12

Same-sex-wedding cakes violate baker’s rights: DOJ

Posted by  $  nickursis 2 months, 2 weeks ago to Government
51 comments | Share | Flag

Finaslly some sanity in the argument. An individual has a right just like a group, who would have thought. I would have used the argument of the fact that Conscienous OBjectors have been allowed in the military for many, many years. It has never been found Unconstitutional, but that is because the liberal states have not had their claws in it, yet.
SOURCE URL: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-doj-supreme-court-making-221531354.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by  $  rainman0720 2 months, 1 week ago
    I've put the following scenario out to a few of my left-leaning acquaintances, and not one of them has an answer. Hell, I'd settle for a bad answer if they had one. They don't.

    Assume I'm a baker, and you--as a gay couple--come to me and ask me to make a cake for your wedding. I refuse on religious grounds. Since you think I'm discriminating against you because you're gay, you think you have the right to force me to bake that cake. You think you have the right to claim something I own--my time--to force me to do business with you.

    I ask them if I understand this correctly, and they always say yes.

    So let's still assume I'm a baker, and you--as a gay couple--come into my shop looking at wedding cakes. I need and want the business, and I'm okay with the idea of gay marriage. So I tell you that you have to buy a cake from me. I'm claiming the right to something you own--your money--forcing you to do business with me.

    I tell them that I assume they're okay with this scenario as well.

    Whoa, they say. You can't force me to buy something from you.

    So I ask, then why can you force me to sell something to you?

    Why are force and coercion a one way street? Why can you force me to sell to you, but I can't force you to buy from me?

    Silence. Crickets. Scuffing of shoes.

    But never an answer, not even a bad answer.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Susanne 2 months, 1 week ago
      There is but one simple answer. Soviet style Communism. The state tells you what you shall make, from whom you shall buy, and what price you shall pay. The all powerful state can force you to do whatever it wants to, regardless of your feelings in the matter.

      You, Comrade, are BAKER. We tell you what you shall bake, what you shall not bake, for good of people.

      These fine proletariats have need of cake. They SHALL purchase cake from State Bakery #463.

      You do not like it, you subversive anti-revolutionary elements can discuss it in Gulag.

      Have nice day. Comrade.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
      That is an interesting argument. I like it. I haven't had too many people take strong positions on this issue. Everyone seems to realize that there is no shortage of this commodity, and the whole issue is just silly.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      Logically, I am good with it, since any transaction is always an exchange of goods and services. There for, you analogy is correct. People look at producers as some kind of slave caste, who must do their bidding, not as free people excercising their right to commerce. This all goes into the idea of what rights do the government have to restrict ANY commerce, as long as it is between 2 people and does not impinge on others.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  rainman0720 2 months, 1 week ago
        Good point. I never thought about it the way you worded it, the idea that producers are the for the benefit of the purchasers rather than them existing for their own and each other's benefits as traders.

        And that is one of myriad of things that struck me as I re-read and re-listen to A.S.: to the society she created, "trader" is a 4-letter word, the equivalent of something stuck to the bottom of one's shoe.

