Gay Marriage

Supreme Court Orders Oregon To Reconsider Gay Wedding Cake Case

SCOTUS wants to see anti-discrimination laws applied without religious bias.

|

The Supreme Court today ordered Oregon to take another look at a case where state officials fined a couple $135,000 for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

Bakers Aaron and Melissa Klein owned and ran Sweetcakes by Melissa in Gresham, Oregon. They ran afoul of Oregon's public accommodations laws in 2013 when they refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The Kleins stated that they opposed recognizing same-sex marriages for religious reasons. In 2015, the state's Bureau of Labor and Industries ruled against the Kleins and fined them. The Kleins shuttered their bakery but continued to fight against the ruling.

Last year, the Supreme Court took on a similar case coming out of Colorado called Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of bakery owner Jack Phillips, who, like the Kleins, declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because he has religious objections to gay marriage.

But in the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, the justices sidestepped the question of whether baking a cake was an expressive act protected by the First Amendment, and whether requiring a baker to make gay wedding cakes is a form of compelled speech. Instead, the justices found that members of Colorado's Civil Rights Commission expressed religious bias against Phillips and did not serve as an appropriately neutral arbiter in his case. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the ruling against Phillips.

The Kleins asked the court to take their case, and the Supreme Court granted their petition only to vacate Oregon's ruling and send the case back to the Oregon Court of Appeals to be reheard in light of the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling.

This isn't exactly a win for the Kleins. The Supreme Court wants Oregon to review the case and make sure the decision against the Kleins was not influenced by antireligious bias. The couple has claimed that the commissioner of Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries showed bias during the case by saying that his "goal is to rehabilitate" the couple.

Kicking the case back down suggests that the Supreme Court is reluctant to decide whether cake-making and floral-arranging are artistic, expressive actions protected by the First Amendment, which is what plaintiffs like the Kleins and Phillips have argued. The agencies who've penalized them, meanwhile, want the Supreme Court to rule that they are obligated to serve gay customers under the state's public accommodation antidiscrimination laws, regardless of how they personally feel about gay marriage.

We should expect to see more court cases like these. In fact, based on how the Oregon court rules, we could see this very case heading back to the Supreme Court in a couple of years.

Read more here about the absurdly overwrought legal and emotional claims by the rejected couple that I found mockworthy back in 2015 and how the state actually attempted to punish the Kleins with additional financial penalties for speaking out in public to defend their position. The Cato Institute filed an amicus brief supporting the Kleins, asking the Supreme Court to consider whether cake-baking was a form of artistic expression. Read their argument here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kavanaugh Clash With Roberts and Alito Over Federal Preemption of State Regulation

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fact-checking much?

    The Klein’s shuttered their doors before the fine was ever decided because they were making more money being professional martyrs then they were being bakers.

    The large fine was in-part justified because the Kleins doxxed the plaintiffs. Further, as the judge noted, the Klein’s had very publicly amassed a large war-chest through donations that easily covered the fine.

    So no. The state didn’t drive the Klein’s out of business. They voluntarily shut their doors before it was ever assessed and were easily able to cover it. The martyr life didn’t choose them, they chose it.

    1. Strange for a libertarian to side with a heavy-handed state.

        1. No shit Sherlock. Next you tell me …. naw, you’re Tulpa, no one but you is worthy of posting here.

          1. I love that you think we don’t know you’re SQRLSY.

            Shit your pants about a joke harder.

      1. (A) I’m not a libertarian.
        (B) I’m not opining on whether the decision was right or not, I’m pointing out that Shackford has his facts wrong.

        1. Are you? It looks like you’re just interpreting them differently.

      2. Haven’t you noticed that the libertarians are sliding to the left?

        1. No, but I have noticed leftists lying about being libertarian because they are ashamed of being called leftists.

          1. I’ve found a lot of them claim to be ‘moderates’. Then call anyone not part of the hive mind as an ‘extremist’.

    2. I’m not exactly sure plaintiffs should have a right to anonymity when they sue people in public court for all to see.

      1. Are we now pretending that doxxing is just naming names?

        1. Considering the information was in the complaint that was filed, your issue is with the state not the bakers.

          1. “By submitting this complaint, I understand a) this complaint will become part of DOJ’s permanent records and is subject to Oregon’s Public Records Law”

            It was public info.

