RUFKM? Judge orders Colorado Cake Maker to serve gay couples

[Singlestack]

The First Amendment argument is more complex than just freedom of religion. Since the cakemaker is selling his artistic talents as part of the product, and the subject matter goes against his long held personal beliefs, the issue at stake is whether the .gov can control his "art" via regulation, or does his right of artistic expression trump the right of the protected class to not be discriminated against. I believe is does, and I'm guessing that the court, with its current makeup will as well. Otherwise, we might see suits against kosher delicatessens for not having a ham sandwich on the menu. I believe the basic right of the businessman to do business with whomsoever he or she chooses is not one that should be subject to government regulation. I'm sure we all know people who have refused to sell a gun to someone that was legally permitted to do so, just because the situation didn't "feel right". Removing that discretion is a grave mistake, in ANY business.

+1. I actually believe there is a decent chance the SCOTUS decision goes against the !A and religious freedom. Kennedy is likely the swing vote and tends to side with the left on social issues. If the decision goes that way, the lefties won't like it either as Muslim photographers won't want to cover a gay wedding, etc. Unintended consequences are a bitch!

[Gman]

The First Amendment argument is more complex than just freedom of religion. Since the cakemaker is selling his artistic talents as part of the product, and the subject matter goes against his long held personal beliefs, the issue at stake is whether the .gov can control his "art" via regulation, or does his right of artistic expression trump the right of the protected class to not be discriminated against. I believe is does, and I'm guessing that the court, with its current makeup will as well. Otherwise, we might see suits against kosher delicatessens for not having a ham sandwich on the menu. I believe the basic right of the businessman to do business with whomsoever he or she chooses is not one that should be subject to government regulation. I'm sure we all know people who have refused to sell a gun to someone that was legally permitted to do so, just because the situation didn't "feel right". Removing that discretion is a grave mistake, in ANY business.

+1

[hollohas]

If the decision goes that way, the lefties won't like it either as Muslim photographers won't want to cover a gay wedding, etc. Unintended consequences are a bitch!

Nah. Muslims are always exempt from the bleeding hearts' dumb logic.

For whatever reason, liberals seem have social justice priorities that go in this order:

Muslims>LGBT>minorities>women

[OtterbatHellcat]

I'm really hoping the cake maker ends up defeating this horse shit.

This.........ACTUALLY IS THE PUSSIFICATION OF AMERICA.

.....and it pisses me off.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

+1. I actually believe there is a decent chance the SCOTUS decision goes against the !A and religious freedom.

x2. I hope the Baker wins, but America hates religion, unless it is the “religion of peace.”

[davsel]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-1...do-free-speech

...
The legal controversy vexing all these great legal minds is a classic example of what happens when the courts compromise (i.e., abandon) the principles of freedom. When that happens, it produces situations where lawyers are “vexed” and end up doing their best to pound square legal pegs into round legal holes.

The fact is that the wedding cake controversy has nothing to do with free speech. Instead, the issue is all about private property and the right to discriminate.

Let’s start with a simple example: the owner of a home.

I think everyone would agree that he has the right to decide who comes into his home.

He’s the owner, after all.

That’s part of what private ownership is all about — the right to exclude others from coming onto his property.

Suppose the homeowner throws a party in which he excludes blacks, Jews, immigrants, and poor people.

All of his 100 invited guests are rich white Americans.
Are there any First Amendment issues here? Would those lawyers in the wedding- cake controversy be vexed over whether the homeowner has the right to discriminate? Would they say that the issue turns on how “creative” the party is?

Of course not. Free speech and the First Amendment wouldn’t even enter the picture. Under principles of private property and liberty, the homeowner has the right to discriminate. If the state were to force him to invite blacks, Jews, immigrants, and poor people to his party, there is no way that he could be considered to be a free person. Freedom necessarily entails the right of the homeowner to discriminate on any grounds he wants when it comes to who enters onto his property.

The same principle applies to a person’s business. It’s his business. It’s his private property. He has just as much right to discriminate here as he does with his home.

Thus, by applying that principle, the wedding-cake controversy disintegrates. Bakers have the right to bake a cake for whomever they want and for whatever reason they want. It might well be that they hate blacks, Jews, immigrants, and poor people. Motive doesn’t matter. What matters is that under principles of liberty and private property, private business owners have as much right to discriminate as private homeowners.

By the same token, consumers have the right to boycott the business that is discriminating against others and to advocate that other people boycott it as well. That’s how the free market deals with businesses that people perceive are wrongfully discriminating against others. It nudges them to change their position through loss of sales revenues rather than force them to do so with the power of a government gun.

The problem, however, is that long ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that when people open their businesses to the public, everything changes. The Court held that when business owners do that, they subject themselves to governmental control, including state anti-discrimination laws.

But that’s ridiculous. Why should the fact that a person is selling privately owned things to others cause the principles of liberty and private property to be compromised or abandoned? Why shouldn’t the business owner still be free to discriminate in determining who enters his privately owned business and to whom he sells his private property?

By abandoning those principles of liberty and private property, it has naturally left lawyers vexed on how to resolve the wedding-cake dispute. It has left them relying on the First Amendment to come up with entirely subjective and arbitrary conclusions that have no consistent underlying legal principle undergirding them.

[Martinjmpr]

The problem, however, is that long ago the U.S. Supreme Court held that when people open their businesses to the public, everything changes. The Court held that when business owners do that, they subject themselves to governmental control, including state anti-discrimination laws.

I think the writer is confusing the application of FEDERAL civil rights laws (which only apply to those businesses that have some sort of nexus with interstate commerce as in the "Heart of Atlanta Motel" case) with STATE anti-discrimination laws.

State anti-discrimination laws apply because unlike the Federal Government, which is a government of limited and specified powers, the states have a "general police power." Under the general police power the State can regulate anything and everything unless regulating that would be prohibited by the State Constitution or by the US Constitution.

For example, the State cannot establish a state religion and force you go to church because that would violate the US Constitution's establishment clause.

But the state could require every person to buy health insurance, and that would not violate the constitution (some states, notably Massachussetts, have done exactly this.)

The reason (IMO) that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional is that while the STATE can legally require you to buy health insurance, the Federal Government does not have a general police power and cannot do so.

But that’s ridiculous. Why should the fact that a person is selling privately owned things to others cause the principles of liberty and private property to be compromised or abandoned? Why shouldn’t the business owner still be free to discriminate in determining who enters his privately owned business and to whom he sells his private property?

Because businesses are licensed and regulated by the state and are required to operate under state law. They are required to obey state laws including laws against discrimination. Don't like it? Change the law. That is exactly how our Constitutional system is supposed to work.

[00tec]

Leaving this here....


http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/07/...rtner-gay-sex/

[Ronin13]

Leaving this here....


http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/07/...rtner-gay-sex/

Looks like the left eating their own...?
It is a shame though, she's quite attractive. I saw this story posted on a Veteran's page on FB, and the comments were hilarious: "Is it necrophilia that I'm gonna go watch some of her videos tonight?"

[Zundfolge]

Looks like we'll find out if religious liberty still exists or not in June.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...itigation.html