They did - they essentially remanded to the agency to let them let it die quietly, without saying in so many words "now that you've shown yourself to be a religious bigot, you can't really unring that bell going forward."
What religion would she be claiming that is part of their creed? I am not aware of any that would be recognized as a valid constitutional argument.
The reality is that, at the least given Cakeshop and Fulton, the question of whether a business activity can involve "speech" that implicates the first amendment is a ship that has already sailed. Now, it is perfectly reasonable to argue about whether particular businesses involve speech -- or even if they do, whether that speech is reasonably attributed to the business rather than the customer -- but it's really too simple to just say public accommodations laws are completely unaffected by businesses that involve speech.
The couple in his shop never got a chance to tell him what they wanted. They never even looked through the book. He told them he wasn't baking a specific cake for a gay wedding regardless of any message. He refused to bake them a cake like this...
What are you talking about? There is no "general sense". There is a test case involving a specific person or entity. The "general sense" derives from the ruling. The Lovings were convicted of violating Virginia's law banning interracial marriage. They took it to court. It was the SC that overturned the law based on that specific case. If this woman refuses to create a web site for a black candidate because she doesn't serve blacks, that person would take their case to court.
The couple in his shop never got a chance to tell him what they wanted. They never even looked through the book. He told them he wasn't baking a specific cake for a gay wedding regardless of any message. He refused to bake them a cake like this...
...which has NO MESSAGE AT ALL. He would object to this on his cake...
...and it's completely gender neutral.
An individual offering creative service -- website design, photography, etc -- should be able to discriminate.
From my understanding this is not correct. He offered to have them choose any of the generic cakes but would not do a custom cake for them.The couple in his shop never got a chance to tell him what they wanted. They never even looked through the book. He told them he wasn't baking a specific cake for a gay wedding regardless of any message. He refused to bake them a cake like this...
...which has NO MESSAGE AT ALL. He would object to this on his cake...
...and it's completely gender neutral.
Political beliefs are not a protected class. The hypothetical was she wouldn't do it because the candidate is black and she doesn't serve blacks as part of her religious beliefs. But let's make it simple...how many women serve in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?
That's what I said.
Let me get this straight, the leftists on this board defend FB and Twitter, Google etc. saying they are private companies so they can censor whatever they want, they own the forums. But now a baker refuses to participate in a gay wedding or a web designer who refuses to design a web page for a gay organization, and you are now saying in those circumstances the private businesses don't have the right to refuse the work. Hypocrite much?
He wasn't going to make a custom cake but they could buy any of the standard cakes. He didn't refuse to serve them, he refused to create the message on their cake. He would have refused to make a same sex marriage cake for a straight person as well.
You're really off the beam here. He refused to bake ANY wedding cake for them. He had sheet cakes and layer cakes in the cases that he offered them. Ever been to a wedding where the cake was a sheet cake? They wanted a WEDDING CAKE so, yes, he refused to serve them. Period. Your idea of "service" is a bit odd...."No, I won't sell you what you want but you can buy anything in the bargain bin over there".
LOL...basically yes...and if a pattern of behavior is established demonstrating that she refuses to do work for any candidate because that candidate is black, she can be sued and she will lose. How do you think that's different from refusing to rent to black people because they are black?
The web designer can refuse to have anything to do with hate speech. The web designer can also refuse to do any wedding web sites.
Would that mean a Methodist hospital could refuse to recognize the rights of a same-sex spouse and refuse visitation and other related rights? These lines can get messy fast.
It's. Providing. A. Service. There is no speech involved in baking a generic wedding cake for a gay couple, yet the baker refused. Again - he claimed that act of making a wedding cake for a gay couple was a violation of his religious views. This ain't hard.
Who decides what is hate speech? You know that even hate speech is protected by 1A, right?
Huh? That just means the govt can't directly regulate it. A private business has no such restriction.
