Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > The Constitution & The Judicial Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

The Constitution & The Judicial Branch Discuss A win for free conscience and expresion at the Political Forums; I have stood on this point of law for years. The creation of an art piece is at the discretion ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-07-2018, 09:50 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,446
Thanks: 7,514
Thanked 10,449 Times in 5,912 Posts
Default A win for free conscience and expresion

I have stood on this point of law for years. The creation of an art piece is at the discretion of the creator. It is not a commodity product.

Decoration of a wedding cake is not a commodity. It is an art form.


Judge rules in favor of the baker.!!!
Judge: Wedding Cakes are Work of Art, Protected by First Amendment – GOPUSA

“A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell a tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples. There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire. No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Lampe wrote.

His distinction, he said, is between the act of selling a product to a same-sex couple and creating a product for the same couple.

“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” Lampe wrote. “The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. 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.”
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Last edited by FrancSevin; 02-07-2018 at 10:07 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-07-2018, 10:17 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,450
Thanks: 10,041
Thanked 15,179 Times in 9,202 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

It's fairly simple.
If a baker would sell the below cake to a straight couple but not a gay couple, where those discrimination laws exist the baker is breaking the law.
It doesn't matter if it is already baked or not yet baked. In fact, given wedding cakes advance notice requirements, it would be absurd to think that this has ever been an important factor in any previous wedding cake decision. It would be a safe bet that every anti-gay wedding baker case has involved a request for a cake to be made.

So if the baker is asked to create a cake which has intricate sucrose gears to facilitate toy doves to circle the cake and a robot which serves the cake to guests...
... and the baker would never bake that cake for anybody...
... then that's legal.

But the judge here takes a different distinction which will likely get tossed on a review of the County judge's ruling.

He claims that it's illegal to discriminate after the cake is baked, but is legal to discriminate before the cake is baked.
By that stunted reasoning, any place could discriminate against blacks / gays / all the other groups covered by Civil Rights legislation as long as you discriminate BEFORE the food is prepared.

If the hamburger is already created? You can't discriminate.
If the hamburger is not yet made, then somehow that's covered...


It's an absurd slippery slope which would set a precedent which would allow all sorts of discriminatory hair splitting that has never been allowed before.
It's even more absurd as it's already been rejected that "religion" is not a valid excuse, but now they seek to make "creativity" the excuse?
Seriously???

All it takes is a simple question:
* Would you prepare that cake for a straight couple who came in asking you to bake the cake?
If the answer is yes, then it's a violation of the law.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-07-2018, 10:46 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,004
Thanks: 8,560
Thanked 7,013 Times in 4,247 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
I have stood on this point of law for years. The creation of an art piece is at the discretion of the creator. It is not a commodity product.

Decoration of a wedding cake is not a commodity. It is an art form.


Judge rules in favor of the baker.!!!
Judge: Wedding Cakes are Work of Art, Protected by First Amendment – GOPUSA

“A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell a tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples. There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire. No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Lampe wrote.

His distinction, he said, is between the act of selling a product to a same-sex couple and creating a product for the same couple.

“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” Lampe wrote. “The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. 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.”
Interesting that a judge would resort to calling a custom made cake art, but I agree with the ruling. No one should be forced to work for anyone for any reason.

Seems to me that the First amendment is clear. Religious belief's are protected. Along with expression and press. Nowhere is there any mention of some groups being more protected than others, particularly at the
expense of the bill of rights.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-07-2018, 10:49 AM
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,451
Thanks: 327
Thanked 1,731 Times in 1,061 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
It's fairly simple.
If a baker would sell the below cake to a straight couple but not a gay couple, where those discrimination laws exist the baker is breaking the law.
It doesn't matter if it is already baked or not yet baked. In fact, given wedding cakes advance notice requirements, it would be absurd to think that this has ever been an important factor in any previous wedding cake decision. It would be a safe bet that every anti-gay wedding baker case has involved a request for a cake to be made.

So if the baker is asked to create a cake which has intricate sucrose gears to facilitate toy doves to circle the cake and a robot which serves the cake to guests...
... and the baker would never bake that cake for anybody...
... then that's legal.

But the judge here takes a different distinction which will likely get tossed on a review of the County judge's ruling.

He claims that it's illegal to discriminate after the cake is baked, but is legal to discriminate before the cake is baked.
By that stunted reasoning, any place could discriminate against blacks / gays / all the other groups covered by Civil Rights legislation as long as you discriminate BEFORE the food is prepared.

If the hamburger is already created? You can't discriminate.
If the hamburger is not yet made, then somehow that's covered...


It's an absurd slippery slope which would set a precedent which would allow all sorts of discriminatory hair splitting that has never been allowed before.
It's even more absurd as it's already been rejected that "religion" is not a valid excuse, but now they seek to make "creativity" the excuse?
Seriously???

All it takes is a simple question:
* Would you prepare that cake for a straight couple who came in asking you to bake the cake?
If the answer is yes, then it's a violation of the law.
And if it is a violation of the law, then the law violates the first amendment of the constitution of the United States.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to loboloco For This Useful Post:
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 02-07-2018, 11:32 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,446
Thanks: 7,514
Thanked 10,449 Times in 5,912 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by loboloco View Post
And if it is a violation of the law, then the law violates the first amendment of the constitution of the United States.
Bingo!!!!

This clarification can now be extended to any custom work. For instance, if I make a standard modest wedding dress and place it on the rack for sale, I must sell it to anyone who is willing to pay for it. And that would likely include making the same dress a different size. However, if someone requested that I make them a special "creation," I can refuse anyone's request if what they ask offends me.

However, if I sell pizzas and offer to cater weddings, I cannot legally refuse make the same products to cater a gay wedding.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Last edited by FrancSevin; 02-07-2018 at 11:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 02-07-2018, 11:56 AM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 53,134
Thanks: 2,059
Thanked 32,844 Times in 19,114 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
It's fairly simple.
If a baker would sell the below cake to a straight couple but not a gay couple, where those discrimination laws exist the baker is breaking the law.
...unless the law, itself, is unconstitutional because it discriminates against religious beliefs...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 02-07-2018, 12:14 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,446
Thanks: 7,514
Thanked 10,449 Times in 5,912 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Interesting that a judge would resort to calling a custom made cake art, but I agree with the ruling. No one should be forced to work for anyone for any reason.

Seems to me that the First amendment is clear. Religious belief's are protected. Along with expression and press. Nowhere is there any mention of some groups being more protected than others, particularly at the
expense of the bill of rights.
^^ is hung up on the concept of "selling" a cake. where as this interpretation draws a line between a product "the cake" and a unique construction of "the cake" The baker cannot refuse to sell a cake he bakes for anyone, but he can refuse to uniquely decorate one with art of which he does not approve.

The cake being synonymous with the word "product"
In the case of a photographer, there is the question of not only art but "participation" in making "the cake" as part of the marriage ceremony. to which the artist has moral or religious objections.

Can Office Depot refuse to print pornography? That line is still ambiguous but will likely be tested.

The courts can draw any line they choose, and they arrogantly continue to do so. Much to the annoyance of our citizens. And often in direct opposition to the majority decisions of those citizens who approved those laws by vote.

But what this judge has determined would be that they cannot draw that line through the laws of our land all of which must be measured to the metric written in our compact charter,,,; ie; The Constitution.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Last edited by FrancSevin; 02-07-2018 at 12:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 02-10-2018, 09:22 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,450
Thanks: 10,041
Thanked 15,179 Times in 9,202 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
...unless the law, itself, is unconstitutional because it discriminates against religious beliefs...
And as I have pointed out numerous times, these laws have been around for decades. Survived numerous constitutional challenges.

1964 Civil Rights Act did not allow people to say "religious reasons" to get around discrimination laws based on religion, race, gender, etc, etc...


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
^^ is hung up on the concept of "selling" a cake. where as this interpretation draws a line between a product "the cake" and a unique construction of "the cake" The baker cannot refuse to sell a cake he bakes for anyone, but he can refuse to uniquely decorate one with art of which he does not approve.
If you're referring to me, I addressed that.
And the whole concept revolves around selling the cake cause that's what the whole business is about. Selling the cake.
Bakers aren't paid for "designing" a cake they never create.
The anti-business discrimination laws aren't covering acts which aren't covered by the business act...


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
The cake being synonymous with the word "product"
In the case of a photographer, there is the question of not only art but "participation" in making "the cake" as part of the marriage ceremony. to which the artist has moral or religious objections.
Honestly, this is where the judge starts to devolve and become closer to an easier "over-ruled" in the future. He starts to reach territory which has already been covered in previous attempts to ignore these laws. Those legal challenges failed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
Can Office Depot refuse to print pornography? That line is still ambiguous but will likely be tested.
Such attempts at examples only indicate how people like you have no freakin' clue as to what's going on and you don't care to try to understand.
"printing pornography" has nothing to do with discriminating on basis of sexual orientation. Thus it's a piss-poor example attempt.

