ACLU sues baker for discrimination

I don't like to see the baker discriminating against homosexuals but I don't like the way they went after a small business. Boycott sure. Picket awesome. But to threaten him with government fines if he does not comply with their desires is heavy handed and over reaching.

homeagain wrote:

archer wrote: So if you are refused service, based on age, race, religion, lifestyle, You must go find a place that will serve you?

If that is the case then the business that chooses to discriminate should be required to post that on ads and on the door to the business. Here we go again, restaurants with a sign.... No Coloreds, No Gays, how about No Women, the possibilities are endless. It's just wrong.

This issue is nebulous at best and VERY murky at the least.....I BOLDED LIFESTYLE because of
websites that PROMOTE dating services for MARRIED individuals wanting to "go outside" their
marriage,OR dating services that provide "threesomes,alternative sex arrangements"....IF your
"religion" dictates a STRICT adherence to the bible.....AND you own a business????.....I do NOT
subscribe to "religion"....I am metaphysical/spiritual/esoteric in my beliefs.....IF you, as businessperson, do not WANT my business/money/ alliance/loyalty.....THEN I find OTHER business that do.....pretty simple.....JMO....the issue is "grey/murky" and I am NOT saying I have the solution......RELIGION tends to "muck everything up" in general....JMO

[/b]AGAIN, I probably would have taken my business elsewhere,BUT I would have made it
CRYSTAL CLEAR that there would be CONSEQUENCES for the baker......that discrimination is
AGAINST the law and that his stance would do "irreparable harm" to his business.....because
BAD PR is never a good thing in the end....JMO

Walter L Newton wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: And there are some items in the store which are baked ahead of time for resale to any member of the public, a public accommodation that falls under laws which bear that moniker. That is not what we are talking about here at all.

We are talking about a one off custom creation for a specific individual. That is not what is generally referred to as retail Walter and you know that as well as I do. That is custom fabrication, that is an item contracted between two parties. That would be like saying that if I went to a gunsmith and asked them to make me a gun, from scratch, starting with nothing more than raw materials that had to be worked and formed and machined to my exact specifications that the gunsmith and I were engaged in a retail transaction and not a contractual one. Do you hear how little sense that makes? The logic doesn't change because it is a baker instead of a gunsmith, a cake instead of a firearm and involves homosexuals instead of me. A one off custom creation is not a retail item Walter, to claim that it is to further an ideological agenda is to sever any ties to reality as it exists.

Has nothing to do with the facts.

Quote me case law to prove your point. Not your supposed-made-up-because-Printsmith-is-saying-it-then-it-has-to-be-true-fact nonsense.

Listen to yourself Walter, reality as it exists has nothing to do with the facts? How exactly does that work and what color is the sky in your world?

I can show you case law that says separate but equal is allowed and I can show you case law that says minmum wage laws are unconstitutional. Of what value are they given that such case law was not correct when it was established? Thomas Jefferson, who you sarcastically referred to earlier, wrote in a letter to Wilson Necholas, "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." In another letter, to William Johnson, he wrote, '"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure."

So what is the common sense, ordinary, understanding of involuntary servitude Walter if it is not that you cannot be compelled to labor against your will? The Constitution of the Union specifically prohibits it, says that it shall not exist within the United States except as punishment for a crime for which one has been duly convicted. That is not "pseudo-constitutional", it is the actual text of that document.

Custom fabrication, laboring on a specific item for a specific person, is not a matter of public accommodation, it is a contractual one. The truth of that is as plain on its face as Jimmy Durante's nose was on his. A cake in a display case, one which was baked and awaiting a purchaser, is a matter of public accommodation. One which has to be created with specific ingredients, decorated in a specified manner and is created for a single purchaser is not a matter of public accommodation, it is, plainly, contracted labor no matter how you slice it and contracted labor may not be compelled by the plain text of the Constitution.

