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

[RetiredGySgt]

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


>>>>

Sorry but specialty items are by order and the owner has the right to refuse an order on ANY grounds.

 

[dblack]

Sorry but specialty items are by order and the owner has the right to refuse an order on ANY grounds.

And that's what's really at stake here. Do we have the basic right to say "no". PA laws claim that anyone running a "public accommodation" forfeits that right.

But, rest assured, this spineless Court won't comment on that fundamental question. They'll dodge it with the religion issue, or some other "workaround", that preserves the rotten core of the law, regardless of their decision.

 

[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


>>>>

Sorry but specialty items are by order and the owner has the right to refuse an order on ANY grounds.

Wedding Cakes were a product and a service offerred by Mr. Phillips for sale to the general public, therefore their production falls under the PA statute. Don't like the law there are two options: (a) challenge the law [like he did] on constitutional grounds or (b) have the legislature/congress repeal it.

I agree, PA laws as applied to private business should be generally repealed and owners be able to exercise rights of property and free association. The right to refuse for any reason (be it race, religion, sex, sexual orienation, age, veterans status, martical status, parental status, etc.) returned.

What you just posted isn't reality, it's what "should be". There is a difference. The reality is that any business owner can refuse service to any customer, just not for one of the characteristics of the customer defined in the law.


>>>>

 

[dblack]

What you just posted isn't reality, it's what "should be". There is a difference. The reality is that any business owner can refuse service to any customer, just not for one of the characteristics of the customer defined in the law.

And the sad irony there is that only certain types of unpopular discrimination will be covered. Real persecuted minorities will never be protected by such a policy.

 

[AZGAL]

Colorado found the baker to be in violation of it's public accommodation laws. The baker, Phillips is in the Supreme Court against the Colorado civil rights commission for a variety of reasons including his claim to federally protected freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

 

[AZGAL]

Many people do not know the his/herstorical tradition of wedding cake/ wedding bread: It symbolizes the fertility of the Bride and the sacred union. This is a worldwide meaning to cake/ bread at a wedding. Seriously.

 

[jillian]

View attachment 176258 Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
??? Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.???

Facts
In July 2012, Respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins visited Petitioner Masterpiece Cakeshop, a Colorado bakery, to request that its owner, Petitioner Jack Phillips, create a cake for their same-sex wedding. Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. . Phillips declined their request, explaining that he would not make a custom wedding cake for them because of his Christian beliefs, but that he would be happy to sell them any other baked goods. Phillips is a practicing Christian, and has been so for approximately 35 years.. Craig’s mother called Phillips, and he informed her that Masterpiece Cakeshop did not create cakes for same-sex weddings due to his Christian beliefs and because the state of Colorado did not legalize same-sex marriage.

Craig and Mullins filed a claim against Masterpiece Cakeshop and Phillips (collectively “Masterpiece Cakeshop”) with Respondent Colorado Civil Rights Commission (“CCRC”), alleging that the bakery discriminated against them due to their sexual orientation in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”). Under CADA, it is discriminatory to deny anyone “the full and equal enjoyment of the foods and services . . . of a place of public accommodation” based on protected characteristics, such as sexual orientation. Brief for Respondent, Colorado Civil Rights Commission at Colorado State Law: A “place of public accommodation” includes any “place of business engaged in any sales to the public.” Id. After investigating, the Colorado Civil Rights Division concluded that Craig and Mullins’s claims were supported by probable cause. Based on that finding, Craig and Mullins, as well as the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, filed with the Office of Administrative Courts alleging that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated CADA.


FEDERAL LAW: re: public accommodations:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3)
any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4)
any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

this has already been addressed by the court.

the law is... that you have to accommodate the public if you open a business.

and that it is only considered a violation of first amendment rights if a law is targeted at a particular religion.

hope that helps.

 

[AZGAL]

The Supreme Court justices have already criticized the Colorado civil rights division for UNFAIRLY applying its P/A laws.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

View attachment 176258 Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
??? Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.???

Facts
In July 2012, Respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins visited Petitioner Masterpiece Cakeshop, a Colorado bakery, to request that its owner, Petitioner Jack Phillips, create a cake for their same-sex wedding. Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. . Phillips declined their request, explaining that he would not make a custom wedding cake for them because of his Christian beliefs, but that he would be happy to sell them any other baked goods. Phillips is a practicing Christian, and has been so for approximately 35 years.. Craig’s mother called Phillips, and he informed her that Masterpiece Cakeshop did not create cakes for same-sex weddings due to his Christian beliefs and because the state of Colorado did not legalize same-sex marriage.

