Think about it: you own a bakery, have "Lloyd and Nigel" come in to get a wedding cake for their happy day.
And you, as the cake maker, throw your hands up and say "that's it! I'm out of business!"
Now, to look at this practically, I wonder how much it would cost for a cheap incorporation and a d/b/a? Have the corporation refuse service...go out of business...and then stand up a new corporation and file d/b/a paperwork so the new corporation does business as as the same d/b/a as the old one a couple of days after the fact.
What do you think the chances are that Lloyd and Nigel passed up 10 homosexual-owned bake shoppes and florists to demand that some straight, Christian businesses make their cake and arrange the flowers for their nuptials? This isn’t about hurt feelings or fairness, this is about forcing “breeders” to bend to their will, submit to their demands and make like they approve of gay marriage. Rubbing our noses in it is another way of putting it.
Nope. You reluctantly take their money. And make them the cake they deserve for forcing you to make it against your beliefs. Maybe with the “ Jesse Jackson” secret sauce.....
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. Then there would be the very nasty repercussion’s. You can have your cake and eat it too. (sarc)
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. Then there would be the very nasty repercussion’s. You can have your cake and eat it too. (sarc)
Just bake the cake. Do a bad job of it. Then deliver it late. When they complain, refund their money, and leave.
“The sexual orientation of the buyers should not be an issue in that sort of transaction”
BS
If you are a single mom with small boys you should have every right to deny renting a room in your house to sexual deviants.
This is an interesting legal argument. It touches on a discrepency I’ve been trying to articulate in these matters. In this case, it proposes that the difference between the sale of an already produced item, versus the sale of an item produced by personal labor, is involuntary servitude.
But here’s another problem - what about restaurants, or plays? Restaurant food is made personally, and not mass produced. And plays are done personally, and not mass produced like movies.
I think the issue really must be religion in the end. The baker, for example, would not have a problem merely selling a cake to these gays. It’s when they wanted him to make a wedding cake, that he refused. So the issue is not baking or cakes, it’s doing such for a wedding. And that’s where I believe the court dropped the ball. The court focused ont he issue being commercial, but commerce per se was not objected to by the baker. Commerce that violated his religious view was the issue - and that, I believe, is protected by the 1st Amendment.
And the denial of the gay couple of a wedding cake does not infringe on their rights to go somehwere else for their wedding cake. So it can’t be objected to on those grounds. And, other than the wedding issue, the gays are free to purchase any other cake or baked goods at the same bakery. So religion alone is the issue here.
And, I believe, the case can be appealed successfully on these grounds, or failing that for procedural reasons, a new case could be argued successfully on these ground by the next comercial challenge by homosexuals - and you know there’s going to be another one.
Few would argue that the baker has a right not to serve people based on the above. Some might sympathize (as i would) with Jewish bakers refusal to bake a cake for celebrating the holocaust, or even a black bakers refusal to serve a white supremacist if the cake was to celebrate a supremacist event.
But the problem here is that the courts, if not the people, have basically validated celebrating the holocaust (and in fact AIDs, for which male homosex is primarily responsible, has killed half a million Americans, but which is not the real reason it is wrong ), and thus they must defend the United States for Sodom which such judges are working to create.
What about freedom of association?
Anybody should have the right to refuse doing business with anyone else for any reason or no reason at all.
Only public entities or monopolies (i.e. public utilities) should be forced to serve all.
That is their goal. They want to get Christians fired from their jobs and to shut down their businesses. The legal costs of a small business defending itself against homosexuals is prohibitive. These are not business decisions, these are examples of standing up for principle. And their goal is to put every principled Christian out of business.
The only practical solution might be to make them pay in advance and then make a lousy cake.
I think the most painless way to avoid serving queers with you business is to keep a pre-prepared appointment book that is completely filled for the year.
When the queers come in inquiring about your services, just tell them you are booked solid the day of their wedding. Give them a glance at your full but fake appointment book.
No muss, no fuss.
Watch this issue closely - there is a reason that the Senate rules were changed to pack Federal courts with Obama hacks.
It’s obvious to any attentive observer that the only way that
Obamacare and the massive Medicaid expansion can even marginally work is if doctors and other medical professionals are legally compelled to accept all Medicaid patients. This might be done through licensing requirements or confiscatory taxation for practices that don’t comply, but one way or the other involuntary servitude is back and here to stay.
Involuntary servitude is, at its core, forced labor for the benefit of another. Such labor may be compelled by physical force or coerced. Coercion must amount to the laborer justifiably believing he has no choice but to perform the ordered work. Such coercion may, but need not necessarily, be physical.Ms. Armstrong expands on this thought, saying:
It could be argued that the key difference between slavery and involuntary servitude is that slavery status attaches for life, but involuntary servitude for only a definite period of time. This supposed distinction, however, is meaningless when we consider the purpose behind a future possibility of freedom. Involuntary servitude need not necessarily be for life but rather may exist for a few days, months, or years.
This being noted, it seems that Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer has ordered Mr. Jack Phillips into a condition of involuntary servitude. Apparently Judge Spencer did not find Mr. Phillips guilty of a crime, as required in the 13th Amendment, yet ordered that he do work for the plaintiffs anyway.
I think it's a good approach, this appeal based on involuntary servitude. However, I don't think the author's solutions were based on using the 13th amendment. Baking a lousy cake or an expensive cake are already options, so they really have nothing to do with the 13th.
An appeal including the 13th amendment would make sense.
All that said, I still think this is forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs. The baker said that he would bake a cake for them, just not a "gay wedding cake."
They could then take it and decorate it themselves for whatever purpose they desired. So, he objected to the step that required his participation in what he found morally objectionable....using his skills to cooperate in gay marriage.
Just a final thought: I don't think he'd get away with charging 10000 dollars, but I do think the lousy cake would work.
Bake them a Mexican sheetcake.
That's about the size of it. Or announce the entire shop is closing for "vacation" the week of the blessed event.
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.
Post a sign:
“WE RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYBODY”
“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.
Where does the Constitution say we have a right not to be offended?
The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court thinks that the Constitution forces any citizen to do what the government tells him to do. This is very much an uphill fight.
And to those who suggest late cake deliveries, improperly prepared food and so on, handling your Better Business Bureau complaint wouldn't be much fun after the fact.
The posters who have suggested countersuits based on the 1st and 13th Amendments have earned my loud applause.