Court affirms ruling against bakery that refused to sell same-sex wedding cake but tells state to reconsider fine

OregonLive ^ | 01/26/2022 | Jamie Goldberg

[daniel1212]

"Query this: has anyone thought it would be bad for a bakery to refuse to make a pornographic cake?" If there was a class of persons who contended that they have a genetic predisposition to "loving, consensual" pornography and consumption of depictions of it, and that the government determines that such a class was to be treated as a race, then while it would be Bad to make a pornographic cake, yet Yes, liberal courts could rule that it was discriminatory to refuse such a customer.

However, there is no justification for this or bakery that refused to sell same-sex wedding cake, for this is not the same thing as refusing to sell anything that is offered to the public in general, but it is that of refusal to create a special, custom, but non-essential work for the express purpose of celebrating something offensive to the creator/artist. Like as a sign maker, painter, or song writer should be able to refusal to create special, custom, non-essential song, painting or song they disagree with - as long as they advertise the right to refusal - so also should a baker be able to deny such requests. Yes, even if the baker is a racist, or a communist, Muslim, atheist refusing to create such a custom work that is offensive to them.

If Facebook, Twitter, and liberal media as well as FR can refuse to allow persons to use their services to express what they consider to be offensive (I was forbidden to post comments on the Boston Globe under its catch-all conditions that it could do so for whatever it, "in its sole discretion, deems abusive, defamatory, obscene, in violation of copyright or trademark laws, or otherwise unacceptable.”

Yet I have a predisposition to post such which is so to them, that of supporting Biblical Truth, as indeed, I was born again that way!

[daniel1212]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States "

Privileges or immunities are determined by the interpreters of the Constitution (which, indirectly, are elected by the voters, reflective of their real beliefs, for good or bad), and thus felons cannot vote, and a racist who refuses to serve those he regards as unworthy of service provided to all others will find that this discrimination is not a privilege (unless politically incorrect, and justified under the premise of combating discrimination), and are not immune from prosecution (unlike shoplifting under a certain amount).

The problem however, if that SCOTUS has equated a sinful predisposition to be as race, and thus criminalized not only all who will not afford such rights that are to be afforded to all others, but those who refuse to create making special custom artistic works since such express moral views that are objectionable to them, yet media can refuse service to those who are predisposed to express moral views which such media find objectionable. Which they should be able to do.

"Insights welcome."

See post 21 above.

[Wuli]

The only true Constitutionality about “non-discrimination” is that it applies ONLY to the government; it is ONLY the government, because unlike the private citizen and unlike our private associations, the government is everyone’s government.

What happened was the Liberals got infiltrated by the Marxists in the 1960s and through them the “civil rights” laws morphed from prohibiting the government from discriminating into making every individual and every free association a tool of the government.

By that means, the government is no longer neutral, discriminating against no one, exercising total neutrality but instead has become the largest means of discrimination, picking and choosing who the government willingly discriminates against - which in most cases is the religious.