Religion vs law

[Two Thumbs]

This is why gays want to marry

so they can sue the **** out of anyone that doesn't bow to their tyranny.

next up, churches

This never had shit to do with rights, it was always about hurting people.

fyi; called it years ago.

the dumbest thing i've ever read.

as for the owners, if they are a public accommodation i don't believe they have the right to discriminate - so i believe they should rent out their facility. i don't think they should be made to plan the ceremony, but their facility must be made available to all per iowa law.

Truth hurts

Everyone biz has the right to refuse for any reason.

No shirts, no shoes...

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't believe people have rights unless you like what they do with them?

i believe that iowa law is clear. if you disagree, work to change that law.

That wasn't my question, was it? Either own the opinion with pride, or blame it on the law. Your choice.

Your question is only that, a question with no obligation to it at all by anyone.

Change the law. You don't believe in law, do you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't honestly believe there are any easy answers. Part of why I say that is - any one business is not the only business in town, for the most part. If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?

No.

A consistent application of public accommodations laws in the context of Commerce Clause jurisprudence would require businesses to indeed accommodate same-sex couples. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

Denying homosexuals access to certain markets can indeed have an impact on commerce, how small the market may be is irrelevant, of course, and such markets can be Constitutionally subject to government regulation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Would they be allowed to refuse to marry an inter-racial couple based upon their religious beliefs? If the answer is no then they have no right to refuse a same sex couple either if they are in the business of providing marriage services.

Were there businesses that refused inter-racial couples services? Yup, and they were taken to task by the law and served as examples to other businesses.

If there are supposed to be equal rights under the Constitution then no one gets to set up their own little corporate fiefdom where the Constitution doesn't apply.

One day you will learn that hate is not the only emotion humans can feel, until then, I feel sorry for everyone in your life.

Would you be able to provide a single example of a racist Mennonite? Keep in mind that Mennonites were openly part of the underground railroad at a time when getting caught harboring escaped slaves was a criminal offense.

Try reading what I actually posted, QW. Nowhere did I accuse them of racism. I simply asked if their religious beliefs included not serving blacks would that be acceptable? That was to demonstrate that discrimination is illegal in commerce. You don't get to pick and choose what kind of discrimination you want to practice when you have a business. No discrimination of any sort is allowed. That applies to both gays and blacks.

 

[dblack]

Yes. And I should be allowed to take out a full-page ad mocking them for their petty bigotry.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

I have to select “Other” from the Poll options and here is the requested explanation.

The Thread Title and the OP asks the wrong fundamental question, and that is if I may paraphrase,:

The assumption is that Public Accommodation laws are valid, but that someone can claim an narrowly tailored special privilege (Religious Exemption) to apply only to one specific group “The Gheys”.​

Public Accommodation laws are built on the premise that government has a fundamental function to regulate the practices of private businesses who provide goods and services to the general public in terms of who they chose to provide such goods and services – as opposed to regulations such as fire codes, tax codes, food safety, etc., which have a fundamental function of ensuring public safety.

This narrowly awarded special privilege, as noted, would only apply to “The Gheys”. A person could claim “my religion says I can’t provide services to the gays” – and that person would receive such an exception. Another person could claim “my religion says I can’t provide services to interracial couples” – but they would not be eligible for the exemption because the basis isn’t “gay” it’s race. Another person could claim “my religion says I can’t provide services to (Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. [pick a religion of choice])” – but they would not be eligible for the exemption because the basis isn’t “gay” it’s religion. Another person could claim “my religion says I can’t provide services to women” – but they would not be eligible for the exemption because the basis isn’t “gay” it’s gender.

Remember, the basis of the special privilege (being exempt from the law) is the claim of individual religious beliefs, those beliefs are not required to be proven, they do not need to be generally accepted by a religious organization – they are the personal beliefs of the individual to claim the exemption.

**************************************

So the more appropriate question, IMHO is this:

Given: As a private business entity, the owners of such an entity are the owners of the goods and services they provide.
Given: Individuals can have a “desire” for the goods and services provided by another private entity, but they do not have a “right”
Given: That Public Accommodation laws use the power of government to force private business owners to associate with and provide goods and services to customers the owner has no desire to conduct business with.

Question: Should the desire of the individual to have a specific private business entity usurp the right of that business owner to free association (the flip side being a right to chose non-association) and their property rights.​

**************************************

The OP asks “What should be…?” as opposed to “What is…?”, which is a perfectly valid question but many confuse the two. I can argue and articulate the law and some of the case history which shows the basis of “What is”, that is a totally different thing then discussing “What should be”. Some however seem incapable of differentiating the two and confuse what they think the law should be with what the law actually is.

This case shows that the couple (apparently) violated the law, although a final determination by the appropriate government entity hasn’t been rendered yet. Sweet Cakes by Melisa (Oregon) and Elane Photography (New Mexico) violated the law, the New Mexico case going all the way to the NM Supreme Court who upheld the law and provided that religion was not a special privilege to claim exception.

I'm for the repeal of this classification of laws commonly referred to as "Public Accommodation" laws and I mean both at the federal, state, and local level because they interfere with the right of private individuals in terms of speech, assembly, self determination. A private business should be able to choose to service or not service customers base on a business model they choose to create and then they can survive or fail based on how the public accepts (or rejects) that model.

With that said there are two conditions to which I would be open:

1. This would not apply to emergency and/or life threatening medical treatment especially when time is of the essence. However it would not apply to elective procedures.

2. While "Public Accommodation" laws would not apply to totally private enterprises, government entities (federal, state, and local) could (and should) establish laws within their jurisdiction which provide that government entities will not discriminate against it's citizens based on race, ethnicity, national origin, marital status, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, ya-da, ya-da. That such entities as a matter of law and policy may not do business with private entities which are found to function under a discriminatory business model. This is not the government saying that the business must operate in a certain way (which is the businesses choice), just that the government will not contract services or materials from entities that discriminate (which is the governments choice).​

If a Jewish Deli owner doesn't want to sell a sandwich to a Muslim. Fine.

If a Bakery doesn't want to sell cupcakes to Asians. Fine.

If a Photographer doesn't want to shoot a lesbian commitment ceremony. Fine.

The problem is some on the right want special privileges to the threat of Public Accommodation laws as a means for discriminating against one narrowly defined group, and those on the left have used such laws in the past which lends some credence to the claims of those on the right.

Private legal entities should be able to discriminate against whomever they want, whether it be by race, religion, ethnicity, gender, marital status, veterans status, age, sexual orientation, parental status, etc. - and if they choose not to be eligible for government contracts, that's their choice.

Freedom can sometimes be messy.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay, I know you guys already hashed out Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the bakery that refused to create a same-sex wedding cake and practically got driven out of business.

Here is a similar case, and I am including a poll.

Christian Businesses in Trouble Over Christian Policies

A Mennonite couple in Iowa may be forced to choose between financial penalties or disregarding their own principles after the Iowa Civil Rights Commission filed suit against them for refusing to host a same-sex wedding. Dick and Betty Odgaard, who operate The Gortz Haus Gallery in Grimes, Iowa, has filed a counter-lawsuit against the state’s Civil Rights Commission in the hopes that they may be able to maintain their own convictions without penalty.

The Odgaards’ Gallery served as the location of a Lutheran church for over 60 years, but is now a bistro, floral and arts shop, as well as a wedding facility. They declined a request from Lee Stafford and his partner Jared to host a same-sex wedding in August. According to their countersuit, they did so “because their religion forbids them from personally planning, facilitating or hosting wedding ceremonies not between one man and one woman.”

His wife Betty explained to local television station KCCI that the company policy reflects their Christian faith. “That decision is based on our religious beliefs,” she stated. “And we want to honor that. We want people to know that is our stand, [which] comes from our faith and convictions, and I think we should stand by those [convictions] no matter what.”

The Odgaards did offer to provide the flowers or cake for the ceremony, but indicated that they were not comfortable allowing an exchanging of vows between the two men on their premises. “I would serve them in every other way; we simply don’t want to take part.… It just comes down to that final line of taking their vows in our facility,” she told reporter Billy Hallowell. “I do not hate these people and they have the right to do what they want to do under the law and in humanity.”

Their offer was not well-received by Stafford, who filed a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and accused the Odgaards of violating state law, as same-sex "marriage" was legalized in Iowa in 2009 after a state Supreme Court ruling. “They discriminated against us based on our sexual orientation. Iowa code says if you have a public accommodation, you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation,” said Stafford.

On October 7, the Odgaards responded by filing a counter-lawsuit through the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.

“The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is now seeking to force the Odgaards to plan, facilitate and host same-sex wedding ceremonies at the Gallery,” the suit reads. “Publicly associating with a wedding ceremony that violates their beliefs would send a message to others who share their beliefs, including some of their employees, that those beliefs are untrue or unworthy of devotion, and thereby cause others to sin.”

I don't honestly believe there are any easy answers. Part of why I say that is - any one business is not the only business in town, for the most part. If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?

Just be up front with it. Yes, it's going to cost you some business (or is it not legal to say "we don't serve same-sex couples"?) But it will likely net you more business. Same goes for the business that says "We serve everybody, just don't let Fido piddle on the rug." Some will boycott, some will support.

Now, the Melissa couple. I really don't support them, because while everything else that is against their Bible was Just Fine with them - same-sex marriage is where they drew the line.

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter

"I was wondering if you could do two little cakes. My friend is a researcher at OHSU and she just got a grant for cloning human stem cells, so I thought I’d get her two identical cakes—basically, two little clone cakes. How much would they cost?" the covert reporter asked an employee at Sweet Cakes By Melissa in Gresham, Ore.

“Ha. All right. When are you looking to do it? It’ll be $25.99 each, so about $50 to start," a bakery employee told the reporter, according to The Willamette Week.

In addition to agreeing to make a cake for a "pagan solstice party" (the reporter requested a pentagram of icing on the cake), Sweet Cakes also agreed to make custom cakes for a divorce party and a party for a woman who'd had multiple babies out of wedlock, the paper notes.

Cherry picking? SO not okay. And since it's already been done to death, to the tune of 1700+ posts, I figure we'll just discuss the Odgaards, and their current situation.

Damn it Betty, I thought we got past trying to lie in order to make points. We both know that there is absolutely no evidence that the reporter contacted the owners of the bakery with the fake orders for clone cakes, and all the other things. Even if they did, all that crap is not cherry picking, the bakery did not object to baking them a cake, they objected to delivering it and cutting it, which would have meant attending the reception. Unless you can demonstrate that the reporter asked them to attend a Pagan sacrifice as part of baking the cake, you got nothing there.

As for the Mennonites. they were also willing to provide everything but the actual facility, yet people are still calling them names. Anyone that thinks that Mennonites are racist, or hateful, is ignorant and shouldn't be allowed to leave their house without adult supervision, they might hurt themselves.

Or someone else.

Interesting, you accuse Betty of lying, then turn around and provide false information.

Sweet Cakes by Meligsa did refuse to bake the wedding cake which is a service they offered to the general public.

You can read the complaint here -->> http://katubim.s3.amazonaws.com/Sweet Cakes Complaint.pdf

"4. On January 17, 2013, I went to Respondent's shop for a scheduled appointment to order a wedding cake and met with owner Aaron Klien. Respondent asked for the date of the wedding and for the names of the bride and groom. I told him, "There are two brides and our names are Rachel and Laurel.

5. Respondent cited religious belief for its refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry."​

The issue wasn't that the bakery wouldn't sell them a generic cake (plan, birthday, etc.), the issue is that Sweet Cakes advertised and sold to the general public specifically "Wedding Cakes" and refused to provide the same services based on the sexual orientation of the requesting couple.


************************************

Secondly, I'm in my mid-50's and have attended probably 2 dozen receptions over the years. I've not once, with one exception, seen the baker stay for the reception and cut and serve the cake. The ceremonial first cuts are made by the bride and groom (or in this case bride and bride) and then usually family or catering staff (those preparing and serving the meal) finish the cut and either lay it out for a walk-by line or serve it to tables.

The only exception was in a case where the cake baker was a personal friend of the bride and was attending the reception as a guest also, but in that case they were there as a friend not an employee.



>>>>

 

[BDBoop]

Okay, I know you guys already hashed out Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the bakery that refused to create a same-sex wedding cake and practically got driven out of business.

Here is a similar case, and I am including a poll.

Christian Businesses in Trouble Over Christian Policies

I don't honestly believe there are any easy answers. Part of why I say that is - any one business is not the only business in town, for the most part. If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?

Just be up front with it. Yes, it's going to cost you some business (or is it not legal to say "we don't serve same-sex couples"?) But it will likely net you more business. Same goes for the business that says "We serve everybody, just don't let Fido piddle on the rug." Some will boycott, some will support.