            1. Something like 99% of doxxings are done using public info. It’s the aggregation and presentation that makes it a doxxing attempt.

              But I assume you knew that and you’re just pretending to be dumb.

              1. “Something like 99% of doxxings are done using public info”

                Not according to my definition of the term, nor thr generally accepted drfintion. And I’d like to see a cite for your claim.

                Sorry, it wasn’t doxxing. You’re wrong.

              2. If I can post a link to the Oregon state website where the information is, it osn’t doxxing.

                You’re just doing that thing idiot leftists do where they redefine things to slander people they don’t like because saying “they posted publicly available information about the case” doesn’t let you peg the outrage meter.

                1. You “they DOXXED THE POOR FEMALE GOLFERS!!!”

                  intelligent people “oh yeah? How?”

                  You “THEY POSTED PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFO THE SOFTBALL PLAYERS VOLUNTEERED AND KNEW WOULD BE PUBLIC INFO”

                  people who aren’t idiots ” um….ok.” As they slowly back away from you.

                  1. Softball players? I thought we were talking about a couple of lesbians.

    3. The Klein’s shuttered their doors before the fine was ever decided because they were making more money being professional martyrs then they were being bakers.

      Someone contact Dionne Warwick, because anyone with the kind of clairvoyance to know that a jury’s going to give them $33 million from the local shitlib uni deserves their own psychic hotline.

      1. Whoops, wrong victim of left-wing hate mobs. They all look the same these days.

    4. think logically much?…if there was no state action against them, their doors would still be open

  2. Oregon is well on it’s way to becoming the Golgafrinchan middle man state. We shouldn’t try to stop them.

    1. Yeah, but where are we going to get a space Ark to put them on?

      1. We convince Elon Musk to design, build, and pilot it.

        1. So you’re saying we federally subsidize it?

          1. No, we’re saying the Federal Subsidizers should be ON it!

        2. Solar-powered!

  3. Not too surprising that both sides in at least some of these cases are deliberately trying to make test cases for the courts.

    1. People adopt strategies that work. Ho hum.

      1. Yes. My comment was not intended to disparage people who adopt that strategy. It’s good to challenge these things before they become generally accepted as just the way things are.

        1. What do you think of the idea that accelerating instead of resisting the process leads to better outcomes? I.e. people under this kind of assault will develop counter-strategies faster that way?

            1. “deliberately trying to make test cases for the courts.”

              By the way, you probably need to acknowledge that I asked you a non-dick-all-the-time question. Your perception of reality is skewed Zebbo.

              1. Fair enough. You do seem to alternate between your dick persona and actually being somewhat interesting to engage with. That’s why I call you a weirdo. But rather than congratulating you for behaving like a decent person, I prefer just to engage in the conversation. You can call me equivocating all you want (not that you’d stop anyway).

                To answer your question (sort of), I think that the people opposing the anti-discrimination rules are mostly stuck with reacting to the shit that gets thrown at them. Otherwise, what standing does anyone have to challenge the laws? I sort of think that anyone should have standing to challenge a law that violates basic constitutional rights, though. But that seems unlikely to happen.
                So far the LGBT activists seem to be happy to provide the test cases. But I wonder whether if they get some unfavorable decisions in the courts if they will reconsider the strategy.

  4. A party trend currently en vogue is to have a stripper squat on a cake before serving the slices and having the party-goers admire the imprint until OBL hiked his skirt, squatted on the white frosting, and the cake-eaters thought they were being served a topographic relief of the Red Planet.
    Me – I settled for a corner piece with a flower on it.

    1. I never get invited to those sorts of parties.

      1. I have to admit it’s a slight fetish of mine.

  5. Everything government does, it fucks up with a sledgehammer, then comes back later with a left-handed sledgehammer which is more subtle.

    Governments created slavery. Governments went to war and killed a million people to replace slavery with government segregation. Government replaced segregation with forced integration, destroying freedom of association.

    In every step, if government had simply removed the government rules, instead of replacing them with different government rules, all the following government sledgehammers could have been avoided, and people wouldn’t be asking for new government sledgehammers to smash cakes and flowers. Well, SJW would of course still be asking, but they wouldn’t get any.

        1. And you’re a hopeless equivocator with patantly milquetoast takes on literally everything.

          And he is SQRLSY.

          1. And you’re a weirdo who gets off on being a dick all the time.

            Takes all kinds, I guess.

            1. What’s got your panties in a bunch today little guy?

              1. I’m having a fine day, thank you. I have no patience for you when I’m in a bad mood. I only poke you when I’m amused by your bizarre behavior.

                1. Sorry you’re upset man, you’ll get over it.

                  1. But Tulpa, on the other hand… Tulpa will NEVER get over being Tulpa, Supreme Being of The Universe!

                    1. And you will never stop pulling at my pantleg Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf.

                      You fucktard.

                    2. Squirrely is the worst after all. Not even fit to eat Tony’s turds.

    1. I would be willing to hazard that slavery predated most anything we would recognize as a government outside of tribal headmen.

      1. Slavery predates intelligence

      2. Yes, but the US codified it.

    2. Governments created slavery.

      Slavery existed before any government did.

      1. Of course, as soon as Adam told Eve to get him a beer.

  6. The idea that the state’s desire to end discrimination against LGBTQI+ (or anyone else) somehow supersedes First Amendment protections for both religion and speech is patently absurd.

    If you want to amend the Constitution to allow the government to ignore First Amendment protections for religion and speech in cases of gay rights, racial discrimination, etc., then the Constitution spells out more than one way to accomplish that. Go pursue one of those options!

    I dare you.

    In the meantime, don’t expect the rest of us to nod our heads and smile like a bunch of dishonest retards, certainly not out of fear that some social justice bullies will call us bad names unless we pretend the First Amendment say something other than what it says.

    Over the long term, social justice warriors may have more to fear from being associated with hatred for the First Amendment than bigots have to fear from being called out by social justice warriors.

    Surely, no one today is doing more harm to the cause of gay rights in this country than gay rights activists who use dishonesty and irrational arguments as an excuse to violate other people’s rights. All they’re doing is making Christians and others regret having supported gay marriage.

    “About two-thirds of white mainline Protestants (66%) now support same-sex marriage, as do a similar share of Catholics (61%).

    —-Pew May, 2019

    https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

    Convince those Christians that they can’t practice their own religion without your permission and their support for your cause will likely tank, over time, to the level cultural conservatives “enjoyed”–back when they lost the argument by saying that you shouldn’t be allowed to get married without their permission.

    1. In the meantime, don’t expect the rest of us to nod our heads and smile like a bunch of dishonest retards […]

      We’ve had non-discrimination laws at the federal level for over fifty years. So yeah, actually, expecting y’all to nod and go along with the status quo is pretty reasonable.

      I mean, your argument hasn’t worked yet. But sure, maybe this time it will work.

      As far as “Surely, no one today is doing more harm to the cause of gay rights in this country than gay rights activists […]” goes, y’all have been saying this since the Mattachine society was politely asking to not be put in prison. But sure, maybe this time you’re right.

      1. “We’ve had non-discrimination laws at the federal level for over fifty years”

        We’ve had Constitutionally guaranteed Feeedom of Association for far longer.

        That you have been ignoring it for over 50 years is not something to be proud of.

        1. Cool story. Convince a court.

      2. Except nondiscrimination law tended to be about what people were, not the the things did. And it tended to be about necessary goods and and services, not luxury items.

        This is a new concept, not one with a 50 year history.

        1. And the impetus for those non discrimination laws were the Jim Crow laws which essentially used govt. force to make blacks second class citizens and infringe on their constitutional rights.

          Going to a private business and using the force of law to strong arm the proprietor into producing custom work against their will isn’t protecting anyone’s civil rights. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

        2. Conservatives can never seem to decide whether discriminating against gays is about what they are or about what they do.

          If it’s about what they do – as you here assert – then gays are protected under existing anti-discrimination law, which prohibits discriminating against someone just because they don’t conform with socially-accepted gender norms.

