Replies

Your analogy to a “bust of Hitler” ordered from a Jewish sculptor or a ham sandwich from a Muslim deli owner is not a fair one.

This is not about WHAT you make — it about is for WHOM. Civil rights laws for 50+ years have firmly held that businesses can pick their products, but they don’t have the freedom of conscience to pick their customers. In other words, a Muslim doesn’t have to make a ham sandwich, but if chooses to make turkey sandwiches, he can’t refuse to sell them to a Jew who walks in and orders one.

You can argue that there should be no civil rights laws applicable to private businesses, and you can argue that homosexuals should not have civil rights protections, but you can’t argue that existing civil rights laws are being invidiously applied as long as gays are granted protection under them.

[ This is not about WHAT you make — it about is for WHOM. Civil rights laws for 50+ years have firmly held that businesses can pick their products, but they don’t have the freedom of conscience to pick their customers. In other words, a Muslim doesn’t have to make a ham sandwich, but if chooses to make turkey sandwiches, he can’t refuse to sell them to a Jew who walks in and orders one. ]

Jewish sculptor has a sign saying they make custom busts from any photograph... Can a KKK Kreep or NeoNazi walk in there and order “A Custom Bust” then?

Can a homosexual couple walk into a Muslim Owned Cake shop and demand that they make a Wedding cake for them? How about an Orthodox Jewish ran bakery?

Also you forgot a LOT of the Civil Right issues inthe 50’s and 60’s was to fight Discrimination BY THE STATE and LOCAL governments. Sure there were some businessses that were insane and dicriminated, but a LOT of the discrimination in the south was government directed.

There is a big difference between not serving something you already have on the menu or a premade product and refusing to do a contracted out job because it violates a person’s religious and/or cultural standards.

No, it's not. This case IS about the WHAT, not the WHO.

Did the baker at any time say: "we don't serve cakes to YOUR kind"?

NO!

Here is our menu. I'll make a cake for you. Here are the options...

"I want a snozzberry iced cake with a penis topper, plus a couple of swastikas on the side."

Well, we don't really support that kind of thing. And if you look at the catalogue you'll see we don't even have snozzberries or black icing for swastikas.

"Whaaaah! Discrimination!"

This is not about WHAT you make — it about is for WHOM. Civil rights laws for 50+ years have firmly held that businesses can pick their products, but they don’t have the freedom of conscience to pick their customers. In other words, a Muslim doesn’t have to make a ham sandwich, but if chooses to make turkey sandwiches, he can’t refuse to sell them to a Jew who walks in and orders one.

Well, what if a bakery makes holy matrimony cakes. It doesn't make gay wedding cakes. If a gay couple walks in and has set a date for holy matrimony in a church, they can buy a cake. Until then, they can't buy a holy matrimony cake; and the baker doesn't do civil wedding cakes.

This is not about WHAT you make — it about is for WHOM. Civil rights laws for 50+ years have firmly held that businesses can pick their products, but they don’t have the freedom of conscience to pick their customers.

. . . and that destruction of freedom is precisely the grounds upon which those laws were opposed - by, for instance IIRC, Barry Goldwater.
That “Civil Right” was not a free lunch for freedom. It compromised rights which had conventionally been taken for granted - as the case of this baker so exquisitely illustrates. If this “application of the law” had been bruited at the time of the passage of those “firmly held for 50 years” laws, the possibility that this application would ever have arisen would have been dismissed out of hand.
And if it had been taken seriously, the law could not have been passed. After all, did you suspect that men marrying men would ever be held to be a civil right even 20 years ago? Recall, the Defense of Marriage Act is still on the books. So in what sense did the Congress assent to this application of any law at any time?
The same people who ratified the Constitution ratified the First Amendment - and the Constitution concludes with the date:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.
There is no conceivable case in logic that the First Amendment permits discrimination against Christianity.
It is difficult to distinguish between persecuting Christians and making ancient tenants thereof a thought crime.