There is no law that says that you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in Colorado?
Then what did this baker spend so much time, effort, and money fighting? He should have just said, “Some guy on the internet said, ‘There is no law that states that.’” then he could have gone back to his normal bigoted day.
I thought you were making a joke the first time. Now I think you do not know what those mean.
21 USC §461 is a federal law defining the penalty for various offences related to mishandling, mislabeling, or impermissible processing of poultry products. It also defines assaulting or murdering a poultry inspector in the course of his duties as a federal offence.
9 CFR §381.171(d) is in a regulation providing Definition and standard for “Turkey Ham.”
So Turkey Ham is ok on a food label.
But Ham Turkey is not - wrong word order.
And Turkey Ham is not - different fonts
Neither have anything to do whatsoever with the issues at hand in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
This is true, but I think he was responding to D’Anconia’s posts, wherein D’Anconia claimed that government officials cannot “trump the first amendment”. Not that D’anconia’s posts had anything at all to do with the issues at hand in the case at hand, but I believe that kayaker was just pointing out that yes, yes indeed government officials can “trump the first amendment”, and provides these as his cite.
This I assume was a way to set out what the law requires to avoid deceptive labelling. Truth in labelling and advertising is in the public interest. The first amendment is not absolute, or there wouldn’t be a law against perjury. The government can describe what it takes to accurately label a product, or any other activity where dishonesty is a crime. (Including playing font games to mislabel something).
I think it was Robert Heinlein who said if you want to see what people were in the habit of doing, look at what they have laws against.
Commercial speech is not held to the same level of Constitutional scrutiny as Free Exercise of religion is. As business owners, both you and kayaker should already know that.
Since the reason he didn’t make the cake was that it was for the wedding of a gay couple (a legal act in the entire USA since Obergefell v. Hodges), and homosexuality is against his religious beliefs.
Using that same reasoning, he shouldn’t make any other product for homosexuals. Yet he says that Craig and Mullins are welcome in his shop to purchase any other products. So birthdays for gays are OK, just not weddings?
The foundation for the biblical stance against homosexuality, Leviticus 20:13:
Yet Phillips did not put the men to death, as the Bible commands. How is he following his religion if he doesn’t kill same-sex couples that have admitted to him (by inference) that they have layed down with each other?
The entire point of this argument is in determining whether or not the baker is performing commercial speech or free exercise of religion. So, it’s not really a done deal as you seem to be thinking it is.
And in any case, you have not explained why you think that you should be using the hypothetical case that the law may be overturned when talking to your pastor about a law that is on the books.
No, the question is whether one person’s free exercise of religion (one right) trumps (sorry) the other persons’ right not to be discriminated against or vice versa.
It is perhaps a relevant but peripheral question how much the work of the baker is commercial speech vs. personal speech. Artwork is personal, making commodities for sale is commercial.
That’s not correct. Commercial speech is primarily advertising. Free Exercise is totally different, and has a higher level of Constitutional protection.
Once again we see a sort of No True Scotsman argument.
Court precedent clearly indicates that a person raising a religious objection argument need not conform to what another person thinks should be his beliefs.
So it does not matter if a baker says his Christian beliefs preclude him from baking a cake for a same sex wedding even though the baker wears a shirt made of mixed fabrics that an outside observer might think he shouldn’t wear if he was a “true” Christian. The court precedent robustly permits religious claims from so called Cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which beliefs to adhere to.
This is not to say that a court could not rule against such religious objection on other neutral grounds. But a court is NOT in the business of deciding whether a particular religious faith requires holding a particular belief. A court can examine whether a professed belief is sincerely held.