Posted on 07/07/2015 7:24:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Oregon baker decision — which required a bakery to pay $135,000 to a same-sex couple for refusing to prepare a cake for their same-sex commitment ceremony — also ordered the bakers to:
“…cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.”
Statutes prohibiting similar communications (including as to race, religion, and sex, and as to employment and housing as well as public accommodations) are common, and generally thought to be constitutional. But why? Here’s what I think is the right answer, though I agree that courts haven’t been clear on it.
Assume that it is indeed against the law to refuse to serve someone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on — and, in particular, to refuse to provide a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony. Then, saying we “will … refuse[]” to provide a cake is essentially a true threat of illegal conduct.
To be sure, it is not a threat of violence, or even a threat to commit a crime, but it is a threat to act illegally (by violating the anti-discrimination statute). And it is a threat that would have much the same effect as an outright refusal to provide a cake to someone who shows up and asks for it, because it tells people that it’s futile to even ask.
Indeed, I think we’d see the same in lots of other situations where speech is properly treated as civilly actionable.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Author makes analogy of not baking a cake for same-sex couples to a landlord and his tenant...
Here is his analogy...
_____________________________
If a landlord (or anyone else) locks a tenant out of the property that the tenant has leased, he is committing a tort.
If the person instead tells the tenant, “If you come onto the property, you will find that you are locked out,” he is committing precisely the same tort, even if the tenant doesn’t bother coming to the property and checking whether his key still works. (Say this is a vacation home and the tenant is out of town, so trying to go on the property and finding himself locked out will be expensive.) Threatening the tenant with unlawful exclusion from the property is unprotected speech, because it is a threat of tortious conduct.
Such prohibitions are a clear violation of the 1st Amendment’s freedom to assemble clause.
This is why it’s a bad analogy. If a tenant has paid a landlord for the property and the landlord accepts the money, the landlord has no legal right to lock the tenant out. This is not the same as a baker telling someone up front that he will not accept a contract for a gay wedding cake.
This is why it’s a bad analogy. If a tenant has paid a landlord for the property and the landlord accepts the money, the landlord has no legal right to lock the tenant out. This is not the same as a baker telling someone up front that he will not accept a contract for a gay wedding cake.
I can always count on liberals viewpoints being the one opposite the bible:
Matt 21:
The Parable of the Two Sons
28 “What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went. 30 The father[e] went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him.
All I know is that if this really is the biggest issue in American public life (as listing to NPR reading the Washpost or reading any conservative media outlet would imply) then the country does not have many serious problems.
(oh, Iran is about to get blessed with nukes. China’s manipulated economy is crashing. Repudiation of sovereign debt is becoming fashionable.)
All I know is that if this really is the biggest issue in American public life (as listing to NPR reading the Washpost or reading any conservative media outlet would imply) then the country does not have many serious problems.
(oh, Iran is about to get blessed with nukes. China’s manipulated economy is crashing. Repudiation of sovereign debt is becoming fashionable.)
Where’s that Wednesday Addams “I baked your cake, now eat it” pic?
Of course, to a Fascist, this all sounds perfectly reasonable.
First of all, I want to see this applied to Muslim businesses-I want to see a test case where someone actually tries to order a cake decorated with a cross from them. Secondly, I want to see someone try to order a cake from a black bakery decorated with “KKK” and a figure wearing a hood, or a Jewish bakery with a cake decorated with a swastika.
Most of all, I want to see Christians stand on Biblical principle even when it hurts. It’s easy when there’s no sacrifice involved, I’d like to see Christians live by what they believe. If enough of us did that, it might mean something in this country.
Regardless of all that, with this last SC ruling making sodomite “marriage” the law of the land, the US has now lost the blessing and protection of being under God’s hand, and is instead under His judgement as a nation.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Executive Order 11246 prohibits covered federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and requires affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunity without regard to those factors. E.O. 11246 is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This law is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) prohibits discrimination against applicants, employees and participants in WIA Title I-financially assisted programs and activities, and programs that are part of the One-Stop system, on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Section 188 also prohibits discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, political affiliation or belief, and for beneficiaries only, citizenship or participation in a WIA Title I-financially assisted program or activity. This law is enforced by the Civil Rights Center.
Under the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937, apprenticeship programs registered with the Department of Labor, and state apprenticeship programs registered with recognized state apprenticeship agencies, are prohibited from discriminating, and required to undertake affirmative action in apprenticeship programs, on the bases of race, color, religion, national origin and sex. This law is enforced by the Apprenticeship Training and Employer Labor Services.
Muslims don't bake cakes for gays; they throw gays off buildings.
I would have to agree with you on all your civil right listings.....the democRATS just don’t want to honor them....
DO you really want to eat anything that a person was forced to cook for you?
Alas, that horse left the barn in 1964. This has to be fought on the basis of a robust understanding of free exercise of religion.
I rather favor a sign stating “Wedding catering limited to marriages of couples meeting the canonical standards of [long (or short) list of Christian and non-Christian confessions which have explicit canonical requirements for marriages which include, inter alia, the espoused be a man and a woman]”?
For instance if the list consisted of “the Holy Orthodox Church” not only would there be no catering for “gay” weddings, but none for fourth marriages, none for second or third after divorces without an ecclesiastical court granting permission to remarry, none for weddings in which it was not the case that one (at least) of the couple was an Orthodox Christian and the other a Trinitarian Christian of some sort, none for marriages in which couple were closer than the eight degree of consanguinity,... If the list consisted of “the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Churth”, rather more weddings might be catered. The owners should probably pick the list consisting of their own confession and all which have stricter canonical limits on marriages.
“Assume that it is indeed against the law to refuse to serve someone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on — and, in particular, to refuse to provide a cake for a same-sex commitment ceremony. Then, saying we “will … refuse[]” to provide a cake is essentially a true threat of illegal conduct.”
Wouldn’t this apply to any threat of civil disobedience to any legislative act or regulatory rule. How about any opposition to a legally constituted government?
The homos would never notice a booger in their cake - or a big slimy floogie.
Someone could fa_t on the flowers.
There's all kinds of creative things people can do to "express" their opinions.
Just like in the "no homos" voting booth, people can "vote" on this issue in private.
So..... if I go into a BAR and get drunk, and I ask for another drink and the bartender refuses to serve me, can I SUE ?
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.