Posted on 06/29/2019 6:36:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
Liberals’ outrage at the failure of the Supreme Court to excoriate Christian bakery owner Jack Phillips last year for declining a request to create a wedding cake for a gay couple was palpable. Equally palpable was their enthusiastic support for Cracker Barrel’s decision earlier this month to refuse service to a man who said LGBTQ people should be put on trial and executed if convicted.
That is a problem. Here’s why.
If Jack Phillips is in the wrong for refusing to serve certain customers because doing would violate his beliefs, then Cracker Barrel is in the wrong for doing the same thing.
If the reasoning holds for one, it should hold for both.
Grayson Fritts, an on-his-way-out detective and pastor of the All Scripture Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, preached at least two sermons in which he suggested the government should round up LGBTQ people, put them on trial, and execute them if convicted.
He called LGBTQ people “freaks,” said they were committing a “capital crime,” and preached that they are “worthy of death,” according to multiple media reports.
At issue here is not whether Fritts espouses and promotes heinous, anti-Christian theological beliefs that most people, right and left, understandably find abhorrent.
The issue is whether it is permissible in this country for businesses to deny service to anyone if doing so violates an owner’s closely held beliefs.
In Phillips’ situation at Masterpiece Cakeshop, his closely held belief was that it is wrong to use his artistic talents to promote gay marriage. In Cracker Barrel’s case, the closely held belief is that it is wrong (not to mention bad for business) to knowingly provide space and service to hateful people who advocate for others’ death.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s decision on the Phillips case is of no help.
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. Instead, their ruling addressed a bureaucratic hiccup. The high court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against Phillips because of his Christian faith.
Since SCOTUS chickened out on getting to the heart of the matter, the legality of Cracker Barrel’s decision seems tenuous.
Fair or not, if he chose to pursue it, Fritts could well make a reasonable case for Cracker Barrel having violated his civil rights.
In a statement posted on Twitter, Cracker Barrel said they “disagree strongly with [Fritts’ and All Scripture Baptist’s] statements of hate and divisiveness” and that they had “advised All Scripture Baptist that their event will not be allowed at Cracker Barrel.”
“We serve everyone who walks through our doors with genuine hospitality, not hate, and require all guests to do the same,” the statement concluded.
As ugly as Fritts’ hateful, divisive statements are, they stem from his warped version of religion.
Religion—like race, color, creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, physical or mental disability, veteran status, genetic information, and citizenship—is a federally-protected class.
Cracker Barrel is between a rock and a hard place.
If they allow Fritts’ group to have an event there, they risk losing the business of countless people who would be justifiably offended by that decision. If they expressly disallow it, they might be sued by Fritts or his church.
A restaurant is a place of public accommodation. As such, they are prohibited from arbitrarily or unevenly discriminating against members of a protected class.
Fritts might be able to make a case that Cracker Barrel’s decision, however ethical, was applied arbitrarily and unevenly. Had Fritts or his group eaten there in the past without issue? Had other groups espousing inarguably hateful thoughts held events there? Is Cracker Barrel in the regular practice of examining diners’ religious beliefs and social media history prior to agreeing to serve them?
Both the Cracker Barrel and the Masterpiece Cakeshop situations are sticky wickets.
These are the thorny issues we face as we struggle with just how far our First Amendment freedoms and civil rights extend—and which one trumps the other when push comes to shove.
Where do Fritts’ right to freedom from discrimination stop and Cracker Barrel’s right to refuse to violate their corporate ethical standards by serving him begin?
This situation is especially troublesome for liberals who, by and large, believe that Jack Phillips illegally discriminated against a gay couple by choosing not to use his artistic skills to create a custom wedding cake for them. Notably, he did offer off-the-shelf cakes to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
It is a stretch to call grits and biscuits an artistic expression, but the core of the argument is unchanged.
If Cracker Barrel is in the right for choosing not to serve an individual when doing so violates their closely-held beliefs, then Jack Phillips was in the right for doing the same thing.
So, which is it, America? Do business owners have a right to decline service if doing so violates their closely-held beliefs or not?
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.