In major Supreme Court case, Justice Dept. sides with baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay

That is *NOT* what they wanted. They wanted specific, unique arrangements on the cake. It was *NOT* number 22 from his menu!

 

Not even local business laws can force a person to be a slave. When you *force* someone to enter into a private contract for a unique product then you *have* made a slave of that person. If these people had selected a cake out of the display case there would not have been an issue. It was when they wanted to force the baker to enter into a private contract for a unique product that the bakers rights were violated.

 

They actually made this into private contract law although no one has yet argued the case in this manner yet.

The government simply cannot make a slave out of a private contractor by forcing them to enter into a private contract to create a unique product. It doesn't matter what the reason is that the private person doesn't want to enter into the private contract. If the government says you *have* to enter into a private contract then they are violating the basic civil rights of the private contractor.

 

Well we are about to have a new precedent setting court case, now aren't we?

 

But the gay people didn't want a cake out of the display case. They wanted a *unique* product to be created. In this case the baker becomes a private contractor and *should* be able to refuse any private contract offer.

 

Probably will uphold the PA law. But if not, OK.

 

Agreed. Custom orders built to specs can be rejected 100% of the time.

 

Well, you misunderstand PA laws, but that is OK. They are not unconstitutional. The issue will not religious freedom for the Court but whether states can regulate public commerce.

 

Private contracts are *NOT* public commerce!

 

That will be the defining question. Is baking and decorating a cake freedom of expression when it is a service offered in a public accommodation?
Is cooking a steak made to order an expressive act? It isn't pre made, the chef may decide that he doesn't want his steak to express something that he is against. Can restaurants refuse cooked to order meals but not buffet style meals?

As for the slave comment, no one forced him to OFFER the service of baking wedding cakes, no one forced him to open a business that is a public accommodation. He CHOSE to do so. He could simply not OFFER the service of making wedding cakes and only sell off the shelf cakes. He could operate out of his home and only take orders from those he chooses. But he didn't do those things he chose to sell custom cakes in a public accommodation and by doing so is bound by the laws of the state that he is operating in.

 

Funny the baker said that no discussion of the design was had. He said that the conversation lasted 20 seconds and involved him saying that he would not make any wedding cake for them.

 

If the cake and steak are offered on a menu then there is no original expression involved.

Public accommodation is selling cakes out of a display. When unique products are requested then that becomes a private contract. That is why many unique cakes are coupled with an *estimate* of what the cost will be to create them.

Many bakers have wedding cakes in their display case! What are you talking about?

He was *NOT* selling custom cakes as part of a public accommodation. He was selling custom wedding cakes as part of a private contracted service!

 

ROFL!!!! If the cake was not in the public display case then it was a request for a private contract to create a unique product.

Only a fascist would say bakers are slaves and must accept any private contract that is offered!

Do you know why a kosher butcher is a kosher butcher? Would you force a kosher butcher to accept a private contract for a special cut of meat? Would you make the kosher butcher into a slave to anyone offering a private contract?

 

Doubt it, but we shall see.

I don't think that Kennedy will overturn this one since he was in the majority on that case. Kennedy also wroth the majority opinion in Romer v Evans which paved the way for Colorado to include sexual orientation in it's public accommodation laws.

Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan will probably not rule against public accommodation laws.

Alito concurred with Scalia in 87% of cases so chances are he would have concurred with Scalia.

That leaves Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts. Gorsuch and Thomas will probably go for the baker, Roberts is more moderate and could go either way.

My guess, 5-4 in favor of the state law. Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan in the majority.

 

The wedding cake is offered on the menu, it's a service that he not only offered, but promoted in his shop.

 

No religious shield can attach to that promotion.

 

.

 

Again, the wedding cakes offered on the menu were the ones he had in his public display case.

None of those were what the gay couple wanted.

And, again, a painter can offer to do custom paintings on a private contract basis. That does *NOT* mean he has to accept all private contracts offered to him.