        Said it before, I'll say it again: If I could go back in time and interact with one individual with the guarantee that it would not alter the future, Ayn Rand is on that very, very short list of people.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
          Yes, the principle of trading value for value, with neither side sacrificing to the other, is throughout Atlas Shrugged. Producers are not to regarded as sacrificial fodder. The plot in Atlas Shrugged was designed to show the importance of the mind in human society, and what happens when it is withdrawn.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
            I would say that is the point of the DOJ, that you cannot force somene to conduct busness, and exchange value for value, when they do NOT believe that the value is equivelant. In this case, the baker places his belief about marriage as a greater value than what the cake costs. I would say he could sell his beliefs, if he wanted, for a much higher price, but he still would have been screwed for "discriminating". That seems to me to be the falsehood in all of this, no law can impose "value' as an arbitrary thing, just as "wage controls" have no validity.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    In a free market, if you are not satisfied with the baker of a cake, you go to another baker of a cake until you are satisfied.
    No one's life needs to be ruined for any bullying control freak to make a point.
    Could such plain as day so-called free society common sense ever become obvious to a libtard judge? No.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CarrieAnneJD 2 months, 1 week ago
      In this case, the baker even REFERRED the clients to a local baker who would (and ultimately DID) make the cake. Also, the patrons had been customers of the shop for a long time, and the baker had no problem selling them baked goods--he just didn't want to design a custom cake based on the relationship of the couple, their uniqueness, and vision, etc., because the couple was same-sex. ... this case is picture perfect for the horrible reporting in MSM.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
      That is the point, and the Obamanation Empire was the one FORCING people to do their politically correct way. I am glad someone is finally standing up to say "this is just wrong" No "hate crime" legislation could ever force someone to serve some BS political agenda they do not support, yet that is exactly why this case is at the SCOTUS. The food chain down (state local) seem to think they CAN do just that and this needs to be stopped. It is a violation of a persons fundamental right to personal freedom. This idea is what is going on in all these "issue driven" agendas. Look at the Nurse issue in Utah: a cop forced the nurse to try to get a blood samle, and she refused, following the law, yet the law enforcement people were trying to force her to to do it. Turns out it was to try to find something to protect them from a lawsuit for crating the accident that the patient was in in the first place. He was a reserve cop driving a truck that was hit head on by a dude being chased by the same police who went after the nurse. It is unacceptable that the system feels it can abridge our individual rights, and the law, whenever they want to serve their own agenda.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Forcing people to bake a cake sounds like the theme for an Onion article. I actually think one reason gov't addresses the cake-baking issue is that it's easier politically than things like cutting the deficit or winding back the gov'ts role in various areas of life.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Jujucat 2 months, 1 week ago
      Yes! And yesterday I was listening to radio hosts arguing whether or not a monkey had intellectual rights to a photo it took (for real). Later, I had many beers.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    It's never been mentioned in the stories about this abusive lawsuit, but I wonder if this couple wasn't purposely targeted after someone spotted the little abstract fish symbol that some Christian merchants display on their windows. With a malicious intent to go after Christians to get a judgement that sexual preference overrules other people's moral beliefs that would seem to be the strategy.

    There does seem to be an aggressive effort from progressives to destroy Christian institutions and believers, while (for now) ignoring other faiths. They've even formed a devil's alliance with Muslims, who, if anything, are far less tolerant than Christians of progressive values. The latter seems confusing, but it's a strategy based on using Islam as a weapon to take down the majority religion in this country. I think it's a strategy of fools, as Islam will eagerly assume more power, with the result being the death of progressivism.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
      That is indeed possible. I find it disgusting that they say this:
      "Businesses and other places that are considered “public accommodations” are barred by law from discriminating against people on the basis of factors like race and religion."

      This is fundamentally unconstitutional for the very reason they are there. It is an arbitrary law built on an arbitrary idea, in that how do you know if someone is discriminating or exercising their constitutional freedom to express their beliefs. The law assumes that any refusal is discrimination, and denies any ability of an individual to say no. It also neglects one of the greatest reasons it IS unconstitutional, the use of Conscientious Objection to not serve in the military. By granting that exception, the Federal government has acknowledged that there are specific times a persons personal beliefs DO trump a federal or state law (conscription).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 2 months, 1 week ago
        Correct. Freedom of Association applies as much to business dealings as it does to religious affiliation or membership in one's Neighborhood Watch (where you are associating against criminals).

        In order to be able to express this fundamental freedom, people must - even erroneously - be allowed to exercise their freedom to to business with whomever they choose. So-called "public accommodation" laws are an affront to the First Amendment.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by TheRealBill 2 months, 1 week ago
        "Businesses and other places that are considered “public accommodations” are barred by law from discriminating against people on the basis of factors like race and religion."

        I'm failing to see how, despite the stupidity of that claim, it would apply. Being gay is not a religion or race, marriage isn't religion or race. An individual is neither a religion nor a race (Hubbard notwithstanding ;) .

