Workaround for Christian Businesses

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.

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.

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.

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.

That's because he generally applied, but refused to accept, the legal definition of the un-modified statutory term "marriage" in the course of his business. According to corporate statutory law, the word "marriage" - when used in the general sense for corporate purposes - includes homosexual marriage. So to exclude homosexual marriages from the use of the unmodified word "marriage" in the course of business is illegal.

Under the current law, it's exactly the same issue as saying that you will serve the general public, but then exclude particular people because of age, race, sex or religion. You simply can't do that - "general public" includes all of those people by law, and likewise (these days) "marriage" includes homosexual marriage.

So that's why, if he wanted to restrict his application of his work for the purposes of the TYPES of marriages that HE wanted to bake cakes for, then he needed to SPECIFY that he would only do SPECIAL WEDDING CAKE ORDERS for marriages that were being done under certain religious traditions or churches that HE wanted to do them for - and no others.

And in addition, he would have to not, within the course of his business, say anything that would express rejection of homosexuality as a condition under which he was willing to do general business.

This kind of language counts. It's the way the world currently works. I'm not praising it, I'm just pointing out the fact of it. And I'm also pointing out that there is a way that Christians can not bake cakes for homosexual marriages that the law will accept. That's all.

There’s not a good understanding of how anti discrimination law works here. Detecting and punishing “pretextual” conduct and bad intent is a core feature.

This fails because there is no such thing as a Christian wedding cake — it is a category of baked goods being invented for a discriminatory purpose. Islamic weddings might get away with it because there are culturally authentic kinds of baked goods. But if a couple of gay Muslims wanted a traditional Egyptian cake for their commitment ceremony — the same vulnerability.

“All profits from gay wedding services donated to ‘Focus on the Family’” is more creative — but also loses. How long would a store keep its doors open if it had a sign that said “all profits from sales to Jews donated to the Southern Baptist Church.”

There’s not a good understanding of how anti discrimination law works here. Detecting and punishing “pretextual” conduct and bad intent is a core feature.

Intention to make wedding cakes for Christian weddings cannot show pretextual conduct and bad intent, unless you want to throw support of Christianity itself as pretectual bad intent. I'm not saying liberals don't want to do just that, but the assertion is an absurdity. The fact is that this baker is not targeting homosexual - he's continuing his lifelong Christian beliefs. And he can argue quite definitively that homosexual per se are not his objection, but rather the fact that homosexual marriage deviates from his Christian beliefs, and so he would feel this way about anything that deviated from his Christian belief. Therefore the core act here is nothing other than the continuation of his pre-existing Christian beliefs, witout any interest in anything else. That hardly constitutes bad faith or pretext.

What nonsense. If there is no such thing as a Christian wedding cake, then a wedding cake with Christian sentiments is exchangeable with any other religious wedding cake - which is certainly not true. And you show this argument is farcical by allowing Muslims their own Muslim wedding cake. Why - because under the law, the Christian religion is not unique and Islam is? Please. Not to mention your ridiculous assertion of "gay Muslims." FYI, there are no gay Muslims. There are Christian denominations of gays, but there are NO Islamic denominations of gays - let alone that allows gays to be married in Islam! Your contentions are frivolous.

Straw man, and you know it. A religious-based organization is not a religion. Religious based organization do not experience direct 1A protection, but only derived protection depending on their operations. So yeah, it would lose. But its loss does not compare to a religion itself, because it's not of the same constitutional category.

I’ve read a lot of court rulings. Some judges follow the law. A great many simply “feel”, and rule based on their feelings. Words are just what they twist to justify ruling on their feelings.

Yes, bad juges exist. But the law works in a certain way. And if people learn what that way is, they can fight back legally, and if they get a bad judge, they can appeal and win. That's what the appelate process is all about. If people want to just give up, that's their business. But it's not because there's no legal recourse - it's just because they quit. And I might point out that most of the freedoms we enjoy today were established because a small number of people refused to quit, and knew the law, and stood their ground.

The choice is simple. Christians who don't want to learn the law and fight back legally need to shut their yaps and start baking cakes for gay weddings.

Oh, and remember not look at the Muslim bakers who do special order Islamic baked goods only for Muslim ceremonies, and have no legal problems at all.

Not quite. When there is a conflict between corporate contract law and discrimination law (i.e., political correctness) political correctness wins.

How do you think political correctness is imposed? Through contract law! Even a statute is deemed "broken" by the types of contracts a business declares it has with people. it is not a violation of statutory political correctness to simply do something that does not address the political correctness.

If you say you do not do work for gay marriage, you are invoking gays into your contract with the public. Therefore you are also invoking any laws that have to do with gays.

But if you declare that you are doing a certain type of work only for certain organizations that can use that work, and those certain organizations will never do anything involving gay marriage, then gays simply do not come up as a subject. The organization might come under attack if it is illegally depriving gays of their rights. But as long as it's not doing that, there is simply nothing that invokes gays in what you do as a private contractor with that organization.

This is nothing but the creation of narrow work contracts. If you want to see how it works ALL THE TIME in the real world, study human resources law. Corporate lawyers have come up with very practiced ways to fire someone without violating politically correct laws that would otherwise prevent them from firing people they want to fire. And this method I am describing here is EXACTLY how they go abut doing it.

In the corproate world anymore, you're not fired because you're a conservative that has been politically outed at a corporation filled with liberals. Nope. You're being fired because you can't keep up with team dynamics and offer regular group feedback that is crucial to the proper performance of your job. The only thing that is mentioned is YOUR IN-ability to "keep up" with the requirements of the group's interaction, feedback and review of workflow evaluations and priority scaling. And the fact that your workgroup's dynamics operate on liberal-based evaluation standards and shared socialist "sustainability" worldviews has absolutely nothing to do with it - and so is not even mentioned.

That's the way it's done.

Sorry, but Appeals Courts and Supreme Courts have written many of the badly screwed up opinions I’ve read. The judges at that level are just as likely to make up law based on their feelings as lower courts are. Just look at the Constitutional right to practice homosexuality...and homosexual marriage.

Sorry but you're going to have to give specific examples. Otherwise I can simply say that you don't understand the legal logic of what you are reading.

Somewhere, somehow, especially at the appellate and SCOTUS level, the logic and rules of legal construction and interpretation ARE being followed. Even in the craziest rulings, if you study the thing you can find the legal interpretation that was made perfectly properly upon which the decision rested in a completely correct construction.

Which is NOT to say that those decisions are RIGHT. It is extremely possible to use legal logic to make any number of mistakes in societal RESULTS. But people who do not follow the logic and interpretations just look at the final bad result and do not usually examine the process by which that bad result was created. And because of that, most people miss seeing whatever the crucial hinge is upon which the bad decision rested - and therefore don't attack that crucial hinge.

And a lot of bad law comes from simply never even addressing the root of the LEGAL problem - which is not the same as the social problem resulting from the legal problem.

I don't have anywhere near all the answers here. But I believe it is astonishing that there is an entire "other" legal system operating in America, with apparently the same words and terms that mean almost completely opposite things, and that this legal system is virtually never acknowledged. As a result, we all keep hitting the "up" button even though it keeps making the plane go DOWN, simply because it says "up." Well dammit, accepting that it's making the plane actually, in fact, go DOWN is the real problem! And no one wants to accept that, even though it happens all the time!

So understanding the PROCESS by which "up" can mean "down" is something everyone needs to work at, IMO. Because the Left sure as hell knows how to manipulate this system, and it's not random to them. Which means it can be learned and exposed as a rational, but encoded and non-obvious, system by conservatives, too.

Sorry, but you can say what you want. I’m not going to go thru the hundreds of cases of judges making law up out of their butt. However, just for one - is there a Constitutional right to an abortion and to homosexuality? One that went undiscovered for 200+ years?

See what I mean? Well, no, you don't. Because there are two Constitutions - one based on natural, pre-existing human rights, and the other based on corporate 14th Amendment-derived privileges. And the latter Constitution is the one that has been interpreted to grant all sorts of things to those acting in a corporate capacity - like abortion and homosexuality.

Except look even at your thought process - you ask if there is a "Constitutional right to..." Do you even realize you have it backwards? That concerning natural, non-corporate human beings, the Constitution "grants" no rights, and recognizes literally infinite rights, except if the actions violate the small set of powers it grants to the government. That's just a tructural fact of the Constitution itself - it's caled the Doctrine of Negative Rights.

