Posted on 03/04/2014 11:53:36 AM PST by Starman417
The most common definition of a slave is: A person who is the property of and wholly subject to another. There is another definition however: A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person. Slavery has been outlawed in the US for 150 years, but some people want to bring it back… but not necessarily in the form you might think. Uncle Sam of course is not a master and citizens are not his slaves. The government – at least not the government defined in the Constitution – doesn’t have the right to tell Americans who they have to work for or who their businesses have to serve.
It can however, at least according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, demand that businesses that offer to provide services to the public not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That means however that if you are offering to sell cakes, you must not decide that you will sell cakes to men and not women, to Jews but not Christians, to blacks but not whites, or to a native born American but not a naturalized citizen born in Canada.
Interestingly, other than religion all of the limitations are innate, things that people are born with or had from birth. That prohibition also applies to the later characteristics defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The CRA says what a business can’t do, it can’t discriminate based on a clear set of criteria… but it says nothing about what they must do. A black chef can’t legally refuse to provide service to someone who walks in simply because he’s white. He can however choose not to provide service to him when the man tells him that the event is a celebration of KKK history. That’s discrimination, but it’s legal discrimination and its well within the chef’s rights.
The CRA lists specific criteria upon which a business is not allowed to discriminate: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But that’s it. Other than those reasons any business can choose who they would like to serve. A 7-11 store is well within its rights to say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”. By the same token a gun store can choose not to sell a gun to a drunk person and business can choose not to hire people with tattoos. A community can limit its inhabitants to those over 55 or a storekeeper with a Napoleon complex can choose to never serve customers over 6 ft. These restrictions may or may not be prudent, but none of them are illegal as businesses have the right to choose to whom they provide services within the framework of the CRA, the ADA and the Equal Protection Clause upon which both are based.
Which brings us to the issue of bakers and photographers and others. The question is, working under the shadow of the Equal Protection Clause, do such businesses have the right to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding, something their faith tells them is a sin? Absolutely. Do they have the right to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding? Absolutely. Should they be protected from lawsuits for doing so? Of course.
The point is, in almost every one of these cases the service providers did not refuse service because someone was gay. Rather, they declined to participate in an activity their faith tells them is sinful. Indeed the baker in the case actually offered to let the gay couple purchase any one of the cakes in his shop. He was simply refusing to bake a gay themed wedding cake.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
My answer would be no but in the land of legal precedent maybe the answer from a judge would be yes.
Oh, but the gubmint gots plenty of slave now and lookin’ for plenty more.
I was thinking about the Ukraine... they already have slavery there, do they know it? People live in tiny little apartments like sardines.... the elite leaders have mansions, zoos, fancy $$ cars, etc etc etc Looks like the rulers are the masters and the people are the slaves
Correct.
According to the several rulings from the bench citing equal protection and discrimination, I can now go to my Chevy dealer and demand to be sold a Ford.
We conservatives need to be more clever when we respond to the silliness coming from the left.
We should pick small targets on the left and go after them.
Are there no vegetarian eateries that could be taught a nice lesson by two red-headed heterosexual poets who demand to be served a cheeseburger? Are vegetarian eateries allowed to discriminate against red heads? Poets? Heterosexuals?
Death of Artistic Freedom...
A custom bakery is a artisan, thus artistic freedom is being squashed..
[ My question is: Should a gay bakery now be forced to bake a “God Hates F@gs” cake for the Westboro Church? ]
Should a Jewish sculptor be forced to sculpt a statue of Hitler for a group of Neo-Nazis?
Many, many a smoke-o-phobe employer or business has been encouraged to ban smokers from using their premise to advance their lifestyle and so they have done. How then is it different for a God-forbidden homosexual to be banned from using a business to enable his pursuit of the dangerous perverted rebellious albeit pleasurable lifestyle that he has chosen?
Hat tip to ME and a nod to Matt Barber for reading my posts on Free Republic!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3127636/posts?q=1&;page=1
Hehe! Good for you!
If they force a pastor to do a gay wedding, he should just read from the Bible the key abominations, men with men doing that which is unseemly passages during the ceremony,etc., then ask if they still want to proceed. I guarantee they won’t bother him again.
And the gay cake should have some foul flavoring added accidentally on purpose. We can’t win in court or legislature; but no one can be forced to sell a product or service.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.