Now, the Melissa couple. I really don't support them, because while everything else that is against their Bible was Just Fine with them - same-sex marriage is where they drew the line.

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter

Cherry picking? SO not okay. And since it's already been done to death, to the tune of 1700+ posts, I figure we'll just discuss the Odgaards, and their current situation.

Damn it Betty, I thought we got past trying to lie in order to make points. We both know that there is absolutely no evidence that the reporter contacted the owners of the bakery with the fake orders for clone cakes, and all the other things. Even if they did, all that crap is not cherry picking, the bakery did not object to baking them a cake, they objected to delivering it and cutting it, which would have meant attending the reception. Unless you can demonstrate that the reporter asked them to attend a Pagan sacrifice as part of baking the cake, you got nothing there.

As for the Mennonites. they were also willing to provide everything but the actual facility, yet people are still calling them names. Anyone that thinks that Mennonites are racist, or hateful, is ignorant and shouldn't be allowed to leave their house without adult supervision, they might hurt themselves.

Or someone else.

Interesting, you accuse Betty of lying, then turn around and provide false information.

Sweet Cakes by Meligsa did refuse to bake the wedding cake which is a service they offered to the general public.

You can read the complaint here -->> http://katubim.s3.amazonaws.com/Sweet Cakes Complaint.pdf

"4. On January 17, 2013, I went to Respondent's shop for a scheduled appointment to order a wedding cake and met with owner Aaron Klien. Respondent asked for the date of the wedding and for the names of the bride and groom. I told him, "There are two brides and our names are Rachel and Laurel.

5. Respondent cited religious belief for its refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry."​

The issue wasn't that the bakery wouldn't sell them a generic cake (plan, birthday, etc.), the issue is that Sweet Cakes advertised and sold to the general public specifically "Wedding Cakes" and refused to provide the same services based on the sexual orientation of the requesting couple.


************************************

Secondly, I'm in my mid-50's and have attended probably 2 dozen receptions over the years. I've not once, with one exception, seen the baker stay for the reception and cut and serve the cake. The ceremonial first cuts are made by the bride and groom and then usually family or catering staff (those preparing and serving the meal) finish the cut and either lay it out for a walk-by line or serve it to tables.

The only exception was in a case where the cake baker was a personal friend of the bride and was attending the reception as a guest also, but in that case they were there as a friend not an employee.



>>>>

Always a pleasure, WW.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i believe that iowa law is clear. if you disagree, work to change that law.

That wasn't my question, was it? Either own the opinion with pride, or blame it on the law. Your choice.

Your question is only that, a question with no obligation to it at all by anyone.

Change the law. You don't believe in law, do you?

You are 100% correct, he doesn't have to answer my question. However, since he did, I am going to make sure he doesn't get away with being a Starkey.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't honestly believe there are any easy answers. Part of why I say that is - any one business is not the only business in town, for the most part. If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?

No.

A consistent application of public accommodations laws in the context of Commerce Clause jurisprudence would require businesses to indeed accommodate same-sex couples. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

Denying homosexuals access to certain markets can indeed have an impact on commerce, how small the market may be is irrelevant, of course, and such markets can be Constitutionally subject to government regulation.

The self declared constitutional law asshole has spoken.

As usual, he is wrong. I would suggest he read West Virgina v Barnette.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would they be allowed to refuse to marry an inter-racial couple based upon their religious beliefs? If the answer is no then they have no right to refuse a same sex couple either if they are in the business of providing marriage services.

Were there businesses that refused inter-racial couples services? Yup, and they were taken to task by the law and served as examples to other businesses.

If there are supposed to be equal rights under the Constitution then no one gets to set up their own little corporate fiefdom where the Constitution doesn't apply.

One day you will learn that hate is not the only emotion humans can feel, until then, I feel sorry for everyone in your life.

Would you be able to provide a single example of a racist Mennonite? Keep in mind that Mennonites were openly part of the underground railroad at a time when getting caught harboring escaped slaves was a criminal offense.

Try reading what I actually posted, QW. Nowhere did I accuse them of racism. I simply asked if their religious beliefs included not serving blacks would that be acceptable? That was to demonstrate that discrimination is illegal in commerce. You don't get to pick and choose what kind of discrimination you want to practice when you have a business. No discrimination of any sort is allowed. That applies to both gays and blacks.

Which just proves how hateful you are. Even after I point out that Mennonites have always been at the forefront in the battle against putting people down based on their skin color, you insist that asking that question is not the equivalent of accusing them of racism.

You really need to stop hating people, even if they disagree with you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay, I know you guys already hashed out Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the bakery that refused to create a same-sex wedding cake and practically got driven out of business.

Here is a similar case, and I am including a poll.

Christian Businesses in Trouble Over Christian Policies

I don't honestly believe there are any easy answers. Part of why I say that is - any one business is not the only business in town, for the most part. If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?

Just be up front with it. Yes, it's going to cost you some business (or is it not legal to say "we don't serve same-sex couples"?) But it will likely net you more business. Same goes for the business that says "We serve everybody, just don't let Fido piddle on the rug." Some will boycott, some will support.

Now, the Melissa couple. I really don't support them, because while everything else that is against their Bible was Just Fine with them - same-sex marriage is where they drew the line.

Sweet Cakes By Melissa, Oregon Bakery That Refused Lesbian Couple, Pranked By Undercover Reporter

Cherry picking? SO not okay. And since it's already been done to death, to the tune of 1700+ posts, I figure we'll just discuss the Odgaards, and their current situation.

Damn it Betty, I thought we got past trying to lie in order to make points. We both know that there is absolutely no evidence that the reporter contacted the owners of the bakery with the fake orders for clone cakes, and all the other things. Even if they did, all that crap is not cherry picking, the bakery did not object to baking them a cake, they objected to delivering it and cutting it, which would have meant attending the reception. Unless you can demonstrate that the reporter asked them to attend a Pagan sacrifice as part of baking the cake, you got nothing there.

As for the Mennonites. they were also willing to provide everything but the actual facility, yet people are still calling them names. Anyone that thinks that Mennonites are racist, or hateful, is ignorant and shouldn't be allowed to leave their house without adult supervision, they might hurt themselves.

Or someone else.

Interesting, you accuse Betty of lying, then turn around and provide false information.

Sweet Cakes by Meligsa did refuse to bake the wedding cake which is a service they offered to the general public.

You can read the complaint here -->> http://katubim.s3.amazonaws.com/Sweet Cakes Complaint.pdf

"4. On January 17, 2013, I went to Respondent's shop for a scheduled appointment to order a wedding cake and met with owner Aaron Klien. Respondent asked for the date of the wedding and for the names of the bride and groom. I told him, "There are two brides and our names are Rachel and Laurel.

5. Respondent cited religious belief for its refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry."​

The issue wasn't that the bakery wouldn't sell them a generic cake (plan, birthday, etc.), the issue is that Sweet Cakes advertised and sold to the general public specifically "Wedding Cakes" and refused to provide the same services based on the sexual orientation of the requesting couple.


************************************

Secondly, I'm in my mid-50's and have attended probably 2 dozen receptions over the years. I've not once, with one exception, seen the baker stay for the reception and cut and serve the cake. The ceremonial first cuts are made by the bride and groom (or in this case bride and bride) and then usually family or catering staff (those preparing and serving the meal) finish the cut and either lay it out for a walk-by line or serve it to tables.

The only exception was in a case where the cake baker was a personal friend of the bride and was attending the reception as a guest also, but in that case they were there as a friend not an employee.



>>>>

Nice try, but an allegation is not considered a fact in court. Baking a wedding cake is not something that allows people to come to the shop and pick up the cake. That means that they did not just refuse to "make the cake."

Since you and I have already been through this, and I remember challenging you to prove me wrong, and you have returned to the same stupid argument that a wedding cake is no different than a cake you can buy at a grocery store, can I assume you are calling me a liar because you can't prove me wrong?

 

[Derideo_Te]

One day you will learn that hate is not the only emotion humans can feel, until then, I feel sorry for everyone in your life.

Would you be able to provide a single example of a racist Mennonite? Keep in mind that Mennonites were openly part of the underground railroad at a time when getting caught harboring escaped slaves was a criminal offense.

Try reading what I actually posted, QW. Nowhere did I accuse them of racism. I simply asked if their religious beliefs included not serving blacks would that be acceptable? That was to demonstrate that discrimination is illegal in commerce. You don't get to pick and choose what kind of discrimination you want to practice when you have a business. No discrimination of any sort is allowed. That applies to both gays and blacks.

Which just proves how hateful you are. Even after I point out that Mennonites have always been at the forefront in the battle against putting people down based on their skin color, you insist that asking that question is not the equivalent of accusing them of racism.

You really need to stop hating people, even if they disagree with you.

Once again you willfully refuse to comprehend what is actually posted and instead make baseless allegations. Back on ignore you go. *click*

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Damn it Betty, I thought we got past trying to lie in order to make points. We both know that there is absolutely no evidence that the reporter contacted the owners of the bakery with the fake orders for clone cakes, and all the other things. Even if they did, all that crap is not cherry picking, the bakery did not object to baking them a cake, they objected to delivering it and cutting it, which would have meant attending the reception. Unless you can demonstrate that the reporter asked them to attend a Pagan sacrifice as part of baking the cake, you got nothing there.

As for the Mennonites. they were also willing to provide everything but the actual facility, yet people are still calling them names. Anyone that thinks that Mennonites are racist, or hateful, is ignorant and shouldn't be allowed to leave their house without adult supervision, they might hurt themselves.

Or someone else.

Interesting, you accuse Betty of lying, then turn around and provide false information.

Sweet Cakes by Meligsa did refuse to bake the wedding cake which is a service they offered to the general public.

You can read the complaint here -->> http://katubim.s3.amazonaws.com/Sweet Cakes Complaint.pdf

"4. On January 17, 2013, I went to Respondent's shop for a scheduled appointment to order a wedding cake and met with owner Aaron Klien. Respondent asked for the date of the wedding and for the names of the bride and groom. I told him, "There are two brides and our names are Rachel and Laurel.

5. Respondent cited religious belief for its refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry."​

The issue wasn't that the bakery wouldn't sell them a generic cake (plan, birthday, etc.), the issue is that Sweet Cakes advertised and sold to the general public specifically "Wedding Cakes" and refused to provide the same services based on the sexual orientation of the requesting couple.


************************************

Secondly, I'm in my mid-50's and have attended probably 2 dozen receptions over the years. I've not once, with one exception, seen the baker stay for the reception and cut and serve the cake. The ceremonial first cuts are made by the bride and groom and then usually family or catering staff (those preparing and serving the meal) finish the cut and either lay it out for a walk-by line or serve it to tables.

The only exception was in a case where the cake baker was a personal friend of the bride and was attending the reception as a guest also, but in that case they were there as a friend not an employee.



>>>>

Always a pleasure, WW.

Is that because you really don't like me doing to you what I just did to him?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Try reading what I actually posted, QW. Nowhere did I accuse them of racism. I simply asked if their religious beliefs included not serving blacks would that be acceptable? That was to demonstrate that discrimination is illegal in commerce. You don't get to pick and choose what kind of discrimination you want to practice when you have a business. No discrimination of any sort is allowed. That applies to both gays and blacks.

Which just proves how hateful you are. Even after I point out that Mennonites have always been at the forefront in the battle against putting people down based on their skin color, you insist that asking that question is not the equivalent of accusing them of racism.

You really need to stop hating people, even if they disagree with you.

Once again you willfully refuse to comprehend what is actually posted and instead make baseless allegations. Back on ignore you go. *click*

Still can't deal with reality, what a surprise.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't honestly believe there are any easy answers. Part of why I say that is - any one business is not the only business in town, for the most part. If a business owner's belief system prohibits them serving same-sex couples, then are their rights not being violated in forcing them to do so?

No.

A consistent application of public accommodations laws in the context of Commerce Clause jurisprudence would require businesses to indeed accommodate same-sex couples. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

Denying homosexuals access to certain markets can indeed have an impact on commerce, how small the market may be is irrelevant, of course, and such markets can be Constitutionally subject to government regulation.

The self declared constitutional law asshole has spoken.

As usual, he is wrong. I would suggest he read West Virgina v Barnette.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

Since Public Accommodation law didn't come into being until usually the 60's, it's not surprising that hadn't surfaced.

Since 1943 (WV v Barnette) these laws have been passed and the court seems to have decided something different.

From Justice Antoney Scalia in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990):

"Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

<<SNIP>>

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."​

>>>>

 

[BDBoop]

Interesting, you accuse Betty of lying, then turn around and provide false information.

Sweet Cakes by Meligsa did refuse to bake the wedding cake which is a service they offered to the general public.

You can read the complaint here -->> http://katubim.s3.amazonaws.com/Sweet Cakes Complaint.pdf

"4. On January 17, 2013, I went to Respondent's shop for a scheduled appointment to order a wedding cake and met with owner Aaron Klien. Respondent asked for the date of the wedding and for the names of the bride and groom. I told him, "There are two brides and our names are Rachel and Laurel.

5. Respondent cited religious belief for its refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry."​

The issue wasn't that the bakery wouldn't sell them a generic cake (plan, birthday, etc.), the issue is that Sweet Cakes advertised and sold to the general public specifically "Wedding Cakes" and refused to provide the same services based on the sexual orientation of the requesting couple.


************************************

Secondly, I'm in my mid-50's and have attended probably 2 dozen receptions over the years. I've not once, with one exception, seen the baker stay for the reception and cut and serve the cake. The ceremonial first cuts are made by the bride and groom and then usually family or catering staff (those preparing and serving the meal) finish the cut and either lay it out for a walk-by line or serve it to tables.

The only exception was in a case where the cake baker was a personal friend of the bride and was attending the reception as a guest also, but in that case they were there as a friend not an employee.



>>>>

Always a pleasure, WW.

Is that because you really don't like me doing to you what I just did to him?

It's because I really like WW. Always have. He sets a nice standard.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nice try, but an allegation is not considered a fact in court. Baking a wedding cake is not something that allows people to come to the shop and pick up the cake. That means that they did not just refuse to "make the cake."

If I remember correctly the complaint is on record and the Klien's have filed a response. Neither disagrees that the issue is that they owners would not create the wedding cake. They both stipulated to those facts.

Now you are moving the goal posts. You said, and I quote, "they objected to delivering it and cutting it, which would have meant attending the reception". The complaint as filed with the State EEOC (and IIRC) the Klein's response mentioned NOTHING about having to attend the reception or cut the cake. You said "they objected to..." things not in the complaint, here again is the relevant portion:

"4. On January 17, 2013, I went to Respondent's shop for a scheduled appointment to order a wedding cake and met with owner Aaron Klien. Respondent asked for the date of the wedding and for the names of the bride and groom. I told him, "There are two brides and our names are Rachel and Laurel.

5. Respondent cited religious belief for its refusal to make cakes for same-sex couples planning to marry."​

Arriving BEFORE the reception to setup a cake is very different then having to attend the reception, cut it, and serve it.

Since you and I have already been through this, and I remember challenging you to prove me wrong, and you have returned to the same stupid argument that a wedding cake is no different than a cake you can buy at a grocery store, can I assume you are calling me a liar because you can't prove me wrong?

I have proven you wrong. You indicated that the complaint wasn't about refusing to make the wedding cake, you claim it was about attending the reception, cutting, and serving the cake.

I provided the link to the complaint which proved you were wrong. The responsibility is then to prove you are correct with direct links to the complaint, Klein's response, or the EEOC decision which supports your position. If you can't do that, then being proved wrong stands.

So give us the link to source documents?

Now as to whether you are a liar or not, that is up to you. If you believed what you said, then you mistaken, not a liar. Now that you have been shown what the complaint actually said, if you knowing continue to posit the position that it wasn't about creating the wedding cake but was about participating in the reception (which I have never seen a baker do) - you will get to decide whether you are a liar or not or able to accept a correction to a mistaken position and move on.

The choice is yours.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No.

A consistent application of public accommodations laws in the context of Commerce Clause jurisprudence would require businesses to indeed accommodate same-sex couples. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

Denying homosexuals access to certain markets can indeed have an impact on commerce, how small the market may be is irrelevant, of course, and such markets can be Constitutionally subject to government regulation.

The self declared constitutional law asshole has spoken.

As usual, he is wrong. I would suggest he read West Virgina v Barnette.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

Since Public Accommodation law didn't come into being until usually the 60's, it's not surprising that hadn't surfaced.

Since 1943 (WV v Barnette) these laws have been passed and the court seems to have decided something different.

From Justice Antoney Scalia in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990):

"Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.

<<SNIP>>

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes)."​

>>>>

Are public accommodation laws valid and neutral if they force a church to host a same sex wedding?

No.

I guess that makes me right, again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Always a pleasure, WW.

Is that because you really don't like me doing to you what I just did to him?

It's because I really like WW. Always have. He sets a nice standard.

He is almost always wrong, which is a lousy standard to set, in my opinion.