The constitution limits the amount of screwed up mess mankind can put unto gods laws. What do you think it is?weve already established you think the feds are god and the constitution is the commie scripture
Appeals court rules in favor of gay marriage in Kentucky
- Thread starter mstp1992
- Start date
It's something that I think we need to define in a way that works out for everyone. I personally think it should involve just someone's conscious and not just religious beliefs. But I find that the people who are in favor of telling bakers they have to make wedding cakes for gay couples rarely would object to a printing company refusing to print off hate speech for a hate group. But it is in the end the same thing.
So if the Christian baker has to make gay wedding cakes then the black guy who owns a printing company has to print off White Power signs for the KKK so long as they have the money to pay. Personally I don't much like that idea though because it would encourage people to seek out business owners they know that disagree with them and try to force them to violate their conscious. And there have been some allegations that I don't think are entirely false that the bakeries that have been punished for refusing to make these cakes where specifically targeted by the people making complaints against them for the express purpose of either forcing them to do something to violate their conscious or to force them to pony up fines for "discrimination"
However I don't think religious objections work in a governmental capacity. Your job there is to follow the law and if following the law violates your conscious then you need to resign.
There's a concept of businesses of public accommodation which nicely explains why most bakers are not like most printing houses.
If we specifically defined "participation" as something like, "Actively taking part in, at the same time/place", how many would agree to a blanket exemption from public accommodation laws?
What I mean by that: Not a "Religious Freedom" exemption, not a conscientious objector exemption, but a blanket.............you can turn down anyone you wish, as long as the business is a "participatory" business.
What I mean by that: Not a "Religious Freedom" exemption, not a conscientious objector exemption, but a blanket.............you can turn down anyone you wish, as long as the business is a "participatory" business.
I don't see a bakery as a public accommodation any more then a printing business. Since wedding cakes are specifically ordered and specifically made for that express purpose. It is not like a baker just makes 200 wedding cakes that are all the same and you just buy one and take one home. If that was the case I would agree with you.
But wedding cakes are a to order thing involving personal touches requested by the customer. Much like a print business.
I just detailed this a little above but I think when you are doing something customized to order it's a little bit different from just selling someone something that you sell essentially the same thing to 200 other customers.
If I own a restaurant and someone orders eggs and bacon, there is nothing measurable there that defines the difference between that plate of eggs and bacon and every other plate of eggs and bacon.
A cake is customized to order specifically for a specific wedding. The baker must write on there "bob and steve" and place the two grooms on it. One can note a difference between the cake sold for this wedding and those sold for another wedding.
A wedding cake baker could probably structure their business so as to fall outside of the definition of a business of public accommodation. But my guess is most wedding cake makers run a standard bakery which serves food on the premises for immediate consumption. This puts them under the definition of a public accommodation and means they can't discriminate. If a religious person really wants to be able to discriminate in their baked goods all they would need do is change the structure of their corporation to a private club or spin the wedding cake portion of their business off into another corporate entity that didn't provide immediate food offerings on the premises. In that way, the bakery would have the same protections the printing house enjoys and could turn down orders. But they can't have their cake and eat it too.
Actually I was looking into the definition and it seems "bakery" is specifically listed in the federal law.
I would just do what the one baker did honestly. . . Stop selling wedding cakes. . . Although given that liberals have used daddy government to force pharmacists who own their own pharmacies to sell Plan B against their wishes I see no reason to believe that they will stop there.
Honestly give it 5 to 10 years I have no reason to believe that they won't sue and win a court order forcing him to sell wedding cakes.
I honestly think most liberals think that freedom of religion only means freedom of worship.
Not trying to destroy that. But this is the reality of the situation.
If it's just a simple matter of no longer making wedding cakes. . . sure no problem. But the problem is there is precedent for liberals using a private business to sell something they religiously object to selling.
So why don't you explain to me why I should believe that over time that precedent won't be used to force bakers to make wedding cakes when they don't want to??
Instead of ignoring history, as you seem want to do, how about this:
I would be on your "side" on that issue, and will work with you to make sure it doesn't happen.
I appreciate that but how am I ignoring history when I've specifically brought up the precedent that private pharmacies have been forced to carry Plan B and other contraceptive drugs against their objections.
Based on what you are telling me it sounds as if they should have the right to just say "no I won't sell that product to anyone" But that isn't the case is it?
That is history. What history suggests that precedent won't be applied elsewhere?
Same old Hoosier, different day. Always seems to start out with reasonable responses. Then BAM!!! he turns into Pat Robertson during a fundraiser for the 700 club. Some things never change.
I think a traditional walk in pharmacy would also be a business of public accommodation. I wonder if an online one would? I doubt it. You could run your wedding cake business online and probably get around the rules too.
The law isn't setup this way, but my personal belief if contracted items (meaning specialized individualized products or services) should not be in the realm of public accommodation. I think that strikes the proper balance and seems to fit with what you were saying above.
Everyone is talking to me like I'm inventing something from left field but I'm citing an actual precedent that actually happened.
How about instead of making statements like this you explain to me why this precedent can't be used for the situation that I described?
Maybe I am mistaken, but pretty sure you've got the Plan B stuff backwards.
Do you think in the 12 months you've been absent, everyone just forgot about your posting style? Go back and read your initial response to this thread. Well thought out, reasonable, etc. I was actually nodding in agreement while I was reading it. Then read the post I quoted. Somewhere along the line, somebody obviously offended you because they didn't quote scripture in order to make a decision on this topic. Again, it's the same Hoosier, different day. Good to have you back though.
I did some searching and as far as I can see it seems to depend upon the state and some courts have struck down laws in that regard.
So I partially withdraw my comments with the note that I believe it is required in some states.
That isn't what I asked for. I asked for a reason why this precedent can't be used for other things.
Did a little more looking and it seems court decisions are mixed. This one I guess is waiting on a SCOTUS ruling to get a firm answer.
Illinois state courts said they can't require pharmacies to carry it but a federal court ruled that Washington can.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...on-can-require-pharmacies-to-dispense-plan-b/
I admit to being mistaken as I thought it was nation wide or nearly nation wide. If it where to become nation wide I would be extremely concerned about the precedent that a business could be forced to sell a product.
If it the SCOTUS where to rule that states can't require pharmacies to sell Plan B I would feel much better about this and other situations regarding religious freedom.
Last edited:
You were wrong about the precedent as natural and IowaHawk have pointed out already. Did you want me to expand further than they already have?
You could have pointed that out. And actually I'm partially wrong about it and they are too. This issue hasn't been decided and some courts have allowed it while others rejected it. So in some places it is a precedent that the court can order you to sell something against your will.
Remember this isn't a case of a business refusing to sell a certain product to a certain person. This is a case of a business literally saying, "We do not wish to sell this product" and the court in Washington saying "You must". To be fair the court in Illinois affirmed that they did not have to sell a specific product.
The law orders companies to sell things against their will all the time. I just got a new oven and the law forced the installer to sell a particular type of gas valve and some no tip floor mount. I think it's good that the law forces pharmacies to sell pharmaceuticals. Thats good government.
How did the law force him to sell a particular type of gas valve or floor mount? Are you sure that company wasn't selling them of their own free will because they knew people would buy it to go with their oven. I've honestly never heard of this.
Can you show me any case from common sense where the law specifically requires a company to sell a certain product. Please note that I'm not talking about standards on that product. For example no one requires a company to sell car seats but they do require that the car seats that they do sell to meet standards set by the NTSB.
Hoos, can you link me to something that supports your claim on Plan B? I'm intrigued, but can't look it up right now.
The gas valve I had didn't have the right sort of shut off handle, so regulations required a new gas valve and a tip plate or they wouldn't install the oven. I'm not an expert in the field of home cooking regulations, but the installer told me it was the law, so I signed the contract and they installed both items with the oven. My father rents apartments and there are regulations about what must be in the apartment to rent it out. You mentioned cars. I think all car manufacturers are required by law to include a variety of mandated devices and features. I think this sort of consumer protection regulation is pretty common.
I personally want it to be the case that when I go to the pharmacist, they are required by law to give me the medicine my doctor proscribes. I think thats good policy which protects important civil rights.
I disagree with Nat on that one. I think his example is confused and off point.
I'd need a helluva lot more convincing to force sales of specific products.
I'd need a helluva lot more convincing to force sales of specific products.
This lady in Kentucky taking it. tosupreme court now she had standing religion is in there activists trampling her rights
That's different. I understand where you and Nat are going with it, I just think it is non-comparable to what Hoosier is discussing.
OiT: I know you're crazy, but as a medical professional I suggest you have someone check your prescription bottle. I'm afraid you might be double-dosing.
So you think its fine to take your issues tothe supremes but not this lady's. Because she's a relgious whack job? How equal of you
You don't see a consumer protection need to force pharmacies to fill prescriptions? Especially prescriptions that are time sensitive like the plan B medication? The only comparable quality offered was that the government does force companies to sell particular products in all sorts of businesses.
Are you saying SCOTUS is going to hear this case or just that she wants them to?
