CENTER STAGE

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

Wrong.
They allowed the updated version.

Here's another..
I can give you more if you'd like.
Judges Ban Pledge of Allegiance From Schools Citing Under God - NYTimes.com

 

[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.

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.

No, the law applied has nothing to do with the product. The couple was sued and fined because they said they would not SERVE gay people. And you would have to prove to the court that writing down two names on a cake or decorating it would harm your business. You can see easily how a Nazi hate slogan would offend your other customers and could affect your business.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Wrong.
They allowed the updated version.

Here's another..
I can give you more if you'd like.
Judges Ban Pledge of Allegiance From Schools Citing Under God - NYTimes.com

This is from 2002. the ruling was overturned in January 5, 2008. Lol.

 

[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.

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.

The homosexuals didn't impose anything on you. This law had already been in place and is applied equally, whether you are white, gay, black, a man, a woman, a Muslim, an atheist, a Christian, a Jew, the law applies to YOU.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

The dishonorable Chief Justice Roberts declared that law is irrelevant, that only social goals matter. The wording of statute is to be ignored in favor of intended social goals.

We were a nation of laws in the old Republic, but the Republic is no more. We are ruled by the intent of man, capricious and malleable.

 

[ChrisL]

My son said the Pledge in school every day, which included the "under God" part, and he attended the Massachusetts public school system. He graduated like 2-1/2 years ago.

 

[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.

No, the law applied has nothing to do with the product. The couple was sued and fined because they said they would not SERVE gay people. And you would have to prove to the court that writing down two names on a cake or decorating it would harm your business. You can see easily how a Nazi hate slogan would offend your other customers and could affect your business.

That's a lie, when did they ever refuse to sell ready made products to gays on premises? They refused a custom order, just like the shirt printer.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

Wrong.
They allowed the updated version.

Here's another..
I can give you more if you'd like.
Judges Ban Pledge of Allegiance From Schools Citing Under God - NYTimes.com

This is from 2002. the ruling was overturned in January 5, 2008. Lol.

So you see no hypocrisy in forcing a baker to sell a cake to a gay person because it's against his religious beliefs yet schools can opt out of the pledge?
Why not allow both to make their own decision?

 

[ChrisL]

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.

No, the law applied has nothing to do with the product. The couple was sued and fined because they said they would not SERVE gay people. And you would have to prove to the court that writing down two names on a cake or decorating it would harm your business. You can see easily how a Nazi hate slogan would offend your other customers and could affect your business.

That's a lie, when did they ever refuse to sell ready made products to gays on premises? They refused a custom order, just like the shirt printer.

Because they said they wouldn't make it because the couple was GAY and it went against their religious beliefs. I've also read another baker was slapped with a law suit for refusing to print anti-gay slogans. So there, the law is applied equally. You cannot discriminate against people. If you can prove to the court that a certain specialty order would harm your business or be too expensive, etc., you might have a case.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Wrong.
They allowed the updated version.

Here's another..
I can give you more if you'd like.
Judges Ban Pledge of Allegiance From Schools Citing Under God - NYTimes.com

This is from 2002. the ruling was overturned in January 5, 2008. Lol.

So you see no hypocrisy in forcing a baker to sell a cake to a gay person because it's against his religious beliefs yet schools can opt out of the pledge?
Why not allow both to make their own decision?

No, I don't see any similarity between those two scenarios either. Your argument doesn't really make sense to me.

The state has laws, that's why they cannot make their own decisions. You have to follow the laws in your state or you're going to get sued and perhaps put out of business. I really don't agree with putting them out of business, but they can't really complain when they agreed to these laws at the time of applying for their business permit in that particular state.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

Wrong.
They allowed the updated version.

Here's another..
I can give you more if you'd like.
Judges Ban Pledge of Allegiance From Schools Citing Under God - NYTimes.com

This is from 2002. the ruling was overturned in January 5, 2008. Lol.

So you see no hypocrisy in forcing a baker to sell a cake to a gay person because it's against his religious beliefs yet schools can opt out of the pledge?
Why not allow both to make their own decision?

No, I don't see any similarity between those two scenarios either. Your argument doesn't really make sense to me.

The state has laws, that's why they cannot make their own decisions. You have to follow the laws in your state or you're going to get sued and perhaps put out of business. I really don't agree with putting them out of business, but they can't really complain when they agreed to these laws at the time of applying for their business permit in that particular state.

So you can force a business owner to go against his religious beliefs yet schools can pick and choose if they want t say the pledge?
Thats clearly hypocrisy.
I'm not religious in the least so I dont really have a beef with schools giving students the option of saying the pledge.
But if you're going to do that why doesnt the business owner have any options?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

No, the law applied has nothing to do with the product. The couple was sued and fined because they said they would not SERVE gay people. And you would have to prove to the court that writing down two names on a cake or decorating it would harm your business. You can see easily how a Nazi hate slogan would offend your other customers and could affect your business.

That's a lie, when did they ever refuse to sell ready made products to gays on premises? They refused a custom order, just like the shirt printer.

Because they said they wouldn't make it because the couple was GAY and it went against their religious beliefs. I've also read another baker was slapped with a law suit for refusing to print anti-gay slogans. So there, the law is applied equally. You cannot discriminate against people. If you can prove to the court that a certain specialty order would harm your business or be too expensive, etc., you might have a case.

You got a link for that case?

You also didn't answer my question, when did they ever refuse service to gays to purchase their standard product line.

 

[Debra K]

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.

We elect our representatives to serve us in the political branches of government. Our elected officials make policy determinations. Our lawmakers have determined that discrimination (and the ensuing strife) causes harm or threatens harm to the common welfare of the people. Our laws address those harms or threatened harms as a matter of public policy. What you might believe to be liberty and justice for yourself (i.e., the right to discriminate) another person might believe to be a deprivation of liberty and an injustice (i.e., victimization through discrimination). Perhaps you may move freely through society and engage in business transactions with commercial enterprises, but others cannot and anguish and strife ensues. As a matter of public policy, legislatures (both federal and state) have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations. There is a logical reason why discrimination is against the law. Without ordered liberty, justice for vast segments of our population simply doesn't exist.

Here is a quote from the Colorado case that I linked in an earlier post: "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."

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?

If promiscuous rich guys, as a class of persons, can demonstrate a history of discrimination in public accommodations based on who they are, then perhaps they can convince our lawmakers that they are entitled to protection under our anti-discrimination laws. Gay people, whether you consider some of them to be promiscuous and regardless of the size of their individual wealth, are entitled to protection under the law because there exists a proven history of oppression. I believe you are intelligent enough to discern the difference.

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.

Planned Parenthood is not a person falling within a class of historically oppressed persons, it is an organization ... I don't know of any law that prevents you from doing business or refusing to do business with Planned Parenthood.

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.

Abolition of the civil institution of marriage would cause chaos and grave harm to our society and the vulnerable persons who would be victimized without the vast protections and benefits that flow from marriage. That's not the "fair solution" simply because some people don't approve of other people's marriages.

 

[Debra K]

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.

I think you might be referring to the Obergefell decision? If so, the Court didn't invent marriage, which is a contract that can only be entered, maintained, and dissolved in accordance with state law. The right to marry, which is a fundamental right protected as a liberty interest under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is subject to reasonable state regulations. For instance, states may legitimately determine the age of consent and prohibit marriages between closely related people.

When you have two groups of similarly situated people, and one group is allowed to exercise a fundamental right and another group is prohibited, then conflict arises. The institution of marriage confers many tangible and intangible protections and benefits upon marriage partners and their children. Members of the group who are denied the right are entitled to petition our courts for redress of their grievance and to seek equal protection under the law. There simply was no reason why same-sex couples should not be afforded the same (equal) rights as heterosexual couples. That's just a straight forward application of Constitutional Law 101, not an expansion of power.

All the Supreme Court justices, past and present, understand that our country did not stand frozen in time when the Constitution was written or when the civil war amendments were adopted. For instance, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court stated the following:

"In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."

I apologize for going off track, but I don't agree that our guiding constitutional principles and case law cannot be applied to new fact situations that are present today but were not present at an earlier time in our history.

 

[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.

We elect our representatives to serve us in the political branches of government. Our elected officials make policy determinations. Our lawmakers have determined that discrimination (and the ensuing strife) causes harm or threatens harm to the common welfare of the people. Our laws address those harms or threatened harms as a matter of public policy. What you might believe to be liberty and justice for yourself (i.e., the right to discriminate) another person might believe to be a deprivation of liberty and an injustice (i.e., victimization through discrimination). Perhaps you may move freely through society and engage in business transactions with commercial enterprises, but others cannot and anguish and strife ensues. As a matter of public policy, legislatures (both federal and state) have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations. There is a logical reason why discrimination is against the law. Without ordered liberty, justice for vast segments of our population simply doesn't exist.

Here is a quote from the Colorado case that I linked in an earlier post: "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."

Gays have been denied service for wedding cakes and were able to sue for lack of service. Bullshit. Loss of freedom is a big deal to many people to but you can't factor that into your societal harm question for some reason. What you are doing is misapplying a law that helped black folks get food, clothing, shelter, etc. They needed the protection because they had nothing and little chance to start businesses themselves.

No one even knows if someone is homosexual unless they make it an issue. So again, it's YOUR sense of morality that's important. No one else's.

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?

If promiscuous rich guys, as a class of persons, can demonstrate a history of discrimination in public accommodations based on who they are, then perhaps they can convince our lawmakers that they are entitled to protection under our anti-discrimination laws. Gay people, whether you consider some of them to be promiscuous and regardless of the size of their individual wealth, are entitled to protection under the law because there exists a proven history of oppression. I believe you are intelligent enough to discern the difference.

Ah, since it isn't illegal to discriminate against them it's OK to discriminate against them. That's what I thought. What a hypocrite!

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.

Planned Parenthood is not a person falling within a class of historically oppressed persons, it is an organization ... I don't know of any law that prevents you from doing business or refusing to do business with Planned Parenthood.

Again, no gay was refused service for being gay, people don't want to be forced to participate in the celebration of their sexuality. I did discriminate against people who's lifestyle I opposed by denying service to them and their cause. You're dodging the point. Typical for you guys, you're like jello. You believe in this or that as a matter of convienience.

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.

Abolition of the civil institution of marriage would cause chaos and grave harm to our society and the vulnerable persons who would be victimized without the vast protections and benefits that flow from marriage. That's not the "fair solution" simply because some people don't approve of other people's marriages.[/QUOTE]Wrong. I said they can then get a contract with whoever they chose. Any contract they wanted, including anything similar to state sponsored marriage. They won't be harmed except to lose out on some government tax breaks. And in fact, since about half the population is single it's unfair to them to subsidize marriage. It WAS instituted because that's how most families formed and society benefited from the stability and norms. That's been thrown out the window so it makes zero sense to keep it around. Let's be progressive and get rid of an archaic institution that hurts some and benefits others who will never contribute future tax payers or producers.

 

[Iceweasel]

The homosexuals didn't impose anything on you. This law had already been in place and is applied equally, whether you are white, gay, black, a man, a woman, a Muslim, an atheist, a Christian, a Jew, the law applies to YOU.

So all laws are right because they are laws? That included sodomy laws as well? The law overlooks someone's moral convictions and forces them to accomodate something they find distasteful or outright sinful. You don't give a fuck about them, we get it. But that's just YOU imposing your morality while protesting about someone else's sense of morality.

What about the dude with four chicks on his cake? Is he being discriminated against or not?

 

[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.

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

Intentionally and knowingly breaking the law and lying about it to prevent discovery and legal consequences does not fall within the definition of "little white lie."

 

[Iceweasel]

Intentionally and knowingly breaking the law and lying about it to prevent discovery and legal consequences does not fall within the definition of "little white lie."

If it keeps you from doing something against your will it's well worth it no matter how you categorize it.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I think you might be referring to the Obergefell decision? If so, the Court didn't invent marriage, which is a contract that can only be entered, maintained, and dissolved in accordance with state law. The right to marry, which is a fundamental right protected as a liberty interest under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is subject to reasonable state regulations. For instance, states may legitimately determine the age of consent and prohibit marriages between closely related people.

When you have two groups of similarly situated people, and one group is allowed to exercise a fundamental right and another group is prohibited, then conflict arises. The institution of marriage confers many tangible and intangible protections and benefits upon marriage partners and their children. Members of the group who are denied the right are entitled to petition our courts for redress of their grievance and to seek equal protection under the law. There simply was no reason why same-sex couples should not be afforded the same (equal) rights as heterosexual couples. That's just a straight forward application of Constitutional Law 101, not an expansion of power.

All the Supreme Court justices, past and present, understand that our country did not stand frozen in time when the Constitution was written or when the civil war amendments were adopted. For instance, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court stated the following:

"In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws."

I apologize for going off track, but I don't agree that our guiding constitutional principles and case law cannot be applied to new fact situations that are present today but were not present at an earlier time in our history.

As far as Obergefell goes, I disagreed with the decision because they are granting rights based on subjective circumstances such as actions and preferences. Gays were in no need of additional protections because all the rights of their gender were already available to them, there was no objective discrimination.

That said I was mostly referring to the ACA decision where the court decided explicit language used in various sections of the law to extend a series of carrots and sticks to the States was ambiguous and chose to become legislators in rewriting the law, a function they have no authority under the Constitution to do. They should have set aside the law and told the legislature to fix it or upheld it as written. Constitutionally there is no third choice.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Wrong.
They allowed the updated version.

Here's another..
I can give you more if you'd like.
Judges Ban Pledge of Allegiance From Schools Citing Under God - NYTimes.com

This is from 2002. the ruling was overturned in January 5, 2008. Lol.

So you see no hypocrisy in forcing a baker to sell a cake to a gay person because it's against his religious beliefs yet schools can opt out of the pledge?
Why not allow both to make their own decision?

No, I don't see any similarity between those two scenarios either. Your argument doesn't really make sense to me.

The state has laws, that's why they cannot make their own decisions. You have to follow the laws in your state or you're going to get sued and perhaps put out of business. I really don't agree with putting them out of business, but they can't really complain when they agreed to these laws at the time of applying for their business permit in that particular state.

So you can force a business owner to go against his religious beliefs yet schools can pick and choose if they want t say the pledge?
Thats clearly hypocrisy.
I'm not religious in the least so I dont really have a beef with schools giving students the option of saying the pledge.
But if you're going to do that why doesnt the business owner have any options?

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. If you cannot abide by the law in your state, then don't open a business. It's really that simple. I really cannot feel sorry for these people. I feel sorry for the gay people who are being discriminated against, and I think the "Christians" that would behave in this manner are the hateful pitiful ones.