Craig and Mullins filed a claim against Masterpiece Cakeshop and Phillips (collectively “Masterpiece Cakeshop”) with Respondent Colorado Civil Rights Commission (“CCRC”), alleging that the bakery discriminated against them due to their sexual orientation in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”). Under CADA, it is discriminatory to deny anyone “the full and equal enjoyment of the foods and services . . . of a place of public accommodation” based on protected characteristics, such as sexual orientation. Brief for Respondent, Colorado Civil Rights Commission at Colorado State Law: A “place of public accommodation” includes any “place of business engaged in any sales to the public.” Id. After investigating, the Colorado Civil Rights Division concluded that Craig and Mullins’s claims were supported by probable cause. Based on that finding, Craig and Mullins, as well as the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, filed with the Office of Administrative Courts alleging that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated CADA.


FEDERAL LAW: re: public accommodations:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3)
any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4)
any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

this has already been addressed by the court.

the law is... that you have to accommodate the public if you open a business.

and that it is only considered a violation of first amendment rights if a law is targeted at a particular religion.

hope that helps.

So you claim to be a lawyer yet spout this drivel.... If it were so cut and dried the Supreme Court would not have agreed to hear it

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Supreme Court justices have already criticized the Colorado civil rights division for UNFAIRLY applying its P/A laws.

Link please where the Supreme Court as a body criticized the State of Colorado for applying the law as written by the legislature.

My understanding is that the court will not issue their ruling on the case until June (normally they time when the issue decisions non-time sensitive major cases).

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Supreme Court justices have already criticized the Colorado civil rights division for UNFAIRLY applying its P/A laws.

Link please where the Supreme Court as a body criticized the State of Colorado for applying the law as written by the legislature.

My understanding is that the court will not issue their ruling on the case until June (normally they time when the issue decisions non-time sensitive major cases).

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

They must have found something unsettling about the ruling or they wouldn't have agreed to hear it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They must have found something unsettling about the ruling or they wouldn't have agreed to hear it.

That's possible. However AZGAL said the Supreme Court (as a body) had already criticized the State of Colorado. But no opinion from the court has been issued. Hence the request for a link.

If she is talking about Oral Arguments, that is not an action by the court (as in the court as a body issuing a criticizing statement). Individual Justices question the Claimant and Respondents attorneys they may make individual comments and at times their individual questions can appear to challenge an argument made by the attorneys, but that is a different animal.

It could be the court is ready to carve a narrow religious exemption to PA laws and rule in favor of Mr. Phillips while leaving core PA laws in place. I doubt if they are going to overturn PA laws in general. If so probably something along the lines of artistic expression keeping non-religious goods and services in place.

On the other the hand, liberal wing (Kagen, Ginsburg, Breyer, & Sotomayor) of the court may have felt it was better to put the matter to rest if they can keep Kennedy (remember Kennedy was the deciding vote and wrote the opinions in Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell) before either Ginsburg or Kennedy retired and Trump gets to nominate another Justice in the mold of Scalia or Gorsuch. Remember under the "Rule of Four" it only take 4 Justices to decide to hear a case.

How the court will rule? I honestly don't know, my crystal ball is a little foggy this morning.


>>>>

 

[AZGAL]

YES the criticism was in the Oral Arguments. This was oral criticism.

 

[AZGAL]

please remember that the baker claims to not turn away/discriminate against people, but rather to refuse an action.

 

[AZGAL]

Hobby Lobby: A clear win for RFRA, and a cautious rebuke of the HHS mandate

by Travis Weber
July 1, 2014

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that closely held for-profit corporations can bring claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), and that the HHS mandate violated these corporations’ rights under RFRA by requiring them to provide contraceptives which they believe end human life. The Court faced two issues: (1) whether for-profit corporations are “persons” for purposes of RFRA protection, and if so, (2) whether the HHS mandate violated RFRA in this case. It decided the first clearly, and the second more cautiously.

RFRA protects corporations

Holding

RFRA protects a “person’s” religious exercise. The question is whether Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are “persons.” The Court held that they are—specifically that closely held for-profit corporations like those in this case clearly fall within the meaning of “person” in RFRA.

