Posted on 12/05/2017 1:27:55 PM PST by x1stcav
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said during oral arguments on Tuesday that Colorado did not appear to show religious tolerance when it used its public accommodations law to force baker Jack Phillips to create speech via a custom cake for a same-sex wedding that defies his religious beliefs.
The line of questioning garnered attention because Kennedy often serves as the divided high court's key swing vote, and a split vote could form again in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Kennedy pointedly criticized Colorado for not being "tolerant" of Phillips' religious beliefs. 00:21 / 01:00 Entrepreneur Elevator Pitch Ep10: ‘I Don’t Think We’re the Right Investors’ Watch Full Screen
"Tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual," Kennedy said. "It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
> I also wonder about the Muslims working at Target and Walmart who [reportedly] would have to call in another checker to check out items like bacon and pork products. <
Good point. And consider this. Suppose I contact a catering service that is run by a Muslim (but I do not know that). I want to hire the catering service for my next event. And I want ham sandwiches to be on the menu.
Can the Muslim catering service refuse to do that? Or must they comply because they are a business open to the public? I actually don’t know what the answer is there. It’s above my pay grade.
I think you miss an important point.
The case is not about not serving gays. Gays are served at this bakery.
The case is about a special order cake for a same sex wedding.
Gays are free to go in there and buy anything off the shelf of the bakery. It’s a special order for a homosexual event which the baker didn’t perform.
Civil rights and public accommodation laws are not at issue here, because he does not discriminate against homosexual or any other group of potential customers.
This bakery also does not do Halloween themed goodies. There are many categories of pastries and cakes special orders which he doesn’t do.
Exactly. There is l-o-n-g history confirming your observation.
Rule of thumb: whenever you find yourself counting on Justice Kennedy, you are S.O.L.
If the baker discloses his policies of not doing Halloween items or gay marriage items, I think that should be sufficient.
I have a feeling they did not disclose in advance on the gay marriage issue.
Very good point.
I have seen cakes of dildos or men’s [or women’s] sexual organs. I. wouldn’t want to make those.
This is not a public accommodation issue... would you require an LGBT artist to create a mural on behalf of a church depicting the horrors of AIDS with an inscription indicating that such horror is God’s punishment?
A custom cake is ordered well in advance of any wedding... it isn’t a matter of not having any place to eat or any place to stay.
Good questions. I’d draw the line on a depiction of violence, or of an illegal activity.
Gay Marriage was illegal in Colorado at the time he refused to make the cake. This came up in the arguments.
IIRC someone, maybe the Veritas people, went to a Muslim owed bakery to order a cake for a gay wedding. They were told to buzz off. For some reason, this failed to get the gays worked up. I wonder why that was.
It has nothing to do with "no gays served". That baker specifically said he was willing to sell any cake on the shelf to those customers or to make a custom cake for any occasion (birthday, etc.) that did not require him to endorse a position in violation of his religious beliefs.
This is purely freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association, and all three are on the baker's side. He is not denying service, just denying their demand that he engage in creative expression that he finds abhorrent. Note: I would have been willing to bake the cake, but my personal choice is irrelevant to what a free person can morally be compelled to do.
Violence is subjective to an extent. So even your “objective” sounding criteria is a call to conscious. The courts should come down on the side of INDIVIDUAL conscious and freedom even if that means a shop keeper puts a “no gays served” sign. As reprehensible as white power or black power or other race or gender biased groups may be, they also have the right to freedom of expression.
Which certainly shows his refusal is about his Christian beliefs and not about discriminating against gays. If memory serves the “human rights” administrative judge who issued the final ruling had a huge conflict of interest.
> Gay Marriage was illegal in Colorado at the time he refused to make the cake. <
If that’s true, then case closed. The baker must prevail.
“He wasn’t refusing to serve anyone– he admits he would sell them donuts or anything in his business. “
Or the same cake without the re-definition of ‘marriage’ on it.
The answer seems to be yes, about 50% of the time.
The homosexual agenda,by it’s very nature, divides Americans. By enlisting the state to attack first amendment liberties, they show themselves to be America’s enemies.
Well cowards don’t make good Supreme Court justices :-)
The answer is simpler. Search your conservative values and Constitutional understanding. You cannot force anyone to work for something they find intolerant or religiously objectionable. I think you made the point above. Could you ask a Jewish caterer to serve on Saturday? Could you ask a Jewish baker to make a swastika shaped cake? A black baker to make a KKKake or cross of fire cake?
The baker seemed reasonable to me. He did not refuse to serve the gay customers. He refused to create something he found objectionable. That is the difference. He if hung a sign “no gays allowed” he would be intolerably wrong. But it is equally intolerably wrong for the gay man to insist that he create something to celebrate that which offends his religious belief.
Or even more simple to understand: Open to the public means you will not deny your wares to any member of the public. This does not mean the public gets to insist you to make special wares to suit their whim. It doesn’t matter if they wanted a “gay cake” or a 15 layer cake. Could a straight Christian couple insist the baker make a cake he doesn’t want to make? Then why should the gay couple?
I’d draw the line on a depiction of violence, or “of an illegal activity”.
Only if the OWNERS decided so. The owners should have the right to fire any employee who does not feel like performing the duties the owner sets for him.
What's being forgotten here, is the idea of business owners having rights too.
Why would a couple of militant fags go into a cake shop in which they knew the owner could not in conscience, by his own First Amendment right, satisfy their perverted request?
The homosexualist answer is obvious for which these inverts and the sodomite judges who support them should be criminally liable themselves.
> Open to the public means you will not deny your wares to any member of the public. This does not mean the public gets to insist you to make special wares to suit their whim. <
Very good argument there!
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.