        That said, such laws are wholly untenable from both a constitutional perspective and from a basic premise of freedom. Indeed, they are a key factor in implementing actual fascism.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
          We have a whole herd of social judges who interpret laws differently, the Supreme Court should censure every judge who found for anyone but the baker in this case and remove them from the bench, the 9th Circuit would be a barren wasteland....
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    It doesn't have anything to do with cakes. It has to do with bludgeoning people into accepting your personal decisions.

    There was a pizza parlor which was nearly driven out of business because a reporter asked them if they would serve pizza for a gay wedding and they answered "probably not". No one actually even asked them to -- and the boycotts and protests began.

    Seriously, what gay couple would serve pizza at their wedding!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by walkabout97 2 months, 1 week ago
    Freedom of Association -- and by extension -- Freedom not to associate, codified in numerous Supreme Court decisions clearly supports the artist/baker/decorator's right NOT to commit art for any reason. The Couple is in no way harmed by his decision as there are virtually limitless number of bakers -- including the little blue-haired lady at Walmart -- willing to make a cake for them. As one of the "ladies" on the View pointed out, "it's bad business." So be it, there is not law (yet) mandating that business people only commit good business decisions (I give you "New Coke."). Just as the baker has the right not to commit commerce, the potential buyers have the right not to buy a product (Obamacare not withstanding).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Susanne 2 months, 1 week ago
    "Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,”

    He's not "participating in the ceremony", he's baking a freaking cake.

    What if someone ordered a cake, DIDN'T tell Phillips it was for a gay wedding, used it, and then he found out later it had been used as a wedding cake for such an event? Would Phillips then considered his rights violated because he was forced into "participating" in the wedding? could he sue someone for using a cake they ordered after the terms of sale had been completed because he personally disagreed with that person's sexual orientation, and was somehow dragged backwards in time, and made a participant in this heinous event?

    That's like arresting the clothing shop owner for selling John Dillinger the coat and shirt he was wearing during a bank robbery, because in supplying him clothing he wore during the robbery, he was a participant in the robbery.

    The contention that the baker should not have to work for someone FOR WHATEVER REASON holds water - he can choose (and has the right to choose) to refuse service to anyone. That's his RIGHT. Damned skippy.

    But... refusing to provide a service - not because he "Reserves the right to refuse service", but because somehow providing that service makes him a PARTICIPANT in the ceremony - not his cake, but him personally - is a stretch. It feels like one of those Gay Community vs Conservative Christian doctrinal fights... and blown up as a media brouhaha for just that reason by BOTH sides.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      We do not know the extend of "participation" What id it required 2 guys on the cake, holding hands? I am sure that something was included to identify the fact it is 2 persons of the same sex. It is the "Forcing" part that is more in the line of argument, as you said later.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
        We don't, but does it matter? Their choice of who to deal with for what is morally entirely up to them whatever anyone else thinks of it. Even if they made a bad decision it is theirs to make.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
          It is the point of "participation" seems to be one of the key points the law wants to try ti impose on everyone. The law is trying to make everyone "participate" either in doing it, or not doing iit. So the negative participation question is what does that constitute? Is it legal to require someone "participate: by baking a cake for someone , even if they do not want to? The DOJ was saying that the act of requiring him to bake the cake was forcing him to "participate" in something that violates his freedom of expression, and so, his First Amendment right. Susanne seems to be questioning if baking the cake constitutes "participation". I would say they were correct in their position, because he was not inclined to make the cake, and he viewed that if he did, he was "participating" in their wedding. Your point is exactly right, it doesn't matter in the end, because "participating" or not it is not the laws place to force anyone to do anything, especially in a business context.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jconne 2 months, 1 week ago
    Let's approach this in principle.

    Equal under the law is sensible. Equality for all in government coercion for its proper role is just.

    The public accommodation part of the Civil Rights law was a mistake. People should not loose their right of association by being in business. Freedom includes freedom to make wise and stupid decisions and take the consequences of those choices. If I don't like the way a business person treats customers, I'll go elsewhere, live without it, or do it myself.

