The Fatal Flaw in the Bakers’ Free Speech Argument

Feb 2010
28,697
30,392
Sunny Bournemouth, Dorset
You can't force a Christian contractor to build a brothel in Nevada, and you can't force a Christian baker to create gay wedding cakes.

We have religious freedom. As long as Democrats don't get elected
How does a gay cake differ from a straight one? What are the ingredients? Is the love different?
 
Jul 2013
38,895
24,977
On a happy trail
You can't force a Christian contractor to build a brothel in Nevada, and you can't force a Christian baker to create gay wedding cakes.

We have religious freedom. As long as Democrats don't get elected
Is the religious objections of the contractor valid for the life of the building? Meaning that the building can never be used as a brothel?
 
Likes: labrea
Apr 2019
12
13
Texas
I would argue that if I'm willing to pay for a cake from the baker's catalogue, then it's mine to do with as I please. If I want to eat the wedding cake all by myself while watching the final episode of "Game of Thrones," the baker is free to think "That's really weird," but ultimately, it's no different than my ordering several dozen McDonald's hamburgers in order to use them as Christmas tree decorations. They're my hamburgers, and as long as I'm not intending to use them for something illegal, what business is it of the baker - or the McDonald's worker - to second-guess my motives?
Yes, there may be some law that he violates by offering a product, and then refusing to provide it. But it’s not the law he was charged with violating – the public accommodation/non-discrimination law. That law only kicks in if he denies service because of the asserted class status of the person making the charge. Maybe there’s some kind of consumer protection law that he broke. I’m not saying there’s no violation of any law (I have often wondered about those pictures of him decorating cakes with all that hair hanging out - isn’t that a health code violation?). I’m just saying it doesn’t qualify as unlawful discrimination because his decision was not based on the sexual orientation of the customers.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
74,549
43,277
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Combine that with a Swing Judge on the Supreme Court named Kennedy and the Judges basically disenfranchise the votes of the people. Its called "Judicial activism."
No, it is called "you cannot vote away other people's rights." What you call "judicial activism" is what you advocate ... you want judicial opinions that comport with your beliefs and not the Constitution.
 
Nov 2008
62,766
4,829
Washington state
No, it is called "you cannot vote away other people's rights." What you call "judicial activism" is what you advocate ... you want judicial opinions that comport with your beliefs and not the Constitution.
If that were true then why are Democrats opposed to Kavanaugh being on the court? I will tell you why. Democrats have relied on the Kennedy swing vote to get their laws for a long time. Now that Kavenaugh is there they may not get their ways so much. Democrats are sweating the Abortion laws, Religious freedom rulings that may harm their LGTB agenda. Democrats have been getting away with much over the years, but no more