America
Dec 6th 2017
by S.M. | WASHINGTON, DC



Masterpiece Cakeshop is a hard case, as the justices’ frustrated and furious questioning of both sides showed. For the first half of the hearing, things looked positive for the gay couple and Colorado’s civil-rights division. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan asked whether a string of other businesses involved in throwing a wedding also deserve First Amendment protection. What about the people doing the floral arrangements, Justice Ginsburg asked, or those designing the invitation or the menu? All these professionals’ expression rights are protected, Ms Waggoner replied. But the First Amendment umbrella “absolutely” does not cover hair stylists, makeup artists or chefs, she said, because their work does not constitute “speech”. This parsing drew a “whoa” from an incredulous Justice Kagan. Hairdressers strive to create “a wonderful hairdo” and makeup artists “might feel exactly as your client does” regarding the “skill and artistic vision” associated with their craft. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito joined the “what about” game, too, seeming surprised by Ms Waggoner’s claim that “an architectural design” would not be protected under the First Amendment.

Reflecting on this mish-mash of answers, Justice Stephen Breyer admitted to being “baffle[d]” by the proposition that Michelangelo is “not protected when he creates the Laurentian stairs”, but that Mr Phillips “is protected when he creates the cake without any message on it for a wedding”. How, he asked Ms Waggoner, are we to draw the line? “That’s what everybody is trying to get at.” With a reference to a 1964 case involving the white-owned Ollie’s Barbecue in Birmingham, Alabama that refused to serve African Americans, Justice Breyer pressed for “a distinction that will not undermine every civil rights law” protecting blacks, Hispanics and other disfavoured groups in America.

After more colloquy, Ms Waggoner’s proposed distinction slowly emerged: if a proprietor’s refusal to serve a customer is “based to who the person is, rather than what the message is”, it enjoys no First Amendment protection. In reply, Frederick Yarger, Colorado’s solicitor general, argued that Mr Phillips’s demurral “depended entirely on the identity of the customer who was ordering the cake”. David Cole, a lawyer from the American Civil Liberties Union, reiterated this point. When Messrs Craig and Mullins entered Masterpiece Cakeshop, “there was no request for a message” on a cake. Mr Phillips simply “refused to sell them any wedding cake. That's identity-based discrimination”.

This is the lynchpin of the case against the baker, so it should have been alarming for the couple when Justice Kennedy—probably the key vote on a fractured court—said the baker seems to have “nothing against gay people” per se. Instead, Justice Kennedy explained, it’s just that Mr Phillips doesn’t “think they should have a marriage” because same-sex nuptials are “contrary to [his] beliefs”. In sum, he told Mr Cole, “your identity thing is just too facile”.

This statement may be enough of a sign the perennial swing voter is leaning toward the baker. But another dimension of Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudential worldview could prove even more decisive: his concern with how the law affects human dignity. Early in the argument, Justice Kennedy said it would be an “affront to the gay community” if the baker “put a sign in his window” saying he does not bake cakes for gay weddings. But later, pointing to a comment by one of the Colorado commissioners that religion has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery and the Holocaust and is “despicable”, he seemed even more sympathetic to the baker. “Tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual”. Colorado, he added, “has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips's religious beliefs”.

Caution is the watchword when basing Supreme Court predictions on oral arguments. Justice Kennedy’s first question in the 2015 Obergefell hearing seemed to place him on the side of traditional marriage, but he went on to write the decision quite the other way. With twin commitments to First Amendment freedoms and LGBT equality, Justice Kennedy’s interior monologue must be the most fraught of all the justices'. We may have to wait until June to find out which of his principles holds sway—and whether the rights of the baker or the couple are vindicated.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Religion is a protected right.
Forcing people to do things against their religion is a 1st amendment violation.
A decent person would just choose another baker.
Only a left wing assh#le would sue.
aaaannnnd....Eating a cake that you forced someone to bake for you is highly unwise.

 

[AZGAL]

The Supreme Court has a tough question ahead: Where do you draw the line between free speech and discrimination?

The case headed to the high court in the new term that begins next month centers on Jack Phillips, the owner of the Colorado-based Masterpiece Cakeshop who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

 

[Lysistrata]

Please make it clear that Phillips does not represent the entire Christian faith, only his sect. Every business owner who is licensed is required to observe the PA laws, and his advertising said no different.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

FEDERAL LAW: re: public accommodations:

Federal law is irrelevant in the case as they were not found to be in violation of Federal law. Masterpiece Cakeshop was in violation of Colorado's Public Accommodation law.

Yes, they violated the law. That is not in question. The question before the court is should the owners be exempt from the PA law while everyone else has to comply with it.


>>>>

Actually you would be wrong the owner offered to sell them anything in his shop.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually you would be wrong the owner offered to sell them anything in his shop.

Actually I would be correct. The Mr. Phillips refused to provide the same goods and services in a full and equal manner. The fact that he would have sold them cupcakes is irrelevant to the fact that they were refused a good or service the shop normally provide (facts Mr. Phillips himself agree to in court documents). Not making a call as to whether Mr. Phillips will prevail or not in the SCOTUS final decision due in June, just pointing out that your statement that because he would sell them something else is did not qualify as discrimination. Blatantly false based on the simple language of the statute itself. The law clearly says "full and equal" not a subset of at least some goods or services.

The Colorado Statute reads: "(2)(a) It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation..."​

Colorado Revised Statutes Title 24. Government State § 24-34-601 | FindLaw


>>>>