CDZ Freedom of religion and speech vs discrimination of gays

[OldLady]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?

Because a business owner’s conscience is not ‘violated’ by obeying a just and proper law; he might subjectively and incorrectly believe that’s the case, but as a fact of law it is not.

That would be your conscience and my conscience you're referring to, not his. The SC said that had to be taken into account when determining a case like this. Do you disagree? I guess, obviously yes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Freedom of religion and speech vs discrimination of gays”

Private individuals, religious organizations, and private entities not functioning as businesses open to the general public are at liberty to discriminate against gay Americans, to engage in speech hateful to gay Americans, and to not associate with gay Americans.

The concept of freedom of religion and freedom of speech applies solely to government, and the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private persons and organizations; only government is therefore prohibited from discriminating against gay Americans with regard to denying homosexuals access to, and the benefit of, state laws and measures.

It is consequently wrong to refer to ‘free speech’ or ‘religious liberty’ with regard to public accommodations laws, as neither are in play.

Businesses open to the general public are subject to all manner of necessary, proper regulatory policies, including public accommodations laws – none of which ‘violate’ the religious liberty of business owners.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that citizens may not use ‘religious beliefs’ as ‘justification’ to ignore just and proper regulatory laws, or as an ‘excuse’ to avoid punitive measures when that regulatory policy has been violated.

Again, the problem is ignorance of the law, not pubic accommodations measures.

 

[dblack]

“Freedom of religion and speech vs discrimination of gays”

Private individuals, religious organizations, and private entities not functioning as businesses open to the general public are at liberty to discriminate against gay Americans, to engage in speech hateful to gay Americans, and to not associate with gay Americans.

The concept of freedom of religion and freedom of speech applies solely to government, and the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private persons and organizations; only government is therefore prohibited from discriminating against gay Americans with regard to denying homosexuals access to, and the benefit of, state laws and measures.

It is consequently wrong to refer to ‘free speech’ or ‘religious liberty’ with regard to public accommodations laws, as neither are in play.

Businesses open to the general public are subject to all manner of necessary, proper regulatory policies, including public accommodations laws – none of which ‘violate’ the religious liberty of business owners.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that citizens may not use ‘religious beliefs’ as ‘justification’ to ignore just and proper regulatory laws, or as an ‘excuse’ to avoid punitive measures when that regulatory policy has been violated.

Again, the problem is ignorance of the law, not pubic accommodations measures.

Yes. The only reason anyone could ever disagree with you is because they are ignorant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?

Because a business owner’s conscience is not ‘violated’ by obeying a just and proper law; he might subjectively and incorrectly believe that’s the case, but as a fact of law it is not.

That would be your conscience and my conscience you're referring to, not his. The SC said that had to be taken into account when determining a case like this. Do you disagree? I guess, obviously yes.

In Masterpiece the Supreme Court held that hearings officers must be comprehensive in their review of a case, and may uphold the finding of the state against the business owner even when the ‘conscience’ of the business owner is taken into consideration – the error on the part of the commissioners was to not be comprehensive in their review.

The Court also reaffirmed the fact that business owners may not claim a religious or philosophical objection to justify discriminating against a protected class of persons, including LGBT individuals.

What the Court needs to determine – perhaps in a future case – is whether ‘conscience’ is the same as a religious or philosophical belief; since the business owner sought to ‘justify’ his discrimination against gay patrons on religious grounds, his ‘conscience’ was in essence religion, and not justification to discriminate.

With this case the Supreme Court missed an opportunity – likely intentionally – to reinforce the settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law that religious beliefs are not ‘justification’ to ignore or violate just and proper laws with regard to public accommodations.

 

[Mac1958]

Quibbling over the Constitution interpretations and various applications of the law purposely ignores the real issue here.

This is a cultural issue, about the behaviors of human beings toward each other. We're choosing to be intolerant, on both ends.

 

[2aguy]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

When two different Rights collide, you have to rule for the least harm. The baker has 1st Amendment Protections of Religion and expression....the Gay couple has the imaginary Right to something about getting a cake baked for them.....so, the least problematic is to protect the 1st Amendment Right of Freedom of Religion, since that is a Right that pre-exists the Constitution, and since the gay couple can go just about anywhere else and get a cake......

 

[2aguy]

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution

Show us the "religion" where dogma states that someone can't bake a cake for a reception.

The religion of the Baker...you don't get to define his religious beliefs...

 

[2aguy]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

There will always be instances of dueling, competing, conflicting rights. I suspect the Founding Fathers knew this, and assumed we'd be able to work out such situations like adults, or at least hoped we would.

We appear to have lost that capacity. I'll bet the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate THAT.

I wish the baker had baked the damn cake. And then, when they refused, I wish the couple had just gone somewhere else. In both cases, the people involved were not willing to give an inch, to just let it go, to just live and let live.

