Do Public Accommodations Laws Violate Free Speech and Free Exercise Rights?

[Revoltingest]

Lawyers are a necessary evil, unfortunately.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." - Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part2, Act IV.

They'd be more useful if they were held accountable for their actions.
Let them reimburse defenants for the cost of frivolous suits.
Let their licenses be controlled by non-lawyers.
Til that day, I want open season on'm.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The law doesn't allow for notice of excluding protected groups.
Even such notice would be a potential violation.

Are you sure gays are a protected group?

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you sure gays are a protected group?

I haven't surveyed all states, but in many (mine included) they are.
In fact, in my home town, gays have been a privileged group, entitled to benefits
denied straight folk, eg, city employee unmarried domestic partner benefits.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I haven't surveyed all states, but in many (mine included) they are.
In fact, in my home town, gays have been a privileged group, entitled to benefits
denied straight folk, eg, city employee unmarried domestic partner benefits.

So you are saying that in Colorado where this case is being discussed, the store is not permitted to post a notice that it would not serve gays?

 

[Revoltingest]

So you are saying that in Colorado where this case is being discussed, the store is not permitted to post a notice that it would not serve gays?

I can't speak about CO.
But if gays are a de jure protected group there, then it would be illegal to post such a notice.
In a civil suit anything can happen....the aggrieved party might win big, the lack of a law notwithstanding.

 

[esmith]

Animals, guns, and clothing do not have the same rights as people, so no.

But the "person" with the animal, firearm, and minus some clothing is a person. Does not that person have the same rights as a, in this case, a gay couple?

 

[esmith]

In order...
NO
NO, in fact should be encouraged
NO, but should be accommodated if possible.
?? Don't understand that? What does it mean? If you are in sandals and bare chested or wearing a bikini they won't serve you?

Why do you say no, does not the person or persons addressed in the signs not have "rights"?

 

[Nous]

I will be glad when people like Mr Phillips start claiming that all True Christians have always believed in marriage for everyone.

I expect it to be within a decade.

Yes. Americans changed their minds quite quickly about equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. The first state constitutional amendments beginning in 2004 were often passed by supermajorities. Within less than a decade, Minnesota's amendment failed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know if it's possible to make them indistinguishable. Most wedding cakes have a cake topper with a bride and groom. We have one with two grooms. Or there's a message: Congratulations Mary & John (or Rick & Jimmy, or Susan & Denise).

Many wedding cakes don't have toppers, but a supplier could simply refuse to stock groom-groom or bride-bride ones. Every business makes decisions about what items to include or not in inventory.

And the baker could refuse to write a message for a same-sex couple ("we can do plain, or flowers, or some other decoration, but not 'Rick & Jimmy'").

The problem arises when the baker refuses to make a cake for a same-sex couple that they would normally have no problem with selling to someone.

 

[Nous]

I think that it should be illegal to refuse service to any customer unless there is a valid reason not to, or in another situation which I will get to layer. A valid reason could be something like a hardware store refusing to supply someone with something in an instance where they have responsible evidence that this could result in wrongdoing.

It's kind of hard to imagine such a circumstance. "I need a chainsaw that's good for dismembering my neighbor." The clerks in Home Depot probably don't get such a request very often.

Another situation could be one where a private Nazi club or something wants to ban those of a certain race. In that instance, they should have to post clearly their discriminatory policies. This only applies to an official club, however. Also, if they are selling items, they should still have to sell to anyone.

Yes, public accommodation laws do not apply to private activities. But, if you notice, CADA also disallows a public accommodation to post a notice that some group will be refused service.

I should ask how they can tell one's sexual orientation, though.

Phillips claims he wasn't discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. He uses an argument that was long ago disposed of by the courts: two people of the same sex who are planning to get married is closely correlated with not being heterosexual.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you sure gays are a protected group?

Sex is a protected class. When a same-sex couple is refused a wedding cake, they're being discriminated against based on sex.

 

[Nous]

If the guy who refused a wedding cake (seriously how pathetically petty of him) to a gay couple also refused service to divorced people getting remarried or non virgins getting married then maybe he'd have a leg to stand on.

Actually, being divorced or sexually active are not classifications protected by public accommodations laws. Discriminating against such people wouldn't justify discriminating against people on the basis of one of the protected criteria.

