Bakers Ordered to Pay $135,000 for Refusing Gay Wedding Service

a reply to: Annee

My point Annee, was not that I support such discrimination, but that I do not have the right/authority to force someone else not to do so based upon my belief. One person's beliefs does not empower a person over a person with "lessor" or "wrong " beliefs. That is what we call self-righteous.

a reply to: Annee

They refused after they discovered that it would show two brides.

I'm still confused how anyone can't understand the Bakery broke the Law, a State Law, this is a Oregon State law, the Bakery broke it = consequence

He still has his Freedom of speech, he still has his Freedom of religion, he is just not allowed to hide behind his religion and try to be above the law.

it's funny because with the same sex ruling people complained the states should make their own laws, and now this is a state law people are complaining the constitution and religion is above it

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: Annee

They refused after they discovered that it would show two brides.

They refused to bake the cake?

Or just refused the decoration? Because that is not discrimination.

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: Annee

My point Annee, was not that I support such discrimination, but that I do not have the right/authority to force someone else not to do so based upon my belief.

It's state law.
You cannot refuse to serve people based on your opinions about them, using religious affiliation, disability, race, sexuality... that's illegal in that state and these people broke the law.

Christians do not have the freedom to break laws they feel prevent them from being hateful bigots.

originally posted by: timequake

How exactly did you get that from what I said? Read more carefully.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm asking you a question about something you made me unsure of from the way you answered. So do you think the CRA of 1964 was unconstitutional?

That makes no sense. When was the state given the authority to determine the price one must accept to allow the violation one's rights?

When we allowed it to define slavery. It's pretty simple really. You are just making this harder than it needs to be.

In this case, the owner of the business is the business. To force an action on this business that violates ones First Amendment rights violates the First Amendment rights of the person running that business. Ultimately, it would still require that owner--personally-- to act against his religious beliefs in favor of another's beliefs or life style. Owning a business does not, in any way, remove that person's rights. A person's actions in running their private business is still the actions of that private individual. Your distinction is arbitrary and inaccurate, both logically and legally.

This is why I asked if you think the CRA of 1964 was unconstitutional, because forcing a business to cater to everyone equally, regardless of the opinion of the business is what that act does. You DO know that back when everything was desegregated the Christians were saying their religious rights were being violated then too? Like every point you are making, was already made during the 1960's. So again, do you think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unconstitutional?

When we allowed it to define slavery. It's pretty simple really. You are just making this harder than it needs to be.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is a rather arbitrary way of putting it. I do not agree with you on this point. I was speaking on an objective level when considering the technical question of when a state has or has not determined what the proper compensation should be for any given act made by a private entity.

As to the CRA, there are many who do believe that it was unconstitutional--that Congress lacked authority to implement this. This debate would largely depend upon whether or not one accepts the premise that the "Commerce Clause" in Article I which simply states that " The Congress shall have Power.....To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" allows Congress to regulate anything and everything that touch interstate commerce in any way possible.

The interpretation that would lead one to find the CRA unconstitutional would interpret the commerce clause--given the context of the remainder of the Article powers and the Constitution as a whole-- as a power granted as to empower Congress the authority to pass laws that would only effect the states themselves in forbidding them from passing state laws that would create an unfair advantage for business in their respective states via taxes or state tariffs. It also left trade deals exclusively in the federal domain. In the earlier days when the states were more individualist/sovereign there was a concern that more stable states would take advantage of their relative economic inequity. The Commerce Clause was originally created to make commerce more uniform via unbiased federal regulation. This was how it was ruled upon in its earlier days and this view is slowly making a comeback in the courts. Note that this view does not enable, in anyway, Congress to pass laws regarding actions of individuals.

The other view, under which the CRA was passed, along with several other laws, is that the CC allows Congress to regulate practically everything, because everything touches commerce in some conceivable way. Once such instance was the Heart of Atlanta case whereby the government argued that a small hotel could not legally prevent Blacks from staying there because federal law prevented such discrimination. They argued that they had jurisdiction under the commerce clause because the small cafeteria used ketchup packets that were sometimes purchased from out-of-state. Fewer Blacks staying there meant, conceivably, that fewer ketchup packets would be sold, and that, therefore, affects interstate commerce. It was also used to prevent a man from growing his own cattle feed because that would allow him to purchase less grain from out-of-state.

The reason why the CRA may be unconstitutional is that the growing trend to recognize that there must be a greater nexus between commerce and the use of the CC as a means of obtaining jurisdiction. There was a relatively recent case (i apologies I cannot recall the name) where the Court struck down a federal law banning guns within a certain distance of schools. The Gov argued that it had authority on commerce clause grounds--that some gun parts are purchased across state lines--therefore is affects interstate commerce. The Court found that this nexus was arbitrary when compared to the purpose of the law and struck it down.

The strongest argument against the broad reading of the commerce clause, as mentioned in the first paragraph is that if it is read to be so broad as it was when the CRA was passed, then that would obviate the remainder of Article one because that single clause would effectively allow Congress to effectively regulate anything for any reason making the other enumerated powers redundant. It would also effectively render the 9th and 10th Amendments null.

So on those grounds I would say that the CRA was likely unconstitutional.

a reply to: Rocker2013

It's state law. You cannot refuse to serve people based on your opinions about them, using religious affiliation, disability, race, sexuality... that's illegal in that state and these people broke the law. Christians do not have the freedom to break laws they feel prevent them from being hateful bigots.

