Of Cake and BBQ at the US Supreme Court

All other Political discussion that does not affect our ability to enjoy the outdoors.
Post Reply
User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Of Cake and BBQ at the US Supreme Court

#1

Post by GregD » Mon Dec 04, 2017 5:21 pm

The case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is before the Supreme Court. The cake shop refused to sell a wedding cake to a customer when it became apparent that the cake was to be used in a same-sex wedding claiming that would violate the religious beliefs of the baker. This violates a Colorado anti-discrimination law.

This posting at Slate compares this case to the Supreme Court case, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, in which the owner of a popular BBQ chain refused to allow blacks to eat at the restaurant claiming his beliefs that the races should be kept strictly separated:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... _1968.html
Blacks could buy BBQ at the take out window, but not eat in the dining room with whites.

I agree with Slate. I don't see any significant difference between these two situations. We either allow discrimination in both instances or we enforce the law in both situations. Allowing discrimination in one and enforcing the law in the other is inconsistent.

I'd be interested to hear arguments that conclude that the baker is justified in refusing service for a wedding cake to same-sex wedding while the BBQ owner must be required to allow black patrons to use his restaurant dining room.



User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Of Cake and BBQ at the US Supreme Court

#2

Post by GregD » Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:06 pm

A far better (IMHO) discussion of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission starts at time 44:20 in this podcast:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/12/ot201 ... oke-blank/

It continues for something like 20 minutes. They discuss many very thoughtful ideas on how to draw the line between public accommodation and free or compelled speech.

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Of Cake and BBQ at the US Supreme Court

#3

Post by Scott » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:04 pm

I did not listen to 20 minutes of podcast...I won't argue the free speech vs civil rights, no winner in that conversation. In our current political climate religion loses. This case really is not about free speech, it is about religious free speech.

But I will be consistent. I believe that discrimination is morally wrong, and socially the backlash in today's world will be quick and over the top, taking care of itself. But I believe that in the private sector it should not be illegal. That includes retail... Just because the government puts regulations on your business does not make it a public enterprise. You should be able to deal with whom you choose, free association.

The government is required to be neutral and not discriminate or give preference to anyone for who they are, where they come from, or what they believe. Everyone should get served the same in that regard.

There will always be corruption and abuse no matter what system we are under.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 528
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Of Cake and BBQ at the US Supreme Court

#4

Post by GregD » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:16 am

Scott wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:04 pm
I did not listen to 20 minutes of podcast...I won't argue the free speech vs civil rights, no winner in that conversation. In our current political climate religion loses. This case really is not about free speech, it is about religious free speech.
So only listen for 5 minutes. This is a case to resolve an apparent conflict between 2 fundamental values of our society. It brightened my day to hear that there were people giving serious consideration to all viewpoints on the issues and working hard to imagine an optimal compromise.

User avatar
Scott
Reactions:
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:08 am
Location: Texas Lost Pines (just outside Wierd)
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Of Cake and BBQ at the US Supreme Court

#5

Post by Scott » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:39 am

I listened to a bit of it. Reasonable and interesting, but nothing new in it for me. It does reflect the reality of the world we live in.

Since groups are protected... if the reports I have heard are correct, the baker had previously sold pre-made product to the couple. He did not kick them out of his store for being gay. He refused to use his skill to make a custom cake. In that I support him. Anyone can come in and buy something off the shelf, no discrimination there. But requiring someone to use their talent to produce something custom crosses the line to violate his rights. Anything in his store they see means he chose to make it and should be available to them to purchase.
Texas sucede? Y'all are lucky we don't invade!

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Of Cake and BBQ at the US Supreme Court

#6

Post by BillyBob66 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:48 pm

Okay, I tried to listen to it I maybe made it about 10 minutes into it. But I can't take it for very long. Because as you know I am no doubt the extremist in my viewpoint on these things. And I find all the intricacies they were discussing about when a person could refuse a service versus when he could not to just be missing the entire point of freedom.

For example, about the time I stopped listening–because it was wearing me out–they were discussing something about" a straight couple wanting a cake that says" Love is love"–that if he would refuse that,(i.e. Refused to sell it to the straight couple) then he could refuse to sell it to anybody. That is the point. And on and on.

For me, the very concept that our governments both federal and local, could be involved in such minutiae of behavior control is anathema, and 100% against everything this country was founded on. Just try to imagine the founding fathers engaging in such a debate! For me, it is anathema that the government's could think they have anything to say about what kind of product that a business owner, in the private sector, who has risked his money and his efforts to establish a business, must offer. Again imagine the founding fathers– The ones who wrote the Bill of Rights–telling a private baker that he must bake a certain cake, or an artist that he must paint a certain picture, or that somebody else must make a certain piece of machinery. Or that they must do anything- any labor- for anyone for whatever reason. It simply would have been beyond comprehension for the founders, or the people who lived under the government of the founders gave them.

We have now gone–and justifying the changes with the very same Constitution and Bill of Rights that those founders wrote mind you–more to a form of slavery for certain unapproved groups. Th key to a happy life is belonging to the government approved group. Ever since the very concept of discrimination being a bad thing that government must prevent came upon the scene, freedom has been disappearing. The government has its approved groups. If you are among those groups, no one is allowed to not also approve of you. These groups so far can be blacks or other racial minorities, women, homosexuals, transgenders and probably some others. If you are in those groups, the government is willing to help you in your efforts to force someone else to perform labor for you, or say certain things or not say certain things, regardless of the reasons for their objections. Not that any reasons should be needed in a free country, but even if you have very good reasons that even seemed to be supported constitutionally, i.e. by the Bill of Rights, at the very least you're going to have to be prepared for a lengthy and expensive legal battle in your attempt to enjoy those rights.

