Posted on 11/17/2017 8:43:44 AM PST by Kaslin
The Supreme Court is facing two First Amendment issues, and we are at risk of having two different answers – ones that can only further confuse an already confusing selection of legal precedents.
One is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which hinges on a privately owned business's ability to pick and choose its customers based on religious beliefs. The other case is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Xavier Becerra, which focuses on the rights of private, non-profit crisis pregnancy centers established by pro-life organizations and individuals to operate without being forced to advocate for abortion.
The issue with Masterpiece is challenging for a number of reasons.
On the one side of the coin (setting aside the "protected" status of so-called marriage rights for same-sex couples, which has become a political third rail), there are the public accommodation laws that were passed, beginning in the '60s, to guarantee that hotels, restaurants, and other "public accommodations" could not legally discriminate against someone based on his race (in that case, almost exclusively black). Public accommodation laws were unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court in Katzenbach v. McClung in 1964. Those laws may have deprived some racist business owners of the right to practice their racism, but they extended a uniform right to all Americans, regardless of skin color, to have access to those public accommodations.
On the other side of the coin is the right, established by the courts when confronting demands stemming from Obamacare, of faith-based employers to refrain from offering insurance for services they find religiously unacceptable, such as abortion or birth control. The Supreme Court upheld faith-based employers' rights not to offer such insurance in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby in 2014.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Fake News.
The case involves a private party not being forced to violate their religious views in their business. That's why we have competition.
Masterpiece Cake Sbop is about freedom from state-imposed compelled speech/expression.
Masterpiece Cake Sbop is about freedom from state-imposed compelled speech/expression.
It’s a service business.
Price the service at a level that they will not come back.
Check the calendar .... a vacation day is set for that date.
The public accommodation issue is huge IMHO. If every business that deals with the public is considered a public accommodation, the government grabs a huge chunk of control that it wasn’t considered to have before.
This would include businesses that are more like personalized craftsmanship, like photography, flower arrangement, or customized wedding cake design. “Make it gay, and make it pretty, or I’ll sue your ass!”
They didn’t refuse to serve a customer, period. They refused a specific request from a customer they had served becofe, and were willing to serve again.
WWAKD?
(What Will Anthony Kennedy Do?)
It is insane for the fundamental laws of a society to rest on the whims of a single individual, particularly an individual the rest of us had no hand in selecting. Our Founding Fathers envisioned no such arrangement; in fact, they founded the country to escape such an arrangement.
If a fashion designer can refuse to make a dress for Mrs. Trump, a baker should be able to refuse business as well.
If someone is forced to work for someone else and make something that is not the standard work that is offered, i.e. forcing an artisan to make something custom like a wedding cake then that is slavery. None of the bakers refused to sell their standard offerings to homosexuals. If they wanted a wedding cake that featured a man and a woman, they would have gotten one.
F* ‘legal precedents’, they are subservient at best. What does the CONSTITUTION say on the matter?
Not that sleeping-Buzzard and the Hungry-Hungry Hippo twins care about their oaths, founding documents or Rights anyway...
>
The public accommodation issue is huge IMHO. If every business that deals with the public is considered a public accommodation, the government grabs a huge chunk of control that it wasn’t considered to have before.
>
What?! You want to reinstate slavery you GOP, Southern Redneck?! /s
SCOTUS over-turning the 60’s ‘civil rights’?? Sorry, ain’t going to happen.
Judicially eliminating “we reserve the right to refuse service” is slavery!
>
It is insane for the fundamental laws of a society to rest on the whims of a single individual, particularly an individual the rest of us had no hand in selecting. Our Founding Fathers envisioned no such arrangement; in fact, they founded the country to escape such an arrangement.
>
Sorry, that battle has been LONG lost. When Hugo and the gang usurped ‘final arbiter’ status w/ NO push-back (Congress allowed and the People sat on their collective @sses), the game was over.
Even the SCOTUS site (https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx) states this fallacy.
See what happens if/when anyone should bring up Natural/Common Law, let alone the Constitution (penumbras and emanations contrary to exacting language)? Club Fed if not some fine for ‘disturbing’ their little fiefdom.
If you deal with the general public, then sure. If you are licensed to only deal with a specific organization (i.e. only a specific church) that shares your values, and if it is possible to succeed at business that way, then you aren’t violating the law.
Well, remember only people who embrace the mark of the beast would be allowed to do business or have a job.
In Iran, mullahs make religious decisions.
The US is so advanced, a majority of nine lawyers make religious decisions.
It's time to decide that the government has no authority to impose "public accommodation" rules on people.
“... a privately owned business’s ability to pick and choose its customers based on religious beliefs.”
No, its about a privately owned business’s ability to determine the products and/or services it makes and sells.
If two gay men came in and each wanted a cupcake, it’s not likely their sale would be denied. If those same two gay men order a customized wedding cake celebrating a ‘gay wedding’ is quite another thing, The customers weren’t chosen, or declined; making the product they wanted was declined.
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.