We've become a terribly intolerant, narcissistic society, and we're creating our own problems.
.

Wrong, the baker had baked every other item the couple had asked for over the years, cakes, cookies and pastries and it was this one item they said they couldn't bake......the unreasonable of the two were the gay couple, not the baker....

 

[Mac1958]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

There will always be instances of dueling, competing, conflicting rights. I suspect the Founding Fathers knew this, and assumed we'd be able to work out such situations like adults, or at least hoped we would.

We appear to have lost that capacity. I'll bet the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate THAT.

I wish the baker had baked the damn cake. And then, when they refused, I wish the couple had just gone somewhere else. In both cases, the people involved were not willing to give an inch, to just let it go, to just live and let live.

We've become a terribly intolerant, narcissistic society, and we're creating our own problems.
.

Wrong, the baker had baked every other item the couple had asked for over the years, cakes, cookies and pastries and it was this one item they said they couldn't bake......the unreasonable of the two were the gay couple, not the baker....

They were both being reasonable. From their closed-minded, intolerant perspectives.
.

 

[2aguy]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

There will always be instances of dueling, competing, conflicting rights. I suspect the Founding Fathers knew this, and assumed we'd be able to work out such situations like adults, or at least hoped we would.

We appear to have lost that capacity. I'll bet the Founding Fathers didn't anticipate THAT.

I wish the baker had baked the damn cake. And then, when they refused, I wish the couple had just gone somewhere else. In both cases, the people involved were not willing to give an inch, to just let it go, to just live and let live.

We've become a terribly intolerant, narcissistic society, and we're creating our own problems.
.

Wrong, the baker had baked every other item the couple had asked for over the years, cakes, cookies and pastries and it was this one item they said they couldn't bake......the unreasonable of the two were the gay couple, not the baker....

They were both being reasonable. From their closed-minded, intolerant perspectives.
.

Nope.....the baker baked everything they wanted over the years, but on one issue, a wedding cake, they said they couldn't bake it, and since there were other places to get the cake, the gay couple were the intolerant ones in this...

 

[dblack]

Quibbling over the Constitution interpretations and various applications of the law purposely ignores the real issue here.

This is a cultural issue, about the behaviors of human beings toward each other. We're choosing to be intolerant, on both ends.

And, we're using government to force cultural change. aka social engineering.

 

[task0778]

The Colorado Christian Cake Baker vs the Gay Couple

What we have here is a question of civil rights, does one take precedence over another? Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?

Leaving the question of persecution aside, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pretty much did against the Christian cake baker, it's a thorny issue. At some point in the future, a similar case will be brought before the courts that will rise to the SCOTUS where they cannot rule that the state was not blatantly biased against either side, what then? Well, I got a few thoughts about that.

If you google "bakeries in Denver, CO" you get a bunch of entries (Lakewood is a suburb of Denver). Are we to assume that no other bakery in the area would suffice? Bull cookies. Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)? In such cases, should we perhaps look at the question of who is harmed the most, the one(s) who are discriminated against or the one(s) who freedoms of speech and religion are compromised? From what I can tell, the bakery paid a very heavy price already, in a number of ways. In what way were the gay couple harmed? They got a wedding cake from someone else, no problem there. Plus they got their cause splashed across the front pages across the country for quite some time, off and on.

This is as much a question of tolerance as anything else. It wasn't like the Christian baker refused the gay couple any service at all, he was willing to create anything else for them except the wedding cake, which was profoundly against his religious beliefs. Now one might think it's no big deal, bake the freakin' cake, dude. But to him it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope. What else can the gov't force you to do next, in opposition to your beliefs and values, religious and otherwise?

Speech enters into it because the baker creates the cake and artistically decorates it for the occasion. At least some of the SCOTUS justices think that is a form of speech. Should any of us be forced to say, write, create, or otherwise express ourselves contrary to what we believe? Another slippery slope there too IMHO.

It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down. They could've gone elsewhere but they went to him, do you think it was a coincidence? With literally dozens of other places they could have used, this is where they chose to go? Were they looking for a cake, or were they looking for a fight in court to publicize their political agenda? Is this what our laws are for, is this how they should be used?

Look, I am for gay rights, IMHO they shouldn't be discriminated against in any way or for any reason. But a little common sense and a dose of tolerance was in order, and in my view the gay couple displayed neither. Save your ammo for the important stuff; this case was IMHO bull cookies. They lost and they deserved to lose. Under different circumstances maybe not, but let's not try to destroy those with whom we have divergent views or beliefs.

I agree with you that this is a thorny issue, a real duel between two basic fundamentals of American jurisprudence. I wouldn't want to have to make the SC's decision. Someone will lose. Hopefully the SC will keep avoiding it until society sorts out an acceptable compromise for both sides. I believe the gays deserve as much right to be treated equally as the baker does to freely practice his religion.

