SCOTUS to take the cake

[James Madison]

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing, rarely has a "made-by" sticker indicating who even made it to even offer the idea of an endorsement of an event. So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This is the area needing clarification. The last time the Court ventured an opinion resolving the titanic collision of free speech rights and public accommodation law was in 1992 in the case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake.

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing

Well, what about those wedding cakes with writing? The Court should address the issue of wedding cakes with writing and public accommodation laws.

So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This would make sense if universally, in all places within the 50 states, no bakery has ever and/or ever will make a wedding cake with speech on it and/or be asked to make a wedding cake with a message on the cake.

So it is all about the writing and merely leavening isn't an expression?

I guess we can forward the step here. "Mike + Mitch", free speech violation merely because of two names of the same gender? "Have a wonderful gay marriage", "Appease to the gay's wants establishment!"? Is merely two men atop the cake big enough of a deal that the civil rights of a couple are veto'd by the outdated a la carte religious beliefs of a baker?

Seems odd that a cake could violate Civil Rights because of "Mike + Mitch" written on it.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake

I wasn't citing the case as precedent for this decision. However, to be sure, Hurley is relevant although it may not be controlling. Both involve rights in the free speech clause.

Not just speech but advocation. Can a third party force a first party to share the third party's message. And perhaps we can discuss how the whole cake thing actually blesses a marriage in the first place. I don't recall that in the Tanakh.

Also will this affect rehearsal dinners? Can a restaurant refuse to provide service to a gay couple's rehearsal dinner? What about dinners celebrating a gay couple's anniversary?

Your many queries illustrate the importance of the Court deciding the parameter of free speech in relation to public accommodation laws.

Your post eloquently illustrates the need for clarification in this area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing, rarely has a "made-by" sticker indicating who even made it to even offer the idea of an endorsement of an event. So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This is the area needing clarification. The last time the Court ventured an opinion resolving the titanic collision of free speech rights and public accommodation law was in 1992 in the case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake.

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing

Well, what about those wedding cakes with writing? The Court should address the issue of wedding cakes with writing and public accommodation laws.

So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This would make sense if universally, in all places within the 50 states, no bakery has ever and/or ever will make a wedding cake with speech on it and/or be asked to make a wedding cake with a message on the cake.

So it is all about the writing and merely leavening isn't an expression?

I guess we can forward the step here. "Mike + Mitch", free speech violation merely because of two names of the same gender? "Have a wonderful gay marriage", "Appease to the gay's wants establishment!"? Is merely two men atop the cake big enough of a deal that the civil rights of a couple are veto'd by the outdated a la carte religious beliefs of a baker?

Seems odd that a cake could violate Civil Rights because of "Mike + Mitch" written on it.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake

I wasn't citing the case as precedent for this decision. However, to be sure, Hurley is relevant although it may not be controlling. Both involve rights in the free speech clause.

Not just speech but advocation. Can a third party force a first party to share the third party's message. And perhaps we can discuss how the whole cake thing actually blesses a marriage in the first place. I don't recall that in the Tanakh.

Also will this affect rehearsal dinners? Can a restaurant refuse to provide service to a gay couple's rehearsal dinner? What about dinners celebrating a gay couple's anniversary?

Your many queries illustrate the importance of the Court deciding the parameter of free speech in relation to public accommodation laws.

Your post eloquently illustrates the need for clarification in this area.

That's the thing. I don't think it requires any clarification. Allowing businesses to discriminate against gays can't be constitutional. This seems more like a "Let's find out just how much we are legally allowed to discriminate" case, you know for clarification purposes.

 

[PyramidHead]

There have to be precedents for speech acts undertaken with the assistance of a third party, where it is understood that the third party is not the one making the speech, but merely the one physically inscribing it on a medium (a cake, a shirt, a sign). If it is legitimate for a custom tee shirt company to refuse to make a tee shirt with e.g. profanity on it, the argument could be made that companies have the right to decide what they can render using their resources even when it's somebody else's speech. However, this would only take the bakers' complaint so far, because the baker presumably wants to refuse to bake a cake for a certain type of customer, not just refuse to bake a cake with a certain kind of speech. For example, he would bake a cake that said "Chris and William" only if Chris was short for Christine and the clients were a heterosexual couple. I don't know if there is legal precedent allowing that kind of discrimination, based on the identity of the client rather than the specific message.

 

[untermensche]

Your many queries illustrate the importance of the Court deciding the parameter of free speech in relation to public accommodation laws.

Your post eloquently illustrates the need for clarification in this area.

But there is no speech here. There was no message on the cake that caused the problem.

It was a flat refusal to provide a cake to gay people.

With the claim that part of his religious practice is denying gay people cakes.

We don't any court to clarify this.

The Court is just going to decide who's rights they favor. Owners or customers.

And invent reasons after the fact.

 

[James Madison]

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing, rarely has a "made-by" sticker indicating who even made it to even offer the idea of an endorsement of an event. So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This is the area needing clarification. The last time the Court ventured an opinion resolving the titanic collision of free speech rights and public accommodation law was in 1992 in the case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake.

Free speech? A wedding often has no writing

Well, what about those wedding cakes with writing? The Court should address the issue of wedding cakes with writing and public accommodation laws.

So it then seems to imply that leavening flour is an expression as there is no message otherwise involved with a wedding cake.

This would make sense if universally, in all places within the 50 states, no bakery has ever and/or ever will make a wedding cake with speech on it and/or be asked to make a wedding cake with a message on the cake.

So it is all about the writing and merely leavening isn't an expression?

I guess we can forward the step here. "Mike + Mitch", free speech violation merely because of two names of the same gender? "Have a wonderful gay marriage", "Appease to the gay's wants establishment!"? Is merely two men atop the cake big enough of a deal that the civil rights of a couple are veto'd by the outdated a la carte religious beliefs of a baker?

Seems odd that a cake could violate Civil Rights because of "Mike + Mitch" written on it.

Doesn't that case have to deal with actual speech, not a transaction? A group has an underlying purpose of advocation. A bakery bakes and decorates food. Parades are very visible, no one knows who even made the cake

I wasn't citing the case as precedent for this decision. However, to be sure, Hurley is relevant although it may not be controlling. Both involve rights in the free speech clause.

Not just speech but advocation. Can a third party force a first party to share the third party's message. And perhaps we can discuss how the whole cake thing actually blesses a marriage in the first place. I don't recall that in the Tanakh.

Also will this affect rehearsal dinners? Can a restaurant refuse to provide service to a gay couple's rehearsal dinner? What about dinners celebrating a gay couple's anniversary?

Your many queries illustrate the importance of the Court deciding the parameter of free speech in relation to public accommodation laws.

Your post eloquently illustrates the need for clarification in this area.

That's the thing. I don't think it requires any clarification. Allowing businesses to discriminate against gays can't be constitutional. This seems more like a "Let's find out just how much we are legally allowed to discriminate" case, you know for clarification purposes.

Your many queries regarding what speech would qualify for 1st Amendment protection from public accommodation laws is illustrative of the need for clarification.

The fact you can't or will not perceive any potential free speech issue to be resolved by the Court, despite the plethora of questions you asked about the free speech issue, is your problem and yours alone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[coloradoatheist]

This will be an interesting case. I think just for them to pick and make a decision says that the court is probably leaning toward the religious liberty argument.

I don't think this court is strong enough to do what it really needs to do and that is limit the powers of the Interstate commerce clause.

 

[James Madison]

Your many queries illustrate the importance of the Court deciding the parameter of free speech in relation to public accommodation laws.

Your post eloquently illustrates the need for clarification in this area.

But there is no speech here. There was no message on the cake that caused the problem.

It was a flat refusal to provide a cake to gay people.

With the claim that part of his religious practice is denying gay people cakes.

We don't any court to clarify this.

The Court is just going to decide who's rights they favor. Owners or customers.

And invent reasons after the fact.

The alleged lack of a message on this cake will not and shouldn't preclude the Court from addressing the boundaries of free speech in relation to cakes with messages on them. The Court likely will not pretend no wedding cake has ever or will never include a message on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[untermensche]

This will be an interesting case. I think just for them to pick and make a decision says that the court is probably leaning toward the religious liberty argument.

I don't think this court is strong enough to do what it really needs to do and that is limit the powers of the Interstate commerce clause.

If this is about religious liberty then we have to accept that part of religious practice is denying gay people products.

- - - Updated - - -

But there is no speech here. There was no message on the cake that caused the problem.

It was a flat refusal to provide a cake to gay people.

With the claim that part of his religious practice is denying gay people cakes.

We don't any court to clarify this.

The Court is just going to decide who's rights they favor. Owners or customers.

And invent reasons after the fact.

The alleged lack of a message on this cake will not and shouldn't preclude the Court from addressing the boundaries of free speech in relation to cakes with messages on them. The Court likely will not pretend no wedding cake has ever or will never include a message on it.

The Court can use any message to speak about a cake with no message?

Don't they have to use a reasonable message like "Joe and Bob"?

 

[James Madison]

There have to be precedents for speech acts undertaken with the assistance of a third party, where it is understood that the third party is not the one making the speech, but merely the one physically inscribing it on a medium (a cake, a shirt, a sign). If it is legitimate for a custom tee shirt company to refuse to make a tee shirt with e.g. profanity on it, the argument could be made that companies have the right to decide what they can render using their resources even when it's somebody else's speech. However, this would only take the bakers' complaint so far, because the baker presumably wants to refuse to bake a cake for a certain type of customer, not just refuse to bake a cake with a certain kind of speech. For example, he would bake a cake that said "Chris and William" only if Chris was short for Christine and the clients were a heterosexual couple. I don't know if there is legal precedent allowing that kind of discrimination, based on the identity of the client rather than the specific message.

Unfortunately, there are few decisions, well to my knowledge none, where the Court has addressed the free speech rights, if any, in the context of "speech acts undertaken with the assistance of a third party, where it is understood that the third party is not the one making the speech, but merely the one physically inscribing it on a medium (a cake, a shirt, a sign)."

This case is so very important as it presents the Court with an opportunity to provide much needed clarification in this area of the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[coloradoatheist]

If this is about religious liberty then we have to accept that part of religious practice is denying gay people products.

We accept the practice that most churches have rules in place that dictate their faith. For example, the government can't force the Catholic church to have females priests and clergy.

If people feel that strongly about this issue, open a cake store that caters to gays and lesbians.

 

[untermensche]

If this is about religious liberty then we have to accept that part of religious practice is denying gay people products.

We accept the practice that most churches have rules in place that dictate their faith. For example, the government can't force the Catholic church to have females priests and clergy.

If people feel that strongly about this issue, open a cake store that caters to gays and lesbians.

The Catholic Church is not in business with the public.

It has special rights, yes, but that is because it is not a business.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm sorry, did you have a point or was this one of your 'no-true Libertarian" moments?

I had a point, and we are veering much closer to one of your 'no-false' Libertarian moments. What you failed to grasp was this: even though conservatives and libertarians are on the same side on the cake issue, they are there for different reasons. Different motivations. Different philosophical foundations.

You have a hard time grasping that.

 

[untermensche]

Mind, this thread isn't even about cakes, except insofar as they form a precedent for the current case.

No it's about an absurd claim that denying gay people a product is part of some religious practice.

Something that only in the US would be taken seriously.

 

[James Madison]

If this is about religious liberty then we have to accept that part of religious practice is denying gay people products.

- - - Updated - - -

But there is no speech here. There was no message on the cake that caused the problem.

It was a flat refusal to provide a cake to gay people.

With the claim that part of his religious practice is denying gay people cakes.

We don't any court to clarify this.

The Court is just going to decide who's rights they favor. Owners or customers.

And invent reasons after the fact.

The alleged lack of a message on this cake will not and shouldn't preclude the Court from addressing the boundaries of free speech in relation to cakes with messages on them. The Court likely will not pretend no wedding cake has ever or will never include a message on it.

The Court can use any message to speak about a cake with no message?

Don't they have to use a reasonable message like "Joe and Bob"?

Let me read the issues the Court accepted in cert., and then I'll answer. The Court is know for rephrasing the issues on cert.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[untermensche]

If this is about religious liberty then we have to accept that part of religious practice is denying gay people products.

- - - Updated - - -

But there is no speech here. There was no message on the cake that caused the problem.

It was a flat refusal to provide a cake to gay people.

With the claim that part of his religious practice is denying gay people cakes.

We don't any court to clarify this.

The Court is just going to decide who's rights they favor. Owners or customers.

And invent reasons after the fact.

The alleged lack of a message on this cake will not and shouldn't preclude the Court from addressing the boundaries of free speech in relation to cakes with messages on them. The Court likely will not pretend no wedding cake has ever or will never include a message on it.

The Court can use any message to speak about a cake with no message?

Don't they have to use a reasonable message like "Joe and Bob"?

Let me read the issues the Court accepted in cert., and then I'll answer. The Court is know for rephrasing the issues on cert.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can we not sell to black couples because somebody somewhere might want "Kill Whitey!"?

 

[coloradoatheist]

We accept the practice that most churches have rules in place that dictate their faith. For example, the government can't force the Catholic church to have females priests and clergy.

If people feel that strongly about this issue, open a cake store that caters to gays and lesbians.

The Catholic Church is not in business with the public.

It has special rights, yes, but that is because it is not a business.

Are we arguing the principles of the Constitution or the the generally accepted good principles that override Constitutional principles?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Mind, this thread isn't even about cakes, except insofar as they form a precedent for the current case.

No it's about an absurd claim that denying gay people a product is part of some religious practice.

Something that only in the US would be taken seriously.

I think that will be the argument they will decide. Shouldn't have to, but with the way laws are written, that's a major exception

 

[untermensche]

The Catholic Church is not in business with the public.

It has special rights, yes, but that is because it is not a business.

Are we arguing the principles of the Constitution or the the generally accepted good principles that override Constitutional principles?

The Constitution is one thing.

How it is interpreted is another.

Every interpretation is subjective. None objective.

 

[James Madison]

If this is about religious liberty then we have to accept that part of religious practice is denying gay people products.

- - - Updated - - -

But there is no speech here. There was no message on the cake that caused the problem.

It was a flat refusal to provide a cake to gay people.

With the claim that part of his religious practice is denying gay people cakes.

We don't any court to clarify this.

The Court is just going to decide who's rights they favor. Owners or customers.

And invent reasons after the fact.

The alleged lack of a message on this cake will not and shouldn't preclude the Court from addressing the boundaries of free speech in relation to cakes with messages on them. The Court likely will not pretend no wedding cake has ever or will never include a message on it.

The Court can use any message to speak about a cake with no message?

Don't they have to use a reasonable message like "Joe and Bob"?

Let me read the issues the Court accepted in cert., and then I'll answer. The Court is know for rephrasing the issues on cert.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can we not sell to black couples because somebody somewhere might want "Kill Whitey!"?

Your hypo doesn't mirror the facts as the cake shop owner was willing to generally sell baked goods and items to gay couples.

Now, a related issue is whether one may refuse to sell a cake to a black couple because they requested the message of "kill whitey" on the cake.

But I may be commenting to hastily as I've yet to read the cert. granted by the court and need to re-familiarize myself with the facts of the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fact you can't or will not perceive any potential free speech issue to be resolved by the Court, despite the plethora of questions you asked about the free speech issue, is your problem and yours alone.

Looking at the petition, this doesn't seem to be about writing at all, but asking SCOTUS to say flour, sugar, egg, and leavening is expression and that forcing him to leaven flour over something he is against based on religious grounds is wrong.

Whether applying Colorado’s publicaccommodations law to compel Phillips tocreate expression that violates his sincerelyheld religious beliefs about marriage violatesthe Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses ofthe First Amendment.

It would be a nice step for America to take, to go backwards with rights. SCOTUS could put forth a two column list, "Whom you can and can't discriminate on based on Religious belief".

[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Can[/TD]
[TD]Can't[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gay inter-racial couple[/TD]
[TD]Inter-racial couple[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gay blacks[/TD]
[TD]Blacks[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gay Jewish[/TD]
[TD]Jewish[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]