Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage To Be Law Of The Land

Exactly. and thats what the ruling against him found: that previous cases as far back as pre 1900 had found that freedom of opinion/speech, and actions must be separate when outside the bounds of the law for the continued functioning of society. So SCOTUS has declared that the sections of the constitution (eg art1, sec 8) that give the power of defining federal rules and punishment, along with the 10th giving the powers of other laws to the states, are required to be followed as well as the first amendment. So, if an act is illegal, it doesnt matter if you believe in it, its still illegal, as you are able to practise all that is inside the law, and seek to change these laws, but you cant break them under the first. NZ has a law similar to the 1st, but ours is worded a bit more clearly for us to make it easier to understand:


“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form”.



Same as the first, but makes it clear that its information and opinion, not actions that you are allowed to have. I suspect other countries have similar....

Annachie wrote:I suppose it's fair to say that the baker could descriminate as much as he liked. The bakery however can't.
Two seperate entities, that every arguement or discussion seems to roll into one entity.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Spacekiwi wrote:snip


And again, it was found that there was no breach of the bakers first. He has not been forced to change his speech or his opinion, merely his actions to ensure compliance with the law, just like the mormons were forced to adhere to monogamy as opposed to bigamy, all the way back to Reynolds V US(1878).

Let's take the case as it relates to the Bakery. It is in compliance with all laws. Anything it owns is being offered to the couple. The Business is not discriminating at all.

The baker is declining to make something that requires his personal expression to make. That is to take the idea of a wedding and express it in ways that is consistent with a wedding cake. Does the business own the creative essence of the baker or does the individual agree to make that creative essence available to the bakery? If the former, it can be argued that Mr. Phillips (Colorado baker) is a slave. If the latter, then the acceptance of the commission is a personal matter protected under the 1st.

The choice is simple. Neither people not their intrinsic essence can be owned.

Annachie made the point I was attempting to make.

PeterZ,

A bakery doesn't just sell physical goods, it sells services. By refusing to sell their services to people based on their sexual orientation they refused to do business with them and therefore violated the law. It's the same thing as a dry cleaner's refusing to clean wedding clothes for a same sex marriage.

PeterZ wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:snip


And again, it was found that there was no breach of the bakers first. He has not been forced to change his speech or his opinion, merely his actions to ensure compliance with the law, just like the mormons were forced to adhere to monogamy as opposed to bigamy, all the way back to Reynolds V US(1878).

Let's take the case as it relates to the Bakery. It is in compliance with all laws. Anything it owns is being offered to the couple. The Business is not discriminating at all.

The baker is declining to make something that requires his personal expression to make. That is to take the idea of a wedding and express it in ways that is consistent with a wedding cake. Does the business own the creative essence of the baker or does the individual agree to make that creative essence available to the bakery? If the former, it can be argued that Mr. Phillips (Colorado baker) is a slave. If the latter, then the acceptance of the commission is a personal matter protected under the 1st.

The choice is simple. Neither people not their intrinsic essence can be owned.

Believe it or not, I understand the distinctions you all have brought up.

What you all refuse to acknowledge is the distinction between a generic service and an expression that conveys an idea or meaning. Providing a drycleaning service conveys no ideas inherent in that service. I agree that any good or service that does not convey an idea is not protected by the 1st.

I contend that any service that does convey such symbolism DOES receive 1st Amendment protection. This is so because conveying such symbols is the essence of protected speech.

Donnachaidh wrote:Annachie made the point I was attempting to make.

PeterZ,

A bakery doesn't just sell physical goods, it sells services. By refusing to sell their services to people based on their sexual orientation they refused to do business with them and therefore violated the law. It's the same thing as a dry cleaner's refusing to clean wedding clothes for a same sex marriage.

]

I refuse to acknowledge that distinction because I do not believe that is a valid distinction. When you commercialize anything you must comply with the law. No matter what you are commercializing. When you have a service creating custom cakes, you are commercializing your skill and creativity in creating custom cakes; because you [u[chose[/u] to commercialize it you bound yourself to follow the relevant laws, including non-discrimination laws. If you find complying with those laws too onerous then you can stop offering that service. What you cannot do is decline to offer that service to anyone if you offer it to anyone. It's all or nothing.

One point I made at least once that you ignored is that if the bakery had refused to make a cake for an interracial couple or black couple, they wouldn't have people defending them the way you are.

PeterZ wrote:Believe it or not, I understand the distinctions you all have brought up.

What you all refuse to acknowledge is the distinction between a generic service and an expression that conveys an idea or meaning. Providing a drycleaning service conveys no ideas inherent in that service. I agree that any good or service that does not convey an idea is not protected by the 1st.

I contend that any service that does convey such symbolism DOES receive 1st Amendment protection. This is so because conveying such symbols is the essence of protected speech.

Donnachaidh wrote:Annachie made the point I was attempting to make.

PeterZ,

A bakery doesn't just sell physical goods, it sells services. By refusing to sell their services to people based on their sexual orientation they refused to do business with them and therefore violated the law. It's the same thing as a dry cleaner's refusing to clean wedding clothes for a same sex marriage.

]

What basis does the baker have to refuse making a cake depicting an interracial couple? On what basis does he assert his 1st Amendment protection?

If he has religious issues, then prove it with doctrine or text that support making such a cake violates his conscience. If unable to prove it, he has no protection. The baker simply disagrees with the practice.

The protection of the 1st Amendment requires two things: that the expression in question functions to convey an idea/symbol and that refusing to perform that expression violates one's conscience. Should the baker have engaged in other activities that are contrary to the religion he purports to adhere to, then his claim is likely false and he cannot deny the couple even this service.

A pacifist has the same protections if asked to express himself/herself to convey violence. Even if the requester is part of a protected class.

To assert that by engaging in business, one has by default given rights granted by the Constitution is simply ridiculous. That means that anyone accepting a wage has given up their Constitutional rights. What is a wage except engaging in commerce? As an employer the Government can legally punish/fine an employee beyond termination or what a private employer could assess that it could not do to someone not employed with it.

Asserting commerce negates Constitutional protection means only the independently wealthy truly are protected. That cannot be what the founders intended.

Donnachaidh wrote:I refuse to acknowledge that distinction because I do not believe that is a valid distinction. When you commercialize anything you must comply with the law. No matter what you are commercializing. When you have a service creating custom cakes, you are commercializing your skill and creativity in creating custom cakes; because you [u[chose[/u] to commercialize it you bound yourself to follow the relevant laws, including non-discrimination laws. If you find complying with those laws too onerous then you can stop offering that service. What you cannot do is decline to offer that service to anyone if you offer it to anyone. It's all or nothing.

One point I made at least once that you ignored is that if the bakery had refused to make a cake for an interracial couple or black couple, they wouldn't have people defending them the way you are.

Because according to the law that he broke in refusing to sell to them, there is no such distinction for the bakery. It offered a service of specialized cakes for weddings, so the bakery is not allowed to discriminate against the buyers as it did by refusing the sale of a personalized cake for their wedding, when that was a specific product and service that the bakery sold. It matters not what we think of it, only what the law said, and the fact that it has been determined he broke state and federal law.

PeterZ wrote:Believe it or not, I understand the distinctions you all have brought up.

What you all refuse to acknowledge is the distinction between a generic service and an expression that conveys an idea or meaning. Providing a drycleaning service conveys no ideas inherent in that service. I agree that any good or service that does not convey an idea is not protected by the 1st.

I contend that any service that does convey such symbolism DOES receive 1st Amendment protection. This is so because conveying such symbols is the essence of protected speech.

I await SCOTUS' decision on this issue. I suspect that it will agree with me. Making the distinction based solely on commerce strikes me as stating that no one from a protected class can be denied when they request any legal service from any service provider. Yet, those not in protected classes can be denied for any reason.

What limiting principle governs this view? Under what conditions can such a request be denied?

