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 ...
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.
LOL, yes, the sauce. Then take them to the cleaners. Make it look like the chumps were seen coming.
You are exactly correct.
But as a Christian, I could not do the ex-lax cake (even though I can appreciate the humor of the situation). Romans 12:16 ("To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men."), 1 Pet 3:9 ("Not rendering evil for evil, nor railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing: for unto this are you called, that you may inherit a blessing.")
Likewise, as a Christian, I could not intentionally do a bad job. 1 Cor 10:31 ("Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatsoever else you do, do all to the glory of God.")
That's why the alternative is yes or no. "Yes" is not an option, for the reasons you state. Therefore, it must be "no." And with "no", they'll seek to destroy me...so that's why I say just to go out of business and reincorporate at a later time.
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.
Why cannot the baker counter sue for 1st and 13th Amendment violations of his rights? Why must the right always play defense?
This would involve being first forced to produce the cake, indulge the involuntary servitude, then sue them and the judge. Can one sue a judge?
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.
It is a matter of "free exercise of religion" versus "public accomodation" (which finds its roots in the 14th Amendment...as implemented by the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
If the baker will not serve a fudgepacker, period, then there could be a case where "public accomodation" requirements were not met (particularly if "fudgepackers" were a protected class in a state). That's the first permutation.
Another permutation would be if a baker refused to do wedding cakes period, end of story. That permutation should be pretty much open and shut.
The real interesting one that I'd love to see taken up is if the baker has no problem serving fudgepackers, but won't do a wedding cake for a fudgepacker, citing free exercise of religion as a rationale. Particularly if the baker can document where he's served fudgepackers for other purposes. That would be a good case to try to move up to the SCOTUS for a ruling (which would be a crapshoot). The question being if the proprietor is required to have his free exercise of religion stomped on in order to provide a public accommodation...and when he is willing to accommodate that particular class, but not for that particular event. I would love to see Landmark Legal, the Beckett Fund, or similar take on such a case.
What I think would be interesting is if the proprietor was to put out a notice saying that they will not, regardless of the "sexual preference" of the person requesting the service, bake cakes for homosexual weddings.
Then what? They are explicitly saying that they'll serve anybody, but won't do that particular service.
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.
Please see #10 and #17 on this thread. Would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
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.
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.