Show me a case where a state level “protected class” that was NOT a federal level protected class survived a valid first amendment challenge?
If federal protected classes are accorded more deference than state level protected classes then isn’t it goddam relevant whether its a state protected class or federal protected class?
I’m certain that a person’s disinclination to take interest in legalities would tend to make his or her participation in a conversation around the legalities of a thing, somewhat problematic.
The precept regarding offering all to God is contained in Colossians 3:17.
As for the precepts regarding the sexual relationships under discussion, that’s a can of worms I’m not going to open here.
You can easily find the relevant verses on Google: Bible man “lie with.” You’ll get two million plus hits.
Well I think that’s because so many people have been approaching this case as “religion” vs “gay rights” as opposed to “free speech” vs “gay rights”
You’re basically just saying that baking a custom cake is not art. This court disagrees and I suspect most courts will disagree. I think that you need protected class status to overcome that.
That is not what the judge said. If you read the part I cited above, you will see that it is only the creative process that is protected. If they have already completed the creative process, they cannot discriminate based on who the buyer is. (see catalog example). They cannot make a cake for me and refuse to make the identical cake for you.
That was just an example of something that the baker cannot be forced to do even with a cake in their display.
Let’s be clear: because I didn’t explicitly mention “putting icing on a cake” when I talked about “baking a wedding cake,” you decided it was worth correcting me. And when I said that was a stupid thing for you to do, you decided I must not be interested in the law.
Uh, okay. move over Ginsburg, we got a new legal eagle in town.
“The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.”
If she has already made the cake, then hasn’t she already conceived it? Or does conceived here mean actually make rather than conceive?
OK, well I haven’t read all 800 posts but it seems to me that there is a difference between design and manufacture.
To me it is the design aspect the part that is protected not the manufacture part.
Then it seems like you are ignoring the language you just cited in order to make a stronger argument against a judicial result you do not like.
No, I am saying that perhaps sexual orientation is not as immutable as you are claiming it is. I also don’t think immutability is necessary for protected class (see religion and nationality).
I don’t see how the judge is saying that. If you are ordering off a menu, you are entitled to get the sandwich. Even if you ask for things like extra mayo.
So it isn’t immutable? So maybe you want to rethink whether immutability is a necessary component of protected class status?
I disagree. This case is a first amendment case and if they hold themselves out to the public as making cakes for sale and they make cakes out of a catalog that they make for straight couples, they must also make it for gay couples or the COTFSM couple. They don’t have to put a same sex topper or a colander on the cake but they have to at least make the same cake they already made at least once for that straight couple.
I once heard a weird religious dude once say “guy on guy sex is prohibited but girl on girl action is OK” and it is in fact trivially easy to see prohibitions against male gay sex in the bible but you have to at least make a small leap that “unnatural” sexual acts in women is referring to lesbianism rather than anal sex.
If to prepare and decorate such a cake would violate their consciences, then the legal protections of the First Amendment protect them from State coercion.
But I’m interested in the law, and willing to think about as many aspects of it as necessary to show that a thing is either supportable or insupportable by current law.
If you’re not interested in that, . . . well, then, you’re not interested in that.
If the equal protection requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requirements that stem from it, mean anything, then the bakers *would *have to do so. If their consciences absolutely do not permit that, then they don’t have to be in a public-accommodation business.
Maybe but the opinion does not address freedom of conscience, its about artistic expression. The case is not based on whether they are offended by who will be using their cake, it is based on the creative process involved in making the cake itself.
As the Constitution now stands, the State is legally precluded from penalizing them for exercising or reserving their right to their First Amendment conscience protections, by prohibiting, or in any way interfering with their right to set up and operate any business, even a public-accomodation business, in accordance with those protections.
The Fourteenth amendment doesn’t trump the First Amendment unless the class is federally protected.
Individuals of races other than Caucasian are in a federally protected class.
Individuals who identify as being of a sexual orientation other than heterosexual are not in a federally protected class.
Therefore the First Amendment conscience rights - under discussion - take precedence over the Fourteenth Amendment right of freedom from discrimination - under discussion.
That’s a good question, and one that has been bandied about quite a bit in this thread.
The facts of the matter is that they were not asking her to make a unique cake, but one directly from their “catalogue” of cakes.
You’ll need to ask the judge who made the ruling why he called following directions “designing and creating”
And the design is already done. The couple was not asking for a new design. The manufacture was specifically the part that was being denied.
No, it seems you are missing the entire point of this thread.
Take it you are a fan of gay conversion thearapy, then?
People find their religions to be fairly important and immutable, and I have no idea how you think that national origin is something that you can change. You are born where you are born, you can’t change that without a time machine.
I don’t think you understand what the 14th Amendment or federal civil rights laws do. Except for certain age groups and certain rights accorded to Native Americans, federal law does not create “protected classes.” It creates suspect classifications. Caucasians receive the same protections as members of any other race.