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

[AZGAL]

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.

 

[AZGAL]

We all may reach a different conclusion. Please read the facts above. This case is in the US Supreme Court now.

 

[dblack]

I don't think it's a proper application of the First Amendment. The First isn't a free pass to ignore laws that conflict with one's religion. It's there to protect us from government meddling in religion.

I do, however, think that PA laws themselves violate even more fundamental rights (freedom of association, freedom of conscience, etc...) and should be struck down.

 

[AZGAL]

 

[bodecea]

I don't think it's a proper application of the First Amendment. The First isn't a free pass to ignore laws that conflict with one's religion. It's there to protect us from government meddling in religion.

I do, however, think that PA laws themselves violate even more fundamental rights (freedom of association, freedom of conscience, etc...) and should be struck down.

Except, PA laws have already come before the Supreme Court and have been upheld. The way to eliminate them now is left to state repeal.

 

[AZGAL]

 

[dblack]

I don't think it's a proper application of the First Amendment. The First isn't a free pass to ignore laws that conflict with one's religion. It's there to protect us from government meddling in religion.

I do, however, think that PA laws themselves violate even more fundamental rights (freedom of association, freedom of conscience, etc...) and should be struck down.

Except, PA laws have already come before the Supreme Court and have been upheld. The way to eliminate them now is left to state repeal.

Or a Court willing to revisit the matter.

 

[AZGAL]

..What are "open boarders"?........................................................................................Hotels with vacancies that offer continental breakfasts?Why should we oppose that?

The case now before the Supreme Court appears to hinge on whether a custom wedding cake is an artistic work protected by freedom of speech and religious expression, which would favor Phillips, or a product generally for sale to the public, which would favor Craig and Mullins. However you come down on that issue, the fact that the state court system agreed with the commission indicates that siding with the same-sex couple is hardly an extreme position legally. Some of the comments on Lundberg's Facebook post reflect rather a different view.
"What a waste of money, and apparently staffed by mamby pambys," one wrote of the civil rights commission.
"In my opinion, the so-called 'Colorado Civil Rights Commission' endangers the Constitutional freedoms of every American," wrote another.
"We have a court system that is to protect our god-given rights," wrote a third. "We do not need an unelected Civil Rights Commission to usurp that responsibility."

 

[AZGAL]

Any thoughts?

 

[AZGAL]

This is post civil rights public accommodation. This is US law and history.:

 

[dblack]

This is post civil rights public accommodation. This is US law and history.:View attachment 176500

Have you ever considered that a bad law might have some good effects? That a law might set terrible precedent and cause long-term harm to a nation, even if it achieves its short-term goals?

 

[AZGAL]

The Wedding Cake case before the Supreme Court now is an important case. Lots to be considered.

 

[AZGAL]

Any thoughts?

 

[dblack]

My thoughts are that these kinds of heavy-handed, social engineering projects are why we're now slogging through a Trump presidency. Democrats need to give up on identity politics and get back to government focused on equal rights for everyone.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[miketx]

I don't care. Liberals are stupid.

 

[AZGAL]

This case reflects a classic human dilemma: WHERE DO YOU END AND I BEGIN ???(or versa):
Dictionary

di·lem·ma
diˈlemə,dīˈlemə/
noun
noun: dilemma; plural noun: dilemmas

1. a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.
   
   synonyms: quandary, predicament, Catch-22, vicious circle, plight, mess, muddle; More
   difficulty, problem, trouble, perplexity, confusion, conflict;
   informalno-win situation, fix, tight spot, tight corner, can of worms
   "a discussion with a colleague resolved her dilemma"
   • a difficult situation or problem.
     "the insoluble dilemma of adolescence"
     "a discussion with a colleague resolved her dilemma"
   • Logic
     an argument forcing an opponent to choose either of two unfavorable alternatives.

 

[AZGAL]

Conscientious Objector vs. Gimme Total Freedom...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The case fails on the specifics the store did not refuse to serve them the store owner refused to do a specialty cake he offered to sell them anything in the store they wanted.

 

[AZGAL]

The BAKER may win this one because a contract was not made in an honest way for a specialty item: A) No gay marriage in Colorado at the time so a request for a gay wedding cake in a state that had written into the state constitution at that time that the state does not "recognize" gay marriage, B) In the brief communications that occurred both parties disagreed and the DETAILS needed to DESIGN a specialty item were never discussed, C) The BAKER clearly acted like a conscientious objector as he refused on sincerely held religious grounds, and D) one of the young men cursed him out in the bakery which is disorderly and any owner can refuse both an unreasonable request(A) and a customer who may have targeted him for mockery and also acted in a disorderly way in his shop. THEN there is the constitutional rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech that overpowers the applied state law.