 

[AZGAL]

The Dangers of a Constitutional 'Right to Dignity'
It may provide support for same-sex marriage, but it also empowers judges to decide whose 'dignity' they wish to prioritize.
Jeffrey Rosen Apr 29, 2015

 

[AZGAL]

Art Leonard Observations

California Judge Issues Unprecedented Ruling in Favor of Baker Who Declined to Make Wedding Cake for Same-Sex Couple
Posted on: February 8th, 2018 by Art Leonard No Comments
Breaking a consensus among courts that has developed over the past several years that people with religious or moral objections to same-sex weddings are not entitled to exempt their business from selling goods or services for such events, Kern County (California) Superior Court Judge David Lampe ruled on February 5, 2018, in Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Miller, BCV-17-102855, that Cathy Miller, owner of Cathy’s Creations, Inc., doing business as Tastries Bakery in Bakersfield, California, is entitled to a First Amendment exemption from complying with California’s law that bans sexual orientation discrimination by businesses. Judge Lampe is the first to rule in favor of a business in such a case.

 

[AZGAL]

TIME Edge

1. Politics
2. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Is Considering the Limits of Freedom of Speech in 3 Upcoming Cases

Ryan McGinnis—Getty Images
By Tessa Berenson
February 26, 2018

Can government employees be required to pay union fees, even if they don’t belong to the union? Can you wear a “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirt to a polling place? And do pro-life crisis pregnancy centers have to advertise that abortions are available elsewhere?
Each of these questions is at the crux of a case the Supreme Court will hear in the coming weeks. And while the particular facts differ, each gets to a dispute over one of the fundamental rights in American society: freedom of speech, and specifically whether it includes the right to avoid compelled speech...
Along with the following cases, the Supreme Court will also rule this year on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which examines whether a baker opposed to same-sex marriage can be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding. It heard oral arguments in the Masterpiece case at the end of 2017, and it fits into this constellation of other thematically similar cases coming up this spring...

Here’s what you need to know about the three free speech cases coming up at the Supreme Court.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees
The story: Mark Janus doesn’t belong to the union that represents him— the local branch in Illinois of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. But money is still taken out of his paycheck every month for union fees...

Argument date: February 26

Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
The story: Minnesota law prohibits the wearing of any “political badge, political button, or other political insignia at or about the polling place” on election days. In 2010, Andrew Cilek went to his polling place in Hennepin County, Minnesota wearing a T-shirt with the Tea Party logo, the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me,” and an image of the Gadsden flag on it, as well as an anti-voter fraud “Please I.D. Me” button. An election worker wouldn’t allow Cilek to vote unless he removed or covered up the messages; after multiple attempts, Cilek was eventually allowed to vote, but the worker recorded his personal information...

Argument date: February 28

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
The story: Under a 2015 California law, crisis pregnancy centers (nonprofit organizations opposed to abortion) have to abide by two rules: for the pregnancy centers that are licensed to provide medical services, they need to advertise free or low-cost abortions provide a telephone number for the state agency to put patients in touch with providers. For the centers not licensed for medical services, they must make clear in up to 13 languages that they cannot provide medical help...

Argument date: March 20

 

[AZGAL]

Why Tell If You’re Not Asked? Self-Disclosure, Intergroup Contact, and Heterosexuals’ Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men

by Gregory M. Herek

..."The United States military’s principal justification for its policies concerning homosexual personnel has very little to do with the actual abilities or characteristics of gay men and lesbians. The Department of Defense (DoD) has virtually abandoned its past arguments that homosexual men and women are psychologically impaired, a security risk, or incapable of performing their duties, and therefore are inherently unfit for military service (Herek 1993). Instead, the DoD now concedes that lesbians and gay men can serve honorably and capably, and acknowledges that they have done so in the past. Indeed, the current policy (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t..."...

 

[Slashsnake]

Due to society's high amount of political correctness, the Supreme Court has taken the 14th amendment to the extreme, and in return, our 1st amendment rights are being eroded more and more by the day. I'm all for helping people who can't help themselves, but many people these days rely on the 14th amendment as an excuse to whine about how life is "oh so unfair to them."

Society just doesn't get it. You don't have the right to do business with a company... The company has the right to refuse to do business with you for any reason they want. Six days after I opened a Bank of America checking account, they unexpectedly closed it and their reasoning was "we can close the account whenever we want for any reason." Did I whine and throw a hissy fit about it? No, I moved to a competitor and I bank with Chase (and others) now.

Another example? I was on a different message board the other day... I made a harmless comment similar to, "$30 a month isn't that much money," yet someone posted how "offensive" that was and the mods of course defended his stance instead of telling them if they cannot handle someone's opinion, they shouldn't be on a message board in the first place.

Most of American society needs to go visit a therapist. Free speech no longer exists in this country unless you're the press/media.