Where I have a question for you, is why you think the gay couple went looking for trouble? Just because there are other bakeries in the area? Did it occur to you that it may have just happened that they liked the look of the place or some of the cakes he had created that were (possibly) posted on line or in his window? Maybe it had easier parking or was close to the reception site or their home. Or someone had mentioned it as being a great bakery? They didn't record it or bring in friends as "witnesses." I think it is as likely that it was just one of those things that happened, and over the past few years while this made its way through the courts, it wouldn't surprise me if the gay couple have wished they had walked into a different bakery, too.

There are coincidences in life, to be sure. BUT - it stretches credulity a little bit to believe that these guys just happened to walk into the one bakery in the area that is run by a Christian who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. There are literally dozens of other bakeries in the area, none of which seem to have a problem baking the cake. I cannot believe that the gay community in that area does not know about Phillips (the Christian baker). Wouldn't you think the gay couple would avoid such a person for a wedding cake of all things. You're celebrating a wedding, for God's sake; do you want to stir up trouble on that occasion of all times to do something political? And the gay couple did not have to make a federal case out of it, there were other avenues; boycotts and protests, and the like for starters. I am just not believing it was all an unfortunate coincidence. Frankly, I doubt very much that the gay couple is one bit sorry, I think they contrived the whole thing in advance to strike a blow for gay rights.

 

[task0778]

It has always been My contention that when faced with competing rights, the government has a duty to do the least amount of harm.

Public Accommodation laws need to be rewritten to be sensible. Meaning that if there are other viable options within a reasonable distance, then no one can sue for not being given service. However, if the business in question is the only one that offers the service or tangible asset within the area, then they should not be denied regardless of conscious.

Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?

Deciding who has suffered the greatest harm is not the worst way to judge such things. If there are numerous other businesses that can provide the goods or services you want, then the harm done to you is pretty minimal, no? So I can see where if you're the only cake baker around for a considerable distance that the harm done to someone who has been denied service is greater than if he/she can just go next door or down the street.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“But to [the business owner] it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope.”

Business owners are required to follow all manner of necessary, proper regulatory policies, such as paying their employees a minimum wage or complying with health codes for businesses that sell food items – public accommodations laws are no different.

Consequently, there is no ‘slippery slope’ – just a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?”

Neither – given the fact that public accommodations laws have nothing to do with the rights enshrined in the First Amendment, and that requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws in no manner ‘violates’ the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

 

[task0778]

“But to [the business owner] it was a big enough deal, so should he be forced to bake the cake anyway? Might want to take a second to consider that slippery slope.”

Business owners are required to follow all manner of necessary, proper regulatory policies, such as paying their employees a minimum wage or complying with health codes for businesses that sell food items – public accommodations laws are no different.

Consequently, there is no ‘slippery slope’ – just a slippery slope fallacy.

If a business owner can be forced by the gov't to bake a cake or do whatever else against their conscience, then yeah, that's a slippery slope indeed.

 

[task0778]

“Should an individual be forced to compromise his/her religious beliefs and coerced into expressing anything they do not support? Or does the prohibition against discrimination against a protected group trump all other Constitutional rights?”

Neither – given the fact that public accommodations laws have nothing to do with the rights enshrined in the First Amendment, and that requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws in no manner ‘violates’ the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

If the PA laws allows the gov't to force a business to forsake their religious convictions or forces them to speak, write, or in any way create or express something that they do not believe, then their rights under the free exercise clause have certainly been violated.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Where's the harm if they go to another bakery down the street (there is one)?”

The harm manifest in that such discriminatory practices are disruptive to the local markets and all other interrelated markets.

The Commerce Clause affords state and local governments the authority to regulate markets to ensure their stability (see, Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. US (1964), Gonzales v. Raich (2005)).

Allowing businesses open to the general public to refuse to accommodate patrons solely because of the patrons’ race, religion, or sexual orientation is clearly disruptive to a local market, threatens the stability of that market, and warrants states and local jurisdictions to regulate against such disruption.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“It looks to me like this gay couple deliberately went to this particular Christian knowing in advance he would turn them down.”

Wrong.

The gay couple did no such thing; in fact, they never had the opportunity to discuss the specifics of the cake design with the baker.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Look, I am for gay rights…”

That’s fine – but this issue has nothing to do with ‘gay rights’ – or the rights of anyone else, for that matter.

The issue concerns only the regulatory authority of government, that citizens are required to follow just and proper laws – such as public accommodations laws, and that religious beliefs, perceptions, or ‘conscience’ are not ‘justifications’ to ignore or violate just and proper laws such as those which prohibit discrimination regarding public accommodations.

For those who oppose public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation, your recourse is through the political process, not judicial; petition your state or local government to amend those laws to allow business owners to discriminate against gay patrons.