But that is only if you're not in the approved group. Now try to imagine the same thing being forced upon one of the approved groups. Imagine the black being forced to sell a product to the KKK if they did not want to for any reason whatsoever, even if it was because they did not even want to allow a KKK member into their store. Imagine if this gay couple had the bakery or print shop or photography business, whatever, and being forced to participate in any manner with The American Family Association's "God intended marriage for one man- one woman" campaign. Now, everyone here knows that any of these groups can refuse participation in these things all day long, and there is no one in government that's going to say anything about it, and indeed it is fully legal as they belong to the government approved groups and still have their freedoms. That discrimination(by them) is totally legal. The government picks the groups for which discrimination is forbidden, while maintaining a much larger group for which discrimination is totally okay, and sometimes even encouraged.

So all of these discussions about " exactly where is the line drawn" really amount to a bunch of bullshit. There is freedom, and there is slavery. If anyone is forced to labor against their will for another person, then that is far more like slavery than it is freedom. Since Masterpiece cake shop cannot force this gay couple to do any labor for them, even if they were in a business of some sort, they cannot force them them to give them any money, they cannot force them to do anything–only the gay couple is capable of forcing any certain behavior from others while being backed by the force of government–then in my opinion the owners of masterpiece cake shop are the slaves of the gay couple. I think Patrick Henry would agree with me. Almost certainly also Thomas Jefferson and all of the rest of them.

But those same founders put in place the means of changing the constitution including its Bill of Rights. If the country wants to change it, then so be it. But please folks don't blow smoke up my ass trying to tell me that if I don't bake a cake for somebody, even if it's only because I don't like the shape of their nose, that I am engaging in unconstitutional discrimination. Or don't try to tell me that, if federal or local governments passed laws forcing me to do so, that these laws are constitutional. All of these laws are total bullshit and totally unconstitutional and totally against the Bill of Rights, at least as it was originally written. And most likely there is not yet an amendment which does away with" Congress shall make no law respecting(meaning regarding, IMO) an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

All though, I am sure there are some among the groups that like to force other people to do their will who would say" okay, perhaps a government can't prevent you from saying certain things(unless of course something against the approved groups), but it can force you to say certain things. I.e., it can force you to bake and decorate a cake in celebration of something you find abhorrent. Or more recently, it can force you to literally form certain words with your tongue and lips, for example the use of government approved pronouns, what ever words certain sexual groups have come up with recently, both prohibiting you from calling on man" he" and also calling him what it ever term is approved by this man. Words we don't even know yet, words that have not even existed in our language. Talk about slavery, when they can not only prohibit your free speech, but can force you to say certain words. Like "hir, ze/zie". But, maybe we deserve to be slaves as we continue to accept these encroachments on our basic freedoms.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... 10b5420710

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/hans ... -amendment "In Oregon, a school district has settled a transgender bias claim, paying $60,000 to a transgender employee who demanded to be called “they” rather than “he” or “she.” The district has agreed to “develop official guidance documents” for “pronoun usage,” and “Violations of the guidance will be grounds for discipline.”

The teacher, Leo Soell, born Brina, is essentially conscripting his co-workers into using “they” to convey an idea about language and how language should be: “Some people might argue, ‘Why don’t you just use “he?” It’s masculine,’” said Soell. “But ‘they’ continuously points to the fact that the language is not inclusive.” As the Portland Tribune notes, “using ‘they’ as a singular pronoun sets off grammar alarms in many people’s brains, including Soell’s, when they first begin changing pronouns.""
https://nypost.com/2016/05/19/city-issu ... -pronouns/
"Employers and landlords who intentionally and consistently ignore using pronouns such as “ze/hir” to refer to transgender workers and tenants who request them — may be subject to fines as high as $250,000.

The Commission on Human Rights’ legal guidelines mandate that anyone who providing jobs or housing must use individuals’ preferred gender pronouns."

Some folks just insist on enslaving other folks, rather than being tolerant of people with different views and just leaving them the hell alone.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Of Cake and BBQ at the US Supreme Court

#7

Post by BillyBob66 » Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:04 pm

I thought this was interesting:
https://www.economist.com/blogs/democra ... t-desserts
Off Topic
Contrary to initial appearances, Masterpiece Cakeshop does not entail a clash of constitutional rights. There is nothing in America’s constitution that entitles a gay couple to a cake prepared by a particular baker. The same goes for race-based discrimination by private entities. In the 1883 Civil Rights Cases, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had no power under the 13th or 14th amendments to require “public accommodations”—restaurants, theatres, inns, petrol stations—to serve patrons of all races equally. Those amendments, the court reasoned, empowered Congress to ban only official acts of discrimination by the state, not “individual invasion of individual rights” by non-state actors. The Civil Rights Cases ruling has never been overturned. When Congress finally barred public accommodations from refusing service to blacks, women and others in Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it grounded its authority in the constitution’s “commerce clause”, and this view was promptly ratified by the Supreme Court.

To this day, no federal law requires bakeries or other private businesses to serve gays and lesbians, but 21 states and the District of Columbia do extend these protections.....................................
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “All the other Political Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest