|
thompsonx -> RE: That DAMN CAKE again-Religious Liberty or Discrimination? (7/12/2016 2:21:06 PM)
|
ORIGINAL: crazyml
ORIGINAL: Awareness
ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
Baker takes order for BIRTHDAY cake.
Baker than looks up client's facebook page, and finds that she is in a same-sex marriage.
Baker then texts her canceling the cake order, citing a refusal of services to same-sex couples.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ohio-bakery-gay-couple-cake_us_577eb60ae4b01edea78d1e2a
Entirely within their rights to do so. They don't provide an essential service and there's no legal basis for compelling them to engage with people whose lifestyle they do not support.
I think you're confused about the law.
Let me help you out.
The Colorado case was brought on the basis of a law banning public accommodations from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
That means that it was illegal to refuse service. Here's a link that you might find useful:
Colorado Civil Rights Commission
http://aclu-co.org/court-cases/masterpiece-cakeshop/
“Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.”
Now, you may wish to argue that the anti-discrimination law is a breach of the 1st amendment, but your argument would fail. Because, the USSC has already ruled that the 1st Amendment protects opinions, not actions, and that the law of the land is superior to religious belief.
I've provided a link, and a snippet:
Reynolds vs US 1878
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/98/145/case.html
"So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?
To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
One of the key sources is Jefferson, you may be aware that he was quite involved in the creation of the constitution, and his take was that there should be a distinction between the power of the government to limit opinions (which he was dead against) and the power of the government to limit actions. Here's a quote and a link;
Jefferson
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. "
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
Now, this case is from Ohio, so we need to look at what Ohio law has to say:
Ohio has a law covering "Unlawful Discriminatory Practices", here's a link to it - http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4112.02. Scroll down to (G).
Just to help you, the term "public accommodation" Check out section 7 from the US Code - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181. Now... there might be a legal argument over whether the home-based nature of the bakery means that it isn't a public accommodation. That would be an interesting case, and I'd enjoy arguing either side.
So, their only defence would be to argue that they were not a "public accommodation" - Certainly your apparent belief that the extent to which their services were "essential" or "not" doesn't appear to have any bearing on the matter at all.
Why are you so mean to stupid people?[:D]
|
|
|
|
