Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Klein bakery fining a perversion of law

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2015 11:57:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The 14th Amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This amendment was used in court cases to justify treating businesses as legal person entitled tot he rights and freedoms a natural person has.

The 1 st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting 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."

It is importance to note that the Constitution not only protects a person from having a particular faith, to be practiced in their home and structure of worship, BUT it also protects the free exercise thereof. Some can practice and live their life in accordance to their belief system.

I've see some responses tend to express a mentality that when a business owner opens up shop they are to serve and sell to anyone and everyone. That the business owner has no rights or freedoms to the end of their product.

As my examples illustrate, should a Christian Website designer be forced to make gay pornographic websites? And if they refuse they lose their business and/or fined exuberant amounts. That equates to state coercion. It's paramount to holding a gun to someone's head. Threatening a person with such losses is forcing them to labor and subject them to producing products and messages they do not agree with.

That is slavery. I'm appalled by the posters who contend that businesses should be treated like slaves. Legally they are citizens of the community. As such they are members that can be respected and appreciated or as some posters here want, mistreated.

Businesses have historically retained the right to refuse service to anyone. Just as you are free to select who enters your home. Anti-discrimination laws came about because this liberty was being used to oppress others. In the 14th amendment (copied above), there is an equal protection under the law clause. It became illegal to discriminate upon certain characteristic of the potential client.

I think one good question to ask to discern discrimination, "Is a characteristic of the requester a determining factor in the refusal?" or "Was the refusal due to the result of the service?".

A restaurant owner refusing service to a black patron, would be committing adultery because the refusal was predicated upon a characteristic of the solicitor.

In the case of the Klein bakery, the refusal was solely based on the moral attitude towards the religious ceremony and message of the wedding cake. I do not see a characteristic of the requesting party to be a determining factor.

The Civil Right act of 1964 "This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy."

Physical Disabilities are covered in a similar worded Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Anti Discrimination laws over sexual orientation are at state level. They are not enumerated in the Federal Anti-Discrimination acts.

However the reasoning and justifications under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment could be used to apply in cases of sexual orientation.

With the right of Free speech, also comes the right to refrain from speech. In the Miranda rights everyone has the "right to remain silent'. You Not only have the right to voice your opinion but you have the right to refrain from transmitting messages.

I contend that the Klein baker was not discriminating against the Gay couple. They equally sell cakes to everyone, to include having sold cakes to the lesbian patron before. What the were refusing to do was participate in making a message. They were refusing to craft a wedding cake that celibates, endorses, and condones a union that the Kleins feel is a message they are morally opposed to.

For them the Marriage ceremony is a holy and religious union. They did not want to be part of a religious ceremony that is against their own religious belief. This is the same reasoning used by atheist who find it offensive to be present for an opening prayer.

The Kleins chose to not endorse a message, that there could be a marriage union between two same sex partners.

The Kleins chose not to participate in a ceremony they consider to be religious and spiritual in nature.

This is why I feel my examples are relevant. We wouldn't fine a black tailor for refusing to make KKK robes. If the same logic being applied to the Kleins bakery was applied int hat situation you would be saying the black tailor committed racial discrimination. Because the service was refused to white people.

The refused to labor in the construction of a message that was against their moral beliefs. Refused to construct a structure used in what they consider to be a religious ceremony. For exercising their freedom of speech (right to remain silent), and their freedom of religion (right to exercise moral beliefs) they were punished with exuberant fines forced to lose their business.

I think no matter what one's opinion is on gay marriage, we should see this incident, and others like it as an injustice. An erosion of freedom that all of us are now prone to bear the weight of. Businesses and their owners are not slave labour. They have rights.

In a society espousing freedom, you will be offended. It is guaranteed you will be offended by someone else's actions and or speech. But your actions and speech should be equally protected. Especially the right NOT to involve yourself in another's speech or actions.

But discords and disagreements like this should be resolved by the pressures a free market. Give freedom a chance. If the business was practicing in a way the community did not like, the pressure of buying power would force the business to reform or shut down. I don't think litigation was the proper course of action. But it may have been the last one.

Once litigation starts, a judge should be ideologically neutral in discerning the application of the Letter of The Law. If the application does not match the people's desire than the Law gets rewritten by the legislative branch, composes of the people's representatives. That's how the system should work.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 10:42:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It is indeed illegal for an Black tailor to refuse service to a KKK member because the KKK member is white. It however is not illegal to deny the KKK member service in the example you give because a black tailor does not make robes. If the Black tailor does specialize in robes and then refuses to create a robe for KKK then the KKK member probably has a good chance to convince a judge or jury that he was denied service for being white.

Same with a baker. Since the state has deemed gay marriage is a necessity to maintain equal protection of the law, especially considering the state's interpretation of marriage is not equal to the various religion's interpretation of marriage.

The state then has an obligation to enforce equal protection. The baker either gets out of the segment of business serving wedding cakes, like the black tailor not serving the robe business or you serve everyone. It is that simple.

I as a baker can not deny you service for being a Christian despite I disagree with your beliefs and find them grossly immoral. I don't understand why you are promoting Christian being able to deny service for sexual orientation.

You are fundamentally advocating a libertarian stance where race, religion, disability, country of origin and now sexual orientation are not protected classes and the people should be able to discriminate against others for any reason.

At this time there is no logical argument that is consistent which places religion as a protected class but not sexual orientation as a protected class. That is especially true because society as a whole determines what attribute is protected, and the tribe has spoken.
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 11:29:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Baker must bake a cake celebrating marriage of a black man and a white woman.
Discrimination based on race is not allowed since "race" is a protected class.

Baker must bake a cake celebrating marriage of a man and a man.
Discrimination based on sexual preference is not allowed since "sexual preference" is a protected class.

Baker must bake a cake celebrating a bar mitzvah.
Discrimination based on religion is not allowed since "religion" is a protected class.

Baker can refuse to bake a cake celebrating atheism.
Atheists are not a protected class.

Who is really being discriminated against?
Think
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 8:28:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/26/2015 11:29:45 AM, ecco wrote:
Baker must bake a cake celebrating marriage of a black man and a white woman.
Discrimination based on race is not allowed since "race" is a protected class.

Baker must bake a cake celebrating marriage of a man and a man.
Discrimination based on sexual preference is not allowed since "sexual preference" is a protected class.

Baker must bake a cake celebrating a bar mitzvah.
Discrimination based on religion is not allowed since "religion" is a protected class.

Baker can refuse to bake a cake celebrating atheism.
Atheists are not a protected class.

Who is really being discriminated against?

Atheism is a protected class under the religion status. And in this day and age Atheism is the established religion by the state. So who is getting discriminated against?

The 2 star general who mentions Jesus. The sailor with the Bible on their desk. ect...
ecco
Posts: 180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2015 10:06:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mhykiel "Atheism is a protected class under the religion status."

Please cite the evidence you have for the above statement.

Mhykiel "And in this day and age Atheism is the established religion by the state."

Please cite the evidence you have for the above statement.
Think