So given that, let me as you your own question - where would you LOOK for a Constitutional right to an abortion and to homosexuality undiscovered for the last 200 years? Are you actually arguing that thy aren't in the Constitution? Really? Because according to the Doctrine of Negative Rights - NO "right" is in the Constitution. The only thing that the original, pre-14th Amendmebnt Constitution contained was limitations to rights - in the form of granting limited powers ot the government.

And that goes for the "Bill of Rights," too. Those 10 Amendments do NOT "grant" those rights. Under the Doctrine of Negative Rights, they merely ILLUSTRATE SOME of our almost inifinite, God-given rights. And that's why many of the Founders aregued against the Bill of Rights, because it granted NO rights! So they were afraid that it would confuse people about how the Constitution actually WORKED. And that was before the 14th Amendment thre corporate "persons" into the mix.

Now, as you and other show repeatedly, someone who points out the actual system is mocked.

Well, I can't keep you from loving and protecting your chains.

“you ask if there is a “Constitutional right to...” Do you even realize you have it backwards?”

Do you realize how silly that argument is? It is easier to write, “A constitutional right” than to write, “Is there a right recognized or accepted by the US Constitution?”.

“Under the Doctrine of Negative Rights, they merely ILLUSTRATE SOME of our almost inifinite, God-given rights.”

There are not almost infinite rights under God. It is perfectly normal and acceptable for governments to make rules regulating society, such as zoning laws and laws prohibiting ID theft.

In the case of homosexuality, the US Constitution is silent. It neither recognizes a right to practice it, nor requires government to limit it. It simply is silent, and thus the states are supposed to make their own laws. If Texas wanted to make homosexual conduct legal, that is the business of Texas. But the Supreme Court should only overturn existing laws if those law conflict with constitutional rights. Thus the court had no business throwing out laws prohibiting homosexuality any more that they should throw out laws allowing it.

...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.

Doesn't work. Redefined "same-sex" marriage is already AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY in Colorado, but look how much that helped Masterpiece Cakes last week.

We are now dealing with pure power, which respects no laws. We need to stop pretending that it does.

There is no need to "work around" the First Amendment. Either own it, defend it, or go skulk off into your dark little schemes, to be pursued eventually by other unconstitutional laws which try to ward off your schemes.
...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.
Doesn't work. Redefined "same-sex" marriage is already AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY in Colorado, but look how much that helped Masterpiece Cakes last week.

We are now dealing with pure power, which respects no laws. We need to stop pretending that it does.

"skulk off into your dark little schemes"? LOL, I think perhaps the skulking darkness belongs to you, who are ranting about "pure power which respects no laws."

You invoke Masterpiece Cakes as losing, but I already explained WHY they lost. Look at it this way - there are, in the State of Colorado, businesses which do special orders for religious purposes. Some religion, somewhere, is getting some sort of special order for something from someone who does something according to their - and no one elses - specific religious needs.

That is actually happening, right now.

Now if I took your argument and applied it to these businesses, then they would have to do special orders for any religion or religious belief at any time, and could no longer do special orders for only the religions that they have been doing special orders for.

That's not going to happen. First because it violates contract law, and second because it violates contract law so profoundly that it would collapse specialized contracts entirely, and literally force every business of anything to modify their specially ordered products for any customer. That's pure insanity and the end of business - not the cake business, ALL business. It's just stupid to even suggest it.

THAT FACT IS, Masterpiece Cakes was open to the GENERAL public, and advertised - WITHOUT MODIFICATION - that they made "wedding cakes."

What you simply refuse to accept (through, apparently, belligerence alone) is that is the ENTIRE legal case that the Court ruled on for Masterpiece Cakes. The business was NOT doing special orders for a predetermined list of certain customers it wanted to specialize in for that kind of product. No. They were open to the public, with the unmodified, generally accepted term that is defined in the statutes as also relating to gay marriage.

Masterpiece Cakes put up their sign, and made their kind of business known without modification or restricted special orders. Therefore, the Court ruled that Masterpiece Cakes had to fulfil the general contract they offered to the public, which contained the unmodified term "wedding cake."

That's it, that's the law, and that's the legal ruling.

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.