These signs are still for sale:
http://www.shakelaw.com/blog/refusal-of-service/
Posted on 06/29/2019 6:36:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Which is the conundrum in all this. When does one person's First Amendment rights give way to someone else's Fourteenth Amendment rights?
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.
And in doing so violated the customers protections under the anti-discrimination laws. Again, not saying the laws are right just that it is what it is.
Are you sure you are Posting on the right Website? This issue has been discussed thousands of times here.
And will no doubt be discussed thousands of times more until the courts settle the matter.
They were. All were unjust. And all were repealed or struck down by court decisions or overturned by Constitutional amendment. That's what needs to be done with this law.
Whether we agree with the laws most certainly does matter. What we do about those laws we find disgusting matters more!
You can ignore them and suffer the consequences. Or have them repealed. Or have the courts strike them down.
I think not.
“He refused to serve them because of their sexual orientation.”
Factually incorrect. He serves homosexuals regularly. He will not create a special cake to celebrate homosexuality.
Oh, yes, Cracker Barrel is the creme de la creme for all those who love chain restaurants that serve ersatz southern food with a side order of fake bonhomie. How silly of me to forget.
People who live in the south?
Where's my LAWYER!!!!
Disclosure:
Wife and I ate at Cracker Barrel tonight.
I had the grilled pork chop. Yummy!
NOW you’ve done it!
You’ll get on a ‘list’.
Double yummy!!
But get there relatively early...
These signs are still for sale:
http://www.shakelaw.com/blog/refusal-of-service/
The problem is that when a Christian denies a special service for an express purpose of celebrating a homosexual event - even though he or she provides the same customer with the same off-the-shelf items anyone can buy - then such is charged with sexual discrimination, even though the reason for the denial is due to what the customer intends to use it for.
However, when a business denies a religious customer any service based upon something that person believes (not is actions), then the right of a businesses to choose whom it will serve may be upheld.
The latter is akin to a "no blacks served here," but the former is not, but is at least akin to patriot refusing to sell a flag to someone who has expressed his intent to dishonor/defile or burn it. Or a Uber driver refusing to drive a women to an abortion clinic after she makes it clear her intent to get an abortion. And even that of a Muslim denying a special work for the celebration of the rebirth of the modern state of Israel, although not denying any product available to all. And which, to be consistent, I think the Muslim should be able to do, if the service is a special one, and knowingly for the express purpose of something he can show his faith finds morally objectionable, and which is not for a amoral service one actually needs, like medical care.
The high court ducked providing a direct answer on whether businesses can legally opt out of providing a product/service when doing so would represent an affront to their beliefs.
Indeed, and if there was ever a case yet that would vindicate an owner denying custom service based upon the expressed intention for it, then this certainly was it.
For Masterpiece Cakeshop offered the 2 sodomites any off-the-shelf items available for sale, but refused to enter into a contract to create a special work (a wedding cake, which usually must be contracted for far in advance, and as very high cost) which was for the express purpose of celebrating a (out-of-state) "wedding" that was/is not only contrary to the law of God, but was also against the highest law of the state at that time (the CO constitution did not recognize any homosexual marriage).
SCOTUS should have not only ruled that CO the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated antagonism against Phillip's Christian faith.but that regardless, Phillip's had a right to refuse to be complicit in the celebration of an event that was contrary to the law of His God, as well as his state.
On those points we can agree. The overall point being unjust laws are often used as precedent and cases ought always to be tried in their own merits. Case law is the name if justice
On those points we can agree. The overall point being unjust laws are often used as precedent and cases ought always to be tried in their own merits. Case law is the bane of justice
I love Cracker Barrel. It is one of our favorite places to eat. Their Hash Brown Casserole is wonderful. Others must like it, too, since it is very hard to find a parking place. It does not matter what time of the day. I grew up eating good ole Southern food. We grew our own fruit, veggies, meat and eggs. It was a lot better than what is sold in grocery stores today.
You can’t force picasso to do l’il abner
So he refused to make the cake because they were homosexuals.
We can go back and forth on this all day. But until the law gets repealed then this kind of thing is going to continue for him. Work on the legislature.
“So he refused to make the cake because they were homosexuals.”
No, he refused to support a homosexual MARRIAGE.
“But until the law gets repealed then this kind of thing is going to continue for him.”
The law is clearly unconstitutional to the extent it prevents the “free exercise” of religion. That “Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” thing.
“I think not.”
Yes, you think not.
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
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.