Christian Bakers Forced to Pay Nearly $137,000 for Refusing to Make Gay Wedding Cake Up the Ante in

Nope. Demonstrated and refuted. Heart of Atlanta v US

asked and answered. Baking cakes for the public is a voluntary choice. One can choose to not bake cakes for the public. If you choose to bake cakes, you can't refuse a cake to a gay couple.

 

you've been given the reason

 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/379/241/case.html

here's the case

read

 

I told you the number of the post where I answered that.

The answer is:
Simply finding an instance where a defendant didn't discriminate is not an argument in favor of letting the defendant discriminate in some other instance.

And, I pointed out that in the case of the Woolworth 4 (lunch counter issue) whether the store had previously sold items to these plaintiffs is irrelevant.

ALL that is relevant is the discrimination - the part that is against the law.

Are you seriously thinking that if at some point they don't discriminate they are then immunized and may thus discriminate at will???



Please state why you think that argument is rational.

 

I haven't ever suggested public accommodation law is in the constitution.

We have a massive amount of federal, state and local law that isn't in the constitution.


Please remember that nobody is doubting that the reason the Kleins chose to discriminate is based in their religion. So, whether either of the women had purchased a cake at that store in the past has no bearing as far as I can detect. A previous purchase might show that the discrimination was limited to same sex marriage or it might show that the cake store wasn't aware of their sexual orientation, or whatever. But, it's already been accepted that the cake for the wedding reception was denied on religious grounds.

 

The whole "The baker counts but not the chef" is hysterical.

These idiot bible thumpers and their twisted logic.

And it was interesting to see Gorsuch not be a ****** and adhere with the law.

 

It has been explained at length by numerous rulings, explored by Congress before and while they crafted Title II of the CRA, upheld by laws subsequent, and the usage of the Amendment abolishing slavery argument in regards to anti-discrimination in PA's has been pretty well blown to bits.

Here is a well presented piece which does explain the reasoning. It's a bit lengthy, and I doubt you'll read it, or even skim it, but for those who would like to delve into it a bit more, into it's history, legacy, and even as it relates to current same sex anti-discrimination laws, I present the following, with a short snip of the Conclusion below:

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS LAWS,AND THE LEGACY OF HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL,INC.V.UNITED STATES
University of Maryland Law Review 83 (2011)
Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 12-54 (2012)

<snip> Conclusion
<snip>
What is the legacy of Heart of Atlanta Motel and of the enactment of Title II for newer generations of antidiscrimination laws and challenges to them? Part of the value of retrieving the complex role of the Thirteenth Amendment in this context is to appreciate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as an effort by Congress to complete the unfinished business of Reconstruction. Nonetheless, I have also suggested that several themes in the majority and concurring opinions in that case have resonance for more recent public accommodations laws that bar discrimination on such bases as sex and sexual orientation.

These include the following ideas:
(1) persons suffer dignitary harm when they are denied goods and services;
(2) discrimination in public accommodations imposes economic and human costs;
(3) antidiscrimination laws address moral evils;
(4) conceptions of commerce and what affects it must take into account the changing nature of the economy; and
(5) antidiscrimination law properly resolves the clash of rights in a way that furthers the equal basic liberties and freedom of all citizens.

 

don't you get it? its unfair to force people to sell water to thirsty black children on a hot day. let them drink from puddles on the street.

 

Yes, the argument in favor of the Kleins seems ridiculous. I don't know how it got this far, as it doesn't even seem like a good test case for figuring out where the limits might be.

There is a point in the testimony by the state where it sounds like there are issues that will need to be addressed in the future.

Yes on Gorsuch. I'd liked to have seen more from him.

 

Liberals believe its wrong to discriminate against people due to their race, ethnicity, religion, gender.

Conservatives believe its wrong to prevent businesses from discriminating
against people due to their race, ethnicity, religion, gender.



very stark difference in human values.

 

IF you sell goods to the public you are not allowed to discriminate against persons, regardless of your religious/spiritual beliefs.

That's the law.

 

that law is unfair persecution, equivelant to slavery.

 

I don't give a **** how Christians feel, but I got yo' sarcasm, bruh.

 

people were not discriminated; a sexual lifestyle was. That is why when it makes it to the SCOTUS that it will be overturned and good luck to the couple in trying to recover the money from the lesbians.

 

Meanwhile, a good many of them will be happy to spout all day long: ya know, libs, if it wasn't for us republicans, the CRA never would have passed, so bow down on your knees and thanks us for that legislation.

 

I thank all Liberals for voting for the CRA

 

And I am asking, "why not?"

 

It's not their choice and the scotus agrees.

Deal with it.

You and the Christians are wrong.

 

because the law says you have to have an acceptable reason to refuse service, and a customer being black isn't an acceptable reason.

 

And this law, it seems to me, is unconstitutional.

 

the Supreme Court says the law IS Constitutional.

 

Yes it is because it proves they did not discriminate based on the person but the event. How many times must I repeat myself for you?

And you of course gloss over the reality that the Christians were the ones being discriminated against which is illegal under federal law.

Your opinion means nothing when you cannot differentiate between a person and an event.

What's against the law is discriminating against a religious belief using a state law that violates federal law.

Are you seriously pretending you can discriminate against a religion based on a state law designed to do so?

Not only rational but federally legal as well.

It is illegal to force a person to produce something for an event that violates their right to freedom of religion. It is only discriminating against that person or persons to do so.

Since the business has served gays as people you cannot claim they discriminating against them because they were gay. They exercised their right to freedom of religion protected in the Constitution to refuse to participate in an event that was against their religion.

You will not address the difference between a person and an event nor will you admit public accommodation is not a right under the Constitution like religious freedom is.

 

Do you think that ALL law against discrimination is unconstitutional?

If not, what law against discrimination do you think is constitutional?

 

you can't force a baker to make a cake that says "happy same-sex marriage".

but they MUST sell them a general wedding cake.

$100 says the SCOTUS will agree.

 

LOL Right.

Please get to a point.

You keep pretending only one side is discriminating when you are discriminating against their religion. Discrimination is not your singular domain.

Of course it does since it proves this is about the event not the person.

That's the difference between an event and a person. You are not allowed to discriminate against religious belief to force someone to bake a cake for your event.