Posted on 12/04/2017 9:58:27 AM PST by TangledUpInBlue
That case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, takes aim at a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation in places serving the public. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, says the law violates his free speech rights by forcing him to “create expression that violates his sincerely held beliefs about marriage.”
The dispute has attracted a lot of attention from the business community, including an amicus brief signed by 35 companies including Amazon (AMZN), Pfizer (PFE), and Apple (AAPL), which asked the court to rule against Phillips. Another group with an interest in the business community also weighed in on the case — 34 law professors who contend that Phillips’ argument runs counter to longstanding principles of corporate law.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
I’ve seen a lot of decidedly leftist media outlets making a strong case in favor of the Christian baker. This tells me that they know damn well he’s going to win the case, and they’re trying to figure out how to diminish the legal ramifications of the decision in other areas.
How many of these companies all have homosexuals (activists) at tge top tiers offices?
I’d like to see these 35 large companies react to being told who they MUST contract with and how, or go out of business.
I’d like to see these 35 large companies react to being told who they MUST contract with and how, or go out of business.
So long as they let the federal government tap their computers and get consumer information, they’re good to go.
If companies can be forced to serve everyone, why can’t Twitter and Facebook be likewise forced to serve everyone instead of shutting down so-called conservatives who likely as not are acting on similar religious and social values?
I’m not disputing what you’re saying, but I’ve not seen that. The corporate veil argument is interesting to me. The article spins it as though the shareholder is being sued for not making the cake and therefore separating himself from the corporation.
But to me, the issue is that the Corporation should be the one getting sued, not the employee who just happens to work there. It’s tough to divide because he appears to be the sole shareholder.
Liberals wrote updates to the civil rights legislation to privilege various groups; that’s how refusing service to a homosexual even when you think it is blasphemy is defended by city and state civil rights divisions while those same groups can refuse service to you per their free speech and free association rights.
What I can’t understand is the deafening silence by the media of bakeries owned by individuals of other religions who have also refused to make wedding cakes for homosexual couples. Youtube has several videos of interviews w/Muslim bakery owners who state its against their religion. Why is Christianity being singled out??? If making a cake violates someone’s religious faith then the patron should go down the street to another bakery who has no religion.
A corporation does not give up any of the legal protections given to the shareholders just because it is a separate entity. The Supreme Court ruled that the owners of a "closed corporation" are treated differently under the law because -- unlike the ownership arrangement in a large, publicly-traded corporation -- their ownership of the corporation can be tied to bylaws, standards of conduct, and even religious tenets.
This is why Chick-Fil-A, for example, does not open on Sundays and does not have to worry about shareholders suing the owners for breaching their fiduciary duty by closing every store in the chain one day of the week and losing a lot of potential revenue. The company is not a publicly-traded corporation and therefore doesn't have to meet the same standards as one.
In other words ...
These silly extensions of "civil rights" laws to homosexuals are on shaky legal ground simply because the owner of a business establishment has no way of knowing the sexual orientation of the customers he's dealing with. The same guy who calls himself gay on Monday can come back and be a heterosexual on Wednesday.
That said, suppose there is this "corporate veil" of separateness that compels the business to accommodate the public. What would be the impacts to a bakery?
It seems to me that, on the one hand, if "public accommodation" is the standard and there were no other bakeries anywhere to serve the public, then either declare the bakery a public utility and regulate it, or provide civil incentives to foster competition in the bakery business.
Nobody has argued a scarcity in the bakery service to the wedding party, so a lack of "public accommodation" is not the issue.
On the other hand, if "corporate separateness" implies that the bakery has a separate legal interest than its owner, then how do those interests play out?
As a hypothetical scenario, suppose a widgetry has a finite supply of materials such that it cannot meet all the demand for widgets. How does this company decide who gets widgets and who does not? Do they sell first come first served? Do they sell to the highest bidder? Do they sell to the largest order? Do they sell to the longest-term contract? Do they sell to the business next door that uses widgets in their own product?
The point of this hypothetical scenario is to demonstrate that business have all sorts of reasons to "discriminate" one customer over another. Who is to say that one reason is any better or worse than another, except for the party that was denied the sale of the widget.
The ultimate say on which discriminator is used to sell widgets is the First Amendment right of the widgetry owner to freely associate.
-PJ
I would assume that they have to follow the same Colorado law that the baker does if they want to do business in that state.
Part of a bigger scheme to crush all the small businesses and leave the big corporations as a sole option.
A judge just ruled Starbucks can’t close their tea shops in Simon Properties malls because it would hurt the Simon Properties (HUGE company) worse than the loses Starbucks will incur by keeping the shops open.
Excellent point.
Though I do miss the days when businesses has signs on their doors, “no shirt, no shoes, no service” and they reserved the right to serve as they wished.
Your widget example doesn’t hold water. There are no laws against discrimination. Businesses cannot hire people with green hair.
They can discriminate at will as long as they don’t do so because of gender, race, age, sexual orientation, disability, etc... There may be a few more that are codified.
Point is, this is pretty clearly fits into the list.
I don’t think “Christianity” is being singled out. I think it’s a function of:
1) There are more Christians than anyone else
2) These two people happened to get a bee in their bonnet and decided to sue whereas many people would not be bothered and would just go find another bakery.
It’s the modern “auto de fe,” in the Inquisition 2.0, and led by the current Tor-gay-mada.
Yes, but asking for the cake to be made out to Fred and Doug would be a hint. :)
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.