Today the SCOTUS heard/received/whatever, arguments on the validity of a person's right of free speech vice the ability of a government to compel a person to engage in particular commerce. Matt Walsh: http://www.dailywire.com/news/24333...content=062316-podcast&utm_campaign=mattwalsh
I don't know when the decision is expected, but the liberal block of the SC, Ginsburg, Soyomayor, Kagan, and Breyer, will vote against Masterpiece Cake Shop. It will come down to Kennedy's vote. He has been very pro gay rights AND pro free speech, so nobody knows how he will vote. The questions Kennedy asked led some to believe he was leaning against the baker. He asked questions like is a hair stylist also an artist and if so should they then be able to refuse to do gay people's hair. It's a sad commentary on this country that almost 50% of the SC values gay rights over the 1st Amendment.
He was sorta all over the map. He asked some questions that suggested he could go the other way as well. Basically, Kennedy's jurisprudence is scattered, so there's no way to know what he'll do. Frankly, I don't like judges like that. Some time before the end of the term in June.
I thought a private business has the choice to serve whomever it wishes to serve. I don't care who the customer is or what they are but if I owned a business I think you should be able to refuse service regardless of why.
Not talking about a sign. I am just talking about me approaching a customer and asking them to leave because I don't want to serve them. Is THAT illegal?
You don't have to state a reason not to serve somebody, but if you're always turning away a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group, people might notice. If they notice, you could get sued by somebody or by the EEOC.
Essentially one person is going to answer the question of whether a person can be forced to perform work by the state. I just don't see Kennedy holding up on this. As Deez says, you can't trust a judge that doesn't seem to have a fundamental consistency. That means he'll go with his emotions, with wherever the wind is blowing. I suspect that will happen again here. I've made this point over and over and have yet to get a satisfactory answer. If you're an attorney, there's nothing that says you have to take ANYONE's case. You make that decision, and it might be for any number of reasons. Among those may be that you simply don't believe in that person's cause, or you don't think you can win, or you just don't think he's a person you're willing to work with. Or you want to take a nap all week and don't particularly want to work. I get that this case is focusing on speech and artistry - because it's clearly the best case that they have to win. But it's also risky because it's easy enough to simply say "no, it's not speech, he's creating a cake." But the reality of this is that this person is being compelled to do work that he doesn't believe he should do. This isn't refusing someone service that you're giving to everyone else - he's not making gay wedding cakes for ANYONE. He's not making things for this cause in ANY case, so his standard is completely consistent. He will not make cakes customized for anyone when it violates his conscience. There is no entitlement to someone else's labor.
I agree with your overall point and support the baker here - at least as we presently apply the 14th Amendment. (If I got to rewrite constitutional jurisprudence according to my own principles, I would reject the substantive due process doctrine, which means that the freedom of religion would not apply to the states. Accordingly, the baker would have no claim against the State of Colorado and would lose. However, that's a whole different discussion.) Nevertheless, here's the problem with your attorney hypothetical scenario. As an attorney, I can turn away any client for any reason (including those you specified), except those reasons prohibited by law. The same rules apply to a baker. However, if I refuse to accept a client - not because I don't believe in his case, not because I don't think I can win, not because I want to take a nap all week but truly because of his race, I could run afoul of antidiscrimination laws. If the baker in this present case had claimed one of the reasons you mentioned, we might not be having this discussion. He didn't do that. He gave the honest reason, so here we are.
LOL ... yes. Here we are. (and LOL to keep from crying) Sorry Deez ... not bludgeoning you specifically ... but the degree to which we've become "lawyers" seeking to exploit some articulation one way or another like it's nothing more than a debate club tactic (there is no right/wrong, only the best argument wins). I've long said that at some point in his career, and I'm not qualified to definitively say when that is other than "at some point," an airline pilot should be able to hang a shingle for legal services given the degree to which our profession has been changed by the legal department specifically and generally. Start at the hearing and work backward. "Sully" should have shown us that. I have a BNL who's a corporate attny ... responding to his query about "how are things at work," I've told him HE would better appreciate the current aircraft operations manual than I do as it had to be approved by legal! SMH.
Baker should have taken the business and made a ****** cake to avoid future business from those they wish to deny. The other option would have been to take the business and not make the cake. When they came to pick it up, oops...forgot to make it, here is your refund, sorry.
He could have done that, but I think he was following the biblical mandates of not denying Christ before man and of not being dishonest. He clearly believed that standing on his principles and beliefs were more important than avoiding the confrontation. If he was doing this to further some liberal pursuit the media would be celebrating his courage. That would have been a bad move. In addition to violating his principles, it would be have exposed him to more liability than merely giving them their money back because they wouldn't have been able to find another baker that late. Instead they would have had to delay the wedding. That could have gotten expensive, and the baker would have been on the hook for those costs.
I can only imagine the outrage if there happened to be a bakery owned and operated by Muslims, and a patron wanted a cake bearing the likeness of Allah. The left would be anointing him GQ Man of the Year for standing by principle. If I were a gay person, I would be ashamed of these men for selecting a bakery they 99.9% knew would have an issue with their cake, and then making a huge deal out of it. There has been so much progress in such a short amount of time regarding gay people, and, I'm not saying they should just be grateful for any scrap, but, they also shouldn't be walking around looking for issues to exploit. Let's just get along in some areas. There is enough strife right now in our country. Get your cake at a bakery that not only will bake your cake, but bake it gladly and support gay friendly establishments.
But Hollandtx ... live and let live is not the MO of this agenda. You must ALL view our way of life as not only tolerable, not only acceptable, not only normal ... but "institution-able." If you balk at any of that, you must be disciplined. So your wish for "world peace" is admirable, but it's about as likely as trying to negotiate a co-existence settlement with Jews and Muslims.
Or suppose someone wanted a Muslim baker to prepare a cake for a gay wedding. But for some reason it never seems to happen that way.
It wouldn't matter if there was one or thousands. A Muslim would never have been used in this case. The people who decide what becomes a test case care about optics and want to make sure the fact pattern doesn't divide their preferred constituencies.
