Christian florist v. homosexual couple in WA

So are you saying that Freedom of Association isn't in the Constitution or are you just saying that it's not in 1A?

What's WRT?

 

They're unlikely to know, but they could know if the couple hold hands and kiss each other.

 

You made it seem like the only reason that you thought the bakers actions were legal was because of "artistic license" and that this somehow meant that no harm was done. You've now made it clear that even if he refused ALL service to gay people, no harm would be done. Also, you say, "when it involves goods or services", so aren't you making a distinction between essential services and non-essential services just like me? Also, aren't bakery goods included in "goods?" Your position seems slightly inconsistent.

No it shouldn't be legal. I actually think that government would be in automotive repair business if not for private enterprise. They're really have to be in order to keep the economy moving. By the way, even though I don't think that it should be legal, I'm having trouble thinking about what "harm" would be done to fit your standard. It would certainly be highly inconvenient. I suspect that you don't mean that it has to be guaranteed harm or probable harm, just potential harm, in which case there are a few things which come to mind.

 

The difference is that the good or service is not being denied. The baker is not refusing to sell the people a cake - there were all kinds of cakes on display that the gay couple could have purchased. They are asking the baker to do something different -something special - just for them. In this case it involved art - creating artwork. The baker responded that he does not do that kind of artwork. This is kind of like going to an architect that specializes in one form of architecture and asking him to do another form.

The question is whether or not the person is refusing goods or services that are normally provided to others via the normal course of business.

In the case of pizza guy - they make pepperoni pizza and they deliver it. Nothing outside the norm is being asked for - it is not like the delivery area was outside the normal delivery area. Nothing special was asked for with respect to the Pepperoni pizza.

It is not about inconsistency but rather what is defined as essential. I say that if a shop sells something they must sell to anyone with the cash - sans a legitimate reason like that thing being illegal (say a gun shop selling to a 15 yr old). "God does not like that person" is not a legitimate reason.

 

You would have an issue even if she served the gay customer all the time and was friends with him?

How do you know she would've had to be the one doing the physical work?

Is the alt-right anti-gay as well as racist?

 

Why?

 

I'm talking about if a baker DID refuse ALL SERVICE. Should this be legal?

I thought the question was whether or not the refusal of service does harm.

This is going outside of your "harm" standard. Again, your position seems slightly inconsistent.

No, his business wouldn't normally be asked to be involved in a same sex wedding by providing catering services for it. I'm guessing that's not a usual request. However, I don't really understand why it would've been a problem for him, but I respect his decision on libertarian principle.

 

Yes, so you have no idea what it means! And if you have no idea what it DOES mean, then how do you know what it DOESN'T mean?

 

Does that mean that the Public Accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act are unconstitutional?

 

It means that we are all ONE in Christ, regardless of whether we are men or women. Our identity in Christ supersedes all other thing which identify us. This includes race, sexual orientation and gender identity.

 

Well, the answer is complex and dependent on one's personal political philosopy and your manner of interpreting the text of the constitution.

Congress has undisputed power to "regulate" interstate commerce. Those who read that broadly find nothing wrong with the civil rights act as an expression of legislative will.

But "Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause." So if Harvard educated lawyers on the supreme court disagree, then we here can and will disagree as well.

Does regulate mean control with no qualification? You tell me.

Now, all of the above goes to the question of whether Congress has the power to act in this area at all. You won't get anywhere arguing the negative. That ship sailed a long time ago. It's like people arguing that taxation of income is unconstitutional. Good luck with that ....

But even assuming the answer is "general, yes," (and you can seriously argue that the answer is no), then you still have to ask whether it is unconstitutional as applied in specific cases, this in the teeth of an individual merchant's sincere faith based or expression based or associational objections.

My opinion is that each case varies and that local juries, not judges, should make this call on a case by case basis. I frankly don't know whether the merchant has a statutory right to a jury trial in such a case, but that's the best way to handle it in my opinion.

 

Selling a product out of a store does not require knowledge of a person's race or sexual orientation....or really anything about the person. The product can even be ordered over the phone or the internet in many cases. Had she sold him flower for 10 years knowing he was gay (or even not knowing) and then one day deciding she would no longer sell him flowers because of his sexual orientation, would be a violation of the customer's civil rights.

Setting up a floral display at an event like a wedding DOES requires some knowledge of a person. What they like, what they do not like, etc. It would be very hard to avoid the issue that it was a gay wedding. This would force the florist into a moral dilemma based on their own religious beliefs. I would view catering weddings as a "special service" for a florist and not the main business, which is selling flowers. The florist does have rights to their religious beliefs. This situation would cause a conflict where both individuals has rights. Neither right is higher than the other on the surface. However, the religious rights are granted by the Constitution, while the customer's rights are granted by the State. Also, one right is based on a person's belief that their soul may be in peril, while the other right is that they want flowers. While the rights of both people are even, the Constitutionality and the belief by one that it is a moral issue would slightly tip the scale for me. It is not perfect, but when right collide, compromises need to be made. Whether someone agrees with whether the religious rights actually imposes a moral dilemma or not....or whether sexual orientation should be protect from discrimination at all times or not, is irrelevant.

Irrelevant. One would assume that the owner of a small business would be involved in the daily operation of that business. That involvement implies intimate knowledge, especially in the case of catering to a wedding.....which has a much larger emotional involvement on the caterer's part than just selling flowers FOR a wedding.

I have no idea. It was just an analogy.

 

I do not know why the moon is not made of green cheese - Perhaps God decided it was better to create the moon our of rock so that people would not eat the moon.

 

We have been through this previously - no point in going around the same circle. Discrimination harms the one being discriminated against and harms society - not just in cases of "essential services" - what ever that refers to - who defines what is "essential" - as discussed previously.

If someone sells Pizza - they should sell Pizza. Your inference that Pizza delivery is a "catering service" - that this is not normally asked for is nonsense.

 

I’m sorry you have trouble dealing with facts. Your ideology prevents it. Nowhere is marriage defined in the Bible. That is a fact.

 

No it isn't.

He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19:4-6 (ESV)

 

You left out the word GAY: the original was:

"Εάν ακολουθήσατε μια σύνδεση εδώ, μπορεί να θελήσετε να επιστρέψε, which means

"... shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his gay wife or gay husband ...."

 

As the Bible predicted, in the latter days men will call evil good and good evil.

 

I actually did not know that, or haven't heard it recently enough.

 

Yes, we’ve established there is no mention of marriage anywhere in that verse, let alone a definition of marriage. Thank you for pointing it out again.

 

Have any of these folks approached Muslim shops with these kinds of requests?

 

They don't have any desire to harass or intimidate allies. It's the rainbow coalition man, the most dysfunctional family in existence.

 

They weren't shacking up, the Bible calls that fornication.

 

Marriage simply isn’t in there. I’m sorry.

 

"Wife" is simply there.

noun

1. a married woman considered in relation to her spouse.

You lose.

Can anyone (other than Rahl) believe that it has come to this?