CENTER STAGE

[Iceweasel]

It's clear to me that the "rule of law" is whatever they want it to be. They, being the dominate force in any given issue. There is no logical reason people in a free country should be forced to serve people they don't want to serve. That's government making demands to satisfy a political agenda, nothing more.

I do believe there was a reason back in the day when a black man couldn't open up a store but that was long ago and hardly the case any more. Sexual orientation? Where does it stop? If a rich guy has 15 whores he bangs on a regular basis and wants to have a cake commemorating the occasion are we still allowed by our caring government to refuse the job?

I turned down Planned Parenthood because I don't want to help them kill babies, is that still allowed? And for how long? All the discussion about legal decisions is pointless to me because the bar moves when they want it to move.

As far as marriage, the government should get out of any legal definition and let people define it for themselves, no government penalty or breaks. That's the only fair solution in today's world of moral relativity and government tyranny.

 

[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.

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.

Although you probably know this, other people might not. Initially, the RFRA did apply to the states, but the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, some states have enacted their own religious freedom acts.

There are several other areas of the law where our courts apply the strict scrutiny standard. The majority opinion strayed off the path when discussing the "least restrictive means" portion of that standard. The justices suggested that one possible lesser means would be for the government (taxpayers) to pay for the thing that the complainant objects to paying. Was that just tongue-in-cheek talk? ... whatever ... given the identity of the justices who signed onto that suggestion, I'm a little suspicious about future possible applications ...

The Hobby Lobby majority's frankly dishonest portrayal of First Amendment's pre-Smith jurisprudence and its declaration that the RFRA invented a new standard for strict scrutiny in religious freedom cases has me puzzled. Anyone with a computer and rudimentary research skills can discover the fib.

 

[Debra K]

I want to respond to everyone's input and I thought I would have done that by now ... but life has a way of dragging me away ... and my niece will be bringing her little boys over soon for me (great-auntie) to babysit for a few hours. My hubby brought home a shiny yellow pedal car last evening ... and I can't wait to see their happy faces when they discover the new addition to their playtime happiness ...

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Although you probably know this, other people might not. Initially, the RFRA did apply to the states, but the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, some states have enacted their own religious freedom acts.

There are several other areas of the law where our courts apply the strict scrutiny standard. The majority opinion strayed off the path when discussing the "least restrictive means" portion of that standard. The justices suggested that one possible lesser means would be for the government (taxpayers) to pay for the thing that the complainant objects to paying. Was that just tongue-in-cheek talk? ... whatever ... given the identity of the justices who signed onto that suggestion, I'm a little suspicious about future possible applications ...

The Hobby Lobby majority's frankly dishonest portrayal of First Amendment's pre-Smith jurisprudence and its declaration that the RFRA invented a new standard for strict scrutiny in religious freedom cases has me puzzled. Anyone with a computer and rudimentary research skills can discover the fib.

The supremes have been inventing a lot of things lately, mostly expanding their own prower. I guess it all goes back to that living breathing theory, where the written word means nothing.

 

[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.

Does not pertain to the issue and is not relevant.

Sure it does. Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation.

The roads, fire, and police are not Germaine. It is what people call immaterial to the discussion. That is why Courts do not allow discussions of side issues such as this when they hear a case. They focus on the law in question.

Besides, tax payer funded roads, fire, and police INCLUDES the business. Does it not?

Given the fact that Business pays more than individuals (on a peer viewed system i.e., one person, one business) then it would stand to reason that they have every right.

The real issue here is changing bad law. Bad laws are changed by controversy or push back. Laws should reflect the values of the people....NOT JUST THE MINORITY....

Besides...the OP is talking about administrative law, which is the most abusive type of law there is. Whole concepts and laws are created out of fantasy based upon the power brokers of the various departments that are in play.

Hello Darkwind. Why are you saying anti-discrimination laws are "bad laws"? The people of Oregon elect representatives to their state legislature. The elected state representatives enact laws. One of those laws was a prohibition of discrimination in public accommodations. Why doesn't that reflect the values of the people?

Under the state anti-discrimination law, victims of discrimination are allowed to file a complaint with a state commission. Melissa Klein and her husband were given notice and an opportunity to be heard. A hearing was held and the Kleins were represented by an attorney. I don't see any "abuse" in this situation. The commission entered an order and the Kleins were given notice of their rights to appeal the commission's order to the state court. I don't see anything here that was "created out of fantasy". Perhaps you could elaborate.

 

[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.

HereWeGoAgain:

Here is an excerpt from a similar case in Colorado, Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

 

[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?

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.

Thank you for your response. Under Oregon law, victims are entitled to damages for emotional suffering.

I don't agree that lying and breaking the law are wise things.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Thank you for your response. Under Oregon law, victims are entitled to damages for emotional suffering.

I don't agree that lying and breaking the law are wise things.

Well look at it this way, a little white lie to save someone from emotional suffering. I'm sure you never ever did that.

 

[Iceweasel]

Hello Darkwind. Why are you saying anti-discrimination laws are "bad laws"? The people of Oregon elect representatives to their state legislature. The elected state representatives enact laws. One of those laws was a prohibition of discrimination in public accommodations. Why doesn't that reflect the values of the people?

Legislators often don't reflect the values of the people but they do have the option of tossing them out of office. The problem that you and many have is that for whatever reason you cannot distinguish between individuals and relationships. Relationships aren't people. It would be different if they said to get out, they don't serve homosexuals (which I think should still be their right in a free society) and one that celebrates the relationship. It's the old making Jews bake Muslim cakes analogy.

There just isn't the same level of desire to be hip and cutting edge to try to force it upon them. Most Muslims probably don't want Jews to bake their cakes. Gays seem to seek out those that have a problem with homosexual relationships.

Under the state anti-discrimination law, victims of discrimination are allowed to file a complaint with a state commission. Melissa Klein and her husband were given notice and an opportunity to be heard. A hearing was held and the Kleins were represented by an attorney. I don't see any "abuse" in this situation. The commission entered an order and the Kleins were given notice of their rights to appeal the commission's order to the state court. I don't see anything here that was "created out of fantasy". Perhaps you could elaborate.

Since it's legal it's OK. Unless you disagree with the law, then it must be overturned. Do you guys ever listen to yourselves?

 

[Iceweasel]

Under Oregon law, victims are entitled to damages for emotional suffering.

I don't agree that lying and breaking the law are wise things.

I think emotional damages exist in every state. The problem is that it's being abused by assholes to make people eat shit. Are you seriously that stupid?

 

[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.

Thank you for your response. Under Oregon law, victims are entitled to damages for emotional suffering.

I don't agree that lying and breaking the law are wise things.

Well look at it this way, a little white lie to save someone from emotional suffering. I'm sure you never ever did that.

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

 

[Iceweasel]

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

Not everyone in life is willing to roll over for tyranny. Hard to believe huh?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

Not everyone in life is willing to roll over for tyranny. Hard to believe huh?

Since when is not discriminating against others, tyranny? I thought the Republican party was not known to run on emotions, but instead value our laws and the Constitution. Was I wrong?

 

[Iceweasel]

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

Not everyone in life is willing to roll over for tyranny. Hard to believe huh?

Since when is not discriminating against others, tyranny? I thought the Republican party was not known to run on emotions, but instead value our laws and the Constitution. Was I wrong?

Very wrong. As I said before if a bakery refused to make a cake celebrating a guy and his four sluts he was boning he could use the same argument you do.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

Not everyone in life is willing to roll over for tyranny. Hard to believe huh?

Since when is not discriminating against others, tyranny? I thought the Republican party was not known to run on emotions, but instead value our laws and the Constitution. Was I wrong?

Very wrong. As I said before if a bakery refused to make a cake celebrating a guy and his four sluts he was boning he could use the same argument you do.

I have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

[Iceweasel]

Why would you put your business at risk? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to simply not discriminate?

Not everyone in life is willing to roll over for tyranny. Hard to believe huh?

Since when is not discriminating against others, tyranny? I thought the Republican party was not known to run on emotions, but instead value our laws and the Constitution. Was I wrong?

Very wrong. As I said before if a bakery refused to make a cake celebrating a guy and his four sluts he was boning he could use the same argument you do.

I have no idea of what you are talking about.

That's the problem.

 

[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.

HereWeGoAgain:

Here is an excerpt from a similar case in Colorado, Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

They can go somewhere else and I'm tired of the double standards.

Was this guy free to go to a rap concert?
Bystanders laugh at man beaten to a pulp in chilling video New York Post

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

HereWeGoAgain:

Here is an excerpt from a similar case in Colorado, Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

They can go somewhere else and I'm tired of the double standards.

Was this guy free to go to a rap concert?
Bystanders laugh at man beaten to a pulp in chilling video New York Post

That has absolutely nothing to do with a discrimination case....absolutely nothing. You're running on emotion, and it's not even rational.

 

[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.

HereWeGoAgain:

Here is an excerpt from a similar case in Colorado, Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

They can go somewhere else and I'm tired of the double standards.

Was this guy free to go to a rap concert?
Bystanders laugh at man beaten to a pulp in chilling video New York Post

That has absolutely nothing to do with a discrimination case....absolutely nothing.

That wasnt discrimination?
Seems to me that was way worse than having to find a different baker.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

HereWeGoAgain:

Here is an excerpt from a similar case in Colorado, Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.:

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

They can go somewhere else and I'm tired of the double standards.

Was this guy free to go to a rap concert?
Bystanders laugh at man beaten to a pulp in chilling video New York Post

That has absolutely nothing to do with a discrimination case....absolutely nothing.

That wasnt discrimination?
Seems to me that was way worse than having to find a different baker.

We are discussing discrimination and business law, not random acts of violence. Holy cow.