Posted on 06/29/2019 6:36:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
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.
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.
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.
Imagine NAMBLA holding a Fundraiser at Chuckie Cheese.
>>>He refused to serve them because of their sexual orientation<<<
Incorrect. Many of his Customers were Homosexuals.
Phillips did serve them. He did so for years.
“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.”
Correct.
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.
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.
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.
That list obviously includes you.
The supremes ruled that you can’t force specialty work out of someone. No different than forcing printer to print kkk rally posters.
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.
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
xlnt
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.
“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 . . .
Klansmen are not a protected class.
“Who wants to eat at Cracker Barrel?”
It’s one place to reliably find Meatloaf Dinner on the menu.
The legal concept of protected class should be abolished...
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.