          That’s why conservatives generally try to assert that they discriminate against gays because of what they are, namely, gay, which is taken to be essentially distinct from gender and gender norms. “No,” the reasoning goes, “I don’t discriminate against men who fuck men; I discriminate against gay men.” That way, they get out of under existing anti-discrimination law. That’s probably what the SCOTUS will conclude, as well.

          So y’all just need to choose a side and stick with it. This moving-the-goalposts shit to suit whatever argument you’re choosing to have any particular day is tiresome.

      3. “We’ve had non-discrimination laws at the federal level for over fifty years. So yeah, actually, expecting y’all to nod and go along with the status quo is pretty reasonable.”

        Did non-discrimination laws at the federal level require people to violate their religious rights or the First Amendment in the past?

        Who objected to the Civil Rights Act on the basis that it violated their freedom of speech?

        Who objected to the Civil Rights Act on the basis that letting black people sit at white counters violated their freedom of religion?

        Can you point me to that Supreme Court case? Shouldn’t we all know it by heart?

        1. Did non-discrimination laws at the federal level require people to violate their religious rights or the First Amendment in the past?
          Yes. The first objections to them were that God required segregation.

          1. So you have a link to that ruling?

            Great, I’ve been asking of that!

    2. Dude, youre an idiot-no offense! It has been ruled SEVENTEEN times that if you have a public business (owned privately), and that business exists due to taxpayer monies (sidewalks, roads, power grids, etc) you MUST SERVE EVERYONE. It’s on the business license and its been the law since th 60s when rleitards tried to refuse blacks because of the Curse Of Ham. Educate!!

      1. And yet… Freedom of Association.

        I don’t think “a court ruled against the plain language of the Constitution” is the game winner you think it is.

        Oh also… “rleitards ” ahahahahah

      2. Heh heh, tried to call people retards but spelled it rleitards.

      3. and that business exists due to taxpayer monies

        The existence of taxes isn’t the reason these businesses exist. And if you have a problem with the way people use their private property in a world where taxes exist, it sounds like you would be ok with abolishing the taxes.

      4. you MUST SERVE EVERYONE…

        …on the list of protected classes

      5. Spoken like someone who has no idea who actually pays to build those roads, sidewalks, power grids, etc.

      6. If it’s been ruled “SEVENTEEN” times, then you’ll have no trouble linking to the ruling that says the Civil Rights Act compels people to violate their religious convictions or that it gives state governments the right to compel speech–in harmony with the First Amendment.

        I suspect that ruling only exists in your mind. If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead and post a link.

        Be advised, even IF IF IF you find us a ruling that says laws that compel people to violate their religious convictions or compel speech are perfectly compatible with the First Amendment (because of the CRA or equal protection of the laws), then I’ll get to show you a ruling that needs to be overturned for being so obviously wrong.

        Do I really need to quote the First Amendment? Why not!

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”

        —First Amendment

        The First Amendment does not say that it’s okay for Congress to pass laws that restrict the free exercise of religion or compel speech in the case of homophobia because homophobes are stupid. That’s a figment of your imagination.

        The First Amendment protects stupid speech and stupid religious beliefs, too! “Congress shall make no law” is not difficult to understand.

        If you want to make the CRA or the equivalent at the state level compel people to violate their First Amendment rights to free speech and religion–and do so constitutionally–then you need to go through the amendment process and either repeal or amend the First Amendment. I strongly suggest you don’t for fear of opening up a whole new can of worms. The reason you can’t compel social conservatives to bake cakes for gay weddings is the same reason why they can’t compel the local school to teach your children about creationism and make them pray every morning before class starts.

        Do you really imagine we’d live in a more tolerant world if only our right to choose our own religious beliefs were routinely violated by law?

        Regardless, I’m certainly not about to pretend that it’s okay for Colorado to violate these people’s rights just because you say this has already been ruled on “SEVENTEEN” times. Your capital letters are not persuasive evidence. In fact, they’re not even evidence.

    3. The idea that the state’s desire to end discrimination against LGBTQI+ (or anyone else) somehow supersedes First Amendment protections for both religion and speech is patently absurd.

      It’s a strange strawman you’ve set up here.

      As things currently stand, the First Amendment does not provide any opt-out right from generally applicable and facially neutral laws that require a person to act contrary to their religious beliefs, and it places its strictest restrictions only on the state’s authority to compel or prohibit particular views. The First Amendment permits the government to ban lawn displays, for instance, notwithstanding your sincere religious belief that you should proclaim your Christianity by installing a 30-foot cross with a bloody effigy of Jesus on it.

      And it requires a certain conceptual two-step to reach the conclusion that public accommodations law, as applied to cake bakers and wedding photographers, somehow meaningfully constrains their freedom of religion or speech. These people, to the extent their work product constitutes meaningful “expressions,” are not themselves “speaking.” No one hires a wedding photographer, in other words, for their own editorial perspective of a wedding. They hire a wedding photographer to tell a story about the wedding that the couple themselves want to tell. They are, in a word, agents. Their “expression” is not their own, but of the couple’s.

      So it’s nonsense for them to assert some independent interest in expressing their own views that is meaningfully constrained by public accommodation law. That’s just not the business they’re in.

      1. Religious convictions are their own justification. The investigation of conscientious objectors’ beliefs is probably instructive. Even within the purview of Congress’ enumerated power to declare war, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”–and the evidence of my belief is my belief itself. This is fundamental and necessary for the proper functioning of a free and tolerant society.

        Free speech works much the same way for the same reasons. Even IF IF IF it were possible to pass laws prohibiting you from saying what you believe on your own property, constitutionally, they could not compel you to say things on your property that violate your religious convictions. It’s possible to do that constitutionally in the future, but if you want that, first you need to change the Constitution.

        1. Religious convictions are their own justification.

          I am not sure what your point is here. The FEC does not give people a blanket exemption from complying with whatever law they feel violates their religious convictions. If you don’t like that, you need to change the Constitution.

          Free speech works much the same way for the same reasons.

          Again, you seem to have a poor grasp of the law or the sorts of circumstances it has addressed already. No, the state can’t specifically tell you that you can’t profess your religious beliefs on your own property, just because it disapproves of those religious beliefs specifically or religious belief in general. It can however, impose limitations on your usage of your property that might effectively prevent you from expressing your religious belief in a way that you prefer. It can prohibit inhumane slaughter of animals (which could include certain forms of “animal sacrifice”), for instance.

          1. That is one convoluted justification for trying to pretend that homophobes don’t have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.

            I’m still waiting for a link to the Supreme Court case that says the CRA, or any other law, means that bigots don’t have First Amendment rights. Go ahead and post it whenever you’re ready.

            In the meantime, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech” means exactly what it says.

            Not everything in the Constitution has always been as it should be, but it always said what it said regardless. If you’re looking for a website where people believe things are true or false based on whether or not believing those things produces some desired outcome, then that’s probably somewhere else. We’ve got a pretty good record here in comments of calling it like it is. Certainly, no amount of peddling is about to make me pretend that the First Amendment says something other than what it says.

            If you want it to say something else, you need to amend the Constitution.

            1. P.S. Incidentally, the trade off here is exactly as it should be–social conservatives are prohibited from using the coercive power of government to inflict their religious beliefs on you, and you’re prohibited from using the coercive power of government to interfere with their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

              If you want to look at extreme cases, again, conscientious objectors are an excellent example and so are Amish parents not being compelled to send their children to school past the eighth grade.

              “Snake handlers” aren’t immune from prosecution if they feed their children strychnine, but seriously comparing gay couples looking for a cake to children who haven’t yet reached the age of majority would be inappropriate.

              I’m trying to come up with a constitutional rationale for why the First Amendment wouldn’t protect the rights of bigots and homobhobes, and I’m drawing a blank. The First Amendment even protects the religious rights and free speech rights of convicted murderers, arsonists, and rapists. Why wouldn’t it protect the rights of bigots and homophobes?

  7. it’s public accommodation laws in general that should be overturned.

    1. ^ This. The whole concept is poisonous.

      1. said the straight white person in a trailer park who has never experienced discrimination! No, Bubba-30% of the country cannot be trusted-they have to be compelled. Religiosu quackery cannot be in our law-its made up and varies person to person. PA Laws aint going anywhere-you want that religious shitt in law? Go to Iran

        1. But in Iran they basically have a Council of Censors to invalidate those laws which go against the state religion. America has no such council of censors, well, except for the Supreme Court.

        2. That’s a lame fucking sock Rev.

        3. “Religiosu [sic] quackery cannot be in our law”

          Um… What the fuck do you think the Constitution IS “rleitard”

        4. said the straight white person in a trailer park who has never experienced discrimination!

          Actually I’m in downtown Berkeley, I have a PhD, and I have experienced discrimination.

          You, however, are a hateful bigot who can’t spell. So neener-neener.

        5. Gosh. Ormandy, bigot much? Yes, we do want that religious shit in law. I’m an agnostic. But I’ll truck with the Christians any day over a bitter, atheistic progtard totalitarian shitbag, such as yourself.

    2. I assumed that the Supreme Court’s punting of the Masterpiece decision was for fear that they would essentially have to overturn public accommodation. Now they’ve punted again, pointing to a previous punt.

      While I completely agree with you, I don’t see that will ever happen under a Roberts court.

    3. “it’s public accommodation laws in general that should be overturned.”

      Even IF IF IF it shouldn’t be overturned entirely, it at least has limits when it comes into conflict with First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

      The five most important words in the First Amendment are, “Congress shall make no law”. If there is a law that compels people to violate the First Amendment, then that law is unconstitutional.

      It’s entirely possible that accommodation laws should also be overturned for other reasons–but if the fact that the First Amendment specifically prohibits the government from making laws that violate people’s religion and speech isn’t enough to overturn a law that does precisely that, then why is the First Amendment there at all?

    4. so you can refuse those N&&&ers? Not a chance, trailer park

      1. You are clearly a deep-thinking person.

      2. The guy calling others bigotted is the first one to pull out the N-word?

        Go back to blowing hobos for $5, ya troll.

  8. I think the future of cake making is with shell corporations to avoid the litigation. Spin em up and shut em down.

    1. Government should just take over the cake decorating industry. Everyone gets gray cakes, no writing. Nobody needs 23 different choices of cake anyway.

      1. I want a blueberry pie that identifies as a cake.

  9. “The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subjects to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
    Thomas

    The Lesbians neither had their pockets picked or their legs broken so they had no injury.

    1. But her feelings got hurt! If that’s not harm, then what’s the point of having this law at all!?!?

      1. Yup, our social (and legal) discourse has degraded to all about the Feelz. Just like in middle school.

  10. The Supreme Court wants to avoid having to make a decision on this because they are divided on this and Alito knows they have to gut free speech to satisfy antidiscrimination law and will raise a shitstorm among the progressives if they cannot punish infidels for their disbelief.

    The court’s past jurisprudence has made stripping protected artistic expression really cannot in good faith call floral arrangement and custom decorated cakes mere commerce.

  11. Yet Harvard can reverse a student’s admission because he defends a Constitutional amendment.

    1. No, dumdum-the dumb kid used the N word-the constitution says nothing about consequences (and thats why you should have gotten that GED!)

      1. You used the N-word right on this very page. What should we do to you?

        1. Nothing. Look how miserable and pathetic he is already.

          1. Good point. Now I feel bad for kicking the cripple.

  12. Freedom of Association is protected by the First Amendment just like Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. And just like Freedom of Speech means that I must be tolerant of speech that I find objectionable (with very narrow exceptions), Freedom of Association means that I must be tolerant of people who want to associate in ways that I find objectionable. Saying that only speech or only associations that nobody finds objectionable are protected makes a mockery of the First Amendment.

    To me, that means public accommodation laws should be evaluated through the lens of strict scrutiny – which some of them probably would not survive. I can’t convince myself that’s a bad outcome, though. Not if you really care about the First Amendment.

    1. PA Laws have been ruled constitutional twenty times-theyre staying-we cab trust racist redneck white people to do the decent thing-they always have to make up god nonsense to justify their hatred

      1. PA Laws have been ruled constitutional twenty times-theyre staying-we cab trust racist redneck white people to do the decent thing-they always have to make up god nonsense to justify their hatred

        Yes, the author of this hot mess of a word salad is running up and down the page insulting other people’s education levels.

      2. Pot, meet Kettle. Worried about “racist redneck white people” without acknowledging his/her own flagrant racism and bigotry.

        1. Hating racist redneck white people is how you prove you’re not a bigot. If you’ve got a better way, I’d like to hear it.

      3. By the way, did you actually bother to read what I wrote? I did not say that all public accommodation laws are unconstitutional – I said that, like prior restraint of speech laws, they should be evaluated under the standard of strict scrutiny.

        Will some bigots abuse their right to freely associate in ways that I don’t like? Of course they will. Those bigots also abuse their right to freely speak in ways that I don’t like. I’m sure you make up all sorts of nonsense to justify your hatred. Being an adult in a free country means learning to deal with it and working to end it permanently through persuasion rather than driving it underground through coercion.

        1. He probably doesn’t know what strict scrutiny is.

    2. To me, that means public accommodation laws should be evaluated through the lens of strict scrutiny – which some of them probably would not survive. I can’t convince myself that’s a bad outcome, though. Not if you really care about the First Amendment.

      The obvious issue is that when you look at the actual arguments these “religious liberty” activists have been making in court, they aren’t asking for that.

      They want exceptions for their anti-gay beliefs, but they don’t want those same exceptions to apply to anyone else’s beliefs.

      Check out the arguments Phillip’s lawyers made to the SCOTUS. He wanted anti-gay beliefs to get exceptions to public accommodations, but not anti-black beliefs. He wanted bakers to be covered, but not makeup artists or architects.

      Simply put, there are logically consistent and ethical arguments in the baker’s favor. Their lawyers refuse to make those arguments because they don’t like the obvious consequences. But sure, gay folk are at fault for a legal structure that’s been in place since the 60s.

  13. Socialists love to force other people to do something that goes against their conscience.
    Now it has come down to making a cake against your will.
    I’m afraid to ask what the proggies are going to demand next.

    1. Government-mandated gender conversions to satisfy diversity targets?

      1. “Too many Fortune 500 CEO’s are men. Some of you will need to get mandatory sex changes so that women are equally represented.”

        1. I am sure there must be fetish literature about that.

    2. I’m afraid to ask what the proggies are going to demand next.

      To be issued a business license you need certification that you accept gay sex as normal by submitting to a prostate exam. You can get a class A license if you forego the lubricant.

  14. “Read more here about the absurdly overwrought legal and emotional claims by the rejected couple that I found mockworthy back in 2015”

    Here’s a quotation from that 2015 link. Read it and weep.

    “Respondent’s denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn’t supposed to be, and that she wasn’t supposed to love, have a family, and go to heaven. … [She] interpreted the denial to represent that she was not a creature created by god, not created with a soul and unworthy of holy love and life. She felt anger, intense sorrow, and shame. These are reasonable and very real responses to not being allowed to participate in society like everybody else.”

    1. It does show that the respondents want the state to enforce a theological dogma regarding the morality of their personal lifestyle. Some might call that an establishment of religion.

    2. Respondent’s denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her

      Wow. She’s granting a lot of authority to someone she really doesn’t know that well. Maybe if she realized that this guy doesn’t actually know God personally and was just expressing his opinion?

      1. She’s also, obviously, granting herself a lot of power if the government can leverage her feels into large damages.

    3. “Respondent’s denial of service made her feel as if God made a mistake when he made her, that she wasn’t supposed to be, and that she wasn’t supposed to love, have a family, and go to heaven…These are reasonable and very real responses to not being allowed to participate in society like everybody else.”

      God doesn’t give a shit whom you get your wedding flowers from, either, lady.

  15. Not sure how you can apply an antidiscrimination law without religious bias since anyone who wants to discriminate just claims it’s a religious belief. Opposing miscegenation is a religious beliefs too. Either you can discriminate against blacks too or you can’t against gays. Pick one.

    1. No one should be forced to make a cake celebrating an interracial marriage either.

    2. “Either you can discriminate against blacks too or you can’t against gays. Pick one.”

      Let me ask how many *additional* suspect classifications you’d add to the public-accommodation and “civil rights” laws.

      Political orientation? Size? Physical attractiveness? These are all examples drawn from some jurisdiction’s real-life laws.

      What assurances can your side give that there will be a logical stopping place as far as adding more and more suspect classifications? “As many as I feel like” isn’t a logical stopping place because it puts us at the mercy of your feelz.

    3. I think you are mixing your precedents. Loving v Virginia prohibited the government from discriminating on the basis of race in the context of marriage. Despite its religious trappings, marriage is primarily a contract recognized by the state. Cases overturning miscegenation laws are about restrictions on the state’s ability to discriminate. Those cases do not necessarily work as precedents against a private business’ ability to discriminate.

    4. False equivalency, and something that is at the core of the cultural issue, if not the legal one.

      Being black is a matter of objective reality: melanin in the skin, other physical features, genetics and genealogy that can be traced. As the reaction to Rachel Dolezal showed, it is not a matter of testimony and behavior.

      Being gay is purely a matter of testimony and behavior. It cannot be measured or proven outside the boundaries of the mind of the person involved. And it appears to be mutable (in both directions) over long periods of time. The statement “I am gay” has much more in common with the statement “I am Bahai” than “I am black.”

      We do have laws against religious discrimination, but I’ve never seen a Jewish baker sued to bake a cake for a post-Ramadan feast. For that matter we have laws against sex discrimination, but I’ve never seen a cis-woman sue to get entry to the men’s room.

      It simply isn’t cut and dry.

      I think the vast majority of Americans would see injustice in a gay couple being tossed out of a restaurant by a religiously bigoted owner. But I also think the majority of Americans see injustice in forcing a religious photographer to serve at a wedding she feels is literally an abomination (or close her business).

      I have no faith the courts will find the soft spot between those two.

    5. Why did you change over from “Normandy?”

    6. Either you can discriminate against blacks too or you can’t against gays.

      ‘fafalone’ is lashing out because his favorite porn site won’t establish a ‘micropenis’ category while the ‘BBC’ section is enormous.

      1. Well, yeah, otherwise it would just be the “BC” section

    7. For the discriminating Grinder gents “No fats, no femmes, no blacks,no Asians”

    8. Another winner from Fapsalone.

  16. So how about I bake and sell cakes that I declare are certified heterosexual wedding cakes, but anyone can buy them?

  17. Brad Avakian From Wiki
    “In July 2015, Avakian ordered Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, to pay a lesbian couple $135,000 in damages for unlawful discrimination in public accommodations after the bakery refusing to make a cake for the couple’s wedding.”
    “On November 8, 2016, Avakian lost his bid for Oregon Secretary of State to Republican Dennis Richardson, the first time a Republican was elected to statewide office in Oregon since 2002.”

    Even left wing Oregon thought this was out of bounds.

  18. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you ……. payhd.com

  19. More like, “Supreme court orders Oregon to put bakers through the wringer one more time.”; At this point they have to know that Oregon will come up with some excuse to rule against them again.

  20. “for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.”

    Sadly, this is a stretch of the truth. More like ‘ for refusing to bake wedding cake for a lesbian wedding.’

  21. Sometimes, the law is not the answer. I can understand the couple being upset, I get that. But I also think that in these cases (Masterpiece, the recent Washington state decision, and this case) that there is no evidence that the business owners are acting based on anything other than genuine and sincerely-held religious belief. If these were jury trials, subject to the usual common law principles–including the requirement that the plaintiffs mitigate any damages–these cases would be worth next to nothing. The actual damages would be close to nonexistent, emotional distress damages would be mostly (if not wholly) discounted, and there would be no punitive damages. The cases are agency-driven and it’s hard (for me, at least) to see how the agencies, which are an arm of the state, are not acting with their own bias. $135,000 fine? You’ve got to be kidding me. What averge baker could even pay that? If the states don’t clean up their act, they’re going to be like the public universities and their kangaroo courts, and find that the pendulum always swings back.

Please to post comments