CENTER STAGE

[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.

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.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter what the venue.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Discrimination is discrimination no matter what the venue.

Once again, the process of communication has been broken down. We are discussing the laws concerning businesses, not random acts of violence.

 

[Debra K]

A quick search of "bakeries" in Gresham, OR on YellowPages.com yields 329 results, a search of "wedding cakes" yields the same number: Wedding Cakes in Gresham Oregon with Reviews Ratings - YP.com. Cool, so many choices out there.

They could have calmly told that store what they think of it and found another one, one that would be thrilled to work with them, pretty quickly. But sadly, these poor helpless dears were so overcome with abject shock and emotion that such a concept somehow got past them.

So, instead of doing that, they chose to file the complaint. They were not forced to, they chose to. They were not forced to, they chose to.

The notion that "this is about the law" is a lie.

If I determined that a business (especially one with this amount of competition) were bigots, I'd leave, find a business that I like better, and let the bigots stew in their own hatred. And that's it. But then, I don't go through life looking for excuses to intimidate, punish and control people. Crazy me.

.

Hello Mac1958.

When you did your search for bakeries in Oregon, did the search results indicate what segments of the population each bakery would serve and what segments it will not serve based on the bakery owner's personal religious beliefs?

If state law provides that it's a public offense for businesses to discriminate, but some businesses are allowed to discriminate nonetheless, how will same sex couples or biracial couples, etc., know where they are welcome or not welcome in the market of public accommodations?

Melissa Klein and her husband were not forced to disobey the anti-discrimination law, they chose to disobey the law. In your view, however, the victims of discrimination should not file complaints about violations of the law and just keep trying to find some business that will provide services to them. "Cool, so many choices out there", indeed. However, if our society was the way you think it ought to be, then those choices would dwindle and become smaller and smaller.

In a nation like ours, with a vast and diverse population, every person has a right to move freely in the public market place unfettered by the slings and arrows of bigotry. The law must be enforced in order to protect and secure that right for everyone.

 

[Mac1958]

A quick search of "bakeries" in Gresham, OR on YellowPages.com yields 329 results, a search of "wedding cakes" yields the same number: Wedding Cakes in Gresham Oregon with Reviews Ratings - YP.com. Cool, so many choices out there.

They could have calmly told that store what they think of it and found another one, one that would be thrilled to work with them, pretty quickly. But sadly, these poor helpless dears were so overcome with abject shock and emotion that such a concept somehow got past them.

So, instead of doing that, they chose to file the complaint. They were not forced to, they chose to. They were not forced to, they chose to.

The notion that "this is about the law" is a lie.

If I determined that a business (especially one with this amount of competition) were bigots, I'd leave, find a business that I like better, and let the bigots stew in their own hatred. And that's it. But then, I don't go through life looking for excuses to intimidate, punish and control people. Crazy me.

.

Hello Mac1958.

When you did your search for bakeries in Oregon, did the search results indicate what segments of the population each bakery would serve and what segments it will not serve based on the bakery owner's personal religious beliefs?

If state law provides that it's a public offense for businesses to discriminate, but some businesses are allowed to discriminate nonetheless, how will same sex couples or biracial couples, etc., know where they are welcome or not welcome in the market of public accommodations?

Melissa Klein and her husband were not forced to disobey the anti-discrimination law, they chose to disobey the law. In your view, however, the victims of discrimination should not file complaints about violations of the law and just keep trying to find some business that will provide services to them. "Cool, so many choices out there", indeed. However, if our society was the way you think it ought to be, then those choices would dwindle and become smaller and smaller.

In a nation like ours, with a vast and diverse population, every person has a right to move freely in the public market place unfettered by the slings and arrows of bigotry. The law must be enforced in order to protect and secure that right for everyone.

Debra, you and I haven't been going back and forth on this - my point has never been about the law, and I certainly acknowledge its existence and its meaning. My point is that the couple was not forced to lodge the complaint that led to the huge fine, they chose to. The law is in their favor, and they could easily choose to work with someone who wanted to work with them (which surely would not be difficult to do).

Does this kind of story heal wounds or change minds? I would argue that it definitely does not, and works in the opposite direction. If someone wants to be a bigot, I'm happy to let them stew in their own misery.

.

 

[Debra K]

A quick search of "bakeries" in Gresham, OR on YellowPages.com yields 329 results, a search of "wedding cakes" yields the same number: Wedding Cakes in Gresham Oregon with Reviews Ratings - YP.com. Cool, so many choices out there.

They could have calmly told that store what they think of it and found another one, one that would be thrilled to work with them, pretty quickly. But sadly, these poor helpless dears were so overcome with abject shock and emotion that such a concept somehow got past them.

So, instead of doing that, they chose to file the complaint. They were not forced to, they chose to. They were not forced to, they chose to.

The notion that "this is about the law" is a lie.

If I determined that a business (especially one with this amount of competition) were bigots, I'd leave, find a business that I like better, and let the bigots stew in their own hatred. And that's it. But then, I don't go through life looking for excuses to intimidate, punish and control people. Crazy me.

.

They could have gone somewhere else, but the bakery still broke the law. When they decided to break the law, they put their business at risk. No one forced them to break the law. They made a conscious decision to break the law.

So I wasn't wrong.

.

Mac1958. In some instances, you're not "wrong" if you are victimized by a violation of the law and choose to shrug your shoulders and walk away. For example, if you are the victim of domestic violence, you might or might not file a civil law petition with the court for a protection order against your abuser. Another example, if your employee embezzles money from your business, you might or might not file a complaint with your local law enforcement authorities. There are many examples like the ones I just gave ... someone broke the law ... someone was victimized. In my opinion, we should not sit in judgment against victims who choose to assert their rights and seek the protection and enforcement of the law.

 

[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.

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

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.

If it's my business then it's mine to risk isn't it? Why would you want to force someone to preform a service that goes against their conscience? The T shirt vendor that refused to put an anti-gay message on his product has no more right to discriminate than a baker or photographer, but I haven't seen you condemning them.

Personally I think any business should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason at all. If they do it often enough the market will decide if they remain in business.

 

[Mac1958]

A quick search of "bakeries" in Gresham, OR on YellowPages.com yields 329 results, a search of "wedding cakes" yields the same number: Wedding Cakes in Gresham Oregon with Reviews Ratings - YP.com. Cool, so many choices out there.

They could have calmly told that store what they think of it and found another one, one that would be thrilled to work with them, pretty quickly. But sadly, these poor helpless dears were so overcome with abject shock and emotion that such a concept somehow got past them.

So, instead of doing that, they chose to file the complaint. They were not forced to, they chose to. They were not forced to, they chose to.

The notion that "this is about the law" is a lie.

If I determined that a business (especially one with this amount of competition) were bigots, I'd leave, find a business that I like better, and let the bigots stew in their own hatred. And that's it. But then, I don't go through life looking for excuses to intimidate, punish and control people. Crazy me.

.

They could have gone somewhere else, but the bakery still broke the law. When they decided to break the law, they put their business at risk. No one forced them to break the law. They made a conscious decision to break the law.

So I wasn't wrong.

.

Mac1958. In some instances, you're not "wrong" if you are victimized by a violation of the law and choose to shrug your shoulders and walk away. For example, if you are the victim of domestic violence, you might or might not file a civil law petition with the court for a protection order against your abuser. Another example, if your employee embezzles money from your business, you might or might not file a complaint with your local law enforcement authorities. There are many examples like the ones I just gave ... someone broke the law ... someone was victimized. In my opinion, we should not sit in judgment against victims who choose to assert their rights and seek the protection and enforcement of the law.

Your examples are excellent, quantitative damage has been done, and this is obviously a case-by-case situation.

It's their call. I just see a lot of people who are very passionate about this law while not being so on other laws, such as immigration. So to me, this is less about the law and far more about sexual politics.

.

 

[Debra K]

I understand your comment and say it is reasonable. But you can't change the fact that the bakery broke three laws in their treatment of Rachel and Laura. Read the decision for an accurate assessment of the deal.

I know, and I'm not arguing that at all. My point is that the law only comes into effect if a complaint is made, and the couple chose to do so. If I saw the same couple lodge a complaint because they knew someone is an illegal alien or that someone was smoking pot illegally, I'd then believe that they're all about the law, and that this isn't just about politics.

Sometimes we just choose to live and let live. That, to me, includes letting someone be a bigot. This fine only made them more of what they are.

By the way, I appreciate your words about my comment being reasonable. We don't have to agree to be decent to each other.

.

I agree, in this situation, it is reasonable for you to walk away if that's what you want to do. But it is equally reasonable for another person to choose to seek the protection and enforcement of the law.

 

[Debra K]

A quick search of "bakeries" in Gresham, OR on YellowPages.com yields 329 results, a search of "wedding cakes" yields the same number: Wedding Cakes in Gresham Oregon with Reviews Ratings - YP.com. Cool, so many choices out there.

They could have calmly told that store what they think of it and found another one, one that would be thrilled to work with them, pretty quickly. But sadly, these poor helpless dears were so overcome with abject shock and emotion that such a concept somehow got past them.

So, instead of doing that, they chose to file the complaint. They were not forced to, they chose to. They were not forced to, they chose to.

The notion that "this is about the law" is a lie.

If I determined that a business (especially one with this amount of competition) were bigots, I'd leave, find a business that I like better, and let the bigots stew in their own hatred. And that's it. But then, I don't go through life looking for excuses to intimidate, punish and control people. Crazy me.

.

Hello Mac1958.

When you did your search for bakeries in Oregon, did the search results indicate what segments of the population each bakery would serve and what segments it will not serve based on the bakery owner's personal religious beliefs?

If state law provides that it's a public offense for businesses to discriminate, but some businesses are allowed to discriminate nonetheless, how will same sex couples or biracial couples, etc., know where they are welcome or not welcome in the market of public accommodations?

Melissa Klein and her husband were not forced to disobey the anti-discrimination law, they chose to disobey the law. In your view, however, the victims of discrimination should not file complaints about violations of the law and just keep trying to find some business that will provide services to them. "Cool, so many choices out there", indeed. However, if our society was the way you think it ought to be, then those choices would dwindle and become smaller and smaller.

In a nation like ours, with a vast and diverse population, every person has a right to move freely in the public market place unfettered by the slings and arrows of bigotry. The law must be enforced in order to protect and secure that right for everyone.

Debra, you and I haven't been going back and forth on this - my point has never been about the law, and I certainly acknowledge its existence and its meaning. My point is that the couple was not forced to lodge the complaint that led to the huge fine, they chose to. The law is in their favor, and they could easily choose to work with someone who wanted to work with them (which surely would not be difficult to do).

Does this kind of story heal wounds or change minds? I would argue that it definitely does not, and works in the opposite direction. If someone wants to be a bigot, I'm happy to let them stew in their own misery.

.

History has proven that these kind of cases and the public discourse they provoke serve to move our society forward, inch by inch, into a more enlightened direction ... and all of us benefit when the light of day is shined upon bigotry and it slowly but surely fades into the past.

 

[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.

A law based on politics.

Hello HereWeGoAgain. The legislative branch of the government (state or federal) is a political branch of government. The legislative branch enacts the laws that all of us must live under and obey. All laws are based on politics ... so I don't understand your criticism of the law.

 

[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.

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.

A law based on politics.

Hello HereWeGoAgain. The legislative branch of the government (state or federal) is a political branch of government. The legislative branch enacts the laws that all of us must live under and obey. All laws are based on politics ... so I don't understand your criticism of the law.

Sorry,nothing trumps the right to refuse service to whomever you choose in my book.

 

[Debra K]

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]

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.

I don't know if "America was a better place" when you were reciting the pledge. Perhaps you could elaborate, give us a frame of time in our history for consideration, and enumerate the ways America was better. As of right now, however, you have stated a conclusion without any supporting facts or premises upon which to induce such a thing.

I also don't know of any schools where the pledge has been banned. I know there was a person named Newdow who spearheaded attempts to have "under God" removed from the pledge and all of his attempts proved unsuccessful ... as far as I know. If you have information to the contrary, proving that a lot of schools have banned the pledge, please share.

A show of indignation simply evades the points raised about our nation's system of government.

 

[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.

OKTexas:

I located this cake case from Colorado:

Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

The administrative law judge considered the "compelled speech" argument and rejected it. Baking a cake, in and of itself, is not speech. The decision was well-reasoned, and the case is currently working its way through the appellate process. There was a hearing earlier this month and the parties are awaiting a decision. The t-shirt case can be differentiated because the complainant asked the t-shirt business to print a message that the owner found objectionable.

 

[ChrisL]

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 completely agree with the decision and the law, as well as with your OP. I don't feel that the government will ever recognize discrimination as a religious practice or custom, and since the law is applied equally, there is no "religious persecution" as some would have you believe.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

OKTexas:

I located this cake case from Colorado:

Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

The administrative law judge considered the "compelled speech" argument and rejected it. Baking a cake, in and of itself, is not speech. The decision was well-reasoned, and the case is currently working its way through the appellate process. There was a hearing earlier this month and the parties are awaiting a decision. The t-shirt case can be differentiated because the complainant asked the t-shirt business to print a message that the owner found objectionable.

This is exactly what I have been trying to tell people. They aren't going to listen. They will just get angry and nasty like they always do. The antidiscrimination law has nothing to do with controlling your "product." It is about access to the product and denying access to that product to a group of tax paying American citizens. I think some people would like to drag us back into the Dark Ages, seriously.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

I don't know if "America was a better place" when you were reciting the pledge. Perhaps you could elaborate, give us a frame of time in our history for consideration, and enumerate the ways America was better. As of right now, however, you have stated a conclusion without any supporting facts or premises upon which to induce such a thing.

I also don't know of any schools where the pledge has been banned. I know there was a person named Newdow who spearheaded attempts to have "under God" removed from the pledge and all of his attempts proved unsuccessful ... as far as I know. If you have information to the contrary, proving that a lot of schools have banned the pledge, please share.

A show of indignation simply evades the points raised about our nation's system of government.

The fact that schools have banned the pledge is common knowledge.
If you dont know these basic facts about the attack on American values I see no reason to continue this discussion since you appear to be arguing from a position of ignorance.
Which is difficult to argue against because you have no past reference to make judgments about the severity of these attacks.
It's easy to take one incident and say it's no big deal,but when added to the whole it paints a much different picture.
snopes.com Pledge of Allegiance Ruling

 

[ChrisL]

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.

I don't know if "America was a better place" when you were reciting the pledge. Perhaps you could elaborate, give us a frame of time in our history for consideration, and enumerate the ways America was better. As of right now, however, you have stated a conclusion without any supporting facts or premises upon which to induce such a thing.

I also don't know of any schools where the pledge has been banned. I know there was a person named Newdow who spearheaded attempts to have "under God" removed from the pledge and all of his attempts proved unsuccessful ... as far as I know. If you have information to the contrary, proving that a lot of schools have banned the pledge, please share.

A show of indignation simply evades the points raised about our nation's system of government.

The fact that schools have banned the pledge is common knowledge.
If you dont know these basic facts about the attack on American values I see no reason to continue this discussion since you appear to be arguing from a position of ignorance.
Which is difficult to argue against because you have no past reference to make judgments about the severity of these attacks.
It's easy to take one incident and say it's no big deal,but when added to the whole it paints a much different picture.
snopes.com Pledge of Allegiance Ruling

Perhaps you missed this part in your link . . .

Update: In June 2004 the Supreme Court reversed the lower-court decision, ruling that Newdow did not have the legal standing to bring the case.

Last updated: 5 January 2008

 

[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.

OKTexas:

I located this cake case from Colorado:

Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

The administrative law judge considered the "compelled speech" argument and rejected it. Baking a cake, in and of itself, is not speech. The decision was well-reasoned, and the case is currently working its way through the appellate process. There was a hearing earlier this month and the parties are awaiting a decision. The t-shirt case can be differentiated because the complainant asked the t-shirt business to print a message that the owner found objectionable.

Right, the old double standard, refusing to decorate a shirt with a message the proprietor finds objectionable is fine, but decorating a cake with a message the proprietor finds objectionable is not. You don't see a problem with that neither are selling generic items, they require personal customization.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

OKTexas:

I located this cake case from Colorado:

Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

The administrative law judge considered the "compelled speech" argument and rejected it. Baking a cake, in and of itself, is not speech. The decision was well-reasoned, and the case is currently working its way through the appellate process. There was a hearing earlier this month and the parties are awaiting a decision. The t-shirt case can be differentiated because the complainant asked the t-shirt business to print a message that the owner found objectionable.

This is exactly what I have been trying to tell people. They aren't going to listen. They will just get angry and nasty like they always do. The antidiscrimination law has nothing to do with controlling your "product." It is about access to the product and denying access to that product to a group of tax paying American citizens. I think some people would like to drag us back into the Dark Ages, seriously.

Back to the dark ages? It just became legal for homosexuals to impose their desires onto businesses in SOME areas with the highly politicized law. The dark ages was a few years ago?

Tax paying has nothing to do with it. You didn't make the business happen. No one has answered my challenge yet, if a guy wants a cake celebrating his conquests with his 4 bedroom bunnies and the baker declines should he be prosecuted? If not, why not? This is ALL about one group imposing its' particular set of morals onto another.