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

Skip to comments.

Does the Constitution Force Bakers to Bake?
American Thinker ^ | 1/9/2014 | Jim Yardley

Posted on 01/09/2014 2:37:09 AM PST by markomalley

Several recent court cases have resulted in small business owners, who create the wares and services that they sell, being ordered by a judge to sell their custom-made products (e.g., wedding cakes and floral arrangements) or services (e.g., wedding photography) to gay couples despite the small business owners' refusal to do so based on their religious principles.

If the business in question sold standard, mass-produced items, such as rings, then denying gay couples the right to purchase such things would be clearly discriminatory in the same way that a realtor would be discriminating if they refused to show a house that was for sale to any and all interested potential buyers. The sexual orientation of the buyers should not be an issue in that sort of transaction.

However, the sensitivities of gay couples who claim to feel slighted is not the real issue. The plaintiff in a recent wedding cake related suit, one David Mullins, is reported to have said:

Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop [the defendant] was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration.

While vigorously defending the plaintiffs' claims that they have a right not to be offended, the judge, the ACLU, and others in the LGBT community seem to be ignoring (in this particular case) the rights of the baker who chose not to fulfill the plaintiffs' request.

Most people would immediately think of the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of religion, but in truth that is not the most relevant part of the Constitution here. It is the 13th Amendment, Section 1, which should be the controlling part of the legal debate in this situation.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-146 next last
To: markomalley

Bake them a Mexican sheetcake.


21 posted on 01/09/2014 4:13:06 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (If you liked the website, you'll LOVE the healthcare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tai_Chung
Anybody should have the right to refuse doing business with anyone else for any reason or no reason at all.

In a culture guaranteeing freedom of conscience and the privacy of personal transactions that would be the case. Tragically we do not live in a society that validates personal choice in commercial matters.
We have politicized social transactions to the point that conscience is disallowed as justification for refusing to participate in a transaction when said conscientious objection conflicts with politically correct interests. Thus has a standard of political influence supplanted personal choice.

22 posted on 01/09/2014 4:22:17 AM PST by Louis Foxwell (This is a wake up call. Join the Sultan Knish ping list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
What's pathetic is that the baker is being persecuted because he refused to bake a cake for a "gay marriage" in a state that doesn't even recognize "gay marriage" as legal.

When I read a story like this I start to realize how understandable it is for people to turn to brutal measures to rid their country of depraved freaks.

23 posted on 01/09/2014 4:23:44 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: oblomov
I don’t believe in the concept of “public accommodation”. I realize it is the de jure policy (via 1964 CRA), but in my view, the 14th Amendment applies only to actions of the federal government, and the state governments.

Sadly, though, the 5th section of the 14th Amendment gives Congress very wide berth to legislate in this matter.

Having said that, I agree that "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" should be the law of the land.

24 posted on 01/09/2014 4:25:53 AM PST by markomalley (Nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good -- Leo XIII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da

That sounds pretty smart to me.


25 posted on 01/09/2014 4:36:26 AM PST by Hardastarboard (The question of our age is whether a majority of Americans can and will vote us all into slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

What if an atheist baker refused to bake a Christmas cake? Or a Jewish restaurant refused to serve a take out dinner to a KKK party celebrating the Holocaust? Do lawyers even use these arguments?


26 posted on 01/09/2014 4:48:53 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
In this situation, the only thing that bakeries, florists, or whatever can do is to immediately go out of business when a sodomite attempts to get a "wedding cake" done.

That's about the size of it. Or announce the entire shop is closing for "vacation" the week of the blessed event.

27 posted on 01/09/2014 4:54:35 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conspiracy Guy

It becomes a matter of What Would the Marx Brothers Do


28 posted on 01/09/2014 4:57:32 AM PST by stanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

A friend of mine recently got into this business, and I asked him how he might handle this kind of situation. He says that during the phone consultation, you can figure out what kind of couple you’re dealing with. If the names are “Adam and Steve,” then he’s already booked on that date.


29 posted on 01/09/2014 5:00:10 AM PST by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Then what? They are explicitly saying that they'll serve anybody, but won't do that particular service.

The problem is that behavior is treated as race, and your suggestion would be seen as saying "no blacks served." But in the application at issue here means a Jewish baker must bake a cake for KKK party celebrating a pork fest, or the Holocaust as said. They just need to assert aversion to pork is due to an (elusive) gene.

30 posted on 01/09/2014 5:01:30 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Post a sign:

“WE RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYBODY”


31 posted on 01/09/2014 5:04:37 AM PST by G Larry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Bingo!


32 posted on 01/09/2014 5:04:58 AM PST by Flick Lives (Got a problem with the government? Have a complaint. Get a free IRS audit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Talisker; P-Marlowe

I know exactly what you mean by the yes or no response when based on a biblical admonition to do harm to no one and to do all to the glory of God. I have no problem with that.

So far as the religious rights being stomped on, I think that’s taking place now. This baker — and I read it in one of the articles at the time — said that he WOULD sell them a cake, a cookie, etc....just not a “gay wedding cake”. Since he sold wedding cakes to others, the judge said, he has to sell to these 2 gay guys even though it violated his religious beliefs.

Now, what if he said that doing that cake was the government requiring him to participate in another person’s religious faith? That would, in fact, be true.


33 posted on 01/09/2014 5:07:39 AM PST by xzins ( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: detective

"I baked it special"

34 posted on 01/09/2014 5:09:56 AM PST by Flick Lives (Got a problem with the government? Have a complaint. Get a free IRS audit!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“In this situation, the only thing that bakeries, florists, or whatever can do is to immediately go out of business”

I think they shold go the “poison pill” route and make it plain that all profits will be donated to the FRC or similar organization. Ther could even be a logo that woould be displayed on the door next the the credit card stickers making it plain that’s what’s going to happen.


35 posted on 01/09/2014 5:15:22 AM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

And even in this queer State of Colorado “we the people “ voted in legal ballot to elevate the definition of “marriage” as the legal union between a man and a woman to Constitutional status.The Reprobates could NOT legally “marry” in Colorado.Also our State Constitution recognizes the rights of conscience-and protection of religious sentiment. Every Judge in this State is sworn to support the Constitution. Article VI of the US Constitution declares This Constitution(the US Constitution) and Laws made in pursuance to it. (Note under English construction the laws made in pursuance to to it subjects those laws to our Constitution.... and all the rest of that clause likewise is subject to the Constitution — and the judges in every State bound by it (it being an article that refers back to the primary source (the Constitution) this Judge He/she/ it (to be inclusive ) has violated not merely the Colorado State Constitution but the Rule of Law and US Constitution all in one drug induced queer opinion.


36 posted on 01/09/2014 5:15:55 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stanne

I would just bake the cake and sell it to them. Taking their money is like supporting gay marriage. It’s called business.


37 posted on 01/09/2014 5:18:17 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Did the ancients know they were ancients? Or did they see themselves as presents?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
While vigorously defending the plaintiffs' claims that they have a right not to be offended...

Where does the Constitution say we have a right not to be offended?

38 posted on 01/09/2014 5:20:32 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Progov

“Maybe filling said cake with super powerful “baking ingredients” (exlax would be good) may stop the homos from asking for our buying any cakes from said baker, at least for a while.”

Purposely adulterating a cake with a laxative would be a good way to get sued and lose a large settlement. It would also destroy the reputation of your business.


39 posted on 01/09/2014 5:26:17 AM PST by Brooklyn Attitude (Things are only going to get worse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

Seems to me that forcing anyone to perform a task against their will is somewhat akin to...

could it be...

slavery?


40 posted on 01/09/2014 5:29:31 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-146 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