I think that you learned that phrase from us here. It certainly seemed to take quite a while before you accepted that there were any limitations to the 1st, whatsoever, if it conflicted with what your god said. Now that you realize that other people have gods that tell them different things, things that you don’t agree with, it’s now a phrase that you are comfortable with.
But, I am glad that you finally understand that there is a compelling government interest in preventing discrimination.
I seriously cannot believe you still think that your distinction between “baking” and “decorating” is one that anyone is confused by or that you need to keep harping on–and I say this as someone who’s worked as a baker and who does a modicum of cake decorating. Let it go!
I read your case (here, for people who don’t want to have to go check all the time stamps). It absolutely doesn’t establish a case that first amendment protections should be triggered; on the contrary, it sets up this “everything for God” standard that would allow people to refuse any sort of good or service whatsoever for whatever bigoted religious reason they can come up with.
Given that “first” is totally wrong–as I pointed out first amendment protections are legally infringed on all the time–the rest is a helluva lot more important.
The government has as much compelling interest in preventing discrimination had it does telling me how many consenting spouses I can have. At least in my trilithon, everyone involved has agreed. In a case of discrimination, the wounded party most certainly has not consented.
Besides, YOU were the one who said
You don’t seem to make any exceptions in there for “compelling interest.”
Eta: your phrase of the week is “don’t make blanket statements that even you contradict.” Study it. Learn it.
This legal theory may or may not hold up for long.
By the way did you know that the dictionary definition of bigot is 1. someone so attached to his own ideas that he can’t abide anyone differing from him. and 2. someone so attached to his own racial, religious, class, ethnic, sexual, etc. group that he can’t abide those who are not of his own.
I don’t agree that people with unPC views are necessarily bigots.
I realize that’s what über-PC-männer call all people with unPC views.
And that, indiscriminately.
Because über-PC-männer don’t know how to, . . . you know . . . discriminate.
So for the record, if anyone hears anyone use the word “bigot,” the proper response is" “Jawohl! Herr über-PC-mann”.
And make it snappy, Pappy.
You know, your message would be better received if perhaps it wasn’t so sharp. Or perhaps not, but what do you have to lose?
If it were me, I’d dial back the need to respond to everyone and respond only to those who you actually are discussing issues with. Let the snide comments pass you buy. I see that you can make a point, but you’re losing that ability in the harshness of your tone.
Honestly, friendly advice, nothing more.
Miller, we’ll always have Paris . . . er, the Straight Dope Board.
But, darlin’, ain’t it time we said good-bye?
That comes under “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
Well… He’s a moderator. I don’t think he’s gonna leave.
Yeah, that bit made me go back and reread the fourteenth amendment–was I forgetting something?
The fact that “sexual orientation” doesn’t appear in there is barely significant, and only because it means that it’s not an exception carved out from the general rule of equal treatment.
But I’m not entirely clear on how the fourteenth amendment applies to public accommodation cases, to be honest–this is probably something I should read up on, and would welcome salient links.
The 14th is the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ensures equal access to public accommodations.
Duly noted.
Wasn’t trying to be harsh.
Thought I was trying to be breezy. That’s not a good “look” for me is it.
I’m really not a breezy gal.
Thanks, Morgenstern.
BTW, I have a terrible temper, and I do melt down when I get stressed, but I don’t hold grudges. I’ve actually tried. Can’t do it, for love or money.
Right you are. And CRA 1964 doesn’t mention SO, either.
Trust me, more than one of us has had to take a walk around the block a time or two. It changes everything when you do. 
Considering that you’re actively working to make me a second class citizen in my own country… no, sorry, this isn’t a “agree to disagree” thing. As long as your pushing against my rights, I’m going to be pushing back.
No!!! I didn’t mean leave!!!
That’s not what I meant.
I would NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER have the chutzpah to tell someone to leave.
Even on boards where I’m an old-timer. YIKES.
Miller, if you’re reading this, that’s 100% NOT what I meant.
I just meant, I won’t argue with you anymore, Miller, and I’m almost afraid to answer you even.
Because I’m afraid I’ll irritate you. Like I did before.
You seemed to be just a tad frustrated with my posts the other day.
And I thought, Eu, disengage. It’s kinder to both of you.
All I meant was, I think I’ll probably give that thru the weekend or so.
That’s all I meant.
Egads.
My understanding is that public accommodation rules from Title II of the Civil Rights Act are predicated on the commerce clause, not the 14th amendment. See Katzenbach v. McClung
Title II doesn’t mention sexual orientation, but it does start with “all persons”.
“Any person”. Any.
We can theorize about the free exercise aspects of this case.
Before we do though you might consider why the judge and the attorneys for the baker chose to make it about free speech and not free exercise (hint: they had a better case on free speech grounds).
Bone is correct; Elvis and Euphronsyne are wrong. This article is excellent.
Briefly, Congress tried to ban private discrimination immediately after the Civil War, based on the authority of the fourteenth amendment, and were shot down by the Supreme Court. XIV only forbids state discrimination and has no leeway for laws banning private discrimination.
It was nearly a century later that the “commerce” theory for banning public accommodation discrimination was put into legislation, and this time, the Supreme Court upheld the law.
I don’t see any way that the fourteenth amendment would allow federal antidiscrimination law. In this case, though, it’s a state law that we’re talking about, so the distinction I earlier dismissed from someone (morgenstern?) as irrelevant suddenly becomes relevant: states don’t need constitutional authority for having antidiscrimination laws. The fourteenth amendment is still irrelevant to them.
The first amendment circumscribes their legislation, of course, but only to the extent that they need to show a compelling state interest that cannot be met in a less restrictive fashion.
This case triggers two first amendment concerns:
As near as I can tell, the first amendment is implicated in the second way; but the judge minimizes this way. Even if it’s not minimized, the state’s interest in maintaining robust antidiscrimination laws is a compelling interest, and upholding this ruling would devastate those laws.
So. Say I lived near Kiryas Joel, NY and went across the eruv, and walked into one of the bakeries owned and operated by Yiddish-speaking Hasidim. And I told the proprietor: “I want to order a cake to celebrate my friend’s ordination as a Catholic priest. Can you please put a rosary made of those little silver BBs, and also can you make a nice crucifix on the end of it, with the figure of Christ on the cross? I’ll pick it up next Thursday.”
If the proprietor told me, "Christ on a cake? No. We don’t make such a cake here. You go back to some *goyim *bakery where you live; they’ll help you.
So. Am I now a second-class citizen?