I thought it was long ago settled that printers do NOT have to publish your manuscript if they find it morally/politically repugnant, and newspapers are under no obligation to publish your letter or editorial.
“She did, however, offer to sell him a Bible-shaped cake and provide an icing bag so that he could decorate it as he saw fit. The customer filed a complaint alleging religious discrimination, which is also prohibited by Colorado’s public accommodations law.”
Was she forced to do it?
“sexual-orientation discrimination” = refusal to participate in the mental illness of others
This is actually not a freedom of speech case. It is a freedom of assembly case. The first amendment guarantees our freedom to assemble, which MUST also include the freedom to not assemble at all. Every anti-discrimination law FORCES us to assemble with people we don’t want to assemble with.
If we cannot refuse to assemble then we have no freedom of assembly.
Every anti-discrimination law that applies to private individuals or businesses is un-Constitutional.
If a business can reserve the right to refuse service to those who are not dressed “properly”, and they can, then they have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason they bloody well choose.
For once, a reasonably well thought-out article.
I don’t think the baker has a case if you’re just talking “3-layer with white icing” cake for a gay couple. (except maybe for the free association argument made above)
But the minute you ask for it to be decorated in some specific “gay marriage” theme, then all bets are off.
“public accommodations ‘law’”. What a disgusting perversion of the language
A biz is no more a ‘public accommodation’ than one’s home (location of many a small biz).
Do biz still go OUT of biz? Does the public pay the rent, payroll, taxes when times get tough? No, there is NOTHING *public* about ‘public accommodations’.
If the baker were online ONLY, w/ NO offering for the perpetually offended....would they still be in legal trouble??
Sorry, just another indication of the (long ago) loss of the Republic.
Since being queer is a mental construct, there are no rights that accrue to that which is not real.
There can be no penalty for not dealing with that which is not real
“...refused to sell them one.”
Nope - stopped reading right there.
The owner refused to make them a CUSTOM cake - a world of difference.
John 6:11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
I wonder if they could sue a baker if there were a sign behind the counter that said “20% of all Wedding Cake proceeds is donated to Getoutofbeinggay.org”. This would be applied to all wedding cakes.
Here’s the deal: What is the differentiating, observable expression in two such transactions, one in which a baker is thrilled to provide the cake and one which a baker is being forced in protesting disagreement? None whatsoever. The protesting baker is emitting the exact same expression as the agreeing baker. If not, where is the difference? What is the protesting baker allowed to express in opposition?
There is ALWAYS a reason why the rules they impose upon us don’t apply to them. Congressional sex scandals and Roy Moore, for example.
ALWAYS.
This reads like what Vizzini argued to Westley before drinking the iocane powder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s0UURBihH8
But how two lawyers think people look at wedding cakes, or even how they do does not matter unless they can prove this is always the case, while it is still irrelevant since Phillips cares about what God thinks.
And even if a particular design option was not rejected, from my understanding is Phillips did not refuse to sell then any cake, but was asked to create a work of art.
When the author states that a Jewish or Black or Muslim sign maker must create a sign for a KKK celebration then I will believe he is being objective.