A kosher butcher can offer to do custom cuts of meat in his advertisements. That does *NOT* mean he has to accept private contract offers for non-kosher cuts of meat!

A Muslim butcher can advertise that he does custom butchering. That does *NOT* mean that he has to accept private contract offers for pork cutlets!

A sculptor can advertise that he takes private commisions. That does *NOT* mean that he has to accept a private contract offer to sculpt a burning cross with the KKK flag on it!

A baker can advertise that he takes private commissions for wedding cakes. That does *NOT* mean he has to accept any and all private contract offers such as one to bake a cake with KKK and a burning cross on it!

 

Oh, Malarky! Lots of artists advertise they will take private commissions to create art. That does *NOT* mean they have to accept any and all private contract offers - such as creating a painting with KKK in the middle of it and a burning cross in the background!

It's no different with a baker. The wedding cakes offered for public accommodations either have to be on a menu or in a display case. If no "gay" wedding cakes appear in either place then they *are* a private commission. And no one can be enslaved by the government such that they have to accept all private contract offers.

 

In the Phillips case, the law is applied unequally. In Colorado, the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled that Azucar Bakery did not discriminate when it refused to bake a cake for a Christian (William Jack). Jack wanted a cake which had 2 Bible references on it, one being "God Hates Sin" and the other "Homosexuality is a detestable sin". The ruling exonerating Azucar seems to apply just as equally to Phillips case and was referenced as part of the defense of Phillips, but the Colorado Civil Rights Division - using all kinds of verbal gymnastics - decided it did not apply as precedent.

In Colorado, as well as other places including the other high profile case in Oregaon of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the accommodation laws are used to attack Christians.

After the Phillips and Melissa cases, people have done experiments in which they asked gay bakeries to make various Christian themed cakes, for the gay bakeries who refused there is no media attention and no "enforcement" of accommodation laws against the gay bakeries.

<>

Last year, these cases of bakers refusing Christians were easy to find. No longer. When I searched on google using "baker refuses Christian" - all results were about Christian bakers refusing gays. Azucar did not show up. It used to show up, as well as several other cases similar to Azucar. Now, all results were one sided.

When I used the same phrase ("baker refuses Christian") on duckduckgo, the Phillips case, Azucar and several other cases came up on the first page of results.

Clearly google is biasing search results.

 

Wrong.

You are personally deciding that religious rights are secondary to all other rights - that religious rights are not rights at all. Your argument only has validity if the person applies his religious beliefs inconsistently, if his religion says he cannot bake a cookie for a woman but he does not refuse all women then he is not consistent.

With Phillips, he does apply his beliefs consistently, refusing to perform any service which violates his belief whether it be a same sex marriage cake, Halloween cookies, a cake celebrating adultery, etc.

You are doing the same to property rights. You are claiming that the law can force anyone to violate any of their beliefs and force any person to use this property as other people demand. Look up the definition of slavery.

 

The courts and the law make these determinations, not the Battle 3s of the world.

 

Why on earth would a homosexual want anyone to make food for them that hates their homosexual lifestyle? Who know what they would put into it.

 

Incorrect, the law says that if you offer a good or service you can not discriminate. Azucar bakery does not make cakes with anti anything on them for anyone. That case was about ACTUAL speech, the baker did not make that design. In fact the baker offered to make the cake and do everything except write the words he found objectionable and then give Jack the materials to write whatever he wanted on the cake himself This case is not about the design or words on the cake. He refused to sell them any cake for their wedding.

IF you look at all of the Christians refused cakes cases then you know that all were about the actual design or words to be put on the cake.

 

Phillips doesn't make Halloween cakes for ANYONE. He doesn't make adultery cakes for ANYONE. He DOES make wedding cakes. If you do not offer a product then you do not have to sell it to anyone, but if you DO offer it then you can not discriminate.

Public accommodation laws have been in effect since the 60s, and not once has the court ruled that religious belief trumps public accommodation laws.