Posted on 10/04/2017 9:15:42 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Two heated cases that are before the Supreme Court are Masterpiece Cakeshop (which the Court agreed to hear last June) and Arlene’s Flowers (for which the petition for certiorari is still pending). In both, the owners face punishment for having declined to do business with customers who wanted their services.
In the former, the owner of a cake shop was asked to bake and decorate a cake for the wedding of a gay couple. The owner, Jack Phillips, who is a committed Christian and believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, said that he would not enter into a contract to create a cake for a gay wedding. The angry couple filed charges with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It ruled that Phillips had violated the law, and ordered him to design cakes for same-sex wedding, go through a “re-education program,” and file quarterly compliance reports with the commission for two years, showing his obedience to the state.
In the latter, the circumstances were almost identical, except that instead of a wedding cake, it was flowers. Baronelle Stutzman was asked to prepare the floral arrangements for a gay wedding and she declined to do so because she believes that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
For having politely said “No, thanks” to the offer to contract for wedding flowers (she referred the men to other florists who would do the job), she was hauled into court for violating Washington state’s anti-discrimination law. She lost and was ordered by the Washington Supreme Court to pay the legal costs incurred by the American Civil Liberties Union in their suit against her.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
The hippies and the bohemians have given the SCOTUS the perfect vehicle to rule against these local Nazis in Colorado, Oregon, Washington, etc: Artistic expression. Cakes and floral arrangements are works of art and as such, it’s up to the artists to make commercial decisions as they see fit. Boom!
Remember when a sign posted in a business stating “We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service To Anyone” actually meant that? And you could “get away with it”?
In reality, that hasn't been true since we the government banished the right of free association in 1964. Once the Civil Rights Act introduced a new government power-- the power to nominate classes with extraordinary legal protections, it was just a matter of time before more and more politically motivated protected classes were added that meant you could refuse the right to service non-protected classes, but if you refused service to a protected class they would own your business.
I believe Justice Kennedy stayed on the court only in order to rule that Gayness is henceforth the law of the land. Off with the heads of the florists and bakers!
If the gays win ,it will bite the libs in the butt..There have been clean movie groups who delete bad words And movie makers have shut them down due to “ artistic expression”...If I’m your client,customer or whatever and I want “ clean movies” you will have no right in saying no,Will you???
Not a “First Amendment” issue, although that might be an incidental detail. It’s the right to the free possession and use of ones own property, labor and time. The right to freely enter into contracts, and NOT enter into contracts, at will, for any reason or for no articulated reason.
If the gays win ,it will bite the libs in the butt..There have been clean movie groups who delete bad words And movie makers have shut them down due to “ artistic expression”...If I’m your client,customer or whatever and I want “ clean movies” you will have no right in saying no,Will you???
We can only hope that another leftist “leaves” the court by some means. Yes, God can intervene in this.
Liberal hypocrisy is when fashion designers refuse to design a dress for Mrs. Trump but a baker is forced to bake a care for queers.
I will be thrilled when the thugs who persecute Christians and who use government’s power to punish the free exercise of religion receive justice.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law is a serious felony. I would be thrilled to see the responsible thugs spend a decade or more each behind bars. They are disgusting, evil people, and we should never forgive or forget their abuse of power.
If the Supreme Court comes down on the side of the baker and the florist then doesn’t that make all these anti-discrimination laws in all these states invalid since they can violate someone else’s First Amendment rights?
I suspect the refusal was entirely one sided and that Mrs. Trump had never done business with the designer and never had any intention to. Besides, Mrs. Trump is not a protected class.
It doesn't do anything else.
Well, the USSC has ruled that burning American flags is free speech, so why not baking cakes?
A1S10C1: No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Course, Legis/Courts haven’t adhered, nor referenced, the Constitution in ~100yrs+.
Can’t break the contract but can mandate you sign on the dotted line (as well as trample our Right of association])?! Talk about.
Congress could tell the Courts to fark-off, but, of course, won’t use their proper authority....They SUPPORT every step toward full control by govt.
I agree with the author that this is a contract law case. It also is a free exercise and free speech case, but an artist/craftsman should not be forced into an art/craft direction in which he has no interest.
Should I be allowed to sue a carpenter who isn’t interested in building me a plastic quonset hut?
Should grandma moses have been forced to paint a rocketship in watercolors for a scifi fan?
‘Not a “First Amendment” issue, although that might be an incidental detail. It’s the right to the free possession and use of ones own property, labor and time. The right to freely enter into contracts, and NOT enter into contracts, at will, for any reason or for no articulated reason.”
Exactly right! Same for tobacco and other issues. Let the free market reign.
If a business person is required to perform services contrary to the tenets of their religion, it contravenes the “free exercise” of one’s religion.
If this merely a contract issue, and since the Supreme Court has said in the past that states have the right to regulate contracts, then the state has the right to deny a business the right to refuse a contract based on sexual orientation. The First Amendment argument is probably the way to go.
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.