Spacekiwi wrote:Because according to the law that he broke in refusing to sell to them, there is no such distinction for the bakery. It offered a service of specialized cakes for weddings, so the bakery is not allowed to discriminate against the buyers as it did by refusing the sale of a personalized cake for their wedding, when that was a specific product and service that the bakery sold. It matters not what we think of it, only what the law said, and the fact that it has been determined he broke state and federal law.

PeterZ wrote:Believe it or not, I understand the distinctions you all have brought up.

What you all refuse to acknowledge is the distinction between a generic service and an expression that conveys an idea or meaning. Providing a drycleaning service conveys no ideas inherent in that service. I agree that any good or service that does not convey an idea is not protected by the 1st.

I contend that any service that does convey such symbolism DOES receive 1st Amendment protection. This is so because conveying such symbols is the essence of protected speech.

Exactly the same basis as refusing a gay couple: even if his religious texts say they are an abomination, none. He may express his opinion to them, freely and frankly, but under your laws, he can not refuse service to them, as that breaks the law, as it was determined to do so back in the 1870's. There is almost 140-150 years in which this has now been acknowledged as the way it works now: the first does not protect you when you break the law.


And again, its not removing the rights of the baker, its saying the business of the bakery must serve all customers equally. Had the bakery two bakers, and the first refused but the second didnt, there would need be no court case, as the bakery would not have broken the law. The problem for him is that he is the owner, so he got sued not as the baker, but as the bakery. No legal problem for an employee, only the employer.

Commerce is not negating the constitution or the amendments to it. the law simply says that in this case, a business is not a person, so must adhere to the laws of business, not the laws of a person. The individual has, and continues to have the rights given by the constitution, so long as you dont break other laws, while a business has its own set of rights and responsibilities which arent written in the constitution, but still needing to be followed.

Employer v employee, business v individual. different circumstances, different rules.

PeterZ wrote:What basis does the baker have to refuse making a cake depicting an interracial couple? On what basis does he assert his 1st Amendment protection?

If he has religious issues, then prove it with doctrine or text that support making such a cake violates his conscience. If unable to prove it, he has no protection. The baker simply disagrees with the practice.

The protection of the 1st Amendment requires two things: that the expression in question functions to convey an idea/symbol and that refusing to perform that expression violates one's conscience. Should the baker have engaged in other activities that are contrary to the religion he purports to adhere to, then his claim is likely false and he cannot deny the couple even this service.

A pacifist has the same protections if asked to express himself/herself to convey violence. Even if the requester is part of a protected class.

To assert that by engaging in business, one has by default given rights granted by the Constitution is simply ridiculous. That means that anyone accepting a wage has given up their Constitutional rights. What is a wage except engaging in commerce? As an employer the Government can legally punish/fine an employee beyond termination or what a private employer could assess that it could not do to someone not employed with it.

Asserting commerce negates Constitutional protection means only the independently wealthy truly are protected. That cannot be what the founders intended.

Well, if the service is offered by the provider, and its a known serivce/good that is regularly sold/not a one off deal(eg for setting a world record sized cake), then yes, that is how your laws seem to be worded and interpreted.

Masterpiece court case wrote: “The act of designing and selling a wedding cake to all customers free of discrimination does not convey a celebratory message about same-sex weddings,” the justices wrote. “To the extent that the public infers from a Masterpiece wedding cake a message celebrating same-sex marriage, that message is more likely to be attributed to the customer than to Masterpiece.”

Apparently, Colorado also has no religious freedom restoration act to allow mild law breaking for the purposes of religion, so hes out of luck there as well.
As for the non protected classes, I would guess so depending on how your laws are worded, but that would probably be due to the non inclusion of them as classes, as opposed to the current inclusion of other classes as protected. Maybe the protected classes need to be reworded to be more broad, but that would be for the amendment process....

PeterZ wrote:I await SCOTUS' decision on this issue. I suspect that it will agree with me. Making the distinction based solely on commerce strikes me as stating that no one from a protected class can be denied when they request any legal service from any service provider. Yet, those not in protected classes can be denied for any reason.

What limiting principle governs this view? Under what conditions can such a request be denied?