    Business people are not my slaves. My right to their product or service is only by our mutual agreement to trade or offer charity, period.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      Exactly, the new social order has bred a race of whiners who cry at the first slight, or inference of a slight to them. What if it was due to some issue like "body odor". The baker just cannot handle the odor of a person, who is in his shop and refuses to do what they want, by extension, they can force him too serve. It is a ridiculous assertion that anyone has the right to force another to do their will simply because they can.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mspalding 2 months ago
      And why would anyone want to give their money to a business that doesn't accept them? If a business discriminates against gay people then why would a gay person (or folks who don't support discrimination) want to give them money. It is better to allow discrimination so folks know who they don't want to support.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 2 months, 1 week ago
    The right to say no for any reason to anybody should be held as immovable. Yes, I know all the arguments, like having to say no to an unjust law, but that is the eventual path to true freedom. Don't want to suffer the consequences? I don't blame you, neither do I. But at least when judging the right and wrong of a thing, keep the "no" in mind.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
    Conscientious Objector was a classification that pertained to military conscription, which we don't have today. I don't know about objection to particular activities within the volunteer military now and what regulations are supposed to pertain to it, but as a part of the draft law it always required an approved "alternate service", demanding acquiescence to the principle of conscription. It never recognized a Constitutional exemption for servitude as a way to avoid it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      Ah, but it does illustrate the principle of an alternative path for the same purpose. So, as long as these people got their cake, was any "crime" committed? That was my point in using it, since it showed that such a method has precedence and none of these "social morality laws" are really immutable.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
        What path for what purpose? The bakers did nothing that should be regarded as criminal at all. You want them to have to bake free community service cakes for a charity to mitigate nothing?

        The real 'crime' they are accused of is a thought 'hate crime' of not believing what they are told to believe. The left will never let go of that.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
          No, my point is that their "law" is false, because it assumes you MUST participate in their social structure, you do not "get a vote in it, because there is no vote to be had". My point is that the conscientious objector shows no law is absolute, when conscripted, a person may follow that law, but then not fight, based on their beliefs. So there is legal proof that you CAN say no, and not be prosecuted. In this case the baked did just that, he said no, and offered to help them find someone (which I think he did), who made their cake, so he never did commit any crime, except by not kowtowing to what they wanted him to do, the way they wanted him to do it. Which is the real evil in all of this. They do not have the right, or authority, to tell anyone what to do or how to do it, especially when they actually go out of their way to accommodate the other person.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 months, 1 week ago
            Conscientious Objector status was not a right to say no. It was a classification that was granted only if the draft board decided that the applicant qualified; it included a religious test. Once granted, the draft board determined an assigned alternate service. There was no right to say no to anything as any part of it. With those kinds of statist premises there is no precedent to a right to avoid anything, and the laws and their interpretation are getting worse in all realms.

            Perhaps a closer analogy is the civil war draft under which those selected had a legal right under the law to pay for someone else to go. But that was not included in later draft law. Once again, your "rights" were whatever they said they were by their permission only. Maybe the Bradley strategy would work: the baker puts himself into the process, illegally steals and gives classified information and cakes away to the world public, goes to jail for it and while there gets an entitled taxpayer funded sex change mutilation to get a same-sex the same as something or other, gets pardoned as an entitlement to celebrate lunacy, and then goes to Harvard as a celebrity.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
              Well, it DID work for her...er him....er whatever. I agree they do get worse and worse, the original CR law has mutated into the "everything under the sky" law, and has become just a tool to impose any and all restrictions on free people they want.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rbunce 2 months, 1 week ago
    Seems like the legal issues are which businesses are subject to public accommodations laws and which protected groups are covered in public accommodations laws. Sex is a protected group, sexual preference a lot murkier as recent court cases have shown.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by peterchunt 2 months, 1 week ago
    This is the agenda of the left. You must agree with their philosophy or they will call you a bigot, a racist, a white supremacist, or in this case anti-gay. They don't care what your beliefs are, you are guilty. It's similar to their belief that big government is always best and always right, no matter how bad a job they do. The two are connected.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  2 months, 1 week ago
      And, they want you to demonstrate YOUR respect to their misguided ideals, constantly and forever, or face their rightous wrath. Anyone else who is offended, has no right to be so, which is why their battle over the White Supremacists and statues fell over. They wanted to impose their will on others, using the same egregious methods they are supposedly fighting. The sad part is, they never see it that way.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo