Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.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.Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?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.
“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.
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.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.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.Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?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.
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.
Show us the "religion" where dogma states that someone can't bake a cake for a reception.Freedom of Religion is in the constitution
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.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.
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.
.
They were both being reasonable. From their closed-minded, intolerant perspectives.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.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.
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.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.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.
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....
.
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.
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.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.
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.
Why should the only baker for 100 miles need to violate his conscience, any more than the baker who has competition down the block?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.
“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.
“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.
