21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.171(d)
The If I Knew You Were Coming Act of 1950.
Please cite where I said anything about a federal law.
<Slow clap>
Murder of Turkey Ham?
Here’s a way I try to approach situations like this. The easiest first check on morality is to substitute gay people with black people because we have more history in dealing with that sort of discrimination. So “baker won’t make wedding cake for gay couple” becomes “baker won’t make wedding cake for black couple.” Try to say your “deeply held religious belief” that all black people are inferior means you don’t have to make them a wedding cake and see how far you get. Protected class or not, that’s discrimination and it’s morally repugnant. It’s also hypocritical to selectively apply such religious beliefs only to gay couples but not divorcees, interracial couples, or any number of other groups that are supposed to be just as bad if not worse according to religious doctrine.
Another way to look at it is to ask if someone is being denied service because of what they “are” or because of what they “do.” This is where I think we need to make the distinction between what’s ok to refuse and what’s not. Saying no erotic cakes, no hate cakes, no violence cakes applies to everyone equally. That’s an example of “do” cakes. Even religion is choice, so no religious cakes would be legitimate IMO, because again it applies to everyone and to what they do, not what they are.
For “are” cakes, these are the things that are inherent and unchangeable, and also which have little to no bearing on the cake either. This is “I won’t make a cake FOR YOU,” regardless of the cake itself. It’s no cakes for black people, no cakes for Muslims, no cakes for Nazis. That’s discrimination plain and simple. Where I think this case gets into the weeds is perhaps because the baker (and maybe some of the SC justices) think being gay is a choice, and thus a “do” rather than an “are.” That makes a gay wedding cake a thing distinct from a straight wedding cake. Of course, to make that argument you’d have to say there’s such a thing as gay wedding photographs, gay houses, gay couture, etc.
So anyone should be able to order any of the types of cakes being offered. However “gay wedding cake” isn’t a thing any more than “black wedding cake” is a thing.
Jjacucyk, since it’s apparently going to be the “Arlene’s Flowers” case that really decides this more deeply, and lower courts have ruled that she needs to actually go to the wedding and coordinate things there: do you believe it’s possible to support rights for gays but still feel like “I don’t want to see it”? I would not be surprised if Anthony Kennedy feels that way.
No he didn’t.
Jack Phillips has been quoted extensively stating he would agree to sell pre-made goods to Mullins and Craig, the gay couple in this case.
From Denver channel 7 news from June 2017
The Chicago Tribune and Vox, and the Huffington Post in December 2017 all report on Phillips’ willingness to sell other pre-made goods to the couple.
The decision Justice Kennedy wrote in Masterpiece Cakeshop begins
It seems, in fact, that Phillips asserted, and the court agreed, that he was willing to sell other pre-made goods to Mullins and Craig but he was not willing to sell a wedding cake for their same sex wedding.
He never offered to sell them pre-made goods. There are no pre-made goods to sell. Mastepiece Cakeshop does NOT have pre-made goods laying around to sell.
Or let me put it this way. The word ‘pre-made’ appears three times in your post, but not once in the Phillips or Kennedy quotes.
Looks like you’re right. Per SCOTUSBlog, from the original court case:
I’m not sure, however, why you are so emphatic about this point…?
But state officials cannot trump the First Amendment.
Because this is GQ and facts matter.
And this has to do with having a conversation with your pastor about the legal difficulties in discriminating against a potential client how exactly?
What are you talking about, exactly?
bolding mine
While the bakery does not have pre-made wedding cakes, it does have lots of other pre-made cakes and other baked goods to sell.
Jack Phillips has been interviewed on video in his shop. There are cakes and other baked goods clearly visible in display cases as well as on the back wall.
My knowledge was first hand and appears to be out of date.
The back wall items are for display and not for sale, but there does appear to be for sale items in the case. I was last in the shop in 2012.
I concede this point.
You asked the questions. How did you manage to confuse yourself? Impressive.
A similar topic - religion vs. rights in Canada:
Basically, Trinity is a religious college that wanted to start a law school. The law societies of some provinces said they would not accredit law graduates from any such school because the students have to sign a statement affirming Christian values which included that marriage was only between a man and a woman. The law societies claimed that a lawyer must accept the law of the land in Canada, discrimination against LGBTQ is illegal and gay marriages are legal, and questioned how such a law school could honestly teach this.
Trinity sued, this is the outcome.
You said:
There is no law that states that. GQ is supposed to be for factual answers, not hypotheticals.