CENTER STAGE

[Debra K]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

To be sure, a nation of laws is a nation of righties.

Point one: if marriage is necessary because it gives children a sense of "permanency and commitment," then aren't all the illegitimate births in the US actionable?

Point two: the bakers refused to bake the cake as soon as they learned it would be for a same-sex wedding. No deception. No bait-and-switch. Nothing underhanded.

Point three: the baker didn't call the plaintiff an abomination, as the plaintiff's mother said.

Point four: the plaintiff was angry.


I stopped reading after that. Hotheads didn't like the baker quoting scripture. Boo-hoo.

If a refusal to serve equates to a denial of "accomodations, advantages, facilities and privileges," then indigents may some day put every business out of business.

That's a foolish statement. Laura and Rachel were willing to pay for the services offered but were discriminated when the business refused after stating their lesbian marriage.

Yea, obviously they would have paid.

So what.

So what? Please review your response above. You provided us with an "If, then" statement. You claimed that something horrible would happen if businesses could not discriminate, i.e., that indigents would cause those businesses to close their doors. There is no logical connection between the anti-discrimination law and the horrible you proposed. The law does not require businesses to offer their services for free to people who cannot pay for those services.

You lack empathy for victims of discrimination. If other people feel the same way as you do, that is strong evidence of the necessity for anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Debra K]

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

As soon as you can place your own business on roads that are not tax payer funded, have your own fire and police department, you can make up your own rules. Until then, I suggest you get familiar with your state business laws.

Uh....if you own a business you're paying taxes for those services.

So is everyone else, who's driving on the roads that lead to your business. If you want to practice your religion instead of serving the public, you should open a church.

So you're anti religion? Freedom of religion,not freedom from it.

HereWeGoAgain. I think our public schools are remiss in turning young people out into the world with low information about how our government works. Surely, however, you must have recited the Pledge from time to time ... and "liberty and justice for all" is not a meaningless phrase. We are a nation of ordered liberty with an established system for redress of grievances. Religious liberty is not a license to ignore or violate laws of general application. The law does not reach your religious beliefs ... but it can and does reach your actions.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

As soon as you can place your own business on roads that are not tax payer funded, have your own fire and police department, you can make up your own rules. Until then, I suggest you get familiar with your state business laws.

Uh....if you own a business you're paying taxes for those services.

So is everyone else, who's driving on the roads that lead to your business. If you want to practice your religion instead of serving the public, you should open a church.

So you're anti religion? Freedom of religion,not freedom from it.

HereWeGoAgain. I think our public schools are remiss in turning young people out into the world with low information about how our government works. Surely, however, you must have recited the Pledge from time to time ... and "liberty and justice for all" is not a meaningless phrase. We are a nation of ordered liberty with an established system for redress of grievances. Religious liberty is not a license to ignore or violate laws of general application. The law does not reach your religious beliefs ... but it can and does reach your actions.

When I was reciting that pledge America was a better place.
And as I'm sure you know the pledge has been dropped..or should I say banned,in a lot of schools these days.
I find it rather hypocritical for you to use it as an example.

 

[Debra K]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

Thank you for playing "devil's advocate" in this discussion. If you mean the legislative and executive branches of government are the political branches, then you are correct. One person or another discovers a grievance and proclaims, "there ought to be a law" for or against something in particular. Public debate ensues ... people write or call their government representatives or officials ... and, in response, our law libraries are filled with laws that have been passed, amended, or repealed since the founding of our nation.

Now let's examine your proposition: "If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose." That was clearly Melissa Klein's feeling on the matter. If you read the case, you will see that Mr. & Mrs. Klein were aware of the law and knew they faced adverse consequences under the law if they refused to provide their business services to gay couples. Accordingly, they could have petitioned the lawmakers to amend the anti-discrimination law to provide an exception for business owners who have religious objections. They could have petitioned the court to declare the law unconstitutional as applied to them under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution based on their religious objections and/or their alleged right (liberty interest) to refuse service to anyone they want. I don't think their arguments would be successful, but I have been surprised a time or two.

If they didn't want to comply with the anti-discrimination law, then another option was to close their business. These were options that were available to them under our form of government based on the notion of liberty and justice for all. Again, we are a nation of laws, not of men. We have evolved past the wild animal mode of "survival of the fittest". The Kleins chose to violate the law and to subject themselves to liability for emotional injury to their victims. Now they have the right to appeal the adverse decision against them. That's how our government works.

 

[Debra K]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

To be sure, a nation of laws is a nation of righties.

Point one: if marriage is necessary because it gives children a sense of "permanency and commitment," then aren't all the illegitimate births in the US actionable?

Point two: the bakers refused to bake the cake as soon as they learned it would be for a same-sex wedding. No deception. No bait-and-switch. Nothing underhanded.

Point three: the baker didn't call the plaintiff an abomination, as the plaintiff's mother said.

Point four: the plaintiff was angry.


I stopped reading after that. Hotheads didn't like the baker quoting scripture. Boo-hoo.

If a refusal to serve equates to a denial of "accomodations, advantages, facilities and privileges," then indigents may some day put every business out of business.

That's a foolish statement. Laura and Rachel were willing to pay for the services offered but were discriminated when the business refused after stating their lesbian marriage.

Yea, obviously they would have paid.

So what.

I was responding to this statement: "If a refusal to serve equates to a denial of "accomodations, advantages, facilities and privileges," then indigents may some day put every business out of business."

Indigents have little or no money.

Thank you and the others who have joined in for your contributions to our discussion. It is a fun exercise to challenge the ideas presented ... and to evaluate whether those ideas hold up using reason / logic ... instead of doing what the rabble-rousers expect us to do ... fight among ourselves so fiercely that we're not paying attention to what they're doing behind our backs.

 

[danielpalos]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

I believe public accommodation laws are adequate for Merchants in Commerce on a for-profit basis, and Persons of morals should acquire and possess not-for-the-profit-of-lucre status when considering the "greater glory of our immortal souls".

 

[Debra K]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

That's not the way it works anymore, HWGA. The American way is no longer the American way. Government runs our businesses now.

I think norwegen is conflating "rights" with "free will".

He is suggesting a person (someone who acts ... an actor) should be able to act however he wants (free will) and, if there are adverse consequences for that act, then that is the actor's problem. Let's take that logic a few steps further ...

A man should be able to take an assault weapon and spray bullets into multiple children and, if there are adverse consequences for his act of free will, that is HIS problem.

I think this kind of rationale is too simplistic ...

Thus, it is correct that the government passes laws and regulates many human activities for the benefit of society as a whole. But to jump to the conclusion that this is not the "American way" in unwarranted. The practice of laissez faire causes far too much harm and our founding fathers knew that as well as we know it now..

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

That's not the way it works anymore, HWGA. The American way is no longer the American way. Government runs our businesses now.

I think norwegen is conflating "rights" with "free will".

He is suggesting a person (someone who acts ... an actor) should be able to act however he wants (free will) and, if there are adverse consequences for that act, then that is the actor's problem. Let's take that logic a few steps further ...

A man should be able to take an assault weapon and spray bullets into multiple children and, if there are adverse consequences for his act of free will, that is HIS problem.

I think this kind of rationale is too simplistic ...

Thus, it is correct that the government passes laws and regulates many human activities for the benefit of society as a whole. But to jump to the conclusion that this is not the "American way" in unwarranted. The practice of laissez faire causes far too much harm and our founding fathers knew that as well as we know it now..

In no way did the founding fathers consider gay rights when they wrote the constitution.
As a white male there are plenty of places I dont go because I know I'm not welcome and as a matter of fact it could be hazardous to my health to do so.
You know what I do? I dont go there...

 

[Debra K]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

That's not the way it works anymore, HWGA. The American way is no longer the American way. Government runs our businesses now.

Oh, to hear That's the American Way, sounds so nice. It was great while it lasted.

Don't give up! Challenge the concept using reason and logic ... let's continue the discussion and see where it goes. No one here is bad right or bad left. We are indeed all citizens of this great nation and, for our government to work and to prevent it from being hijacked, everyone's input into the discussion is important and must be considered.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

That's not the way it works anymore, HWGA. The American way is no longer the American way. Government runs our businesses now.

Oh, to hear That's the American Way, sounds so nice. It was great while it lasted.

Don't give up! Challenge the concept using reason and logic ... let's continue the discussion and see where it goes. No one here is bad right or bad left. We are indeed all citizens of this great nation and, for our government to work and to prevent it from being hijacked, everyone's input into the discussion is important and must be considered.

Well I hate to say it but I see no way in hell this country can stay together.
The division of ideals has become to great.
If the country continues on it's current course I for one will be bailing out in a couple years. I didnt bust my butt so I could retire at 46 only to have my country turn on me and everything I believe in.
And when I look at what obama has done with the support of a certain segment of society and the back stabbing republicans gave us after the midterms?
Screw that..there are many other places with a lot better scenery that wont take my hard earned money in the form of taxes and I can live there for a song.
America has become a foreign country to me,so whats the difference between this one and a cheaper one?

 

[Debra K]

I'll start with i'm not a church goer by any means.
But I do believe that people have a right to deny service to anyone they choose,whether it's religious convictions or the color of someones hair.
If public opinion of their refusal is negative to the point they go out of business then so be it. I see no reason why they couldnt have found another baker that would have happily made their cake and I believe the whole case was nothing more than an attempt to punish someone for their religious beliefs.
It's not the governments place to make these decisions.
And society has a way of leveling things in a way that suites the community.

As far as the legality aspect? I dont really care about it because this was purely political.

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

That's not the way it works anymore, HWGA. The American way is no longer the American way. Government runs our businesses now.

Oh, to hear That's the American Way, sounds so nice. It was great while it lasted.

I didn't say That's, but yes, it was a good run.

It still is a good run ...

 

[Debra K]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

Just like the T shirt company, in CO I believe, the baker can not be required to produce a product with a message they find offensive or morally repugnant. See the first Amendment, two clauses, free speech and free exercise of religion and I bet a good lawyer could get in a fourteenth Amendment argument or two in there also.

Very good input, OKTexas. I found the case that you are referring to and here is a link to a copy of the decision from the Fayette Circuit Court (State of Kentucky) dated April 27, 2015:

Hands on Originals, Inc.

I only just started reading the case, but I can see that the circuit court overruled the Kentucky Human Rights Commission because the law, as applied to the t-shirt company, was ruled to be compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment (applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment).

I want to review the case and think about it. I don't know if the decision is being appealed. I don't remember if the Kleins in the Oregon case made a "compelled speech" argument to the Oregon commission. I wonder if baking a cake can also be construed as "compelled speech". First Amendment jurisprudence is vast. I will try to inform myself better and return to discuss this interesting prospect.

And, that is what is so great about our country. Some of these cases will eventually find their way to the Supreme Court and our First Amendment jurisprudence will again be expanded. I was somewhat shocked with the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case because it strayed off the path that prior cases had followed in the area of the religious freedom component vs. laws of general applicability. The compelled speech component of the First Amendment is still evolving too.

Again, thank you for this contribution.

 

[Debra K]

I read the entire file. It did not change my mind except to say, in this case I believe the fine is too small. I hope other businesses learn from this experience and people will finally see that they are not better than others.

That's a nice sentiment, Jackson ... but that's all it is. If you read the administrative law decision in the "Sweetcakes by Melissa" case, then you would know that the commission did not impose a fine (which is a penalty). It awarded damages to the victims of discrimination to compensate them for their injury. What exactly do you hope other businesses learn from this case? Everyone is presumed to know the law and the consequences of their conduct. Why do you think Melissa Klein and her hubby believed that they were entitled to open a business, but not follow the laws that apply to all other businesses?

Obviously they were not educated in the rights and responsibilities of owning a business. Thank you for reminding me, the money was, in essence and "penalty'" rather than a fine.

Oops, I think you meant the monetary award was for "damages" attributable to the complainants' emotional suffering. Damages go to the victim of the wrongful conduct. On the other hand, a fine is a "penalty" ... and is paid to the government. (Similar to the failure of some people to purchase healthcare insurance ... they are penalized and a fine must be paid to the government ... which is a component of the "Affordable Healthcare Act" that I personally find to be reprehensible.)

Regardless of how we characterize the order to pay money, Melissa Klein probably "feels" like she was punished for her beliefs ... but the law was not applied to her beliefs, it was applied to her "CONDUCT" and she is still at liberty to believe anything she wants.

 

[Debra K]

Actually, you;re wrong. Read the lawsuit and it's decision and you'll see they broke about three laws involving discrimination from a "place of public accommodation." It wasn't political, it was the law.

You missed the whole point...the law is political.
If it's your business you should be able to refuse service to anyone you choose.
That may come back and bite you in the ass later but thats your problem.
The shoe will be on the other foot one day and then we'll see how gay people like it.
Thats just the way these things work.

That's not the way it works anymore, HWGA. The American way is no longer the American way. Government runs our businesses now.

Oh, to hear That's the American Way, sounds so nice. It was great while it lasted.

Don't give up! Challenge the concept using reason and logic ... let's continue the discussion and see where it goes. No one here is bad right or bad left. We are indeed all citizens of this great nation and, for our government to work and to prevent it from being hijacked, everyone's input into the discussion is important and must be considered.

Well I hate to say it but I see no way in hell this country can stay together.
The division of ideals has become to great.
If the country continues on it's current course I for one will be bailing out in a couple years. I didnt bust my butt so I could retire at 46 only to have my country turn on me and everything I believe in.
And when I look at what obama has done with the support of a certain segment of society and the back stabbing republicans gave us after the midterms?
Screw that..there are many other places with a lot better scenery that wont take my hard earned money in the form of taxes and I can live there for a song.
America has become a foreign country to me,so whats the difference between this one and a cheaper one?

I empathize with your feelings of futility ... and how sometimes we feel like we're just banging our heads against the wall ... but apathy is not an option.

I was so full of hope and ready for that promised change we could believe in ... but it did not materialize ... and I'm not saying Obama is a bad president or a good president ... he's just average like so many of our previous presidents. And I look around and see the divide and it makes me sad because I realized that we may not be a democratic republic anymore ... but perhaps an oligarchy disguised as a democratic republic. How much crap gets slipped through Congress while we're bickering among ourselves about divisive social issues, etc.

One thing for sure is the American people are passionate ... and we love each other. All politics aside, we roll up our sleeves and we're there for each other. We can't expect to elect someone (regardless of political affiliation) and think prosperity and happiness is going rain ... or trickle down upon us. We need to combine, from the bottom up, and make our officials accountable to us ... and not beholden to their corporate or uber-rich sponsors.

Anyway, I need to go fix supper for my hubby ... he's kind of an obnoxious fellow sometimes, but I LOVE him lots anyway.

 

[OKTexas]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

Just like the T shirt company, in CO I believe, the baker can not be required to produce a product with a message they find offensive or morally repugnant. See the first Amendment, two clauses, free speech and free exercise of religion and I bet a good lawyer could get in a fourteenth Amendment argument or two in there also.

Very good input, OKTexas. I found the case that you are referring to and here is a link to a copy of the decision from the Fayette Circuit Court (State of Kentucky) dated April 27, 2015:

Hands on Originals, Inc.

I only just started reading the case, but I can see that the circuit court overruled the Kentucky Human Rights Commission because the law, as applied to the t-shirt company, was ruled to be compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment (applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment).

I want to review the case and think about it. I don't know if the decision is being appealed. I don't remember if the Kleins in the Oregon case made a "compelled speech" argument to the Oregon commission. I wonder if baking a cake can also be construed as "compelled speech". First Amendment jurisprudence is vast. I will try to inform myself better and return to discuss this interesting prospect.

And, that is what is so great about our country. Some of these cases will eventually find their way to the Supreme Court and our First Amendment jurisprudence will again be expanded. I was somewhat shocked with the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case because it strayed off the path that prior cases had followed in the area of the religious freedom component vs. laws of general applicability. The compelled speech component of the First Amendment is still evolving too.

Again, thank you for this contribution.

Hobby lobby was decided on law and not the Constitution, refer to the (RFRA) Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That act alone determined that case.

 

[danielpalos]

Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt.

I believe religious discriminaiton should be done on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis; ostensibly, for the "greater glory of our immortal souls".

 

[Debra K]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

Just like the T shirt company, in CO I believe, the baker can not be required to produce a product with a message they find offensive or morally repugnant. See the first Amendment, two clauses, free speech and free exercise of religion and I bet a good lawyer could get in a fourteenth Amendment argument or two in there also.

Very good input, OKTexas. I found the case that you are referring to and here is a link to a copy of the decision from the Fayette Circuit Court (State of Kentucky) dated April 27, 2015:

Hands on Originals, Inc.

I only just started reading the case, but I can see that the circuit court overruled the Kentucky Human Rights Commission because the law, as applied to the t-shirt company, was ruled to be compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment (applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment).

I want to review the case and think about it. I don't know if the decision is being appealed. I don't remember if the Kleins in the Oregon case made a "compelled speech" argument to the Oregon commission. I wonder if baking a cake can also be construed as "compelled speech". First Amendment jurisprudence is vast. I will try to inform myself better and return to discuss this interesting prospect.

And, that is what is so great about our country. Some of these cases will eventually find their way to the Supreme Court and our First Amendment jurisprudence will again be expanded. I was somewhat shocked with the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case because it strayed off the path that prior cases had followed in the area of the religious freedom component vs. laws of general applicability. The compelled speech component of the First Amendment is still evolving too.

Again, thank you for this contribution.

Hobby lobby was decided on law and not the Constitution, refer to the (RFRA) Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That act alone determined that case.

I agree that the claim was brought under the RFRA, but the RFRA did not reinvent the wheel. It reinstated strict scrutiny as a standard of review when applied to (federal) laws of general applicability that substantially burden the free exercise of religion. When considering a claim under RFRA, our federal courts still rely on Supreme Court cases concerning the First Amendment as authoritative precedents.

 

[OKTexas]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

Just like the T shirt company, in CO I believe, the baker can not be required to produce a product with a message they find offensive or morally repugnant. See the first Amendment, two clauses, free speech and free exercise of religion and I bet a good lawyer could get in a fourteenth Amendment argument or two in there also.

Very good input, OKTexas. I found the case that you are referring to and here is a link to a copy of the decision from the Fayette Circuit Court (State of Kentucky) dated April 27, 2015:

Hands on Originals, Inc.

I only just started reading the case, but I can see that the circuit court overruled the Kentucky Human Rights Commission because the law, as applied to the t-shirt company, was ruled to be compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment (applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment).

I want to review the case and think about it. I don't know if the decision is being appealed. I don't remember if the Kleins in the Oregon case made a "compelled speech" argument to the Oregon commission. I wonder if baking a cake can also be construed as "compelled speech". First Amendment jurisprudence is vast. I will try to inform myself better and return to discuss this interesting prospect.

And, that is what is so great about our country. Some of these cases will eventually find their way to the Supreme Court and our First Amendment jurisprudence will again be expanded. I was somewhat shocked with the outcome of the Hobby Lobby case because it strayed off the path that prior cases had followed in the area of the religious freedom component vs. laws of general applicability. The compelled speech component of the First Amendment is still evolving too.

Again, thank you for this contribution.

Hobby lobby was decided on law and not the Constitution, refer to the (RFRA) Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That act alone determined that case.

I agree that the claim was brought under the RFRA, but the RFRA did not reinvent the wheel. It reinstated strict scrutiny as a standard of review when applied to (federal) laws of general applicability that substantially burden the free exercise of religion. When considering a claim under RFRA, our federal courts still rely on Supreme Court cases concerning the First Amendment as authoritative precedents.

But in the end the mandate failed the strict scrutiny test required by the RFRA, otherwise it most likely would have been upheld. It's a damn shame that law doesn't apply to the States.

 

[danielpalos]

The (rule of) law should be Standard in its operation.

Firms based on religious freedom should be not-for-the-profit-of-lucre, unless they worship a god of high-tech business transactions and e-Commerce, like the god Mercury.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I read the entire file. It did not change my mind except to say, in this case I believe the fine is too small. I hope other businesses learn from this experience and people will finally see that they are not better than others.

That's a nice sentiment, Jackson ... but that's all it is. If you read the administrative law decision in the "Sweetcakes by Melissa" case, then you would know that the commission did not impose a fine (which is a penalty). It awarded damages to the victims of discrimination to compensate them for their injury. What exactly do you hope other businesses learn from this case? Everyone is presumed to know the law and the consequences of their conduct. Why do you think Melissa Klein and her hubby believed that they were entitled to open a business, but not follow the laws that apply to all other businesses?

What damages, getting their feeling hurt, as I understand it they wound up getting a cake for free. Again where are the damages, they lost no money, no property, they weren't physically harmed.

Now people will wise up, they will get the information on the bride and groom, get the date, check their calendar and say I'm sorry I'm all booked up during that time, or we're going to be on vacation at that time. Done and done.

So in your opinion, the only Christian thing to do is lie and continue to break the law?

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweetcakes signed PO.pdf