PrintSmith wrote:
[constant repetition without answering my question about case law snipped out]

Custom fabrication, laboring on a specific item for a specific person, is not a matter of public accommodation, it is a contractual one. The truth of that is as plain on its face as Jimmy Durante's nose was on his. A cake in a display case, one which was baked and awaiting a purchaser, is a matter of public accommodation. One which has to be created with specific ingredients, decorated in a specified manner and is created for a single purchaser is not a matter of public accommodation, it is, plainly, contracted labor no matter how you slice it and contracted labor may not be compelled by the plain text of the Constitution.

Ok... let's set up some analogies.

Christian Identity groups (yes they exist, sometimes called KKK, Covenant Church etc.) do not believe in mixed marriages. Would it be alright for a Christian Identity member to deny a cake to a mixed race couple who want to purchase it for a their wedding?

How about a halal bake shop (yes... they exist too. I can tell you where to find the best one in Paris). Ok for them to deny a gay person a cake for a wedding? Or maybe deny a Christian a cake?

You want me to go on?

After reading through this thread and thinking about my own gay friend of 30 years, I've changed my opinion a bit on this case. This couple only requested a wedding cake... they didn't ask for a wedding cake with a pro-gay marriage message on it or two men on top, they just wanted a wedding cake. The cake is just a combination of ingredients, it's not a written endorsement of something the baker has a moral problem with. If these guys came into a restaurant and wanted a couple nice steaks to celebrate their engagement (or rehersal dinner), would the grill cook be right in refusing to cook those steaks based on his anti-gay marriage stance? I think the owner would be justified in firing him on the spot.

The baker is not making an endorsement of gay marriage, he's making a cake that could also be purchased by a future wife beater, murderer, child molester etc... all of which should be more objectionable. What the customer uses the cake for should be his or her business and not the business of a guy who just puts the ingredients together. Making a cake with a specific message on it is where I would give him some slack.

Thanks for that post Rick, it was a good analysis of the issue . I know this is extreme, but it made me think of an emergency room doctor who treats a criminal and saves his life, not because the doctor approves of what the criminal did, but because treating people and saving lives is what a doctor does.

archer wrote: Thanks for that post Rick, it was a good analysis of the issue . I know this is extreme, but it made me think of an emergency room doctor who treats a criminal and saves his life, not because the doctor approves of what the criminal did, but because treating people and saving lives is what a doctor does.

[/b]

FOR PRINTSMITH...the bolded is the definitive statement......

Walter L Newton wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: [snide, and irrelevant commentary removed]

Custom fabrication, laboring on a specific item for a specific person, is not a matter of public accommodation, it is a contractual one. The truth of that is as plain on its face as Jimmy Durante's nose was on his. A cake in a display case, one which was baked and awaiting a purchaser, is a matter of public accommodation. One which has to be created with specific ingredients, decorated in a specified manner and is created for a single purchaser is not a matter of public accommodation, it is, plainly, contracted labor no matter how you slice it and contracted labor may not be compelled by the plain text of the Constitution.

Ok... let's set up some analogies.

Christian Identity groups (yes they exist, sometimes called KKK, Covenant Church etc.) do not believe in mixed marriages. Would it be alright for a Christian Identity member to deny a cake to a mixed race couple who want to purchase it for a their wedding?

How about a halal bake shop (yes... they exist too. I can tell you where to find the best one in Paris). Ok for them to deny a gay person a cake for a wedding? Or maybe deny a Christian a cake?

You want me to go on?

Now that case law has been eliminated as a reliable source, you want to try a different tack, and I'm OK with that, but let's not pretend that you are altering your course for another reason.

You are not entitled to hire anyone you wish Walter, they must agree to be hired to labor for your benefit. That is what involuntry servitude is all about after all. When you approach a person and ask them to labor for you, tell them that you wish to hire them to perform a service for you, they have a right to decide for themselves whether they wish to work for you and under what conditions they will work for you. That is the situation that exists when a couple wishes to hire a baker to create a specific cake just for them. That is the pure essence of what is being talked about here.

