Posted on 05/30/2014 4:04:08 PM PDT by Talisker
As I’ve mentioned before, the laws requiring Christians to do things like bake wedding cakes or do photography for homosexual weddings are corporate laws. That’s how these laws are implemented - corporations have privileges granted by the State for the benefit of the State, as the State sees fit. So if Christians sue, what they have to argue before the Court is how it benefits the State to allow their incorporated business to not do work for homosexual marriage. That’s the legal reality. That’s not my opinion, that’s what the Courts are actually ruling on.
Given that, there is a very easy workaround. Corporate administrative law works on definitions. Very, very precise definitions. So if an incorporated Christian business advertises that it does work for “marriage,” then guess who gets to decide what that GENERAL term means? The State. Why? Because the word “marriage” is a term used in the statutes.
However, corporations commonly use what are called “terms-of-art” to limit what they are obligated to do. There are huge percentages of the legal field that do nothing BUT create terms-of-art for contracts. So this is a common and accepted part of corporate law.
And that’s the solution. Christian businesses need to specify that they make, for example, “Christian marriage” cakes. ONLY. Because under corporate contractual law, “marriage” is NOT the same term as “Christian marriage.” PERIOD. And as long as a business sticks to their definition of “Christian marriage cakes,” the general statutory term “marriage” cannot be applied to what they do.
How does this apply to homosexuals? Easy - the point was NEVER about homosexuals, but rather homosexual WEDDINGS. Christian bakers WILL sell anything in their shops to homosexuals - even cakes. But they refuse to do a homosexual wedding cake because of the marriage part - not the cake part. Therefore there is no way for the State to separate the “marriage” from the “cake,” and therefore the phrase “wedding cake” CAN have a limited meaning for the Christian baker, as long as they restrict themselve to only those limited terms. And the entire concept of homosexuality can be ignored by simply focusing on the Christian denominations served, or the Christian churches served, by “special orders” of “wedding cakes” for those purposes ONLY.
This is all perfectly legal, and in NO violation of any discrimination laws.
Here’s an example. What if you go to a Muslim bakery, and ask them to do a Christian wedding cake. And they tell you that they don’t do any special order cakes except for those used in Islamic marriage ceremonies certified by their mosque or their Islamic tradition or school. And that that is their “speciality,” and that that is the only kind of special order cakes they do: “Islamic marriage cakes.” They simply don’t do “wedding cakes.” They will sell you a “cake” and you can use it any way you want, including for your “wedding,” but they don’t make “wedding cakes” themselves. They only custom-make “Islamic wedding cakes.” Even if they have them on display, they are only for the purpose of being used as “Islam wedding cakes,” and they reserve the right to only sell them to people who can show that that is what they will be used for.
The Court will accept this, because then they are not deciding to judge your “wedding.” Rather, it becomes a decision of what, exactly, a “Christian marriage cake” or a “Christian wedding cake” IS. And since you have already specified what you mean by that, then there is no argument about what it is – as long as you don’t violate your own contract.
You might think, well, it’s the same damn thing. It’s a freaking wedding cake. But under administrative and statutory law, it is NOT the same damn thing, if you have previously specified the difference. Rather, it is a special order contract, for a very specific thing, certified by a specific organization. And as long as that organization or purpose is legal in it's own right, so is your self-determined business limitation of doing special order work for it.
Period.
And it’s already being done for virtually every religion. Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian - they all have businesses which cater to their particular religion BY SPECIAL ORDER. And after all, that’s what a wedding is, right? The whole Christian argument is that a wedding cake is SPECIAL, and it corresponds to a particular religious event.
Then fine - just don’t use a general legal term for it. Because “marriage” can be done at the courthouse, AND it can be done in a Church. What’s the difference under the law? Well, unless you specify it in a contract, NOTHING.
So - SPECIFY IT.
hmmm, I’m sure some Methodist pastors would be more than glad to accommodate the homos with their “Christian Marriage”
Another work around is to have a private “club”. Sell only to your members. $1 membership dues refundable on the first purchase. Retain the right to cancel membership at any time.
Yeah, up to the point where you get a liberal judge who doesn’t really care about the actual law.
However, for those who object? Why not REQUIRE certain Bible Quotes to be printed on every cake box, or to be read by every DJ, as part of the “service provided” The Catering truck, the DJ Van, etc. can all be used for whatever message you wish to make.
It might hurt your business a little bit, but -— it might help too.
It is amazing to me how uncreative some business owners are.
Just state that a large percentage of the profit on wedding cakes will go to the National Organization for Marriage.
I had a similar idea when this whole thing blew up.
Some people on here were saying to do nasty things to the cake, etc. That can land you in a whole bunch of trouble.
The idea I had was to print “Genesis 2:24” in frosting on every single cake you make.
Christians 1, homosexual activists 0.
This is too trite. The courts would not accept this for a minute. Sorry.
No, your comment is trite. THIS is called corporate contract law, and it's what Courts DO.
The more liberal the judge, the more they focus on the intricacies of corporate definitions. It's HOW they do WHAT they do.
Then don't contract with the Methodists.
The homos will say they are Christian......
Judges don’t care about the law or the constitution, you think a contract is going to stop them?
Not even I would have said years ago this was possible in America. Damn shame is what it is.
Today, the state of CO ruled that the poor Christian baker must report to the state how often he serves gay customers and must under go re-education camps for gay proproganda.
I think the best way around the gay gestapo is to say,
“Sure, I’ll bake you a wedding cake. But I view homosexuality behavior as sinful. To allieve my conscience, all proceeds will go to the Alliance Defense Fund/Focus on the Family/NARTH/Catholic Courage.”
The Gay Gestapo would be disguised at the thought of their money being used to fund these groups and decline patronizing such stores. Also, I would like the govt to try and tell people how they can spend their money.
Bump - hope what you say is true - sounds so easy
to read tomorrow
They care about contract law, and the part of the Constitution that deals with corporations. That's their area of operations.
If you don't want to learn anything, fine. But why screw up knowledge because you're pissed? I didn't design this system. This is just how it works. This is how those decisions that piss you off so much are made. This is where the logic behind them comes from. This is what lawyers learn in law school, and how they operate in their professional work, and what Courts use to justify their decisions. You don't have to like it, but why deny its existence? And if it's how what you don't like is being done, why not at least understand it? Did you ever think that the reasons that the Left is running out of control is that they've learned how to use this system to their advantage, while conservatives just throw rocks at it and hate it?
Easy is relative. But things are often a lot easier when you understand how something works. It's still possible to screw up, but at least you can then undertand what the heck is going on. Otherwise it's all just some sort of incomprehensible nonsense.
My goal is to see it as comprehensible nonsense. LOL!
What's a shame is that non-corporate people are having corporate laws imposed upon them without their knowledge. Corporate law in and of itself, however, is a form of contract law, which is necessary. And people love to "get incorporated" when they run a business so they can't get sued so easily. Well, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Few people stop to consider just exactly what happens when you file those incorporation papers - why that would protect you from being sued for something you did.
But think about it - you're "creating" a magical entity, a corporation that's legally not you. That's fairly incredible. You can go screw up somewhere, and then point to this imaginary person and say "I didn't do it - it did it" - and a Court will support you! Isn't that kind of... unreal?
So why is anyone surprised to find out that the Courts that will acknowledge this inhuman legal person act... inhumanly? That they operate by different rules and definitions? Of course they will - they aren't dealing with men or women anymore, they're dealing with legal creations. And legal creations have no rights, only privileges that are created and granted by their creator: the State.
It all makes perfect sense. What's wrong is imposing these rules on people who are not corporations, and who are not acting on behalf of corporations, because that is a denial of human rights.
I don't have all the answers as to how to "fix the system." But I do know one thing - nothing is going to be fixed before it is understood. In fact, I would go so far as to say that nothing CAN be fixed until it is understood.
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.