ACLU sues baker for discrimination

homeagain wrote:

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......

and not at all analogous, or relevant, to our discussion of this topic. An emergency room doctor has freely chosen to labor for the hospital to provide emergency treatment. They cannot be made to treat that patient, they are free to quit the job at anytime of their choosing. If the doctor refuses to abide by the contract for their labor that they have with the hospital, the hospital may discharge that doctor for breeching the labor contract they had with with doctor. See the difference here home?

HERE'S what I believe PS......the baker's defense was one of RELIGIOUS belief,NOT the Constitution.....I believe you are purposely side stepping the point of the discussion and the
law suit.....(it is NOT working,JMO)

PrintSmith wrote:

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.

Well PS we disagree, but in the cae of the restaurant, would the owner then have the right to not serve these people if after sitting down, they told him it was their rehersal dinner? After all, the dinner prepared by the owner's cook is a contract between the customers and the owner, right? The more I think ablout this, the more I think the baker was wrong because he's just making food and it shouldn't matter what the food is used for.

I bring up the restaurant because I was in that business for years... I was also a car dealer. If someone came to buy a car and I refused to sell it to him because he told me it was a wedding present for his male partner, and they were going to use it to drive around the country to every gay pride parade they could find, I don't think i'd have any right to refuse that sale either.

PrintSmith wrote:

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.

I went on to another tact because you didn't give me any case law. And you never answered my simple questions.

Keep advioding the questions and keep repeating yourself. The only one you are convincing is yourself.

You have NOTHING.

If an independent contractor you do not have to work for a gay employer.
IF you are an straight employer you can not discriminate about not hiring the gay prospective . employee. In the same breathe, a Gay employer may not discriminate against someone if he is straight. You hire them because they are qualified to make wedding cakes.

Again, let me be clear: You hire based on a persons qualifications and or education to do the job.


You hire based on the basis that that employee has the qualifications to do the job.
It is none of your business what that person does or what you think he/she does behind closed doors. You hire them to do the work.
Despite your prejudices, you may not discriminate against another individual based on sex, creed, religion, gender, employment, disability or public accommodations.

Involuntary servitude refers to SLAVERY.

You can refuse to work for anyone but not the other way around.

That is the law, no matter how you try to argue the case....you will lose...so face the music already!

IF you discriminate you will be proven to be guilty of discrimination and will pay the consequences and fines!

The law is clear.

homeagain wrote: HERE'S what I believe PS......the baker's defense was one of RELIGIOUS belief,NOT the Constitution.....I believe you are purposely side stepping the point of the discussion and the
law suit.....(it is NOT working,JMO)

The argument Phillips relied upon was that he refused the request to make a cake, in other words he refused to be hired for a specific task by specific individuals, because the people wishing to hire him for that task wanted it for a purpose which was in conflict with his religious principles. What you, and others here, are saying is that the state has the right to force you to work against your will, against your principles or face punitive actions from the state for your refusal to do so. We aren't talking about a tax, like with the (un)Affordable Care Act, we are talking about a civil penalty for refusing to labor against your will and against your religious principles.

Let us be clear about something home. The Constitution establishes no rights for anyone. Rights are something that we hold irrespective of whether the Constitution or the government recognizes them or not. The Constitution protects the rights you were endowed with upon your creation from infringement by the government. One of the rights it protects is the right to decide for yourself for whom you will labor, no one gets to decide that for you, it is something that you alone have say in. As I noted in my reply to Rick. The grill cook is free to walk off of the job rather than cook the meal at any time of his choosing, he cannot be chained to that grill and compelled to cook that meat. That, in essense, is what the court is attempting to do to Phillips by requiring that he labor to produce a unique cake for a specific customer, chain him to the mixing bowl and oven and make him bake that cake regardless of whether he wishes to or not. And I say that is something that the government is prohibited from doing as a result of the 13th Amendment. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States or anywhere subject to their (not its by the way) jurisdiction. You tell me how forcing Phillips to bake that cake under penalty of law is not involuntary servitude home, because I just don't see anything else that it could possibly be.

This isn't a car lot situation where someone is being refused the opportunity to purchase a car sitting on a lot somewhere that is offered for sale to the general public. Neither is it a restaurant with a menu where all the food is cooked to order. This is a contractual arrangement between two parties to create a unique item for one of the parties. There is, for this item, a contract for the cake to be executed at a future time, specified in the contract. What flavor the cake is, how it is to be decorated, how may tiers it has, when it must be delivered or available to be picked up - all of these details are spelled out in the contract. The baking of a wedding cake is a contractual agreement, not a public accomodation.

ThePetParent wrote: If an independent contractor you do not have to work for a gay employer.
IF you are an straight employer you can not discriminate about not hiring the gay prospective . employee. In the same breathe, a Gay employer may not discriminate against someone if he is straight. You hire them because they are qualified to make wedding cakes.

Again, let me be clear: You hire based on a persons qualifications and or education to do the job.

You hire based on the basis that that employee has the qualifications to do the job.
It is none of your business what that person does or what you think he/she does behind closed doors. You hire them to do the work.
Despite your prejudices, you may not discriminate against another individual based on sex, creed, religion, gender, employment, disability or public accommodations.

Involuntary servitude refers to SLAVERY.

You can refuse to work for anyone but not the other way around.

That is the law, no matter how you try to argue the case....you will lose...so face the music already!

IF you discriminate you will be proven to be guilty of discrimination and will pay the consequences and fines!

The law is clear.

And this baker deciced that he didn't want to work for these potential employers PetParent. They wanted to hire him and he didn't want to be hired by them. That is the simple reality of the situation, which is why he has the right to refuse to be hired to bake that cake for any reason or no reason at all. A cake already baked and offered for sale in the display is not the same as a cake to be baked at a future time, to very specific specifications spelled out in a written conract between two parties. Had Phillips overheard the homosexual couple say that the cake in the display would be perfect for their wedding reception tomorrow and he refused to sell it to them I would agree 100% with the administrative law judges ruling that he violated public accommodation laws, but that is not the case here. No, the case here is that the couple wanted to hire him to bake them a cake at some point in the future and he didn't want to be hired by them. That is the reality of the situation under discussion in this thread.

PrintSmith wrote:

ThePetParent wrote: If an independent contractor you do not have to work for a gay employer.
IF you are an straight employer you can not discriminate about not hiring the gay prospective . employee. In the same breathe, a Gay employer may not discriminate against someone if he is straight. You hire them because they are qualified to make wedding cakes.

Again, let me be clear: You hire based on a persons qualifications and or education to do the job.

You hire based on the basis that that employee has the qualifications to do the job.
It is none of your business what that person does or what you think he/she does behind closed doors. You hire them to do the work.
Despite your prejudices, you may not discriminate against another individual based on sex, creed, religion, gender, employment, disability or public accommodations.

Involuntary servitude refers to SLAVERY.

You can refuse to work for anyone but not the other way around.

That is the law, no matter how you try to argue the case....you will lose...so face the music already!

IF you discriminate you will be proven to be guilty of discrimination and will pay the consequences and fines!

The law is clear.

And this baker deciced that he didn't want to work for these potential employers PetParent. They wanted to hire him and he didn't want to be hired by them. That is the simple reality of the situation, which is why he has the right to refuse to be hired to bake that cake for any reason or no reason at all. A cake already baked and offered for sale in the display is not the same as a cake to be baked at a future time, to very specific specifications spelled out in a written conract between two parties. Had Phillips overheard the homosexual couple say that the cake in the display would be perfect for their wedding reception tomorrow and he refused to sell it to them I would agree 100% with the administrative law judges ruling that he violated public accommodation laws, but that is not the case here. No, the case here is that the couple wanted to hire him to bake them a cake at some point in the future and he didn't want to be hired by them. That is the reality of the situation under discussion in this thread.

Printsmith: You are blinded by your agenda.
The key here is that the baker is not an independent.
He has opened a place of business to the PUBLIC, AND THE PUBLIC IS WHO HE SERVES.
I have in my past been an Investigator for the Colorado Civil Rights commission.
Per the law, he was found to have discriminated against a protected group of people.
He was guilty, is guilty...and if he does it again will be guilty again. Period.
I don't care what kind of justifying, delusional thinking you have...you are wrong!

If the geek were right, the baker could have denied services based on race too, or on any number of reasons based on the goofy crap you can find in the bible.

No, PetParent, it is not I who is blinded by an agenda, but those who seek to force others to benefit them against another's will who are blinded by theirs. The bakery is an independent operation, it is not part of a larger chain (like the bakery in a King Soopers would be), and part of his business is indeed subject to public accommodation laws. Part of his business, not all. When a person walks into his establishment to ask him to bake a cake just for them, not to purchase a cake that he has already baked and has available for purchase, they are seeking to hire him, under a contract, to produce that cake. To pretend otherwise is an effort to obscure what is basic, common, or apparently in this case, uncommon, sense.

What is attempting to be done here is to compel a person to enter into a contract involuntarily using the force of government to achieve that end. That is wrong on so many levels it's hard to decide which of them is the most egregious, especially since the Constitution of the Union specifically prohibits involuntary servitude in any of the States or in any place subject to their jurisdiction. Involuntary servitude is not the same as slavery, nor is it dependent upon compensation or the lack of it. What involuntary servitude refers to is any compulsion of labor by force and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution makes it an unlawful activity for both the government and private individuals. In this instance we have private individuals enlisting the aid of the government to force someone to enter into a contract and labor against their will. No other interpretation of what occurred is reasonably possible. That is the pure essence that remains of what has occurred when all the surrounding noise has been boiled off.