Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On Cracker Barrel, Gay Wedding Cakes, and First Amendment Freedoms
Townhall.com ^ | June 29, 2019 | Michele Blood

Posted on 06/29/2019 6:36:31 AM PDT by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last
To: Harmless Teddy Bear
So, if a black person comes into Masterpiece Cakes and tries to order a cake for a "Kill the Crackers" Party then Jack must bake the cake because blacks are a protected class?

He could probably get away with not making it because bigots are not a protected class, regardless of race.

How about a woman ordering a "Happy Abortion" cake?

And interesting question. Not sure about that.

Either you can refuse a commission for any reason or you can not.

You cannot refuse to serve someone because of their race, sexual orientation, religion, or for any of the other reasons listed in anti-discrimination laws.

21 posted on 06/29/2019 10:52:42 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
I suppose it matters to ask “ do you agree?”.

Whether I agree or disagree is irrelevant; the law is the law.

But for the record I agree with those who say that you should have the right to refuse service to anyone but I think you should be required to make it clear who you will refuse to serve and who you will not. Don't want to serve Muslims? Fine, display that preference in your store. Don't want to serve homosexuals? Terrific, just let them know ahead of time. Let the market sort it out.

22 posted on 06/29/2019 10:56:53 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Actually, Phillips did serve homosexuals. He just wouldn’t paint them a specialty cake.

He refused to serve them because of their sexual orientation. The law doesn't care about the reason why. One can disagree with the law but it is what it is.

Cracker Barrel, to be the same as Phillips, would have to serve the guy anything on the regular menu and only refuse to put “death penalty for gays” in whipping cream on a large pancake.

No, for Cracker Barrel, to be the same as Phillips, would have to refuse to serve they guy because he was Baptist. Religion is a protected class, bigotry isn't.

23 posted on 06/29/2019 11:01:43 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Imagine NAMBLA holding a Fundraiser at Chuckie Cheese.


24 posted on 06/29/2019 11:04:34 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (THEY LIVE, and we're the only ones wearing the Sunglasses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

>>>He refused to serve them because of their sexual orientation<<<

Incorrect. Many of his Customers were Homosexuals.


25 posted on 06/29/2019 11:06:01 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (THEY LIVE, and we're the only ones wearing the Sunglasses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Phillips did serve them. He did so for years.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/old-no-gays-allowed-hardware-store-sign-controversy-viral-supreme-court-decision-224799/

“Jack Phillips, always served gay customers but had declined in 2012 to do a custom cake for a same-sex ceremony, citing his religious objections.”


26 posted on 06/29/2019 11:15:55 AM PDT by xzins (Retired US Army chaplain. Support our troops by praying for their victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: McBuff

Correct.


27 posted on 06/29/2019 2:18:38 PM PDT by YogicCowboy ("I am not entirely on anyone's side, because no one is entirely on mine." - J. R. R. Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If the baker merely sold ingredients, to be used as the customer saw fit, then the comparison would be valid. That is not the case.

Cracker Barrel is not being forced to endorse the customer’s personal beliefs by selling; the baker is. The First Amendment Rights of the proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop are being violated; the Cracker Barrel proprietor’s are not.

Masterpiece Cakeshop is not an “open platform” as Twitter and Facebook are legally obliged to be (but are not punished for not being); the bakery is a “publisher” that does not want to publish certain messages. Cracker Barrel is more like a non-publishing open platform.


28 posted on 06/29/2019 2:31:43 PM PDT by YogicCowboy ("I am not entirely on anyone's side, because no one is entirely on mine." - J. R. R. Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative
Incorrect. Many of his Customers were Homosexuals.

But the two he refused to serve were homosexuals. He refused to provide a service to them that he would have provided to a heterosexual couple. That's what violated the state law.

29 posted on 06/29/2019 3:14:34 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Phillips did serve them. He did so for years.

But in this particular instance he refused to provide a service to homosexuals that he would have provided heterosexuals. That's why the state went after him. Not saying it's right; it is what it is.

30 posted on 06/29/2019 3:16:33 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein
"Yes, lots of folks have no taste buds."

That list obviously includes you.

31 posted on 06/29/2019 3:26:13 PM PDT by Paal Gulli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

The supremes ruled that you can’t force specialty work out of someone. No different than forcing printer to print kkk rally posters.


32 posted on 06/29/2019 3:53:19 PM PDT by xzins (Retired US Army chaplain. Support our troops by praying for their victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

What is your point? Serving Customers is one thing, violating your Religious Beliefs (which have Constitutional Protections in this Country) in doing so are another.

He would have gladly sold them a Cake, but he refused to Decorate it to sanctify something he feels is adverse to his Religious Beliefs.

Are you sure you are Posting on the right Website? This issue has been discussed thousands of times here.


33 posted on 06/29/2019 3:53:27 PM PDT by Kickass Conservative (THEY LIVE, and we're the only ones wearing the Sunglasses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Fugitive slave act/dredscott, segregation,etc. all were the law at one time. Don’t be foolish.

Whether we agree with the laws most certainly does matter. What we do about those laws we find disgusting matters more!

Regards


34 posted on 06/29/2019 4:39:41 PM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: McBuff

xlnt


35 posted on 06/29/2019 4:42:55 PM PDT by morphing libertarian ( Use Comey's Report, Indict Hillary now; build Kate's wall. --- Proud Smelly Walmart Deplorable)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The supremes ruled that you can’t

They issued a very narrow ruling based mainly on the perceived bias on the part of the state commission overseeing the anti-discrimination laws. The court needs to take a case and make a more-comprehensive decision and settle it once and for all.

36 posted on 06/29/2019 4:44:40 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

“But in this particular instance he refused to provide a service to homosexuals that he would have provided heterosexuals.”

Wrong.

But in this particular instance he refused to participate (endorse) a celebration of homosexuals . . .


37 posted on 06/29/2019 4:44:48 PM PDT by Daffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: xzins
No different than forcing printer to print kkk rally posters.

Klansmen are not a protected class.

38 posted on 06/29/2019 4:45:40 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

“Who wants to eat at Cracker Barrel?”

It’s one place to reliably find Meatloaf Dinner on the menu.


39 posted on 06/29/2019 4:48:26 PM PDT by Daffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The legal concept of protected class should be abolished...


40 posted on 06/29/2019 4:50:14 PM PDT by northislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson