Posted on 05/31/2014 2:51:34 PM PDT by NYer
Same-sex marriage is still illegal in Colorado but the state's civil rights commission ruled Friday that Jack Phillips has to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony.
The Daily Caller reports:
In 2012, Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakes in Lakewood, refused to sell cakes to Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a same-sex couple. Mullin and Craig were to be married in Massachusetts but wanted a cake for a reception at their home in a Denver suburb.It hardly makes sense. A state where same-sex marriage is illegal is forcing a baker to provide cake for a same-sex marriage. Legality has nothing to do with this. This is thuggery. Thuggery with lawyers.
As he had done with other same-sex couples in the past Phillips refused to sell the goods, saying that he is a devout Christian and doesn’t approve of same-sex marriage.
With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Mullins and Craig sued Phillips citing the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act. It bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex or sexual orientation. Though gay marriage is still illegal in Colorado, the commission cited the act in its ruling.
“I can believe anything I want, but if I’m going to do business here, I’d ought to not discriminate against people,” Commissioner Raju Jaram said, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette.
Lol
Another Freeper had a great idea. The Christian baker should tell the gay customer, “All of my profits from baking a cake for your gay wedding will go to an organization that helps people leave the gay lifestyle. And the donation will be in YOUR name.”
Christians cannot and should not bake a “bad” cake or one that will make people sick. Nor should they have to lie and say “I’m too busy,” and nor should they have to stop baking wedding cakes entirely. They SHOULD be able to turn down any customer they want, for any reason! But while we fight against these unjust rulings, I think the above idea is a good solution.
A timeless film. Thanks for posting the link.
Hell is going to be full of homosexuals and those who approve of their degenerate behavior.
“Go ahead and make the cake. If it’s chocolate, fill it full of Ex-Lax.”
You got to be careful there as we know that the gays are litigious and they like to involve the government in their agenda and would call the cops if a baker were to sell them a cake filled with Ex-Lax.
At that point, the baker would not only be forced to do hard prison time for attempting to poison people, but would also be sued by the gays.
It’s a measure of how far our society has sunk that within living memory that movie was mainstream Hollywood product, and today the sermons would be denounced as “hate speech”.
We’re not better off.
But if a restaurant wants to ban people from carrying guns in their establishment (a constitutionally guaranteed right) they have the authority to do that.
Do you really think these people are going to eat this cake? It would immediately go to a lab to prove adulteration and more lawsuits for “hate.”
It is the basic right of association. You should not be forced to associate with those who you do not wish to associate with.
The Supreme Court jumped the shark on this when they mandated that private businesses could not discriminate.
Let them discriminate. It is bad for business.
So then how is it that nightclubs get to decide which clientele get in and who does not? Wouldn’t that also be a violation?
I wonder if they have ever eaten burned cake before?
Thomas Jefferson had put it this way.
The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819.
“Another Freeper had a great idea. The Christian baker should tell the gay customer, “All of my profits from baking a cake for your gay wedding will go to an organization that helps people leave the gay lifestyle. And the donation will be in YOUR name.””
BRILLIANT!
But I think he used the word “sodomite” Ha.
The text of the First Amendment to the Constitution reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Note the Constitution limits Congress, it places no limitations on state and local governments to regulate religion, speech, the press, and the right of assembly.
The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Note here, the Tenth Amendment gives the States powers not prohibited by the US Constitution or delegated to the federal government. Business transactions inside a state are not regulated by the federal government (per the text of the Constitution). Therefore they can be regulated by the state. For example, state and local governments can require licenses to do business and set standards for professions. The state can regulate activities of a business (i.e. health, hours of operation, minimum wage of employees, collection of sales taxes, treatment of employees, the terms of contracts, number of parking spaces, public restrooms for both sexes, etc.). It therefore stands to reason the US Constitution allows a state to require a store engaged in commerce within the borders of the state to transact business with any person or organization desiring to make a purchase.
Unfortunately, the US Constitution did not establish a free market nor did it prohibit or limit regulation of commerce by a state within its borders. It appears in this case, the state of Colorado has exercised its prerogative to require businesses in the state to serve all customers. The immediate choices for the business owner are to serve all customers or close the business. Longer term the owner can petition the legislature to overturn the law.
The Colorado law may or may not be bad law. It certainly limits the freedom of business owners to choose their customers. However, it is Constitutional if one believes in the Constitution as written.
Can you reference a particular case?
LOL..... You know what? After I posted that I thought basically the same thing; just a different scenario.
If this guy had enough backers for legal action, he could close his current business down and re-open as a ‘heterosexual wedding cake bakery’ and use the same rationale as ‘women only’ and ‘minority only’ programs, businesses and events. Using the same loopholes that work against Constitutional freedom and choice, enough money could take it to the SCOTUS and cram it down their throats. One way or the other - but not both.
That’s a good solution, for the time being, but they’re working on making conversion therapy illegal.
For what ... messing up their wedding night?
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.