If Office Depot refused to print ALL pornography, then they are safe.
If they insisted on printing ONLY STRAIGHT pornography but never gay pornography, then that would be a violation of these laws.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
The courts can draw any line they choose, and they arrogantly continue to do so. Much to the annoyance of our citizens. And often in direct opposition to the majority decisions of those citizens who approved those laws by vote.
You're getting lost in an attempt to create a rant which is ignoring the reality of the actual subject matter of anti-sexual orientation discrimination laws.

The courts are requiring the laws be observed.
Laws which are passed by majorities.
Laws which are supported by majorities in every poll on the subject.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin
But what this judge has determined would be that they cannot draw that line through the laws of our land all of which must be measured to the metric written in our compact charter,,,; ie; The Constitution.

I've already laid out the only way this will pass muster.
The very description of the case repeats the same rejected excuses with the exception of talking about "creating" the cake.
I've already covered how this would / would not qualify as anti-sexual orientation discrimination.

The way the articles read on the issue, the judge will easily be over-ruled.
The right got the right judge to buy their excuse, but it'll never pass up the court chain.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2018, 06:01 AM
jamesrage's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,976
Thanks: 930
Thanked 1,119 Times in 709 Posts
Default Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
I have stood on this point of law for years. The creation of an art piece is at the discretion of the creator. It is not a commodity product.

Decoration of a wedding cake is not a commodity. It is an art form.


Judge rules in favor of the baker.!!!
Judge: Wedding Cakes are Work of Art, Protected by First Amendment – GOPUSA

“A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell a tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples. There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire. No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Lampe wrote.

His distinction, he said, is between the act of selling a product to a same-sex couple and creating a product for the same couple.

“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” Lampe wrote. “The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. 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.”
Hopefully the supreme court will uphold this ruling. People should not risk losing their business because they wish to follow their conscience. Just as a black dry cleaner owner should be allowed to refuse to dry clean a KKK costume, a gay print shop owner should be allowed to refuse to make signs for a anti-gay protest and a jewish baker should be allowed to to bake a Adolph Hitler Birthday cake. A christian who disagrees with gay marriage shouldn't be forced to make a cake for them just because he or she wants to stay in business. Heck it shouldn't matter what the proprietor's religion,sexual orientation or race is.This is what I like that about this ruling and how the cake shop owner went about it. Because not everyone who finds something morally repugnant a religious person.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2018, 03:04 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,450
Thanks: 10,041
Thanked 15,179 Times in 9,202 Posts
Post Re: A win for free conscience and expresion

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
Hopefully the supreme court will uphold this ruling. People should not risk losing their business because they wish to follow their conscience. Just as a black dry cleaner owner should be allowed to refuse to dry clean a KKK costume...
There is absolutely nothing in the law which would require such service.
People need to read what the law says instead of knee-jerking their thoughts on what they think would happen.
If the owner would refuse to dry clean a KKK costume regardless of who brought it in, that's within the law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
... a gay print shop owner should be allowed to refuse to make signs for a anti-gay protest ...
There is absolutely nothing in the law which would require such service.
People need to read what the law says instead of knee-jerking their thoughts on what they think would happen.
If the owner would refuse to make anti-gay protest signs regardless of who requested it, that's within the law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
...and a jewish baker should be allowed to to bake a Adolph Hitler Birthday cake.
There is absolutely nothing in the law which would require such service.
People need to read what the law says instead of knee-jerking their thoughts on what they think would happen.
If the owner would refuse to make an Adolph Hitler Birthday cake regardless of who requested it, that's within the law.

That's why I kept going back to whether or not the baker would have provided the exact same request for other people.
If the answer is YES, then the lawsuit is bound to come out against the baker...


There is a very limited list of characteristics under which public business discrimination is not allows.
Examples include race, gender, religion, and in some areas sexual orientation.
Other items are also included, but it's a very small list.

The above scenarios you list would not be on that list.


And one thing that I routinely see ignored by most people is that if this excuse is allowed for this, it would be a radical shift in how the laws have been applied.
"Sexual orientation" is just one characteristic that was added to the law books with the same legal template that other groups have had for over half a century.

If somebody can say "religious exemption" for sexual orientation, then they can do the same for any other situation.
Don't want to serve somebody who is black? Say "religious exemption" and it's suddenly legal to do so...
And if somebody wants to start pretending that it's wrong to put such groups as "religious", that's because you're applying your standards to their religious beliefs.

And make no doubts about it. They do put forth religious justification...
KKK Leader Disputes Hate Group Label: ‘We’re A Christian Organization’
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
and, conscience, expresion, for, free, win

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0