 

[columbus]

Yes. Americans changed their minds quite quickly about equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. The first state constitutional amendments beginning in 2004 were often passed by supermajorities. Within less than a decade, Minnesota's amendment failed.

Here in Indiana, then Gov. Mike Pence ran for governor with an anti marriage amendment to the state Constitution in his platform.
Back then it was very popular, especially with the conservative Christians who typically vote Republican.
By the time they got it passed and ready for the fall ballot public opinion had shifted enormously. Polls showed that it would energize and motivate more Democrats than Republicans. So the spring before the ballot the legislature abruptly pulled it off and shelved the whole thing.
Later the SCOTUS ruled against it anyway, but that wasn't why Pence caved. He'd already done so.
Tom

 

[Altfish]

Why do you say no, does not the person or persons addressed in the signs not have "rights"?

Everyone has 'rights' but rights come with responsibilities. I have a dog, I don't expect everyone to share my love of it; hence he is not allowed in some pubs, some hotels, some public buildings, etc. I accept that.
Also some rights are more important than others. I like a beer, BUT that does not give me the right to drive when drunk.

 

[columbus]

But the "person" with the animal, firearm, and minus some clothing is a person. Does not that person have the same rights as a, in this case, a gay couple?

Of course not.
Animals, weapons, and nudity can seriously impact the business and it's other clients. Race, gender, orientation and such do not.

Personally, I would do away with most of the antidiscrimination statutes. I would only keep them for emergency services or government services and stuff like that. But you can't seriously compare bringing a gun into a professional office and ordering a cake saying "Congratulations Steve and Bill".
Tom

 

[Nous]

I think the legal system is showing its age. Its like a growing crystal structure. Precedents are crashing into precedents, but the search for justice requires rooting all decisions in previous ones. Courts always want to go by precedent, almost anything that seems remotely related to uphold the dignity of the courts. The memory and the depth of knowledge of past cases is getting ridiculous. Litigants must already rely heavily on computer databases and notes and already must have specialized help depending upon their areas of litigation. There are legal specialists of many kinds. Its possible to have a legal specialist who focuses on laws surrounding parades who will be taken seriously and consulted about parades. I think the dignity of the court is beginning to shrink the dignity of the commoner. I don't know what the solution to that is, but this case seems like a sign of the problem. The different sides can have positions about what the outcome of the case should be, but neither side seems to know where the law actually stands on the matter, not for years after the litigation starts!

Knowing "where the law actually stands" on a matter is what judges and lawyers are paid to do.

The law has to operate according to precedent. If courts made up new rules and came to different decisions willy-nilly, the justice system would be unreliable.

There really aren't many cases that the Court has decided about public accommodations. The only one that some people might consider inconsistent with the rest is Hurley. But Masterpiece is distinguishable from that case in all important ways.

 

[Jainarayan]

Many wedding cakes don't have toppers, but a supplier could simply refuse to stock groom-groom or bride-bride ones. Every business makes decisions about what items to include or not in inventory.

And the baker could refuse to write a message for a same-sex couple ("we can do plain, or flowers, or some other decoration, but not 'Rick & Jimmy'").

The problem arises when the baker refuses to make a cake for a same-sex couple that they would normally have no problem with selling to someone.

Yes, that is all true. It does come down to providing a service for one and not for another, when all else is equal.

My town had a mayor that did not perform marriages or civil unions at all. I don't know if he didn't do it because he simply didn't want to bother, or because legally he could not refuse a gay couple, yet perform a straight wedding. Whatever the mayor's reasons, I can't fault him.

 

[Nous]

Get a gay bakery and refuse hetrosexual couple's and that should provide perspective to this one sided nonsense.

In fact, there has been a case of a gay bar violating the anti-discrimination provision of employment law, and the bar owners were held liable.

It's really not about religion as it is discrimination in guise of religious beliefs.

Agree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My town had a mayor that did not perform marriages or civil unions at all. I don't know if he didn't do it because he simply didn't want to bother, or because legally he could not refuse a gay couple, yet perform a straight wedding. Whatever the mayor's reasons, I can't fault him.

Maybe he just liked having his weekends free.

 

[Nous]

How about the following policies? Do you have a problem with them


View attachment 18244View attachment 18241 View attachment 18242 View attachment 18243

No problem at all. None of those signs indicate discrimination on the basis of one of the protected criteria of any public accommodation law that I know of.