If I am a general contractor, who offers my service to the public, and a couple approaches me and asks me to build them a home I am free to refuse to be hired by them for any reason or no reason at all. I decide for whom I will work Walter, no one else gets to make that determination for me, no one gets to decide for whom I will labor other than me. I cannot be made to serve anyone against my will, against my conscience. That principle doesn't change because it is a cake instead of a home.

Rick wrote: After reading through this thread and thinking about my own gay friend of 30 years, I've changed my opinion a bit on this case. This couple only requested a wedding cake... they didn't ask for a wedding cake with a pro-gay marriage message on it or two men on top, they just wanted a wedding cake. The cake is just a combination of ingredients, it's not a written endorsement of something the baker has a moral problem with. If these guys came into a restaurant and wanted a couple nice steaks to celebrate their engagement (or rehersal dinner), would the grill cook be right in refusing to cook those steaks based on his anti-gay marriage stance? I think the owner would be justified in firing him on the spot.

The baker is not making an endorsement of gay marriage, he's making a cake that could also be purchased by a future wife beater, murderer, child molester etc... all of which should be more objectionable. What the customer uses the cake for should be his or her business and not the business of a guy who just puts the ingredients together. Making a cake with a specific message on it is where I would give him some slack.

BINGO......(the bolded)..... An OPEN mind..... :woo hoo:

Rick wrote: After reading through this thread and thinking about my own gay friend of 30 years, I've changed my opinion a bit on this case. This couple only requested a wedding cake... they didn't ask for a wedding cake with a pro-gay marriage message on it or two men on top, they just wanted a wedding cake. The cake is just a combination of ingredients, it's not a written endorsement of something the baker has a moral problem with. If these guys came into a restaurant and wanted a couple nice steaks to celebrate their engagement (or rehersal dinner), would the grill cook be right in refusing to cook those steaks based on his anti-gay marriage stance? I think the owner would be justified in firing him on the spot.

Problem with your analogy here Rick is that the grill cook has contracted with the restaurant owner for his labor, not the patrons of the establishment, and so yes, the owner would be well within his rights to fire the grill cook for failing to adhere to the labor contract that the cook voluntarily entered into with him. And a restaurant is indeed a public accommodation, as would be a movie theater for a regular scheduled showing of a film. Now, if I wished to rent out that theater for a private showing of the film, that only myself and those I invited were allowed to attend, the owner of the theater could refuse to hire out his establishment for any reason or no reason at all. That would be a contract, a service for hire, not a public accommodation. See the difference here? Baked goods in the display case are items of public accommodation in a retail establishment. Baking a made to order wedding cake, individualized for one customer and one customer only, is not a public accommodation, it is a contractual agreement between interested parties that one may not be made to enter into against one's will. That would be involuntary servitude. Just as the grill cook is free to quit his job instead of cook the steaks. Even though he has agreed to labor for the owner of the grill, he cannot be made to cook those steaks, he is free to walk off the job instead of cook them. To force him to cook the steaks against his will would be involuntary servitude. If he loses his job for refusing to cook the steaks, that would be because he violated the contract for his services that he earlier agreed to when he voluntarily chose to exchange his labor for the wages provided by the owner of the grill.

Rick wrote: The baker is not making an endorsement of gay marriage, he's making a cake that could also be purchased by a future wife beater, murderer, child molester etc... all of which should be more objectionable. What the customer uses the cake for should be his or her business and not the business of a guy who just puts the ingredients together. Making a cake with a specific message on it is where I would give him some slack.

Should the baker be able to refuse to bake a cake for a known child molestor Rick? How about refusing to be hired to bake a cake for a political gathering of a group that you don't wish to support in any manner, shape or form? I say again, a made to order cake is not retail, it is not for the consumption of the public in general, it is an item which is custom made that has but a single customer. Should the baker not provide the cake after agreeing to do so, or the customer not pay for the cake after it is made, the damaged party can sue in civil court for breech of the contract that they entered into. This is a contract matter, not a public accommodation one. A unique item for a unique customer doesn't come under the heading of public accommodation, it falls under the heading of contractual labor.