You missed the context of the discussion. The questions was whether or not this law is constitutionally valid, not whether or not it exists.

a reply to: Annee

I believe they refused to bake the cake after they found out that it was for a gay wedding. They learned what it was for after realizing that there would be two brides' names on the cake, from what I understand.

a reply to: timequake

It's also been pointed out numerous times that it wasn't involved in the "wedding" but the reception... so essentially he wouldn't bake a cake for a after party

a reply to: Darth_Prime

I'm still confused how anyone can't understand the Bakery broke the Law, a State Law, this is a Oregon State law, the Bakery broke it = consequence He still has his Freedom of speech, he still has his Freedom of religion, he is just not allowed to hide behind his religion and try to be above the law. it's funny because with the same sex ruling people complained the states should make their own laws, and now this is a state law people are complaining the constitution and religion is above it

So what you're saying is that these freedoms still exists, even though they are forced to put them aside on account of someone else's choice to get married. Sounds like you on think rights exist so long as they have your approval according to your beliefs.

But yes, holding that a state can forbid certain people from getting married, and then saying states cannot pass laws preventing discrimination is hypocritical. The reverse is also true. States cannot constitutionally do either.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Wedding cakes are eaten at the reception, typically. But truly, from my standpoint, this is irrelevant. A person should not be compelled to perform a private serve for another private individual or individuals against his will, for whatever reason.

a reply to: timequake

Except he was running a Public business...

originally posted by: timequake
This is a rather arbitrary was of putting it. I do not agree with you on this point. I was speaking on an objective level when considering the technical question of when a state has or has not determined what the proper compensation should be for any given act made by a private entity.

There is no objective level. You just have to pick a spot, say, "this is slavery, and this isn't." Finding objectivity is impossible.

As to the CRA, there are many who do believe that it was unconstitutional--that Congress lacked authority to implement this. This debate would largely depend upon whether or not one accepts the premise that the "Commerce Clause" in Article I which simply states that " The Congress shall have Power.....To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" allows Congress to regulate anything and everything that touch interstate commerce in any way possible.

The interpretation that would lead one to find the CRA unconstitutional would interpret--given the context of the remainder of the Article powers and the Constitution as a whole--the commerce clause as a power granted as to allow the Congress to pass laws that would only effect the states themselves in forbidding them from passing state laws that would create an unfair advantage for business in their respective states via taxes or state tariffs. In the earlier days when the states were more individualist/sovereign there was a concern that more stable states would take advantage of their relative economic inequity. The Commerce Clause was originally created to make commerce more uniform via unbiased federal regulation. This was how it was ruled upon in its earlier days and this view is slowly making a comeback in the courts. Note that this view does not enable, in anyway, Congress to pass laws regarding actions of individuals.

The other view, under which the CRA was passed, along with several other laws, is that the CC allows Congress to regulate practically everything, because everything touches commerce in some conceivable way. Once such instance was the Heart of Atlanta case whereby the government argued that a small hotel could not legally prevent Blacks from staying there because federal law prevented such discrimination. They argued that they had jurisdiction under the commerce clause because the small cafeteria used ketchup packets that were sometimes purchased from out-of-state. Fewer Blacks staying there meant, conceivably, that fewer ketchup packets would be sold, and that, therefore, affects interstate commerce. It was also used to prevent a man from growing his own cattle feed because that would allow him to purchase less grain from out-of-state.

The reason why the CRA may be unconstitutional is that the growing trend to recognize that there must be a greater nexus between commerce and the use of the CC as a means of obtaining jurisdiction. There was a relatively recent case (i apologies I cannot recall the name) where the Court struck down a federal law banning guns within a certain distance of schools. The Gov argued that it had authority on commerce clause grounds--that some gun parts are purchased across state lines--therefore is affects interstate commerce. The Court found that this nexus was arbitrary when compared to the purpose of the law and struck it down.

The strongest argument against the broad reading of the commerce clause, as mentioned in the first paragraph is that if it is read to be so broad as it was when the CRA was passed, then that would obviate the remainder of Article one because that single clause would effectively allow Congress to effectively regulate anything for any reason making the other enumerated powers redundant. It would also effectively render the 9th and 10th Amendments null.

So on those grounds I would say that the CRA was likely unconstitutional.

Then we differ in opinion because I think it is very Constitutional. Without it, we would STILL be a heavily segregated country. Without it, gays would have problems finding businesses that would serve them.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Except he was running a Public business...

No, it was a private one. Please go back through earlier posts in this thread as this was already discussed--a public business would be something like a utility.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is no objective level. You just have to pick a spot, say, "this is slavery, and this isn't." Finding objectivity is impossible.

We will just have to disagree on this. I believe the truth is always objective.

Then we differ in opinion because I think it is very Constitutional. Without it, we would STILL be a heavily segregated country. Without it, gays would have problems finding businesses that would serve them.

I respect your good intentions, but the method is the issue. The law should be objective; not based upon the whim of the moment. Racially discriminatory laws are passed using the very same reasoning which you described. therein lays the problem.

originally posted by: timequake
We will just have to disagree on this. I believe the truth is always objective.

The truth is not always objective. In fact, it usually isn't. Especially when talking about concepts that humans have designed or invented. The idea of slavery being one of them.

I respect your good intentions, but the method is the issue. The law should be objective; not based upon the whim of the moment. Racially discriminatory laws are passed using the very same reasoning which you described. therein lays the problem.

It can't be objective. It HAS to be subjective. Because a solution that applies to one situation shouldn't necessarily apply to another situation with different circumstances. Subjectivity allows for fluidity in these situations. You can analyze precedent to see what previous people decided on the matter, but you can also take into account the current situation's circumstances and rule differently. Objectivity would mean that the person caught stealing an ipod from the store would share the same fate as someone caught stealing food to feed his starving family.

a reply to: Annee

Actually one of my IC jobs in a cleal room on the graveyard shift I was "let go" because I scared the night manager.
Does THAT count?

Nice - more good news for the day.

Nm